The following article was written on a previous blog of mine in the run-up to the EU Referendum, hence why it mentions it. However I couldn't not re-post this as it has some brilliant information contained within it.For the last three years, with the onset of the ongoing "migrant crisis", we've had it pretty hard going in terms of the constant guilt tripping propaganda in the media. Needless to say I have a long list of outstanding posts I intend to write discussing the creation of the Syrian crisis, and why they're letting literally millions of 'refugees' into Europe, so I won't be mentioning that in this post, but it is important nonetheless. To be fair that information is already easy to find using a search engine, anyway.
What I will mention however is the utterly retarded policy that has been brokered between Turkey and the European Union, in that in exchange for 'stopping' the relentless flow of migrants, Turkish citizens will be given an open borders status to work and travel within the rest of Europe. The tip-toeing towards Turkish membership of the EU goes on relentlessly, as was planned many years ago. (I'm calling it now by the way, "Refugees" will be given fast-tracked citizenship in Turkey so they can move into Europe officially.) The whole EU-Turkish deal is not about stopping immigration, but about making currently illegal immigration that you can rightly protest against, legal.
The real plan seems to be the creation of a Eurabian Union, in which the whole of the Mediterranean and parts of Asia will come under the control of Brussels. Whilst it is no doubt imperative for any sane individual in Western Europe to resist Turkey's budding membership of the European Union, it is those on Europe's eastern (and southern) flank who have already had a historic taste of Islam's wrath. Sure the Moors occupied Spain for 400 years, and Vienna may have survived by the skin of her teeth, but those events are not in living memory. I dare say that those who feel most angered by the EU's appeasement of Turkey are the Greek Cypriots who in 1974, had their island split in two by Turkish invaders.
This post then is an article about how Britain and America effectively shafted a sovereign nation for their own agenda's, and enabled Turkey to claim one third of the island for themselves.
So what happened in Cyprus?
Britain obtained the territory of Cyprus under loan as part of a deal signed with the Ottoman Empire in 1878. It wasn't until 1914 when Britain found herself at war with the Ottomans in WWI, that the British annexed the territory and wielded total authority over the island. Despite centuries of Ottoman rule, spanning from 1571-1660 and 1745-1748, the ethnicity and culture of Cyprus remained overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox Christian. In 1915, the British offered the whole island of Cyprus back to the Greeks as a bargaining chip so long as the Greek Government at that time agreed to enter the war on the side of the Allies. This offer was rejected and in 1925 Cyprus officially became apart of the British Empire.
During WWII in 1941, the British once again offered Cyprus to Greece in exchange for assistance in dealing with Germany's ally, Bulgaria. Once again, the Greek Government refused. Following WWII, perhaps due in part to war weariness, anti-Imperial resentment grew. New calls for both independence and unification with Greece began decades of political instability.
In 1950, a petition revealed that 96% of the Greek Cypriot population was in favour of unification with Greece. In the 1946 census, Greek-Cypriots made up 80% of the total population of the island, meaning approximately 75% of the total population of Cyprus was in favour of this union. In 1955, Greek militias began to form and start an armed campaign against British rule under the banner of EOKA. Inter-ethnic violence also flared up in this period between the Greek and Turkish communities, and led to Turkish militias also forming under the name of Taksim and the Turkish Resistance Organisation which clashed violently with the Greeks and called for a partition on the island. It has also come out in the past that Turkish fighters in some instances deliberately bombed their own communities in order to whip up tension and spur them into action against an enemy, who obviously were not as bad as the Turkish communities believed them to be.
Through 1955 to 1958, various conferences including the involvement of the United Nations, failed to come to an agreement on what should happen over the question of Cyprus. Greece was suggesting a self-determined Cypriot Government, whilst Turkey suggested (like it's proxy organisations) partitioning the island to segregate the two communities. With violence getting out of control the British Government were eager for a way to pull out, and in 1959 a deal was struck under the London Accord between the British, Greek and Turkish Governments and Cypriots. The whole of Cyprus was to become an independent republic as part of the British Commonwealth, all with the exception of the bases of Dhekelia and Akrotiri remaining under the British Crown.
