Cyprus Problem | Embargoed For Over 50 Years

Cyprus Problem | Embargoed For Over 50 YearsMany people think the embargoes on Turkish Cypriots started with the Cyprus War in 1974 and the subsequent division of the island. Wrong!

This short promo film takes you back to the start of the Cyprus Conflict in 1964, with a telephone conversation between two former American Presidents who want to stop the Greeks “killing Turks” and the Turks from “invading” Cyprus. They thought they had solved the problem…

Over 50 years on, Turkish Cypriots are still internationally isolated for no good reason. Watch the video and see what this means for those living in North Cyprus.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

41 comments to Cyprus Problem | Embargoed For Over 50 Years

  • Miltiades

    “Over 50 years on, Turkish Cypriots are still internationally isolated for no good reason. ”

    Try usurpation of G/C land and properties, the expuilsion of 160,000 G/Cs from their ancestarl lands, 40,000 Turkish occupying troops, more than 100,000 settlers, you may just find a good reason !!

  • Wallet and Gromit

    Who started it tosspot?
    Go back in time say 1963 …
    You really are a wanker…

  • Miltiades

    This might explain as to who started it, Stupid.
    https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DJJ1tbJXFKIC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=BRITAIN+GAVE+CYPRUS+AN+UNWORKABLE+CONSTITUTION&source=bl&ots=JTpQ3EBNyf&sig=iQe5KIEIwrjJsFjbyJF4sUus-WM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEoQ6AEwCWoVChMIze-ptNCMxwIVwbsUCh1pow6V#v=onepage&q=BRITAIN%20GAVE%20CYPRUS%20AN%20UNWORKABLE%20CONSTITUTION&f=false

  • fluter

    Yes, that would be William Mallinson of the Ionian University, and a leading light of the American Greek population.

    No bias there, then!

  • Miltiades

    Once you have read it, do please tell us which parts are biased !

    By the way, are you aware that the so called constitution forced on Cyprus by predominantly the British was unworkable for the simple reason that neither the majority nor the minority could enact and bills in parliament. A well known ply used by the British, devide and rule.
    How on earth can a parliament anywhere perform if unable to pass any bills.

  • AM

    Would that be the “unworkable” terms that were put into place to protect the TC’s ?
    Makarios (questionable character) removed these in 1963 a huge 3years after independence that didn’t last long did it ?

    The GC’s will never be satisfied whatever happens.

    What puzzles me Milti is the fact you have not lived in Cyprus for over 50years yet you seem to be the only one who protests about the Cyprob,…where are the other 1m protesters ?

  • Wallet and Gromit

    Whatever!

  • Jerry

    He’s not the only one AM. Most of us have accepted the fact that the carpetbaggers and their hangers on are blind to the fundamental fact that Turkey was determined to re-gain a presence on Cyprus after the British left.. With British connivance Turkey engineered a unique undemocratic and unworkable constitution that reinforced the enmity between the two communities. Turkish attempts to intervene and subsequently invade were twice thwarted by the US but in 1974 they succeeded and have effectively colonised part of the island.

    The current talks are most encouraging but the bottom line is how much territory will Turkey return to the Greek Cypriots.

  • Ian Edwards

    Gee Jerry, that’s some spin, even for you! It was a British constitution “engineered” by Britain, and if it was unworkable it was as much because of Makarios and his avowed push for enosis as anything else.

    And Turkey finally “succeeded” in intervening and invading in 1974….how and why, exactly?? Did you forget to mention that little Greek coup, or would that have been playing against the spin?

    The answer to your last question,Jerry, would be any land previously owned by GCs that was still vacant and undeveloped. If you want developed land to be returned, you’d have to cough up half of Larnaca Airport. Forget any nonsense about legal acquisition for infrastructure…you can’t have it both ways Jerry.

  • AM

    And the blame game goes on and on.

    Turkey would not be in Cyprus if it wasn’t for the Greek Coup in 1974…. FACT
    The people who bought property in the TRNC are not responsible for the Cyprob…FACT
    The breakup of the 1960 constitution in 1963 was not the fault of the TC’s….FACT
    There was a workable solution in 1974 which one side refused….FACT

    Have you worked out the common denominator in all this Jerry,..I’m sure you have:-)

  • Miltiades

    A bunch of senile old crap concurring with each other. Get the fruck out of Cyprus you frisking ignorant peasants. Off you go, on your frikking bikes you ignorant peasants !

  • Miltiades

    ” Cyprus figures prominently in the early history of Christianity, being the first province of Rome to be ruled by a Christian governor, in the first century, and providing a backdrop for stories in the New Testament [3]”

    Where was Turkey and the muslims then you ignoramus fricking pieces of krap

  • AM

    And that has what to do with the discussion or have we been hitting the red plonk again ?

  • Ian Edwards

    Nothing and yes, AM.

    It’s just his standard anti-Muslim bigotry winking through the alcoholic haze….

  • Jerry

    AM you omit the FACT that Turkey declared in 1955 that if and when the British left the island should be returned to Turkey – against the will of the majority of the population. Turkey insisted on the right of unilateral intervention under the Treaty of Guarantee, I suggest yo ask yourself why.

  • AM

    So what you are saying Jerry is that Turkey used the events of 1974 as an excuse to enter the island ?

  • Jerry

    AM, yes. It had little to do with “saving” the Turkish Cypriots.

  • Ian Edwards

    But Jerry, it had a little to do with saving the Turkish Cypriots, surely?

  • Jerry

    I’ve posted this before, some readers may have had a little difficulty understanding it.

    (Page 468) Telegram From the Embassy in Cyprus to the Department of State1

    “Nicosia, August 25, 1974, 1300Z.

    2622. Subj: Turkish Intentions on Cyprus.

    1. 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 com- munity, except insofar as this relates to primary purpose. Best indication this regard is total write off of enclaves located in southern half of island. Despite repeated radio requests for aid, so far as we aware, Turks made no effort reinforce or resupply these areas. Turk mainland Commander in Larnaca, who exfiltrated in civilian dress via Dhekelia, reportedly told British that his instructions were to offer token resistance before surren- dering. Said he had ample ammo and weapons to have continued fight for extended period. (This info, which contradicts accounts put out by Turk Cypriot leaders, largely confirmed by UNFICYP observation.)

    2. Thus, while Turks had force to occupy entire island, and di- vide 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) state and has little or no interest in creation of an independent Turk Cypriot mini-state or move towards double enosis.

    3. Either of latter two courses would run contrary to basic reason for intervention since, by implication, they would open the door to in- troduction of substantial Greek mainland forces onto island. This would place Turkey in position of having southern ports (and heart- land cities) again endangered or of going to war to take entire island, destroying island’s quasi-independence, and facing prospect of pro- tracted guerilla struggle.”

  • Ian Edwards

    You posted it before, I answered it before.

    Did you not notice?

  • AM

    Jerry, why did you not reproduce the whole article,… being selective again ?

    There is no American reason why the Turks should not have one-third of Cyprus. We will make a statement today that will get the New York Times off our back, but we should not twist their arm.

  • Jerry

    AM, the whole article is several hundred pages, that’s why I did not reproduce it. What’s the relevance of your second paragraph? it does nothing to to disprove Turkey’s real reason for invading.

  • AM

    http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus43532.html

  • Jerry

    AM, so what?

  • AM

    There is no American reason why the Turks should not have one-third of Cyprus. ?

  • Jerry

    AM if you care to read the link http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/96606.pdf
    in detail you will see that initially the US simply wanted to keep a lid on the coup and its immediate consequences. Following the invasion it became concerned about the new Greek Government’s communist leaning and eventually endorsed its NATO ally’s, Turkey, position on Cyprus. Turkey wanted to keep Greece out of Cyprus, the US wanted to keep the communists out of Cyprus. A Turkish military force on the island suited both of them but for different reasons. Some claim that the American CIA were behind the Greek coup against Makarios because of his communist sympathy but it certainly did not instigate the Turkish invasion.

    From the link:-
    page 293 Kissinger “We also have to get the Turks to stay out of it.”
    Page 294 “Secretary Kissinger: We have to keep the Turks and the Soviets out
    of this.”
    Page 331 “If the Turks want a piece of the island then in my view we have
    to work for double enosis and give the Greeks the other part of the is-
    land so my view is there are now two possible outcomes. Either dou-
    ble enosis or Clerides.”
    Page 338 Kissinger ……and so the Turks did
    what they have been wanting to do for 15 years—establish a predom-
    inant position on Cyprus.”

