A recipe for lasting neo-colonialism: The legacy of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ enunciated on 19 and 26 June 1958
19 June 2018
Published by Agora Dialogue to mark the passage of 60 years since the publication of the ill-fated ‘Macmillan Plan’ on 19 June 1958[1]
‘Harold Macmillan, carried in the sea at Accra, Ghana, 1960’[2]
Introduction: ‘the problems of Cyprus’
In certain circles, it is often said that ‘the Cyprus problem’ (in the singular) amounts to one of ‘invasion and occupation’.[3] In a sense, this is true, but it is not completely true. A more accurate phrase is the one used on 26 June 1958 by Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, the then British Colonial Secretary. Back then, he spoke of ‘the problems of Cyprus’ (in the plural).[4]
For the reasons outlined in this article, the current ‘problems of Cyprus’ are not limited to the inhumane, illegal and, it would appear, criminal consequences of the two invasions launched by Turkey on 20 July and 14 August 1974.[5] Put another way, these ‘problems’ are not restricted to the multiple acts of inhumanity flowing from the tens of thousands of forced evictions, forcible transfers and other forms of ethno-religious cleansing, which led to the occupation, colonisation, exploitation and desecration of 36 per cent of the territory as well as 57 per cent of the coastline of the Republic of Cyprus.
In addition to the injustices cited above, ‘the problems of Cyprus’ include the lasting constitutional, legal, philosophical, cultural and other consequences of a divisive British policy which crystalized on the back of a number of British ministerial pronouncements delivered sixty years ago in the context of the then British Crown Colony of Cyprus. These pronouncements, which must never be forgotten, were spearheaded by a ‘statement of policy’ delivered in the House of Commons on 19 June 1958 by Harold Macmillan MP, the then British Prime Minister.[6] This ‘statement’ was published as a White Paper released on the same date.[7] It has gone down in history as the ill-fated ‘Macmillan Plan’.
The context against which the ‘Macmillan Plan’ was prepared[8]
At the end of May 1958, the United Kingdom was trying to cling on to the Crown Colony of Cyprus and to its nascent network of military bases there.[9] To this end, the British colonial authorities were struggling to keep a lid on the post-1955 armed paramilitary campaign waged by EOKA against British rule but in favour of enosis, the proposed union of Cyprus with Greece.
No less significantly, having been encouraged to do so by the Government of the United Kingdom, which had floated the prospect of partition in Parliament on 19 December 1956,[10] Turkey was pressing for the territorial partition of Cyprus. As the summer of 1958 unfolded, Turkey still ‘strongly backed’ partition,[11] as did elements of those elements of the Turkish diaspora who had staged a demonstration in favour of partition in London on 23 February 1958.[12]
At the same time, Turkey was craftily helping to stoke inter-communal tensions in a British Crown Colony where Christians and Greeks formed the overwhelming majority of the population. As noted by Lord Radcliffe, the senior judge who served as Constitutional Commissioner for Cyprus in 1956, ‘the population of the island’ was ‘formed, as to about 80 per cent of Greek Cypriots’, ‘as to about 18 per cent of Turkish Cypriots’ and as to ‘2 per cent’ in respect of ‘smaller communities of British residents, Armenians, Maronites and others’.[13]
In this context, it should not go unremarked that the minority of persons named by Lord Radcliffe as ‘Turkish Cypriots’ did not form the majority in any of the six main administrative districts in the Colony. In the words of John Maclay MP, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, as expressed on 23 January 1957, the ‘Turkish population’ as he named it, was at the time ‘intermixed with the Greek population throughout the island, although there are scattered villages and parts of towns where the Turkish population predominate.’[14] In consequence, the demographical and regional realities were not conducive to any form of geographical partition.
By mid-June 1958, severe inter-communal violence was unleashed. The immediate spark was what now appears to have been a Turkish false flag operation involving the detonation of a bomb in the Turkish Consulate in Nicosia on 7 June 1958.[15] Within a few days, the inter-communal violence became so bloody that Greece came to the brink of war with Turkey and Cyprus came close to a civil war.
As one scholar, Christos P. Ioannides, has observed, ‘inter-communal conflict on the island’, such as the one, which erupted in June 1958, ‘served well the logic and policy of partition.’[16] After all, the violence helped Turkey to propagate the misleading notion that ‘the two communities’ – a phrase which the British had begun to propagate in 1956 – had to be physically separated from one another.
All of which helps to explain the telling words of George Sinclair, the Deputy British Governor, as relayed to Taylor Belcher, the American Consul in Nicosia and recorded by Mr Belcher in a telegram sent by the latter on 9 June 1958, two days after the Turkish false flag operation in Nicosia and as inter-communal violence was spreading. This was ‘their [i.e. the Turks’] all-out bid for partition’.[17]
One day later, on 10 June 1958, the British Cabinet convened in London and, according to the declassified minutes of its meeting held on that date:
‘The Foreign Secretary [Selwyn Lloyd QC MP] said that the internal security situation in Cyprus had deteriorated in the last few days and the Turkish Cypriots appeared to be deliberately attempting to create the impression that it was impossible for the two communities in Cyprus to live together harmoniously.’[18]
On the same day, i.e. on 10 June 1958, Prime Minister Macmillan participated in ‘talks’ in Washington DC where he presented the gist of an unpublished new British ‘plan’ to his American hosts, including Secretary of State Dulles and the younger brother of the latter, Allen Dulles, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who was also present. According to the US State Department ‘Memorandum’ of these ‘talks’, Prime Minister Macmillan explained that his ‘plan’ offered ‘a chance, and perhaps the last chance, of ending the dangerous situation on the Island.’[19]
This was not the first and certainly not the last occasion on which a non-Cypriot politician or diplomat had tried to ‘sell’ a Cyprus-related ‘plan’ by describing it as ‘the last chance’. As I have written in a previous article published by Agora Dialogue, British politicians and others have been peddling ‘the last chance’ since at least 21 December 1956![20]
Against this background of inter-communal turmoil, international tensions and British snake oil salesmanship, US President Eisenhower was evidently in despair. Indeed, according to a declassified ‘Memorandum’ of a telephone conversation he had with Secretary of State Dulles on 14 June 1958, President Eisenhower ‘guessed all we can do is pray.’[21]
Five days later, on 19 June 1958, the ‘Macmillan Plan’ was born.
The ‘Macmillan Plan’ of 19 June 1958
The ‘Macmillan Plan’ embodied a neo-colonial British prime ministerial vision of the future under which ‘the international status of the island’ under British sovereignty would ‘remain unchanged for seven years’,[22] subject to a raft of proposed reforms.
On the one hand, the proposed reforms included the suggested formation of ‘a separate House of Representatives for each of the two communities’,[23] i.e. two new structures of segregation. In other words, this and other related measures effectively envisaged an enhanced form of ‘bi-communal’ segregation, which the ‘Macmillan Plan’ and, thus, Prime Minister Macmillan, dressed up as ‘representative Government’.[24]
Other persons saw through the charade. One such person was James Callaghan MP, the then Shadow Colonial Secretary, who later served as the British Foreign Secretary at the time of the two Turkish invasions of 1974 and as the British Prime Minister from 1976 until 1979. On 26 June 1958, Mr Callaghan pointed out that:
‘The major criticism that can be made of the plan is that it emphasises the separation of the two communities rather than their unity. … We have two [proposed] communal assemblies, each of which is to consider its own communal matters. … Then we have a [proposed] representative of the Greek Government and another of the Turkish Government sitting on the [proposed] Governor’s Council.
