ΕΙΝΑΙ να απορείς με τον μεγάλο αριθμό μοχθηρών ανθρώπων που κυκλοφορεί μεταξύ μας. Απορώ επειδή οι άνθρωποι αυτοί σχολιάζουν την μετά το 1974 περίοδο, λες και πριν όλα στο νησί ήταν όμορφα και ωραία.Σκεφθήκατε το τι αποκτήσαμε μετά το 1974;Δεν είμαστε εμείς που γίναμε ιδιοκτήτες μεγάλων εκτάσεων;
Που ως οικογένειες πεσόντων τύχαμε βοήθειας και παροχών, που προσληφθήκαμε στο δημόσιο, που κάθε οικογένεια διαθέτει τουλάχιστον από δύο αυτοκίνητα, που πλέον δεν ανησυχούμε για τη ζωή μας, που έχουμε το δικαίωμα να ταξιδεύουμε σε όποια χώρα του κόσμου επιθυμούμε, που διαθέτουμε πέραν της μιας ταυτότητες και διαβατήρια, που η μητέρα πατρίδα μας ικανοποιεί όλες μας τις επιθυμίες, που μας έφτιαξε τους δρόμους, σχολεία και νοσοκομεία μας, που κάλυψε τις ανάγκες σε νερό, σε ηλεκτρικό ρεύμα, σε ανάγκες άμυνας.
Γιατί λοιπόν συνεχίζουμε και σχολιάζουμε την μετά το 1974 περίοδο;
Υποβάλλω τώρα την εξής ερώτηση:
Τι διαθέταμε πριν το 1974;
Δεν ήμασταν εμείς που πριν το 1974 διωχτήκαμε από τα χωριά μας; Που οδηγηθήκαμε σε ομαδικούς τάφους, που τα βρέφη μας, τα παιδιά μας, τους παππούδες μας τους έστησαν στον τοίχο, ας θυμηθούμε τι συνέβη στα χωριά Αλόα, Σανταλάρη, Μάραθα, Ομορφίτα, μήπως ο Χουσεΐν Ρούσο πέθανε από καρκίνο, τι συνέβη με τον ανδρικό πληθυσμό της Τόχνης; Μήπως όλους τους απήγαγαν εξωγήινοι; Σε ποιους ανήκουν τα οστά που βρίσκουμε σε πηγάδια, στις ρίζες ελαιόδενδρων; Ποιοι μας ξεσπίτωσαν; Ποιοι μας έκλεισαν σε γκέτο; Για ποιο λόγο είχαμε χρόνια να δούμε θάλασσα; Ποιος σκότωσε τα μέλη της οικογένειας του αξιωματικού Νιχάτ Ιλχάν; Είχαμε νοσοκομεία; Και μια και αναφερθήκαμε σε νοσοκομεία, ποιοι δολοφόνησαν Τούρκους ασθενείς στα νοσοκομεία;
Είχαμε σχολεία; Ποιοι πυροβόλησαν κατά του μοναδικού λυκείου που διαθέταμε; Ποιοι πυροβόλησαν την προτομή του Ατατούρκ; Είχαμε αυτοκίνητα; Είχαμε δρόμους; Μήπως δεν ήμασταν υποχρεωμένοι να σταματούμε για να υποβληθούμε σε έλεγχο από τους Ε/κ;
Το μόνο που έχω να πω είναι ότι πριν το 1974 δεν είχαμε ούτε καν το δικαίωμα ζωής απλά και μόνο επειδή ήμασταν Τούρκοι. Τώρα, όταν μας συμβεί το παραμικρό αρχίζουμε τα παράπονα. Κάποιοι αρχίζουν τα παράπονα με τις λέξεις «Μετά το 1974…» Ίσως να μην έχουν την ικανότητα να συγκρίνουν αλλά τους έχει εγκαταλείψει τελείως και η μνήμη; Αν δεν μπορούν να θυμηθούν την προ του 1974 περίοδο σημαίνει ότι ξεμωράθηκαν. Δοξάζουμε τον Θεό επειδή οι περισσότεροι από εμάς δεν βρισκόμαστε στην κατάσταση εκείνων.
http://www.philenews.com/digital/
Published in http://www.ifestosedu.gr/84ConventionforCyprus.htm
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήConference on “A Constitutional Convention for Cyprus” organized by the
Research Centre on Direct Democracy of the University of Zurich 3-5 April 2008
Topic: The Convention way and EU membership; UN implications; The view of US, Russia, Turkey, Greece, United Kingdom.
