 |
| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
In various places (like here for example) http://www.talkcyprus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=80881 I have claimed that in 65 the Turkish Cypriot leadership made a formal request via the UN to return to their Republic of Cyprus government positions and that they were told at the time by the then all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus government that they could only do so if they accepted all legislation passed in their absence without negotiation. Mete asked what evidence their was to support this claim. As far as 'independent' evidence that supports this claim there is UN SG report S6569. In addition there is the UK's foreign affairs select committee report of 1986-87, which supports this claim and refers back to the UN report.
Unfortunately neither the UK report or the UN is currently available online. I have just received a paper copy of the UK report having ordered it from the UK. I am still trying to obtain a copy of the UN report. However having gained the report I am going to quote the relevant sections here.
For those unfamiliar with what UK select comimittee are have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_Committee
The following is sections 26 - 32 of the select committee report which make up the 'The breakdown of constitutional government' section of section II which is the 'Backgroud to the dispiute' section.
| Quote: |
The breakdown of constitutional government
26. As both sides agree, the 1960 Constitution proved to be a cumbersome and frustrating instrument of government for all concerned, although the two sides attribute responsibility for the failure of the Constitution to different causes. The main substantive issue which brought the two sides into conflict-the establishment of separate Turkish municipalities-led both the Greek and Turkish Communal Chambers in the Legislature to "enact" legislation which was clearly unconstitutional, and was ruled as such by the Supreme Constitutional Court. Following the announcement of President Makarios' 13-point plan for the amendment of the Constitution (occasionally alleged to have been encouraged by the United Kingdom Govemment)16 and subsequent intercommunal violence, the Turkish Cypriots effectively withdrew (or, in their terms, were excluded) from the Legislature, the civil service and most other organs of the constitution, and at the end of December 1963 established their own Turkish Cypriot administration, headed by the Vice-President of the Republic.
27. During this period the physical separation of the two communities (though not as yet on "zonal" lines) began to take shape, with many Turkish Cypriots withdrawing into enclaves inaccessible to the Greek Cypriot authorities and no longer effectively controlled by them. There is little doubt that much of the violence-which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population-was either directly inspired by, or certainly connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership. The British forces in Cyprus eventually intervened to establish the "Green Line" in Nicosia, and in March 1964, on a British initiative, the United Nations Force in Cyprus was established to "dissuade" the two communities from violence, and a UN mediator was appointed. Only as a result of intense diplomatic activity, particularly
by the US, was a direct military intervention by Turkey prevented at this time.
28. The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone. Claiming to be acting only, in accordance with the doctrine of necessity the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives enacted a series of laws which provided for the operation of the various organs of government (including the Legislature itself) without Turkish Cypriot participation. Although none of these laws purported formally to amend the 1960 Constitution (a procedure which the Cypriot Supreme Court had ruled to be unlawful) they nonetheless had the effect of substantially altering the practical application of the Constitution. Moreover, the Greek Cypriots, despite the objections of the Turkish Cypriots, were recognised as the lawful government of the Republic of Cyprus, and in consequence retained their membership of the Commonwealth, the United Nations and many other international organisations and agencies with little effective opposition.18 ,
29. The Turkish Cypriots, meanwhile, sought to establish for their own community,a separate administration which had more or less to be built from scratch. Most Turkish Ministers and officials seem to have had no opportunity even to clear their personal papers from their desks when the administrations were separated at the end of 1963, and the Turkish Cypriot authorities thereafter had virtually no access to official files concerning their own community. During our discussions in Cyprus a number of Turkish leaders described to us the traumatic experience of finding themselves responsible for running the affairs of their community while sitting at empty desks and surrounded by empty filing cabinets. Several Greek Cypriot officials also privately expressed to us their admiration for the manner in which a new governmental structure had been put together by their Turkish compatriots in these quite daunting circumstances.
30. Equally damaging from the Turkish Cypriot point of view was what they considered to be their effective exclusion from representation at, and participation in, the international fora where their case could have been deployed. The acceptance at this time by the United Nations and most other international organisations of the legality of what had become an exclusively Greek Cypriot administration as the sole Government of the Republic of Cyprus is the source of continuing intense bitterness amongst Turkish Cypriot leaders.19 Although Dr Kutchuk,and, subsequently Mr Denktash, were still officially "recognised" by many Governments (including that of the United Kingdom) as Vice-President of the Republic, an official Turkish Cypriot presence in the international political scene virtually disappeared overnight.
