Lets talk about this plan and what it meant in the scheme of things that happened in cyprus.

The actual Akritas plan

The recent public statements of His Beatitude have outlined the course which our national issue will follow. As we have stressed in the past, national struggles are neither judged nor solved from day to day, nor is it possible to fix time limits for the achievement of the various stages of their development. Our national cause must always be examined and judged in the light of the conditions and developments of the moment, and the measures which will be taken, the tactics, and the time of implementing each measure must be determined by the conditions existing at the time, both internationally, and internally. The entire effort is trying and must necessarily pass through various stages, because the factors which influence the final result are many and varied. It is sufficient, however, that all should understand that the

measures which are prescribed now constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and unalterable national objective, i.e., to the full and unfettered exercise of the right of self-determination of the people.

Since the purpose remains unalterable, what remains is to examine the subject of tactics. It is necessary to divide the subject of tactics under two headings, that is: internal tactics and external, since in each case both the presentation and the handling of our cause will be different.

A. External tactics (international).


During the recent stages of our national struggle the Cyprus problem has been presented to diplomatic circles as a demand for the exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Cyprus. In securing the right of self-determination obstacles have been created by the well-known conditions, the existence of a Turkish minority, by the inter-communal conflict and the attempts to show that co-existence of both communities under one government was impossible. Finally, for many international circles the problem was solved by the London and Zurich Agreements, a solution which was presented as the result of negotiations and agreement between the two sides.

a) Consequently, our first target has been to cultivate internationally the impression that the Cyprus problem has not really been solved an the solution requires revision.

b) Our first objective was our endeavour to be vindicated as the Greek majority and to create the impression that:


(i) The solution given is neither satisfactory not fair;

(ii) The agreement reached was not the result of a free and voluntary acceptance of a compromise of the conflicting views;

(iii) That the revision of the agreements constitutes a compelling necessity for survival, and not an effort of the Greeks to repudiate their signature;

 (iv) That the co-existence of the two communities is possible, and

  (v) That the strong element on which foreign states ought to rely is the Greek majority and not the Turkish Cypriots.


c) All the above has required very difficult effort, and has been achieved to a satisfactory degree. Most of the foreign representatives have been convinced that the solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under pressure and without real negotiations and that it was imposed under various threats. It is significant argument that the solution achieved has not been ratified by the people, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to ratify it by a plebiscite, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have done if called upon.

Generally, it has been established that the administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks have confined themselves to a negative role.

d) Second objective. The first stage having been completed, we mus programme the second stage of our activities and objectives on the international level. These objectives in general can be outlined as follows:


(i) The Greek efforts are directed towards removing unreasonable and unfair provisions of administration and not to oppress the Turkish Cypriots;

(ii) The removal of these oppressive provisions must take place now because tomorrow it will be too late;

(iii) The removal of these provisions, despite the fact that this is reasonable and necessary, because of the unreasonable attitude of the Turks is not possible bv agreement, and therefore unilateral action is justified;

(iv) The issue of revision is an internal affair of the Cypriots and does not give the right of military or other intervention;

(v) The proposed amendments are reasonable, just, and safeguard the reasonable rights of the minority.

e) Today it has been generally demonstrated that the international climate is against every type of oppression and, more specifically, against the oppression of minorities. The Turks have already succeeded in persuading international opinion that union of Cyprus with Greece amounts to an attempt to enslave them. Further, it is estimated that we have better chances of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand to exercise the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for union with Greece (Enosis). In order, however, to secure the exercise of complete and free self-determination, we must get free of all those provisions of the constitution and of the agreements (Treaty of Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance) which prevent the free and unfettered expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which create dangers of external intervention. It is for this reason that the first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was the first that was stated to be no longer recognised by the Greek Cypriots.

When this is achieved no legal or moral power can prevent us from deciding our future alone and freely and exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.

From the above, the conclusion can be drawn that for the success of our plan a chain of actions is needed, each of which is necessary, otherwise, future actions will remain legally unjustified and politically unachieved, while at the same time we will expose our people and the country to serious consequences. The actions to be taken can be summed up as follows:

a) Amendment of the negative elements of the agreements and parallel abandonment of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is necessary because the need for amendments of the negative aspects of the treaties is generally accepted internationally and is considered justified (we can even justify unilateral action), while at the same time intervention from outside to prevent us amending them is unjustified and inapplicable;

b) As a result of our above actions, the Treaty of Guarantee (right of unilateral intervention) becomes legally and substantively inapplicable;

c) The people, once Cyprus is not bound by the restrictions of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance regarding the exercise of the right of self-determination, will be able to give expression to and implement their desire.

d) Legal confrontation by the forces of State of every internal or external intervention.

It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any chance of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed. For instance, if it is accepted that the above four stages are necessary, then it is unthinkable to speak of amendments in stage (a) if stage (d) is revealed. How can it be possible to aim at the amendment of the negative aspects of the constitution by arguing that this is necessary for the functioning of the State if stage (d) is revealed?

The above relate to targets, aims and tactics in the international field. And now on the internal front:

B. Internal Front.


1. The only danger which could be described as insurmountable is the possibility of external intervention, by force, not so much because of the material damage, nor because of the danger itself (which, in the last analysis, it is possible for us to deal with partly or totally by force), but mainlybecause of the possible political consequences. Intervention is threatened or implemented before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally debatable, if not justified. This fact has a lot of weight both internationally and in the United Nations.

From the history of many recent instances we have learnt that in not a single case of intervention, whether legally justified or not, has either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the invader without serious concessions detrimental to the victim. Even in the case of the Israeli attack against Suez, which was condemned by almost all nations, and on which Soviet intervention was threatened, Israel withdrew, but received as a concession the port of Eilat on the Red Sea. Naturally, more serious dangers exist for Cyprus.

