Re: Cyprus

[Martyn454@xxxxxxx]

[ converted from html  ;-) ... martyn, see links at:

   http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg04547.htm
   http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg04546.htm

for instructions on sending in plain text in AOL. Les ]




Hopefully this message should reach the list in plain text!

With regard the attempted coup against the Makarios government. I
agree that the coup was engineered by the Colonel's in Athens,
evidence also suggests that the US gave the Greek regime the green
light to proceed with its adventure in Cyprus. The principal aim of US
policy in this was to end Makarios' rule, whose non-aligned and
anti-NATO positions were a source of annoyance for US plans in the
region. However the coupists completely botched things up by 1)failing
to kill Makarios and 2) putting into power a known lunatic and
anti-Turk racist Nicos Sampson.

I also agree that EOKA B's aim was to achieve enosis (union with
Greece).  EOKA B were the foot soldiers for the Colonel's in Cyprus
and had been campaigning against Makarios for some years prior.

According to the provisions of the 1960 Cypriot constitution, Greece,
Turkey and the UK were granted "guarantor" status which allowed them
to intervene in Cyprus (jointly or unilaterally) if the status quo was
upset. Under this provision Turkey took the opportunity to invade
(with the aim of protecting the Turkish Cypriots and restoring the
status quo). Unfortunately the outcome of the invasion was ethnic
cleansing (some 200,000 Greek Cypriots were expelled/fled their homes)
and permanent partition!!  This in no way was Turkey acting to restore
'status quo"

The issue is a little thorny for the Turkish Cypriot left. Some refuse
to use the word "invasion" and claim "intervention"- ie that the
Turkish government had good intentions. Others claim that Kissinger
and the US encouraged Turkey to go in order to complete the task the
incompetent Greek Colonel's failed to achieve, preferring a divided
Cyprus rather than an independent and non-aligned one. Still others
say that, whilst the initial intervention may have been justified, the
real crime came when the Turkish government attempted to renegotiate
the constitution for Cyprus during peace talks and then- once this
failed- broke the cease fire in a land grab that led to the partition.

The debate leads to the question of whether the Turkish Army were/are
to be seen as liberators or occupiers? The political discourse in the
South is to present the Cyprus Problem as one of occupation by a
foreign army. This ignores the reality of ethnic conflict and ill
treatment suffered by Turkish Cypriots *prior* to the crises of 1974.

martyn ahmet







~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.