Speech by the General Secretary of AKEL Andros Kyprianou at the event in memory of Archbishop Makarios
19TH January 2017, Panagia village, Paphos
Whatever opinion one may have about Archbishop Makarios, you cannot deny that he is the most emblematic figure of modern Cypriot history. He was a radiant personality who went far beyond the borders of our small country of international renown.
Makarios was embraced and loved by the people of Cyprus as no other.
He became a leader of the anti-colonial national liberation struggle. He became the figure of Cyprus independence throughout the world, the living symbol of the democratic resistance and struggle for the unity of our country.
He was the leader with the political stature who could assume the burden of crucial historical decisions.
He was the one for whom the people of Cyprus filled the streets and squares in mass rallies in defense of democracy and legality; the same people on 15th July 1974 the day of the coup d’état who refused to believe that Makarios was dead, who took up arms and formed bastions of resistance at the Presidential Palace, the Archbishop’s Palace, in the working class neighbourhood of Kaimakli, Kolossi, in the town of Paphos and elsewhere to fight fascism.
The same people who in autumn 1974 – uprooted and displaced, wounded and although sleeping in makeshift tents and burying their dead – found the strength to fill like a torrent the streets demanding the return of Makarios to Cyprus and to the Presidency of the Republic. It is no coincidence that Makarios is the only political figure of our country who the people themselves gave the title of national leader.
Of course Makarios also had enemies both within and outside Cyprus who saw him as an obstacle to the fulfillment of the plans of NATO, the Junta of Athens and EOKA B. These forces in fact were not only Makarios’ enemies, but the enemies of Cyprus itself and our people; enemies of our unity and independence. Makarios therefore was loved by the people and opposed by the enemies of Cyprus. This phrase summarizes the path that is identified with the volatile and turbulent course of our Cyprus.
During these critical period the Cyprus problem is going through currently, to read again the course of Makarios and with it of Cyprus’ modern history, does not only constitute an obligatory act of homage. It is primarily a valuable history lesson, as is clear from the legacy of virtues, tribulations and successes, but also mistakes committed by Makarios.
Makarios’ greatest bequest is the constant effort to forge the greatest possible unity of the people and the fostering of understanding between political forces, while our country is at the stage of waging a national liberation struggle.
Makarios proved this many times in his course. As a political leader of EOKA he did not hesitate to distance itself and condemn the killings and attacks that were committed against the Left by extreme right-wing elements of the Organization. Makarios himself may have been in a rival ideological and political camp from the Left, but his intervention, coupled with the stand adopted by AKEL itself, rescued Cyprus from a civil war breaking out that would have led to disaster. This stand also stemmed from his priestly figure, but was at the same time also the result of a prudent policy, given that he realized that disunity and division on the domestic front only served the British colonialists.
Later on, in the late 1960’s until his death, Makarios united all Cypriot patriots who did not accept the partition and NATO control and subjugation of the Republic of Cyprus, in a people’s resistance front, which stretched from the Left and extended up to the democratic Right. In other words, as long as we have before us a common enemy, whether they were the British colonialists and the saboteurs of Cyprus or the occupying power today, we should be working to foster unity on the domestic front based on principles and common objectives. Even when we disagree radically, we must act in a way that does not undermine our national cause, nor undermine the objectives espoused by the majority. This would be the first and main advice Makarios would have given to us all today, politicians and people, both public and unknown.
Makarios’ policy not to attach the Republic of Cyprus to NATO’s machine, but also to integrate it into the Non-Aligned Movement and develop relations with the then socialist countries was a historically significant decision. Hence, Cyprus found reliable allies who supported it with all possible means in the difficult times that it went through during its early years. Through the diplomatic support our homeland received from these states the status of the Republic of Cyprus was safeguarded and UN Resolutions were achieved that today represent our protective shield.
On the other hand, the NATO forces were the architects of the undermining of Cyprus; the engineers and executors of the twin crime committed and they are the ones who for decades tolerated or were fostering Turkey’s intransigence on the Cyprus problem.
That strategic choice of Makarios was not a position that affected foreign policy alone. It expressed an overall concept for Cyprus, its sovereignty and independence, which wanted our country to belong to its people and to be a bridge of peace and friendship of the region’s peoples.
It didn’t want Cyprus to be a base and a launching pad of NATO.
It didn’t seek a state with “guardians” and troops, shackled to foreign countries and foreign interests.
It was a choice of patriotic dignity.
This legacy is reflected today in the National Council’s long-standing positions for the liberation of Cyprus from the occupation forces and from guarantees and rights of interventions to foreign forces. We are struggling to realize this goal today, aiming to achieve it, working with seriousness and assertiveness. In the Geneva procedure, Turkey sat for the first time in negotiations with regards the issues of security.
Third, and perhaps most useful in the period we are going through, was the ability of Makarios to combine assertiveness and an uncompromising defense of principles with realism and taking responsibility for major compromises. It was Makarios himself who proclaimed the definitive abandonment of Enosis (Note: the union of Cyprus with Greece) and the shift to the policy of the feasible, namely the policy of independence that was approved by the people through his overwhelming re-election in 1968.
In the face of the NATO plans for the partition of Cyprus which the local extreme nationalists were serving, Makarios foresaw – although belatedly – that persisting with Enosis would bring closer what we were trying to avoid. Makarios had the ability to develop his thinking and policy in parallel with the evolution of developments and history.
The most characteristic example of this insight was that after the devastation of 1974, Makarios refused the submission of Cyprus, but accepted a compromise. He refused the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus and the acceptance of the Turkish occupation, but at the same time he opted for the compromise of the continuation of the state to a federation.