If, on the other hand, we consider and justify our action under (a) above well, on the one hand, intervention is not justified and, on the other, it cannot be carried out before consultations between the guarantors Greece, Turkey and the UK. It is at this stage of consultations (before intervention) that we need international support. We shall have it if the proposed amendments by us appear reasonable and justifiable.

Hence, the first objective is to avoid intervention by the choice of the amendments we would request in the first stage.

Tactics: We shall attempt to justify unilateral action for constitutional amendments once the efforts for a common agreement are excluded. As this stage the provisions in (ii) and (in) are applicable in parallel.

2. It is obvious that in order to justify intervention, a more serious reason must exist and a more immediate danger than a simple constitutional amendment.

Such a reason could be an immediate declaration of Enosis before stages (a) - (c) or serious inter-communal violence which would be presented as massacres of the Turks.

Reason (a) has already been dealt with in the first part and, consequently, it remains only to consider the danger of inter-communal violence. Since we do not intend, without provocation, to attack or kill Turks, the possibility remains that the Turkish Cypriots, as soon as we proceed to the unilateral amendment of any article of the constitution,

will react instinctively, creating incidents and clashes or stage, under orders, killings, atrocities or bomb attacks on Turks, in order to create the impression that the Greeks have indeed attacked the Turks, in which caseintervention would be justified, for their protection.

Tactics. Our actions for constitutional amendments will be in the open and we will always appear ready for peaceful negotiations. Our actions will not be of a provocative or violent nature.

Should clashes occur, they will be dealt with in the initial stages legally by the legally established security forces, in accordance with a plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.

3. Before the right of unilateral amendments of the constitution is established, decisions and actions which require positive violent acts, such as, for example, the use of force to unify the separate municipalities, must be avoided. Such a decision compels the Government to intervene by force to bring about the unification of municipal properties, which will probably compel the Turks to react violently. On the contrary, it is easier for us, using legal methods, to amend, for instance, the provision of the 70 to 30 ratio in the public service, when it is the Turks who will have to take positive violent action, while for us this procedure will not amount to action, but to refusal to act (to implement).

The same applies to the issue of the separate majorities with regard to taxation legislation.

These measures have already been considered and a series of similar measures have been chosen for implementation. Once our right of unilateral amendments to the constitution is established de facto by such actions, then we shall be able to advance using our judgment and our strength more decidedly.

4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described above, without the Turks at tempting to create or to stage violent clashes. For this reason, the existence of our organisation is an imperative necessity because:

a) In the event of instinctive violent Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk effacing panic in the Greeks in the towns and thus losing substantial vital areas, while, on the other hand,an immediate show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to sporadic insignificant acts, and

b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible.

c) In either of the above cases, effective use of force in dealing with the Turks will facilitate to a great extent our subsequent actions for further amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will now that their reaction will be weak or seriously harmful for their community, and

d) In the event of the clashes becoming more general or general we must be ready to proceed with the actions described in (a) to (b), including the immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to wait nor room for diplomatic action.

5. At no stage should we neglect the need to enlighten, and to face the propaganda and the reactions of those who cannot or should not know our plans. It has been shown that our struggle must pass through four stages and that we must not reveal publicly and at improper times our plans and intentions. Complete secrecy is more than a national duty.

IT IS A VITAL NECESSITY FOR SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS.

This will not prevent the reactionaries and the irresponsible demagogues from indulging in an orgy of exploitation of patriotism and provocations. The plan provides them with fertile ground, because it gives them the opportunity to allege that the efforts of the leadership are confined to the objective of constitutional amendments and not to pure national objectives. Our task becomes more difficult because by necessity, and depending on the prevailing circumstances, even the constitutional amendments must be made in stages. However, all this must not draw us into irresponsible demagogy nor to bidding higher in the stakes of nationalism. Our acts will be our most truthful defenders. In any event, because the above task must make substantial progress and yield results long before the next elections, for obvious reasons, in the relatively short time in between we must show self-restraint and remain cool.

At the same time, however, we must not only maintain the present unity and discipline of the patriotic forces, but increase it. This can only be done by the necessary briefing of our members and through them of our people.

In the first instance, we must uncover what the reactionaries stand for. Some of them are opportunist and irresponsible, as their recent past has shown. They are negative and aimless reactionaries who fanatically oppose our leadership, but without at the same time offering a substantive and practical solution. We need a steady and strong government in order to promote our plans up to the last moment. These opponents are verbalists and sloganists, but unwilling to proceed to concrete acts or to suffer sacrifices. For example, even at the present stage they offer nothing more concrete than recourse to the United Nations, that is, words again without cost to themselves. They must, therefore, be isolated.

In parallel, we shall brief our members only ORALLY about our intentions. Our sub-headquarters must, in gatherings of our members, analyse and explain fully and continuously the above, until each one of our members understands fully and is in a position to brief others.

NO WRITTEN REPORT IS PERMITTED. THE LOSS OF ANY DOCUMENT ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO TREASON AGAINST THE NATION.

No act can damage our struggle as vitally and decisively as the revealing of the present document or its publication by our opponents. With the exception of word-of-mouth briefing, all our other actions, i.e., publications in the Press, resolutions, etc., must be very restrained and no mention of the above should be made. Similarly, in public speeches and gatherings, only responsible persons may make, under the personal responsibility of the Leader or Deputy Leaders, references in general terms to the plan. They must also have the authorisation of either the Leader or the Deputy Leader who must approve the text. ON NO ACCOUNT ARE REFERENCES IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION PERMITTED.