31. In brief, the outcome of the 1963 crisis was the collapse of the system of government established under the 1960 settlement. Although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to "operate the 1960 Constitution, modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation",20 this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Government of President Makarios continued to advocate the cause of Enosis and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related Treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective. In February 1966, for instance, Archbishop Makarios declared that "The Agreements have been abrogated and buried",21 and when in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told by the President of the House that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changesto the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence by the Greek Cypriot majority.22 Moreover, in June 1967, the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of Enosis, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution.
32. Indeed, when the then British Foreign Secretary (Mr (now Sir) James Callaghan) gave evidence to the Select Committee on Cyprus in 1976, he justified the Government's failure to intervene militarily in 1974 to restore the 1960 Constitution partly on the grounds that "the Constitution had not been working since the early 1960s".23 The present British Government now claims that it has "not accepted that the Constitution is not still in force",24 although it has subsequently conceded that "some of the provisions of the Constitution are not at present in operation".25 These provisions include several of the Basic Articles guaranteed by the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey under the Treaty of Guarantee. |
note 22 refers to UN Secertary - General's report S/6569 (July 1965) paras 7-11 |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
First of all I would say that in general any UK select committee should be considered as less reliable than, for example, wikipedia. That does not mean they must be wrong, but you understand where I am heading.
For example, here is a couple of examples of where those guys spread unsubstantiated rumours:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we45.htm
http://www.turkses.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=732&Itemid=33
Here is some unsubstantiated information from me too, on the subject:
| Quote: |
| The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1965, described the policy of the Turkish Cypriot leaders in this way: "The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to a rigid stand against any measures which might involve having members of the two communities live and work together, or which might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots" (Report S/6426 10.6.65). |
Is this true?
http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Takism2.htm
| Quote: |
Below is a set of rules issued by the Turkish Cypriot leadership to the Turkish Cypriots on 18 December 1964:
Turkish Cypriots not in possession of a permit are prohibited to enter the Greek sector.
1. Those who disobey the order with a view to trading with Greek Cypriots should pay a fine of £25 or be punished with imprisonment.
2. A fine will be imposed on:-
(a) Those who converse or enter into negotiations with Greek Cypriots or accompany any stranger into our sector.
(b) Those who come into contact with Greek Cypriots for any official work.
(c) Those who appear before Greek Cypriot courts.
(d) Those who visit the Greek Cypriot hospitals for examination or in order to obtain pharmaceuticals ....
3. A fine of £25 or other severe punishment and one months imprisonment or whipping should be imposed on those who enter the Greek Cypriot sector:-
(a) For Promenade.
(b) For friendly association with Greek Cypriots.
(c) For amusement.... |
http://www.toplumpostasi.net/print.php?news=10535
Now, what I can remember (from my readings) in 1965 was that the Turkish Cypriot leader met Clerides (Speaker of the House) but it was not just a matter of that the laws that the parliament had voted through should still be valid if the Turkish Cypriot side came back. In addition, Clerides also requested that if the Turkish Cypriot community would come back to the parliament then they also had to allow the Republic of Cyprus to excercise its authority in all areas - also those presently held by the TMT - and the Turkish Cypriot side would not agreed to that.
In addition I think the Turkish Cypriot 'manouver' was also related to them trying to block some developments in the parliament - can't remember if it was related to new elections, or what - so that it seemed more like a tactical move than that the Turkish Cypriot wanted the Republic of Cyprus live as first designed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
Erol, thanks for the topic. I meant to follow up on this before but later forgot.
I think there are 2 main reasons why Turkish Cypriots were not present in the Republic of Cyprus after 1963:
1- Greek Cypriot reluctance to allow Turkish Cypriots return back.
2- Turkish Cypriot reluctance to include themselves in the Republic of Cyprus.
Erol, you provided some good evidence for the first point. I think we should try to get UN SG report S6569 as well and see what it says on the matter. I know some libraries near my house might have those reports, I'll check it out soon. Klerides' book might also some indication of this. It might be worthwhile to check out.
