Speech delivered at the public meeting organised by New Internationalist Left – NEDA (Cyprus section of ISp), Bagimsizlik Yolu from north Cyprus and DIEM25 in Meltemi, Nicosia, on July 9, 2024 under the title
Voices of Resistance against fascism and partition
How did we get here?
What are the conclusions for today?
Good evening comrades, particularly Turkish Cypriot comrades from the North. I want to thank NEDA and Diem25 for their invitation stress that I am particularly glad to be here.
The title of the meeting raises some questions, particularly “How did we get here?”. How did we get to the military coup, the Turkish invasion and the partition of the island in 1974? Could it be avoided? What are the lessons for today?
These are necessary questions that we need to try to answer. If we don’t, we won’t be able to map a way forward, with the aim of establishing lasting peace on the island and harmonious relations between the two main (but also the other) communities – Greek Cypriots (G/C) and Turkish Cypriots (T/C). We won’t be able to contribute to a solution of the permanently explosive situation in the relations between the “motherlands”, Greece and Turkey, which every few years face new crises in their relations, new military tensions and the threat of war.
As a short diversion from the Cyprus problem per se, let’s look at some of the other issues causing tensions between the three countries, Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, like:
- The extraction of natural gas in SE Mediterranean;
- The 150 uninhabited rocks in the Aegean considered to have unclear or controversial status;
- How to divide the air space, the sea bed and the Aegean Sea between the two countries…
Because of such differences there is a mad arms race between Greece and Turkey.
But let’s ask a central question. Do any of these differences have anything to do with the needs, the interests and the lives of working-class people in any one of the three countries?
The answer is a very loud “No”. But they have everything to do with the competing interests of the ruling classes in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus – for economic power, geopolitical and strategic positions, expansion in the Balkans and the Middle East, etc.
The character of these conflicts, therefore, is a class one – it is a conflict between the interests of the ruling classes. The same is the case with the development, historically, of the national problem in Cyprus.
50 years after the coup, the war and partition, the governments on both sides are not in a position to find a solution to the problem – and there is nothing positive in sight. We need to ask the question “why”; and try to answer it, not in a superficial way, but by searching for the roots of the deadlock.
In theory the two communities could have lived together as used to be the case before the 1950s. The launching of EOKA in 1955 meant that the initiative was in the hands of the nationalists – initially on the G/C and then on both sides. EOKA was led politically by a religious leader, Makarios, and militarily by a far-right, nationalist, Grivas. These two individuals had the impression that they could determine developments on the island, particularly Union with Greece, without taking into consideration the interests, role and power of Turkey.
In the limited time of this introduction, I won’t attempt to go into the history of the events, in any detail, I will take it that most of it is known. I will focus on some events which I believe are of particular importance and on five central political points/lessons from history.
Nationalism
We have to learn from history, but the ruling class will never write history as it really is. It will always distort it.
For this reason, it’s very important that in the past period, on the G/C side, there has been a serious search into the history of what really happened, in the events that led to 1974, by progressive, left journalists and writers, in articles, documentaries and books. They are doing ground breaking and original work, finding out the facts, and establishing the real history of the events – particularly about the role of G/C far-right nationalists, the murder of T/Cs, the mass graves, etc. They are providing a great service, in the need to counter the G/C ruling class propaganda, i.e., that “the G/C are innocent victims of a barbarian Turkish invasion”. Of course, the mass of the population are innocent victims, but the propaganda of the G/C ruling class aims at hiding its crimes against the T/C community.
Their contribution is inspiring, particularly because the responsibility of the G/C Left and working-class activists is to first and foremost reveal the crimes of the G/C ruling class and nationalists. This brings us to the first point I want to stress:
Point One
Whenever the nationalists had the upper hand, the end result was a disaster for the people. They do this always in the name of the nation, in the name of patriotism, but the nation, meaning the mass of the population, pays a very high price because of their policies. But of course, “nationalism” and “patriotism” do not fall from the sky, they are the ideology of the ruling capitalist class. The ideology of the working class and the oppressed, is “internationalism”, i.e., workers have common interests irrespective of nationality, colour, language, etc.
Was there an alternative historical line of development?
In the 1960s the constitutional arrangement collapsed, we had clashes, threats of invasion by Turkey, separation of the two communities with the T/C in enclaves, killings, with T/C being the main victims.
Could all this be avoided? The answer is “Yes”, if there existed a force that would fight against the nationalists and aim to unite the two communities. A force representing the interests of working-class people, the poor farmers, the oppressed, who had nothing to gain from the killings and the divisions.
Such a political party did exist, it was AKEL. But instead of following a line of aiming to unite the two communities against nationalism, it chose to tail-end the G/C government of Makarios.
