TWO CYPRIOTS AS THE PRIME MINISTER OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

MEHMET EMIN PASHA (1813-1871)

          Mehmet Emin Pasha, was a Turkish Cypriot, who was three times Grand Vizier (Prime Minister) of the Ottoman Empire during the sultanates of Abdulmedjit and Abdulaziz:

1^st period     29 May 1854-23 November 1854

2^nd period    18 October 1859-23 December 1859

3^rd period     28 May 1860-6 August 1861

                                               ***    

            He was born in 1813 in the village of Magunda in the Paphos district of Cyprus. His father, Huseyin Efendi, was a Turkish Cypriot, the brother of Ottoman Head of the Exchequer Mehmet Emin Agha. He was a member of one of the families brought to Cyprus from Anatolia for increasing the population after an epidemic of cholera in the beginning of the 18th century.

            After he finished the elementary school in Paphos, he was sent to Istanbul, where his uncle was the Head of Ottoman Exchequer. Through his uncle, he was introduced to Sultan Mahmut and he was able to enter the Enderun at the Ottoman Imperial Court in Istanbul.  He worked as a captain for several years in the Imperial Guard regiments which were established in 1828.

            In 1833 he went to London and later to Paris for higher studies. After Abdulmedjit got into power he returned to Istanbul and served as Major and later as Colonel in the First Army in Istanbul, assigned to guard the Ottoman Palace. Later he was appointed to Tophane.  

            He was the commander of the Akka (Acre) Castle in 1844 and later governor in Jerusalem.  He was appointed on 31 August 1848 as the Ottoman Ambassador in London. He visited Flanders for the crowning of the Flanders’ King.

            He was appointed as the governor of Crete, but he did not go and resigned. He returned to his old profession of diplomacy. In 1853, he was governor in Sinop and later the chief of the Ottoman Fleet.

PRIME MINISTER OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

            He was appointed as the prime minister of the Ottoman Empire with the recommendation of Reshit Pasha on 24 May 1854. He did not approve the war with Crimea and he was dismissed from his post after 6 months. In July 1855, he was the Speaker of the Ottoman Parliament which was opened during the Tanzimat (Reform) period. When the Prime Minister Ali Pasha went to participate at the Paris Conference in 1856, he was appointed as the First Under-Secretary of the Prime Minister. When peace agreement was signed with Russia, he was sent to St.Petersburg as extraordinary and plenipotentiary ambassador in August 1856. He was awarded by the Russian Tsar with the Eglban Order. He was appointed to the head of the Ottoman Fleet in 1858 for the second time and in the same year to the Parliament with a salary of 75.000 kurushes.

            In 1859 he became the grand vizier (prime minister) for the second time. Since he had a hard character and did not obey the given orders and he was in disagreement with the cabinet too, he was dismissed after three months from his post. He told the following day to the person who came to get his seal: “What do you think of me? Does Your Highness see me as a toy?”

            Since the Sultan wanted to use the experience of Mehmet Emin Pasha, he appointed him for the third time to the prime ministry, five months later in June 1860, which caused criticism.  Mehmet Emin Pasha had the post of Mufti of Rumeli simultaneously.

            He was dismissed once again from his post on 6 August 1861, because the Sultan Abdulaziz wanted to strengthen the army and the navy, whereas Mehmet Emin Pasha wanted to implement the reform programme (Islahat). He was given the post of governor of Edirne for the second time in 1861 and he stayed there for three years.

            He was appointed to the Ottoman Parliament in 1865 and he was awarded the Ottoman  Murassa (Prize) in 1866. He did not work after he left his last post as the head of the Supreme Court of Justice in 1867.

            When he died on 9 September 1871, he had no fortune other than his only 81 golden liras and a villa on the Bosphorus (in Kandilli) and the expences for his medical care and funeral was paid by Sultan Mahmut. His grave is in the Sultan Mahmut Moseleum in Istanbul.

HE LIKED CYPRUS AND THE CYPRIOTS A LOT

            Beside his mother tongue Turkish, he was in good command of the following languages: Arabic, Persian, French and Greek. He had an honest and rebellious character. He could resist the Sultan and tell his opinion freely. He used to like the Cypriots and help them especially in getting higher education. He helped his fellow countryman, Mehmet Kamil Pasha, in 1860, to get appointed to the Head of Evkaf in Cyprus, who later was four times Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire.

            According to George Hill, when Cyprus was included in the Vilayet of the Islands, a mission to Istanbul consisting of two Greek Cypriots and two Turkish Cypriots, headed by the Archbishop Sophronios II, who left on 26 May 1870, returning on 5 August. Their arguments were favoured by the Grand Vizier Kibrizli (Cypriot) Mehmed Pasha, a native of Paphos and  they quickly obtained the relief for which they asked, to wit, the withdrawal of Cyprus from the Vilayet of the Archipelago and its constitution as an independent Mütesarriflik, as well as permission to draw the necessary seed for the following tear from the Government granaries. Nevertheless, the independence thus conceded seems to have been very soon withdrawn, possibly when Midhat Pasha restored the Vilayet system which had been temporarily abolished by Mahmud Nedim Pasha in his first vezirate (1871-2).” (The History of Cyprus, Cambridge 1952, p.250)

            “By another special concession obtained through the influence of Kibrisli Mehmed Pasha, the conscripts recruited in Cyprus remained in the island during their term of service and formed the only military force at the disposal of the Governor. Their complete inefficiency, we are told, was conspicuous, the majority of them not having fired a shot, but their qualities were never put to serious test.” (ibid, p.251)

A BOOK BY HIS FIRST WIFE

            Melek Hanım (her maiden name was Marie Dejean) was the first wife of Kibrizli (the Cypriot) Mehmet Emin Pasha.

            Her Memoirs were published in 1872 by the Harper and Brothers Publishing House in New York under the title “Thirty Years in the Harem or the Autobiography of Melek Hanum, Wife of H.H.Kibrizli Mehemet Pasha.” (The Turkish translation by Ismail Yerguz was published in 1995 in Istanbul from the French edition and the book is called in Turkish “Haremden Mahrem Hatiralar: Melek Hanim”.

