It is the duty of Marxist revolutionaries to act as the memory of the working class. A serious Marxist force must ensure that it retains an accurate collective memory of its own positions, activities and role.
On July 20th the Socialist Party of Ireland (SP) withdrew from the organisation which linked it with other groups across the globe, the International Socialist Alternative (ISA), after a decision taken at a one-day conference. This decision resulted from a bitter dispute within the ISA and has led to further splits as it has unfolded across 2024.
In a Facebook post (July 21st, 2024), a member of the SP, Dominic Haugh, sought to explain its trajectory. The SP was a section of the Committee for a Workers International (CWI, established in 1974) until 2019, and of the ISA from 2020. It is now affiliated to “The Project for a Revolutionary Marxist International”. In his attack on previous co-thinkers, Dominic states “The SP in Ireland recognizes that capitalist oppression can come in many forms, including racism, repression of LGBTQ + people, repression of women, etc”.
He continues “despite claims to the contrary, the CWI leadership never prioritized the issues of women’s oppression or oppression of LGBTQ plus people, and in reality, only given intermittent priority to fighting racism. The adoption of a socialist feminist approach by the Irish section of the CWI……..was transformative in recognizing that movements against oppression were coming to the fore, and Marxists need to adapt to developments”.
A Facebook post does not normally require a developed response, but in this case, it does. It is necessary for the current leadership of the SP to diminish or deny the past in order to exaggerate the merits of its own role today. In this narrative a far-sighted group of comrades seized upon new ideas, in opposition to the old and conservative leaderships (national and international) of the past. Dominic Haugh amplifies and broadcasts this narrative, though he did not create it alone. It reflects more developed material published by the SP.
The recent Irish general election result represents a significant setback for Sinn Fein. The party saw a 5.5% drop in its vote from a high point at the last general election in 2020 of 24.5%. In 2020 it ran too few candidates and was therefore unable to fully capitalise on its percentage share. It is widely accepted that it could have won up to 47 TD (or MP) seats, rather than the 38 it came home with. In this election Sinn Fein managed to return a similar number of seats as before and are now proclaiming this as a success. This is only accurate in the sense the result could have been even worse, given their performance in the local and European elections in June of this year (in the local elections, it scored only 12% of the vote). In the aftermath of the 2020 election, Sinn Fein (SF) was the major opposition party to the coalition government of the traditional pro-capitalist parties, Fianna Fail (FF) and Fine Gael (FG), with the Green Party. The Coalition was deeply unpopular for long periods and Sinn Fein consistently topped the opinion polls. If it had sustained its lead and won the predicted share of the vote in the actual election, it would now be forming the next government, albeit in coalition with other smaller parties. Its confidence was palpable, and the idea that Sinn Fein would be leading governments in both the north and south of Ireland became widely accepted.
Coalition Parties Stabilise Vote, Sinn Fein Lose Momentum
One year ago, Sinn Fein began to drop in the opinion polls. There are several interrelated reasons for this. In part, it was because the government’s position stabilised as some factors turned in its favour. Fine Gael installed a new leader, Simon Harris, who was seen as youthful and forward looking. Fianna Fail began to pull back some of its traditional voters as memories of the savage cuts after the Great Crash began to fade. Paradoxically, the smallest coalition party, the Greens, suffered badly as opposition to the coalition government became increasingly centred around the environmental policies it was most closely associated with. The Greens took the hits, and Fine Gael and Fianna Fail were able to deflect blame.
First published by Internationalist Standpoint, July 30, 2024
Share
In July and August 2024, we have the anniversaries of the 50 years since July and August 1974, when the coup d’état (July 15), the Turkish invasion (July 20) and second phase of the Turkish invasion (August 14) took place in Cyprus, leading to the division of the island. The main lessons from the history of the Greek-Turkish relations on the island and the stalemate of the last 50 years are drawn out in the following three articles.
The official narrative of the Greek Cypriot and Greek ruling classes, from the outset of the conflict with their Turkish and Turkish Cypriot counterparts, portrays the Greeks as the good guys and the Turks as the bad guys. According to this view, the Greek side is always right, and in all major conflicts, the “barbaric” Turks are to blame. However, for those who support the interests of the working class and the oppressed masses, the main task is to be objective and hold every side accountable for their actions without any trace of nationalism.
For those advocating for the working class and popular strata, the primary duty is to objectively present the true facts about what the ruling classes on all sides have done, devoid of any nationalist bias. Specifically, we must expose the crimes of “our own” ruling class.
This is the only way the Left can fight to ensure that “national questions” do not lead to hatred and wars between workers of different nationalities or nations. Moreover, a class analysis of national questions is the only way to provide solutions to such problems.
