Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Akritic songs from Cyprus



The above songs are from the album Στες Ακρες Των Ακρων, which consists of a number of Akritic songs from Cyprus. The songs are: 1. Ο ΣΑΡΑΤΖΗΝΟΣ. 2. Τ'ΑΙ ΓΙΩΡΚΟΥ. 3. Ο ΚΑΟΥΡΑΣ. 4. ΤΕΣΣΕΡΑ ΤΖΑΙ ΤΕΣΣΕΡΑ. 5. Η ΤΡΙΑΝΤΑΦΥΛΛΕΝΗ.

The composer is Μιχάλης Χριστοδουλίδης and the singers Αρετή Κασάπη and Κώστας Χαραλαμπίδης.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

No to a ‘Turkish peace’ in Cyprus

The piece below by Marios Evriviades – professor of International Relations at Panteion University in Athens – states clearly Turkey’s Cyprus policy – which is the dismantling or disabling of the Republic of Cyprus – and stresses the various methods the Turks have used in pursuit of it. 

Evriviades debunks a number of myths the Turkish propaganda machine has promulgated down the years. His repudiation of the myth that Turkey invaded Cyprus to protect the Turkish Cypriots – who had allegedly been under siege since 1963 and in 1974, with the Athens coup, were now under imminent threat of massacre – is particularly important. 


Portraying the Greek Cypriots as responsible for their own downfall because of their nationalism and the way they treated the Turkish minority on the island is intended to strip Turkey of its responsibility for its invasion and occupation of Cyprus and obscure the fact that partition of Cyprus was something Turkey had plotted since 1956. A narrative that blames Greek nationalism and alleged Greek excesses for Cyprus’ unhappy fate also aims to compel the Greek Cypriots to accept a Cyprus settlement that legitimises Turkey’s invasion and occupation. Since you were guilty of the sin of nationalism and for (supposedly) mistreating the Turkish Cypriots, the logic goes, you must now be punished by accepting limits on your basic human rights and democracy.


Evriviades’ article originally appeared here. I believe Evriviades to be one of the better writers on Cyprus and for more of his pieces, go here.


No hegemonic peace in Cyprus
Almost forty years to the date, the Turks finally figured out that they had invaded the wrong geographic region of Cyprus. Cyprus’s power wealth, its hydrocarbons, have been found to be located in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off its southern shores and not in its northern ones, where the NATO-trained and US-supplied Turkish army attacked massively in 1974. Since then and for decades the Turks persistently and stubbornly insisted that whatever the Cyprus problem, it was permanently solved in 1974. These days they are not so sure. And they have turned peace advocates. Or so it seems.

The double irony is that if one were to believe Ankara’s 1974 propaganda, namely that they were not “invading” but that they were merely launching a “peacekeeping operation” to secure the safety of their coreligionists, who were allegedly under threat of instant massacre by their blood-thirsty compatriots, then it was the southern part that they should have attacked in the first place! For it was in the southern districts of Limassol and Paphos that the vast majority of the allegedly threatened 100,000 or so Turkish Cypriots lived. They did not live in the Kyrenia district and the Karpass or Morphou regions, that were the targets of the 1974 attack by Turkey.

In fact the autochthonous Greek Cypriot population in the presently Turkish-army occupied part of Cyprus numbered close to 200,000 souls. This is a figure that is twice as large as the total number of Turkish Cypriots who, prior the 1974 invasion, were intermingled with the Greek Cypriots throughout the island but, significantly, constituting nowhere a regional majority (except in a very few villages). And in July 1974, when the Athens junta-organised coup occurred against the legitimate government of the Republic, they were hardly under any threat, lest one of massacre (“genocide” is Ankara’s favorite term).

Actual inter-communal violence in post-independence Cyprus occurred in 1963/64-65 and in 1967 and it was sporadic. Greek Cypriots are misleadingly cast as the villains of this period. And maybe they were. But those who do cast them as such should at least consult the posthumously published PhD thesis, “Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict, 1963-1971” of  Richard A. Patrick, a Canadian UN peacekeeper in Cyprus turned scholar. Patrick had done meticulous field research on the death toll, especially within the Turkish Cypriot community from 1963-1971 which he complemented with UN documentation, international reports and local police and death records. Space does not allow me to go into details except to say than on the basis of Patrick’s figures the “massacre” and genocide” narratives are upended. And Patrick was no friend of the Greek Cypriots.

My more relevant point is that from 1968 until 20 July 1974, the day of the Turkish invasion, there is no record of any inter-communal fighting in Cyprus and of deaths on either side (except for an accidental one in the early 1970s) and I challenge anyone to document otherwise. And who was it that said that the coup was an internal affair among Greek Cypriots and it was of no concern to the Turkish Cypriots? No other than the late Rauf Denktash. His comments were recorded on July 15 by the CIA run Foreign Broadcast Information Service stations, operating in Cyprus since 1947.

The 1974 invasion was an act of war against the Republic of Cyprus that had a twin objective. It was designed to establish a non-existent pro-Turkish political argument that the facts on the ground and geography denied. The Turkish Cypriots, spread throughout the island, constituted nowhere and in none of the six districts of Cyprus a majority. That ethnographic and geographic fact produced a dead end for Ankara’s principal argument that Cyprus should be split geographically for partitionist ends. So the invasion was politically designed to conquer the northern part and establish there the geographic basis for partition.

Still the conquest was a necessary but not a sufficient condition towards that objective. The sufficient condition was what followed the Turkish conquest and it was so planned. That was the organised ethnic cleansing of the autochthonous Greek Cypriot population that constituted the majority in the region, and the “gathering” there of the Turkish Cypriots from all over Cyprus. In other words the indigenous Greek Cypriots of the region did not become refugees because of the tragedy of war but because of the design of the invasion. Were they not forced out of their homes they would still have outnumbered the Turkish Cypriots by a 2 to 1 ratio, thus defeating Ankara’s objective in spite of the conquest and forced relocation of Turkish Cypriots to the occupied areas.

Again if the objective of Ankara was the declared one of safeguarding the Turkish Cypriot population, which along with the Greek Cypriot one began to be collectively victimized after the Turkish invasion of July and not before, the Turkish invaders should have proceeded from north to south in order to secure the Limassol and Paphos districts, where the vast majority of the Turkish Cypriots resided. Instead in their August offensive the Turks proceeded to attack easterly and westerly, splitting the country in two and expelling the indigenous population.

The strategic aim of the Turkish invasion was the destruction of the Cypriot state, whose independence and territorial integrity Turkey had otherwise undertook to guarantee under the 1960 accords. But unlike its successful ethnic cleansing strategy, the forceful attempt to destroy the 1960 Republic failed spectacularly. The Cypriot state not only survived the Turkish onslaught and all subsequent and persistent Turkish efforts to delegitimise it, it succeeded, in 2004, to become a member of the European Union and even preside over it for six months in 2012, to the chagrin of Ankara. Unable to deal with Cypriot legitimacy, Ankara called off the UN sponsored negotiations. Not unsurprising, certain Western chanceries, including the UN Secretariat, were quick to shift the blame for this away from Ankara and place it, eventually, on their favourite bogey.

But there does exist a serious political problem in Cyprus; it has existed for decades and it needs to be addressed and solved foremost for the sake of Cypriots, who in two generations have suffered through an anti-colonial rebellion, a civil war, a coup and an invasion.

For peace to be established in Cyprus two conditions are necessary. First, Turkey’s western supporters, by which I mean essentially Washington and London, must abandon their cockeyed view of Cyprus and their not so subtle strategy to frogmarch the Greek Cypriot majority population into a “Turkish peace”,  as they unsuccessfully attempted to do in 2004 through the cratocidal Annan plan. No amount of western cant, sophistry and hypocrisy (revealed in all its glory with the current Crimea crisis) can do away with the fact that the obstacle to peace in Cyprus is the offensively deployed 40,000 Turkish NATO trained and US supplied occupation army and not the alleged intransigence of the majority population of Cyprus. Concomitantly, Turkey must abandon its zero-sum game and its equally cockeyed vision of Cyprus as a Turkish satrapy.

These conditions may seem surreal to those who have been holding for decades a carpentered view of Cyprus. But are they? Why is it that the Indonesian occupation forces had to withdraw from East Timor, why did the Soviets had to leave Afghanistan and before them the Americans from Vietnam and more recently from Iraq, why did the Israelis withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 with the Syrians followed due five years later, but the Turkish elephant is allowed to trample cost free all over Cyprus for decades? Are the Turks some sort of “holy cow” in the western family? Are the West’s leaders onto something about the Turks that they selfishly keep to themselves?

