Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

November 4th, 2005

Tags

,

Comments

8 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Anti-Turkish Nonsense

Last year, before joining the ranks of ComingAnarchy, I spent a month in Turkey and Cyprus. Most of my Cypriot time was spent in the north, where I was based out of Girne and day tripping around. Yesterday, I came across this post which contained a few photos of the green line dividing the north from the south. I’ve been to that very beach and enjoyed seeing the photos until I noticed this utter garbage at the end:

For 31 years Varosha has been uninhabited. Turkey ought to be ashamed of itself. Since the military won’t let me take pictures, I imagine that on some level they are ashamed ““ or at least a bit embarrassed ““ by what they have done and are doing. They did not want you to see this.

This runs quite contrary to history. Firstly, Michael doesn’t seem to understand that there isn’t a single country in the world where you are allowed to photograph military zones, bases and so forth. You can’t do it anywhere!

Secondly, the Turks have very little to be embarassed about. In fact, the Greeks are very clearly the party to blame over the trouble in Cyprus. In 1925, Cyprus became a British colonly, taken over from the Ottomans who’d ruled the island for around 500 years. By 1931, there were already riots by Greeks demanding, Enosis, or union with Greece. By the 1950s, EOKA was formed, a militant resistance organization opposed to British occupation and in favor of uniting the island with Greece. Their attacks targeted the British stationed on the island, but also Turkish and Greek Cypriots who supported the British. The organization operated from 1955 to 1959 when it officially ceased operations after the Zurich-London agreement established independence for the island. Parties in the talks were Britain, Greece and Turkey.

Cyprus becomes independent of foreign rule. Archbishop Makarios, (Greek Cypriot) becomes the first President, Dr Kutchuk (Turkish Cypriot) Vice-President. Both have the right of veto. Turkish Cypriots, who form 18% of the population, are guaranteed vice-presidency, three out of ten ministerial posts and 30% of jobs in the public service, 40% in the army and separate municipal services in the five major towns. Overall, a very complex constitution is drafted, including a lot of decisions to be taken by majority of votes overall as well as within each community.

The Greeks naturally had many objects and wanted to abolishing the ethnic clauses. Fighting erupts between Greeks and Turks, with the UN eventually coming in to try and prevent further conflict. As usual, they were unsuccessful. In 1974, the Greek Junta ordered a coup to overthrow the current Cypriot government and a former EOKA fighter was installed in his place. While EOKA 1.0 was originally a band of freedom fighters, an extreme right-wing version of the group again emerged in 1970 with the express intention of overthrowing the government and joining Greece. With ethnic fighting raging and the Turkish minority having little chance to survive, Turkey invaded on July 29th 1974 (Chirol has been to the beach where they first landed). After a brief pause in fighting, UN sponsered negotiations break down and the fighting continues, with the Turks ultimately capturing a little under half the island. The situation today remains the same.

Since then, northern Cyprus has delcared independence, though only Turkey has recongized them. Yet, Turkey waited until war had erupted to intervene and protect the Turkish minority who clearly were in danger. Turkey never annexed the island or asserted any territorial claims to it. Also, though maintaining large military bases there to protect the north, it remains largely uninvolved in Turkish Cypriot politics.

Thus, history quite clearly points out that it was the Greeks who instigated the ethnic fighting and the Greeks who overthrew the government, proceeding to pave the way for a Turkish intervention. And lastly, Turkey, under the previous treaty for Cyprus’ independence, had the right to do so, even though Britain backed down from its legal obligation to guarantee the island’s independence.

Comments to this entry

Andreas
November 4, 2005
10:55 pm
Dear Chirol

Your effort to present the story from a one side apprpach [Turkish] is very well done.

Surely the Greek side has done many mistakes over the years but surprisingly not harming the Turks [in the long-run] but rather herself and the Greek Cypriots directly. Do you have any example of a country where the minority of 18% has the right to exercise veto in any Goverment decision?

The ill-made decisions of Zurich in 1959 were made [by Britain] this way to result in conflict between the two communities and eventually caused the Turkish invasion that followed the many mistakes by the then ruling Greek Junta side.

Turkey is still under the 'fear' of the Greeks after the 1919-21 invasion of mainland Turkey. But I think the people of both countries have paid enough for the mistakes of their politiicans and military leaders.
If you take just the numbers, the Greeks have paid a much bigger 'prize' despite the smaller population.

Greece counts at least 2.5 milion refugees since 1915 and Turkey 1.2 million. Greece on the average has and had a population of 1/6 of Turkey. This shows which country has suffered the most.