Tactics. Complete briefing of our people and of the public by word of mouth. Publicly we shall endeavour to appear as moderates. Projection of or reference to our plans in the Press or in writing is strictly prohibited. Officials and other responsible persons will continue to brief and to raise the morale and the desire for the struggle of our people, but such briefing excludes making our plans public knowledge by the Press or otherwise.

NOTES: This document will be destroyed by fire on the personal responsibility of the Leader and the Deputy Leader in the presence of all the members of the General Staff within 10 days from its receipt. Copies or part copies are prohibited: members of the staff of the Office of the Deputy Leader may have copies on the personal responsibility of the Leader, but may not remove them from the Office of the Deputy Leader.

The Leader AKRITAS

Quote:

Conflict Between the States of Cyprus, 1963-1974

The political and economic significance of the separation that began in 1964 with 20-25,000 Turkish Cypriots seeking refuge in enclaves is here elucidated by Dr. Zenon Stavrinides, who has been a journalist, an analyst of the conflict, and a professor of philosophy in Cyprus and Britain. A Greek Cypriot by birth and educated in philosophy England, Stavrinides wrote this short book, The Cyprus Conflict: National Identity and Statehood, in 1976, and it was virtually banned in the Greek part of the island because of its critical understanding of the crisis. It is particularly valuable because it pinpoints briefly and precisely the main points of the Cyprus problem as it appeared just after the Turkish intervention of 1974. This excerpt, moreover, concentrates on the emerging nationalist positions of the two sides in the critical period of the mid to late 1960s. It remains a uniquely valuable work of analysis.
Stavrinides is the founder of a inter-communal in London, the Association for Cypriot, Greek and Turkish Affairs. 

Quote:

The Turkish leaders, however, and their propaganda machine got a godsend in the form of the publication in the Greek pro-Grivas newspaper Patris (issue of 21st April 1966) of a top secret document which in their view showed the Greek Cypriot leadership in their true light. This was the famous Akritas Plan, drawn up by the Greek Cypriot leaders and Greek Army officers in 1963. According to Patris - whose professed intention was to expose the mishandling of the Greek 'national cause' by Makarios and his associates - the Archbishop set up a secret organization and appointed the Minister of the Interior Yeorgadjis as its head, under the nom de guerre of Chief Akritas. The document itself states at the beginning that 'as the final objective [of our organization] remains unchanged, what must be dwelt upon is the method to be employed towards attaining that objective'. In fact the content of the Akritas Plan consists of the exposition of a method by which enosis is to be pursued. The rationale behind the chosen method is presented in the following words:



It is obvious that today international public opinion is against any form of oppression, especially of minorities. The Turks have so far been able to convince world public opinion that the union of Cyprus with Greece will amount to their enslavement. Under these circumstances we stand a good chance of success in influencing international public opinion if we base our struggle not on enosis but on self-determination. But in order to be able to exercise the right of self-determination fully and without hindrance we must first get rid of the Agreements (i.e. the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance etc) and of those provisions of the Constitution which inhibit the free and unbridled expression of the will of the people and which carry dangers of external interference. For this reason our first target has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which is the first Agreement to be cited as not being recognized by the Greek Cypriots. When the Treaty of Guarantee is removed, no legal or moral force will remain to obstruct us in determining our future through a plebiscite.



The actual procedure to be followed is, briefly: First create the impression in the international field that the Cyprus problem has not been solved, and consequently the Zurich-London Agreements and Constitution will have to be reviewed. Then put forward proposals which seem reasonable and justified.



It is evident that for intervention [from Turkey] to be justified there must be more serious reason and more immediate danger than constitutional amendments... In case of a planned or unplanned attack by the Turks, whether this is staged or not, it is necessary to suppress this forcefully in the shortest possible time, since, if we manage to become the masters of the situation within a day or two, outside intervention would not be possible, probable or justifiable.


It should be noted that the Akritas Plan was never disclaimed by Makarios or the other Greek leaders. And although the Plan was abandoned after the first intercommunal fighting - when the Greeks failed to become masters of the situation 'within a day or two' - Makarios continued to proclaim that (to take for example the statement he made to the London ITN on 15th June 1966):

AThe demand for enosis is based on the democratic principle of self-determination... enosis is a right of the people.@

Earlier, in April 1965, he rejected the recommendation of the UN Mediator in Cyprus that the exercise of self-determination should be short of enosis. After all, the point of relegating the Turkish community to the status of a minority and invoking the full application of the principle of self-determination was none other than achieving ENOSIS

Full article here

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/zenon,%201963-74.htm

An interesting article from Le Monde

Quote:

Papadopoulos failed to mention the part played by the EU in the negotiations, as one might expect from an old-school Greek nationalist stuck in the past, by no means a committed European. That he feels this way is unsurprising: he is the only surviving active politician from the generation that launched guerrilla warfare against the British in the 1950s. The stated aim of the National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters (Eoka) was not independ ence for Cyprus, but enosis (union) with Greece. After independence in 1963, it started a bloody civil war for this purpose. Papadopoulos played a decisive part in the secret Akritas plan to obtain arms imports from the head of the Greek secret service, George Papadopoulos, who led the military putsch in Athens on 21 April 1967.