Why is there a consensus that there cannot be a solution to the current Ukrainian-Crimea  crisis without the restoration of legitimacy, without the threat or use of force and by respecting Ukrainian sovereignty,  territorial integrity and independence? Why those in the lead on this issue, the Anglo-Americans, have convinced themselves and have been unsuccessfully trying to convince the overwhelming majority of Cypriots (who in 1974 lost one percent of their population to Turkey’s “peacekeepers”) of the aberrant view that  the Turks have so called “red lines” in Cyprus, namely that they must garrison Cyprus in perpetuity and do so through “international treaties”?

The current Greek Cypriot negotiator in the just “restarted” UN sponsored talks is fond of repeating that at this particular juncture the stars may “just align” for a win-win solution. Apparently the catalyst for his optimism, shared by his President and the so called International Community, are the potentially large hydrocarbon deposits discovered  in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the southern cost of Cyprus.

I leave unanswered the legitimate query whether Ankara would suddenly have turned “peacemonger”, were the hydrocarbons discovered off the northern shores of Cyprus, except to repeat that for decades Ankara’s thesis has been that the issue had been resolved by the 1974 “peace operation”. The currently advocated win-win peace scenario, is that with the hydrocarbons as “glue”and the concurrent crises in the Middle East and now in the Ukraine (where the energy issue acquires added security significance) posing unpredictable dangers, a Western sponsored sub-regional security system can be constructed in the Eastern Mediterranean that will partner Cyprus, Israel, Turkey and Greece. Such a development would be most welcomed. But for such a security regime to be viable it must have legitimacy. And as such it can only be based  on reciprocity, equality, and respect and must be compatible with the existing European legal, political and civil order. No hegemons need apply. Hic Rhodus, hic salta.

Monday, 31 March 2014

This is what passes for chic in Turkish-occupied Cyprus


These images have emerged in the Cypriot press today showing Turkish models taking part in a fashion photo-shoot among the tombs and graves of a vandalised Greek cemetery in occupied Cyprus. I don’t think any comment is necessary. (Click on image to enhance).

Monday, 10 March 2014

Into the Divine Darkness: Michael Paraskos’ New Aesthetics



It’s worth sticking with Michael Paraskos’ talk Reviving the Corpse of Art because after about half an hour he gets into an interesting discussion on Orthodox iconography – which, he says, does not have a didactic or decorative purpose but is designed to allow you to glimpse into an alternative reality that in doing so will help heal or save your soul. Paraksos then argues that the aesthetics of Orthodox iconography shares characteristics with anarchist aesthetics and that, by drawing on the two traditions, a New Aesthetics can be created, to challenge and overcome the moribund and nihilistic traits that dominate contemporary art and culture.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

The man who shot Ion Dragoumis



Excellent documentary above made in 1986 on the assassination in 1920 of Ion Dragoumis, one of the most important theorists and exponents of modern Hellenism. It includes an interview with one of Dragoumis’ assassins and tries to piece together who gave the order to have Dragoumis killed, in retaliation for the attempted assassination of Eleftherios Venizelos in Paris.

Friday, 14 February 2014

Το Μικρό Ψάρι, not just a film about Greece



Above is the press conference held at the Berlin Film Festival at which Yiannis Economides’ film Το Μικρό Ψάρι (The Little Fish, known in English as Stratos) is currently competing. One senses listening to Economides that he’s somewhat frustrated with people assuming his portrayal of Greece is necessarily linked to the economic malaise afflicting the country. In fact, Economides has been depicting a withering society and the decrepit individuals that constitute it since 2002, with the release of his first film Σπιρτόκουτο (Matchbox). Indeed, in the press conference Economides goes one step further and says that Το Μικρό Ψάρι is not just a view of the decay of modern Greece but of Western civilisation in general. Economides also makes some interesting references regarding the influence of Japanese cinema and Jean Pierre-Melville’s French crime films on Το Μικρό Ψάρι.