When Britain finally gave independence to the Cypriot Government in 1960, there were early concerns that the Orthodox-Christian majority (with a historical resentment towards the Ottomans/Turks) would oppress the Turkish minority. To try and "counter" the ethnic feud, the British Government, acting as a "peacekeeper", gave the Turkish minority a permanent 30% veto power over the Cypriot Government, along with its own police force. This only further exacerbated the resentment that the majority Greek Cypriots felt towards the Turks, and to make matters worse, Turkey and Greece were funding their own ethnic groups and organisation in Cyprus (aka, EOKA and TMT.)
The British Government rather stupidly decided not to come down hard on Turkey's support for Turk Militias. One account tells of a Turkish man found with a weapons cache and only receiving two years imprisonment! The Turkish Government were supplying weapons and explosives to resistance groups and shipping members of the Turkish Resistance Organisation to the Turkish mainland for training in guerrilla warfare. It should be stated that whether or not the Turkish actually ever wanted full control of Cyprus, these fighters were in fact told that their training was part of a plan for the total repossession of the island. Whilst this was going on on the one side, the Americans supported the Greek nationalist group EOKA on the other, both directly and indirectly through the supporting of the Greek Junta which seized power in Athens in 1967. (Years of instability and civil war had been ongoing in Greece since the end of the WWII, between fascist and communist elements.)
The president of Cyprus, Makarios, was calling for amendments to be made to the Cypriot constitution in an attempt and stop the fighting. He tried to open diplomatic talks with both Greece and Turkey through the Non-Aligned Movement and favoured a peaceful solution to the instability through working with the United Nations, however the military Junta in Greece, having only recently come to power were pressuring Makarios into taking a firmer stand than he would have otherwise wanted. The proposed amendments to the constitution and cabinet reshuffles caused by the meddling, created an uproar with the Turk element within the Cypriot Parliament, and it's members left in protest. It should be noted that Makarios did relatively well to convince the Greek population that independence was an acceptable compromise instead of unification with Greece, which afterall had it's own problems. He failed however to convince the Turkish minority that the two communities could work together, possibly because of the constant pressure he was under from EOKA. Whilst the American, British, Greek and Turkish authorities were displeased with Makarios's position, it looks as though the guy was trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation, and in trying not to take a side, ended up with no friends on any side at all.
It is likely that support for hard-line groups on both sides of the debate were being drummed up because of President Makarios's views on British and American international politics. Because of his isolationist views it led him to be known as 'the Castro of the Med' with both Washington and London suspecting he had 'tendancies towards communism'. Or that he had been speaking with the Soviet Union and other 'rogue' states through such groups as the Non-Aligned Movement. To be fair given the circumstances where he was essentially stuck between a feud with NATO member states, it's difficult to know what you would or could do as a leader to rectify the situation. Desperation may well have been the reason for communication with the Soviets. Either way, like it or not, he was the elected Government of the day.
In any case, Turkey had from the very beginning, even before the end of British occupation, called for a partition on the Island, a request which understandably was seen as being unacceptable for the Greek-Cypriots when you consider the demographics before the 1974 invasion. The Cyprus military cout in 1974 however gave the Turks the excuse they needed to enact what they'd clearly been planning for a very long time.
(The blue represents Greek-Cypriot population, the red/orange the Turk-Cypriot. 440,000 Greek Cypriots in the whole island compared with a 104,000 Turks.)
So the invasion of 1974 is where things get interesting. The British were still meant at this point to be a guarantor for Cyprus's independence and security, so these facts were pretty startling to me personally, but considering US and British activity recently in the middle-east, it's perhaps not that surprising.
The whole reason why I began asking questions about Cyprus was because I had got talking to a local who mentioned that the UK and US turned a blind eye to the Turkish invasion in exchange for the British and Americans keeping their military bases. The US were also rather keen to keep their bases in Turkey, especially since the Cypriots refused to allow US military bases on their land.
I've not been able to find evidence of this fact on the internet, but I have read and heard it from more than one person. The theory may become undone slightly by the fact that the Turkish banned the Americans from Turkish airbases after the Americans put a weapons trade embargo on them. It did not take long for the Americans to change their mind however, as by 1978 the embargo was lifted, and by 1980 both nations signed the "Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement".Whether this is just a Cypriot urban legend or not is hardly important however, as there is still evidence that both London and Washington willingly turned a blind-eye towards the Turkish invasion itself, and who were in actual fact always in cahoots with the Turkish side to introduce a divide across the island.