The working class movement, through its political and other organizations, is the only force that can have an objective approach to history. In contrast, the ruling class, in order to maintain its power, is “condemned” to falsify history by promoting its own nationalist perspective and ideology.
Misrepresenting History
The latest example of how the history of the Cyprus problem is being misrepresented, is the recent circular published by the Cyprus Ministry of Education, marking the 50th anniversary of the Turkish invasion in 1974. This circular describes in details the brutality of the invasion, including executions, ethnic cleansing and division of the island, but it completely fails to mention a “little detail”: the coup that preceded it.
The reality is that the preceding coup by the Greek Cypriot national guard and the far-right nationalists gave Turkey the justification to invade Cyprus “legally” and “constitutionally.” On July 15, 1974, the Greek junta, along with the far-right- nationalist organization EOKA B, which represented its interests in Cyprus, overthrew the elected government of Archbishop Makarios, the President of Cyprus. Five days later, the Turkish invasion took place. This coup and the subsequent invasion were preceded by nearly two decades of escalating inter-communal tensions and conflicts between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. This historical trajectory is either concealed or misrepresented by official historiography. Throughout this period, crimes and mass murders committed by right-wing Greek Cypriots were concealed, and the perpetrators were never convicted, despite their identities being known in many cases.
Let us start with a glance at the real history of the events that led to 1974.
Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots: From cohabitation to EOKA
The Cyprus Act of Independence (Treaty of Guarantee) was signed in 1960, following the Zurich and London agreements of 1959. Cyprus ceased to be a British colony and became an “independent” state. However, it was never truly independent; it was constrained by British colonial influence, as well as by the “mother countries” Greece and Turkey, which had a military presence and exerted direct political interference.
The country’s constitution provided for three guarantor powers: Greece, Britain, and Turkey. By actively taking part in the coup, the Greek side violated the constitution, and Turkey used this violation to intervene (based on its “constitutional rights”) in Cyprus. Of course, Turkey did not carry out the invasion so as to restore constitutional order, but used this argument to seize, through the second phase of the invasion on August 14, nearly 40% of the island, which has been under occupation since then.
Until the mid-1950s, Cyprus was inhabited by Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in a ratio of 80%-20%, along with several smaller communities such as Maronites and Armenians. These populations were mixed, living in the same villages and maintaining smooth relations in general.
The Greek Cypriot movement against colonialism began in 1955. Similar struggles were being waged by many peoples who were part of the British Empire at the time. Globally, Marxists and progressive movements of the time supported these anti-colonial struggles unreservedly and in every possible way. However, supporting the anti-colonial/anti-imperialist struggles of different people does not mean supporting the leadership of such movements.
In Cyprus this struggle was led by EOKA (National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters), a clandestine guerrilla organization headed by the extreme right-wing Georgios Grivas, a man of Cypriot origin, and former leader of the Organization X in the Greek civil war. Grivas and his organization in Greece had primarily fought against ELAS (Greek Popular Liberation Army) and EAM (National Liberation Front), both controlled by KKE (Greek Communist Party) during the nazi occupation and the consequent civil war.
Grivas was the military leader of the struggle against the British colonialism, while Archbishop Makarios served as its political leader. Thus, the national liberation movement was led by the Church and the extreme right. From its very first proclamation in April 1955, EOKA made clear that its aim was not an independent Cyprus, but to unify the island with Greece (“Enosis” meaning Unification). “Enosis” became the central slogan of the armed struggle. Furthermore, EOKA excluded from this struggle the communists (members of AKEL, hundreds of whom later became targets of EOKA’s murderous actions) and the Turkish Cypriots.
The Turkish Reaction to EOKA
The first reaction to EOKA’s creation and declarations came from Turkey. The pogrom against the Greeks in Istanbul in September 1955 was not an isolated incident, but Turkey’s response to what it perceived as an attempt to turn Cyprus into a Greek island and expel its Turkish Cypriot inhabitants.
Cyprus, the third largest island in the Mediterranean, is very close to Turkey (its coastline is visible to the naked eye) and holds great military and strategic importance. From the point of view of the interests of the Turkish ruling class, there was no way they’d allow Greece to turn Cyprus into a Greek island without responding.
The second reaction was the emergence of nationalist elements within the Turkish Cypriot population. Feeling threatened by the Greek Cypriots’ call for unification with Greece, Turkish Cypriot nationalists raised the need to organize and claim their rights as an ethnic minority on the island. Their response (with support from Turkey) was to create a rival organization to EOKA, called TMT (Turkish Resistance Organisation).
It was an armed, paramilitary organization, as nationalist as EOKA, advocating for the partition of Cyprus, with the slogan “Taksim” (partition). This slogan started to dominate Turkish Cypriot politics in 1956.