‘All this is an emphasis on division, and not on unity. …
‘I am, therefore, entitled to say that in my view these provisions emphasise the separateness rather than the unity that the Colonial Secretary wishes to achieve.’[25]
A few days later, on 8 July 1958, Lord Winster provided an even more withering assessment of the ‘Macmillan Plan’. In the words of Lord Winster, who had been Governor of Cyprus from 1946 until 1949:
‘In all that I did I aimed at integration. This plan seems to aim at segregation. Sometimes I think of Little Rock [a segregated American city in Arkansas] as I read the terms of the plan. The Times has said that it is “virtually a system of non-territorial partition.” I hope that the ultimate idea is unity and not partition.’[26]
As events were to unfold, these words proved to be prophetic.
On the other hand, as spotted by Mr Callaghan, the ‘Macmillan Plan’ included an array of proposed measures designed to protect British interests and to give Turkey, as well as Greece, a say in the administration of what was still a British Crown Colony under exclusive British sovereignty. Prime Minister Macmillan dressed up this vision of heightened neo-colonial external interference as ‘practical co-operation between the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey’; Mr Macmillan also described it as forming part of an ‘experiment in partnership and co-operation’.[27]
In substance, the ‘Macmillan plan’ was ‘an experiment’ in something else – neo-colonialism. After all, it was an attempt by the United Kingdom, the colonial ruler of Cyprus from 1878 onwards, to protect its strategic interests and, at the same time, to reintroduce Turkey, the colonial ruler from 1571 until 1878, into the domestic affairs of Cyprus. Moreover, this ‘experiment’ was undemocratic as it was the product of a secret and, in my assessment, procedurally unfair process of policy-making, which defied the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the population of Cyprus.
As pointed out on 26 June 1958 by Lena Jeger MP, an independent-minded backbench Labour parliamentarian:
‘We must look carefully at the plan, not from our point of view so much as from the point of view of the people of Cyprus. It is their country that we are talking about. Never in the history of the international treaties which have been referred to this afternoon has there been a single occasion on which the people of Cyprus have ever been consulted. Disraeli did not consult them at the time of the Treaty of Berlin [in 1878]. Nobody consulted them at the time of the Treaty of Lausanne [in 1923]. Anthony did not consult them when he gave Cyprus as a birthday present to Cleopatra [in 34 BC]. Throughout history, nobody has ever paid the slightest attention to the views of the people whose country this is.’[28]
As events were to unfold, the ‘Macmillan Plan’ was widely though not universally reviled and Prime Minister Macmillan had to put it on ice. That being said, the lasting legacy of the ‘Macmillan Plan’ does not lie in its redundant provisions. Instead, the enduring significance of the ‘Macmillan Plan’ lies in a neo-colonial doctrine of division. This doctrine was effectively enunciated when Prime Minister Macmillan unveiled the ‘Macmillan Plan’ on 19 June 1958 and when he and Mr Lennox-Boyd offered further insights into its character on 26 June 1958. Accordingly, I have coined the following term to describe it: the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’.[29]
The essence of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’
With the neo-imperial aims of safeguarding British interests, balancing other competing priorities and preventing Greeks from controlling the Island of Cyprus, the essence of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ rests on two inter-linked propositions.
On the one hand, via ‘the policy of communal autonomy’, the population of the Island of Cyprus must be segregated into two autonomous neo-Ottoman ‘communities’ consisting of non-Muslims, who were effectively re-labelled by the British in 1956 as ‘Greek Cypriots’, and Muslims, who were likewise re-labelled by the British in 1956 as ‘Turkish Cypriots’.[30]
For these and for other reasons, ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ serves the perceived interests of the United Kingdom as well as Turkey. It does so by overcoming ‘inconvenient’ local demographic realities and by achieving a number of related outcomes. Such outcomes include: constructing constitutional governance from ‘the top down’ on the cracked foundations formed by ‘two communities’, rather than on the power of ‘the people’; separately empowering each of ‘the two communities’; blocking the will of the majority of the population; enhancing ‘bi-communal’ segregation; and effectively negating the inter-related principles of integration, unitary self-determination and majoritarian democracy. The net effect is a constitutional, administrative and political culture steeped in neo-Ottomanism, rather than liberal democracy.
On the other hand, under ‘the principle of partnership’, the other main tenet of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’, ‘the two communities’ must be chained to three foreign states – Turkey, the United Kingdom and Greece, the first two of which are past colonial rulers of Cyprus. In line with the ‘Macmillan Doctrine, all of these five ‘parties’ must therefore be locked into an unbreakable ‘partnership’.
Not surprisingly, ‘the principle of partnership’ has a number of inevitable if not intentional effects of benefit to the United Kingdom as well as Turkey. One effect is to fasten one of ‘the two communities’ to Turkey, while at the same time cementing ‘bi-communal’ segregation, promoting divisive neo-Ottoman values and impeding the inclusive values of liberal democracy. Another effect is to facilitate foreign interference in the Island of Cyprus and thereby enable the United Kingdom to cling on to its strategic interests.
Some might call this ‘a very British’ adaptation of ‘divide and rule’. Others might call it naked neo-colonialism. Yet, what is not in any doubt is that the two main tenets of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ have never been jointly applied in any one of 4,000 or so islands and islets in the Mediterranean with one solitary exception – Cyprus.
All of which brings to mind one of the ideas advanced by Carl Schmitt, the German legal academic who, from 1933 until 1936, served as ‘the Crown Jurist of the Third Reich’ and, as such, an advocate of the Hitler regime. In his analysis of the meaning of sovereignty, Schmitt advanced the following thesis: ‘sovereign is he who decides upon the exception.’[31] Under this view, true sovereignty and power in any particular place vest in the specific person, body or state, which dictates or determines whether an exception will come into existence. On this basis, who was ‘sovereign’ in the British Crown Colony of Cyprus? And who is ‘sovereign’ in the Republic of Cyprus today?
The ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ as effectively embodied in the ‘statement of policy’ delivered on 19 June 1958
My distillation of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’, as provided above, is partly based upon elements (b) to (d) of the ‘statement of policy’ delivered by Prime Minister Macmillan on 19 June 1958. On that date, Mr Macmillan explained that British policy ‘has had four main purposes’, namely:
‘(a) To serve the best interests of all the people of the island. (b) To achieve a permanent settlement acceptable to the two communities in the island and to the Greek and Turkish Governments. (c) To safeguard the British bases and installations in the island, which are necessary to enable the United Kingdom to carry out her international obligations. (d) To strengthen peace and security, and co-operation between the United Kingdom and her Allies, in a vital area.’[32]
One may reasonably infer that element (a) amounted to nothing other than window dressing. After all, its reference to ‘all the people’ (in the singular) was effectively negated by the ‘bi-communal’ segregation built into the neo-Ottoman concept of ‘two communities’ (in the plural), as per element (b). For these reasons, I would suggest that elements (b) to (d) encapsulate the real primary purposes of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’. However, there is considerably more to the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ than what is found therein.
The ‘two main foundations’ of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ as articulated by the British Colonial Secretary on 26 June 1958
On 26 June 1958, Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, the then Colonial Secretary, clarified that the ‘Macmillan Plan’ was ‘based’ on ‘two main foundations’ which, in my submission, likewise form the ‘foundations’ of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’.
Mr Lennox-Boyd described the ‘first’ of these ‘foundations’ as ‘partnership’;[33] on 26 June 1958, [34] as he had done a week earlier, [35] Prime Minister Macmillan named this as ‘the principle of partnership’.[36] This ‘principle’ was – and remains – a recipe for external interference in the Island of Cyprus. After all, ‘the principle of partnership’ requires the Island to be chained to a ‘partnership’ arising from an ‘agreement’ reached in secret in procedurally unfair circumstances, approved by five ‘parties’ and ostensibly enshrined in law.