AKEL was the oldest party, the best organised party and the party that in the past united both communities in its ranks and in the main Trade Union movement, PEO. AKEL chose to tail-end the government of Makarios in the name of supporting the “progressive bourgeoisie”, supposedly represented by Makarios, against the reactionary nationalist elements who were in close collaboration with the Greek military regime which took power in 1967.
We are not looking for scapegoats from the long past. We are trying to establish if there was an alternative historical line of development. The fact is, AKEL could have played a different role, aiming to mobilize the working class on both sides against the nationalists. But this would mean clashing with the ruling class. This would pose the question of power.
AKEL refused to raise such a perspective despite calling itself a Communist Party. AKEL supported a nationalist Archbishop, who saw himself as representing only the G/C and not the whole people of Cyprus of different national origins. Makarios would always start his speeches addressing the “Greek Cypriot People” not the people of Cyprus, and in his whole life as president he never visited one Turkish village.
AKEL was the only party which did not have a militia in the 1960s and up to the 1974 invasion, despite the fact that every other political force did. The G/C nationalists and the T/C nationalists had their own militias, Makarios had a force under his own personal control, called Efedriko, the Socialist Party-EDEK had its own militia… In a context of everybody arming themselves to the teeth and preparing for battle, the strongest and best organised party on the island chose to be passive.
A few days before the military coup of July 15, AKEL went to Makarios and offered 3,000 men to be given arms as a defence against the danger of a coup. Makarios said it was not necessary… This is quite revealing about how far-sighted Makarios was… But it is also revealing about the role that AKEL’s leadership envisaged for itself: an obedient ally in the service of Makarios. This brings us to a second important lesson.
Point two:
AKEL, in theory, could have determined a different course of development, away from nationalism and intercommunal clashes, if it had a different approach. But this had as a necessary requirement that it should clash with capitalism and imperialism. AKEL’s argument is that the international balance of power did not allow for such adventures. If the 1960s and 1970s, which represented the height of the Colonial Revolution, i.e., the revolution of the people in colonies against imperialism and colonialism, did not represent a favourable balance of power then there will never be a favourable period.
From the ashes of the war, the hope of revolution
The invasion and the war created a situation with revolutionary characteristics on the G/C side. Society, devastated by war and by the fact that about ¼ of the population had become refugees, was full of rage against the Far Right, the “patriots”, the Greek junta and the US which was an active supporter of the Greek junta.
Those conditions enabled a small party of a few members to become a mass party. This was the Socialist Party – EDEK.
Don’t look at EDEK today – which is a disgusting, nationalist, racist party. Present day EDEK has nothing to do with the EDEK of the 1970s.
This party started as a party of the Centre in the 1960s, but moved to the left because of its militant stand against the Greek Junta, and its determined struggle against neofascist, nationalist EOKA B’. EDEK had armed militias and close links to the Palestinian movement and other movements in the region. Because of its militant stand it attracted a generation of young Marxists, who were searching for a way forward, and who pushed the party to the left.
The youth of the party, EDEN, was based on clearly Marxist analysis and the ideas of revolutionary socialism.
I’ll give one example from personal experience as a school student at that time which reflected precisely the radical dynamics developing in society, particularly the youth. This was the creation of “Doros Loizou Youth”.
In the beginning of October, if I remember well, when we returned from the mountains where our families had fled to escape from the war, 5 of us, school-students members of the party youth, met in a small room in the party centre, and took the decision to proceed with the creation of a school student organisation after the name of a teacher, Doros Loizou who had been murdered by the fascist gangs of EOKA B, on August 30, i.e. a few weeks before.
Wedecided to go ahead with a mass protest of the school students, and to this purpose called a meeting of school student representatives. The meeting was big, but it was divided. On the one hand were the lefts (us) who wanted to demonstrate against the invasion but also against Greek intervention, EOKA B and the fascist gangs and US imperialism. And on the other were the far-right nationalists who wanted to demonstrate only against Turkey and the invasion.
So, the “movement” was split and two demonstrations were called, on October 28, if I remember well. The demo was going to be a test of strength. The outcome was a tremendous victory for us and a huge defeat for the fascists and nationalists. We were able to bring all the schools of Nicosia out, in our demo. The nationalists gathered about 150 people and went to the Greek embassy to ask for protection, chanting the main slogans of the nationalists, “Greece, protect us” and “Cyprus is a Greek island”.
Doros Loizou Youth had cells, very often of tens of members, in every school in all the cities. It could call demonstrations with extremely short notice – e.g. the coordinating committee could decide in the evening that we should have a demo on the following day and on the next day the schools were out. We’d go to the school and gather the students before entering the classes, sometimes we’d ask the students to come out of the classes if they had already entered.
