Talk:London and Zürich Agreements

Sources needed.

Please go through the article and add sources and citations. Thank you. GeorgeLouis 23:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

The article is blatantly biased, maintaining that the 1960 constitution was "imposed" on the "people of Cyprus" and that "The Constitution provided for, under the Agreements, divided the people into two communities on the basis of ethnic origin and the Turkish Cypriot minority was given rights disproportionate to its size." The allegation is that the Greek Cypriots are the "people of Cyprus" - the Turkish Cypriots were never opposed to the 1960 agreement - and that giving the Turkish Cypriot community its rights in accordance with international standards constitutes an "imposition."

This is the prevalent view among Greek Cypriot sympathizers of the EOKA terrorist organization, which at the time desired not an independent Cyprus but annexation by Greece and the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots, and whose bloody actions led Britain to initiate the independence process. The 1960 constitution was illegally amended by Archbishop Makarios and the Turkish Cypriots expelled from government.

On July 28, 1960 Makarios, the Greek Cypriot president, said: "The independence agreements do not form the goal they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will." In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated." The following year, 8 articles of the constitution were amended, Turkish Cypriot officials were stripped of their functions, and a military attack against Turkish Cypriot communities codenamed Akritas was launched.

EOKA's views are still highly popular among Greek Cypriots today. The current president of the divided island is a former high-level EOKA militant.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Papakarl (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

When complaining about the blatant bias of an article, you would be more convincing if you could do it in a less blatantly biased and more balanced way.Larisv 19:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree this a very biased article and comments by Larisv are obvously baised and not helpful, and obviously from a Greek Cypiot view (Rockybiggs (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)).

This is obviously a very sensitive topic for all Cypriots, so it will take some time to present an unbiased, or at least less biased, account of the Zurich and London Treaties. I just wanted to point out that the 1960 independence of the island did not necessarily satisfy the Turkish-Cypriots, as they had been arguing for a partition of the island, and the constitution created in 1960 did not resolve their tensions with the Greek-Cypriot community, so that partition remained the most desirable outcome for them. At the same time, the Greek-Cypriots were still seeking unification with Greece, so the independence treaty did not meet their requirements either. Therefore, it could be fair to say that independence, as it was agreed in 1960, was not what most Cypriots wanted. It was a compromise that had as much to do with the desires of external powers, including Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, as it had to do with what was best for the people of Cyprus, whether they identified themselves as Greek or Turkish.

As for Makarios and his calls to expel the Turkish 'race', I think we can all agree in this day and age that that is a dreadful approach to politics, and humanity has progressed beyond ethnic cleansing. Many terrible things were said and done in Cyprus between independence and today, and while they remain inexcusable, it would seem prudent to try and move past apportioning blame, to try and learn from the past and prevent these sorts of things from happening again. Anniecoral (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV: Another start - Title? Balance please? Citations?

1. Is this Title widely used? (is there a citation?) This article was actually written on "the documents concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, comprising the Basic Structure for the Republic of Cyprus, the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Alliance"

2. This article was highly partisan, written from a Government (G-C) POV. As a start on NPOV, I have simply cut it down to focus on the provisions of the 1959-1960 Agreements and Treaties and their failure, and citations from the Treaty of Guarantee. Please could someone find authorities for these remaining facts?

3. I have removed qualitative judgements, but it needs authenticated facts selected from the T-C POV, to balance those selected from the other POV. Jezza (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Akrotiri and Dhekelia

The main Cyprus page points to this page:

The Republic of Cyprus has de jure sovereignty over the entire island, including its territorial waters and exclusive economic zone, with the exception of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, which remain under the UK's control according to the London and Zürich Agreements.

But the page under discussion, "London and Zürich Agreements", makes no mention of the status of the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The relevant information should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaimkutwiki (talk • contribs) 09:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)