            Melek Hanım's grand-mother was Greek and her grand-father was Armenian. Her father was French and she met Mehmet Emin Pasha in Paris where he was serving as a military attaché at the Ottoman Embassy. When they returned to Istanbul, they lived in a house in Sultanahmet. They moved to Tophane after Abdulmedjit got into power. Melek Hanım gives us very important information in her memoirs about the daily life, wedding ceremonies and the Ottoman statesmen of those years in Istanbul.  

            Another book called “Memoirs of Kibrizlizade Major Osman Bey or the British in the 19th Century” was published in Izmir in 1996 (translated into Turkish by Ilhan Pinar) where the narrative of Mehmet Emin Pasha's son completes Melek Hanım's narrative. 

HIS CHILDREN

            Mehmet Emin Pasha married Feride, the daughter of Ali Riza Pasha, after he divorced his first wife. Shevket Pasha was his step son, but he fell into the river in Ishkodra and drowned. He had Atiye, her only child living. She got married with Tosun Pashazade Mustafa Bey, who later became Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire. Mehmet Emin Pasha gave her daughter on one condition that Mustafa Pasha would get the surname “Kibrizli”(Cypriot) and he did so. They had three sons (Nazim Bey, Shevket Bey and Talat Bey) and three daughters (Azize, Refika, Aliye).

            Nazim Bey visited Cyprus during the First World War. He stayed here until the war was over and he administered the farms which belonged to the family. (The total surface of the farms called Kukla, Mamonia, Ashelia and Bodima were 7,831 donums and a part of them was made public property by the British colonial government and later sold to the Greek Cypriots and the remaining properties were sold by Nazim Bey.)

            Shevket Bey was the body guard of Nazim Pasha, the President of the Sublime Porte and he was shot dead by Enver Pasha or his men. Talat Bey was a man of adventure. One of the grand-daughters of Mehmet Emin Pasha was Refika and her son, Emin Dirvana, as a retired lieutenant-colonel, was appointed to Cyprus in 1960 as the Ambassador of Turkey.

KNAPSACK AND MACE

            Radji Hodja tells the following story which he heard from the old people of Tera village:

            “During the days of Kibrizli Mehmet Pasha the taxes in Cyprus were very high. A Turkish Cypriot imam, called “Giavur Imam” of Tremithusa village was tempted by a priest, called Galoyiero, to rebel, but in the end both were arrested and beheaded. Mehmet Pasha accepted to have exemption for 30 years from taxes for those who would be settled in Cyprus. First, Emin Efendi,  the uncle of Mehmet Pasha, went to Istanbul and became the Head of the Exchequer of Abdulmedjit. He called the son of his brother, Mehmet, who was a shepherd, to Istanbul, convincing him that he would buy him a flock of sheep and that he had many farms in Istanbul. Mehmet took his beloved tasselled mace along with him and went to Istanbul. He was educated in the Ottoman Imperial Court (Enderun), learning excellent French and served as ambassador in France and Switzerland. He became three times the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, but he never forgot his tasselled mace which he took with him to Istanbul and kept in a special room. He used to visit this secret room sometimes and he never showed this room to anyone. The people surrounding him thought that he opted another religion and hid himself in that room for prayers. After being reported to the Sultan, Abdulmedjit came one day to Mehmet Emin Pasha's home and asked him to show what he hid in that room. When the Sultan saw the tasselled mace, he asked for an explanation. Mehmet Emin Pasha told him that he used to watch this mace and remember that he had been a shepherd before. By  visiting this room, he avoided becoming an arrogant person!

            Radji Hodja told also that Emin Efendi, the uncle of Mehmet Pasha was the father-in-law of Mehmet Akif, poet of the Turkish National Anthem.” (Hursoz newspaper, Nicosia, 26 August 1950)

(By Ahmet Djavit, Turkish Cypriot Historian, published in “The Cyprus Sun”,   April-May 2005)

 

MEHMET KIAMIL PAŞA (1832-1913)

           Mehmet Kiamil Pasha was a Turkish Cypriot who was appointed four times as the Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire:

1^st period        25 September 1885-4 September 1891

2^nd period        2 October 1895-7 November 1895

3^rd period        5 August 1908-14 February 1909

4^th period        29 October 1912-23 January 1913

                                   ***

            Mehmet Kiamil Pasha was born in 1832 in Nicosia. His father was Salih Kiamil, a captain in the imperial Ottoman artillery corps which was sent to Cyprus from Anamur in 1821 during an attempt of rebellion of the Cypriots against the Ottoman rulers. Salih settled in Piroi village where he got married with Pembe Hanım of Deftera village.

            Mehmet Kiamil became an orphan at the age of 10 when his father died. Together with his brothers Shakir and Sadik, they were given to Zuhtu Efendi, a notable person from Nicosia for shelter. Mehmet went to medrese and later to a Greek Cypriot school. He could speak Greek as well.

            His father was a good friend of Mehmet Ali Pasha, first governor of Egypt and the three brothers were sent to Egypt for education. Kiamil started first to learn other foreign languages like English, French, Arabic and Persian, but the language school was later turned into a military college. After he completed his military education, he was employed by Abbas Pasha, the Hidive of Egypt, as court translator and as advisor. Together with the Hidive of Egypt, he travelled extensively in Europe.

            After ten years of service in Egypt, he was appointed in 1860, as the director of the Cyprus Moslem Religious Foundation (Evkaf) with a salary of 40 pounds. He served two and half years in this post and later he was the district officer (kaimakam) of Larnaca for four months. Afterwards he was appointed as the treasurer of the island, a post which he later continued in Syria. He served as an administrator in the region of today's Lebanon, Syria and Palestine for 15 years which helped him a lot in his future statesmanship.  

His statement to the “Times” during the Armenian rebellion in Zeytun was appreciated very much by the British in London and by the Sultan in Istanbul, because the British Consul had given wrong information.

