Britain Adopts “Get Tough” Policy In Cyprus

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27911, 7 March 1956, Page 13

Britain Adopts “Get Tough” Policy In Cyprus

(N.Z. Press Association—Copyright)

(Rec. 8.30 p.m.) LONDON, March 5. A new and emphatic “get tough” policy for Cyprus was the keynote of almost simultaneous statements today in the House of Commons and on Cyprus itself. The Colonial Secretary, Mr A. T. Lennox-Boyd, told the House of Commons that law and order was Britain’s first and most important duty in Cyprus after recent unsuccessful talks aimed at achieving a settlement -of the troubles there. “For this, we have the resolution and the forces—and it will be done.” In Cyprus, the island’s Governor, Field-Marshal ’Sir John Harding, declared tonight in a broadcast: “I am determined there shall be an end to violence. Terrorists must be eliminated and intimidation stopped.” Sir John Harding added: “I intend to pursue a campaign for the restoration of law and order with all the resources at my disposal.”

Mr Lennox-Boyd, in announcing Britain’s intentions, gave Parliament an account of the deadlock in Cyprus, to which he flew for recent talks. Britain’s position, he said, was not that the island could never have selfdetermination, but that “it is not now a practical proposition on account of the present position in the Eastern Mediterranean.” Britain disclosed today in a White Paper that the negotiations with Archbishop Makarios broke down on these three major issues:

(1) The Cypriot demand for an immediate amnesty for political prisoners. (2) Whether the British Governor of the island should retain control of internal security, as well as foreign affairs and defence, when Cyprus has self-government. (3) Demands by the Archbishop which would mean that Greek Cypriots would outnumber Turkish Cypriots by four to one in the proposed Constituent Assembly. Archbishop Makarios in a press statement today made these points on the three stumbling blocks. Britain showed “inadmissible intransigence” by wishing to restrict an amnesty to very few categories, and to make this a “prize” for restoration of order, instead of a prerequisite for order, he said. On internal security, the Archbishop said he had offered as a concession that Britain should keep control for a fixed period, on the assumption that peace and order would meanwhile be secured. “Britain insisted, however, in obscure language, on keeping this control indefinitely.” On representation, Archbishop Makarios said Britain refused to give an assurance that “elected representatives of Cyprus’s population would constitute a majority in the Assembly.” The Archbishop said that Cypriots would “struggle to the last, resisting passively the illegal sovereignty of the British rulers.” Questions by Labour The deputy-leader of the Labour Opposition, Mr James Griffiths, asked the Government today if it was saying that negotiations were now at an end. Was the conflict to go on when the major issues had been settled? Labour members angrily shouted “Answer” when the Colonial Secretary declined to give a direct answer. Mr Griffiths repeated his question, saying: “Are we to gather from this statement that because of these three points which are not the major ones about which the conflict started, negotiations have ended and the conflict continues.”

Mr Lennox-Boyd replied: “The bis issues, the principle of tion and the question of self-govern-ment. are in a sense out of the way, and now we are down to other points. “It makes the failure of the Archbishop to, condemn violence all the more inexcusable, for it is a fact that his failure to condemn violence is an active encouragement of it, and as a result he is using the weapon of violence in order to try to secure agreement along his own lines on what are not the two main points.”