SPEECH OF GEORGOS LOUCAIDES, AKEL C.C. SPOKESPERSON, AT THE FUNERAL OF THE REMAINS OF GEORGOS ORPHANOU

 

Refugee Camp “STROVOLOS II”, 11th November 2013, Nicosia

 

 

Respected clergy,

 

Dear relatives of hero Georgos Orfanou,

 

Dear friends,

 

We are here today to bid the final farewell to Georgos Orfanou, who was murdered by the Turkish invaders in the Black Summer of 1974. Georgos, 31 years old and the father of five children, sacrificed the most valuable possession, his very life, serving selflessly the noblest ideals of freedom and democracy.

 

Georgos was born in the village of Tymbou, now occupied, in 1943 and was the second son of a large family of his father Michael and mother Irene who is among the missing persons of the Turkish invasion. His parents died as refugees without ever returning to their homes and properties, with the pain and anguish to learn about what happened to their two sons, George and Theofanis, who were missing after the Turkish invasion and occupation in August 1974.

 

Born into a large peasant family, George from an early age joined the daily struggle for survival and to make ends meet. As soon as he graduated from elementary school he subsequently followed the profession of blacksmith in the construction workers industry. At 19 years old he married Maroulla Chrysostomou with whom he was fortunate enough to have five children.

 

Georgos, as those who were lucky to know him up closely, describe him as a hard-working man; a man and worker who loved and cared very much for his family. He was raised and nurtured with the ideals of the People’s Movement of the Left and indeed was an active member of the Progressive Local Cultural and Athletics Club of Tymbou.

 

The fascist coup d’état of 15th July 1974 found him restricted to his home in Tymbou, because of threats by the agents of the Greek junta and EOKA B ‘ against the Left. With the start of the Turkish invasion on 20th July, George was one of the first who rushed to enlist in the National Guard, to fulfil his duty towards his country. According to testimonies on that fated day, elderly villagers posed the following dilemma to him: “Where do you think you are going Georgos with five small children to take care of?” His reply was very clear and revealed his pure patriotism that distinguished him: “If we don’t go to fight, if others don’t go to fight, who will go to fight?”

 

Georgos was the third child of the Orphanos family in those terrible days of July 1974 that fought in the battle front line of the resistance to the Turkish Attila. One of his brothers, Demetris, was a conscript soldier at the 281 Infantry Battalion and was fighting west of Kyrenia. His other brother Theophanes, whose fate is still unknown, fought on the eastern front and Georgos at the 305 Infantry Battalion.

 

From the very first moment Georgos knew that the struggle was betrayed. However, this did not intimidate, nor deter him. He loved his country and was ready to defend and sacrifice his life when necessary for the freedom of Cyprus. During the ceasefire, after the first phase of the Turkish invasion, he took leave and returned to his village to see his wife and five children. Faithful to his duty, he returned to the battalion, which was in the frontline near the village of Mia Milia. A few days before the start of the second phase of the Turkish invasion, the officers asked for gunners to man the outposts further ahead. Georgos was among the first who volunteered to go. Villagers, who were with him, again urged him not to go, to think about his wife and five children. “Right now, my duty to my family is my duty towards  my homeland.” These were the words of Georgos Orfanos.

 

Georgos fell heroically fighting against the military might of the Turkish army machine at the point where he manned the machine gun on a hill at Koutsovendis. That is precisely where his bones were discovered…

 

However, how and why had we arrived at the betrayal and devastation? Why did thousands of young men give their lives, but weren’t able to prevent the premeditated and well organized international crime against our country? What were the facts that led to the worst tragedy experienced by our people in its modern history? Is it perhaps better not to raise such questions? Isn’t it perhaps better for the sake of unity to erase everything and lead the country to forget so as not to open any wounds?

 

The answer is that the knowledge and collective acceptance of the truth about historical events that have indelibly marked our homeland is more than a necessity. Not to stir up the past, but to determine with more assurance our steps in the present and towards the future. To learn lessons from the past and especially from the mistakes committed so as not to repeat them. It’s true that people who forget their own history are doomed to relive it.

 

What therefore are the key lessons to be drawn from the historical events of ’74 and how should they be used to face today’s huge national challenges before us?

 

To formulate our foreign policy in the current circumstances, we cannot but for example take into account the crucial role played by the US, Britain and the NATO military alliance in the conception, organization and execution of the twin crime committed against Cyprus. The reply to the question whether in the years that have passed, Turkey has ceased to be very valuable ally of NATO is unfortunately negative. At the same time, neither has our timeless assessment that even if we were to surrender and concede everything to NATO, as some forces and circles propose, this will not stop the scales of their interests leaning again in favour of Turkey.

 

The natural question which subsequently arises is why is the accession to an alliance of death and to programs such as the Partnership for Peace today a priority of the government’s foreign policy?

 

If there is a general lesson to be drawn as far as our foreign policy is concerned it is that foreign policy should be formulated based on principles, be assertive, insightful and pragmatic. The logic of subjugation and the cultivation of illusions with regards the interests and priorities of powerful states has always been a recipe for disaster. This lesson should guide us, not only in relation to the handling of the Cyprus problem, but also in how to deal with the Troika and our European partners, whose “solidarity” we have felt most painfully last March.

 

A key lesson of timeless value is also the need to determine realistic goals and objectives, which we should seek steadfastly and consistently.

 

Extreme and maximalist approaches, or approaches abandoning principles and the promotion of subjugation, have equally proven to be disastrous.