This was a period in which there was the feeling of tremendous power in the mass movement, and very high optimism – let’s remember it was the time of the Portuguese revolution, the Spanish revolution, and the colonial revolution raging across the planet, from Palestine to Vietnam, across Africa, Asia and Latin America.
From the ashes of the war, the hope of revolution and of a new socialist world was emerging.
This did not last very long, of course, but for a period of one to two years the fighting spirit was high. At the same time a huge fight was developing inside the party, about its direction. The leadership of the party moved to the right. Similarly to AKEL before, it capitulated to Makarios.
The newspaper of the Youth of the party was banned and its editorial committee expelled in 1980. The left opposition controlled the youth but also district organisations like the district of Limassol and had a strong presence in all areas. After the expulsion of its left wing, the party collapsed and then degenerated into the present nationalist-racist shadow of its old self.
Point three:
In the period after the coup and the invasion, the Left was tested in another historical conjuncture. This time not (only) AKEL, but also the Socialist Party EDEK. Objectively, the potential for the creation of a mass party that would fight for the socialist transformation of society was there. This historic opportunity was lost – once again.
Did something positive come out of this conjuncture, however? Yes, first the experience of how a party can acquire mass proportions and find itself in the position to lead the mass movements with extreme speed, given the right objective situation. And second those battles and debates laid the basis for the development of the Marxist, class approach to the national question that we see today characterising a number of anticapitalist left organisations in Cyprus.
The power of the people
For 30 years after 1974, the two communities lived separately without any contact between them. And then 2004 came.
That was the time of the revolt of the T/C population. Actually, this rise was only the first one, because after 2004 we saw the T/C rise again and again, not only against the T/C regime, but importantly also against Ankara.
In 2004 we had an amazing revolt by the T/C, aiming at a solution to the national problem. The solution never came, but the T/C uprising achieved what seemed to be impossible: the opening of the borders.
T/C comrades Ali (sitting) and Münür (standing) representing the left party Bağımsızlık yolu (Independence Road)
Point four:
People have the power – everybody here knows the song, but it is not just words. If the mass of the people acts as one united fist, there is no power that can stop them. This huge force, was directed towards pressurizing the leaders, i.e. the representatives of the capitalist ruling class, to come to an agreement. It failed to achieve a solution, but it succeeded in bringing down the “Wall”. The question is how can we build similar movements in the future that can arrive to the end of the road.
How do we proceed
If the ruling classes were able to find a real solution, we’d not only accept it but support it. But the facts point to the entirely opposite direction. They have failed, after 50 years and endless negotiations, to come to any solution and today they are farther away than ever before.
The reasons are quite straight forward. The G/C ruling class has no reason to accept a solution, unless it is able through this to have control over the North. We have good reasons to believe that the G/C ruling class has come to the conclusion that this is impossible, and as a result they are not interested in a solution, they are fine as they are.
The T/C ruling class on the other hand will not give up its independent status from the G/C ruling class for the sake of a solution, because of the danger of being devoured by the much stronger G/C bourgeoisie.
So, we have a deadlock – this is not just a theoretical assumption, it is based on the reality of the past 50 years.
The fact is, only forces that represent the popular masses can really make progress in solving the problem. But this perspective is blurred and undermined by the fact that both AKEL and CTP (the main traditional left party in north Cyprus) have both been in power, in the South and in the North, and no progress was made.
So, it not sufficient to have the Left in power, it is crucial to clarify what kind of Left is in power, what kind of a left party society needs.
We need left (or working-class) parties that in the context of a class, fighting, anticapitalist programme, will:
- Accept that a solution to the national problem can only be based on the political equality of the two communities – this is of fundamental importance in the G/C side.
- Not follow the line decided by the respective “motherlands”, but will be ready to clash with the ruling classes in Greece and Turkey, and appeal to the Greek and Turkish working-class people.
- Will respect the Right of Self-Determination of the T/C community, which is the minority on the island.
Of course, any such approach will mean a head on clash with the fascist gangs, with the nationalists and with the ruling classes, on both sides.
Who will take such a bold, revolutionary stand? It cannot be AKEL in the South and it cannot be CTP in the North. This brings us to the concluding remark.
Point five:
We need a mass anticapitalist/internationalist Left, with a clear Marxist ideology on both sides of the divide.
It is not easy. We are still facing a hard time as organisations of the revolutionary Left, we are facing a long cycle of retreat that begun with the collapse of the Soviet Union around 1990 and still continues. But there is no other way.
The task before us, after such discussions on the national problem, or on other issues, is to afterwards sit round a table and discuss how we can rebuild the forces of the revolutionary left, both on a national and an international level.
Thank you, comrades.