Full article here

http://mondediplo.com/2004/05/07cyprus

Here is some world coverage of the murders done in cyprus


http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/MACEY/macey.html


*WARNING Many disturbing photo's

Quote:

Papapetru's Confession: We Were Trained To Kill Turkish Cypriots
BY: Tarkan

Nicosia - Deputy Chairman of United Democrat (EDI) party and the former spokesman of Greek Cypriot Administration, Michailis Papapetru declared that the he was trained by some governmental and non-governmental organizations that gave military training before 1963 with the purpose of putting the Akritas Plan into force and massacring the Turkish Cypriots.
As it is written in the liberal Politis newspaper of South Cyprus "Governmental and non-governmental organizations - including me myself- have given military training to some trainees in order to put the Akritas plan into force and murder the Turkish Cypriots" said Papapetru in his confession and underlined that the burden and the responsibility of the inspections are on the Greek Cypriot Administration, speaking at a TV program together with the deputy of the Greens George Perdikis.

According to the newspaper, Perdikis said that the Greek Cypriot Government should have the responsibility of scrutinizing under what conditions the left-winged Greek Cypriots murdered and also the violence applied to Turkish Cypriots afterwards. The daily read:

"At this point Mihailis Papapetru said publicly that before 1963 governmental and non-governmental elements including Papapetru himself with the intention of putting the Akritas Plan into force and killing Turkish Cypriots, gave military training to his Community. Without appropriating Perdikis' language who offered the starring cast of the incident should hear a case,

Full article here

http://aegeantimes.net/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1110

Here is some of the world press publications who call the actions of EOKA a GENOCIDE.

Quote:

FOREIGN PRESS ON CYPRUS EXTRACTS



IN THE FORBIDDEN CITY


"We went to-night into the sealed-off Turkish quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we have seen si'ghts too frightful to be described in print as horrors so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears and reduced to an hysterical and mirthless giggle that is more terrible than tears.

  This much we can tell:


In the Kumsal quarter, at No 2 Irfan Bey Sokag, we made our way into a house whose floors were covered with broken glass. A child's bicycle lay in a corner.


In the bathroom, looking like a group of waxworks, ware three dead children piled on top of their murdered mother. In a room next to it, we glimpsed the body of a woman shot in the head.

  This, we were told, was the home of a Turkish Army Major whose family had been killed by the mob in the first violence. Today was five days later and still they lay there . . .

  (Extract from a report by Rene MacColl and Daniel McGeachie, Daily Express, 28 December, 1963).

WHY DOES PRESIDENT MAKARIOS PLAY WITH FIRE?


"What does Archbishop Makarios, President of the Republic of Cyprus want? He has said it himself: he wants to repeal the treaty of 1960 according to the terms of which Great Britain, Greece and Turkey guarantee the independence of Cyprus. The fact that a few hours later faced with the violent reaction of Mr Duncan Sandys, he mollified the expression of his thoughts by granting that a unilateral repeal was not in his mind, does not in any way change the essence of the problem. All is happening as if President Makarios had decided, in the words of the editorial of the London Times, to set fire to the powder barrel on which Cypriots are seated. . ."

  (Extract from a report by Robert de Geynst, Le Soir (of Brussels) 2 January, 1964)

GRAVES OF 12 SHOT TURKS FOUND IN CYPRUS VILLAGE

  "Silent crowds gathered to-night outside the Red Crescent hospital in the Turkish sector of Nicosia, as the bodies of nine Turks found crudely buried outside the village of Ayios Vassilios, 13 miles away, were brought to the hospital under an escort of the Parachute Regiment. Three more bodies, including one of a woman, were discovered nearby but they could not be moved.

  Turks guarded by paratroops are still trying to locate the bodies of 20 more believed to have been buried on the same site. All are believed to have been killed during fighting around the village at Christinas.

FAMILY OF SEVEN

  It is thought that a family of seven Turks who disappeared from the village may be buried there. Their house was found burnt, and grenades had been dropped through the roof. Shallow graves had apparently been hurriedly scooped by a bulldozer. The bodies appeared to have been piled in two or three deep. All had been shot.

  One man had his arms still tied behind his legs in a crouching position and had been shot through the head. A stomach injury indicated that a grenade may have been thrown into his lap. . ."

  (Extract from a report in Daily Telegraph 14 January 1964.)

THEY ARE TURK-HUNTING

  "Discussions start in London; in Cyprus, the terror continues. Right now we are witnessing the exodus of the Turks from their villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, lands, herds; Greek terrorism is relentless. This time, the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the busts of Plato do not suffice to cover up barbaric and ferocious behaviours. At four o'clock in the afternoon, curfew is imposed on the Turkish villages. Threats, shootings and attempts of arson start as soon as it becomes dark. After the massacre of Christmas that spared neither women, nor children, it is difficult to put up any resistance. British vehicles are shuttling back and forth between the villages and Turkish Cypriot "ghettos". In Nicosia, an office for the more than 5,000 refugees is operating. On the walls of its rooms hang images depicting Turkish renaissance: a woman draped in a flag, Kemal Atatu°©rk at the head of his victorious troops; and the families of peasants are arriving who require lodgings and food."

  (Extract from a report by Giorgio Bocca, Il Giorno, 14 January 1964.)

ALL THE PERFUMES OF CYPRUS SHALL NEVER CLEANSE THOSE HANDS

  "There are two kinds of assassin. The first, kills alone. His hands are red, therefore he is easily recognized. "Beast" they call him and he is led, somewhat rudely, to the guillotine or to forced labour. The second, remains aloof and watches people assassinate each other. He touches nothing, his hands are clean. Let one indignant witness speak of halting the carnage and white hands will look at him and say, severely, "Look after your own affairs". And he will put out his foot to trip him up. Only this second kind of assassination is worthy of consideration as a fine art.

  Monsignor Makarios is a great artist. Each time that I see him on TV or in a newspaper, I admire his fine hands made for benediction and for prayer, his handsome looks sheltered by tabernacle-like eyelids barely allow the penetration of suave insensibility. Monsignor Makarios belongs more to the "Heavens" than to the earth, that is clearly visible. That is why he permits the Greeks to carry on the butchery in Cyprus. NATO wants to stop the bloodshed? "Halt. I am against it. In the holy name of our independence". The United Nations, then. "I agree, but be patient. We have time". Is not one master in his own home? And it is after all, a few corpses gained.

