By George Koumoulli
Thealibi of the nationalist Right concerning the tragic events of July 1974 is the “national division”, over time, we hear this view from the admirers of Hitler, Golden Dawn, ELAM, Grivas Averoff. on the anniversary of the “treacherous coup d’état” (as he calls it), he said verbatim: “We politicians must learn from the tragic consequences brought about by the division.” That is to say, the “tragic consequences” that we experienced in the summer of 1974, were the result of the “division”! While referring to the “treacherous coup d’état”, he avoids, like the devil the frankincense, from referring to terrorism, EOKA II, Grivas, the junta. In other words, Neophytou scandalously avoids putting his finger on the type of nails. It would be good if he were silent on this anniversary, because it arouses the democratic feelings of the majority of the Cypriot people, while hurting those who fought to defend the Republic of Cyprus.
In order to delve more generally into the issue of the so-called national division that some “nationalists”, such as A. Neophytou, serve as the cause of the calamity that struck us in 1974, I would like to stress that in all countries there is, and often indeed, a dichotomy of views on essential issues. This common phenomenon is not called “national division”, since it ends in a happy ending with the elections or the organisation of a referendum, the result of which is respected – in democratic countries – by all. For example, in 2016, the British people decided, in a referendum, to leave the United Kingdom (UK) from the EU. The withdrawal was passed with 52% of the vote.
The issue of Brexit that divided the British is over once and for all – the verdict of the British people is now respected by all. It would be an act of terrorism if those who voted for their country to remain in the EU revolted and took up arms to impose their own will, blowing up, ala EOKA II, police stations and other government buildings and executing those who publicly criticized them. This scenario, of course, belongs to the realm of fantasy when talking about countries with deep democratic roots.
Let us now look at the genesis of the Grivian terrorism (according to others, national division) in Cyprus. In January 1968, Archbishop Makarios surprised by proclaiming the turn to the “feasible solution” to the Cyprus problem, instead of “the desirable one”, i.e. the union with Greece. He was the first Cypriot politician to realize, albeit slowly, that the union was an elusive dream, especially after the withdrawal by the junta of the Greek division from Cyprus at the end of 1967. To secure popular approval for his new policy, Makarios called presidential elections for February 1968. Makarios’ opponent was Takis Evdokas, whose policy was union.
The elections led to the re-election of Archbishop Makarios with a percentage of 95.45% against 3.71% of his opponent. The main reason makarios got such a high percentage of support is that he convinced the Cypriot people that, in fact, the pursuit of union was a futile effort and posed enormous risks to Cypriot Hellenism, fears that unfortunately came true in 1974. A percentage of the 3.71% who voted for the goal of the union did not accept the verdict of the Cypriot people and we ended up with the terror of EOKA B under Grivas and not, of course, the “national division”. Therefore, the “national division” that Neophytou is trying to launch us as the cause of the disaster of 1974, is by no means the result of the “saraki that eats away at the flesh of Hellenism”. Nor is it the result of a simple “goal mismatch” between two such powerful personalities as Makarios and Grivas. Neither, again, was the metaphysics of discord, nor, yet, the work of the emaromeni, nor, finally, the result of divine providence. It was none of that.
The real reason was the fascist mentality of Grivas and his colleagues, who resorted to violence to overturn the decision of 95.45% of the Cypriot people. If they had two dramia minds (no more) they would have understood that union is not achieved by blowing up government property, kidnapping ministers and executing dissidents. It was to these tragic events that Neophytou had to refer to the importance of democracy and not to the so-called national division that constitutes a gross falsification of history. Grivas’ fascism was paid dearly by Cyprus but, nevertheless, Neophytou reverently lays a wreath every year at the memorial service of the chief terrorist. In fact, it was the Turks, the beneficiaries of the action of EOKA II, who should have laid such wreaths and not Neophytou.
Cyprus needs a new Right, a patriotic Right with a new leader who is not akin to Grivas’ extreme formation. I am sure that this can be done because within it there are people of a very high and educated level, people of the intelligentsia, who terrorism and grivism are completely alien to their mentality.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