What is most repugnant about the whole ordeal is that America and Britain could have brought about a diplomatic end to the situation had they not continued to support both the Greeks and the Turks simultaneously. It was president Makarios, who sought independence and a diplomatic resolution, and both America and Britain saw him as a threat simply for not wanting to get drawn into political lines on the international stage. The use of Turkish andGreek aggression is just another example of divide and rule tactics, and internationalists using differing factions to suit their own agenda.
The results of the 1974 invasion of Cyprus was the killing of thousands which could have been avoided, as well as the displacement of Greek civilians who were evicted by Turkey and forced to the South side of the island. Their homes, businesses and possessions were then forfeit, a situation which meant some Turks got very rich off the backs of Greek-Cypriot loss.
Turkey then used an aggressive re-population tactic to change the demographics of Northern Cyprus by moving thousands of Turks to the captured territory, a move which could really be seen as a form of cultural genocide.
But could the Turkish invasion have been prevented?
It seems strange that despite Greece and Turkey joining NATO in 1952, and the fact that both of their military hardware came from America, that there could ever be a state of war without America intervening. That is of course if it wasn't preordained. Clearly not everybody involved in the invasion was in the loop over what was happening with the Turkish invasion though, as this article highlights when it speaks from the perspective of then acting British foreign secretary Lord Callaghan.
Essentially according to Callaghan, the British were caught in a situation where they would have struggled to defend the British bases let alone the the whole island without support from the Americans. In fact the Turkish had even threatened that they would bomb the British bases if they did not explicitly confirm their neutral position. Turkish tanks had reportedly fired on British bases in Cyprus in the few days of war, something which seems to have been a 'misunderstanding'. Clearly the Turks weren't going to take no for an answer. This doesn't make total sense however given that following the cout a few weeks earlier, a British task force was already enroute to Cyprus. They clearly suspected something was about to happen.
It would have been possible to defend the island and at least make the Turks think twice about the invasion had the Americans supported the British at the time. Henry Kissinger at that time the secretary of state, squashed any US-British military response. Officially this tied Britain's hands behind it's back. However...
This PDF article allegedly includes documents sent from the British Government to the Australians and detailed information about how and what was going to happen before the Turkish invasion.
If you haven't the time to read through this long and detailed article, then please take notice of this particular paragraph sent as a telegram to Australia from Britain:
"Commenting privately to us on the situation on the 20th July a senior FCO official said that Britain secretly would not object if Turkish military forces occupied about 1/3 of the island before agreeing to a cease-fire. (Please protect.) Such a position would need to be reached by 21st July if peace prospects were not to be endangered further. In the meantime, Britain continued to support publicly appeals for an immediate ceasefire".
If these documents are genuine, and this telegram has been leaked, it explains why despite having naval and air bases in Cyprus, both Britain and America refused to step in throughout the invasion. As a side note, there is also evidence that Britain was supplying information to Turkey about the military strength of Cyprus to help with the invasion. The fact that one third of the island was taken seems to have been agreed in advance, and falls in line with Britain’s previous political handling of the 30% veto power to the Turks and the calls made for decades by the Taksim. In fact the idea of a partition was at one point what the British were proposing anyway.
The result of this invasion has been that to this day, Northern Cyprus remains an illegally held territory, and the border between the two still needs a UN patrolled 'green line' to prevent any incidents.
In any case, all of this information points to one thing. The US and UK are constantly manipulating current political turmoil to suit their own needs and agendas. As we look upon this information in the new millennium with all current ongoing issues in the Middle East and closer to home, we need to be aware of the facts of the past. The same tactics have arguably been applied in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now on the European home front. We must learn to wield this knowledge to our own advantage, we must put pressure on our politicians to prevent unnecessary suffering and war caused by the deliberate actions of our Governments. History has been repeating itself more and more recently, but this fact only relies on a public being unaware and who believe in the biased news and history books.
Furthermore, when it comes to Turkey. Should we really trust a country that would invade a sovereign nation on a whim, and risk a war with a fellow NATO member? Should we trust a nation which buys or at least brought, oil off of the Islamic State? Should we trust a nation which commits genocide and sees the conflict in Syria as an excuse to further assault the Kurds instead of the Islamist threat on their doorstep? Should we trust a nation which risks provoking a world war after shooting down a Russian bomber aircraft engaged in defeating ISIS, which regardless of whether it breached their airspace or not, was clearly not the most diplomatic answer to the issue.
If the answer to all of this, plus the threat of further Islamic immigration into Europe is a 'no', then perhaps the European public should re-think the trust they place in the European Union.
No comments:
Post a Comment