As for the second point, what pg pointed out, about fines being imposed on Turkish Cypriots who entered the Greek sector, is true. My father having lived in that era confirmed that to me numerous times. But I think we should keep this topic to what's intended for (i.e. whether Turkish Cypriots tried to return back to the Republic of Cyprus in 1965). I'm open to discuss whether Turkish Cypriots were reluctant to return back to the Republic of Cyprus in another topic though but let's tackle the questions one by one.
Let's try to keep this topic free of personal opinions and focus on reliable sources for proofs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
Erol, thanks for the topic. I meant to follow up on this before but later forgot.
I think there are 2 main reasons why Turkish Cypriots were not present in the Republic of Cyprus after 1963:
1- Greek Cypriot reluctance to allow Turkish Cypriots return back.
2- Turkish Cypriot reluctance to include themselves in the Republic of Cyprus. |
I agree mete. I have never argued it was just one of these things alone , just sought to challenge the idea that it was 2 alone - which is the official Republic of Cyprus line.
| Mete wrote: |
Erol, you provided some good evidence for the first point. I think we should try to get UN SG report S6569 as well and see what it says on the matter. I know some libraries near my house might have those reports, I'll check it out soon. Klerides' book might also some indication of this. It might be worthwhile to check out. |
Yes I agree totally. I would like to obtain S6569 and have made online inquires about this. Below is a response I got.
There is a deposit library in Cyprus (south) but it started taking deposits from 68 and this report is from 65. I still intended to try them as they may well have back dated reports that pertain specifically to Cyprus, being located in Cyprus but have not had the chance yet.
I am also keen to get a copy of S/6426 which is another document not available online. Bizzarely I could not even find this document in the UN list of documents though I assume this is just an error, rather than it meaning such document does not exist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
I agree mete. I have never argued it was just one of these things alone , just sought to challenge the idea that it was 2 alone - which is the official Republic of Cyprus line.
|
Yep, I know, I just wanted to point it out in case other forum members see the topic and start complaining about why we're not talking about the other side of the coin.
| erolz wrote: |
There is a deposit library in Cyprus (south) but it started taking deposits from 68 and this report is from 65. I still intended to try them as they may well have back dated reports that pertain specifically to Cyprus, being located in Cyprus but have not had the chance yet.
|
Boston public library supposedly has the reports from 1947 onwards. So hopefully this weekend, I'll find S6569. I'll also look for S6426. Let me know if you want other reports. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| pg wrote: |
| First of all I would say that in general any UK select committee should be considered as less reliable than, for example, wikipedia. That does not mean they must be wrong, but you understand where I am heading. |
Any source must be taken in it's context. This is as true of a UN report as any other. I am a BIG fan of wikipedia - it is an amazing project that really shows the power of the internet creating a collaborative resource of great value that is accurate the vast majority of the time. However where wikipedia does fail imo is exactly in entrenched subject like Cyprus. You only have to read the cyprus articles on wikipedia (and the talk pages behind them) to see this failure. I have recently tried to get involved in wikipedia and finding more balance in the cyprus related articles there but it is a mess and as quickly as progress is made it is undermined again. I am not convinced that wikipedia has the necessary mechanism to handle such emotive entrenched and disputed issues to be honest.
In terms of opinions expressed in UK select committee reports one should of course take in the context of who is saying these things (and that is NOT the UK government btw). However in terms of factual reliability they can imo generally be consider to be accurate.
This is a submission TO a select committee - not a report BY such. The two things are not the same , just as a submission TO the UN (by Republic of Cyprus or Turkey or anyone else) is not the same as a report BY the UN.
I am not sure what your point is? The point of a select committee is that it job is to try and sort out the truth from fiction.
| pg wrote: |
Here is some unsubstantiated information from me too, on the subject: |
What I am trying to do here PG is find substantiation for these things by going to the source documents.
| pg wrote: |
"..... (Report S/6426 10.6.65). |
This is another document I am in process of trying to find a copy off. I am well aware of the quote and the source given , that is used on many Greek Cypriot pov sites, and I would assume that quote is accurate. However I would also like to see the whole report and the full context of the quote and that is what I am trying to achieve currently. As I mention above S/6426 does not even appear on the UN online database of documents but I doubt this is nothing but a clerical error.
