|
THE
AKRITAS PLAN
...TOP SECRET.... FROM
HEADQUARTERS ...
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
EXTERNAL TACTICS (INTERNATIONAL)
INTERNAL FRONT
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The recent public statements
of the Archbishop have prescribed the course which our national issue will
follow in the immediate future. As we have stressed in the past, national
struggles are neither judged nor solved from day to day, nor is it always
possible to fix definite time limits for the achievement of the various
stages of their development. Our national cause must always be judged in the
light of the conditions and developments of the moment; the measures which
will be taken, the tactics and the time of implementing each measure is
determined by the conditions existing at the time, both internationally, and
internally. The entire effort is trying and must pass through various stages,
because the factors which influence the final result are many and varied. It
must be understood by everyone that each measure taken is the result of
continuous studies and, in the meantime, forms the basis for the future
measures. It must be recognized that the measures which are prescribed now
constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and
unalterable national objective, to the full and unfettered exercise of the
right of self-determination of the people.
Since the purpose remains
unalterable, what remains to be examined is the subject of tactics. This
must necessarily be separated as internal and external
A. EXTERNAL TACTICS (INTERNATIONAL)
During the recent stages of
our national struggle the Cyprus problem has been presented to world public
opinion and diplomatic circles as a demand for the exercise of the right of
self-determination of the people of Cyprus. In the exercise of this right,
the subject of the Turkish minority was introduced under the well-known
conditions and with argument of violent intercommunal clashes, it had been
tried to make it accepted that co-existence of the two communities under a
united administration was impossible. Finally, for many international
circles the problem was solved by the London and Zurich Agreements, a
solution which was presented as the result of negotiations and agreement
between the contending parties.
a) Consequently, our first
target has been to cultivate internationally the impression that the Cyprus
problem has not really been solved and the solution requires revision.
b) First objective was our
endeavor to be vindicated as the Greek majority and to create the impression
that:
1. The solution given is
neither satisfactory nor fair; 2. The agreement reached was not the result
of free and voluntary acceptance of a compromise of the conflicting views;
3. The revision of the agreements constitutes a compelling necessity for
survival, and not an effort of the Greeks to repudiate their signature; 4.
The co-existence of the two communities is possible, and 5. The strong
element on which foreign states ought to rely is the Greek majority and not
the Turks.
c) All the above which
required very difficult effort, have been achieved to a satisfactory degree.
Most of the diplomatic representatives are already convinced that the
solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under
pressure and solution has not been ratified by the people, is a significant
argument in this connection, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided
calling the people to give its official approval to the agreement by a
plebiscite or otherwise, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have
definitely approved. Generally, it has been established that the
administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and
that the Turks was confined to a negative role and as a brake.
d) Second Objective. The
first stage having been completed, we must program the second stage of our
activities and objectives can be outlined as follows:
1.The efforts of the Greeks
are to remove unreasonable and unfair provisions of the administration and
not to oppress the Turks; 2.The removal of these factors of the
administration must take place today because tomorrow will be too late. 3.The
removal of these provisions of the administration, although it is not
possible because of the unreasonable attitude of the Turks and therefore,
since it is not possible by agreement with the Turks, unilateral action is
justified; 4.The issue of revision is an internal affair of the Cypriots and
does not give the right of intervention, by force or otherwise, to anyone;
5.The proposed amendments are reasonable, just, and safeguard the reasonable
rights of the minority.
e) It has been generally
proven that today the international climate is against every type of
oppression and especially the oppression of minorities. The Turks have
already succeeded in persuading international opinion that union of Cyprus
with Greece amounts to an attempt to enslave them. Further, it is judged
that we have greater possibilities of succeeding in our efforts to influence
international public opinion in our favor if we present our demand, as we
did during the struggle, as a demand for exercising the right of self-determination,
rather than as a demand for Enosis. However, in order to secure the right to
exercise complete and free self-determination, first of all, we must get rid
of all those provisions of the Constitution and of the Agreements (Treaty of
Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance etc.) which obstruct the free and unfettered
expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which may open
the way to dangers of external intervention. It is exactly for this reason
that the first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was
the first that was stated to be no longer recognized by the Greek Cypriots.
When this achieved no power,
legal or moral, can stop us from deciding our future alone and freely and
exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.