Evidently enough, ‘the principle of partnership’ is partly based on the concept of ‘the two communities’. However, it also rests on a pre-existing British policy, which had previously resulted in the ‘Tripartite Conference’ held in London from 29 August until 7 September 1955;[37] the three parties at this ‘Conference’ were the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece. Under this pre-existing British policy, the United Kingdom voluntarily gave Turkey, as well as Greece, the opportunity to have a formal say in the constitutional and legal future of the British Crown Colony of Cyprus.
The United Kingdom was under no legal duty to introduce or follow this policy. Indeed, as acknowledged by Colonial Secretary Lennox-Boyd on 26 June 1958:
‘[T]he legal sovereignty of Cyprus is vested in the British Crown by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. Under Article 20 of that Treaty Turkey hereby recognises the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government on 5th November, 1914. This is the operative Article relating to Cyprus in that Treaty, and in recognising our sole sovereignty over Cyprus the Treaty legally and implicitly permits us to do what we think best in and with the island. It gives us the right, among other rights, to decide what other countries we choose to consult about the status of the island.’[38]
It follows that the United Kingdom knowingly brought Turkey into the ‘tri-partite’ international framework designed by the British Government in 1955 and adapted by it for the purposes of the ‘Macmillan Plan’ in 1958.
As for the ‘second foundation’ of the ‘Macmillan Plan’ (and, thus, the other ‘foundation’ of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’), Mr Lennox-Boyd depicted this as ‘the policy is communal autonomy.’ As he put it: ‘This policy is essentially one for an undivided Cyprus, but it recognises the obvious fact that there are two main separate communities in Cyprus. …’. Mr Lennox-Boyd went on to suggest: ‘Under this policy, Cyprus will be associated not only with the United Kingdom and, therefore, with the Commonwealth, but also with Greece and Turkey.’[39] With all this evidently in mind, Mr Lennox-Boyd proceeded to claim that ‘the interests of all the peoples of Cyprus are safeguarded.’[40]
The reader will no doubt have spotted that Mr Lennox-Boyd used words, which reflected an Orwellian form of double-think. On the one hand, Mr Lennox-Boyd made a misleading reference to ‘an undivided Cyprus’ (in the singular). On the other hand, he referred to the ‘two main separate communities’ (in the plural), as well as ‘the peoples of Cyprus’ (also in the plural).
‘The two communities’
The reference by Mr Lennox-Boyd to purported ‘peoples’ (in the plural) was consistent with element (b) of Prime Minister Macmillan’s ‘statement of policy’ of 19 June 1958, which referred to ‘the two communities’, and with Turkish neo-colonial strategy, as formulated on 24 November 1956 by Professor Nihat Erim, the then adviser of Adnan Menderes, the Prime Minister of Turkey. Back then, Professor Erim equated ‘the two communities’ with ‘two separate peoples’.[41] By this formula, Turkey and the United Kingdom could neutralise ‘inconvenient’ demographic realities and further their respective neo-colonial aspirations.
It was in this period, as illustrated by the aforementioned Report of Lord Radcliffe, dated 12 November 1956, that the concept of ‘the two communities’ came into vogue. Indeed, in his Report, Lord Radcliffe referred to ‘the two communities’ on no less than four occasions.[42] It was also in this period, therefore, that the expressions ‘Greek Cypriot’ and ‘Turkish Cypriot’ likewise came into vogue as well.[43]
In previous decades, British ministers and other officials tended to pin other labels onto their colonial subjects in Cyprus. Such labels included ‘non-Mahommedan’ and ‘Mahommedan’,[44] ‘Christian’ and ‘Moslem’[45] and ‘the Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking parts of the population’.[46]
Lord Radcliffe, a veteran of the partition of India, played a key part in this process of renaming. After all, in his Report, he wrote about ‘Greek Cypriots’ and ‘Turkish Cypriots’ as well as ‘Armenians, Maronites and others’.[47] On this and on other occasions, Cypriots with Armenian, Maronite, Latin or other backgrounds were not expressly named as ‘Armenian Cypriots’, ‘Maronite Cypriots’, ‘Latin Cypriots’ and so on. One may reasonably infer that such labels were – and remain – incompatible with ‘bi-communal’ segregation, the latter of which cannot countenance the existence of anything more than ‘two communities’ owing their origins to the Ottoman Turkish division between non-Muslims and Muslims.[48]
It was against this background that Colonial Secretary Lennox-Boyd MP floated the prospect of a territorial ‘partition’ in his landmark statement of 19 December 1956,[49] eighteen months or so before the publication of the ‘Macmillan Plan’. In his statement, Mr Lennox-Boyd deployed two expressions in keeping with those used by Lord Radcliffe a few days earlier:[50] ‘the Greek Cypriot community’; and ‘the Turkish Cypriot community.[51]
Thus, by means of the Report of Lord Radcliffe, dated 12 November 1956 and the statement of Mr Lennox-Boyd, dated 19 December 1956, the United Kingdom was able to stitch all of these colonial labels into the lexicon of the then British Crown Colony of Cyprus. There they have remained ever since. So much so that these colonial labels – including ‘the two communities’, ‘Greek Cypriots’ and ‘Turkish Cypriots’ – are and remain by-products of British colonialism and they ought to be widely recognised as symbols of neo-colonialism, segregation, supremacism and institutional racism to the detriment of every legitimate Cypriot who does not regard himself or herself as being ‘Greek Cypriot’ or ‘Turkish Cypriot’.
To anybody reared on the fresh milk of liberal democracy and its ‘vitamins’, such as pluralism, none of this makes much sense. However, it does make sense to anybody reared on the curdled milk of Ottomanism or neo-Ottomanism. After all, the British ‘policy of communal autonomy’ was – and remains – an outgrowth of the Ottoman millet system, the latter of which offered a limited number of ‘religious communities’ a limited degree of autonomy under the Caliph and Sultan.
‘Communal autonomy’ and ‘intellectual partition’
Both the British ‘policy of communal autonomy’ and the British ‘principle of partnership’ inter-relate with the neo-Ottoman doctrine of ‘intellectual partition’. The latter slipped from the lips of Fatin Zorlu, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, in talks in Washington DC on 18 November 1958. According to Foreign Minister Zorlu, the doctrine of ‘intellectual partition’ not only rests on the idea that ‘the two communities must be given the idea that neither was being governed by the other …’. In addition, ‘intellectual partition’ has an international dimension. To quote Foreign Minister Zorlu, ‘the three governments principally concerned [i.e. Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom] should cooperate to this end’ without inviting the United Nations to ‘mix … in this matter’.[52]
All in all, therefore, ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ was – and remains – a recipe for neo-Ottoman segregation, for the fostering of a culture steeped in neo-Ottomanism, for the nullification of any prospect of meaningful integration and for the negation of democratic norms such as unitary self-determination and majoritarian democracy subject to the rule of law. Moreover, ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ is the essential counterpart to ‘intellectual partition’ and ‘the principle of partnership’.