How do you establish the truth of anything ? You look for evidence - which is exactly what I am trying to do here. As far as the above goes I think there is ample evidence that Turkish Cypriot leadership did make efforts to discourage Turkish Cypriot from leaving the enclaves once they were in them. What I think is not true is that the overriding reason Turkish Cypriot went to enclaves in the first place was pressure and intimidation from Turkish Cypriot leadership to do so. I think there is ample (credible) evidence that the overriding reason the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot fled to the enclaves was a result of Greek Cypriot violence of fear of such. But as mete as pointed out that is not the topic of this thread.
| pg wrote: |
| In addition I think the Turkish Cypriot 'manouver' was also related to them trying to block some developments in the parliament - can't remember if it was related to new elections, or what - so that it seemed more like a tactical move than that the Turkish Cypriot wanted the Republic of Cyprus live as first designed. |
My understanding is that the request to return was prompted by changes that the all Greek Cypriot leadership was about to pass and the primary motivation for such a return would have been to block these changes. I also believe that the Turkish Cypriot side also made it clear that it was wiling to participate in any and all such procedures and not just these changes alone, though it was these changes that prompted the request to return. However the sticking point was that the Turkish Cypriot leadership return needed to be (from their pov) under the agreements made in 1960 and not under the revision made by an all Greek Cypriot led Republic of Cyprus after 63, where as Clerides / all Greek Cypriot leaderships pov was return could only be acceptable if these changes were accepted as a fait acompli by the Turkish Cypriot - meaning that they would not have been able to block the further proposed changes that prompted their request to return in the first place.
So I think you a right in that the request to return does not show that the Turkish Cypriot leadership was comited ot the 1960 Republic of Cyprus solution and nothing but that. Whast this request to return DOES show however is that the simple offical Greek Cypriot line that 'the Turkish Cypriot leadership in order to futher their aim of Taksim withdrew from their Republic of Cyprus government positions forcing the Greek Cypriot leadership to assume government on thier own' is far from the simple whole truth it makes out to be and that in reality the situastion was much more complex. As mete summed it up there are 'two sides' to this coin.
Last edited by erolz on Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:55 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
| Boston public library supposedly has the reports from 1947 onwards. So hopefully this weekend, I'll find S6569. I'll also look for S6426. Let me know if you want other reports. |
Thanks mete that would be great.
I have all the reports that are available online downloaded locally on my PC here. These two would be great additions as both are referred two respectively by Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot pov sites but are not currently available online. My plan would be eventually to make all the 6 monthly reports on Cyprus available from this sites 'articles' section to act as a reference resource for anyone interested. There may be copyright issues with this but they can probably be dealt with (or possibly ignored  ). |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
With regards to wikipedia and the UK report was that wikipedia probably has more peer review - and at least more public peer review - than most other reports. Checking the Cyprus issue one can conclude that one can not rely on what is written on the main page any given day. It is more difficult to judge how reliable the UK report is - that is why I provided links to other statement from the same sources.
I agree that going down the road of hard facts are most interesting at the moment.
My posting was just a middle of the night thing - a bit of brain storming compared to finding hard facts. (I do not understand how you manage to write 24/7...)
I wonder how many newspapers has editions available from this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 909
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Thanks for the topic Erolz.
But I am not quite sure where there is reference to whether if Turkish Cypriots tried to return to their seats in 1965.
Anyway my questions in regards to these period are:
Did Turkish Cypriots withdraw in 1963 or were they kicked out by force?.
Also were Turkish Cypriots forced to leave in enclaves or they made the choice to do so?
Were Turkish Cypriots they victims of the Greek Cypriot domination or did they rebel in order to achieve partition?
As for the UK reports, imo are just as reliable as the Republic of Cyprus or Turkish reports for the reason they hold a point of view that favours UK. For me the most reliable sources are sources of which balance is their objective. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cypezokyli
Ministerial
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 2344
|
|
| Quote: |
Did Turkish Cypriots withdraw in 1963 or were they kicked out by force?.
Also were Turkish Cypriots forced to leave in enclaves or they made the choice to do so? |
both
both. (even though here force came from the fear from Greek Cypriot, as well as pressure from Turkish Cypriot extremists) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
both
both. (even though here force came from the fear from Greek Cypriot, as well as pressure from Turkish Cypriot extremists)
|
I feel the same way but it'd be nice to prove these with UN or other unbiased reports for once and all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Thanks for the topic Erolz.