            Between his appointments as grand vizier he served as governor of Beirut, Jerusalem and Herzogovina and as governor of the provinces of Kosova and Haleppo. Before his fourth appointment as grand vizier he served as Undersecretary to the Minister of Interior and later appointed as the Minister of Education and then Minister of Evkaf Properties.

            During the reign of Said Pasha, he was appointed as the Prime Minister of the Ottoman Empire on the recommendation of the Foreign Minister, Kara Todori Pasha with a salary of 75,000 kurushes. He stayed in this post for 6 years and later he was removed  to become governor of Aydin according to his wish. The Public Debts Question, the entrance of the foreign capital into the Ottoman Empire, the construction of the railways and the promotion of industry were the events during his reign of power. He was not compromising in the issue of revolting Armenians. When he was dismissed in 1891, the Sultan gave him a pension of monthly 40,000 kurushes. 

HIS SECOND TERM OF OFFICE

            In October 1895, the Sultan Abdulhamit was concerned of losing the throne after the pressure of the big European powers and due to the Armenian activities, he dismissed Said Pasha and appointed Kiamil Pasha for the second time to the post of Grand Vizier, because he was friendly with the British. In the same year, Kiamil Pasha increased his powers and proposed the election of the ministers by the Grand Vizier. Again Abdulhamit was suspicious of him and Kiamil was dismissed and sent to Izmir as governor where he served from 1895 to 1907. Because of the information sent to Abdulhamit against Kiamil Pasha, he was about to be sent to exile in Rhodes, Kiamil Pasha took refuge in the British Consulate in Izmir. After the Sultan was properly informed, he was pardoned and returned to Istanbul.

HIS THIRD TERM OF OFFICE

            Kiamil Pasha was appointed for the third time to the post of Prime Minister of the Ottoman Empire (Grand Vizier) on 5 August 1908 during a very critical time right after the proclamation of the second constitutional government. He took very courageous steps for the modernisation of the administration as he helped the convention of the Ottoman Parliament in the same year. In the elections made at the end of 1908, the supporters of the “Unity and Progress Association” had a very big success. He managed to use various political and religious groups against each other, but he, after a vote of inconfidence, resigned on 14 February 1909.

HIS VISIT TO CYPRUS

            Kiamil Pasha visited Cyprus in 1910, for the first time since the British occupation in 1878, together with his son Sabahattin and Muzaffer Bey. As he was coming to Nicosia via Larnaca, he stopped his carriage at his native village of Piroi and showed to his friends accompanying him, the house where he was born. After drinking from the water of his village, he came to Nicosia.

            He stayed for two weeks in Nicosia and later went to Egypt in order to see His Majesty George V who was about to leave for India. The King received him in the yacht of “Medina” and a picture was taken all together which showed Queen Mary and Kiamil Pasha sitting on the chairs. This was regarded as a respect to Kiamil Pasha who was without any title then.

            In the back row, from the left to the right were Extraordinary Commissioner of Egypt, Lord Kitchener, behind the Pasha, His Majesty the King, Hidive Abbas Hilmi Pasha, Older Prince Ziyaeddin Efendi, the brother of the Queen, Duke Doodd, the brother of Abbas Hilmi Pasha, Prince Mehmet Ali Pasha, Head-Commander of the Egyptian Army General Wikent.

HIS FOURTH TERM OF OFFICE

            After a rebellion by the religious elements who wanted to establish an order according to the rules of Koran, the Ottoman Army captured Istanbul and the Parliament dismissed Abdulhamit and appointed to his post his brother Mehmet Reshat. Kiamil Pasha was in 1912 the Head of the State Council in the cabinet of Ahmet Muhtar Pasha. The oppositional groups which were fighting against the “Unity and Progress Party” for a coalition government, made Kiamil Pasha the prime minister for the fourth time on 29 October 1912.

            He was already 80 years old when he took the power and the Ottoman Empire was under the threat of division. As he was about to talk in a cabinet meeting about the answer to be given to the big powers on 23 January 1913, he was removed from office with a raid on Sublime Porte.

HIS RETURN TO CYPRUS AND HIS DEATH

            Kiamil Pasha married four times. His son Hilmi Kiamil Bayur writes in his book (Sadrazam Kiamil Pasa-Siyasi Hayati, Sanat Basimevi, Ankara, 1954) in the chapter of “Kiamil Pasha and Cyprus” the following:

            “Kiamil Pasha had a deep love for the island he was born in and raised up. The first years of his service as civil servant were spent there. After he left Cyprus, the remaining close relatives continued the family there. 

            When he was high up in the state hierarchy, he used to help the Cypriots, coming to the fatherland for education, visit or work, as a faithful and benevolent fellow compatriot. On the other hand, he used to think of retreating one day to Cyprus, when he was confronted with the insecurities and undecidednesses of the political life in Istanbul. That was why he bought a small piece of land. Thus when he had to leave the country in 1913 because of political struggle, he did not go somewhere else and returned to Cyprus, where after a while he died.” (p.171)

            Let us read the following account of his return from his close friend Sir Harry Luke:

            “In May 1913, the veteran octogenarian statesman unexpectedly appeared in his native island, which he had not seen since he had ceased to govern it as far as 1864.

            The reason for the travels of the Grand Old Man of Turkey in the evening of his days was no happy one. On the 23rd of the previous January Enver Bey, as he was then, one of the most forceful of the Young Turk leaders, burst with some of his associates into the Sublime Porte while the Cabinet was actually in session, shot dead the Minister of War, the genial and popular Nazim Pasha, at the Council table and overturned literally by force Kiamil's fourth and last Ministry. Unable to remain in Turkey after this bloody coup, the ex-Grand Vizier was invited by his friend Lord Kitchener to stay with him in Cairo, and after three months in Egypt decided to await a favourable turn of fortune's wheel, such as patience had brought him on previous occasions during the many vicissitudes of his long and chequered career, in Cyprus. Suddenly conceived, then, as was his journey and unforeseen his arrival in the island, the provision of suitable accommodation for someone of His Highness's status presented a problem. As I was about to go to Troodos for the summer, I offered him the loan of my house during my absence, a suggestion the old gentleman was glad to accept.

            Kiamil had landed in Cyprus with only two attendants, a valet and a black eunuch, but five weeks later came the assassination of his Young Turk successor in the Grand Vizierate, Mahmud Shevket Pasha, possibly to avenge the murder of Nazim; and prominent Old Turks were either expelled or fled the country. These included Kiamil Pasha's family, who had hitherto been unmolested and now joined the old man in Nicosia. On my return from Troodos Kiamil took the house next to mine, which was roomier and could accommodate his greatly enlarged household. It was now a sight of considerable piquancy to watch from my windows his eldest son, Said Pasha, a decrepit roué and invalid of sixty or thereabouts, being wheeled up and down the ramparts for his morning airing in a bath-chair side by side with the push-cart containing His Highness's youngest son, aged five or six. An unusual pair of brothers.

            On the 14th November following his arrival in the island, while full of plans for revisiting England in 1914, Kiamil Pasha died suddenly of syncope while engaged in his morning correspondence, and was buried that afternoon by his and my friend and landlord, Taib Effendi, in the court of the Arab Ahmed Mosque of which Taib Effendi was the Imam. Truly Turkish in its contrasts and ups and downs had been his life; truly Turkish was his burial. After a service in S.Sophia, the great Mosque, the coffin was borne through the narrow streets of the walled town and beneath overhanging lattices to its last resting-place, followed by the highest and lowest in the island. Crowding upon the High Commissioner, the principal British officials and the Moslem dignitaries, the rabble of the town struggled and pushed, instigated partly by curiosity, partly by the hope of being able for the moment or two to take part in the bearing of the coffin.

            As the procession approached the Arab Ahmed Mosque with its swaying burden a flower-seller, dressed in the baggy white breeches of the Turkish peasant of Cyprus and with bare legs and clippers, joined the throng, laid aside the tray of violets he had brought into the bazaar for sale and put his shoulder under the coffin. It was the Grand Vizier's nephew, his sister's son, who grew flowers and vegetables in the neighbouring village of Deftera and had come into the town that afternoon to ply his trade. He encountered the procession accidentally, unaware of his uncle's death; but, when he learned who was being carried to burial, he took his place as a matter of course and no one thought his participation strange.”  (Cyprus- A Portrait and an Appreciation, London 1973, p.158-160)

            H.K.Bayur, writes that after he retreated to Cyprus, he brought his family from Istanbul to his near:

            “In the pictures taken a few days before he died, he was a strong man, walking. As usual, he used to read and write three to five hours a day regularly. He just started to write his memoirs about the development in the period of constitutional government. But his life did not last.   

            According to his wife Layika's account, he woke up early in the morning of 14 November 1913 and took his breakfast. He woke up his smallest son, 8-year-old Nazim to go to the school. When he returned to his room, he told his wife that he felt bad and asked his cardiac medicine which he used to take sometimes for relief. He could not have the time to get the medicine and lay on the couch and surrendered his soul without any difficulty. He died of arteriosclerosis. So he died in the country of his birth, on the soil of Cyprus with the age of 81. On that day, both the Mohammedans and the Christians, all the Cypriots were mourning. They buried him, who was raised amongst them up to the highest rank of the Ottoman Empire and played an important role in the fate of the empire in its critical days in the garden of the Arab Ahmet Mosque in Nicosia.” (ibid, s.397)

            The Times newspaper of London wrote on 14 November 1913 that the grand old man of Turkey died and that it would not be wrong to say that there was no other personality similar to him living then among the whole Ottoman high officials.  

            Sir Harry Luke writes that when Kiamil Pasha visited London for the Great Exhibition of 1851, there he began the daily reading of the Times. He told this to Luke in 1913 and that he had never interrupted since then for a single issue. (ibid, p.157-158)

            The personalities who took part in his funeral were the following:

            The British governor of Cyprus, Sir Hamilton John Gould Adams, Chief Kadi (Judge) Ali Rifat Efendi and the Mufti Hadji Hafız Ziyai, State Secretary Chief Judge Sir Teisser, The Treasurer, Commissioner of Nicosia Mr.Kate, Major of Nicosia A.Iliasides, Director of Education Mr. Newham, Kadi A.Muhiddin, Chief Inspector of Education Ibrahim Hakki, Chief Inspector of Mohammedan Schools Halil İbrahim, Hadji Dervish Pasha, Turkish Delegate of Evkaf  Musa Irfan, Retired Judge Ahmet İzzet, Dr.A.Esat, Dr.Nuri, Dr.Behich, Advocate Hafız Osman Djemal Bey and many other notables  and a big crowd. After the funeral, Advocate Hafiz Djemal Bey made a speech about him. After 14 years, the British Governor Sir Storrs made a new grave for him and opened it with a ceremony in 1928.

            He won many high decorations of the Ottoman Empire and other foreign countries. He opened 12 Ottoman schools for the benefit of the island's education. Laleli, Turunchlu, Tahtakale and Yeni Djami were among them.

            Kiamil Pasha was known as a man of integrity and intellectual capacity. He also made a name for himself as an able administrator and played a significant role in suppressing the Armenian revolts in Anatolia. His three-volume-work “The Political History of the High Ottomans”, published between 1909 and 1911 is considered to be an important source by the historians. Only the first volume of his three- volume-”Memoirs” was published. His booklet “Answers to Said Pasha” is considered to be a witty and brilliant piece of political writing. His private library was transported to Cyprus when he returned in 1913. These books, together with his decorations and other related documents, are currently kept in the Turkish Cypriot National Archives in Kyrenia.

(This second article was not published in The Cyprus Sun magazine. No information was given to the author!)