From the above, the
conclusion can be drawn that for the success of our plan a chain of actions
and development is needed, each of which is a necessity and a must,
otherwise, future actions will remain legally unjustified and politically
unattainable, while at the same time we will expose the people and the
country to serious consequences. The actions to be taken can be classified
under the following headings:
a) Amendment of the negative
elements of the Agreements and parallel abandonment in practice of the
Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is necessary because the need
for amendments of the negative aspects of the treaties is generally accepted
internationally and is considered justified (we can even justify unilateral
action), while at the same time external intervention to prevent us amending
them is held unjustified and inapplicable;
b) After the above actions,
the Treaty of Guarantee (the right of intervention) becomes legally and
substantially inapplicable;
c) Once Cyprus is not bound
by the restrictions (of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance) regarding
the exercise of the right of self-determination, the people will be free to
give expression to and implement their desire.
d) Legal confrontation by the
forces of State (police and even friendly military forces) of every internal
or external intervention because then we shall be completely independent.
Therefore the actions from
(a) to (d) are absolutely necessary and must be carried out in the above
order and in time.
It is therefore obvious that
if we hope to have any possibility of success internationally in our above
actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the
struggle before the previous one is completed. For instance, if it is
accepted that above four stages are necessary course, then it is unthinkable
to speak of amendments (stage (a)) if stage (d) is revealed. How can it be
possible to aim at the amendment of the negative aspects by arguing that
this is necessary for the functioning of the State and the Agreements.
The above relate to targets,
aims and tactics in the international field. And now on the internal front:
B. INTERNAL FRONT
The international actions are
judged by the interpretations that will be given to them internationally and
by the effects that our actions will have on our national cause.
1. The only danger which
could be described as insurmountable is the possibility of external
intervention. Not so much because of material damage, nor because of the
danger itself (which, in the last analysis, it is possible for us to deal
with partly or totally by force), but mainly because of the possible
political consequences. If intervention is threatened or implemented before
stage (c), then such intervention would be legally debatable, if not
justified. This fact has a lot of weight both internationally and in the
United Nations. From the history of many recent instances we have learned
that in not a single case intervention, even when legally unjustified, has
either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the
attacker without serious concessions detrimental to the victim. Even in the
case of the Israeli attack against Suez, which was condemned by almost all
nations and on which Soviet intervention was threatened, Israel withdrew,
but revived (kept) the port of Eilat on the Red Sea as a concession.
Naturally, much more serious dangers exist for Cyprus.
But if we consider and
justify our actions under (a) above well, on the one hand the intervention
will not be justified and, on the other, we will have every support from the
beginning, since by the Treaty of Guarantee, intervention cannot take place
before consultations between the Guarantor Powers, that is Britain, Greece
and Turkey. It is at this stage of consultations (before intervention) that
will need international support. We shall have it if the amendments proposed
by us appear reasonable and justifiable.
Hence, the first objective is
to avoid intervention by the choice of the amendments we would propose in
the first stage.
Tactics: Reasonable
Constitutional amendments after efforts for common agreement is impossible
we shall try to justify unilateral action. At this stage the provisions in (ii)
and (iii) of page 21 are applicable in parallel.
2. It is obvious that for
intervention to be justified, more serious reasons and a more immediate
danger must exist than mere constitutional amendments.
Such reasons could be (a) and
immediate declaration of Enosis before stages (a),(c), (b) serious inter-communal
violence which would be presented as massacre of the Turks.
Reason (a) has already been
dealt with in the part and, consequently, only the danger of inter-communal
violence remains to be considered. Since we do not intend, without
provocation, to massacre or attack Turks, the possibility remains that the
Turks, as soon as we proceed to the unilateral amendment of any article of
the constitution, will react instinctively, creating incidents and clashes
the impression that the Greeks have indeed attacked the Turks, in which case
intervention would be imperative, for their protection.
Tactics: Our actions for
constitutional amendments will be open and we will always appear ready for
peaceful talks. Our actions will not be a provocative or violent nature. Any
incidents that may take place will be met, at the beginning, in a legal
fashion by the legal Security Forces, according to the plan. All actions
will be clothed in legal form.
3. Before the right of
unilateral amendments of the constitution is established and is accepted,
decisions and actions which require positive violent acts from us, such as
the unification of municipalities, must be avoided. Such a decision compels
the Government to intervene by force to bring about the unification and
seizure of municipal properties, which will probably compel the Turks to
react forcefully. Therefore it is easier for us, using legal methods, to
amend, for instance, the provision of the 70 to 30 ratio, when it is the
Turks who will have to take positive violent action, while for us this
procedure will not amount to action, but a refusal to act. The same applies
to the issue of the separate majorities with regards to taxation legislation.
These measures have already been studied and a series of similar measures
have been decided for implementation. Once our right of unilateral
amendments to the constitution is established de facto by some such actions,
then we shall be able to advance using our judgment and our strength more
forcefully.
