Starting from 1821
when Greece waged a war of independence against the Ottoman Empire, Orthodox
Christians found themselves being influenced by mainland Greek nationalism.
Four hundred and eighty six Greek Cypriots including Archbishop Kyprianos,
heading the Cyprus Greek Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Christian community,
were found guilty together with the mainland Greek rebels and were executed by
the then Ottoman Governor of Cyprus Kuchuk Mehmet.
The supremacy of Bishops in Cyprus ended with the 1821 tragedy.[1] The negative implications of this bloody event have lingered on to Cyprus’ recent history.[2] C.Spyridakis wrote: “The horrible scenes of that destruction are vividly preserved in people’s minds, who refer to them as “the days of persecution... Many years passed before the island could recover from this blow...” [3]
British
Vice-Consul Horace White wrote the following about Cypriots in his annual
report for 1892: “Christians, though less false than Greeks are generally
reputed to be, are also less active and enterprising, yet do have a reputation
in the Levant for being cunning and keen in business which is perhaps not
altogether undeserved. Musulmans have little of the fanatical spirit and
bigotry which characterizes the Arab Musulman, they live in harmony with their
Christian neighbours in town and country but in Nicosia where they form the
majority of the population they are more inclined to assert their superiority.”
[4]
Turkish
nationalism developed during the Turkish national struggle for liberation from
the occupation of the Ottoman Empire by the imperial powers. Though it
developed almost a century after Greek nationalism, it started to be
influential among the Moslem Turkish population in Cyprus mainly after the
military defeat of the Greek occupation of Western Anatolia. The dissemination
of Turkish nationalism in Cyprus was either through the Turkish Cypriot press
that followed the example of the mainland Turkish press or through the
activities of the Turkish Consulate on the island, opened after the foundation
of the Turkish Republic.
THE COLONIAL
ADMINISTRATION EXPLOITED ANTAGONISTIC NATIONALISMS
The nationalism
of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots did not originate from local historical
circumstances, but was imported in the island in one way or another. This
nationalism was encouraged by British Colonial Administration and they tried to
disseminate it among the unaware masses of people in accordance to their
traditional policy of “divide and rule”. Right from the start, British kept
educational systems apart. As the Greek Orthodox community was educated by
teachers who had mainly graduated in Greece, the educational system was under
the control of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Moslem Cypriots had the
headmaster of the only lyceum in Nicosia sent from Istanbul after the request
of the Cyprus Government.
British
colonialists were embarrassed by the intense political activities of the Greek
Cypriot notables for the union of the island with Greece, the Greek Orthodox
Church of Cyprus, being the leader. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot
national movement was developing since 1925 as a protest to Munir Bey, head of
Evkaf, the pious foundation. He had the financial power and was regarded by the
British as the leader of the Moslem community. Necati Bey was the rising leader
of the Turkish Cypriot nationalists and the opposition to Munir Bey’s
pro-British policies. When Munir Bey could not become elected to the
Legislative Council in 1930, the traditional balance of forces at the Council
was disturbed. The British Governor Ronald Storrs defines Munir Bey in his
memoirs as “the indispensable and permanent Ataturk of Cyprus.” [5]
Storrs was embarrassed by Necati Bey’s political and social activities that
defeated Munir Bey and criticized his pro-British policy on communal matters.
Asaf Bey, the Turkish Consul in Cyprus encouraged Necati Bey and had good
relations with Munir’s adversaries. Storrs writes the following:
“Unfortunately
the Turkish Consul, Asaf Bey, a strong nationalist and Kemalist, had succeeded
in creating a small, but active element of opposition to the loyal Turkish
majority. I discovered his intrigues and reported them to the Government who
procured his recall, but not before he had so influenced the Turkish electorate
that the Greeks were able to secure the election of a Turk, who could no longer
be counted upon to support the Government. Though a man of straw, he
nevertheless possessed in effort the casting vote of the Legislative Council.