The ‘Macmillan Doctrine’, the ‘Conference on Cyprus’ and the London Agreement of 19 February 1959
Even though the ‘Macmillan Plan’ was put on ice as the latter part of 1958 unfolded, the two main tenets of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ were applied when Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom sought to finalise the Zurich Agreement reached by Greece and Turkey on 11 February 1959, as promptly endorsed by the United Kingdom subject to the protection of its interests. This is why the ‘five parties’ were invited to take part in the ‘Conference on Cyprus’ held at Lancaster House in London from 17 until 19 February 1959.[53]
At the close of the ‘Conference’ on 19 February 1959, Prime Minister Macmillan greeted the conclusion of the London Agreement with the following sentiments, which amply reflected ‘the principle of partnership’:
‘I am glad to inform the House [of Commons] that in the Cyprus Conference agreement has now been reached between the three Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom and the representatives of the two main communities in the island. …
‘[W]e have always maintained – and that, to my mind, has been the whole problem – that we would never settle this question except by a Turkish, Greek, British, Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot agreement.’[54]
Two months later, Mr Lennox-Boyd, the Colonial Secretary, reaffirmed that these were the ‘five parties’ involved in approving the London Agreement:
‘Five parties were engaged in the London Conference – the United Kingdom Government, the Governments of Greece and Turkey, and representatives of the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot communities.’[55]
In due course, on 16 August 1960, the nominally independent and sovereign Republic of Cyprus was established upon the cracked ‘foundations’ of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’.
Firstly, in line with ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ and Mr Zorlu’s related doctrine of ‘intellectual partition’, the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus[56] divided citizens into two semi-autonomous ‘communities’. One was named as ‘the Greek Community’ (into which Greek, Christian and other non-Muslim citizens of the Republic of Cyprus were constitutionally herded into).[57] The other was named as ‘the Turkish Community’ (into which Turkish and Muslim citizens were constitutionally herded into).[58]
The Constitution cemented ‘bi-communal’ segregation in other ways too. For example, the Constitution retained a number of pre-1960 structures of segregation, such as segregated schools[59] and separate electoral lists.[60] In addition, the Constitution created new structures of segregation such as two ‘communal chambers’.[61]
All of which not only cultivated a culture of systemic segregation. It also fostered the emergence of parallel structures of governance, parallel systems of justice and parallel societies – within one sovereign state. The upshot was chronic ‘bi-communal’ division a full fourteen years before the de facto ‘bi-zonal’ territorial partition manufactured by force by Turkey in 1974.
Another upshot was institutional racism. To accommodate the principle of ‘bi-communal’ segregation, Armenians, Maronites and Latins were collectively relegated to ‘religious groups’ subordinate to ‘the two communities’. Today, all these decades later, in a flagrant example of institutional racism or other forms of institutional discrimination, Armenians, Maronites and Latins remain marooned and constitutionally disempowered as ‘religious groups’.[62]
Secondly, in line with ‘the principle of partnership’, an international ‘partnership’ arose upon the signature and coming into force of three Treaties: the Treaty of Establishment 1960; and the Treaty of Guarantee 1960 (to which the Republic of Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece became parties); and the Treaty of Alliance 1960 (to which the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece become parties). To illustrate the neo-colonialism generated by these Treaties, it suffices to point out that the Treaty of Establishment, as guaranteed by the Treaty of Guarantee, ostensibly procured the de jure partition of the territory of the Island of Cyprus. This was achieved upon the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus subject to the retention of two ‘sovereign base areas’ by the United Kingdom.
Back in 1960, not one of the neo-colonial constitutional or legal texts mentioned above was the subject of any fair and transparent consultation exercise or referendum. Instead, in manifestly neo-colonial circumstances and in line with the pattern articulated by Lena Jeger MP and as quoted above, the package of texts dated 16 August 1960 was simply dumped on the new citizens of the Republic of Cyprus as a non-negotiable fait accompli.
The lasting legacy of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’
As events were to unfold, ‘the problems of Cyprus’ did not come to an end with the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus on 16 August 1960. On the contrary, the Republic of Cyprus was built on a minefield consisting of visible as well as hidden ‘problems’. After 1960, these ‘problems’ mushroomed.
To begin with, ‘bi-communalism’ inevitably gave rise to communalism with all that entails. As the Oxford Dictionary reminds us, communalism has the innate capacity to engender ‘[a]llegiance to one’s own ethnic group rather than to the wider society’.[63] Or, as the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary puts it, communalism equates to ‘a strong sense of belonging to a particular, especially religious, community, which can lead to extreme behaviour or violence towards others’.[64] This is precisely what happened after a constitutional crisis led to the outbreak of fresh inter-communal bloodshed in December 1963.
In addition, Turkey set out about implementing a segregationist, partitionist and neo-colonial agenda, subject to an overt post-1964 Turkish pre-occupation with the proposed manufacture of two separate ‘zones’ under a perverse form of ‘federation’. In other words, post-1964 Turkish strategy adapted post-1956 Turkish strategy, as identified by Prime Minister Macmillan on 26 June 1958. On the latter date, Mr Macmillan captured the gist of Turkish strategy with the following form of words:
‘The Turks – I am putting their view – regard Cyprus as an extension of the Anatolian Plain, a kind of offshore island with vital significance for their defence and their security. They say – this has been their argument up to now – that the Turkish-Cypriot community must not be ruled by a Greek-Cypriot community and they have advocated the physical separation of the two communities by means of a territorial partition. That is their view of the situation.’[65]
The nadir eventually came in the summer of 1974. On 15 July 1974, the junta governing Greece at the time staged an unlawful coup in Nicosia. This gave Turkey to pretext to launch its first Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus on 20 July 1974. This caused the Athenian junta and its short-lived puppet regime to collapse on 22 July 1974, on which date a cease-fire was proclaimed. In due course, Turkey launched its second invasion on 14 August 1974. This took place a full three weeks after the downfall of both the junta in Athens and its illegal satellite regime in Nicosia. That, however, is another story for another day.
In the meantime, it must be emphasised that both before and after the first Turkish invasion of the Republic of Cyprus launched on 20 July 1974, all efforts to settle ‘the problems of Cyprus’ have been built on the cracked ‘foundations’ provided by the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’. Put another way, all of these efforts have been in line with British and Turkish aims whose origins may be traced back to the period from 1956 to 1958.
Even the procedures adopted at the various post-1960 ‘Conferences on Cyprus’ hark back to both the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and the ‘Conference on Cyprus’ held in London from 17 until 19 February 1959. After all, as occurred at the ‘Conference on Cyprus’ held at Lancaster House in February 1959, each of these post-1960 ‘Conferences on Cyprus’ has involved five parties namely the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece plus ‘the two communities’.
I refer, of course, to the ‘Cyprus Conference’ held in London from 16 until 31 January 1964 and the ‘Conferences on Cyprus’ held in Geneva from 9 until 14 August 1974, in Geneva on 12 January 2017, in Mont Pèlerin from 18 until 19 January 2017 and in Crans-Montana from 28 June until 7 July 2017. At none of these post-1960 ‘Conferences on Cyprus’ was the Republic of Cyprus formally represented in its own right. By virtue of that fact alone, the neo-colonialism of each of these secret gatherings becomes self-evident.
As I pointed out on the eve of the second stage of the ‘Conference on Cyprus’, when it became apparent that the Republic of Cyprus was going to be excluded yet again, this omission evoked chilling parallels with the ‘Munich Conference’ of September 1938 at which Czechoslovakia had been excluded.[66] Yet, this exclusion was entirely in keeping with the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and its twin tenets of ‘communal autonomy’ and a ‘partnership’ founded on five ‘parties’.
If one reads certain Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, plus the pronouncements of the Governments of the Republic of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece, one sees that the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ is alive, well and continuing to shape the proposed constitutional destiny of the Republic of Cyprus – or its replacement by – the proposed ‘bi-communal, bi-zonal federation’. This appellation flows from paragraph 3 of United Nations Security Council Resolution 649, as adopted on 12 March 1990, which:
‘Calls upon the leaders of the two communities to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutually acceptable solution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects …’.[67]
In line with the requirements of the United Nations Security Council, the proposed new ‘state of affairs’ will rest upon one inherently fragile ‘federation’, two separate ‘communities’, two separate ‘zones’ and two separate ‘constituent states’ co-existing alongside two British ‘sovereign base areas’ and three foreign states namely the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece. This should not come across as any great surprise. After all, the United Nations Security Council appears to have sub-contracted the role of drafting at least some of its Cyprus-related Resolutions to the United Kingdom. This has happened on a number of occasions in history.