  Mark you, Monsignor Makarios is Greek and Christian. The Greeks are fighting the Turks, 10 against one. In simple arithmetic, this must add up to nine corpses of infidels—men, women, children, it matters little—for one chosen of the good cause. Hence, the holy gaiety, at times irrepressible, of Monsignor. Last Saturday he was seen receiving journalists and laughing his head off during a whole minute. That day the corpses of the massacred Turks were piled up at the other edge of the Island.

  Journalists know well the customs. They saluted Monsignor Makarios according to orthodoxy as "Your Beatitude". His Beatitude, sanctimoniously, was beaming. Here is a man who attains Paradise in all sweetness. He will arrive with his hands pure. And yet all the perfumes of Cyprus. . . yes, yes, all the perfumes of Cyprus shall never clean those hands".

  (Extract (translation) from Le Canard Enchaine, Paris, 19 February 1964.)

ORGANIZED ATTACK ON TURKS

  "Day by day and as murder follows murder detached observers here find it harder and harder to credit the Government of Cyprus with any real determination to stamp out violence. If the President really wants peace on earth and to restore the rule of law he could start by investigating publicly the circumstances surrounding last Thursday's attack on the Turkish inhabitants of Limassol. The known facts are that on the Wednesday the British peace keeping forces were assured by the Greek authorities that no attack would be made on the Turkish community. Accordingly the British Army did not patrol the town. At 5.30 the following morning Greek Cypriot security forces launched what our special correspondent describes as "a heavy well organized attack against the Turkish quarter of Limassol." It was carried out by hundreds of steel helmeted men armed with automatic weapons and supported by one tank and two armoured bulldozers. If the Greek Cypriot authorities connived at this formidable attack their behaviour is inexcusable. If they were ignorant of its coming they must forfeit their claim to govern and control their own people, let alone the whole Cypriot community."

  (Extract from the Guardian London, 20 February 1964.)

PERIL TO PEACE

  ". . .The Greek Cypriots must recognise that self-determination is not an absolute right when it imperils peace and that the prohibition of Enosis has the same standing in international law as the prohibition of an Austrian anschluss to Germany."

  (Extract from The New York Times, 20 February 1964.)

MAKARIOS DELIBERATELY PROVOKING TROUBLE IN CYPRUS

  "There is little doubt in the Administration's own sympathy as well as that of Congress is with Turkey and that Mr George Ball, Under-Secretary of State, came away from his recent visit to Cyprus and Turkey convinced that President Makarios is deliberately provoking trouble in Cyprus and that the present crisis is not of Turkish making.

  ". . .cries of "We want Enosis" were shouted at a demonstration here this morning. The demonstration had been carefully organised by the directors of the schools who come under the jurisdiction of the Greek Communal Chamber.

  ". . .The Director of the Girls' Gymnasium, Athanasio Chiotelis, a well-known advocate of Enosis, took microphone and shouted "Long Live Cyprus, Makarios, Dighenis (Grivas) and Enosis". Makarios is expected to see Grivas in Athens soon. It would not be surprising if he acceded to the growing public demand for the return of the ex-Eoka Leader.

  ". . .It is now being freely admitted in Whitehall that the costly and risky British policing action has had two untoward results. It has given the Greek Cypriots time to build up their armed strength in order to achieve a solution of the Cyprus problem in their own interests, and it has heightened the danger posed to the Turkish minority."

  (Extract from the Guardian, London 12 March 1964.)

THE DRAMA OF CYPRUS

  . . .I have seen in a bathtub the bodies of a mother and of her three young ehilden murdered just because their father was a Turkish officer. . .

  Archbishop Makarios is too much of an ecclesiastic to express himself so brutally, but it is a fact that he never undertook to condemn openly the horrible excesses committed by his partisans, leaving a delirious press the task of pursuing a campaign against the Turks. . ..

  . . .The Turks at least are logical with themselves. They say, "Life under these conditions is impossible. We are 120,000 menaced, in the full sense of the word, by extermination. There is but one solution: the partition of the island in two, we in the north, the Greeks in the south." The Greeks are less frank. They deny the evidence. . ..

  . . .According to him (Archbishop Makarios) some changes in the Constitution would be enough. The trouble is that these "amendments" all tend to deprive the Turks of their rights and guarantees which had been accorded to them in 1960. The Turks replied: "This amounts to saying to a drowning man "Take off your life-saver and everything will be allright!. . ."

  (Extract from a report by Max Clos, Le Figaro (Paris), 25 to 26 January 1964.)

CYPRUS RISKS ALL

  "If the Turkish Army has not already landed reinforcements to its Treaty Force in Cyprus, that is simple proof of the patience of Turkey. Its right to do so cannot be denied. If international treaties mean anything, Turkey can protect the Turkish Cypriot minority from further massacre. It is racial discrimination in its most bestial form. Although there have been efforts to cloud the issue by suggesting that both Cypriot communities are to blame, by far the heaviest guilt is that of the Greek Cypriot force known as Eoka or Edma."

  (Extract from Daily Telegraph and Morning Post (London), 15 February 1964.)

HATRED IN CYPRUS, MAKARIOS ENIGMA

  "Archbishop Makarios, robed and bearded cleric who serves as President of Cyprus, has a Byzantine talent for equivocation. . .

  . . .his government deliberately provoked the clashes and is bent upon the extermination of Turkish population. . .."