This completely upset the balance of power. The Greek Orthodox members were
quick to perceive their advantage and to follow it up. The Government was thus
placed in a position of absolute dependence upon an obstructive, unreasonable
and determinedly hostile majority, counting upon and assisted by the dead
weight of Enosist opposition and detraction continuously (and as a rule not
illegally) applied by the schools, press, pupil and platform.
When the vote
for the revised Tariff was taken, there was a solid phalanx of “enistame”s” and the little Turk -“The
Thirteenth Greek” in whose hands the liberalism of the eighties had placed the
casting vote of the Colony, voted with the traditional enemies of his race. The
bill was thrown out and once again the Governor was compelled in order to carry
on the Government to invoke most reluctantly the assistance of an Order of
Council.” [6]
The British
would find the remedy at last by abrogating the Legislative Council later in
1931.
During the
oppressive period of the new British colonial governor Mr.Palmer, the Greek and
Turkish nationalisms were put under pressure for a while. On the other hand the
movement of the working people was getting strong after 1942 and both
nationalisms were seen as a remedy to oppression of the working people by the
British. Nationalism would seem less harmful than a common front of the Turkish
Cypriot and Greek Cypriot workers against British Administration.
In the 1930’s
the nightmare of the British colonialists was that the concept of Cypriotism
would be in the foreground and leave Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot
nationalisms behind. Palmer, the British Governor, was the opinion that after
the idea of “Enosis” was forgotten, “Cypriot nationalism” would replace it.
According to Mr.Palmer, the only way to stop or postpone this development was
to establish a new administrational structure which would provoke
inter-regional difference of identity. The Governor reported this to London as
follows: “In order to have ease in the future on the island, we have to
continue the administration on the basis of exceptis excipiendis (opening the
way to exceptions), on the basis of districts. Thus the concept of Cypriot
nationalism -which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an
eroded value- should be pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark.
Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s
“nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.” [7]
On the other
hand the foundations for Cypriot nationalism could be laid by the cooperation
and common work of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in the Legislative
Council. There were other incidents outside the Legislative Council which
embarrassed the administrators.
At first instant
the following events could be remembered: The harmonious and supportive
publications of the Greek Cypriot newspaper “Eleftheria” and the Turkish
Cypriot newspaper “Soz”.[8]
The togetherness of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots during the
election campaigns of George Hadjipavlou and Necati Bey in 1930.[9]
The support and reproduction of articles by the Greek Cypriot newspapers like
“Phoni tis Kyprou” and “Alithia”. These articles were defending the friendship
between the two communities in Cyprus and between Greece and Turkey, written
and published in the “Masum Millet” newspaper by Mehmet Rifat Efendi, (an
advocate who was an opponent of Munir Bey, the Turkish Evkaf delegate, and a
loyal supporter of the British colonial administration.) [10]
We observe the
joint struggle of Greek and Turkish Cypriots for common political aims even
during the oppressive period which started with Governor Palmer. For example
the “Ses” newspaper in 1937 under the title “Political Association” gave us the
following information from the “Eleftheria” newspaper:
“After the abrogation
of the Decree of defense, the first movement seen in the political life of
Cyprus, is the initiative taken for the formation of a joint political
association by the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots.
As we heard,
some thinkers amongst the Greek Cypriot community led the formation of this
association and after settling some issues, started the activities.
1. Greek
Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots with a secondary education may become members by
paying a small annual contribution.
2. These members
will elect an Administrative Council consisting of 5 Turkish Cypriots and 7
Greek Cypriots.
3. The meetings
of the Association will be held in one of the existing social clubs.
4. The
association will deal with all the administrative and political affairs related
to Cyprus.
That is all the
information we received for the moment.” [11]
The newspaper
went on to state that “it was reported before that an association was
established in London for the autonomy of Cyprus and the summary of the
programme of the association was published” and it was not known if the two
associations had any connection or if the autonomy would be included in the
programme.