Monday, 10 February 2014

Το Μικρό Ψάρι





Yiannis Economides is the best of the current crop of Greek filmmakers. His fourth feature Το Μικρό Ψάρι (The Little Fish) is a Mediterranean gangster noir and is showing at the Berlin Film Festival tomorrow. Above is a trailer for the film and also an interview with Popi Tsapanidou – who has a small role in the film – in which Economides talks about Το Μικρό Ψάρι, what characterises his films, the state of Greece and so on.

Friday, 31 January 2014

The collapse of neo-Ottomanism



Above is a good talk given earlier this month at a conference in Cyprus by Israeli academic Anat Lapidot on the origins and collapse of Turkey’s geopolitical strategy – more correctly the AKP government’s neo-Ottoman foreign policy. 

Lapidot argues that Russia and Iran have scuppered Turkey’s ambitions in the Caucuses and Central Asia, the EU has subverted neo-Ottomanism in the Balkans, while the repercussions of the so-called Arab Spring have undermined Turkey’s hopes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Lapidot doesn’t say this explicitly but she implies that Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus is one of the last cards it holds to help it project its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The conference at which Lapidot spoke was organised by the Citizens’ Alliance party and you can watch the talk of its leader, Giorgos Lillikas, who was foreign minister during Tassos Papadopoulos’ presidency, (in Greek) here. Lillikas is glib, but he makes a good point about it being in Israel’s interests to shore up Hellenism in Cyprus and avoid a Cyprus solution, like the one envisaged by the Annan plan, which would decisively put the island in Turkey’s sphere of influence and result in Israel being completely surrounded by hostile countries.

Friday, 24 January 2014

Why Britain won’t return the Parthenon Marbles



I referred a little while ago (in this post) to Andrew Graham-Dixon’s BBC drama documentary on the Parthenon Marbles and the controversy over whether the British Museum should keep them or return them to Greece. The film, which is above in full, was made in 2004, so it’s somewhat out of date, particularly since, in 2009, the Acropolis Museum opened, to much acclaim, and overcame the argument the British Museum has made about Greece not having a suitable space to display the sculptures should they be repatriated.

I have to admit I can’t get that worked up about the Parthenon Marbles controversy, but I do know a shabby and deceitful case when I see one, and shabbiness and deceit is precisely what characterises the case of those who support the retention of the Marbles in London.

In the film, apart from the now defunct argument that Greece has nowhere suitable to house the Parthenon Marbles, the gist of the case for keeping them at the British Museum consists of the following: the Marbles don’t have a national identity and are not just part of Greek culture, they’re a part of world culture, while Greek attachment to the Marbles is contrived, a product of Hellenic jingoism.

Indeed, Graham-Dixon suggests at one point that Greece’s desire to have the Marbles returned reflects an unhealthy nationalistic obsession with the fifth century BC.

‘There is a danger,’ Graham-Dixon says, ‘of plucking this one moment, this fifth century BC moment, out of the vast multicultural continuum of the history of the Greek lands and elevating it to canonical status. By wiping out the intervening two thousand years of history, there is a risk of disenfranchising all sorts of modern Greek citizens – Jews, Muslims – whose cultures have also made a contribution to the history of modern Greece.’

All of this is complete nonsense and disguises the real reasons the British authorities won’t return the Marbles to Greece and these are mainly:

1. Returning the Parthenon Marbles to Greece would diminish the status of the British Museum. Visitor numbers would decline and the British Museum would suffer financially.

2. The UK doesn’t want to be seen giving in to a country that it regards as beneath it. As one contributor suggests in the film, can we really imagine Britain refusing to return the sculptures if they belonged to France? Of course not. Simply, Britain doesn’t regard Greece as its equal and won’t accept being outdone by it.

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Melina Mercouri’s Cyprus, a year after the Turkish invasion



I’ve never been a fan of Melina Mercouri, neither as an actress or public personality, but I did for the most part like the film (above) she made about Cyprus in 1975, one year after the Turkish invasion of the island, and which has only recently surfaced from Greek state television archives.