4. It is, however, naive to
believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of
the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described
above, without the Turks attempting to create or to stage violent clashes.
Exactly for this reason, the existence and strengthening of our Organization
is imperative because:
a) In the event of
spontaneous Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we
run the risk of having panic created among Greeks, particularly in the towns,
and thus we run the danger of losing substantial vital areas irreparably,
while on the other hand an immediate and timely show of our strength may
bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to insignificant,
isolated acts, and
b) In the event of a planned
or spurious attack of the Turks, staged or not, it is imperative to overcome
it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining
command of the situation in one or two days, no outside intervention would
be possible, probable or justifiable.
c) In all above cases, the
forceful and decisive confrontation of any Turkish effort will greatly
facilitate our subsequent actions for further Constitutional amendments. It
would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any
Turkish reaction, because they will know that their reaction will be
impossible or seriously harmful for their community, and
d) In the event of the
clashes becoming widespread and general we must be ready to proceed
immediately with the actions described in (a), to (d), including the
immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to
wait nor room for diplomatic action.
5. At all these stages we
should not overlook the factor of propaganda, and to counter the propaganda
of those who do not know or cannot be expected to know our plans, as well as
of the reactionary elements. It has been shown that our struggle must pass
through at least four stages and that we must not reveal our plans and
intentions publicly and prematurely. Complete discretion and secrecy is more
than a national duty.
IT IS A VITAL NECESSITY FOR
SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS.
This will not deter the
reactionaries and the irresponsible demagogues from indulging in an orgy of
exploitation of patriotism and provocation. The plan provides them with
fertile ground, because it gives them the opportunity to allege that the
efforts of the leadership are confined to the objective of constitutional
amendments and not to pure national objectives. Our task becomes more
difficult because by necessity, and depending on the prevailing
circumstances, even the constitutional amendments must be made in stages.
However all this must not draw us into irresponsible demagogy, street
politics or bidding higher in the stakes of nationalism. Our acts will be
our most truthful defenders. In any event, because the above task must make
substantial progress and yield results long before the next elections, in
the relatively short time in between we must show self-restraint and remain
cool, for obvious reasons. At the same time, however, we must not only
maintain the present unity and discipline of the patriotic forces, but
increase it. We can only achieve this by the necessary briefing of our
members and through them of our people.
Before everything else we
have to expose the true identities of the reactionaries. They are petty and
irresponsible demagogues and opportunists, as their recent past has shown.
They are negative and aimless reactionaries who fanatically oppose our
leadership, but at the same time without offering a substantive and
practical solution of their own. In order to promote all our actions we need
a steady and strong government until the last moment. These are known as
verbalisms and sloganists, with pretty words and slogans, but they are
unable and unwilling to proceed to concrete acts or to themselves. They must,
therefore, be alienated and isolated.
In parallel and at the same
time, we shall brief our members about the above plan and intentions, but
ONLY VERBALLY. Our Sub-headquarters must, in gatherings of our members,
analyze and explain fully and continuously the above, until each one of our
members understands fully and is in a position to brief others. NO WRITTEN
REPORT IS PERMITTED. THE LOSS OR LEAKAGE OF ANY DOCUMENT ON THE ABOVE
AMOUNTS TO HIGH TREASON. No act can damage our struggle as vitally and
decisively as the revealing of the present document or its publication by
our struggle as vitally and decisively as the revealing of the present
document or its publication by our opponents.
With the exception of word-of-mouth
briefing and guidance, all our other actions, specially publications in the
press, resolutions etc. must be very restrained and no mention of the above
should be made. Similarly, in public speeches and gatherings, only
responsible persons may make, under the personal responsibility of the Chief
of Sub-headquarters, references in general terms to the above plan. And this
only after the explicit approval of the Chief of Sub-headquarters who will
also control the text. Even in this case, ON NO ACCOUNT ARE REFERENCES TO
THESE TEXTS IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION ARE PERMITTED.
Tactics: All the briefing of
our people and of the public BY WORD OF MOUTH. We should make every effort
to appear as moderates in public. Projection of or reference to our plans in
the press or in writing is strictly prohibited. Officials and other
responsible persons will continue to brief the people and to raise their
morale and fighting spirit, but such briefing excludes making our plans
public knowledge by the press or otherwise.
NOTE: This document will be
destroyed by fire on the personal responsibility of the Chief of Regional HQ
in the presence of all the General Staff within 10 days from its receipt.
Copies in full or in part are prohibited. Members of the staff of the
Regional HQ may have the plan on the personal responsibility of the Chief of
Regional HQ, but may not take it out of the Regional HQ.
The Leader AKRITAS.
|