  • Dominic Freeman

    A very interesting article in the Cyprus Mail

    ‘So it was no surprise, therefore, that from a legal standpoint, all political analysts of that time considered the Turkish invasion an inevitable consequence of the Greek invasion, especially as the right of unilateral intervention derived (as much as we do not like it) from the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960. And no state condemned the Turkish invasion. Even in the UN resolution 353, issued on July 20, 1974, there was no reference to a “Turkish invasion” (these two words were not mentioned) but called for the “immediate termination of the foreign military intervention in the Cyprus Republic”, alluding thus also to the unlawful involvement of Greece. Consequently, anyone would have great difficulty effectively countering Akinci’s argument that the invasion of July 1974 prevented the consolidation of the illegal coupist regime and de facto enosis.’

    http://cyprus-mail.com/2015/08/09/admission-of-some-bitter-truths/

  • AM

    It’s a classic case of certain people just reading and believing what they want.

    I was just reading that article Dominic and came on here to post but you beat me to it. 🙂

  • Jerry

    “prevented the consolidation of the illegal coupist regime” Absolutely priceless, since we now have an illegal TURKISH regime effectively annexed, bought, paid for and illegally colonised in the north of the island.

    Why does nobody recognise the “trnc”, I wonder? The “intervention” may have been legal, everything that followed was not.

  • AM

    “Why does nobody recognise the “trnc”, I wonder?”

    I think the question should be “Why haven’t any one done anything about it”

    Its probably an admission that they do recognise it by doing nothing over the last 40yrs ?

  • Miltiades

    Go have your bath you stupid ignorant peasant !! AM how many times do I have to tell you, you are far to fricking stupid to enter any debate.

  • AM

    and the village idiot enters the debate…..

    all downhill from here then.

  • Jerry

    AM I thought even you could figure that one out. The answer is NATO.

  • AM

    Jerry, I appreciate what you say about NATO however we should move away from the notion that nobody other than Turkey recognise the TRNC (officially that is?)

    Just take all the major brand names widely available in the North and yes it’s imported via Turkey but brands like Mrecedes, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Nike, Adidas would not let their products anywhere near a market they are uncomfortable with.
    I know this as a fact as I work within one of the above major brands and trust me brand is everything to these people and they are more than happy for their product to be on the open market in the TRNC.

    Lets stop kidding ourselves here ?

  • Jerry

    I assumed we are/were talking about recognition by other States. Major brands are motivated only by money, no doubt British companies were trading with the Nazis up until the outbreak of war – that does not mean they approved of Hitler and his regime.

  • Miltiades

    Jerry, stop talking to this idiot!!!

  • AM

    Milti, please butt out

    You are way too stupid to be on this forum.

  • AM

    Maybe so Jerry but I am confident that they stopped trading when war started… Unlike the companies that did and still are supplying goods to TRNC.

    If you wish to split hairs then its only a matter of time before one country breaks rank….just one.

    But look at it another way if a country of origin allows its manufactured goods to be exported to TRNC then surely that is recognition because when all is said and done states only recognise one and other so they can trade ? So its all about money in the end.

  • Jerry

    Who are you kidding, most if not all of the major brand goods imported to the north arrive via Turkey.

    You are clutching at straws, formal de jure recognition by other states is what really matters. On 18th November 1983 the UN Security Council declared that the proclamation of the trnc should be considered null and void. The Council called upon all States not to recognise the trnc. According to the UN Charter the “trnc” cannot be recognised on the grounds that recognition of a state created as a result of illegal use of force is incompatible with the principles of international law.

    http://www.ankarabarosu.org.tr/siteler/AnkaraBarReview/tekmakale/2010-1/1.pdf

  • Ian Edwards

    Jerry, I’m afraid it’s you who is clutching at straws. “formal de jure recognition by other states is what really matters” is only according to you. According to the rest of the world, international trade is what really matters.

    And as one example of that, the global coffee chain Gloria Jeans has opened 3 outlets in TRNC and is trading nicely. Not imports from Turkey, but concrete and coffee.

    You can stand on the principles of international law all you like, Jerry, but countries don’t need to formally recognise a viable market…all they need to do is invest in it.

  • AM

    Jerry as I said earlier if any of the major brands listed above did not want their products sold in the TRNC then they would not be here,… Turkey’s involvement or not.