A recent example occurred in connection with United Nations Security Council Resolution 2369, as adopted on 27 July 2017. Not only does Resolution 2369 welcome ‘the reconvening of the Conference on Cyprus under United Nations auspices in June 2017’ (and, by implication, ‘the principle of partnership’). Resolution 2369 also encourages ‘the sides to sustain their commitment’ to ‘a settlement’, which would be ‘based on a bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality’[68] (and, by implication, on ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ and the related doctrine of ‘intellectual partition’).
If one delves into the records of the United Nations Security Council, one finds that the draft of Resolution 2369 was ‘submitted’ to the Council ‘by the United Kingdom’.[69] If this is not an unmistakable example of 21st century neo-colonialism and an insidious if not sneaky application of the two tenets of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’, what is?
The ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ as expressed by the Foreign Minister of Turkey
Not surprisingly, the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ has helped to shape the mindset of Turkey for whose benefit this doctrine of division was partly enunciated by British ministers on 19 and 26 June 1958. Take the relatively recent article entitled ‘Turkey’s vision for Cyprus’, written by Mevlut Cavusoglu, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, and published in the Washington Times on 19 March 2017[70] as well as republished on the website of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey.[71]
On the one hand, according to Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, ‘[the] two communities … were and still are two distinct peoples with different religions, cultures and ethnicities.’ Consequently, ‘[a]ny settlement’ must rest on ‘[the] two sides’ being ‘politically equal’. By saying this, Mr Cavusoglu effectively invoked an enhanced version of ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ and, thus, one of the two basic tenets of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine. At the same time, Mr Cavusoglu evoked the spirit of ‘intellectual partition’, as defined by one of his predecessors, Fatin Zorlu.
On the other hand, in the words of Mr Cavusoglu: ‘The goal is an entirely new partnership. … Power has to be shared in a bi-zonal, bi-communal partnership’ involving ‘the Greek Cypriot side’ and ‘Turkish Cypriots’ who must co-exist as ‘politically equal partners’. In turn, Mr Cavusoglu envisaged that this ‘partnership’ must be ‘safeguarded’ by the aforementioned Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 and the Treaty of Alliance of 1960. By saying this, Mr Cavusoglu effectively invoked another tenet of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’, ‘the principle of partnership’. Indeed, Mr Cavusoglu conspicuously adopted the word championed by Messrs Macmillan and Lennox-Boyd sixty years ago: ‘partnership’. In the article of Mr Cavusoglu, the word appears on no less than three occasions; the related word ‘partners’ appears on two further occasions.
In this context, it should not go unremarked that according to the online Oxford Dictionary, the noun ‘partnership’ is bound up with the noun ‘partner’, the latter of which owes its roots to the Latin noun partitio which means … ‘partition’.[72] In a sense, this offers a glimpse into the intrinsically divisive intellectual foundations of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and the segregation inherent in both ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ and ‘the principle of partnership’.
The ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ as expressed by the Foreign Minister of Greece
In substance, the pronouncements of Dr Nikos Kotzias, the Foreign Minister of Greece, are in a similar vein to those of Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu, subject to an evident antipathy towards the Treaty of Guarantee and a predilection for populist posturing. For example, on 21 January 2017, the Foreign Ministry of Greece published the transcript of an interview in which Dr Kotzias articulated an array of substantive thoughts entirely in keeping with the ‘two main foundations’ of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’.
To begin with, Dr Kotzias effectively painted a proposed picture of neo-Ottoman ‘bi-communal’ segregation, strict ‘bi-zonal’ supremacism and institutional racism to the detriment of the thousands of citizens of the Republic of Cyprus who do not regard themselves as being ‘Turkish Cypriots’ or ‘Greek Cypriots’. To quote the precise words used by Dr Kotzias and published by his Ministry:
‘We need a solution that ensures maximum security for the Turkish Cypriots, but also provides the maximum possible security for the Greek Cypriots. …
‘We are drawing up a treaty for a federal Cyprus. Both ethnic groups will have equal rights. The Turkish Cypriots will have their federal state or canton or whatever else you’d like to call it. They will be on their own and they will be able to manage their security, as they will have their own police. To this end, a federal police force will be created and will be comprised of 50% Turkish Cypriots and 50% Greek Cypriots. Beyond the federal police, there will be an international police force that will step in case that the federal police force proves inadequate.’[73]
This vision of segregation raises a number of questions. Some of these arise from the pre-occupation of Dr Kotzias with persons described by him as ‘Turkish Cypriots’ and ‘Greek Cypriots’. Others flow from the pre-occupation of Dr Kotzias with the ‘security’ of these two categories of persons. Both of these pre-occupations cannot be properly understood without reference to ‘the policy of communal autonomy’ built into the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’.
Since the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ rests on the neo-Ottoman concepts of ‘the two communities’ and ‘intellectual partition’, this doctrine of division cannot countenance the existence of any citizens other than ‘Turkish Cypriots’ and ‘Greek Cypriots’. This is why, in its post-1960 incarnation, the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ effectively gives primacy to ‘the two communities’ and to the ‘security’ of each, while eclipsing the Republic of Cyprus, the security of the Republic and the security of its citizens and other lawful residents. This in spite of the undeniable fact that the Republic of Cyprus is an existing sovereign state with a multi-ethnic and multi-faith population of citizens and other lawful residents.
As regards ‘the principle of partnership’, Dr Kotzias may have set his face against the Treaty of Guarantee 1960. However, in his interview of 21 January 2017, Dr Kotzias made no mention of either the Treaty of Establishment 1960 or the Treaty of Alliance 1960, let alone the ‘partnerships’ created by each Treaty. Accordingly, one may reasonably infer that, notwithstanding his vocal objections to the Treaty of Guarantee, he has not objections to these two other Treaties.
In his interview, what Dr Kotzias did expressly envisage was the following:
‘We want to achieve a definitive solution of the Cyprus problem, and not create another problem. The problem is the occupation of Cyprus. We don’t want there to be guarantor powers, and we don’t want to be a guarantor power. The right to intervene in a third country violates international law and the UN resolutions. That is why I made a proposal: the concluding of a Peace, Cooperation and Security agreement. The three countries — Turkey, Cyprus and Greece — will be able to jointly confront threats like terrorism and organized crime.’[74]
All of which takes us back to the points I made at the very start of this article. The so-called ‘Cyprus problem’ (in the singular) is misnamed. Furthermore, it is incorrect to claim, as Dr Kotzias did, that this ‘problem’ is limited to the occupation of Cyprus. As explained in this article, ‘the problems of Cyprus’ go far beyond that. They include the segregation, supremacism, institutional racism and neo-colonialism inherent in the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and in the proposed transformation of the Republic of Cyprus into – or replacement by – a ‘bi-communal, bi-zonal federation’.
Closing thoughts
Sixty years after the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ was enunciated on 19 and 26 June 1958, all citizens of the Republic of Cyprus – irrespective of ethnicity or religion – must ask some soul-searching questions about the history, present state and future of their nominally independent and sovereign state.
To begin with, why has every President of the Republic of Cyprus accepted the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and its twin tenets of ‘communal autonomy’ and ‘partnership’? Why has the United Nations done so? Why has the European Union? Why has the Commonwealth?