 

INTERVIEW WITH GNOMI NEWSPAPER

The T/C researcher-writer Dr. Ahmet Djavit An answers the questions of Gnomi newspaper on the Cyprus «problem»

«Only if we unite our forces, we can hope for a just and viable solution”

The T/C researcher- author Dr Ahmet Djavit, the man who dared sent the occupying forces to the European Court, an action that contributed to a domino of dramatic events, is not a man to hide behind words. An experienced scholar with deep understanding of the national question of Cyprus says the spade, a spade in the courageous and daring style that is part of his personality:

“The question is not which community will rule over the other,but which class forces will hold power in a future democratic, united and federal Cyprus.”

Dr Ahmet Djavit supports that the policies aiming at Enosis and Dihotomisis(partition) had always had the support of the NATO circles and the deep state through the underground organizations of TMT and EOKA. And he concludes:

“The left and the progressive forces in general have to find ways of eradicating the communal disagreements, ending the various manifestations of nationalism and separatism.”

***

- Could you outline the course of the national question in Cyprus in a brief way? - Which do you consider were the responsibilities of Makarios and Denktas in the shaping of the national question?

- There are historical and psychological reasons that in Cyprus two main distinct nationalities developed out of two religious groups, instead of one nation, although they shared a common history and some common cultural values since their co-existence starting from 1571. There used to be common and separate fields of cultural and communal structures even before the British colonial administration. The British colonialists put forward the differences, instead of similarities between the two communities, especially by importing the educational systems of Greece and Turkey respectively into Cyprus. By using the colonial divide and rule policy, they restructured the administrative system by helping the formation of nationalist groups, which they used in local politics. Instead of helping them to develop a common historical consciousness, the British remained silent so that Turkish and Greek nationalisms disseminated among the respective communities in Cyprus. The main political goal of the Greek Cypriots during the British colonial period was the union of the island with Greece, enosis, which excluded the Turkish Cypriots from a common struggle and forced them to seek shelter from the mainland Turkey. Again the British exploited these differing political aims and used the Turkish Cypriots against the anti-British rebellion of the Greek Cypriots. After the independence of the island in 1960, the two leaderships continued their so-called national aims, i.e. enosis and partition, which had both the support of the NATO deep state circles through the underground organisations, the TMT and the EOKA.

- To which degree did the involvement of Turkey and Greece affect the course of the Cyprus problem? - Which was the role of the British?

- In order to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, one should make distinction between the foreign interventions and the roots of the inter-ethnic conflict within the island. Both the imperialists and the local nationalists, be it Greek Cypriot nationalists or Turkish Cypriot separatists, depend themselves on the differences between the governing classes in both communities, by exploiting the old mistakes, which were the result of a wrong policy of nationalities. Turkey, Greece, Britain and the NATO as a whole are responsible for the non-solution of the Cyprus issue as an international problem.

- Do you believe that the period at which Talat and Christofias were the representatives of the two communities, was really a favourable “coincidence" for a solution?

- Since the ethnic-national composition of the Cypriot people is not homogeneous, the securing of the independence, territorial integrity and the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus is very much related with the solving of the question of nationalities internally. But it is necessary to underline the fact that the determining factor is not the ethnic-national differences between the two main communities of the island, but the class struggle within Cyprus and on the international level. Therefore the problem is not which community will be governing which one, but which class forces will have the power in the future democratic, united and federal Cyprus. The question of nationalities is a big complex of problems, which emerge during the struggle of the peoples for political, economic, ideological, legal and social liberation. The solution depends on the creation of appropriate conditions internally and externally. I believe that these conditions were not created internally during the negotiations between Talat and Christophias. As for external factors, I still believe that the NATO and the EU are not sincere in the re-unification of the island.

- Except of their impressiveness, what do you think was the practical result of the stunning mobilizations of the t/cs under the banner of the Platform This Country is Ours?

-The mobilizations just coincided with the court decision of my legal case against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (Djavit An vs Turkey, Application No.20652/92). The decision came out on 20 February 2003 and the gates were opened just two months later on 23 April 2003. The judgement of the court was the last drop in the glass that forced the Turkish Cypriot leadership to lift the travel restrictions across the dividing line. This fact is stated in a book, written by the lawyer of the Turkish Cypriot leadership in the ECHR, Zaim M. Necatigil, The Cyprus Conflict and Turkey in the grip of ECHR: Cases brought against Turkey by the Greek Cypriot Administration and the Greek Cypriots before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights (in Turkish). Ankara: Turhan Kitabevi, 2005, p. 190.

- Is there really a hope for a fair-viable solution to the Cyprus Problem? What do you think must be the role of the Left and the progressive forces in general within this setting?

- The Anglo-American imperialism had planned to realize the enosis or the taksim of the island years ago and they managed to exploit our internal conflict and finally to partition our island. There have been mistakes of both leaderships in this respect. The majority community had more responsibility in order to unite the whole population without any discrimination of ethnic origin, nationality, religion or language. The left and the progressive forces in general have to find ways of eradicating the communal disagreements, ending the various manifestations of nationalism and separatism, getting rid of developmental socio-economic differences, building a friendly mutual relationship based on real equal citizenship in a democratic federal state. Here lies the big responsibility of the AKEL, which is supposed to be the party of the working class of Cyprus. The AKEL has to revise its policy for the Turkish Cypriots by opening its Turkish Cypriot branch as soon as possible.

Yiorgos Sofokleous for Gnomi newspaper - Translation, Soteris Vlachos.
Published in “GNOMI” newspaper Friday, 10 January 2014

 

THE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES OF THE MAINLAND TURKISH SETTLERS IN NORTH CYPRUS

 

           As it is known, the Turkish Cypriots, who have been living together with the Greek Cypriots on the island of Cyprus since 1571, concentrated themselves in the 37% northern part of the island after the war of 1974. Starting from this date on, population was brought to this side of the island which got under the Turkish control under the name of "seasonal workers" from Turkey. Later either masses of settlers or one by one, families were settled here in order to increase the population of this region.