But I am not quite sure where there is reference to whether if Turkish Cypriots tried to return to their seats in 1965. |
I quoted such a large section because I wanted to provide as much context to where this was said in the report as practical. The specific passage is in section 31 where is says
| Quote: |
| and when in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told by the President of the House that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changesto the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence by the Greek Cypriot majority.22 |
Where note 22 refers to the UN document.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Anyway my questions in regards to these period are:
Did Turkish Cypriots withdraw in 1963 or were they kicked out by force?. |
As people have said both to degrees. This is not as simple a question as it seems either. There were many different type of government employees and the 'withdrawal' was not the same across these types. There is evidence for example of some Turkish Cypriot police turning up for work in late 63 and being disarmed and sent home a few days before the outbreak of the xmas violence. The Turkish Cypriot judges seem to have mainly continued to work untill 66 when there appears to have been a concerted effort to prevent them from doing so. The there is the complex issue of what 'choice' actually means. If there is a real chance that by continuing to go to your job you may be subject to violence , abduction or murder and you choose not to go to your job because of this - is that you 'choosing' to withdraw ? The fact is during this period there was a danger for Turkish Cypriot to enter Greek Cypriot controlled areas. My uncle for example continued to goto his (civilian) job that was in Greek Cypriot controlled areas against all the advice from the Turkish Cypriot leadership to not do so and in 64 he was abducted from his place of work and murdered. If he had not ignored the advice of the Turkish Cypriot leadership of the time the chances are he would still be alive today. In such an atmosphere the line between 'choosing' to withdraw and 'being forced' to withdraw is not a clear one.
I would also reiterate that withdrawing from government (or even withdrawing ones labour) is in itself a legitimate and non violent form of process. The intent may or may not have been legitimate but the act is (imo).
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Also were Turkish Cypriots forced to leave in enclaves or they made the choice to do so? |
I assume you mean 'live in enclaves' not leave?
The most comprehensive independent academic study of this issue / period is the one done by Richard Patrick a section of whihc can be found here
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick-chp%203.html
| Quote: |
| The author's investigations reveal that the overwhelming majority of Turk-Cypriot refugees moved only after Turk-Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harrassed by Greek-Cypriots within their village, quarter, or in the local vicinity. Most refugees expected to return to their homes within a few months at the most, and it was this assumption of an early return that facilitated their departure in the first place. In some instances, the evacuation of certain villages was encouraged by the expectation of an imminent invasion by Turkey. There was an understandable desire to withdraw from Greek-Cypriot areas which might become bombing targets of the Turkish air force. It was only in a few instances, after January 1964, that the Turkish-Cypriot Leadership took the initiative in recommending that certain villages should be evacuated. However, it is known that such advice was not always followed. Normally the Leadership was approached by village elders only after the villagers had already decided to evacuate, and they sought the Leadership's assistance In the pro- vision of transport and refugee housing. Any official administrative organization to direct refugee movements, or to oversee their welfare, was not established until the bulk of the refugees had already moved on their own initiative. |
For me one can gain an insight into how much 'choice' there was to leave ones home by the manner in which that leaving is done. If it is a matter of choice (say to pursue an political objective) then you would plan the leaving and pack your belongings. If it was the result of compulsion through violence or fear of violence then you would flee, leaving the bulk of your possessions behind. As MR Patrick points out, and is confirmed by many contemporary press reports of the time
| Quote: |
| In most cases, refugees fled from their homes, leaving clothing, furniture and food behind. |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Were Turkish Cypriots they victims of the Greek Cypriot domination or did they rebel in order to achieve partition? |
One could ask where the rebellious and partitionist moves of the Turkish Cypriot leadership of the time a reaction to the Greek Cypriot leadership attempts to subvert core elements of the constitution and agreements in order to gain dominance over Cyprus, or were they acts created in a vacum that would have been pursued in largely the same manner regardless of how the Greek Cypriot leadership behaved ?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
As for the UK reports, imo are just as reliable as the Republic of Cyprus or Turkish reports for the reason they hold a point of view that favours UK. For me the most reliable sources are sources of which balance is their objective. |
As I have said ANY source must be viewed in the context of who has written it and why. It should also be pointed out that select committees are independent of the government in the UK and are supposed to be above party politics. They take evidence and submission from a range of interested parties, can conduct their own research and investigation and they then balance and weigh the evidence they have heard and report on their conclusions. For me such a report is inherently more balanced re either the Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot pov than one from the Republic of Cyprus or Turkey. It may not be more balanced re a British pov but is is more balanced re a Greek Cypriot / Turkish Cypriot point of view. The same is true of UN reports , they may well hold a pov that favors the UN but in terms of a Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot pov they are more balanced that either a Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot source. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
As for the second point, what pg pointed out, about fines being imposed on Turkish Cypriots who entered the Greek sector, is true. My father having lived in that era confirmed that to me numerous times. But I think we should keep this topic to what's intended for (i.e. whether Turkish Cypriots tried to return back to the Republic of Cyprus in 1965). I'm open to discuss whether Turkish Cypriots were reluctant to return back to the Republic of Cyprus in another topic though but let's tackle the questions one by one.