Over the past few decades, why have so many diplomats, parties, politicians, peace activists, academics, journalists and others effectively joined a chorus in support of unenlightened and undemocratic ideas, such as ‘bi-communalism’, ‘communal autonomy’, ‘intellectual partition’ and ‘bi-zonality’? Do the members of this chorus realise that each of these concepts is a recipe for communalism, segregation, supremacism, institutional racism, neo-colonialism or a mixture thereof? Why have so many members of this chorus chosen to portray re-division and re-segregation as ‘reunification’?[75] Whose interests are really served by the members of this chorus?
Who will really benefit from the proposed ‘bi-communal, bi-zonal federation’? Bearing in mind that any such ‘federation’ will be purposely built on ethnic, religious and cultural fault-lines, will it last? Or, in common with so many other of the failed ‘federations’ which litter the dustbin of history, will this ‘federation’ collapse under the weight of its own unconscionable foundations, inherent defects and innate absurdities?
Above all, do the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus really want their sovereign state to be built or rebuilt upon a cocktail or British neo-colonialism, Turkish neo-colonialism and neo-Ottoman values predicated on the allocation of power to ‘two communities’ and three foreign states? Or do such citizens crave integration, unity, freedom and independence based on the cherished principles of liberal democracy, the empowerment of each individual citizen (in the singular) and, subject to the rule of law, the collective empowerment of ‘the people’ (in the singular)?
To sum up, do the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus want to be tied up again in unenlightened neo-colonial chains ‘made in London’ and ‘made in Ankara’? Or do they aspire to liberate themselves, to seek justice and to be free?
- Dr Klearchos A. Kyriakides is an Assistant Professor in the School of Law at UCLan Cyprus. The views in this article are purely personal.
The author declares an interest as a British citizen with roots in Lysi and Petra, two ethno-religiously-cleansed villages in the Turkish-occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus; on a voluntary unpaid basis, he is also an independent academic consultant of Lobby for Cyprus, a non-party-political NGO based in London which campaigns on behalf of displaced persons from the Turkish-occupied area of the Republic of Cyprus.
This is an expanded version of an article, which was first published in Greek in Simerini on 17 June 2018 and published online at www.sigmalive.com/simerini/politics/514533/syntagi-gia-alikti-neoapoikiokratia
© Klearchos A. Kyriakides, Larnaca, 19 June 2018
[1] This article reproduces or otherwise contains Crown Copyright images, Crown Copyright material and other public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0, details of which may be viewed on the website of the National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey, at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/opengovernment-licence/version/3/ This article also reproduces or otherwise contains British Parliamentary Copyright material and other Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence, details of which may be viewed on the website of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/
[2] CO 1069/1/2, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey. Published on the website of the National Archives at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/cabinet-gov/harold-macmillan-1957.htm
[3] For a recent articulation of this thesis, see ‘Announcement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [of the Republic of Cyprus] on the presentation of the annual report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the violation of human rights in Cyprus’, dated 23 March 2018, website of the Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus, at www.pio.gov.cy/en/press-releases-article.html?id=886#flat To quote from the said ‘Announcement’:
‘Replying to unfounded allegations of the Turkish delegation, the Deputy Permanent Representative, Mr Demetris Samuel, stated that the sole reason for the continued existence of the Cyprus problem is the illegal Turkish invasion of 1974 and the subsequent military occupation, which continues to date. He added that Turkey, with its actions in recent years in Iraq and more recently in Afrin, Syria, has in fact turned into a serial-invader of neighbouring countries.’
[4] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Columns 611 and 615. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[5] See inter alia Volumes I and II of the Report of the European Commission of Human Rights in the case of Cyprus v Turkey, as adopted on 10 July 1976, as declassified on 31 August 1979 and as published on the website of the European Court of Human Rights at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=001-142540.pdf and https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf?library=ECHR&id=001-142541.pdf respectively. Also see relevant judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, such as those in Cyprus v Turkey [2001] ECHR 331 and Cyprus v Turkey [2014] ECHR 478.
[6] ‘Statement of policy’ delivered by Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Columns 1315-1318. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus
[7] Cyprus [:] Statement on Policy (Cmnd. 445, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, June 1958).
[8] For a scholarly analysis of the wider chronological context from 1954 until 1959, see inter alia Robert Holland, Britain and the Revolt in Cyprus, 1954–1959 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998). Also see Diana Weston Markides, Cyprus 1957-1963 [:] From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis [:] The Key Role of the Municipal Issue (Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2001).
[9] For details as to this specific issue, see relevant works including K. A. Kyriakides, ‘British Cold War Strategy and the Struggle to Maintain Military Bases in Cyprus, 1951-60’ (unpublished PhD Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1996).
[10] See Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘The Lennox-Boyd statement of 19 December 1956 and the origins of the proposed ‘bi-communal, bi-zonal federation’ in Cyprus’, Agora Dialogue, 27 December 2016, at http://forum.agora-dialogue.com/2016/12/27/the-lennox-boyd-statement-of-19-december-1956-and-the-origins-of-the-proposed-bi-communal-bi-zonal-federation-in-cyprus/
[11] ‘Partition for Cyprus?’, declassified confidential ‘Geographic Intelligence Memorandum, CIA/RR-GM-7’, dated 14 July 1958, Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00825R000100450001-6, second page. Published online by the US Central Intelligence Agency Library at www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84-00825R000100450001-6.pdf and (with record details) at www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84-00825r000100450001-6
[12] ‘Cypriot Turks March To Downing Street (1958)’, British Pathé newsreel dated 23 February 1958, Film ID:2590.2, Youtube Channel of British Pathé at www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlPRPl-wRXc
[13] Lord Radcliffe, ‘Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus’, 12 November 1956, paragraph 23, file CAB 129/84, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey. Also see inter alia Census of Population and Agriculture 1960[:] Volume I [:] Population by Location, Race and Sex (Printing Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia, 1960). Published online by the Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus at www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/1240A557C7D9F399C2257F64003D0D54/$file/POP_CEN_1960-POP(RELIG_GROUP)_DIS_MUN_COM-EN-250216.pdf?OpenElement
[14] John Maclay MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 23 January 1957, Column 184. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1957/jan/23/lord-radcliffes-proposals#S5CV0563P0_19570123_HOC_153
[15] There evidence in the public domain which indicates that this bombing was a false flag operation. See, for example, Ronald D. Landa, James E. Miller, David S. Patterson and Charles S. Sampson (Eds.) and Glenn W. LaFantasie (General Editor), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume X, Part 1, Eastern Europe Region; Soviet Union; Cyprus (United States government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1993), Document 207, ‘Telegram from [Taylor Belcher, the US Consul in] the [US] Consulate in Nicosia to the Department of State, Nicosia, June 9, 1958, 4 pm’, as published online by the US State Department at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1 and at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1/d207, the declassified documentation adduced in William Mallinson, ‘Turkish bombs and riots in Cyprus: Handling the facts’, Hellas Journal, 9 May 2014, at https://hellasjournal.com/2014/05/turkish-bombs-and-riots-in-cyprus-handling-the-facts/ and the transcript of the televised confession of the late Rauf Denktash in ‘Cyprus: Britain’s Grim Legacy’ (Granada Television, 1984) in ‘Political activities of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots, 1945-1958. Part Five: Denktash admits Turks initiated intercommuncal violence’, Hellenic Antidote, 3 June 2013, posted by John Akritas at http://hellenicantidote.blogspot.com/2013/06/political-activities-of-turkey-and.html. A full recording of ‘Britain’s Grim Legacy’ is available at the National Library of Australia, details of which are at http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/24508918?q&versionId=29584094
[16] Christos P. Ioannides, ‘Cyprus, British Colonialism and the Seeds of Partition: From Coexistence to Communal ‘, Journal of Hellenism, Volume 30, 2014, pages 41 to 72 at page 60. Published online by the Journal of Hellenism at http://journals.sfu.ca/jmh/index.php/jmh/article/view/12 and at http://journals.sfu.ca/jmh/index.php/jmh/article/view/12/10
[17] Landa, Miller, Patterson and Sampson (Eds.) and LaFantasie (General Editor), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume X, Part 1, Eastern Europe Region; Soviet Union; Cyprus, Document 207, ‘Telegram from [Taylor Belcher, the US Consul in] the [US] Consulate in Nicosia to the Department of State, Nicosia, June 9, 1958, 4 pm’. Published online by the US State Department at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1 and at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1/d207
[18] ‘CONCLUSIONS of a Meeting of the Cabinet held at 10 Downing Street, S.W.1, on Tuesday, 10th June, 1958, at 11 a.m.’, agenda item 3, ‘Cyprus’, C.C. (58) 47th Conclusions, CAB 128/32, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey.