Makarios realized that the only way to reverse the fait accomplis of the occupation was to solve the internal constitutional aspect of the Cyprus problem in a manner that would be acceptable to both communities; in a way that would ensure the existence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Cyprus.
This path cannot be anything other than the solution of federation. This federation would obviously be bicommunal, but also bizonal given that the Makarios-Denktash High-Level Agreement provided for territory that would be under the administration of each community.
Undoubtedly this was a historic compromise and to an extent it represented a retreat in the face of the negative balance of forces. However, it was an honorable and acceptable compromise as it ensures the principal and essence, which is our country’s freedom and unity. It was and is the point around which the forces of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities who want Cyprus to remain one country and Cypriots one people can all agree. Makarios had the courage to assume the responsibility for this historic compromise. His action was his final service to our homeland and struggle.
Whilst Makarios was alive, few had the nerve to accuse him of being a traitor or being submissive because of his acceptance of federation. Only when he died years later, various circles and forces dared to launch attacks against federation and to slander its supporters as “national sell-outs”. Those who today are preaching about the need for a “change in strategy” and abandon federation must at long last admit that they are calling for the abandonment of Makarios’ policy. They subsequently have to persuade that such an action would not represent a desperate action towards permanent partition. In any case, Makarios showed the way for the appropriate strategy and tactics on the Cyprus problem and we shall be consistent to this policy.
Was Makarios perhaps faultless? No, he wasn’t. Faultless personalities, people and parties don’t exist. Today, we can talk about this issue without taking anything away at all from paying tribute to Makarios and his work. Makarios and a large section of the Greek Cypriot political leaders are attributed with making wrong assessments and evaluations, particularly in the period immediately after independence.
Makarios’ most serious miscalculation was the tolerance he showed towards the junta and EOKA B. Makarios credited the extreme right in Greece and Cyprus with the minimum of patriotism. He considered that they wouldn’t dare carry out a coup d’état that would without doubt bring Turkey to Cyprus. For this reason, he didn’t take timely and effective measures for the organization of the democratic forces so as to able to suppress the upcoming coup as soon as it was manifested.
Of course under no circumstances can Makarios and the democratic forces and their errors be even remotely compared with the crimes committed by the fascists who participated in the massacre of Cyprus.
No matter how many political mistakes may be attributed – whether rightly or wrongly – on Makarios, nobody can accuse Makarios of betrayal, committing fascist crimes and acting to subvert the country.
No matter what view one may have of his contribution, Makarios was chosen and elected by the people; he wasn’t a self-appointed savior, nor a pawn of the Greek junta financed by foreign forces. Makarios never found himself opposing the country and our people. Makarios was always the shield of our people and our people shielded Makarios.
History demands vigilance against the danger of the chauvinist extreme right.
I will not hesitate to say that the government has grave responsibilities – both historically as a political party and as a government because of the tolerance it has shown – with regards the various extreme nationalist movements that are poising society and youth.
We expect to see actions, not words.
However, when today we see those who are defending the cause of the reunification of Cyprus based on principles, those who are supporting federation and the coexistence of the two communities being called traitors and sell-outs, one cannot but bring to mind the last warnings issued by Makarios about what would follow the actions of all those who back then were calling him a perjurer and a traitor. The notorious “patriots” became the unexpected ally of the enemies of Cyprus who were promoting the partition of our homeland.
But who ultimately are the patriots and who are the sell-outs?
We are not judged by the labels that anyone calls him/herself but instead by the result the policy that we stand for had or will have.
Where do maximalist and submissive approaches lead us to, which in fact are two sides of the same coin, and what other path has a small struggling people other than the consistent defence of principles at the negotiating table?
What policy can lead to the liberation and reunification and what policy offers arguments to Turkey and perpetuates the status quo with the nationalist-populist slogan of “Again with years and times will be ours”?
What is the policy that can unite around in common goals the two communities of Cyprus and what policy deepens the gap between us and strengthens the wall of partition?
And lastly, what is the policy that can again make the Republic of Cyprus the common home of all Cypriots and what is the policy that considers our state should belong exclusively to Greek Cypriots?
The answer lies in the line pursued by the late President Makarios and which has been repeatedly reconfirmed by the National Council. This is the policy which in previous years had managed to record major convergences on the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem, ensuring inter alia a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality of a united Cyprus, a strong central government of the federal state, the continuation of the Republic of Cyprus, safeguarding the three fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots, restoring the demographic ratio between the two communities and the recognition of the property rights for their lawful owners and cross-voting for the election of the federal state leadership, thus improving the Zurich system as well.
The phase initiated by the Geneva Conference has highlighted two important elements. The Turkish Cypriot leadership has submitted a map on the issue of territory, which provides for important – albeit unsatisfactory so far – return of territories to the Greek Cypriot constituent entity. For the first time Turkey has entered into a substantive discussion on the issue of security, the status of guarantees and demilitarization.
Nobody can prejudge the outcome of the procedure, because the key remains in the Turkish government’s hands. However, what one can anticipate is that with our domestic front divided, with unfounded alarmism/scaremongering in one or another direction, with the undermining of the relations between the Greek and Cypriot government and with certain circles/forces having the presidential elections in mind, the only thing we will achieve is to damage our own cause as a result of our own actions.
Now is the time of unity, collective responsibility and patriotism.
Now is the time to rise to this challenge of our times and demand of history.
Now is the time to strengthen the flame of hope for freedom and the reunification of our country.
With these thoughts, I express AKEL’s gratitude to the Historical Culture Centre of Archbishop Makarios III for the honour to invite us to speak at today’s event. I congratulate the Historical Cultural Centre, which was established with the aim of keeping the memory of Makarios alive because this means raising the banners of independence, freedom and democracy higher, that is all that the figure of Makarios personified for Cyprus and our unflinching people to be victorious.