One week later,
the “Ses” newspaper gave the following information about the “Political
Association” mentioned in the previous number and published the names of the
Turkish Cypriots besides the Greek Cypriot members:
“As published in
the Eleftheria newspaper, the well-known Nicosia advocate Mr.Clerides [12]
became the leader of the Political Association which we reported in our
previous number. This association will have branches in every town besides
Nicosia. We understood after reading the “Eleftheria” publication that the
information we gave about its aims and members was true. Greek Cypriot
newspapers published in recent days information about the activities of this
association in Larnaca and Limassol. The members of the branch opened in
Larnaca are: Ex-mayor Demetriou, ex-member of the Consultative Assembly
Vassiliades, ex-member of the Legislative Council M.Hami, member of the Town
Council advocate Mr.Celal Shefik, tradesman Michaelides, Zenios, Hoholiades,
Pandelis, journalist Evriviades, Advocate Photiades and Achilleos.
The members of
the Association’s branch in Limassol are ex-members of the Consultative Council
Pavlides, advocate Zenon, member of the Town Council dentist Mr.Nazif,
Malikides, Mr.Yangos and Mr.Costas. We could not get sufficient information
about Nicosia and other towns.[13]
The newspaper
reported in another news-item that three leading members of this association to
London to meet officials.
As it is
understood from the article under the title “Is the political and cultural
unity of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots going to start instead of a
Turkish-British cooperation?” published in “Ses” one week later, the
participation of Mr.Mustafa Hami, one of the ex-Turkish Cypriot members of the
Legislative Council which was closed, was being criticized and the following
was written:
“Until recently,
the Turkish Cypriot community has opposed every Greek Cypriot political
initiative and supported the local government. And this policy of support for
the government has been traditionally followed by every Turkish Cypriot party
in the last 60 years without any exception.
However, with
the last movement, a deviation was observed from the traditional policy as
such: There were articles in the Turkish Cypriot press in favour of the
movement as well as some important Turkish Cypriot personalities participating
in this movement in some important centres of the island. Among those
personalities there were very dear and important persons like Mr.Mustafa Hami,
ex-member of the Legislative Council and this is enough to attract our
attention.
Mr.Mustafa Hami
was a member of the Legislative Assembly for 15 years without any interruption.
He was successful with a great majority in all elections where he participated.
He never lost in the elections. He is well known for his good character,
seriousness and patriotism. During his 15 years of membership in the
Legislative Council, he always followed the traditional Turkish policy and he
has always been among those who saw the advantages of the cooperation between
the Turkish Cypriot community and the local government against the national and
political aspirations of the Greek Cypriot community.
Now we see that
such a person joined this political association together with Greek Cypriots
and even became a member of its Administrative Council in the Larnaca branch.
This means that
the Turkish Cypriots’ programme started to change substantively. The reason for
this change was written down by Dr.Shevki and us. In one of our articles two
months ago we advised that local government should be embarrassed by this
change of Turkish policy and it should investigate and identify the reasons for
it.
We do not expect
the government to carry out such an investigation. However it has not
identified any reasons for it up to now, but started placing restrictions on
the Turks’ racial identity and new movements emerged which displeased us
further. We have to say openly.
Although Turkish
Cypriots have been loyal to the British during the last 60 years, they are
under more pressure than Greek Cypriots who were the instigators of the events
in 1931 and this situation makes us very sad. Turkish Cypriots, who are in a
crisis under this scuffle of sorrow and pessimism, approach out of necessity
the policy of Greek Cypriots with the hope of defending their identity and
rights. As a result our policy and Greek Cypriot policy become common. On the
other hand as our “Soz” newspaper comments and elaborates very well, pressures
on Turkish education together with limitation in our schools drag our children
to Greek Cypriot schools. This causes a rapprochement of Turkish and Greek
cultures.
