www.talkcyprus.org

[brother]

The Cyprus Problem, as the partition of Cyprus into Greek and Turkish sections is called, did not begin in ancient times, as eager amateur archeologists claim. Nor did the Cyprus problem begin with the conquest of the island by the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, the Ottoman invaders actually allowed a Greek-language and Orthodox Christian culture to thrive by taking the island from its Roman Catholic rulers. The Cyprus problem began only in this century, after the decline of the Ottomans and the formal assumption of British control over the island.

For centuries, Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived together in mixed or contiguous towns, did business with one another, and got along with one another, though the two cultures never mixed much. The Greek majority did not suppress the Muslims, and the Muslims did not seek to become "junior partners" of the Greeks. The British took the island from the failing Ottoman Empire and manipulated ethnic difference to keep hold on the strategically located island and to thwart the Cypriot independence movement of the 1950s. Using the divide and conquer strategy that worked in India, the UK encouraged nationalism and violence among the Cypriots. In India, the boosting of the Muslim league at the expense of Gandhi's Congress Party led to partition and separation almost immediately after Britain let go of India. In Cyprus, separation took fourteen years, a sign of how little Greek or Turkish nationalism meant before British imperialism. Britain released Cyprus in 1960.

Greece and Turkey used the people of Cyprus as a proxy for their own fights over oil rights, control of the Aegean and the opportunity to be chief US client state of the region. In 1963, ethnic battling began in earnest, with the minority Turks taking the worst of the bloodshed. In 1967, the United States backed a military coup in Greece, and was disappointed when the junta was partially overthrown in July 1974. The new Greek government staged a coup in Cyprus to fuel nationalism, grab an important position in the sea, and to demonstrate some independence from the US. Turkey invaded Cyprus, claiming that the 1960 treaty of independence had been breached, and that Turkey had to protect the Muslim minority. In reality, Turkey's Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit invaded the island to shore up his own position at home, and to better compete with Greece for US' attention. It worked.

The US tacitly supported the Turkish invasion, and hoped that Ecevit would be a more pliable sub-imperialist than the Greek colonels had been.

For all the furor over the partition of the island and the forced removal of Greek Cypriots from Turkish areas, the Greek "refugees" are much better off than their Turkish usurpers today. Saber-rattling aside, Greece rejoined NATO in 1980, and the US now arms both Greece and Turkey, in order to ensure its continued dominance of the region.

In Cyprus, the Green Line that separates the two communities has been a flashpoint for provocation from both sides. But much the same way Greece and Turkey work together to implement US control, the Greek and Turkish rulers of Cyprus are playing divide and conquer as well. Greek Cypriots have neutralized massive strikes by calling on "national unity," and Turkish Cypriots have used nationalism to force through a series of vicious privatization measures in the impoverished northern part of the island.

There can be peace in Cyprus though, as 1000 years of ethnic co-existence as proved. Of course Greeks and Turks in Cyprus can work together; the ruling elites of the island have proved that by manipulating their populations in unison.

The "Cyprus Problem" isn't a problem at all for the twin ruling classes; if the people of Cyprus would cooperate in the same way, the problem would cease to exist at all.



 
 This probably sums it up best at what happened in Cyprus

[detailer]

Whose artcile is this?

[brother]

This is a variety articles that i put togethar which imo sums it up best, what do you think.

[erolz]

I guess my problem with the above is this (very popular) idea that Cypriots were actually victims of 'greater powers', like innocent children. Whilst there is certainly an element of or even much truth in this it is not the whole stroy as I see it and allows Cypriots to deny their own responsibilites for the mess we are in today.

If the British persued divide and conquer strategies these were only possible because cypriots allowed themselves to be divided. If Greece and Turkey used Cypriots as proxies for their battles, then again it was cypriots who allowed them to do so.

For me it is Cypriots who are first and foremost responsible for the situation in Cyprus. Ceratinly many other 'outside' powers did much to worsen the situtation, but the state of Cyprus today is the result of Cypriot actions and inactions and we should avoid this tendenacy to forget or ignore or minimise this. AT least thats how I see things.