  "Some sort of federal system of two separate communities seems inevitable as the minimum to reassure Turkish Cypriote who demand outright partition. . ."

  (Extract from a report by Robert H Estabrook, in the Washington Post, 16 February 1964.)

CYPRUS TRAGEDY

  ". . .Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide. . ."

  (Extract from a report in the Washington Post, 17 February 1964.)

The address of Archbishop Makarios

  The 15 July is an invasion. It is a clear attack from the outside and a flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus. The invasion is continuing as long as there are Greek officers in Cyprus.

  President of Cyprus Republic to the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974.

Father Papatsestos (priest of the Greek Orthodox Cemetery in Nicosia)

  It is a rather hard thing to say, it is true that the Turkish intervention saved us from a merciless internecine war.

  Athens daily Ta Nea on 28 February 1976.

Bu°©lent Ecevit (then Prime Minister of Turkey, 20 July 1974)

  In fact it was much more than a coup. It was the forceful and flagrant violation of the independence of the Cyprus Republic and of the international agreements on which this Republic was based.

  Turkey is a co-guarantor of the independence and constitutional order of Cyprus.

  Turkey is fulfilling her legal responsibility by taking this action. The Turkish Government did not resort to armed action before all the other means were tried, but to no avail.

  This is not an invasion, but an act against invasion.

  This is not aggression, but an act to end aggression.

  The operations of peace that started with the breaking of the day, this morning, will bring an end to the darkest period in the history of Cyprus.

  The UN SECURITY COUNCIL Resolution 353 of 20 July 1974.


Paragraph 5: Calls upon Greece Turkey and the UK to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional Government in Cyprus.

  The headline of The Economist Editorial 20 July 1974


"CYPRUS: A STATE BUT NOT A NATION"

  Die Zeit—30 August 1974


The massacre of Turks in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their second intervention.

  Andrew Borowiec

  Cyprus, A Troubed ISland, p 83


Nicos Sampson the man chosen by the Athens junta as president, had spoken briefly on the radio, pledging to lead Cyprus to "National Union and Hellenism"

  Andrew Borowiec

  Cyprus, A Troubed Island, p 84


In the four days that followed the coup, an estimated 2,000 people, known to be ardent supporters of Makarios were killed. Their names were later added to those killed during the subsequent Turkish invasion.

  Andrew Borowiec

  Cyprus, A Troubed ISland, p 85


The Greek side could have emerged from the Geneva talks (July-August 1974) as a partner in a Cypriot federation but at a price of autonomous Turkish cantons and an agreement to tolerate a large Turkish military presence on the island.

  Archbishop Makarios, in an interview with the Frankfurter Rundschau reported in the Cyprus Mail. (16 May 1974)


Enosis had always been for the Greek Cypriots a deeprooted national aspiration. To me independence is a compromise. In other words, if I had a free choice between Enosis and independence, I would support Enosis.

  Archbishop Makarios, in a letter to the President of Greece, Gen Phaedon Ghizikis. (2 July 1974)


The Cyprus state could be dissolved only in the event of Enosis.

  Nicos Sampson, reported in the Cyprus Mail. (17 July 1974)


I was about to proclaim Enosis when I quit

  Archbishop Makarios, in an interview given to the Norwegian newspaper Degbladet. (12 March 1977)


It is in the name of Enosis that Cyprus has been destroyed.

THE FALL OF MAKARIOS


. . . They say that they intend to maintain Cyprus as independent and non-aligned and to continue the intercommunal talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. But at the same time they talk about the "salvation of the Hellenism of Cyprus", they refer to the island as a "Hellenic republic", and they set first among their targets the "restoration of the spiritual unity of Greek Cyprus".


. . . The Turkish Government, and the Turkish community in Cyprus, can hardly be expected to ignore this development.


. . . As soon as any threat to the Turkish community develops, or as soon as any definite step towards Enosis is taken the Turks are bound to react.


. . . If concerted action proves impossible, any one of the guarantors has the right to intervene unilaterally.

  The Times, 16 July 1974

TURKEY PUTS ARMED FORCES ON ALERT


Ecevit said: "Let no one try to profit from the chaotic situation in Cyprus to infringe upon the rights of the Turks. We will never accept a fait accompli. We will let no one trample the rights of the Turks."

  The Times, 16 July 1974

THE GREEK RESPONSIBILITY


. . . There should be no doubt that this is an international problem and not an internal one. Under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 the three guarantor powers—Britain, Greece and Turkey—recognised and guaranteed the "independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the basic articles of the constitution".


. . . Each of them reserved the right if "common or concerted action" should not prove possible to "take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present treaty".


. . . The Greek government should be told that unless it withdraws the officers immediately it can not escape the charge of intervening in Cypriot affairs, and can not expect that other powers should refrain from exercising their rights under the treaty.

  The Times, 17 July 1974

FOR THE CYPRUS CRISES


. . . The Turks regard Monday's coup as a de facto enosis, as a breach by Greece of the Treaty of Guarantee, and hence as a threat both on the Turkish community in Cyprus and to Turkey's own strategic position. If "concerted action"" with Britain proves impossible, the Treaty gives Turkey the right to intervene.

  The Times, 19 July 1974

A PERILOUS BUT JUST ACTION


The Turkish invasion of Cyprus is a justified exercise of national power to defend an interest and fulfil a treaty obligation.


. . . The British made it clear that they would not engage in joint military action, or even verbally support it. Neither expressions of distaste for Sampson, nor diplomatic manoeuvring, were for Ankara a big enough commitment on the part of her two major NATO allies. As days went by, the lesson of history evidently impressed itself on the Turks: that the illegal Sampson regime would soon become, de facto legal.

