Very few people have bare idea what it was. Majority of the people had not heard of it yet.
Even most of the Greek Cypriots not heard of it. They innocently think that the Cyprus Problem had started in 1974. The reason I call it innocently is that, they were and still are, deceived by the Greek Ad-ministration or by their good old Politicians and by their ecclesiastics systematically.
The dense Greek propaganda, convinced the world that the prob-lems or the disputes in Cyprus, started by the Turkish intervention in July 1974. Before that the island was so peaceful, that it could be ad-dressed as the paradise on the earth.
But in contrary to this allegations and the false propaganda, Archbishop Makarios II, the first president of the Republic of Cyprus, initially admitted to the press in New York after the coup that there was indeed a plan, before December 1963, to exterminate the whole Turkish Cypriot population overnight in order to remove the impediment to the “Greek national aspirations.”
This was in fact nothing but the Akritas Plan.
It was not some body else but again the “Black Monk” Makarios who had the Akritas Plan prepared, and the underground political and military organization established to support its execution as of Decem-ber 1963.
Iphestos plans were not ever part of the dispute between Maka-rios and Ioannides, neither was the “sacred cause” of enosis.
The core of the dispute was about who would do it and be the eternal “Hero” of the Hellenic Nation.
Sampson was installed as the henchman of the Greek junta, Greek and Greek Cypriot armed forces had already started to surround Turkish Cypriot enclaves and villages. Communications had been se-vered, roadblocks set up, martial law and a curfew imposed and the airport sealed off.
The Iphestos Plan had been designed to cut off Turkish Cypriot enclaves and villages from each other, to isolate and besiege them and to deal with each of them individually, but simultaneously. Than erase them from the map and from the registry of the Bureau of vital statis-tics.
Black Monk Makarios and the Greek military junta, which came to power in 1967, were increasingly locked into a power struggle. This duel turned as of 1973 into a messy feud and a personal fight for survival between the “Black Monk” and Gen. D. Ioannides of the mili-tary police, the strong man of the revised junta in Athens.
The origins of the feud ran back to 1963-64 when Ioannides had served as a major in the Greek military contingent in Cyprus, be-friended Nicos Sampson and developed both a plan on how to get rid of the Turkish Cypriots and a hatred for the “treacherous ways of the Black Monk.”
The plan developed by Ioannides and his friend Sampson back in 1963 was, “to attack the Turkish Cypriots suddenly, all over the island, and eliminate them once for all”
The truth about the meeting in 1963 between the Black Monk Makarios and Sampson was somewhat different.
In 1976, that is two years after the coup had taken place and the Greek junta gone, he accused Gen. Ioannides of being “criminal” and alleged that, “he couldn’t even conceive the idea of killing so many in-nocent people”.
This allegation is of course out of character and not supported at all by the facts, by the way Black Monk Makarios behaved towards the Turkish Cypriot people under the Akritas Plan.
It was Makarios himself who had declared in 1964, in the course of the brutal Greek and Greek Cypriot onslaught against Erenkoy (Kokkina), that, “he would order an attack on every Turkish village, and Turkey would find no Turkish Cypriots left alive if they landed!” .
Quite scared of his tyrant attitudes towards Turkish Cypriots, he knew Turkey would step in one day, to save the lives of their collateral, which he faced with it in 1974.
You are now reading my maiden article in this very fresh column of Cyprus News, titled “ATUN FACTOR”.
Most probably you’ll be wondering “who’s this guy” and what would be the contents of his column.
Actually I am a Turkish Cypriot and an academician with a very interesting background. Well educated in US universities and elected as a Member of Parliament, representing the constituency of Famagusta in the National Assembly as young as in the age of 26.
Of course, after entering the politics at so young age, I just couldn’t escape from it, nor the politics could kick me out. Political experience as a parliamentarian, turned out to be a further postgradu-ate study for me, later in my life.
In depth knowledge of the Cyprus history, especially the grave period stretching from 1955 to 1974, on top of my engineering educa-tion, backed up by the thirty years of political experience, opened fur-ther doors like the head of Cyprus Turkish delegation during UN’s An-nan Plan negotiations in Cyprus, advisor to deputy Prime Minister, the membership to the Board of the International Scientific Academy and many more alike.
I have been writing political articles and commentaries in various local, Turkish and international newspapers in Turkish and English language, since 2003 and now they are well above 1000, in number.
You’ll be reading non aligned, non committed, non attached crys-tal clear commentaries, observations, opinions, thoughts and forecasts on Cyprus issue, political history of Cyprus, EU-Turkey accession ne-gotiations and realities behind the political curtains of Cyprus, Brus-sels and Ankara triangle.
In August 1960 a partnership state between Turkish and Greek Cypriots was set up in accordance with the international agreements signed by the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides, as well as the Turkish, Greek and British governments.
However, in 1963, only three and a half years later, the Turkish Cypriots were ousted by brutal force from all organs of this infant re-public by their Greek Cypriot partners in clear breach of the founding agreements, treaties and the Constitution.
The claim thereafter put forth by the Greek Cypriots to represent the “Republic of Cyprus” has been illegal, and has not been recognized by Turkey.
Then a grave period, stretching from 1963 to 1974, took place on the island; a time that was more than a nightmare for Turkish Cypriots.
The 1974 operation by Greece to annex the island, in contraven-tion of Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee, dated 16 Aug 1960, Article II, through a coup attempt, was blocked by Turkey, in accordance with the aforementioned 1960 Treaty of Guarantee.
Consequently, Turkish Cypriots set up their own republic, while continuing the search for reconciliation.
The decision of the EU to start negotiations with the Greek Cy-priot administration for the accession of “Cyprus,” without the consent of Turkish Cypriots and in disregard of the negotiations under the auspices of the UN secretary-general, further complicated the situation.
Despite the absence of a settlement, the European Council in Copenhagen approved the EU membership of “Cyprus,” based on the unilateral application of the Greek Cypriot administration.
Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) ar-gued that the Greek Cypriot side had no authority to negotiate on be-half of the whole island and that this accession would be in contraven-tion of the relevant provisions of the 1959-1960 treaties on Cyprus, and thus constituted a violation of international law.
The said treaties prohibit Cyprus from joining any international organization of which both Turkey and Greece are not members.
Cyprus is the home of two nations and there exist two democrat-ically organized states in the island.
The Turkish side always supported the efforts carried out under the good offices mission of the UN secretary-general towards finding a just and viable settlement to the Cyprus issue.
However, the Greek Cypriot side rejected the 1985-86 draft framework agreements, the UN sponsored set of ideas of 1992, the package of confidence building measures of 1994 and more recently the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, the Annan plan, in April 2004.
Turkey and the KKTC have always believed that only a sincere and constructive approach, which also takes into account the vital interests of the both sides, could produce a just, lasting and viable settlement in Cyprus.
With this understanding toward the end of 2003 the Turkish side took yet another initiative to re-launch the negotiation process.
The Annan plan was the result of this initiative and was put to separate and simultaneous referenda on April 24 in both parts of the island.
The Greek Cypriot people and the Turkish Cypriot people have thus exercised their inherent constituent powers.
While the Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected it (75.83 per-cent against), the Turkish Cypriot people approved the settlement plan by a clear majority (64.91 percent in favor), despite the significant sa-crifices that it entailed for them.
Greek Cypriot leader Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos delivered a tele-vised speech, several hours before the referenda, urging his people to cast a resounding “no” to the plan.
The leaders of the Greek Cypriots not only opposed the plan, but at the same time conducted a very strong and active state-run “no” campaign.
Thus against the repeated calls of the international community, the Greek Cypriot people were directed to a “no” vote by their leaders.
It has been now three years since the referenda, a new situation had arisen in the island.
It has been once again confirmed that the Greek Cypriots have no authority to represent the whole of Cyprus or the Turkish Cypriots and they have no intentions for a fair-minded and sustainable agreement to settle the Cyprus dispute, once and for all.
Consequently, partition now seems to be the best solution for the island, as belief also held by 28 percent of the Greek Cypriots, accord-ing to the public poll held in southern Cyprus by Noverna during the last weeks of March 2007. This figure is now around 65 percent in the North.
Between March 2003 and April 24, 2004, Turkish Cypriots were systematically kept under a heavy bombardment of propaganda and brainwashing.
Also during this period, Turkish Cypriots were consistently de-ceived with “Euro showers” — huge grants to NGOs with pseudo-promises such as, “If you vote yes, the embargoes will be lifted.” As a result a 65 percent majority voted “yes” in the April 24 Annan plan referendum. Naturally the manipulations were over the next day.
At this time a new concept known as “manufacturing public per-ception” was carried into effect by acknowledging communal weak points and ruthlessly brainwashing Turkish Cypriots.
Close your eyes for a moment and recall rallies, the popping-up of pseudo-political parties, broadcasts on the local TV stations and full-color editions of some of the local newspapers during that spell.
Remember what a big setup was it and how the Turkish Cypriots were baited and you will think it is unbelievable.
When a 75 percent majority of Greek Cypriots voted “no” in the referendum, the spell was broken and the anger shifted toward them.
Right after the referenda, in as little as 48 hours, there was a bonus for the 65 percent majority “yes” vote of Turkish Cypriots. You may even call it blood money, but the European Council concluded with the direct trade and financial aid regulations. In other words the majority vote on the part of Turkish Cypriots was paid back with these regulations.
Similar to usual practice after the accession of Greek Cypriots in-to the EU, both regulations were put to death by these people only four days later on May 1, 2004.
Now the EU, or to be more precise EU term president Germany, has revalued one of these regulations only three weeks before delivering the leadership to Portugal, quoting a new price.
According to this new quote, Turkish Cypriots will be granted the direct trade regulation when Turkey fulfills her obligation of officially recognizing the Greek Cypriot administration mentioned in the acces-sion frameworks talks dated Oct. 3, 2005.
Stated briefly, Turkey should recognize the Greek Cypriot admin-istration and, in return, the EU will allow Turkish Cypriots the right to direct trade (of course with them only, not the whole of the world).
Turkish Cypriot merchandise will then be exported from the port of Famagusta, which is currently not recognized as an international sea port. For the internationalization of this port, the ghost town Varosha will be handed to Greek Cypriots.
This is the proposal thought up by German politicians as a final solution to the direct trade affair.
As if this solution was logical and equitable, German Foreign Mi-nister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made the proposal to Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül during the recent Turkey-EU Troika meeting in Ankara as discussions were being held on the Cyprus dispute.
When this new proposal is read carefully, it can be clearly seen that it is not an uplifting of all embargoes, but simply a means for direct trade at an expensive price. Even if the proposal were agreed upon, the unjust political, economic, cultural, social, sporting and trade embargoes will still be standing firm, waiting to exact another unjust and heavy payment for their lifting.
The cost of direct trade will be the handing over of Varosha, the Greek quarter of Famagusta, to Greek Cypriots. Legally this place is owned by the Abdullah Pasha and the Lala Moustapha Pasha founda-tions and has been since the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus that was later occupied by Greek Cypriots on Dec. 21, 1963.
In reality this cost has already been paid and will be paid again in the future as it is the same “monkey business” staged on Crete 150 years ago. This time, however, it will not be the same.
The decision in the Myra Xenides-Arestis case of December 2006, for which there had been an application for referral to the Grand Chamber by both Turkey and the applicant, has not been accepted and the judgment [of December 2006] became final. Concerning the ownership of this property, her grandfather, Mr. Mavrodi Haji Hambi Mavreli, managed to register illegally — probably with trickery, this property to his name on Sept. 15, 1913, in the land registry office of Cyprus, although it was already the property of a Mulhaq Vakf, named Abdullah Pasha.
After 35 years, on Oct. 5, 1949, he granted this property to his daughter Anna Mavroudi Haji Hambi and finally Mrs. Hambi granted this very property to her daughter, then Mira Xenidu, on Feb. 28, 1974.
This is a representation of the property fraud and spoliation that happened in Cyprus with regard to Turkish-owned land.
If the compensation for the violation of Mrs. Arestis’ property and home rights for the past 33 years is around 2 million euros, then the compensation for the past 94 years of spoliation should be around 6 million euros, plus interest.
The decisions of the Court of Famagusta, concerning the files 271/2000 and 272/2000, clearly state that around 90 percent of Va-rosha, in the Famagusta district, belongs to the Abdullah Pasha Vakf (Foundation) and the Lala Mustapha Pasha Vakf. The previously men-tioned property of Mrs. Arestis is also one of the lands owned by the Abdullah Pasha Vakf.
Surprisingly, the documents to prove the ownership of the above mentioned property were never submitted to the court by the KKTC authorities and the original deeds by Mrs. Aresti. She only claimed to be the owner of the property by submitting a document, written and stamped by the Ministry of the Interior, stating she was the owner.
During the British period, when the island was under Imperial governance, some of the properties, including the Vakf properties, we-ren’t properly registered in the Land Register. The then Government of Cyprus issued the “Registration and Valuation of Immovable Property (12/1907)” rule in 1907, to enable the registration of these properties.
While this law protected the rights of the properties owned by the Orthodox Churches, it contained some items against some specific type of Vakf properties, irrespective of the Protocol dated July 1, 1878 annexed to the Defense Treaty Agreement of June 4, 1878 and signed by Great Britain and Ottoman Empire and principles of Ahkamul Evkaf, which was in effect on the island since 1571.
Of course, while this new rule was put in effect without taking into consideration these contradictory items, the Ottoman Sharia Judicial System and Ottoman rules were still prevailing. This means that the properties owned by the Ottoman Vakfs all over the island of Cyprus, including the ones in Varosha, were still under the rule of Ottoman Land Law. The Principles of Ahkamul Evkaf are still in effect today.
Although this new rule (12/1907) was edited in the English lan-guage, all the relevant law terms used were in Ottoman.
Under this rule, item 29, which regulates the Vakf properties, gives the right of ownership to the lessees renting the properties of Arazi-Mevcoufe and Idjareten Mevcoufe type of Vakfs after possessing it for more than 10 years, if not claimed by the relevant Vakfs.
But both Vakfs, the Abdullah Paska Vakf and the Lala Mousta-pha Pasha Vakf are “Mulhaq” type of Vakfs and cannot be included in the item 29 of law 12/1907.
In the original title deed of Mrs. Aresti, the owner of the property is clearly written as “Abdullah Pasha” and this Vakf is classified as “Mulhaq Vakf.”
Not any rule in the island, either Ottoman or English, even today allows sales or granting of the Mulhaq Vakfs.
It is very obvious that the grandfather of Mrs. Arestis registered this property to his name illegally and against the rules and regulations of the Ottoman Empire, British Empire, Government of Cyprus and the Ahkamul Evkaf.
The Directorate of Vakfs of the KKTC, should take the case to the Court of Famagusta and have a court decision amend the ownership of the property unlawfully owned by Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis, and re-register it to the name of Abdullah Pasha Vakf, as it was originally.
She should then be prosecuted and asked for 6 million euros in compensation for the unlawful use of the property for the past 96 years.