[brother]

Then can we have your opinions/facts on how the cypriots made the situation worse or encouraged it, this thread should make for accurate reading for newcomers of the cypriot history based on facts and not assumptions.

[detailer]

brother wrote: This is a variety articles that i put togethar which imo sums it up best, what do you think.

The first two paragrafhs and the third paragraph have different perspectives I think. The first two paragrafhs are sligtly biased towards ottomans, but in the 3rd paragraf it is implied that Turkey's intervetion was not necassary and talks about "muslim minority"(I hate this expression) and the essay has a classic socialist ending.

[erolz]

brother wrote: Then can we have your opinions/facts on how the Cypriots made the situation worse or encouraged it, this thread should make for accurate reading for newcomers of the Cypriot history based on facts and not assumptions.

This is a long and complex question.

In short things Cypriots did that have lead us to where we are today include.

The embedding and extremist pursuit of nationalist ideas that were based on Greece and Turkey and not on a Cypriot nation. A willingness to use violence when violence was not the only option. Not standing up to and stopping extremists an extremism in our own respective communities. To me it is these kinds of things that root failures on the part of Cypriots in the 20th century and that allowed for such easy and effective manipulations of Cypriots by outside forces and led us to where we are today.

[magikthrill]

I feel that the Cyprus problem, although in its today form started this century, traces its roots to the ottoman times.

[erolz]

magikthrill wrote: I feel that the Cyprus problem, although in its today form started this century, traces its roots to the ottoman times.

Certainly imo the Cyprus problem is inextricably linked to the history of Greece and Turkey as modern nation states and the history of antagonism between Greeks and Turks before either was a nation state. To the ottoman period, to Independence for Greece, collapse of ottoman empire, founding of Turkey as modern nation state, treaty of Luasane etc etc. This is the backdrop on which the 'Cyprus problem' has been played out. I totally agree with that. You can not imo understand the Cyprus problem with understanding the relationship between Greece and Turkey and in turn that can not be understood properly (imo) without some knowledge of the histories of these two peoples and their historic clashes.

I guess what I do have a problem with is when a Turkish Cypriot explains why from their perspective that the state of Cyprus today and what has happened here since 74 is directly connected and 'informed' by what hap pend between 60-74 - this is countered by an assertion that 'well anything that happened to Turkish Cypriot at the hands of Greek Cypriot in the period 60-74 was nothing compared to what happened to Greek Cypriot at the hands of the ottomans from 1500-1900' with the implication being that this period (60-74) 'does not matter'.

[detailer]

magikthrill wrote: I feel that the Cyprus problem, although in its today form started this century, traces its roots to the ottoman times.

Of course, its roots are to the ottoman times. If they didnt' come here, there wouldnt be any Turkish Cypriot in cyprus now and probably no problem as well.
The thing is Greek Cypriot need to digest ottoman occupation(I am not trying to be offesive). I understand that you are annoyed by ottoman occupation but many empires occupied other places in the history and owned there int time. Unfortunately, we can not get back to the beginning of the history now. I think once you said that your education is paid by americans there. Who are the americans? Migrators from Europe who literally destroyed all the locals there, but still you can not ignore them, can you?

We need a reference point in history and/or agreement for solving our problems, which is actually there, 1960.

[Dhavlos]

I think bros account of history is not that bad!!

well done, despite some things, it is largely neither pro-Greek Cypriot nor pro-Turkish Cypriot imo.

all parts of cypriot history need to be imbraced by the cypritos in distinguishing who we are and where we come from. I think it says a lot about a people that despite the amount of 'occupations' etc...by many different 'empires', the basic culture has remained much the same, and the people have stayed where they are...on cyprus. It shows the strongness of our people to withstand outside pressures, and work for cyprus. Hopefully, these attributes will follow through into this century, and a fair balanced etc. solution will come about, for all cypritos to enjoy.