 

POPULATION FROM TURKEY

            According to the census made on 15 December 1996, 200,857 persons live in North Cyprus. Ahmet Bulunc, Undersecretary of the State Planning Bureau of the Prime Ministry of the TRNC, stated that 164,460 of them have TRNC citizenship, 30,702 who are university students, workers, unemployed etc have citizenship of Turkey and 5,425 persons have the citizenship of other countries. (Kıbrıs, 28 November 1997)

            Out of those who were shown as TRNC citizens, 137,398 were born in the TRNC, 23,924 in Turkey, 3,138 in the third countries. Since more detailed information was not given, it was not possible to differ out of 137,398 persons born in the TRNC, which one was born to T/C or mainland Turkish parents.  

            On the other hand, according to the estimates of the Department of Statistics of the Republic of Cyprus, there were 115 thousand mainland Turkish settlers at the end of 2000. The number of the T/C was given as 87,000 and it was estimated that 55,000 T/C left the island between 1974 and 2000.  

THE PROBLEM OF ILLEGAL WORKERS

            The Undersecretary of the Ministry of Labour and Settlement of the TRNC, Ahmet Alper, disclosed that 70% of the workers, working in the workplaces of the TRNC were illegal. (Kibris, 7 October 1999) Sonay Adem, Famagusta MP of the Republican Turkish Party, talking in the parliament of the TRNC told that the government of the TRNC agreed secretly with the state attorney-general in their endeavour to legalize the status of the 20-25 thousand illegal workers in the country and to this effect, secret protocols were signed with the government of Turkey. (Kibris, 1 November 1999) In the meantime the employment of the illegal workers without social security and without membership to any trade-union create many problems

THE EFFORTS FOR SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

            These settlers of mainland Turkish origin, came from various districts of Turkey and some of them are organized according to their origin of descent: TRNC Black Sea Cultural Association, Erzurum Aid and Solidarity Association, Malatya Cultural Association, Cukurova Culture and Solidarity Association, TRNC Association for the Research and Dissemination of the Culture of Hacı Bektas-i Veli, Turkish Immigrants Aid and Solidarity Association. In the meantime settlers from Gaziantep or Kayseri get togrether and organize social solidarity evenings. 

            The mainland Turkish immigrants settled in North Cyprus established separate political parties in the 1980's with the help of the Turkish embassy (like the Turkish Unity Party, New Revival Party) and took part in the general elections and participated at the coalition governments with ministers and took key posts with responsibility. But later, it was deemed as necessary for example to amalgamate the New Revival Party with the Democratic Party.

            Among those who put their candidature in the general elections of 1993, the percentage of those born in Turkey was 22% and this percentage was 17% in 1998. In the general election of 1998, 4 persons of mainland Turkish origin, 3 from the Democratic Party and 1 from the National Unity Party were elected and entered into the parliament of the TRNC.

            In the last general election, a group of mainland Turkish settlers who alleged that they were not represented accordingly in the parliament gave a paid advertisement to the T/C press (Kibris, 15 December 1998) and complained: "40% of the population which makes approximately one third of all, was divided cunningly and this sector was obstructed to be represented in a just and balanced way" and protested this situation.(Hurriyet-Kibris, 22 December 1998)

            On the other hand some Turkish Cypriots continued their complaint that the mainland Turkish settlers who were given the right to vote  in the elections and that their own will was blocked to be reflected in the ballot boxes. But there was no precaution in order to stop this. Moreover, there is an increase in the number of the mainland settlers who were given the TRNC citizenship during the election periods and the activities continue without any break in order to increase the number of those supporting the established regime.

SOME ASPECTS OF THE MARRIAGES AND BIRTHS

            According to the data published in the “1998 Statistical Year Book” in February 2000 by the Department of Statistics and Research of the State Planning Bureau of the Prime Ministry of the TRNC, there were 1,108 registered marriages in 1998 in the TRNC. If the position of the women and men, who got married and the grade of their education at the time of marriage (p.36) were taken into consideration, the following were observed:

Level of Education    Men     Women

illiterate                          6            2

elementary school      109        142

secondary school        188        202

     

            If one bears in mind that the T/C men and women generally are graduates minimum of a secondary or equivalent school, it will be seen that at least one third of the marriages registered in 1998 took place between those persons who originate from Turkey.

            Again, if we bear in mind that the T/C men and women get married and have children in later years of age, as it will be seen in the following table (p.22), the mainland Turkish settlers made the half of those who gave birth to children in 1998:

Level of education   Father   Mother        

elementary                   751       812      

secondary                    390       259

classic lycee                963     1103

            According to the data in the Statistical Yearbook, there were 2433 births in 1998. The distribution of the place of birth and the age of the mothers is as follows:      

Age           State hospital   Private clinic

Total:           1039               1394

14-19              103                  53 

20-24              420                 448

25-29              292                 509

            These data have the same results. The women who originate from mainland Turkey prefer to get married and to give birth at an earlier age and since they have a lower level of socio-economic position, they prefer to give birth mostly at the State Hospitals.

            Therefore, this situation was discussed in the parliament of the TRNC and the then Minster of Health and Environment, Dr.Gulsen Bozkurt, brought it into the discussion. Dr.Bozkurt disclosed that 30% of those getting health care in the TRNC hospitals were of mainland Turkish citizens and that there were some people coming from Turkey in the TRNC in order to give birth. She continued her speech in the parliament:

            "There were patients who came with broken legs to the Kyrenia harbour with the ferry-boat. They phoned and asked for the ambulance to drive up to the harbour. They told the ambulance driver not to drive to Kyrenia, but to Nicosia State Hospital. After they were operated, we gave them the bill. They said: "We don't have money. He can get our lives if you want." Our hands are tied."

            Dr.Gulsen Bozkurt gave an extreme example of exploitation of the situation. But some patients, who cannot find the money for their operation, are brought to the TRNC and after they secure a permit for work, they are sent back to Turkey with the decision of the Health Council in order to be operated there. The cost of the operations with milliards of Turkish pounds paid for the mainland Turkish citizens, is paid by the state of the TRNC." (Kibris, 24.2.1999)

NO FAMILY PLANNING IN THE SETTLER FAMILIES FROM TURKEY

            A great portion of the mainland Turkish settlers, who have become the majority of the population in the general population of the TRNC, has both lower level of education and   socio-economic situation in comparison with the local T/C population. Since these people mostly come from the rural areas of Turkey or they have different cultural background, it is natural that some of them may have difficulties in getting accustomed to the environment in Cyprus. Because of this underdevelopment in the educational level of the mainland Turkish settlers in comparison with the local T/C and the difference of their traditional culture brought along with them, it is understandable that they prefer to get married and have children earlier.