  Editorial

  The Sunday Times, 21 July 1974

TOURIST'S GRIM ACCOUNT OF BURIALS IN MASS GRAVES


. . . After landing at RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire, Mr Derek Reed, aged 31, said he had seen bodies being buried in a mass grave near Paphos after last Monday's coup.


"People who were told by Makarios to lay down their guns were shot out of hand by the National Guard", he said "they were buried in mass graves".

  The Times, 22 July 1974

"Cyprus, Christmas day of 1963"


Prof Alexis Heraklides


Ta Nea (Athens), 10 January 2002


  Translation of an article by Prof. Alexis Heraklides (International Relations Faculty of Political Science), which appeared in the 10 January 2002 issue of the left-leaning and pro-government Greek newspaper Ta Nea:


During the second round of talks between Denktash and Clerides, the issue of missing persons was raised. According to the widespread view in Greece regarding the matter, only missing persons in Cyprus are Greek Cypriots and Turkey together with Greek Cypriots are the responsible parties.


But the situation is entirely different. Though lesser in number, there are Turkish Cypriot missing persons as well in Cyprus. They are the victims of EOKA-B and the troops of the Junta in Greece, both of whom have escaped punishment. Furthermore, some of the Greek Cypriot missing persons have been killed by their very compatriots. The other responsible party for the Greek Cypriot missing persons is the invading Turkish army and not the Turkish Cypriots or Denktash.


If an attempt is made to write a different version of history based on certain selected memories, inevitably leads to a picture which is detached from the realities of the past. This is being done deliberately to "clear" our side in the face of certain serious allegations. Let us have a brief look at the Cyprus issue starting from 30 years ago:


December 1963. Three years old bi-communal Republic of Cyprus no longer exists. The obvious reason for this was a step taken by Makarios, which is considered as a big mistake. The basic motive behind Makarios' proposal on 30 November 1963, consisting of 13 constitutional amendments, was to relegate the status of the numerically less Turkish Cypriots to minority status and to surrender their destiny to the mercy of the Greek Cypriots. Küçük, the Turkish Cypriot leader of the era, was so shocked that he made this remark: "Would Enosis be better under these circumstances!"


The developments, which took place later on, are tragic and known. There was a bloodbath in incidents that took place during the months of December 1963 and January 1964. This led to the division of the Island and the deployment a UN Peace Force. The Green Line, a creation of that time, is still present on the Island. There are two different main opinions in serious history books regarding the bloody incidents of December 1963 and January 1964:


(a)  The responsibility for the incidents rests with both parties;


(b)  Greek Cypriots essentially should be held responsible because they initiated the incidents.

  The first opinion is formulated by Greek and pro-Greek intellectuals. The second one, which is more realistic, was also adopted by the UN Secretary-General of the time.

Article here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we23.htm

COMPLETE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE AKRITAS PLAN

Quote:

Economic and Social Council
Substantive session of 1998
New York, 6-31 July 1998
Item 14 (g) of the provisional agenda [E/1998/100.]


SOCIAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS QUESTIONS: HUMAN RIGHTS
Letter dated 12 May 1998 from the Charge' d'affaires a.i. of the
Permanent Mission of Turkey to the United Nations
addressed to the Secretary-General


I have the honour to transmit herewith a letter dated 11 May 1998,
addressed to you by His Excellency Mr. Aytu©!= Plu"mer, Representative
of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

I should be grateful if the text of the present letter and its
annex were circulated as a document of the Economic and Social Council
under item 14 (g) of the provisional agenda.


(Signed) Tuluy TANC'
Ambassador
Charge' d'affaires a.i.


ANNEX

Letter dated 11 May 1998 from Mr. Aytu©!= Plu"mer
to the Secretary-General

Upon instructions from my Government, I have the honour to refer
to the written statement submitted by a "non-governmental
organization" bearing the name "Society for Threatened Peoples" at the
fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva on 31
March 1998 (E/CN.4/1998/NGO/103 of 31 March 1998). This written
statement reflects Greek Cypriot allegations aimed at misrepresenting
the nature of the Cyprus question. I have, therefore, deemed it
necessary to set the record straight by presenting the realities of
the issue.

At the root of the Cyprus question lies the systematic violation
of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriot people by the Greek
Cypriots, during the period of 21 December 1963 to 20 July 1974.

On 21 December 1963, the Greek Cypriots, acting on the basis of a
well prepared plan (the full text of the Akritas Plan has been
published as United Nations document A/33/115-S/12722 of 30 May 1978)
attacked the Turkish Cypriots all over the island. The Greek Cypriots
destroyed the bi-national partnership Republic of Cyprus created in
1960 under the London and Zurich Agreements, and, usurping the powers
of the State, tried to convert Cyprus, unconstitutionally, into a
Greek Cypriot State and to achieve union with Greece (Enosis). The
Turkish Cypriots, having been expelled by force of arms from all
organs of the State, were forced to live under a "veritable siege"
(see the report of the United Nations Secretary-General to the
Security Council contained in document S/5950 of 10 September 1964,
para. 222) and subjected to a war of attrition. This illegal state of
affairs continued until 20 July 1974, when the Turkish intervention,
undertaken in discharge of the obligation and right emanating from the
1960 Treaty of Guarantee, prevented the annexation of the island by
Greece and also put an end to the violation of the human rights of the
Turkish Cypriots that had been going on systematically for over eleven
years. The reports of the United Nations Secretary-General, of the
international press and of impartial observers during that period bear
clear testimony to a systematic campaign of "ethnic cleansing" carried
out by the Greek Cypriots, with the support of Greece, against the
Turkish Cypriot people.