Coming back to Cyprus why nobody speaks any more about the 240000 Greek-Cypriot refugees who were displaced after the Turkish invasion in 1974? If Turkey wanted a fair solution to the Cyprus problem could have suggested a fair UN sponsored plan.

But unfortunately Turkey wants to exercise full control over Cyprus. This way we approach the Cyprus problem in its real context. The Turks -probably like the Greeks- never wanted a fair solution to the problem.

But if the 2 countries are going to seek a peaceful future between them, someone must make compromise. In the Cyprus problem the Greek side has suffered the most for the past 31 years. I strongly believe it is time for the Turkish side [Turkey] to enter in a true negotiation that will ensure long lasting peace and equality on the basis of the rights of a minority, as it is the case.

-.Andreas
Chirol
November 4, 2005
11:22 pm
I appreciate your comments but you're missing the point. My point was that, regardless of whose side you take, it was the Greek side which quite clearly caused the invasion. That was the point. You're absolutely correct that the newly independent Cyprus was doomed from the start, insofar as how the government was setup. We've seen similar situations in Lebanon and Bosnia.

Both sides have indeed suffered and not always been willing to compromise. However, I'm quite optimistic now as the chances for solving the Cyprus problem are now better than ever. However, again, the Greeks are working against a solution as it was they who overwhelmingly rejected reunification whereby the Turks voted overwhelmingly for it. Granted, I can understand their concern, when one looks at what has happened in Germany, but they are equally guilty in terms of not finding a solution.
Andreas
November 4, 2005
11:45 pm
Probably I forgot to point out in my comment earlier:

The UN sponsored plan of 2004 is even worse from the 1959 Zurich agreement...
The only thing it does guarantee is that the two sides will not be able to decide on anything. Furthermore The Annan's plan target [sponsored by Britain and Turkey] is to ensure that eventually there will be two states on Cyprus but with the Greek side in a much more weak position.

Trully again, why nobody speaks of the UN plan provisions? Why nobody enters into a real dialogue into what this plan really says?

If you do, you will see it is a completely non-workable solution. It may give land back to the greek Cypriots but this thru a very slow process which in the meantime will be surpassed by the political problems doomed to emerge because of the solution non-equality. Again the same mistake? Why?

The answer is given in my previous comment.

ps. I am also optimistic about a peaceful solution thru a fair UN plan accepted by both sides.
Paul
November 5, 2005
3:47 am
Agreed that Turkey has often been unfairly cast as the bad guy in this drama. I would add that Britain's role in 1974 was dishonourable. Britain (like Turkey) had a treaty obligation to protect the Turkish-Cypriot minority. But Britain (unlike Turkey, with its intervention) did nothing to fulfil its obligation. Even more, the British government allowed the UN Security Council to ignore the treaty and condemn the Turkish intervention. They should simply have vetoed the resolution. Further evidence, if it was needed, that the 1970s were a low point in Britain's recent history.
Christos
November 5, 2005
3:33 pm
Interesting to hear half-educated outsiders offer opinions on such complex matters. I was present before and during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and speak of first hand experience. Suffice it to say that in the aftermath of the invasion Turkey has benn convicted of (among many other things):
1. Mass rapes of womwn aged 12-72
2. Enforced prostitution for their soldiers
3. Torture and execution of civilians and POW's
4. Forcible eviction of 200000 refugees from their homes
5. Organized looting and plunder

The notion hat the Greeks caused the invasion is absolutely ridiculous and can come only from a pro-Turkish apologist.

Even before the Turkish invasion the Turks had TMT (a classified terroist organization) operating in Cyprus as the Greeks had the EOKA b counterpart. These small groups instigated intercommunal violence but neverhteless counted for less than a few percent of the population.

If u want to actually "measure" misery somehow, a lot more Greeks were killed, tortured raped etc at the hands of the Turks in Cyprus.

The basic fact remains that Turkey occupies a part of another country, which is illegal and against International law of which Turkey itself is a signatory.

As far as your assertion that Bru=itain and England had the obligation to protect a m inority you are dead wrong, though noble goal. Their obligation which comes from the Zurich agreement was to intervene and reestablish constitutional order. Turkey has done exactly the oposite. They have ethnically cleansed the northern part of the Island from its Greek inhabitants, imported 100000 Turksih settles, gave them the stolen properties of the refuygees and established a pupped regime.

You are living proof that the illusion of knowledge is worse than ignorance.

Best regards and hopes you will spend some more time reading about the subject (how about "Hostage to History" by Christopher Hitchens?).

Christos
Chirol
November 5, 2005
4:35 pm
You concentrate on after the invasion, yet forget the Greek terrorist organization EOKA B came first, as did the Greek overthrow of the government. Those were the two biggest factors which caused the invasion. The Turkish minority sure wasn't trying to pick a fight when they only made up 18% of the island. As for the TMT, they were created as a response to EOKA and I agree, were equally guilty of horrible crimes. I was in no way trying to say that the Turks were any less guilty of atrocities than the Greeks. Sorry if you understood it that way.

Interesting about the Zurich agreement, I'll look more into that.
Christos
November 6, 2005
7:41 pm
Again I feel the urge to correct you. The Turkish Terrorist organization (TMT) did not form as a response to the Greek couterparet EOKA b. TMT was formed in the late 50's by a Turksih colonel who so happens passed away 2 months ago. EOKA b formed after the Cyprus Independence which was Oct 1960.

The Turkish Cypriot side was most certainly trying to pick a fight. Let me remind you the conclusion of the then UN representativee in Cyprus Galo Plaza "The Turkish Cypriot community follows a policy of self isolation", one that aims to divide the island and create the impression that division is necessary.

The first victim of itercommunal violence was a Greek Cypriot in 1957.

The majority of the Greek Cypriots fought against EOKA b and the coup and then had to fight the Turkish invasion as well.

At the time, there were three countries involved. Greece which ateempted a coup, Turkey which invaded and Cyprus. Both Turkey and Greece were run by military Hunda's while Cyprus has a representative presidential democracy.

After the Invasion/coup the Greek cypriot side arrested and imprisoned the EOKA b terrorists. Those responsible for the coup in Greece are still in jail. On the contrary, the Turkish terrorist organization TMT was running the governement of the Turkish Cypriots via one of its founding members, Mr Rauf Denktash.

If one is truly objective and enlightened one should pursue a solution to the Cyprus problem that is just. I am sure u agree such a solution should at the very least guarantee basic human rights (property, movement, voting) all of which are today freely available to the Turkish Cypriots but not the Greek Cypriots.

Best Regards
Christos
Petros
November 7, 2005
1:51 am
Turkey occupied Cyprus for 300 years (1578-1878) not 500. In 1878 Turkey gave Cyprus to England in exchange for support against Rusia. England formally annexed Cyprus after WWI when Turkey was defeated along with its AXIS parters. For supporting the allies in WWI and WWII Greece and the Cypriots were promised by the British the union of Cyprus with Greece. Sadly Britain did not uphold its promise. The uprisings against the British followed years of British oppression and heavy taxation against the Cypriots including closing of schools which taught Greek.

No intercommunal problems existed between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots until the 1950s when the British pitted Turks against Greeks in their divide and conquer methodology (as they did in India/Pakistan and South Afrika).

In 1964, just a short time after independence, the Turkish Cypriot ultranationalist in their plans drawn up in th 50s with Turkey to lay the grounds for partition and anexation instigated attacks against Greek Cypriots killing many civilians and the Turkish airforce bombed Cyprus resulting the intervention of then President Johnson of the United States which stopped the attrocities and invasion by Turkey.

In 1974 when the junta attempted to kill President Makarios, Turkey invated (on July 20 1974) using the Treaty of 1959 which provides that Greece, Turkey, and Britain are to guarantee to sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. Within 4 days of the Turkish invasion the puppets of the Athens Junta, as well as the Athens Junta itself fell apart and were arrested.

The legal goverment of Cyprus was restored and Democracy was restored in Greece. Yet Turkey proceeded in a campaign of ethnic cleansing, colonization, cultural destruction, rape and pillaging.

Dozens of UN Security council and General Assembly resolutions condemned unanimously Turkey's attrocities and humar rights violations and called for the immediate and unconditional withdraw of the Turkish occupation troops and the settlers, and the safe return of all refugees to their homes.

http://www.hri.org/Cyprus/Cyprus_Problem/UNresolutions-list.html
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2417

It was Turkey which forced the Turkish Cypriots from their homes and the Turkish colonizers who outnumber the Turkish Cypriots with their crime forced nearly half of the Turkish Cypriots to leave Cyprus after Turkey invaded.

The fact is, before the Turkish invasion Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived intermigled in peace and harmony. Turkish Cypriots visited my village which happens to have been entirely Greek, and my father had Turkish Cypriot friends from nearby villages. Even today, if you ask Greek and Turkish Cypriots if they want to live together they would say yes and the Turkish Cypriots would state openly thet they prefer to live with the Greek Cypriots than the Turks from Turkey.

You indicate that you spend a lot of time in the occupied part of Cyprus (in which 80% of the population was Greek before the invasion). Have you asked your hosts why the refugees are not allowed to return to their homes, Why 99% of the Christian churches and cemetaries have been vandalized and destroyed? and why the names of the cities, towns and villages have been changed?