The last 20 minutes of the film – involving an interview with President Makarios – are especially interesting. During the interview, Makarios says his biggest mistake as Cyprus’s leader was to allow the meddling of successive Greek governments, particularly during the junta years, 1967-74, in Cypriot affairs. The archbishop also says he can only explain the decision by the Athens junta to overthrow him by supposing that the coup was plotted in collusion with Turkey. It is impossible to believe, Makarios says, that the junta carried out the coup without knowing that Turkey would respond to it by invading the island. Thus, Makarios says, either the junta was indifferent to the prospect of a Turkish invasion or was content to see it proceed, as part of a plan for Double Enosis – partition of the island between Greece and Turkey. Makarios continues that the junta’s plan for Double Enosis was thwarted because the coup against him failed once its main objective – his murder – had been averted.

Makarios also asserts that the junta’s desire to kill him was motivated by its fear that Cyprus, as a fully-functioning democratic Greek state, and Makarios, as a democratically elected Greek leader, had become a symbol and beacon to those, like Mercouri, striving for the restoration of democracy in Greece. In this scenario, it becomes clear that the coup against Makarios was less an effort aimed at uniting (part of) Cyprus to Greece and was more a desperate and incoherent attempt by the junta to cling to power in Athens.

Finally, it should be noted that throughout Mercouri’s interview with Makarios, she appears to be genuinely in awe of the president, who comes across as brilliant and charismatic. 

Tuesday, 7 January 2014

Epiphany celebrations in Agia Triada and Yialousa



Above is a RIK news report on yesterday’s Epiphany celebrations that took place for the first time since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in Agia Triada and Yialousa in the Turkish-occupied Karpasia peninsular of the island.

Agia Triada, as I’ve written before, is a satellite village or suburb of Yialousa, and is home to some 100 Greek Cypriots who’ve been enclaved since the Turkish invasion, while Yialousa has been ethnically cleansed of its 3000 Greek Cypriot inhabitants and replaced by Turkish Cypriots from the Tylliria area of western Cyprus.

As far as I’m aware the Turkish occupation regime did not allow any other Epiphany celebrations in the areas it controls and the permission granted for the services held at Yialousa/Agia Triada should not be seen as a goodwill gesture from the Turkish side. Rather, it is an attempt to assert Turkish Cypriot ‘sovereignty’ in occupied Cyprus; turn Greek Cypriots forced from occupied Cyprus in 1974 into tourists; and kid the international community into believing that Turkey respects religious and cultural freedoms. (A similar game is played with Pontian Greeks who are allowed to hold a religious service once a year at the Monastery of Panayias Sumela, near Trapezounta). Nevertheless, despite being aware of the tactics of the Turkish occupation authorities, many Greek Cypriots insist on taking part in these pilgrimages as a means to show the Turkish side that they have not forgotten the homes, villages and churches they were forced to abandon in 1974 and, even after four decades, they still expect to return to them on a permanent basis.

Monday, 23 December 2013

The Art of Eternity: The Glory of Byzantium



Above is a good BBC documentary from 2007, The Art of Eternity: The Glory of Byzantium, presented by art historian Andrew Graham-Dixon, which looks at the meaning, purpose, technique and changing nature of Byzantine art and iconography. In his quest to understand Greek Orthodox art, Graham-Dixon visits Constantinople, Thessaloniki, Ravenna and the Osios Loukas monastery in Boetia and correctly points out that the Byzantine artistic tradition is not just a historical phenomenon but a living cultural (and spiritual) experience.

*ADDENDUM: After posting the above, I watched a film Andrew Graham-Dixon made in 2004 on the dispute between Greece and Britain over the return of the Parthenon Marbles.

The film – provocatively called The Elgin Marbles – contains all the usual pathetic and specious arguments against the Marbles’ return; such as, the Marbles are not just part of Greek culture, they’re a part of world culture; the sculptures don’t have a national identity; Greek attachment to the Marbles is contrived, a product of Hellenic jingoism.

Indeed, Graham-Dixon suggests at one point that Greece’s desire to have the Marbles returned reflects an unhealthy nationalistic obsession with the fifth century BC.

‘There is a danger,’ Graham-Dixon says, ‘of plucking this one moment, this fifth century BC moment, out of the vast multicultural continuum of the history of the Greek lands and elevating it to canonical status. By wiping out the intervening two thousand years of history, there is a risk of disenfranching all sorts of modern Greek citizens – Jews, Muslims – whose cultures have also made a contribution to the history of modern Greece.’
 

