Cyprus

Press, Volume XCIII, Issue 27985, 4 June 1956, Page 10

Cyprus

Field-Marshal Sir John Harding is returning for consultation with the British Government at a time when new factors are pressing hard on British policy in Cyprus, notably the outbreaks of violence between Greek and Turkish Cypriots and the mounting criticism in Britain and elsewhere of the Government’s policy. Though Sir Anthony Eden and Mr Lennox-Boyd have emphasised the international implications of the Cyprus issue, little interest has been shown by critics of the Government in Turkey’s standpoint which, all along, has complicated Britain’s negotiations. The Turkis.h Government objects to the Greek Cypriots’ demand for “ enosis ”, which would place the Turkish minority, 20 per cent, of the population of Cyprus, under the I Greek Government. But Turkey’s [main objection to the ultimate union of Cyprus with Greece is jbased on defence considerations. I Cyprus is an off-shore island of

[Asia Minor; and Turkish military communications run from the harbour of Iskenderun, which is only 100 miles from the tip of Cyprus. Understandably, Turkey wants a strong ally in Cyprus. Turkey’s position, it has been suggested, could be safeguarded by establishing a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation base on Cyprus. But Turkey dislikes the idea of dependence upon I a NATO or a British base on an island subject to the vagaries of I Greek politics. Neither has the i British Government been receptive Ito Greek offers of bases on Cyprus in return for full enosis immediately. And, as Mr Aneurin Bevan, the Opposition’s chief spokesman, was reminded during the recent House of Commons debate, a similar offer was rejected by the Labour Government in 1951, when the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean was less explosive than it is now, and when Britain still held the Suez base. Obviously, the cooperation of Turkey will be necessary if a formula is to be found that will satisfy everyone concerned, and that is one reason why Greek-Turkish clashes in Cyprus are regrettable. Communal strife between Greek and Turkish Cypriots must tend to strengthen Turkish suspicions about Greek goodwill. The most important criticism of the British Government’s policy arises chiefly from the belief that in Cyprus Britain is surrendering a moral authority that once commanded the admiration of the world by resorting to repression, jamming of broadcasts, collective fines, and forced evacuation of houses. Thus the “ Manchester Guardian ” is found in strange and unaccustomed alliance with Mr Bevan in accusing Sir Anthony Eden, Mr Macmillan (the Foreign Secretary), and Mr Lennox-Boyd (the Colonial Secretary) of becoming “ bloody-minded ” and “ reverting to 18th century “ type ”. British policy in Cyprus has been neither ruthless nor savage. “ The “ Times ” has pointed out that purely military success in an operation such as that in Cyprus varies proportionately with the sternness of the methods employed. There is no doubt, “ The Times ” has commented, that savage reprisals which make civilian populations more frightened of the security forces than the terrorists are the quickest way to gain the intelligence on which the defeat of terrorists depends. Such measures have been rightly eschewed in Cyprus and would never be countenanced by Britain. The cost of comparative clemency (measures limited to curfews, closing schools, and collective fines) is a serious lack of information about the identity, whereabouts, and forthcoming operations of the terrorists, which means that successful ambushes in Cyprus have been brought off almost exclusively at the expense of the soldiers. “ The Times ” observes that the restraint of British soldiers suffering the risks and handicaps of a clement policy has been a remarkable tribute to their discipline. The British Government may more justly be criticised for making no attempt to gain the political initiative since the negotiations with Archbishop Makarios broke down. British policy, which is committed to the restoration of law and order

as an essential preliminary to constitutional progress, has not yet established the conditions in which negotiations might be resumed. It is not yet safe for any but extremist opinion to express itself in Cyprus. Critics of the British Government who argue for negotiating now, in reality urge Britain to negotiate with the group of ambitious politicians who have not hesitated to ally terrorism with a campaign for self-determination. As the Leader of the Opposition in New Zealand, Mr Nash, saw when he discussed Cyprus last week, the question is not solely one of self-determination. In Cyprus (as in Singapore) the British Government does not argue that the citizens should not have selfgovernment, which has, indeed, been

offered to them. What it does say is that where vital strategic and economic interests are involved, the

lesser freedom cannot be allowed to undermine the greater freedom for which Britain stands. Most of the

British Government’s critics are careful not to attack this principle; but they obscure it when they present the question as one simply of self-determination. The present deadlock ' in Cyprus is deeply regrettable, and everything that can be done to break it should be done. But it is unfair to criticise the British Government without taking its difficulties into full account; and it is particularly unfair to deny Sir Anthony Eden, Mr Macmillan, and Mr Lennox-Boyd a share of the humanity and enlightenment that their critics claim for themselves.