The practical consequences of the events of 1963-1974 have been
the emergence of parallel administrative, judicial and legislative
organs for each of the two peoples. The institutional organization of
the Turkish Cypriot people developed through various stages and
culminated in 1983 in the proclamation of the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriot people have formed a democratic and secular
State, with a plural system based on free elections, social justice
and the rule of law, with its citizens enjoying all human rights and
liberties. In spite of this, however, due to the illegal and inhuman
embargoes perpetrated by the Greek Cypriot administration against the
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the international field, the
Turkish Cypriots are denied the full exercise of their basic rights.
Their right to freely travel abroad, to trade, to communicate, to
compete in sports or to take part in cultural activities, not to
mention their right to be represented at or be heard in all
international forums, are all being denied.

Against this background, the prospects for reaching a fair,
balanced and peaceful accommodation between the two sides in the
island have not improved over the years. Throughout the process of
negotiations, the Greek Cypriot side has demonstrated very clearly
that it lacks the necessary goodwill and commitment in pursuing a
peaceful settlement based on the existing realities on the island.

On the contrary, within the context of the so-called "Joint
Military Doctrine" with Greece, the Greek Cypriot side is continuing
to build up its arms and armed forces by spending in the order of 2
million dollars a day on sophisticated arms and equipment. The Greek
Cypriot side's purchase of the sophisticated S-300 missile system from
Russia, in contravention of successive United Nations Security Council
resolutions, and its construction of air and naval bases for use by
the Greek Armed Forces have raised tension on the island. The Greek
Cypriot administration is also forwarding its application for full
membership of the European Union, which is based on the illegal claim
that it can unilaterally determine the future of the entire island and
create international obligations on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot
people as well.

Perpetuating the fallacy of treating the illegal Greek Cypriot
regime as the legitimate government can only block the way to a
peaceful settlement between the two sides. The prospects for a
settlement can only be enhanced if it is acknowledged that there are
two separate sovereign peoples and States on the island. The
international community can help bring this about by according the two
sides equal treatment in all spheres.

I shall be grateful if the text of the present letter could be
circulated as a document of the Economic and Social Council under item
14 (g) of the provisional agenda.


(Signed) Aytu©!= PL‰MER
Representative
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

ARTICLE HERE BY THE Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Geneva, Switzerland

http://193.194.138.190/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.1998.49.En?Opendocument

JUST IN CASE SOME MEMBERS MISSED THIS PART

the full text of the Akritas Plan has been
published as United Nations document A/33/115-S/12722 of 30 May 1978)

EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE AKRITAS PLAN



By Loucas G. Charalambous

Sunday Mail
(17 April 2005, p.14)


The most important document there is about the Cyprus problem is the ‘Akritas’ Plan. It is incontrovertible testimony as to how the Cyprus problem was created in the form it has had for the last 42 years. Nobody should be allowed to talk about the Cyprus problem if he has not read the ‘Akritas’ plan.



Of course, most Greek Cypriots are completely in the dark about the history of their country’s troubles, something which constantly pushes them into making new mistakes. I would bet my life that among the hundreds of clueless and uneducated characters who appear in the media every day as journalists- supposedly to inform the public- you will not find 10 who would have read this document, which is the key to understanding the Cyprus problem. This bitter truth alone explains why we Greek Cypriots are rooted to a primitive level of politics.



In reality, the Cyprus problem was brought into being by this idiotic and nationally catastrophic plan. A plan, which, in Demetris Christofias’ phraseology, would have been describe as treasonous. It is glowing monument of political stupidity and irresponsibility. The very same man who had signed the Treaty of Establishment for this state and his ministers, as soon as this state came into being, began plotting its dissolution. And for this purpose they set up an illegal organization. Only in the minds of a Makarios, a Papadopoulos, a Yiorkadjis, a Kyprianou and a Lyssarides could such paranoid politics have found fertile ground.



The gist of this insane plan is included in the following few lines:



Stage 1: Create the impression among international public opinion, that the Cyprus issue had not been solved correctly and condemn of the Treaty of Guarantee, “the first target of our attack”.



Stage 2: Seek amendment of negative elements of the agreements by all means. “We can even justify unilateral action.”



Stage 3: “Following the above action, the Treaty of Guarantee (right of interventions) is rendered legally and substantively unenforceable.”



Stage 4: “With Cyprus freed (from the treaties of Alliance and Guarantee) the people would be enabled to express and implement their desire.”



Stage 5: “Lawful confrontation by the forces of the state (police and friendly military troops) of any intervention from within or from outside because then we would be completely independent.”



This plan was not put together by people who had escaped from a mental hospital, as some may think. Its writers made it obvious that they knew very well they were playing with fire. The only parts of the documents, which are written in block capitals, are those informing the recipients that leaking of it was tantamount to “high treason” and urging members of the organization of their obligation to “destroy by fire”, once it had been read. They were obviously concerned that the Turks might have got wind of it.



This was the great plan, with which Mr Papadopoulos – the deputy chief of Akritas – and his fellow-fighters destroyed the Cyprus Republic, which, as he discovered 40 years later, by his own admission, was a “blessed solution”, even better than joining the EU’. The achievement of Papadopoulos’ and his organizations national activities was truly impressive.



Within a few days, they had created the enclave between Nicosia and Kyrenia, in which they compressed a large number of the Turkish Cypriots. They laid the foundations of partition. Ten years later, the enclave was used by the Turkish invasion force as a bridgehead for it’s landing in Cyprus and, expanded by the troops, it evolved in the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’.



And now that readers know who had written, in Greek, the pro–Turkish Akritas plan, they should – to use Papadopoulos’ immortal words – “judge for themselves if this helped the Hellenism of Cyprus or our case…”