After that nonsensical outburst, it’s hard to take Graham-Dixon’s film on Byzantine art seriously.

Friday, 20 December 2013

Byzantium: a tale of three cities, episode three



I wasn’t intending to watch or post on the third and final part of Simon Sebag Montefiore’s series, Byzantium: a tale of three cities, which deals with the history of the city under Ottoman occupation, but I succumbed. Montefiore’s not much of a historian and he trots out the usual nonsense about the Ottoman empire being a beacon of tolerance and multiculturalism, a claim made even more absurd by the overwhelming evidence he himself presents that reveals Turkish rule and rulers to have been mind-bogglingly perverse and sadistic from beginning to end.

* Click on links for episodes one and two.

Thursday, 19 December 2013

Byzantium: a tale of three cities, episode two



Above is episode two of Byzantium: a tale of three cities, in which we are taken on a tour of Byzantine history from the Great Schism in 1054 through the Fourth Crusade in 1204 to the fall of the City in 1453.

* Click on links for episodes one and three.

Monday, 16 December 2013

Byzantium: a tale of three cities, episode one



Above is the first part of a three-part series currently being shown on the BBC called Byzantium: a tale of three cities. Episode one concerns the founding of the city up until the Great Schism of 1054. What’s striking about the show isn’t Simon Sebag Montefiore’s take on Byzantine history – which is fairly traditional – but the sight of the barbarians, and their barbarian ways, now occupying and disfiguring the city and the warning this should provide to any thinking Greek.

* Click on links for episodes two and three.

Thursday, 12 December 2013

On Athenian propaganda and the Battle of Plataea



Above is a video with Professor Paul Cartledge recently lecturing at the Hellenic Society on the Battle of Plataea (479 BC) – at which, a year after Thermopylae and Salamis, Greek forces routed the Persian invaders. Cartledge wants to explain why the massive barbarian empire was so determined to conquer tiny Greece and how it was that tiny Greece managed to defeat the Persians. Cartledge – a Spartan expert – is also interested in how Athens, as part of its aim to become the pre-eminent Greek state, usurped the glory associated with the victory at Plataea when it was the Spartans, as the leaders of the Hellenic Alliance and the most renowned Greek warriors, who deserved the most honour and credit for Greece’s salvation.

Monday, 9 December 2013

The phantom economic benefits of a bizonal, bicommunal federation for Cyprus

Below is a piece I came across here, which adds some flesh to the bones of my concerns, expressed in my previous post, arising from the attempt by the UN, EU and USA to sell an Annan-type solution to the Cyprus problem by suggesting the economic advantages that will accrue. The essential point is this: a bad, undemocratic solution – such as a bizonal, bicommunal federation – will create tension and conflict and prove an economic disaster.


The Cyprus Chamber of Commerce sees phantom economic benefits in an undefined solution
By Dr Aris Petasis*

The Cyprus Chamber of Commerce (CCC) inaugurated a campaign to inform us of the economic benefits of a ‘just and lasting solution’ [to the Cyprus problem]. The campaign is supported by the Development Programme of the United Nations (UNDP-ACT) and by the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce.  For the sake of brevity I will refer to the above three as CCC/TCCC/UNDP.

It appears that all three are in favour of a bizonal-bicommunal federal solution which is well-defined in the Annan plan that was supposed to solve the Cyprus problem; otherwise the United Nations (UN) would have not agreed to participate in this project. This campaign could have had any or more of the following aims: a) to simply promote the economic merits of a democratic solution; but, there is no logic in launching an expensive campaign to convince people that are already convinced on a common sense matter; (b) to convince those that, in the eyes of the above three, are ‘anti-solution’.  Again, it makes little sense to labor trying to convince rational people that a democratic solution that would see the occupation army leave Cyprus is better than no solution; and (c) to promote a bizonal-bicommunal federal solution as ‘fair and viable’ using phantom economic benefits as the thin edge of the wedge.  Only the third objective justifies a campaign.

The chamber of Psychiatrists & Psychologists of Cyprus could have easily mounted a similar exercise to explain the psychological benefits of a democratic solution; but they did not because they already know that people have enough common sense to understand the obvious (angst reduction with occupation troops departing, etc.) As professional psychologists they also know that rational people prefer freedom to occupation and security to insecurity. So, no need to mount a campaign.  

The ‘just and viable solution’ of the CCC/TCCC/UNDP campaign is confusing seeing that the term has been misused with varying and arbitrary interpretations and has now become cliché.  Indicatively, even the Annan plan was promoted as ‘fair and viable’ and in the process insulting people’s intelligence. To Turkey and the UN ‘just and viable’ has nothing to do with democracy (reminds one of chalk and cheese.)

Developed and viable economies rest on democratic polity, (for example, as in Germany and Switzerland) and not on racist concoctions of the bizonal-bicommunal federal type that fail to meet even the most basic democratic requirements. A bizonal-bicommunal federal solution will not generate any economic benefits to Cyprus. On the contrary, it will destroy Cyprus’ economy because of the uncertainty and the deadlocks that such a solution will constantly unleash leading to emigration from all communities. 

The CCC/TCCC/UNDP campaign supports that ‘a solution to the Cyprus problem will create conditions of security and stability’.  The opposite is likely to happen.  The constitutional provisions of a bizonal-bicommunal federal solution deliberately divide the country on ethnic and racial grounds through the creation of racially-based constituent states where one’s racial origins determines his/her position rather than ability and performance that are so critical to a well-functioning economy.

The CCC/TCCC/UNDP campaign adds that ‘access of vessels under the Cypriot flag to Turkish ports will result in the strengthening of Cyprus’ position’. Turkey is already obliged, through its own signature, to open its ports to vessels flying the flag of the Republic of Cyprus. Yet, Turkey refuses to recognize the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey’s position is that the Republic of Cyprus is a non-entity that needs first to dissolve itself and then morph into a federal union of two constituent ethnicity-based states within a bizonal-bicommunal federation. Also, Turkey never ceases to repeat that the only plan on the table is the Annan plan which has the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus as central tenet. 

The three say that a solution will lead to the growth of areas such as ‘agriculture through the transportation of water from Turkey to Cyprus’. As Turkey will never abandon its ‘guarantor’ status within a bizonal-bicommunal federal solution, transporting water from Turkey will put Cyprus’ water supplies under threat.

The Cyprus Chamber of Commerce promotes phantom economic benefits for an undefined political solution (reference to ‘a solution’ is not enough.)  The CCC can better help Cyprus by leading a campaign to promote a democratic solution to the Cyprus problem on which we can then build our economy which for certain will provide prospects for all Cypriots.  

*Dr Aris Petasis is member of the Board of Trustees, International Fund, Moscow State Aviation University
.

Monday, 2 December 2013

A vision for the end of Cypriot Hellenism



The video above is part of a recent concerted effort from the EU, USA and UN to stress to Cypriots the alleged economic benefits of a so-called Cyprus solution, particularly in these times of economic malaise affecting both the free and Turkish-occupied parts of the island. In the video, Cyprus is imagined as a kind of Eastern Mediterranean Dubai, a base for multinational companies looking to penetrate the Middle East, a holiday and holiday home island, in the latter case offering up its land to wealthy northern Europeans, Arabs, Russians and Chinese. In particular, the video argues, Cyprus could take advantage of Turkey’s growing economic power by seeking to attract Turkish investment and importing Turkish goods. There appears to be no place for Greece in this vision of a globalised Cyprus, significantly tied to Turkey, in which Greeks would soon become a minority on a multinational, cosmopolitan island.

Friday, 22 November 2013

Karamanlis’ betrayal of Cyprus: ‘Greece cannot help you. You’re on your own.’



Above is an interesting item from RIK news broadcast this week in the aftermath of the death of former president of Cyprus Glafkos Clerides in which the prominent jurist Polys Polyviou talks about the period between the first (20 July) and second (14 August) phases of Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

The three-week ‘ceasefire’ was supposed to allow peace talks to proceed in Geneva between Britain, Turkey, Greece and the two Cypriot sides, while in fact Turkey used the hiatus to build up its forces on the island in preparation for a more decisive military operation, the first operation having failed to achieve its objectives. It was during the Geneva talks period that the Americans – even if we accept their claim that they were ignorant of the Greek junta’s coup against President Makarios and impotent to prevent the first Turkish invasion – provided encouragement and diplomatic cover to Ankara to complete the forcible partition of Cyprus.