            For example, the daugters of these families discontinue their education earlier than the sons and they get married at earlier ages and give birth to children at earlier ages. The masculine child is more popular and preferable in these families and they make sexual discrimination by using the expressions like "a masculine man always has a masculine child."

            The families who are immigrants from Turkey do not know much about the concepts like family planning and birth control and the number of the children in these families is high, because "God gives them." 

DIFFERENCES ABOUT THE CHILDREN

            When the level of education and socio-economic position of the parents is low, especially the new born babies are not taken to the regular health controls by the pediatricians, so the diagnosis of some developmental disturbances could be made at a later date. The feeding of the babies only with milk and carbonhydrates, giving puddings instead of vegetable soups is an unhealthy way of feeding. Unhygienic conditions cause vomiting and diarrhoea by these children, causing dehydratation and frequent sicknesses and diseases with high fever without taking the necessary measures in time which lead to complications in infectious diseases. The compulsory vaccinations are not done in time and regularly, because of negligence. The children of those families who go to the elementary school do not have the support from their parents because of their low level of education and they cannot show the necessary performance because of the difficulties of their living conditions. 

HIGH RATE OF CRIMINALITY

            It is interesting to note that a great majority of the T/C prefer to be employed in the state sector, whereas in the fields of work which depend on muscle power, the immigrants and illegal workers originating from Turkey are employed. Especially these workers work in branches like construction, hotel industry, restaurants and repairs, filling a great gap.

            There is also a section of those citizens of mainland Turkey, who some to the TRNC as tourists and take part in various theft, robbery, murder, rape and similar crimes. They constitute a threat for the social life in the island. The T/C press is full of those criminal reports. 

  

(The Turkish original of this article was published in the monthly journal “Kıbrıs’ta Sosyalist Gerçek”, No.77 (Special), August 2002)

CYPRIOTISM CAN PAVE THE WAY TO THE REUNIFICATION

History is a branch of science that deals with the sum of the events happened in the past and history should be learned to understand today. As a part of today's reality, history influences and directs our attitudes and preferences. In this context, the awareness of history, the way the history is written and the teaching of history gain importance. As Cypriots, how much do we know about the historical past of our country and the history of the inter-communal relations? 

When the British occupied the island of Cyprus in 1878, ending the Ottoman rule since 1571, they preferred to keep the existing structures of education in Cyprus. Christian and Moslem schools were kept quite distinct and there were two Boards of Education, one Christian and the other Moslem. The books to be used in the schools were prescribed by these Boards, which followed the same curriculum of Greece and Turkey respectively.

The history textbooks were written in the so-called motherlands, which fought against each other in 1821, resulting the independence of Greece from the Ottoman Empire and in 1921, when Turkish Army defeated the Greek troops, which invaded Western Anatolia, leading to the formation of Modern Turkey in 1923. Both events had their influences on the Moslem Turkish and the Christian Greek community in Cyprus. Especially, the 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 the 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.

On the other hand, the Greek Cypriots were aiming at the union of the island with Greece, a demand put forward often also in the Legislative Council established by the British in 1879. The Turkish Cypriot members of the parliament used to resist these demands by saying that the island should be returned to the original owner of the island, Turkey. After the annexation of Cyprus by the British Empire in 1914, Turkey gave up all of her rights on Cyprus with the signing of the Lausanne Agreement in 1923. The British declared Cyprus as a Crown Colony in 1925 and until 1960, it remained as such.

The nationalism of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots did not originate from local historical circumstances, but was imported into the island through the teachers, books and newspapers,   coming from the mainland Greece and Turkey. This nationalism was encouraged by British Colonial Administration and the British tried to disseminate it among the unaware masses of people in accordance to their traditional policy of “divide and rule”. As the Greek Orthodox community was educated by teachers, who were mainly graduated in Greece, the educational system was under the control of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Moslem Turkish Cypriots had their headmaster of the only lyceum in Nicosia sent from Istanbul after the request of the Cyprus Government. The headmasters were all Turkish nationalists.

When the Greek Cypriots started a terror campaign in 1955 against the British colonial administration, the Turkish Cypriot leadership collaborated with the British and provoked the Greek Cypriots by recommending the Turkish Cypriot youth to become auxiliary police and commandoes in order to fight the Greek Cypriot fighters, defending the colonialists.

As the Greek Cypriot EOKA underground organization killed Turkish Cypriot security forces, the Turkish Cypriot TMT underground organization began to kill Greek Cypriots in retaliation. Both organizations were anti-communist oriented and they killed also progressive Cypriots, who were against the partitionist policies of the British and their local collaborators. The growing demand of the Greek Cypriots for the union of the island with Greece (enosis) was encountered with the demand of the Turkish Cypriots for the partition (taksim) of the island between Turkey and Greece.

Finally, neither the Greek Cypriots’ aim for Enosis, nor the Turkish Cypriots’ aim for Taksim were materialized, but a limited independence was given to a new partnership Republic of Cyprus, which was established in 1960. The British maintained their sovereignty over the two military bases and the island was declared as an independent state, banning both the enosis and taksim in its constitution. The Turkish Cypriots, having 18% of the island’s population, were given 30% say in the administration of the new Republic of Cyprus. This was not digested by the Greek Cypriots. In December1963, the President of the Republic, Archbishop Makarios tried to change the 13 points of the constitution by abolishing the veto power of the Turkish Cypriot Vice-President Dr.Kuchuk. Inter-communal clashes started and at the beginning of 1964, the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the state apparatus. This conflict of nationalisms between the pro-enosis Greek Cypriot leadership and the pro-partition Turkish Cypriot leadership complicated the solution of the ethnic-national question in Cyprus. The unity of action and aim of the Cypriots could not be developed under a common shared aim and this caused new bitterness.