 

As before 1974, the maximalist approach arguing for Enosis (Note: the union of Cyprus with Greece which was the main slogan of the Greek fascist junta and its local organs in Cyprus through the EOKA B organisation) led to partition, so today the abandonment of a bizonal bi-communal federal solution in the name of a some vague and ambiguous “European solution” will result in the completion and finalisation of partition.

 

Similarly, political positions arguing in favour of a loose federation, or more generally for a solution that will deviate from basic principles by invoking the weaker position in which we are in are also an option that will lead our country to new adventures.

 

Conversely, in terms of the triangle of developments on the economy, Cyprus and natural gas, these three distinct schools of thought have again become distinguishable.

 

The first school of thought perceives the situation we are facing solely as a threat, invoking the vulnerable position we find ourselves as a result of the economic crisis.

 

The second school of thought on the contrary considers this current juncture solely as an opportunity, downplaying any potential dangers. It is based on the assessment that due to our current financial condition, we have nothing to lose as the Greek Cypriot side and hence we are free from any burdens of the past.

 

The third school of thought – and correct in our view – is that we must take seriously into account the existence of potential dangers  imposing an unacceptable solution so that we should prepare ourselves adequately and be ready to defend to the end the inviolable principles of the solution of the Cyprus problem.

 

On the other hand however, a potential twist of events being created by converging international and regional interests should be utilised. We must rely on Cyprus’ traditional friends, to seek to undertake the initiative in any actions and depending on whether Turkey would consent, to turn the impending resumption of the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem into an opportunity.

 

If Turkish intransigence continues, as it is the case with positions as those of Erdogan proclaiming that he does not know about any country with the name of Cyprus, as well as the refusal of Eroglu to accept in the joint communiques citizenship communiqué the framework of the solution outlined in the UN resolutions, it is critically important that the responsibility for any possible deadlock should be apportioned on the other side. However, we are very worried that so far the government handling of the issues do not serve this perspective, but instead create dangers for our side.

 

Throughout the recent history of the Cyprus problem there is another highly instructive lesson to be drawn about another important parameter.

 

Nationalism-chauvinism and intolerance have always acted as a Trojan horse so that the criminal imperialist plans and Turkey’s expansionist ambitions for the division of our island could be implemented.

 

Since this is precisely what the Turkish Cypriot chauvinist forces have always sought, that is to say partition, this subsequently explains their criminal actions.

 

However, one can’t explain the stand and actions of the Greek Cypriot nationalists- chauvinists – except of course those few who were paid organs of imperialism and the CIA and who were executing orders in their mission to partition Cyprus.

 

Unfortunately, the nationalist groups, even after the destruction they caused, have not understood and not realized that nationalism – chauvinism serve the policy of Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot chauvinist forces.

 

This conclusion leads us the next timeless central lesson of modern Cypriot history. The ideological and petty-partisan fanaticism, intolerance, bigotry and anti-AKEL frenzy explains the total backwardness and blind hatred of those who turned their weapons against democracy, against their fellow villagers and compatriots, even against their own family relatives, but also against our innocent Turkish Cypriot compatriots. This explains why they were not able to comprehend their criminal actions and the devastation they would bring.

 

This is why today, forty years later, Cypriot society must never under any circumstances permit the revival of destructive ideologies that have drowned our country in blood and tears. We must unite our forces to isolate neo-fascist and Nazi organizations operating in Cyprus who are developing their activity in an organised manner so that we don’t ever reach the point Greece has got to.

 

The political forces have an obligation and a duty to turn the much needed but troubled sense of unity, from mere wishful thinking into concrete action. This unity can and should be built first and foremost on the basis of the respect by all of the historical truth and not the combating of the truth, namely the policy of amnesia and forgetfulness, and even more so the distortion of historical truth.

 

On the contrary, the respect and acceptance by all the political forces of the Finding of the File of Cyprus (Note: an all-parliamentary commission set up by the House of Representatives to investigate and document the events before,  during and after the fascist coup d’état and subsequent Turkish invasion which reconfirmed the conspiratory role of NATO, in cooperation with the military junta of Greece and Turkey, as well as the Cypriot extreme right to execute the plans for the partition of Cyprus) could be the basis on which to forge unity and national reconciliation.

 

By itself, such a development would certainly not be capable of creating the conditions for building unity and consensus on the internal front.

 

Mutual respect, collective action, the abandonment of petty-party considerations and ideological obsessions are also called for. It is imperative, especially at the point we have reached, that the handling of the Cyprus problem – pursued more for internal consumption rather than to serve our national interest – should be abandoned.

 

To the extent that these will be set aside or at least in these critical times Cyprus is going through similar pathologies and negative features will be substantially restricted, then we can reasonably hope for better days for our people. This is what people expect from all political forces to do.

 

Such a development would also pay tribute to our heroes in a practical sense, since the chances of a successful outcome of the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem would be maximised and hence their sacrifice vindicated.

 

The best homage to our heroes was, and remains, the liberation of Cyprus and the reunification of our country and people.

 

It is therefore the least we can do as our duty and obligation towards Georgos Orfanos, towards all our heroes who sacrificed their lives fighting for the defence of the independence, territorial integrity and democracy in our country and primarily a responsibility towards the future generations, to not ever compromise with the fait accompli of the invasion and occupation and to vigorously pursue the struggle until the reunification of Cyprus and our people.

 

We will never forget you Giorgos Orfanos!

 

Honour and glory to our heroes!