Makarios - "the Fidel Castro of the Mediterranean"

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jul 31, 2010 at 17:40

Hi, e. nondas !

Thanks for your competent account of the Cyprus issue and Turkey's perfidy and barbarity. Anybody who has the slightest idea of the history and real issues involved in Cyprus knows what sort of "ideals" Turkey has always stood for and continues to stand for . Anyway, I myself am very surprised that someone can expect a different sort of behaviour from the Turk.

What I can add is that in fact Turkey had no legal right whatsoever to raise its claims to Cyprus. In 1923 in the Treaty of Lausanne it officially renounced ANY rights to Cyprus while Britian repeatedly during both world wars - in 1915 and 1940 - promised to give the island back to Greece. But when the last war was over and the Cypriots reminded the British of their promises, the latter started finding excuses and difficulties to keep their promise. Cypriot delegations came back empty-handed from London. In 1950 Makarios organized a referendum with the astonishing unanimous vote in favour of Enosis. The British ignored the results. But when in 1954 the Greek government moved the question of Cyprus to the UN forum the British played their strongest card and stimulated Turkey's prime minister Menderes to demand a right in case of British withdrawal to either control all Cyprus or a part of it. They British of course willingly and generously accorded Turkey this right ! If the British had had betetr memory and more good will , they could have just pointed to the Treaty of Lausanne to make any Turkish claims invalid. But they wanted exactly the Turkish involvement which made any peaceful solution on Cyprus a priori impossible. They abetted and used the Greek-Turkish conflict as an instrument to continue to be there and control the island as "an arbiter" and the owner of the military bases despite its "independence".

It is how the British engineered the Cypriot tragedy and how and later in 1974 it was "solved" by the US which turned out to be the main villain of the tragedy. The Turks just played the role which had been assigned to them by Kissinger. Let's not forget also that the Greek junta was installed in 1967 by the CIA to serve American - not Greek - interests and the Americans had no interest whatsoever to keep Makarios - "the Fidel Castro of the Mediterranean" to use Kissinger's proverbial phrase - in power and his neutral non-aligned incalculable Greek island which friendly relations with the USSR as a potential danger to the South-Eastern flank of NATO. With Turks in control of one thrid of it Cyrpus which they conquered with NATO weapons the island became with a single blow another secure NATO fortress . The comedy of US arms embrago to Turkey can't fool us about the real results and motives of the Turkish assault in 1974.

As to those 18% Turks in Cyprus one can add that they were the most backward and poorest part of the Cyprus population. In 1960 there was 24,1% illiteracy rate in Cyprus but its distribution was quite asymetrical. It prevailed among the Cypriot Turks . As they were not affected by Kemal's later reforms the position of Islamic clergy there with its large waqfs - mosque property - was quite strong. Also as a relic from the Ottoman times a conservative Turkish land-owning class was strong and consequently the Turkish peasantry more dependent on them. All in all all those 18% of population paid in terms of taxes only 3-4% of what the Greek population did . Now although they contributed so little to the wealth and progress of the island they raised wildly disproportionate claims to control more than a third of the island's territory !

All the money the Turks got to conduct their propaganda , political and terrorist activities came from Turkey with full British connivance and protection. Thus the Cypriot Turks were totally controlled and guided in all their actions by Ankara at that time no less as they are now.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".