Today’s Zaman, January 19, 2008
This degrading retreat forced Gen. Georgio Grivas to abandon his dreams of taking the Erenköy beachhead from the Turkish Cypriots. The UN called for a cease-fire and it was agreed to by both parties.
The various statements made by Archbishop Makarios in 1964 clearly explain the cause of the conflict on the island and his dream of taking a seat in history as the “architect of enosis” (or union with mainland Greece). On March 25, 1964, in a statement to German daily Sudetendeutsche Zeitung, he said, “With regard to the solution of the Cyprus problem, the union of Cyprus with Greece is the wish of the Cypriot people and myself.”
On Aug. 21, 1964 he declared to the Mahi newspaper: “My ambition is to accomplish the union of Cyprus with Greece. … I will unite integrally with Greece and then the borders of Greece will extend to the shores of North Africa.”
On Sept. 20, 1964 he told The Washington Post: “I want something higher than being a temporary president of Cyprus. My ambition is to connect my name with history as the architect of enosis.”
The basics of the “Megali Idea,” or Great Idea, can easily be seen in his statements. It was only three years before that he had sworn officially and publicly to keep and cherish “the independence of Cyprus.” But his real dream was to bury the Republic of Cyprus and realize Greece’s dream of enosis.
Had the 1960 independence been believed in by the Greek Cypriots and accepted as an end in itself, there would be no Cyprus problem today.
Speaking at the Paralimni Church on Sept. 3, 1964, Makarios said: “What is our desire? We have proclaimed it many times: Our union with the motherland, eternal Greece. What will our reply be if such a solution is made difficult and if some think compromises are required or that something should be given in return? ‘No,’ is the reply, and the struggle will continue until full justification.”
This is the main reason the Cyprus problem has still not been settled today, in the year 2008. Nothing will change until Greek Cypriot leaders and leading politicians change their minds and abandon the holy oath of Makarios given to the Orthodox Church of Cyprus in the year 1950.
The attacks in the year 1963 and 1964 were a combined effort of secret Greek Cypriot armies, the Greek Cypriot police and mainland Greek officers. Greece always took the side of Makarios, politically and militarily.
The onslaught on the Turkish Community was, according to Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreu, “no onslaught at all.” The Greek side maintained, “It is not a cause for action under the Treaty of Guarantee for the Preservation of Independence.”
Each time Turkey moved to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus, Greek representatives joined with the Greek Cypriot leadership in protesting against “outside interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus.”
According to Greece, the elimination of Turks from Cyprus (under the false claim that the Turks had rebelled) was an internal affair for Makarios, and Turkey had no right, moral or otherwise, to come to the aid of the Turkish Cypriots. But Greece itself was already in Cyprus — at the invitation of Makarios — with 15,000 Greek troops.
And at a luncheon party in honor of the visiting Greek defense minister on Oct. 27, 1964, Archbishop Makarios was quoted in the local press as follows: “Greece has become Cyprus and Cyprus is Greece. I firmly believe that the Pan-Hellenic struggle for the union of Cyprus with fatherland Greece will shortly be crowned with success, and its success will serve as the beginning of a new era of Greek grandeur and glory.”
Turkey, fully aware of the complicity of the Greek Government in this diabolical plan to unite Cyprus with Greece, raised its voice in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish officials stated: “If union with Greece was the aim, then the Turkish Cypriots should be left out of it. … Turkish Cypriots, who owned 30 percent of the registered land and were one-fifth of the population of Cyprus, did not want to be colonized by Greece. They must cede to Turkey.” The clear answer and reaction to enosis was a double-enosis.
This Turkish answer to enosis, which Greece was actively pursuing in Cyprus, was to be used over and over again both by Greece and Greek Cypriot leaders “as proof of the partitionist aims of Turkey”! And Makarios was to clearly come out with his objection to giving any rights to the Turks in Cyprus in November 1964.
On Nov. 21, 1964, Archbishop Makarios said to the Phileleftheros newspaper: “I am for enosis and shall always stand for it. But it must be genuine enosis without curbs or strings.” Any right recognized for the Turks in Cyprus in return for agreeing to enosis would detract from the genuineness of enosis. On Nov. 24, 1964, he made his point even more clear. “I emphasized that the union of Cyprus with Greece must be a union of the whole island, including all areas.”