SIR,—You make a statement in your editorial (Spectator, August 14)
which seems to me highly dubious: 'It is futile to blame Makarios for the present situation in Cyprus.' But then you seem to contradict yourself by later admitting that, 'Makarios's treatment of the Turkish minority is both barbarous and abhorrent.'
All this poses the question: if Makarios is not to blame, who is? The Zurich constitution was far from perfect but it did offer the Cypriots, Turk and Greek, a breathing space, a time for passions to cool off, a time to establish trust between the two communities. Did Makarios make use of this breath- ing space? Hasn't he acted as a pan-Hellenist Greek at all times and never as the head of a bicultural State?
Who started the trouble? The Turks are a small minority and the Zurich constitution was highly favourable to them. Is it probable that a minority would initiate ' hostilities against an overwhelming majority and wreck a highly favourable constitu- tion? It is not only improbable; it is incredible.
Cyprus has a higher standard of living than either of the two mother countries. Again, the general styleaat life of the Greeks and Turks—I speak from personal observations—is remarkably similar. Life could be good in the independent Republic of Cyprus. In the light of all these facts how can one exculpate Makarios?
Previous page