These developments did not discourage either Grivas or Makarios and certainly did not displease the British colonialists, who deliberately reinforced the division between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot population. The policy of “divide and rule” is a hallmark of the experienced (and insidious) diplomacy of the British Empire, which had already been ruling the planet for two centuries. The British encouraged the Turkish Cypriot nationalists and Turkey to intervene and claim “what is theirs” on the island.
After the British “Withdrawal”
Eventually, the British were forced to withdraw from Cyprus as a direct occupying power, similar to their withdrawal from many of their colonies at the time. They pulled out most of their troops and relinquished direct control, but maintained economic and political influence over these newly “independent” countries. In Cyprus, they kept two huge military bases and significant influence over the economic and political life.
The 1960 constitution recognized Cyprus as an independent state, but not as a truly unified country. The two communities were to be constituent parts, but with separate powers within the same state. According to the constitution, Britain, Turkey, and Greece would be the guarantor powers of the constitution. This arrangement was sowing the seeds of future division, conflict and war.
The constitution mandated proportional representation of the two communities in the parliament, and the electoral system was adapted accordingly. The same applied to civil servants and security forces. The island was to have a Greek Cypriot president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, with representatives of both communities having the right to veto decisions made by the other side.
Such a model was not functional, given the fierce nationalist competition between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides, as well as between the interests of the ruling classes of Greece and Turkey.
The Constitution collapses – Armed Intercommunal Conflicts begin
The constitution collapsed in 1963, and by 1964, the first armed intercommunal conflicts erupted. The Greek Cypriot side labeled these conflicts as “a Turkish Cypriot mutiny”, but it was Makarios who initially denounced the Constitution. Amid the clashes, Turkey threatened to invade Cyprus, but the Soviet Union, which was maintaining a friendly relationship with Makarios at the time, thwarted Turkish plans—albeit temporarily. Turkey anticipated and planned for partition, with support or at least tolerance from Britain and the U.S.
A turbulent decade followed, culminating in the 1974 invasion.
During this period, two lines began to emerge within the Greek Cypriot ruling class. One faction supported independence, while the other supported the idea of unification with Greece (Enosis). A part of the Greek Cypriot ruling class recognized that Enosis was a dangerous and unrealistic aspiration, thus shifting towards the demand for Cypriot independence. This shift intensified after the military coup in Greece in 1967. Makarios represented this wing of the ruling class, maintaining a policy of balance between the West and the Soviet Union, unlike the nationalists.
Makarios’ balancing act and his open channels to the Soviet Union led Greek nationalists and extremists (supported by the Greek junta) to despise him, branding him “Castro of the Mediterranean.” However, this characterization was far from reality as Makarios had no connection to the Left.
The Greek Cypriot ruling class increasingly moved towards the idea of independence. In 1967, Grivas, a staunch supporter of the idea of Enosis, was forced to leave Cyprus due to his role in the massacres of Turkish Cypriots in the Kofinou area and subsequent (new) threats of invasion by Turkey. However, in 1971, the Greek junta sent him back to Cyprus, where he founded EOKA B.
EOKA B
EOKA B was very different from the EOKA of 1955. While the original EOKA, despite the reactionary political characteristics of its leadership represented the anti-colonial struggle of the Cypriot people and enjoyed widespread support from the Greek Cypriot population, EOKA B was a far-right terrorist organization. It prepared coups, planted bombs, and assassinated its opponents. The first attempt to assassinate Makarios in 1971 failed by sheer luck. The overwhelming majority of Cypriot society supported the elected President Makarios.
EOKA B could not have carried out the 1974 coup on its own; it lacked both the social and military forces necessary for such an undertaking. The coup relied on the special forces of the Cypriot army, which were under the command of Greek officers – under the directions of the Greek junta. In reality, this was a direct intervention by one of the “guarantor powers” (Greece) while EOKA B played a supporting role.
During the same period of armed terrorist activity by EOKA B, other armed forces were being built up in Cyprus on the side of the “democratic camp.” For instance, there was the “Reserve”, a force of 3,000 well-armed men loyal to Makarios. Additionally, the military militias of EDEK (the Socialist Party of Cyprus, which at the time had an extremely radical left-wing character) were active. These forces had twice thwarted the army’s coup attempts but failed to prevent the third attempt.
Following the 1974 coup, Turkey occupied nearly 40% of Cyprus, creating the “Cyprus problem” as we know it today. What is less well known, is that the invasion was followed by an organized, agreed-upon by both sides, population exchange. The Greek Cypriot side rounded up Turkish Cypriots and sent them to the north, and the same happened in reverse for the Greek Cypriots (those who had not already left during the Turkish invasion). This created a geographical division with almost homogeneous populations. Today, very few Turkish Cypriots remain in the south of Cyprus, and very few Greek Cypriots remain in the north, unlike the many mixed villages that existed in the past.
