You won’t hear me argue with that. Or defend Denktas in any way. And yes, I did mean EOKA-B (slip of the typing hand, sorry).

To respond to your substantive point… In an ideal world, of course it would be a matter for a majority of the Cypriot population whether or not they wanted enossis. However, given the history of Turks and Greeks being fairly horrible to one another in the century or so leading up to Cypriot independence, most relevantly in Crete, it was recognised in every constitutional document that enossis was not an acceptable option as Turkish Cypriots feared ethnic cleansing. The lack of geographical concentration of Turkish Cypriots pre-1974 shouldn’t have meant that they could be accorded less rights as a minority, should it?

I don’t think that’s just a realpolitik question about balances of power but also important in that guarantor powers were supposed to guarantee Cyprus’ independence and unity, therefore enossis was a violation of the founding contract of the Republic of Cyprus. The r?le of the guarantor powers remains, as you have eloquently pointed out, a key issue in Cyprus’ politics today.

In any case, like you I’m less interested in what Cyprus was and more interested in what Cyprus can be.

Young Fogey: You mean EOKA B, mainly, I guess. Don’t forget as well the CIA involvement in the coup and, when the Junta failed to kill Makarios, the tacit OK afterwords for the Turkish invasion.

You are right, no community is blameless… Still, the invasion of a sovereign country and the ethnic cleansing of 200,000 people (the majority in the North - as in the South) is something on a scale that the Greek nationalists never even had a chance of pulling off in Cyprus. Indeed the leader of the G/C side (Makarios) was, for all his failings, actively against allowing the Greek nationalists this sort of atrocity. In other words, Denktash is the mirror image not of Makarios or Papadopoulos, but of Sampson and Grivas…
It’s worth pointing out that the coup in 1974 was against Makarios first and foremost, and in preperation of a partition of the island between Greece and Turkey.

Another, academic point today, is whether it is morally reasonable to deny a majority of 82% (in a former colony that has just gained its freedom) its overwhelming demand of uniting with whatever country it wishes. Especially since there wasn’t even the smallest subdivision of Cyprus (larger than a village) where Turkish Cypriots were a majority. If you give this sort of privileged status to the 18% of Turkish Cypriots, why not the same for the Maronites, or the Armenians or the Catholics (at about 1% each?).

I’m not advocating, of course, unification of Cyprus with Greece, for the same reason I’m against Kosovo’s unification with Albania: the geopolitical situation and the international repercussions don’t allow it. In the case of Cyprus one should add that the majority of Greek Cypriots are today disinclined to unite with a their poorer and less organized co-nationals, and prefer independence.

But what is the moral argument against, simple or federal, majority rule in the island?

I hope you’re right - I’m just feeling rather pessimistic just now.

Sephiroth:

The Greek Cypriots were the ones who were invaded and occupied by fascist Turkey - they are not at fault at all for what happened to them

…of course it’s a little bit more complicated than that. The Cyprus Conflict website provides excellent and digestable historical background for those interested. There were sadly too many fascists running about the Eastern Mediterranean in 1974 for anyone’s good notably the Greek military junta, the Greek-Cypriot Junta which had just over thrown Makarios, EOKA, its parallel paramilitary groups on the Turkish-Cypriot side and those elements of the Turkish military who were going to become a junta several years later.

None of the four parties which made Cyprus what it is are exactly blameless (and the position of the fifth, Britain, isn’t exactly without blemish either). No-one I’ve ever met with any wit in Greece, Turkey or Cyprus disputes that.

The relevant question now shouldn’t be who did what in the past but how Cyprus can be reunited, how restitution can be made to displaced people, especially on the Greek-Cypriot side, how the Turkish-Cypriot economy can progress, how Greece can reduce it’s massive military expenditure, how the democratic reforms in Turkey can be anchored, and how the Aegean can be made a stable haven in a very unstable part of the world.

About the Turkish government: again I agree. One of the good things about a solution in Cyprus would have been the points Erdogan would have won versus the generals. But in Greece there was no transition… there was a collapse of the dictatorship. Ever since the military have been keeping completely away from politics.

The situation in Turkey is different. Just think of the possibility of a renewed Kurdish insurgency following some sort of Iraq deal… The Annan plan is basically asking the Greek Cypriots to *bet* their security on the eventual predominance of the democratic forces in Turkey. This is a risk that most Greek Cypriots are unwilling to take - unless other more concrete guarantees accompany the plan. This might (I hope) be achievable and with the help of AKEL might pass a future referendum. Again this is more of a hope than a prediction, but certainly AKEL is already busy trying to achieve it…

The Greek Cypriots were the ones who were invaded and occupied by fascist Turkey - they are not at fault at all for what happened to them, so to cast them as the “aggressor” is ludicrous. This deal was drawn up by the US + UK, two governments who aided Turkey during the invasion, and had very little to do with “helping the Cypriots” and everything to do with “wider geopolitical aims” of the Us and the EU. It also brazenly violates international law by allowing the Turkish settlers to stay - a clear violation of the Geneva Convention.

Would you blame the Palestinians if they rejected a peace deal that was drawn up by Israel and Wolfowitz - a deal that allowed ALL of the Jewish settlements to remain in the West Bank? A deal that left the Israeli army in the West Bank indefinitely? Would you say “Well, this is it for you Palestinians, sorry fuckers, you really screwed yourself this time?” If not then why do you say that to the Greek Cypriots?

thanks for your response - I think I can give you a more reasoned response now that the disappointment of the weekend has faded a little.

You’re right to point out that AKEL’s historical record in promoting bi-communalism and standing with Turkish Cypriots is second to none - hence the disappointment and demonstrations when AKEL didn’t support a Yes vote. And while the international show is very much off the road now, if a settlement is possible later this year (and I think you are wildly optimistic) then bringing it about is sees the ball very much in AKEL’s court. Ending the blockade and further normalisation at the Green Line would be a good start. Allowing residents of the North to vote in the EU elections is also a fine confidence building measures. A reduction, even a small one, in the number of Turkish troops in the island would also go a long way, and Ankara and Athens should continue to work bilaterally on reducing the military presence in the Aegean (not directly related I know but it would help improve the atmosphere).

But at the end of the day, I still don’t know how such a big No vote can be swung around without destroying Turkish-Cypriot confidence in the political process.

PS - as for the Church, yes I did know about the Bishop of Morphou’s position, but let’s face it he was very much an honourable exception in see of braying racism and paranoia. All of which confirms my view, no God in the EU constitution thank you very much! I hardly think you disagree with that?

As for the Turkish far-right, remeber the stock of their political wing (the MHP) is very low following their dismal performance in the 1998-2002 coalition (capped when their Agriculture Minister complained about Syrian sheep breeding with and sullying the purity of Turkish lambs). Also the main issues which the far-right fed off from the ’70s through to the ’90s, viz. the war with the PKK, is now a dead issue. While there is a struggle between the civil authorities and the military at present, it is one that the civil authorities are winning. If I remember rightly your own country endured such a period before becoming a well functioning liberal democracy. Surely it is incumbent on all democrats to help the process along in Turkey rather than undermining it?

—-

Oh and beautiful redesign folks. I love it.

This is patently untrue; indeed, the expansion minus Cyprus has been very successful (and expansion or not, Cyprus was going to have to face this problem).