I read the article “Brown’s appraisal on Turkish intentions” of 23 August 2015 by Mrs Erato Kozakou-Marcoulli, posted on www.in-cyprus.com and for a moment I wondered whether there had been a mistake. Whether the article was written by the Refugee Association “Adouloti Kyrenia” and wrongly attributed to Mrs.Marcoulli.
Mrs. E.K-Marcoulli refers to the appraisal on Turkish intentions back in 1974, by the American Diplomat L.Dean Brown, Deputy Under Secretary of State for Management, whom the then Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger dispatched to Cyprus following the assassination of the American Ambassador Rodger Davis on 19 August 1974, to direct the American Embassy in Cyprustemporarily and until a new Ambassador was appointed.
He wrote:
“ Turkish actions on ground, and statements by officials both here and in Ankara, have reinforced our initial impression that Turkish Army intervened to protect the security of mainland and not assist local community, except insofar as this relates to primary purpose… Thus while Turks had force to occupy the entire island, and divide it up as they wished, they carefully limited operation to grabbing sufficient territory to insure that they would be in predominant position to dictate future status of an independent Cyprus. As we read their intentions, Turkey wants a federal (confederal)…”
The American diplomat was absolutely correct in his assessment. Same assessments have been recorded also by the British Foreign Office, the same people who not only allowed the Turkish invasion giving the green light to Turkish Prime Minister B. Ecevit on 17 July 1974 to proceed with the invasion, so long as he did not touch or involved the British bases in Cyprus, (but British bases were involved, giving intelligence info to the Turks) but supported the Turkish invasion ignoring Dr. Kissinger’s warnings of the consequences (18/19 July 1974). In James Callaghan’s own words (the then British Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary) in a statement made later in 1976, he (Callaghan) actually aimed to topple the Republic of Cyprus and change its constitutional structure (just like the Turks) because in his view it had failed to work…
A Foreign and Commonwealth document dated 4 September 1974 reads “…The primary Turkish interest in Cyprus since the Second World War has been strategic. Whatever relations some Turkish Cypriots may have in Turkey , no Turkish Government has ever given a fig for the Turkish Cypriots (whom they regard with contempt and irritation as pamperedprovincials;…)…”
However, having said that, the striking point in Mrs Erato Kozakou-Marcoulli’sarticle is her own position over the Cyprus problem. How can she remind us of the American diplomat’s assessments (as if 41 years on she had never heard of the Turkish intentions before) and at the same time:
1) Selectively remembers only Famagusta : “ Famagusta still remains captive and its lawful inhabitants prevented from returning home”. She ‘forgets’ the equally lawful inhabitants of Kyrenia (which was predominately Greek) and all the other Greek Cypriot refugees of the occupied area, who are equally prevented from returning home. And yet she writes that “The transfer of population, in an ethnic cleansing scenario was effected by the use and threat of use of military force”. The Turkish cleansing scenario affected all the Greek Cypriot refugees and as she also acknowledges that the transfer of population is a war crime, she should not refer only to the people of Famagusta being away from their homes but all refugees.
2) Her positive appraisal of the Ambassador’s assessment is inconsistent with herparticipation in the current discussions the basis of which is the ethnic and racial segregation of the population achieved by the ethnic cleansing in 1974. Endorsing the discussions for Bizonal Bicommunal Federation is equivalent to accepting the Turkish intentions of the Turkish invasion so correctly assessed by the American ambassador.
Fanoulla Argyrou
Researcher/Journalist/Author
London
25.8.2015
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου