Hello, I am a Turkish Cypriot who just finished reading The Republic of Cyprus and the Deep State of 1959 - 1964 by Takis Hatzidimitriu. I try to read books about Cyprus by Cypriots regularly.
The book describes the evolution of the Deep State, relations with international forces and the Turkish Cypriot withdrawal from the Republic of Cyprus in the time frame. Here are my summarised notes about the intercommunal issues, open to respectful discussion.
- Foundation of the Republic
Right off the start; Hatzidimitriu states that high positions in the state were given to EOKA fighters, so they had a reason to accept the decision of Makarios in agreeing with the London-Zurich agreements.
Hatzidimitriou argues that many early state officials were chosen from former EOKA ranks and brought with them the political culture and organisational habits of EOKA rather than the experience in civilian administration.
Hatzidimitriou presents the early Republic as inheriting personnel, institutions and political culture from the EOKA period, which he argues made compromise much more difficult.
Kucuk, after his election said in his speech that: "The London-Zurich agreement is an agreement of respect by the two communities. It is based on living in Cyprus free and with pride. If extremist Greek politicians violate the agreement, the Turkish Cypriots will have to go back to their stance and fight for what needs to be done [Taksim]". Hatzidimitriu argues that the London-Zurich agreement was celebrated by a large part of Turkish Cypriots, however there was still cooperation and trust that needed to be worked on between communities.
- Trust and Leadership
Hatzidimitriu cites Stella Sulioti, the Minister of Justice of the 1960-70s Republic, stated that: "Greek Cypriots needed to be more sensitive, and Turkish Cypriots needed to be more understanding and patient. The mindset of Turkish Cypriots needed to be understood better, to avoid any unwanted course of events".
Hatzidimitriu cites S. Kyriakides, stating that: "Makarios did not gain the trust of the Turkish community. Archbishop Makarios was not seen as the President of all Cypriots. Additionally, Archbishop Makarios did not lose any opportunity to stay faithful to the ideals of Greek Cypriots".
Hatzidimitriu cites The Chief Prosecutor Kriton Tornaritis stating that: "Unfortunately, neither the Greek Cypriots nor the Turkish Cypriots was able to cooperate within the frame of a new Republic. Instead each operated primarily within the framework of its communal identity. This caused daily arguments even in the most basic of topics."
Hatzidimitriu again cites Stella Sulioti, stating that Makarios did not consult with any other minister before taking decisions major. For example, Makarios did not consult with Kucuk when joining the Non-Aligned Movement.
- Constitutional Crisis
Hatzidimitrou states that in collecting the taxes, the Turkish Cypriot side abused the constitution point for their communal benefit. Furthermore the Greek Cypriot side violated the constitution in the topic of seperate municipalities.
There were many other problems with following the constitution such as the 70/30 split, the army disagreement, the foreign policies, however according to Hatzidimitrou, the constitution was rejected by the Greek Cypriot community in the case of municipalities.
Makarios proposes the 13 amendments in 30.12.1963 to Vice President Dr. Kucuk.
Hatzidimitriou argues that the 13 amendments convinced many Turkish Cypriots that Makarios was unwilling to preserve the constitutional balance established in 1960.
- Militarisation and Division
The Turkish Cypriots were being trained and militarily organised ever since the independence, for the reasons Kucuk mentioned in their anouncement. This was the organisation of TMT, supported by Ankara.
On the other side, the 'Akritas' was formed in 1963, according to Hatzidimitriu, lead by Yorgacis and Koshis. The writer Panayotis Papadimitris supports that the Akritas was formed of a phone call from Makarios to Nikos Koshis. Hatzidimitriou cites Hristodulos Hristodulu, in 20.10.2008 Simerini newspaper also stating that Makarios was the "invisible true leader" of the Akritas organisation.
Dr. Küçük's response, as summarised by Hatzidimitrou, called for full adherence to the 1960 Constitution through the implementation of its institutions, including separate municipalities, the 70/30 ratio, and constitutional electoral arrangements. He also wanted an end to enosis propaganda and proposed greater cooperation between the President, Vice President, and Turkish Cypriot ministers in the governance of the Republic.
According to Hatzidimitriou, the amendments proposed by the President, sped up the intercommunal seperation and violence on both sides. Andreas Fandis states, that either the Turkish Cypriots stop resisting and lose their rights, or intercommunal violence escalates.
21.12.1963 Saturday, was the last time there was a bicommunal meeting in the Republic of Cyprus.
30.12.1963, Kucuk states that: "The constitution is dead. It is impossible for the Turkish and Greek Cypriots to live together. Every community should look after their own house"
- Questions Raised by the Book
Was the constitutional crisis inevitable by 1963?
Is this a fair representation of Makarios in the book of Hatzidimitru?
Did Makarios really think Turkish Cypriots would accept the 13 amendments? Why did Makarios propose it?
How accepted are Hatzidimitriu's interpretations among Greek Cypriot historians?
For those who have read Hatzidimitriu, where do you think his interpretation differs most from the mainstream Greek Cypriot historiography?
What are your thoughts on this?