Panayiotis Ifestos
Professor, International Relations–Strategic Studies, University of Piraeus, Department of International and European Studies, info@ifestosedu.gr – info@ifestosedu.gr
1. Constitutional convention, the “principles” and the accession into the EU
2. EU and military disengagement as a conflict-resolution approach
3. A State is not a trap or a prison
4. Foreign intervention is the single most important preventing a lasting and just settlement.
5. “Annihilation” of the peace prospects (2002-2004). Not to be repeated
6. The process towards a Constitutional Conference and the danger to be corrupted
7. Principles and actors involved in the process towards a Constitutional Convention
Appendix: “Slaughters”, “killings” and other made up magic stories
Appendix: “Slaughters”, “killings” and other made up magic stories
The process towards the Constitutional Conference and the Conference itself should be immunized against venomous propaganda which distorts truth. One of the most serious problems impairing peace in Cyprus is confusion owing to propagandistic historical accounts, myths as regards relations between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and naïve or simplistic and incorrect accounts about “nationalism” as the cause war. The “issue of nationalism”, in fact, is often used to overshadow the real causes of war, to distort facts and to distract from truth. Truth as regards the Cyprus question is as follows:
First, the two communities lived in peace for many centuries. “Structures of conflict”, in fact, were established in 1959-60 when the colonial power imposed an unworkable “constitution” destined to create conflict and to perpetuate British strategic presence. The Anan plan drafted by Lord Hanay, a distinguish British diplomat, is a repetition of this political crime and, in fact, it was an abortive attempt of coup de grace against all Cypriots. The absolute truth is that British divide and rule practices (ceaselessly since the 1940s) was the main cause of inter communal divisions, conflict and killings.
Second, before and after 1974, almost exclusively, inter-communal conflict is caused by foreign interference and foreign intervention. “Mistakes” committed by Cypriots were of secondary character and only a by byproduct of foreign interventions. Intersubjective knowledge in Cyprus is telling: Like most societies on earth, victimized due to hegemonic antagonisms, Cypriots have always been a peace-loving society. They were never “nationalists” and much more nationalists-chauvinists[23]. To argue the opposite is an outrageous insult. Cypriots were pushed by Britain into a tragic course which shall cease as soon as all foreigners are withdraw from Cyprus and mechanisms are established to prevent interferences.
Third, the main causes of the present division of the Cyprus Republic are, a) divide and rule which politically culminated with the Constitution in 1959 and the Anan plan in 2004, b) the Greek junta’s coup d’ etat and c) the Turkish invasion that followed this coup
Facing out mischievous historical accounts academically veiled, Cypriots themselves could easily establish intersubjective truth as regards killing and murders committed during turbulent phases of foreign intervention. They do not need biased historians to tell them their own history. Without the aid of any academically veiled distorted narration, older Cypriots do Know, for example, that a) Cypriots lived in peace until 1958 and even thereafter[24],
they could establish a simple but factually unshakable true narration which could serve as the basic assumption of their debates: For centuries and until1958 the two communities were co-existing in peace. On the basis of a systematic inter-Cypriot testifying and on the basis of the findings of archives research in a common project, they could establish commonly known facts a) as to who incited conflict and b) as to what were the effects on their owing to these incitements. This shall be their common history, not post-modern and ideologically biased deconstruction of their distinct culture and identity.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήMyths and propaganda on “killings” and “slaughtering” should thus be demolished by establishing intersubjective knowledge: Following foreign intervention some hundreds Cypriots, alas, died in a) battles, b) feuds and c) accidents. “Nationalism” has nothing to do with this “killing”[26]. Τo put it simply as already stressed, until 1958[27] –and despite the fact that the struggle for freedom against the colonial power was carried out by Greek Cypriots claiming self-determination in accordance to the decolonization principle of one man one vote”–, the two communities, continued to cohabitate in peace. In 1958 at Kionelli, 15 young Greeks were murdered. Revenge feelings and calls for vendetta expectably flared-up. Ankara is wholly responsible for this unfortunate start up[28]. Robert Holland provides sufficient evidence that until 1958 London was on the one hand continually manipulating and trapping Greek diplomacy whereas at the same time Ankara –despite standing Treaties excluding all rights– was encouraged by London to interfere in Cypriot affairs[29]. Intensification of Turkish action, however, was running out of (Britain’s) control and in 1958, Ankara attempted a repetition of the events in Constantinople three years earlier. The method was the following: Provocation by attacking Turkish “targets”, which in turn was used as a pretext to execute national cleansing. This is precisely what happened in 1955 events in Constantinople and Turks should study Vryonis, The mechanism of catastrophe, the Turkish pogrom of September 6-7, 1955, and the destruction of the Greek Community of Instanbul[30].