On the “Barbarity” of the Turks
The Greek narrative that the Turks were solely responsible for mass killings of civilians during the 1974 war is one-sided. Greek Cypriot nationalists committed similar atrocities.
A “classic” pre-1974 example is the village of Kofinou, which was invaded in 1967 by Greek Cypriot special forces under Grivas’ direct command with orders to “not leave even a lame chicken alive”.
During the war, Greek Cypriot fascists indiscriminately killed as many Turkish Cypriot civilians as they could. Mass graves of Turkish Cypriots have been found, containing the entire populations of villages who were executed, including men, women, and children.
Of course, similar brutality was demonstrated by the Turkish occupation troops and Turkish Cypriot nationalists. The more than 1,600 “missing people” are, in fact, not missing but dead, many of them executed after their capture.
We publish the common statement by New Internationalist Left (NEDA), Independence Path and Diem25 in Cyprus
On 15 July and 20 July 1974, the island of Cyprus was physically divided by imperialism. Through the door opened by the fascist Greek military junta, which was guided by the US-led NATO, the intervention of the Turkish army, also guided by NATO, entered. This military intervention of Turkey turned into the de facto occupation of the north of Cyprus on 14 August 1974.
NATO imperialism did not approve any scenario in which it could not use Cyprus for its own interests then, nor it does today. The island of Cyprus is a useful military base for imperialism, a logistical foothold against the Middle East and North Africa, and an intelligence center suitable for keeping the Eastern Mediterranean under control. Today, British bases in Cyprus are being used to transport arms and logistical support for the genocidal attempt by Israel in Gaza, just as they were used against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya in the past. In short, imperialism divides!
Imperialism divides, but it can never divide alone. The domestic sources of the division in Cyprus were the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot ruling classes. The Greek Cypriot ruling class initially desired to make Cyprus dependent on another country, Greece, with the Enosis policy, and then ignored the Turkish Cypriots by transforming the common Republic of Cyprus into a Greek Cypriot state. The Turkish Cypriot ruling class, on the other hand, pursued a separatist policy from the beginning, and accordingly collaborated with the separatist policy of imperialism. Thus, the foundations of the division of Cyprus were laid by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot ruling classes, and all imperialism had to do was to execute that division in 1974.
These two opposing and ostensibly hostile ruling classes have always managed to unite their forces against the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot labouring classes. The great CMC miners’ strike of 1948 is one of the cases in that regard: while the labouring classes of Cyprus united to unite, the ruling classes of Cyprus united to divide.
The imperialists and domestic ruling classes did divide, are dividing and will divide Cyprus. The labouring classes will unite Cyprus, sooner or later.
Long live the struggle of the Greek Cypriot labouring class! Long live the struggle of the Turkish Cypriot labouring class!Long live the struggle of all the labouring class living and working in Cyprus! Long live the class struggle of the peoples of Cyprus! Long live the brotherhood of the peoples! Long live a fully independent socialist Cyprus free from all foreign powers!
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, July 9th, 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.
Gerry Cullen’s election campaign in the Fermanagh and South Tyrone (FST) constituency drew to a close on Monday evening, July 1st. Like almost everyone else, Cross-Community Labour Alternative (CCLA) were taken by surprise by the snap election. Nevertheless, we were able to mount an effective campaign during which we have knocked on 5000 doors and we have erected posters the length and breadth of the largest constituency. Over 67,000 election manifestos have gone through the doors of every home in the area.
Cross-community Labour Alternative’s Gerry Cullen calls for urgent investment in mental health services for young people
Young people aged 19 are being kept on the CAMHS service simply because there is so little support available for young adults
CCLA call for funding for Public Health Agency to research impact of online abuse and misuse of social media on mental health, especially of young people
The outcome of the UK General Election will be decided in a battle between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in England, Scotland and Wales. Neither party will win any seats in Northern Ireland. The Labour Party-certain to win after 14 years of austerity and government chaos-has members in Northern Ireland but does not contest elections. The Conservatives are standing but without enthusiastic central party backing and will make little impact.
The election instead will be dominated by five parties, four of which are based on sectarian division. The Democratic Unionist Party is the largest unionist party though it faces competition from the smaller Ulster Unionist Party for one of its eight seats (South Antrim). Sinn Fein has seven seats and is the largest nationalist party. The Social Democratic and Labour Party goes into the election holding two seats. It had a good election in 2019, in part because Sinn Fein’s policy of not attending the UK Parliament allows it to win voters who would normally vote Sinn Fein.