If this
situation continues, the government will soon see the unity of policy and
culture of Turkish and Greek Cypriots rather than the traditional cooperation
between the Turks and the British in Cyprus. Today’s policy is the shortest way
for appreciation of this aim by the government. Otherwise Turkish Cypriots’
complaints should be heard and satisfied. It is certain that central government
will think likewise.”
This main
article which was published in the “Ses” newspaper, one of the Turkish Cypriot
press organs defending Turkish nationalism and Kemalism, gives us a good idea
of the dominant Turkish Cypriot way of thinking. These views were closely
followed both by the British colonial administration and Greek Cypriot
intellectuals. Thus we observe that the main article of the “Ses” newspaper,
which we quoted above, was reproduced immediately and an evaluation of its
contents was made. The “Ses” newspaper of 2nd July 1937, No.100, thanks for the
reproduction and reports the following:
“Our English
language Embros brother, published in Nicosia, published the translation of the
article which was published in the “Ses” on the 25th June under the title “Is a
political and cultural unity of Greek and Turkish Cypriots going to start?.
Embros put its own remarks under it that attention should be paid to Turkish
Cypriots who have been loyal to the government for the last 60 years and who
are in a state of hesitation and reached a turning point. A point, where it was
recommended that the government should respond to Turkish Cypriots’
complaints.” [14]
The Embros
(Forwards) newspaper was published daily in English from the 2nd January 1937
to the 3rd November 1937 in Nicosia by the Englishman George B.Pusey and it was
the first English language newspaper widely read by Cypriots in the history of
the island. It gave a weekly supplement where articles by prominent Cypriots,
Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Maronites and Latins, were published. They
contributed to the atmosphere of complete harmony and welfare in Cyprus which
kept them together.[15] It is a pity that today’s political leadership
tries to make us forget this kind of cooperation and those dear personalities
and discourages the formation of a historical awareness on the right
foundations.
We have to point
out that during World War II, right after these developments, Greek Cypriots
and Turkish Cypriots fought and served together on the side of the British on
various fronts and organized themselves in the same trade unions against
difficult economic conditions.
In 1955, British
colonialists were without any remedy against EOKA’s gunned terrorist activities
which aimed at the abolition of the British administration and the union of
Cyprus with Greece (Enosis). This time they started using the Turkish Cypriot
police and commandos against EOKA. The collaborationist Turkish Cypriot
leadership adopted the British plans which aimed at the partition of the island
(Taksim) as a political solution against Enosis. This was enough to cause a
conflict among the Cypriots.
The Turkish
Cypriot leadership was aiming at the partition of the island and the annexation
of the part given to Turkish Cypriots with Turkey. It forced the Turkish
Cypriot trade unions using pressure by the underground organization TMT on one
hand, thus destroying the foundations of the common economical and political
struggle on the other. At this point it has to be emphasized that the policy of
the Progressive Party of the Working people of Cyprus (A.K.E.L.), which
supported the union of the island with Greece (Enosis) under the leadership of
the Church, was the biggest obstacle for political cooperation.[16]
At the end of
the day neither the Greek Cypriots’ aim for Enosis, nor the Turkish Cypriots’
aim for Taksim materialized, but a limited independence was given to the
partnership republic of Cyprus which was established in 1960. The unity of
action and aim of Cypriots could not be developed under this common shared aim
and this would cause new bitterness.
The silencing in
1962 of the two advocates of the “Cumhuriyet” weekly newspaper which gave a struggle in this direction, Ahmet Muzaffer
Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet and the hunting of Turkish Cypriot trade unionists in
1958 were realized with the hand of the underground organization and these
murders were the most important ones in this period.[17]
As imperialist
foreign powers and their tools on the island were against the independent
development of the Republic of Cyprus which followed an independent non-aligned
foreign policy, they were continuously inciting nationalistic and
anti-communist feelings of the island’s population. We observe again in this
period that a Cypriot awareness could not be developed to a sufficient degree.
The guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Cyprus were members of NATO, i.e. Britain, Greece and Turkey and they did not
want to see a Cypriot state free of their influences for reasons known to them.
That is why they still do whatever they can to prevent the internal political
and cultural structure from developing independently.[18]
We observe that
the separatist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since 1958 was one of
the reasons r-that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots did not have a common
political aim during the intercommunal negotiations that began after 1968.
“The Cyprus
crisis can certainly not be resolved through negotiations with Greece.
Therefore, Turkey has to stop once and for all dealing with Greece and look for
a new addressee in order to resolve the crisis. It is obvious that there is
such an addressee and this person in none other than Archbishop Makarios. Since
Makarios fully controls the Cypriot state and he was the absolute sovereignty
in Cyprus, there is no other way than to accept him as the addressee. Makarios
should be accepted as the addressee and all the words should be directed to
him.
Makarios is the
person who became President after the implementation of the agreements and the
constitution. According to this he has to officially recognize the agreements
and constitution which gave birth to the state of Cyprus. If he does not recognize
them, they have to be enforced upon him as envisaged in the agreements. It has
to be submitted that the loss of the time, money, lives and property were all
because of not accepting Makarios as an addressee. From now on this tactic has
to be changed and the validity of the agreements should be enforced on Makarios
within their legal provisions. It must also be accepted that there is no other
way out within the realistic framework...
Therefore, the
only way is to accept Makarios as addressee. And if the Turkish policy does not
change its direction to this reality nothing will be secured anywhere for the
Turkish Cypriots and these people will melt down here in rain and for nothing.
This has to be acknowledged... Even now all the wrong accounts have to be
found. We repeat again that there is an addressee and this is none other than
Makarios.”
The fascist
Greek coup d’Etat of 15th July which envisaged the overthrow of the Makarios
government and the military Turkish occupation which followed on 20th July
aiming to partition the island did not bring and just and lasting solution to
the 39 year old Cyprus conflict. Turkish Cypriots were the victims and they
were gathered together in the 37% of the island where they turned into a mere
minority on their own land after the transfer of population from mainland
Turkey, thus “melting down here in vain and for nothing.” The Cypriot awareness
of the Turkish Cypriots is being destroyed according to a plan. The men of
politics and culture who stand against this are put under intensive pressure
and threats. The economic, cultural and political integration with Turkey has
taken such an irreversible dimension. The decomposition of our human material
in the historical process has aggravated the situation.[20]
THE ONLY WAY OUT
OF THE CRISIS
There is only
one way out of this crisis. The Turkish Cypriot leadership has to abandon once
and for all its 45-year-old separatist policy which served the interests of
imperialism and accept Greek Cypriot leadership as its addressee, in order to
return to its rightful place in the state of the Republic of Cyprus which will
change its structure into a federal, independent, sovereign and territorially
integral new republic.
In the past
years, the prerequisites of such an agreement and its documents were already finalized
and wait for the signature. The guaranty of the solution to be found will be
secured by the demilitarization of the island.
The political
and cultural unity of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, which will be built
on this agreement, will open the way to people’s friendship and social progress
on this new ground. However, it should not be forgotten that the determining
factor in the solution of the nationalities problem between the two main
ethnic-national communities in Cyprus is not the national differences between
the two communities, but the class struggle on the island and at the
international level. Therefore, the problem known as the Cyprus problem is not
a problem of which community will govern which one, as nationalists suggest,
but a problem of which class will have the power in its hand. Its solution requires
the creation of suitable conditions both inside and outside the country. For
this, first of all, the patriotic awareness which we call awareness of
Cypriotism should be engraved in people’s minds together with class awareness
at this phase of the anti-imperialist struggle.
References:
1.
Newman, Philip, A Short History of Cyprus, London
1953, p.189
2.
An, Ahmet, Rebellions and Struggle for
Representation in Cyprus (1571-1948), Nicosia 1996, pp.40-44 (in Turkish)
3.