At the Geneva talks, Glafkos Clerides was chief negotiator for the Greek Cypriot side and it’s worth drawing attention to Polyviou’s recollection of the interaction between Clerides and Konstantinos Karamanlis, who had assumed power in Greece following the fall of the junta.

Prior to going to Geneva, Clerides visited Athens for consultations with the Greek government.

Polyviou – who was part of the Cypriot team – says that in Athens, Clerides met with Karamanlis and minister of defence, Evangelos Averoff.

Karamanlis said to Clerides: ‘The situation is exceptionally difficult. Our armed forces are in a chaotic and deficient state. I can’t predict what will happen, but I’m 70-80 percent certain Greece cannot help Cyprus.’

Karamanlis’ advice to Clerides was to prolong the negotiations in Geneva in order to give Greece time to influence the positions of the major powers, which were favouring Turkey. Clerides responded to Karamanlis that, in his view, in Geneva the Turks were going to demand partition and that, in the event of the Greek Cypriots not agreeing to this, would resume hostilities to bring about their aim. Clerides asked Karamanlis what Greece proposed to do should Turkey resume military operations against Cyprus.

Karamanlis’ reply was: ‘Glafkos, I can’t tell you anymore than I’ve already told you.’

With the Greek Cypriots unwilling to accept the Turkish demands for partition and the Turks not prepared to further delay their military plans, Turkey broke off the Geneva talks. On 14 August, the Greek Cypriot delegation flew to Athens to seek the support of Karamanlis and the Greek government against what seemed imminent Turkish attack.

In a dramatic meeting, Polyviou recalls Karamanlis telling Clerides: ‘Greece cannot help you. You’re on your own.’

To which Clerides replied: ‘Mr President, in the name of God, can’t you offer us anything at all? I appreciate you cannot send land forces; but can’t you at least send a ship, something, anything, to divert the Turks?’

Karamanlis: ‘Glafkos, we cannot do anything.’

Clerides: ‘So what did [Greek foreign minister, Georgios] Mavros mean when he told us in Geneva, “in a choice between dishonour and war, we prefer war”? Why did he tell us this?’

Karamanlis: ‘I don’t know. I’m not Mavros.’

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

Werner Herzog and Cormac McCarthy on civilisation, tragedy and the end of the world



Good discussion in the above video on the links between art and science, the origins of civilisation and the end of the universe, involving Werner Herzog and Cormac McCarthy, during which the American writer responds to the charge that he depicts the world as ‘grim’ by saying: 
‘If you look at classical literature, the core of literature is the idea of tragedy. You don’t really learn much from the good things that happen to you. Tragedy is at the core of human experience. It’s what we have to deal with. That’s what makes life difficult and that’s what we want to know about, what we want to know how to deal with. It’s unavoidable. There’s nothing you can do to forestall it; so how do you deal with it? All classical literature has to do with things that happen to people they really rather hadn’t.’

Tuesday, 5 November 2013

Χώμα που περπάτησα, γη που νοσταλγώ



Above is an uplifting video featuring supporters of Anorthosis – the sporting club from the Turkish-occupied Greek city of Ammochostos (Famagusta) – during a Challenge Cup volleyball match with the Turkish team Fenerbache played last week in Limassol. Regarding the history of Anorthosis and who and what it represents, it’s worth bearing the following in mind:

Anorthosis was formed in 1911 as a cultural and political organisation aimed at promoting and mobilising Hellenism in the Famagusta region of Cyprus and took its name from Eleftherios Venizelos’ rallying cry of Anorthosis (Regeneration) as he prepared Greece for the realisation of the Great Idea.

Anorthosis collected funds and sent volunteers to the Balkan and Asia Minor wars and, during the EOKA period 1955-59, the club played a leading role. EOKA stalwarts Kyriakos Matsis, Grigoris Afxentiou, Antonis Papadopoulous, Pavlos Pavlakis and Panagiotis Toumazos were all members of Anorthosis; and in 1958 the English blew up Anorthosis’ headquarters in Famagusta as punishment for the club’s EOKA connections.

Currently, Anorthosis is a club in exile, and the majority of its supporters – who come from the city of Famagusta, its satellite towns and villages, and the Karpasia peninsula – are refugees.