In 1962, we lived the murder of the two advocates, Ahmet Muzaffer Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet, of the “Cumhuriyet” weekly newspaper, which gave a struggle for the cooperation of the two main communities of Cyprus in the new state. In 1958 we experienced the hunting of the Turkish Cypriot trade unionists and in 1965 came the murder of Dervis Ali Kavazoglu, a communist Turkish Cypriot trade-unionist by the Turkish Cypriot underground organization TMT. These actions of intimidation silenced the democratic opposition within the Turkish Cypriot community, which was fighting against the partitionist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership. 

We observe that the separatist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since 1958 was one of the reasons that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots did not have a common political aim during the inter-communal negotiations, which began after the normalization policy of the Makarios government in 1968.

From 1968 until 1974, various rounds of inter-communal negotiations were carried out, ending with a coup d’Etat by the mainland Greek Army officers against Makarios on 15 July 1974, which was followed by the invasion of the island by the mainland Turkish Army on 20 July 1974. Together with Great Britain, Greece and Turkey were supposed to be the guarantor powers of the independence, sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership declared unilateral declaration of independence in 1985, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, on the Turkish occupied territory of the island, which was condemned immediately by a resolution of the Security Council of the UN.   

In the textbooks of Cyprus history, the Turkish invasion in 1974 was described to the Turkish Cypriot students, as a salvation, whereas the Greek Cypriot students were taught nothing about the events between 1963 and 1974. The struggle for the union of the island with Greece during 1955-59 was described as a struggle for the independence of the island, which actually ignored and excluded the Turkish Cypriots, because of the dominance of Greek nationalism.

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 among 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 the NATO and they did not want to see a Cypriot state free of their influences. That is why they still do whatever they can in order to prevent the development of independent internal political and cultural structures.

In order to have an awareness of history and to draw useful lessons for the future, we have to have a good knowledge of our history and a multi-perspective approach to our past without any prejudice. For this purpose, it is necessary to have well-educated historians, rich archives open for all, multi-communal platforms, where everything could be discussed freely and a democratic surrounding free of all taboos. Without having all these, it would be very difficult to bring the historical realities to the daylight. We cannot say that the Cypriot communities are quite at ease in these subjects.

History has to play a unifying, rather than a discriminatory role between the nations and communities. As different to patriotism, in the nationalist way of history-writing, the writer chooses "we" in every stage of history and sees "the others" as enemy. It is the same for all the nationalists. Seeing those from his nationality as different from and superior to others is the minimum characteristic of the nationalist history-writers. There are writers, who make this in a harder or softer form. But what is seen in all the nationalist history-writers is seeing his or her own nation-state superior and to defend, if necessary, the interests of his or her own nation at the expense of the others. This way of looking at history and making comments is a dominating characteristic at least in some stages of official history writing in the development of a nation-state.

The review of the text-books and the history-teaching with multi-lateral and international efforts is a very long and much tiring process. The efforts of producing new models for text-books both in European countries and also in Turkey, Greece and in the Balkans are being continued by the non-governmental bodies, historians and social scientists. In this respect, it would be very valuable to form a common committee of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot historians which could try to have an interpretation of the common history of the communities living in Cyprus.

I can name some subjects to be discussed and researched by such a Committee: The common rebellions during the Ottoman Occupation against the local governor’s arbitrary taxations. The common struggles in the Legislative Council during the British colonial rule related with the economical policy. The common struggles of the trade-union movement, which used to be united until 1958. The common struggle of the Cypriots against fascism during the Second World War on the side of the Allied Forces.

Since 1974, the influx of mainland Turkish settlers in the occupied areas of Cyprus has been a threat to the existence of the Turkish Cypriots, which is contrary to the Geneva Convention. This led them to re-identify their communal characteristics, which were formed in the course of history as Turkish Cypriot community. Especially the Turkish Cypriot intellectuals started to ask themselves the question “Who are we?”, “How can we preserve our own identity?”, as they looked into the history of their cultural heritage.

As it is well-known, the cultural, the scientific and the literary heritage are the three important components of the national consciousness. Here we see the responsibility of the researchers of history for the development of a common Cypriot consciousness. They have to research the common cultural heritage and use these common elements for a common political aim. The cooperation between the two communities in the commercial and social life and in trade union movement in the past are the good examples of the coexistence of the two main communities in Cyprus.

The class character of the state has a big role to play in the formation of the Cypriot consciousness. There has to be a clearly designed state policy for the support of a Cypriot identity. The organs of the mass media should also play a constructive role in this respect since they can easily reach to the homes of almost all citizens. 

We have observed that especially after 1974, two different identities emerged: One in the north of the divide, possessing the separatist TRNC as an expression of the nationalist identity of the Turkish Cypriots and another one in the south of the divide, as the sole owner of the Cypriot state, which has distinctively an Orthodox Greek Cypriot character. This reminds me the prediction of the British Governor in Cyprus, General Palmer in 1937: “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.” 

The activities of the News Cyprus Association, which was formed in March 1975, were aimed to preserve the existence of the state of Cyprus and to avert the danger of partition by behaving first as Cypriots and then as a member of the respective community. Unfortunately in the past 35 years, this movement of intellectuals could not turn into a political movement, which could organize great masses of Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots under a common Cypriot identity.  

In order to reach at this main goal, there should be common political parties of Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, seeking common political aims. The full equality of all the communities living on the island in the fields of politics, economy and culture could only be achieved through common political parties, which will fight for a democratic federal state and against all kinds of separatism and discrimination.

A correct policy for the solution of the problem of nationalities is indispensable and this is the responsibility of the party of the Cypriot working class, the AKEL. Unless the AKEL review its policy for the Turkish Cypriots and turn to them, no step could be achieved with the existing nationalist policies.  

 

(This article was published in “The Cyprus Dossier: Towards free thinking Cyprus” Issue 00, January 2010.)