The starting-point of inter-Cypriot strife is thus 1958. The aforementioned mass crime which caused the death of 15 young Greek Cypriots, should be seen in conjunction with the provocative burning of the “Turkish News Bureau” by a friend of Denktash, the personality that later became the leader of the Turkish Community (and whose close attachment to Ankara’s military establishment are well known)[31]. What more needs to be said, if one reads the narration by a Turkish Cypriot –an honest individual who was afterwards murdered–, in an editorial written in a Turkish Cypriot daily newspaper following Denktash’s celebrated confession in an interview. Kutlu Adali testimony is as follows:
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή“Watching the documentary “Cyprus: Britain’s Grim Legacy” on Television I felt ashamed at having heard from the TRNC president Denktash’s own mouth which secret bands and for what purpose the bomb was thrown at the Turkish News Bureau on the night of 7-8 July 1958, just 26 years ago; and I also felt ashamed at having learnt how history was hoodwinked for such a long time. As was also published in YENIDUZEN newspaper, the bomb thrown at the Turkish News Bureau was the work of a very close friend of Denktash! It has now transpired that the aim behind planting of the bomb was to heighten the political tension of the Turkish Cypriots. The reason why I, as a person who has experienced those days, felt ashamed at this disclosure was that after this bomb incident many innocent Turks and Greek Cypriots died, many persons were wounded and crippled and thus for the first time the separation of the Turks and Greek Cypriots by barbed-wires was secured and the non-solution extending to our days was created. The history professor, Dr Fahir Arnaouglou, who came to Cyprus a while ago and visited Denktash wrote in his book “the Cyprus problem” that the bomb in question was thrown at the Turkish news agency by EOKA terrorists! The rebuttal of a historian by Denktash is yet another cause of shame for me. We cannot Know whether or not during the visit Denktash revealed this historic truth to Arnaotoglu, however, we can only read with anguish and shame the bloody incidents created by the bomb incident on the page 452 of Arnaoglu’s work called “the Cyprus problem”[32]».
This shaking and soul-stirring words written by an honest Cypriot, fully explains the causes of so called “slaughters” and the origin of the real instigators. In fact no “slaughter” took place. Certainly one could question the political logic of the civil war that followed –and it is clear that I question this political logic, especially in the light of the established fact that the inciters of the strife were Britain and Turkey– but it is not serious to overlook that the innocent victims were killed mainly in battles and vendetta in an incontrollable turbulent political environment that reached a climax owing to the unworkable character of the constitution imposed by the colonial power.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήIt could be added that, there are innumerable accounts, especially writings based on the British archives, substantiating divide and rule practices before 1958 but also after independence[33]. Inter alia, important evidence derives from the writings of Martin Packard, former British leader of the tripartite mediating initiative in Cyprus. Commenting revelations in a BBC Radio 4 program about conflicting British roles in Cyprus, Martin Packard explains that British encouragement of the Turkish Cypriots to claim a separate entity goes back in 1931. Later on in 1943[34], the British encouraged the formation of an organization called KATAK, which later was called VOLKAN and then TMT, encouraging Turkish Cypriots to claim division of Cyprus and “double union”. Interference in domestic affairs was particularly intensive during the period prior to the 1963 inter-communal strife. As Packard notes, British military personnel,
“had been involved in the covert delivery to TMT of weapons, ammunition, training and tactical advice. This process had apparently begun in mid-1963 and has included the facilitating of clandestine deliveries into Cyprus, via the Kokkina-Mansoura coastal strip, of Turkish army materials and personnel[35].
It follows that, Turkey’s interference and British parallel divide and rule practices, continued after independence. Years later in the “Milliet” (11.6.1995) it was revealed that immediately after the Zurich agreements and until October 1960, Ankara dispatched illegally into Cyprus weapons enough to equip 10.000 soldiers. The vicious circle of battles started in Christmas 1963 and spread throughout the island. It was the inevitable outcome of a) the aforemetioned British divide and rule, b) Turkey’s interference, c) the problematic constitution which for all practical purposes was not functioning and d) the vicious circle of feud and revenge that followed each killing in incontrollable circumstances of intensive foreign interferences.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήInternal and external factors intermingled creating a turbulent trap Cypriots couldn’t really escape. Under these circumstances, it is a miracle that so “few” people were killed. Which is exact number, however, and what are the real circumstances people were killed? A rather credible field research was carried out by Richard Patrick[36]. His account discredits the dubious myth of mass “slaughters” on “nationalist” grounds: No surprise, as in all other analogous situations some hundreds died, deaths which as aforementioned occurred during a) battles, b) in feuds and c) in accidents[37].
To put it otherwise, during this unfortunate civil war initiated by Ankara under Britain’s nose, Greek Cypriots despite bitterness –owing to the fact that the legitimate, according to the Greeks, claim for self-determination was not allowed–, were defending the young Republic of Cyprus[38]. Turkish Cypriots, on the other hand, were pushed around in unfortunate circumstances and came into conflict with their Greek compatriots in a way that neither side’s interests were served[39].
The two communities, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, were the victims and not the victimizers. The unfortunate Cypriots that died were mostly killed in battles whose imported political logic was, to paraphrase Clausewitz, neither “war as a continuation of politics by other means” nor the “continuation of Cypriot politics”. To argue, as some essays imply, that the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot Communities consist of maniacs and murderers, a position utterly presumptuous, insolent and propagandistic. These presumptuous accusations –shamefully propagated by bearers of academic titles in scientifically shameful essays– serve specific purposes: By fabricating a picture of Cypriots as semi-wild murderers if not barbarians, some intend to serve the purpose of imposing and perpetuating neo-colonial occupancy. The “final solution” attempted by the abortive Anan plan was a permanent tutelage if not a return to slavery. Foreign intervention is the A to Z cause of conflict in Cyprus. Searching for a lasting solution of the Cyprus question, foreign intervention should be dealt with as a priority problem, both at the level of the proposed process towards a Constitutional Convention as well as at the level of historical investigation of truth and reality.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή