Photography: Ivy's Brings Us A Lovely Photographic Travelogue to CyprusCuisine: DELICIOUS -- NO-FAIL MODERN CYPRUS EASTER BREAD (“FLAOUNES”)Culture: “Aspects of Armenian Art” exhibition opens at Leventis Municipal Museum in Nicosia

Saturday, August 11, 2007

US gave full backing to Turkish invasion of Cyprus

I truly enjoy visiting the States as each trip brings new sights and experiences. If you ever planned a trip to the Southern part of the States, then you are familiar with Southern hospitality and the generally friendly people who love to “small talk.” 

Southerners love to talk, you will always find at least one person (at the mall, the café or even when you are at a table enjoying the Southern cuisine) that comes up to you and offers that cheerful hello.

I recall a brief conversation with one particular lady who wanted to know why there was such a high level of hostility to the US. “The people there don’t like us” she said.

“That’s not true,” I said. “You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the press.”

Who was I kidding? As much as I hate to admit it, there is strong resentment against the US here in Cyprus. 

Where is this resentment born from in the first place?

The resentment stems from the perceived support of the Greek junta and for the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Are these perceptions accurate? Well, take a look below at what the press has recently reported and decide for yourselves.

The United States gave full blessing to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, even assuring Turkey that it would "get them a solution involving one third of the island.''

This cynical US involvement is revealed in the latest batch of secret official State Department documents released for publication under the 30-year rule.

The American stand has long been known, but this is the first time that it has been confirmed so completely by an official State Department document.

This is clarified in the very first paragraph of the document which is stamped ``SECRET/EYES ONLY.''

It declares that the only conceivable settlement of the Cyprus problem "will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form."

While admitting that the United States ``has the clout'' to prevent the invasion, the document nevertheless advises against doing so "before the fighting stops."

The document is dated August 14, 1974, the exact date of the second massive wave of the Turkish invasion of the island. It is headed: ``Memorandum for the Secretary - Cyprus Actions'' from Helmut Sonnenfeldt, one of the top State Department officials dealing with Greco-Turkish affairs.

The document even includes a map detailing the plan of action of the Turkish invasion force. This is headed ``Map done by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research projecting Turkish moves on Cyprus, August 13, 1974.''

It is worth noting that this plan was the one followed exactly by the Turkish troops, a further proof of the close American involvement in the Turkish invasion planning.

Here is the full text of the document:

August 14, 1974 
FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt 
SUBJECT: Cyprus Actions

You wanted some brief ideas on what we do next.

Nothing I can think of will stop the Turks now from trying to secure by force what they demanded in their ultimata. In fact, as has always been true, the only conceivable modus vivendi will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form.

If the Turks move fast and can then be gotten to stand down, it may pre-empt Greek counteraction and then give us a chance to try for a deal. (It may also save Karamanlis).

While the Soviets can serve as a bogey, we must keep them at arms length. They cannot become the arbiter between US allies. Their interests differ drastically from ours: we want a modus vivendi between Greece and Turkey, they want a non-aligned Cyprus, preferably with Greece or Turkey or both disaffected from NATO.

Thus, we should

urgently try to contain Greek reaction; 24 hours at a time;
bluntly tell the Turks they must stop, today, tomorrow at the latest;
warn the Turks that Greece is rapidly moving leftward;
send high-level US man to Athens to exert continuing direct influence on Karamanlis;
assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure Turks we will get them a solution involving one third of the island, within some kind of federal arrangement;
assure Greeks we will contain Turk demands and allow no additional enclaves, etc.
You should not get involved directly till the fighting stops; then you must since there is no alternative and only we have the clout.

I do not think Brussels/NATO is the place to use when the time comes. The Greeks are probably too sore at NATO and the vehicle of a ministerial meeting is awkward. Anyway, you need Ecevit and Karamanlis.

London may be unacceptable to the Turks because of Callaghan’s blast at them. 
You should not shuttle.”

This may mean Geneva. Washington, at the President’s initiative, would be all right but hard to get the parties to come to. 

Also provocative of the Russians. New York would make it difficult to keep the Russians away.

You could also try Rome.


Yankee Doodle said...

"It is worth noting that this plan was the one followed exactly by the Turkish troops, a further proof of the close American involvement in the Turkish invasion planning."

All that proves is that the US had good intelligence on what was happening.

I hope the disgust with what American foreign policy so often turns out to be does not carry over into disgust with Americans.

Interesting post.

Anonymous said...

Americans as "friends" have done no less evil to Hellenism than the Turks as enemies.
I'm sure that if Greece had had the slightest support of the USSR, the barbarian Turks would have never even dared look askance at a Greek, let alone risk a full-scale war with Greece. It was the impunity and security provided by America's perfidy and greed that eventually made the Turks so dangerous and successful.
A few extra Soviet divisions deployed in July of 1974 in Eastern Armenia or Georgia would have made the Turks tame and cowardly. But why should the Soviets have done anything for the Greeks? The Greece of Papadopoulos and Ioannidis was as rabidly anti-Soviet as their US masters with Kissinger and the whole Washington gang. So Greece paid the horrendous price for relying on her enemy while making enemies of her potential and valuable allies, if not friends. When the hour of need came she stood there alone, betrayed and defenceless against the savage barbarian invaders using the US weapons to smash the few brave Hellenes defending their homes and families.

Anonymous said...

The Turks definitely do have dark passages in their history - most Empires are forged in the blood of countless innocents. This said, Doesn't the same hold true for the Greeks? Did they not have their conquerers that shed much blood?

It is one thing to judge an empire, a nation harshly, but when you make such statements against a people - its racism.

mache said...

Enough with these childish arguments already---for example, the one directly above ^^^^ (i.e. we did bad things but so did you). Really? That makes it ok? A nation is composed of people (and their actions)---and you can't claim racism for the benefit of your argument. Please take responsibility for your (country's) historic misdeeds and let's move on to a more cooperative, positive and peaceful future as neighbors.