brother
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8920
Location: London/Cyprus
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: "Does Britain really want an agreement in Cyprus?" |
|
|
Senior Turkish diplomat argues that Britain does not want a solution in Cyprus
Turkish Cypriot VOLKAN newspaper (19.10.05) publishes the following editorial by Sabahattin Ismail under the title:
"Does Britain really want an agreement in Cyprus?":
"Ten years ago a senior diplomat at the Turkish Foreign Ministry, a true fighter for the Cyprus cause whom I respect and like very much (I do not wish to name him because he is still in service), told me during a conversation at the Foreign Ministry:
"I have served in the Foreign Ministry for all these years. I have taken a close interest in the Cyprus cause no matter what my assignment has been. I have participated in the negotiations for all these years. The conclusion I have reached is this: The power that really does not want a solution in Cyprus is Britain. Every time we came close to an agreement in the negotiation process that has been under way since 1968, Britain blocked the agreement with some intervention. It did that most easily by inciting the Greek Cypriot leadership to make excessive demands and instigating them to make demands that we could not accept. Britain definitely does not want an agreement on the island. It wants the uncertainty to continue. If Britain wanted an agreement it is the most influential country that has all the means to force the Greek Cypriots. Britain is the country that knows best the Cyprus problem, its causes, how it can be solved, and what it wants."
Subtitle: Historical facts
The historical facts confirm the comments of this respected diplomat who has devoted himself to the Cyprus cause.
It was Britain that created the system of 1960 in accordance with its wishes and that broke the intransigence Makarios demonstrated up to the last minute by placing a file before him. It was Britain that encouraged the Greek Cypriots to topple the 1960 system it had created. It is an undeniable truth that the British High Commissioner encouraged Makarios to amend 13 articles of the Cyprus Constitution. It is well known that the British High Commissioner added corrections in his own handwriting to the paper listing Makarios' proposals to amend the 13 articles. The original of this document is now in the British archives. Obviously the High Commissioner did not do this without the knowledge of his government. He encouraged Makarios instead of telling him to stop and pointing out that "it has only been three years since the Republic has been established" and that Britain "certainly opposes it and would not allow it as a guarantor power." This was the most important factor that prepared the ground for collapse of the Republic.
Britain knew that the Greek Cypriots were arming secretly prior to the attacks of 1963. It was also aware that a 5,000-man EOKA army was being organized. Nonetheless it did not tell Makarios to stop.
After the attacks began it was again Britain that induced the UN Security Council to pass its well-known Resolution 186 on 4 March 1964 instead of using its military forces in its bases on the island to restore the order of 1960 as a guarantor power. It was also Britain that recognized the Makarios administration as a "legitimate government" and that induced other countries to give it the same recognition despite its pledges to Turkey.
When Makarios declared that he is "abrogating the guarantee agreements" in 1964, it was once again Britain that roared and that told Makarios that he cannot do that, that his declaration was invalid, and that "otherwise the necessary measures will be taken." It was Britain that forced Makarios to take back his words.
In other words Britain bestowed the title of "legitimate government" on the occupationist Makarios administration, approved the demolition of 1960 order and the founding partnership rights of the Turkish Cypriot `people´ but it refused to permit any changes in the guarantee agreements or the status of the British bases. In other words Britain demonstrated at every opportunity that it has the power to get what it wants.
Subtitle: Britain could ensure solution
If Britain really wanted an agreement based on the equal founding rights of the Turkish Cypriot people prior to 1974 it would only need to tell the Greek Cypriot administration:
"If you do not accept the equal founding partnership of the Turkish Cypriot `people´ I will declare to the whole world that you are not the legitimate government of all of Cyprus, I will not recognize you as a legitimate government, I will prevent others from recognizing you, and I will recognize the `Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus´ [occupied territories of the Republic of Cyprus].
Indeed this is how Britain brought Papadopoulos, who was digging his heels against Turkey, to his knees on the night of 3 October. When describing the events behind the scenes on the night of 3 October the Greek Cypriot press reported that Britain "blackmailed the Greek Cypriot administration with the recognition of the `Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus´," and these reports were not denied.
In sum, Britain was able to impose its will on Makarios by blackmailing him in 1964 and on Papadopoulos by blackmailing him in 2005--in order to get EU accession talks with Turkey started. So why is not Britain using blackmail on the issue of a solution?
For example why does it not tell Papadopoulos, "I will give you two months; if you do not accept a solution based on two equal states then I will recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus"?
For example why does it not lift the unfair visa requirement imposed on the Turkish Cypriot `people´ in order to pressure Papadopoulos? Why does it not allow the Turkish Cypriot Airlines to schedule direct flights to and from London? Why does it not take a single resolute step to lift the embargoes?
Subtitle: Does not want agreement
It does not because it does not want a solution based on two equal states in Cyprus. It does not want to put Papadopoulos in a corner. What it wants is a Greek Cypriot state that is an EU member, a Turkish Cypriot state with the status of Taiwan, a continuing dispute that it controls between these two states, the departure of Turkish troops from Cyprus which was declared EU territory by fait accomplis, the undisputed perpetuation of the British bases in Cyprus--which are considered to be outside the EU--in the midst of this uncertainty, its continued pre-eminence in Cyprus and the eastern Mediterranean, and the continued protection of its strategic imperialist interests.
Britain's greatest source of support in this strategic policy is the fanaticism of the Greek Cypriot leaders. If those leaders abandon their fanaticism and accept a partnership based on two equal and sovereign states then you can expect the British to panic. In view of these truths is it not a pitiful tragedy that Papadopoulos, Talat, Greek leaders, and the Erdogan-Gul team in Turkey have pinned their hopes for a solution in Cyprus on British imperialism?" |
|