Spyridakis, C., A Brief History of Cyprus, Chicago,
1964, pp.61-62
4.
Luke, Sir Harry, Cyprus under the Turks 1571-1878,
London 1968, p.210
5.
Storrs, Ronald, Orientations, London 1943,
pp.492-493
6.
ibid, pp.501-502
7.
CO 67/271/1, From Palmer to Ormsby-Gore, 23 October
1936 (Secret), quoted by Sukru S.Gurel, History of Cyprus (1878-1960),
Colonialism, Nationalism and International Politics, Vol.1, Istanbul 1984,
p.155 (in Turkish)
8.
Eleftheria (4 February 1931) criticized the
government for attacking the autonomy of the Turkish Cypriot education and
appreciated the Turkish Cypriots who fought against the oppressive measures
which could be used also for the Greek Cypriots. Soz newspaper thanked this
supportive policy of Eleftheria and wrote that they would never forget the help
shown to them during the critical hours: “Our both communities are under
similar threats and we ask for closer cooperation between the Turkish Cypriots
and the Greek Cypriots.” This call was welcomed by Eleftheria (25 February
1931) and it stressed the direct rule policy of the British which exploited the
differences between the two communities. The Greek Cypriots and Turkish
Cypriots could unite together against the intrigues of the foreign regime,
instead of looking for help from outside. (G.S.Georghallides, Cyprus and the
Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs, Nicosia 1985, p.474)
9.
During the election campaign of 1930, Hadjipavlou
met Necati Bey and made a speech supporting him and Necati Bey in return spoke
to the Greek Cypriot electors that they should give their votes for
Hadjipavlou. Necati Bey promised to cooperate in the Legislative Council with
Hadjipavlou on local matters. (G.S.Georghallides, ibid, pp.474-475)
10. See Masum Millet,
11 April 1931, No.1, “Our Aims” (Editorial by C.M.Rifat), which was supported
by Phoni tis Kipru (18 April 1931) and Alithia (1 May 1931).
11. Ses, 11 June
1937, No.97
12. Father of Glafkos
Clerides, Greek Cypriot politician and ex-President of the Republic of Cyprus
13. Ses, 18 June
1937, No.98
14. Ses, 25 June
1937, No.99
15. G.S.Geoghallides,
Introductory Note to “Servitude Preferred” by G.B.Pusey, Epeteris XI,
1981-1982, Nicosia 1982, p.292. Also see Hasmet M.Gurkan, Turkish Cypriot
Writers of the Embros Magazine, Soz, 9-13 April 1984 and Dr.Ahmet Djavit An,
Inter-Cypriot Cultural Contacts, Phileleftheros, 14 October 1992.
16. An, Ahmet, Stormy
Years in Cyprus (1942-1962), Nicosia 1992 (in Turkish)
17. For a detailed
information about the struggle of Cypriot intellectuals for Cypriotism, see
Ahmet An, The Development of Cypriot Awareness, Nicosia 1998 (in Turkish)
18. ibid, pp.73-84
19. 15 December 1967,
a paper closely associated with Dr.Fazil Kuchuk, Vice-President of the Republic
of Cyprus and one of the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community. The Turkish
Cypriot leadership withdrew from state apparatus after the intercommunal
clashes of December 1963 and followed a policy of partition by forming enclaves
across the island where the Turkish Cypriots lived under the military control
of the TMT. The Makarios government persued the Enosis policy until 1968,
giving the Turkish Cypriots a minority status.