[19] Landa, Miller, Patterson and Sampson (Eds.) and LaFantasie (General Editor), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume X, Part 1, Eastern Europe Region; Soviet Union; Cyprus, Document 209, ‘Memorandum of Conversation, Washington, June 10, 1958, 3pm’. Published online by the US State Department at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1 and at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1/d209
[20] See Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘What does ‘the last chance’ really mean? The imperial origins and neo-imperial purposes of a misleading mantra’, Agora Dialogue, 4 July 2017, published at http://forum.agora-dialogue.com/2017/07/04/what-does-the-last-chance-really-mean/
[21] Landa, Miller, Patterson and Sampson (Eds.) and LaFantasie (General Editor),, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume X, Part 1, Eastern Europe Region; Soviet Union; Cyprus, Document 223, ‘Memorandum of Telephone Conversation Between President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Dulles, June 14, 1958, 3.41pm’. Published online by the US State Department at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1 and at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1/d223
[22] ‘Statement of policy’ delivered by Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Column 1316 (as regards the ‘separate’ Houses of Representatives. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus
[23] Ibid, Column 1317
[24] Ibid, Column 1316.
[25] James Callaghan MP, Labour Shadow Colonial Secretary, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Columns 622 to 623 and 624. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[26] Lord Winster, Hansard, House of Lords Debates, 8 July 1958, Column 697. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1958/jul/08/cyprus
[27] ‘Statement of policy’ delivered by Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Column 1318. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus
[28] Lena Jeger MP, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Column 655. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[29] See Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘The ‘Intellectual Partition’ of Cyprus, the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and the talks held in Geneva in August 1974 and January 2017’, Agora Dialogue, 9 January 2017, at http://agoradialogue.com/2017/01/09/the-intellectual-partition-of-cyprus-the-macmillan-doctrine-and-the-talks-held-in-geneva-in-august1974-and-january-2017/ and Κλέαρχος Κυριακίδης, ‘Οι καταβολές μιας διαιρετικής ιδέας: Το «Δόγμα Μακμίλαν» και οι καταβολές της ιδέας ότι η Κύπρος πρέπει να υπόκειται σε έναν «συνεταιρισμό» με «5 μέρη»’, Σημερινή, 29 Ιανουαρίου 2017, www.sigmalive.com/simerini/politics/400437/oi-katavoles-mias-diairetikis-ideas
[30] Even though the labels ‘Greek Cypriot’ and ‘Turkish Cypriot’ predate 1956, it appears as if it was in this year that the Government of the United Kingdom chose to use these labels on a routine basis. See, for instance, the reference to ‘the Greek Cypriot community’ and ‘the Turkish Cypriot community’ in the landmark statement of Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 December 1956, Column 1268. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1956/dec/19/cyprus-lord-radcliffes-proposals
[31] Carl Schmitt (as translated into English by George Schwab), Political Theology, Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2005), page 5.
[32] ‘Statement of policy’ delivered by Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Column 1315. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus
[33] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Column 615. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[34] Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Column 730. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[35] Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Column 1315. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus
[36] Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 June 1958, Column 1315. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/19/cyprus And Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Column 730. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[37] The Tripartite Conference on the Eastern Mediterranean and Cyprus held by the Governments of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Greece and Turkey, London, August 29 – September 7 1955 (Cmd 9594, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, October 1955).
[38] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Column 612. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[39] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Columns 615 to 617. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[40] Ibid, Column 730.
[41] See, for instance, ‘Nihat Erim: Reminiscenses on Cyprus’, Turkish Foreign Policy Institute, Ankara, 26 November 2016 (reproducing a previously published entry in the Institute’s Quarterly Foreign Policy journal, at http://foreignpolicy.org.tr/reminiscenses-on-cyprus-nihat-erim/
[42] Lord Radcliffe, ‘Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus’, 12 November 1956, paragraph 25 (on page 12), paragraph 26 (on page 12), paragraph 28 on page 13 and paragraph 28 (again) on page 13, CAB 129/84, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey.
[43] In so far as I am aware, the first occasion on which any British minister had spoken of ‘Greek Cypriots’ and ‘Turkish Cypriots’ in the House of Commons was on 18 June 1928. See Leo Amery MP, Colonial Secretary, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 18 June 1928, Column 1401. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1928/jun/18/cyprus-agricultural-school-nicosia Among other things, Mr Amery said the following: ‘Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are both British subjects.’ However, as indicated above, these labels do not appear to have become popularised until the late 1950s.
[44] Leonard Courtney MP, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 4 May 1882, Column 92 & 18 June 1928, Column 218. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1882/may/04/island-of-cyprus-the-new-constitution. Also see inter alia Criton G. Tornaritis QC, Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, Cyprus and its Constitutional and Other Legal Problems (Nicosia, 1980), pages 23 to 25.
[45] See, for instance, the ministerial answer provided by Evelyn Ashley MP, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 9 August 1883, Columns 2069 to 2070. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1883/aug/09/cyprus-education
[46] Henry Hopkinson MP, Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 28 July 1954, Columns 505 to 506. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1954/jul/28/cyprus-constitutional-arrangements.
[47] Lord Radcliffe, ‘Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus’, 12 November 1956, paragraph 23, CAB 129/84, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey. Also see inter alia Census of Population and Agriculture 1960[:] Volume I [:] Population by Location, Race and Sex (Printing Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia, 1960), published online by the Statistical Service of the Republic of Cyprus at www.mof.gov.cy/mof/cystat/statistics.nsf/All/1240A557C7D9F399C2257F64003D0D54/$file/POP_CEN_1960-POP(RELIG_GROUP)_DIS_MUN_COM-EN-250216.pdf?OpenElement
[48] Some of these points are explored in Μάριος Ευρυβιάδης, ‘Οι “παρακατιανοί” Κύπριοι: Μαρωνίτες, Αρμένιοι, Λατίνοι και το παιγνίδι των “κοινοτήτων”,’ Hellas Journal, 5 June 2016, at https://hellasjournal.com/2016/06/i-parakatiani-kiprii-maronites-armenii-latini-ke-to-pegnidi-ton-kinotiton/
[49] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 December 1956, Column 1268. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1956/dec/19/cyprus-lord-radcliffes-proposals
[50] In his Report, Lord Radcliffe referred to ‘the Greek Cypriot community’ and ‘the Turkish Cypriot community’ on a number of occasions. See Lord Radcliffe, ‘Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus’, 12 November 1956, paragraph 27 on page 13 and paragraph 48 on page 20 with regard to ‘the Greek Cypriot community’ and inter alia paragraph 30 on page 14 and paragraph 31 on page 14, CAB 129/84, National Archives of the United Kingdom, Kew Gardens, Surrey.