[sjmygian]

brother wrote:
...
In 1967, the United States backed a military coup in Greece, and was disappointed when the junta was partially overthrown in July 1974. The new Greek government staged a coup in Cyprus to fuel nationalism, grab an important position in the sea, and to demonstrate some independence from the US. Turkey invaded Cyprus, claiming that the 1960 treaty of independence had been breached, and that Turkey had to protect the Muslim minority. In reality, Turkey's Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit invaded the island to shore up his own position at home, and to better compete with Greece for US' attention. It worked.

The US tacitly supported the Turkish invasion, and hoped that Ecevit would be a more pliable sub-imperialist than the Greek colonels had been.

......



Hi to everyone.

A member of your forum posted a link in another forum I visit, so I decided to join.

In the above brief history of how the problem started in Cyprus, I noticed some facts (dates etc) missing, most probably due to the history having to be short. Unfortunately, these missing facts are IMO crucial to the understanding of the whole problem. For example the military junta in Greece was overthrown after (the first part of) the turkish invasion and not before.

Since I have to leave now, I will post these additions tomorrow.

[brother]

Hi sjmygian and welcome to the forum,

I am glad you found my links to this forum and look forward to your posts on this subject.

[sjmygian]

Thanks for the welcome brother.
Looking forward to have some good discussions.

[sjmygian]

In 1967 (21 April), the United States backed a military coup in Greece, primarily led by Colonel Papadopoulos. After the violent suppression by the army with tanks of a student revolt in Polytechneio in 17 November 1973, there was a second military coup led by Brigadier General Ioannidis and backed up by the US, which partially overthrew the junta and established a new one (25 November 1973).

The military regime in Greece is worried with Makarios, then President of the Republic of Cyprus, making his own independent foreign policy, without "consulting" the greek junta. They (and the US) are especially worried by Makarios turn towards Russia and him buying soviet weapons, as the presence of soviet-made weapons in the Eastern Mediterranean behind NATO-lines is deemed a threat to NATO- and US-interests.Thus, is is decided by the junta in Greece (probably in accordance with the US) to stage a military coup in Cyprus and overturn Makarios. The coup begins in 15 July 1974, Makarios escapes and leaves Cyprus to New York via the UK base in Akrotiri, Malta and London. The junta appoints Nikolaos Sampson as "Republic of Cyprus President". Makarios appeared before the UN Security Council, backed up by Turkey, and asked from the Security Council to condemn the coup against him.

In 19 July 1974, the day the invasion started, there was still the military junta in Greece and the 4 days old one in Cyprus. In 23 July 1974, after a cease fire on Cyprus was agreed on the day before, the greek chiefs of Armed Forces, Army, Navy and Air Force proposed to Gizikis, the puppet "President of the Republic", placed by the military regime, that there should be a government change and the matters handed over to the politicians. After discussing with Ioanides, the military regime resigns and a new temporary government, formed by politicians, was formed on 24 July 1974. Sampson also resigned on 23 July 1974 and Klirides took over as a temporary Republic of Cyprus-President.

At 25 July 1974 began the discussions in Geneva between Greece, Turkey and the UK.
At 14 August 1974 started the second part of the invasion which ended at 17 August 1974.



The above was meant to replace the following sentences from brother's summary in the first post "In 1967, the United States backed a military coup in Greece, and was disappointed when the junta was partially overthrown in July 1974. The new Greek government staged a coup in Cyprus to fuel nationalism, grab an important position in the sea, and to demonstrate some independence from the US.", because it seemed as if the coup in Cyprus was orchestrated by the legitimate greek government, when in reality it was the greek junta that did it. Therefore I decided to correct this impression, by giving the exact date of the events.

Unfortunately it became much longer than I had first thought. 8) Sorry for that, but I felt it was more important to have this period more detailed.

AFAIK, the dates given are correct, but anyone feel free to correct any mistake.