"The Voice of Blood" - Antonis Angastiniyotis Options

[BIGTURK]

GREEK CYPRIOT AUTHOR EXPLAINS GREEK CYPRIOT ATROCITIES

Greek Cypriot author, Antonis Angastiniyotis, who questioned Greek Cypriot nationalism in his written works and in his documentary "The Voice of Blood" drew attention to the mass massacres carried out by the Greek Cypriots against the Turkish Cypriots, dedicated his new article entitled, "Barbarism Against the Turkish Cypriots…The other side of the coin", to the Turkish Cypriot schoolchildren who were brutally massacred in Murataga in 1974 and brought to light the Greek Cypriot brutality.


In his article Angastiniyotis said:


"I'm constantly asked why I'm opening old wounds and not letting the past to be forgotten. The answer is very simple. The wounds are not old, otherwise there wouldn't be mothers dressed in black, weapons, soldiers and borders. Although I've lived on this island for 40-years, I only began to explore the other half of the realities last year and what I discovered bore a deep wound in my soul.


When I got over the propaganda wall and realized that people were knowingly hiding the other half of the reality or they were distorting the reality, the past now becomes a frightening 'present'. If you want to find more than one reality, you need to constantly dig the soil until your hands are bloody. If you talk, they say you are a traitor, threaten your life, and most of your friends turn their backs on you. You can be totally alone.


Loneliness no longer frightens me. For a long time now, at nights a group of children from Murataga come to my bed and together we read short stories. They smile happily at me because I have told their stories to the world, whereas I am engulfed in tears because of not being able to count the number of bullet wounds in their small bodies before they leave. The wounds cannot be old because when I wake up I find blood stains on my white sheets. The wounds cannot be old because up until now no one has apologized.


The animosity between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is not new. It didn't start in 1974, or in 1963, nor when the Byzantium Empire collapsed. It started much earlier; it started during the Cain and Abel period. The start of the animosity is in the hearts of the people and as long as it remains there, we will seek the opportunity to bury Cain's dead body or take revenge from Abel.


The purpose of writing this book is social, not political. However, it is not possible to avoid the political aspects of the events. The main aim is to address every Cypriot, especially the Greek Cypriots. Because I also learned to look at the political situation of Cyprus from this point of view.


Both the domestic tension created by the 24 April 2004 referendum with the aim of reunifying the island (Annan Plan) and my daily contacts with the world, takes me to only one conclusion. Extreme nationalism that is deeply rooted in peoples' hearts is the biggest obstacle for people to reconcile. For the situation to change permission must be given to explain the realities regarding the dark corners of history. It's not possible for people to clean their souls without regretting what they've done and it's not possible for them to regret what they've done without acknowledging their faults.


The majority of the Greek Cypriot youth know very little about the events that led to the island's division. The tragic events of 1974 have been used as a huge curtain to cover up the real events that led to the division of the two people. In our schools it has always surprised me that while talking about the heroism of EOKA, they skip 15-years and continue with 1974. Either nothing happened between 1960 and 1974, or no one wants to discuss this. While researching the events during this period (1960-74), I realized that the second choice was right.


When I started to write this research, my cousin from Greece and her two daughters came to visit me and we started to discuss the events of 1963-74. The daughters knew nothing and what their mother knew was very confusing. At one stage of the discussion I mentioned some of the Greek Cypriot leadership's mistakes and all of a sudden this brought out the nationalist monster in my cousin who said: "Makarios' biggest mistake was not to have killed all the Turkish Cypriots in order for us to be comfortable".


This sweet and pretty woman, who couldn't even kill an ant, had suddenly turned into a killer who could carry out mass murders. She wanted a whole race to be wiped out. This is what I said to her: "In other words, do you mean taking out all the children from school, all mothers with their babies and all the men from their work places and taking them to a big hole in Messaria and murder them…Do you want to be one of the murders or the one of the persons using the bulldozer to cover the mass graves…"


There was silence. The example I gave helped her to understand the meaning of what she said. Then I started to speak again. "We tried this before in Ayvasil, Murataga, Atlilar, Taskent, but the only thing we succeeded in was soughing the fruits of our efforts".


Since our childhood we were taught that the Turks were barbaric dogs. My aunt used to say to me that they smelled because they weren't baptised. Whereas according to the Bible, we are modern Christians who love their environment. Then, why did our religious leader Makarios in 1964 say that 'If Turkey comes to intervene to protect the Turkish Cypriots, she will not find a single Turkish Cypriot to save…' The answer is clear. In Cyprus there is a saying, 'another priest's sermon'. In certain situations this enables us to hate. This book will deal with some of these special situations.


While there are those who claim that 'the Cyprus problem started in 1974 and the problem is an issue of invasion and can be settled if the invading forces withdrew from the island', the Turkish Cypriots know well what they would be faced with if Turkish troops left the island. Because the bitter pain of the 11-years before the arrival of the Turkish troops has not been erased from their memories. The EU should to Papadopoulos, 'the Turkish troops brought peace to Cyprus, they are the protectors of peace because as you arm yourself to take over the whole of Cyprus under the usurped title of the Cyprus Government, the Turkish Cypriots have the right to be protected and to protect their state against you'.


Those who peace, unification and reconciliation should see the realities and act realistically. The realities in Cyprus have been ignored for 40-years. These realities are the existence of two equal peoples in Cyprus with the right to self-determination and that neither one of these sides can dominate or represent the other and does not have the right to be the sole government of the whole of Cyprus…"

[BIGTURK]

Hmm, it just shows that how plain ignorance, teaching racism from childhood and preaching hatred can lead to such awfull attrocities as the Greek Junta comitted on Cyprus against the Turks.

This brave Greek man is standing up and pointing out this problem and trying to expose it so it can maybe be solved.

[BIGTURK]

[BIGTURK]

A brave Greek, a great Rum.

[Get Real!]

GREEK CYPRIOT AUTHOR EXPLAINS GREEK CYPRIOT ATROCITIES

The “brave” man you quote, Tony Angastiniotis, lives in the “TRNC” and is employed by Bayrak and/or one those clandestine “TRNC” universities.

You should always use NEUTRAL sources if credibility means anything to you.

[arrow]

The “brave” man you quote, Tony Angastiniotis, lives in the “TRNC” and is employed by Bayrak and/or one those clandestine “TRNC” universities.

You should always use NEUTRAL sources if credibility means anything to you.

Your credibilty sank when you voted no to the Annan plan.

[Hosank]

arrow, no offence, but have you even read the annan plan? did you not consider for a second why it would be back for the greek cypriots to vote it?

* The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. (2001) The Annan plan equates the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the proposed Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation to the two communities. The majority becomes a minority in important decision centres.[1]
* The plan created a confederation even though it utilized the term "federation" because there was no hierarchy of laws, while central authority emanated from the so-called component states. Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable, whereas this structure is successfully implemented in Switzerland. In 1789, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot (77% of population) and Turkish Cypriot judges(18% of population), plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.[2]
* The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.
* Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.
* The Plan simply disregarded the plain language and clear meaning of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, article 49, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. Article 49 states in its last paragraph: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
* The Plan did not deal in full with the issue of demilitarisation of the legally invalid 'TRNC', and Greek Cypriots felt they had no reason to believe Turkish promises concerning the withdrawal of troops.
* Cyprus would be excluded from the European Common Defense and Foreign Policy, while Turkish troops would remain in Cyprus even after the accession of Turkey to the EU with intervention rights, (a military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically), in the future Greek Cypriot component state.
* Many Greek Cypriots interpreted the Right of Return policy as seriously flawed, meaning only 20% of Greek Cypriot refugees would be able to return over a time frame of 25 years, whereas Turkish Cypriots would have had full right of return. The plan denied to all Cypriots rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens (right of free movement and residence, the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services, the right to vote).[3]
* Turkish Cypriots would have gained all the basic demands it made, from the first day of the implementation of the solution. To be exact, 24 hours after the holding of the referendum. In contrast, everything that the Greek Cypriots were aspiring to achieve, would have postponed without guarantees and depend upon the good will of Turkey to fulfil the obligations it undertakes. They are also subject to the precondition that all would have gone well.
* The return of the Turkish occupied land will take place in the period between three and a half months and three and a half years from the moment the solution is signed with no guarantees whatsoever that this shall be implemented. The Cypriot-Greek proposal of placing these areas under the control of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus and not the Turkish army has been rejected.
* The Plan did not address the issue of the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the island, although parts of the SBAs would be transferred to the governments of the two constituent states.
* The British were granted rights to unilaterally define the continental shelf and territorial waters along two base areas and to claim potential mineral rights. Under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements, Britain did not have such rights (see the 2nd annex to the Additional Protocol to the 1959 Treaty of Establishment).
* The plan absolved Turkey of all responsibility for its invasion of Cyprus and its murders rapes, destruction of property and churches, looting and forcing approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property. The Cyprus government filed applications to the European Commission on Human Rights on September 17, 1974 and on March 21, 1975. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the two applications on July 10, 1976. In it the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

1. Article 2 - by the killing of innocent civilians committed on a substantial scale;
2. Article 3 - by the rape of women of all ages from 12 to 71;
3. Article 3 - by inhuman treatment of prisoners and persons detained;
4. Article 5 - by deprivation of liberty with regard to detainees and missing persons - a continuing violation;
5. Article 8 - by displacement of persons creating more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees, and be refusing to allow the refugees to return to their homes.

* The plan failed to provide payment by Turkey:

1. for the lives of innocent civilians killed by the Turkish army;
2. for the victims of rape by the Turkish army;
3. for the vast destruction of property and churches by the Turkish army; and
4. for the substantial looting by the Turkish army.

* The Plan subverted the property rights of the Greek Cypriots and other legal owners of property in the occupied area:
o by prohibiting recourse to European courts on property issues;
o by withdrawing all pending cases at the European Court of Human Rights and transferring them to local courts;
o by allowing Turkish Cypriots and illegal mainland Turk settlers/colonists to keep Greek Cypriot homes and property they were illegally given following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and not having to reimburse the rightful owners of the property for 30 years of illegal use;
o by a highly complicated, ambiguous and uncertain regime for resolving property issues and which is based on the principle that real property owners can ultimately be forced to give up their property rights which would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and international law. The Greek Cypriot property owners would have to be reimbursed by the to be federal treasury which would be funded overwhelmingly by the Greek Cypriots, meaning that Greek Cypriots would be reimbursing themselves.
* The Plan would have the effect of protecting those British citizens who illegally bought Greek Cypriot property from settlers or persons who are not owners; in the occupied north of Cyprus. They would, in effect, not be held responsible for their illegal action.
* The cost of economic reunification would be borne by the Greek Cypriots. The reunification cost has been estimated close to $20b[4]
* Following Annan 5 plan the Greek Cypriots would not have been allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village in the Turkish controlled areas in the north thus they would have been prevented from setting up their own schools for their children and would not have even been able to give birth once this quota was reached.

According to UN 260 resolution Genocide is: (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* The agreement places time restrictions in the right of free, permanent installation of Greek Cypriots back to their homes and properties in the to be Turkish Cypriot state, which constitutes a deviation from the European Union practices. Those Greek Cypriot refugees that would return to their homes in regions under Turkish Cypriot administration would have no local civil rights, because the political representatives of Turkish Cypriot state would be elected only from Turkish Cypriots.[5]
* The functional weaknesses of the Plan endanger, inter alia, the smooth activity and participation of Cyprus, with one voice, in the European Union. While the Greek Cypriots have with many sacrifices achieved Cyprus accession to the European Union, the Greek Cypriots could very easily be led to the neutralization of the accession until the adoption of all necessary federal and regional legal measures or the loss of the benefits of the accession or the facing of obstacles in Cyprus participation in the Economic and Monetary Union and other European institutions.
* The Economy of Cyprus would have been separate with the plan. There will be no common Monetary policy, fiscal policy and no investments by Greek Cypriot businesses shall be allowed in the Turkish Cypriot constituent state.
* Many Greek-Cypriots felt that the demand that the Cyprus issue be resolved before Cyprus' entry to the EU was so that the reunification would not have to contain elements of European law which were incompatible with certain provisions in the Annan Plan. This was further backed up by many who demanded the EU accept all derogations even if they violate European Court Decisions, European Law and UN Security Council Resolutions. Both Romano Prodi and Günter Verheugen repeatedly indicated that any such derogations should only be for a short period of time and should not violate any European Laws. [6]

[Get Real!]

Your credibilty sank when you voted no to the Annan plan.

Save your weird opinion for the Annan plan thread… not here!