|
Just found a reference for that:
http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/2003/03-02-14.tcpr.html#02
| erolz wrote: |
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick-chp%203.html
| Quote: |
| The author's investigations reveal that the overwhelming majority of Turk-Cypriot refugees moved only after Turk-Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harrassed by Greek-Cypriots within their village, quarter, or in the local vicinity. Most refugees expected to return to their homes within a few months at the most, and it was this assumption of an early return that facilitated their departure in the first place. In some instances, the evacuation of certain villages was encouraged by the expectation of an imminent invasion by Turkey. There was an understandable desire to withdraw from Greek-Cypriot areas which might become bombing targets of the Turkish air force. It was only in a few instances, after January 1964, that the Turkish-Cypriot Leadership took the initiative in recommending that certain villages should be evacuated. However, it is known that such advice was not always followed. Normally the Leadership was approached by village elders only after the villagers had already decided to evacuate, and they sought the Leadership's assistance In the pro- vision of transport and refugee housing. Any official administrative organization to direct refugee movements, or to oversee their welfare, was not established until the bulk of the refugees had already moved on their own initiative. |
|
Also from that text:
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/www.cyprus-conflict.net/patrick%20chp%204%20pt%202.html
| Quote: |
| Between 11 August 1964 and 15 November 1967, records from various authoritative sources indicate that 109 Turkish-Cypriots are known to have been killed. . . . This number probably includes all Turk-Cypriots killed by Greek-Cypriots and the majority of Turk-Cypriots who were killed by members of their own community. Of these known deaths, 52 per cent were caused by Greek-Cypriots and 48 per cent were caused by Turk-Cypriots. |
| erolz wrote: |
The fact is during this period there was a danger for Turkish Cypriot to enter Greek Cypriot controlled areas. My uncle for example continued to goto his (civilian) job that was in Greek Cypriot controlled areas against all the advice from the Turkish Cypriot leadership to not do so and in 64 he was abducted from his place of work and murdered. If he had not ignored the advice of the Turkish Cypriot leadership of the time the chances are he would still be alive today. |
Considering the items I have listed above it seems to me your uncle would have feared fanatics from both sides - since influential fanatics on both sides wanted the separation to happen.
If Turkish Cypriots knew they had about 50% change to be murdered by a Greek Cypriot and 50% chance to be murdered by a Turkish Cypriot... I see bloody big chance they would... ... ... prefer to move to Australia instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
Let me repeat one more time: let's stick with the topic and start a new thread for the other issue if you're interested in discussing that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Quote: |
| Did Turkish Cypriot try to return to Republic of Cyprus goverment positions in 1965 |
While waiting for those UN reports, I'd like to make a comment here.
Basically, there is a difference between having the Turkish Cypriot community return to the Republic of Cyprus and having the Turkish Cypriot return to the government.
Essentially, it is the same question as in the last election when some Turkish Cypriot wanted to run - for the Turkish Cypriot seats. Basically, the Turkish Cypriot seats in the government, or parliament, are not individual seats but for the representatives of the Turkish Cypriot community. These seats are for law-makers of the Turkish Cypriot community. Naturally both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots must be subjected to the laws effected by this parliament.
In short, we can not really have Turkish Cypriot representatives vote through laws that will effect only Greek Cypriots and not Turkish Cypriots that subject themselves to another regime.
So, the question for 1965 should be both if the Turkish Cypriot wanted to govern, and also if they wanted to be governed by the Republic of Cyprus.
I can see Clerides, et al, thinking that if the Turkish Cypriot come back, they will again block the budget and everything else..., until the parliament enacts laws that implements a physical separation of the communities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Page 1 of 3 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3043 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home