[51] Even though the labels ‘Greek Cypriot’ and ‘Turkish Cypriot’ predate 1956, it appears as if it was in this year that the Government of the United Kingdom chose to use these labels on a routine basis. See, for instance, the reference to ‘the Greek Cypriot community’ and ‘the Turkish Cypriot community’ in the landmark statement of Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 December 1956, Column 1268. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1956/dec/19/cyprus-lord-radcliffes-proposals This statement included the passages quoted below (at Columns 126 to 1269 and 1271 to 1272) wherein these two labels appear. These passages are important other reasons too. They form part of the intellectual and historical origins of the ‘Macmillan Doctrine’ and the idea that Cyprus should be subject to a partition on a ‘zonal’ basis. To quote these three paragraphs:
‘As the House knows, the terms of reference given to Lord Radcliffe envisaged a Constitution for a self-governing Cyprus under British sovereignty. As regards the eventual status of the island, Her Majesty’s Government have already affirmed their recognition of the principle of self-determination. When the international and strategic situation permits, and provided that self-government is working satisfactorily, Her Majesty’s Government will be ready to review the question of the application of self-determination.
‘When the time comes for this review, that is, when these conditions have been fulfilled, it will be the purpose of Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that any exercise of self-determination should be effected in such a manner that the Turkish Cypriot community, no less than the Greek Cypriot community, shall, in the special circumstances of Cyprus, be given freedom to decide for themselves their future status. In other words, Her Majesty’s Government recognise that the exercise of self-determination in such a mixed population must include partition among the eventual options.
‘Her Majesty’s Government will keep in close touch with the Greek and Turkish Governments on the international aspects of the problem. …
‘I hope that there is no misunderstanding about partition as an eventual possibility, an eventual solution among the possible solutions.’
[52] Ronald D. Landa, James E. Miller, David S. Patterson and Charles S. Sampson (Eds.) and Glenn W. LaFantasie (General Editor), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, Volume X, Part 1, Eastern Europe Region; Soviet Union; Cyprus (United States government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1993), Document 291, ‘Memorandum of Conversation, Washington, November 18, 1958’. Published online by the US State Department at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1 and at https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v10p1/d291
[53] See Conference on Cyprus [:] Documents Signed and Initialled at Lancaster House on February 19, 1959 (Cmnd. 679, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, 1959).
[54] Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 February 1959, Columns 618 and 625. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/feb/19/cyprus-agreement
[55] Alan Lennox-Boyd MP, Colonial Secretary of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 19 March 1959, Column 639. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1959/mar/19/cyprus
[56] The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus was first published in Cyprus [:]Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence by Command of Her Majesty (Cmnd 1093, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, July 1960). An electronic copy has been published by the United Nations at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-dpadm/unpan039703~1.pdf
[57] Under Article 2(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus: ‘the Greek Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Greek origin and whose mother tongue is Greek or who share the Greek cultural traditions or who are members of the Greek-Orthodox Church’.
[58] Under Article 2(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, ‘the Turkish Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Turkish origin and whose mother tongue is Turkish or who share the Turkish cultural traditions or who are Moslems’.
[59] Under Article 20. 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus: ‘Free primary education shall be made available by the Greek and the Turkish Communal Chambers in the respective communal primary schools.’ Under Article 20.4: 4. ‘Education, other than primary education, shall be made available by the Greek and the Turkish Communal Chambers, in deserving and appropriate cases, on such terms and conditions as may be determined by a relevant communal law.’
[60] Under Article 63.1:
‘Subject to paragraph 2 of this Article every citizen of the Republic who has attained the age of twentyone years and has such residential qualifications as may be prescribed by the Electoral Law shall have the right to be registered as an elector in either the Greek or the Turkish electoral list:
‘Provided that the members of the Greek Community shall only be registered in the Greek electoral list and the members of the Turkish Community shall only be registered in the Turkish electoral list.’
[61] Under Article 86 of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus: ‘The Greek and the Turkish Communities respectively shall elect from amongst their own members a Communal Chamber which shall have the competence expressly reserved for it under the provisions of this Constitution.’
[62] See inter alia Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra on behalf of the Armenian religious group, The Armenians of Cyprus (Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia, 2016). Published at
Marianna Frangeskou and Alexander-Michael Hadjilyra on behalf of the Maronite religious group, The Maronites of Cyprus (Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia, 2012). Published at
http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/highcom/highcom_pretoria.nsf/all/3AF861EE6C2042E0C2257A4D0037CD2B/$file/MARONITES%20eng%202013%20for%20web%20low.pdf?openelement Alexander – Michael Hadjilyra on behalf of the Latin religious group, The Latins of Cyprus (Press and Information Office of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicosia, 2017). Published at www.publications.gov.cy/moi/pio/publications.nsf/All/4DCEA36B02B36811C2257B7B002B5AAD/$file/LATINS_EN.pdf
[63] See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/communalism published by Oxford University Press.
[64] See www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/communalism published by Oxford University Press.
[65] Harold Macmillan MP, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Columns 724 to 725. Published by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1958/jun/26/cyprus
[66] See Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘‘Democracies Die Behind Closed Doors’: The chilling parallels between the ‘Munich Conference’ and the ‘Conference on Cyprus’, Agora Dialogue, 26 June 2017, at http://forum.agora-dialogue.com/2017/06/26/democracies-die-behind-closed-doors/ Also see Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘The Search for Security via Answers to Questions on Law, Criminal Justice and Impunity: A working paper published in connection with the ‘Conference on Cyprus’ in Geneva on 28 June 2017’, Agora Dialogue, 17 June 2017. Published at http://forum.agora-dialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/K.-A.-Kyriakides-Working-Paper-for-Agora-Dialogue-as-at-17.06.17-as-amended-on-19.06.2017.pdf
[67] Resolution 649 of 12 March 1990, United Nations Digital Library at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/87038/files/S_RES_649%281990%29-EN.pdf and (with record details and in languages other than English) at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/87038?ln=en
[68] Resolution 2369 of the United Nations Security Council, as adopted on 27 July 2017 and as published by the UN Digital Library at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1293675/files/S_RES_2369%282017%29-EN.pdf and (with ‘Record Details’ and in languages other than English) at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1293675?ln=en
[69] ‘Security Council Seventy-second year 8014th meeting Thursday, 27 July 2017, 10 a.m. New York’, United Nations Security Council Document S/PV.8014. Published by the UN Digital Library at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1293672/files/S_PV-8014-EN.pdf and (with ‘Record Details’ and in languages other than English) at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1293672?ln=en
[70] Mevlut Cavusoglu, ‘Turkey’s vision for Cyprus[:] All parties must work toward making it an island of peace, stability and cooperation’, Washington Times, 19 March 2017, at www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/19/turkeys-cyprus-policy-an-unstable-situation/
[71] ‘Article by H.E. Mr. Mevlut Cavusoglu Published in Washington Times Entitled “Turkey’s vision for Cyprus”, 19 March 2017’, website of the Foreign Ministry of Turkey at www.mfa.gov.tr/article-by-h_e_-mr_-mevl%C3%BCt-%C3%A7avu%C5%9Fo%C4%9Flu-published-in-washington-times-entitled-_turkey_s-vision-for-cyprus__-19-march-2017.en.mfa
[72] See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/partner published by Oxford University Press.
[73] ‘Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias’ interview with the DPA News Agency’, 21 January 2017, website of the Foreign Ministry of Greece at www.mfa.gr/en/current-affairs/top-story/foreign-minister-nikos-kotzias-interview-with-the-dpa-news-agency.html
[74] Ibid.
[75] See Klearchos A. Kyriakides, ‘What does ‘reunification’ really mean?’, Agora Dialogue, 22 May 2017. Published at http://forum.agora-dialogue.com/2017/05/22/what-does-reunification-really-mean/