20. An, Ahmet, The
Impass of the Traditional Turkish Cypriot Intellectuals, Alternatif Yazin,
No.8-9/1994, also in A.An, Articles on the Turkish Cypriot Culture, Nicosia
1999, p.236
(This paper was read at a Conference on
“Britain and Cyprus: Colonialism and its Impact” organized by the Intercollege
in Nicosia, on 29 November 2002)
[1] Newman, Philip, A Short History of Cyprus, London 1953, p.189
[2] An, Ahmet, Rebellions and Struggle for Representation in Cyprus
(1571-1948), Nicosia 1996, pp.40-44 (in Turkish)
[3] Spyridakis, C., A Brief History of Cyprus, Chicago, 1964, pp.61-62
[4] Luke, Sir Harry, Cyprus under the Turks 1571-1878, London 1968,
p.210
[5] Storrs, Ronald, Orientations, London 1943, pp.492-493
[6] ibid, pp.501-502
[7] CO 67/271/1, From Palmer to Ormsby-Gore, 23 October 1936 (Secret),
quoted by Sukru S.Gurel, History of Cyprus (1878-1960), Colonialism,
Nationalism and International Politics, Vol.1, Istanbul 1984, p.155 (in
Turkish)
[8] Eleftheria (4 February 1931) criticized the government for attacking
the autonomy of the Turkish Cypriot education and appreciated the Turkish
Cypriots who fought against the oppressive measures which could be used also
for the Greek Cypriots. Soz newspaper thanked this supportive policy of
Eleftheria and wrote that they would never forget the help shown to them during
the critical hours: “Our both communities are under similar threats and we ask
for closer cooperation between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots.”
This call was welcomed by Eleftheria (25 February 1931) and it stressed the
direct rule policy of the British which exploited the differences between the
two communities. The Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots could unite together
against the intrigues of the foreign regime, instead of looking for help from
outside. (G.S.Georghallides, Cyprus and the Governorship of Sir Ronald Storrs,
Nicosia 1985, p.474)
[9] During the election campaign of 1930, Hadjipavlou met Necati Bey
and made a speech supporting him and Necati Bey in return spoke to the Greek
Cypriot electors that they should give their votes for Hadjipavlou. Necati Bey
promised to cooperate in the Legislative Council with Hadjipavlou on local
matters. (G.S.Georghallides, ibid, pp.474-475)
[10] See Masum Millet, 11 April 1931, No.1, “Our Aims” (Editorial by
C.M.Rifat) which was supported by Phoni tis Kipru (18 April 1931) and Alithia
(1 May 1931).
[11] Ses, 11 June 1937, No.97
[12] Father of Glafkos Clerides, Greek Cypriot politician and
ex-President of the Republic of Cyprus
[13] Ses, 18 June 1937, No.98
[14] Ses, 25 June 1937, No.99
[15] G.S.Geoghallides, Introductory Note to “Servitude Preferred” by
G.B.Pusey, Epeteris XI, 1981-1982, Nicosia 1982, p.292. Also see Hasmet
M.Gurkan, Turkish Cypriot Writers of the Embros Magazine, Soz, 9-13 April 1984
and Dr.Ahmet Djavit An, Inter-Cypriot Cultural Contacts, Phileleftheros, 14
October 1992.
[16] An, Ahmet, Stormy Years in Cyprus (1942-1962), Nicosia 1992 (in
Turkish)
[17] For a detailed information about the struggle of Cypriot
intellectuals for Cypriotism, see Ahmet An, The Development of Cypriot
Awareness, Nicosia 1998 (in Turkish)
[18] ibid, pp.73-84
[19] 15 December 1967, a paper closely associated with Dr.Fazil Kuchuk,
Vice-President of the Republic of Cyprus and one of the leaders of the Turkish
Cypriot community. The Turkish Cypriot leadership withdrew from state apparatus
after the intercommunal clashes of December 1963 and followed a policy of
partition by forming enclaves across the island where the Turkish Cypriots
lived under the military control of the TMT. The Makarios government pursued
the Enosis policy until 1968, giving the Turkish Cypriots a minority status.
[20] An, Ahmet, The Impasse of the Traditional Turkish Cypriot
Intellectuals, Alternatif Yazin, No.8-9/1994, also in A.An, Articles on the
Turkish Cypriot Culture, Nicosia 1999, p.236
No comments:
Post a Comment