Thursday, July 2, 2009

Critiques of the book CYPRUS, the Post-Imperial Constitution

For Immediate Release: July 1, 2009

Contact: Nikolaos Taneris, New York, Tel. 1-917-699-9935

NEW YORK--The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) distributes the following
critiques of the false historical revisionist booklet/pamphlet “CYPRUS, the
Post-Imperial Constitution” by V.K.Fouskas and A.O.Tackie. The Traditional
Enemies of the Truth who pushed the pro-Turkish Annan Plan, aiming to forever
de-Hellenize and surrender Cyprus to Turkey, are now set at work writing and
promoting booklets for a new and improved “Cypriot “ Plan.

Vasilis Fouskas is not of Cypriot origin or heritage, his bio, and his booklet,
are on the Turkish website,,
Is, (in the Turk’s own words) as follows; “Vassilis K. Fouskas teaches
international relations at Piraeus University. His grandparents were Greeks from
the Western Asia Minor cities of Ayvalik and Edremit. In 1922 they moved to the
island of Lesvos, following the aborted Anglo-Greek attempt to eradicate Turkey
and Islam fom Anatolia. Vassilis has thus grown up in a refugee family
environment which, fortunately for him, praised the friendship of Turkish and
Greek peoples while damning Western imperialism. Vassilis' work has been
translated into more than ten languages.”

When the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in London had asked for
contributions on ideas and comments on the Cyprus issue Fouskas publically
responded after Greek-Cypriot rejection of the Annan plan. In his statement
provided as written evidence, he stated the following arguments that promote
illegal economic development for Turks:

“Thus, Cyprus represents a unique challenge for the EU in that it provides the
best testing ground for the implementation of the acquis throughout the island.
This, first and foremost, can begin by boosting the social economy of the North…
Britain … should assist Turkish Cypriots economically and in terms of
reintegrating them with the Greek Cypriots.” Remarked Fouskas to the Select

One more piece of information: Fouskas started his English career with Kingston
University and that is where he met Tackie a fellow academic at the University,
and together co-wrote this booklet. His studies were in economics.

Fanoulla Argyrou, a Greek-Cypriot refugee activist, journalist and author who
has lived in the UK since the 1970s told us “Takie is a total foreigner to the
Cyprus issue. The only connection he has is the fact that he was born in
Haringey, North London, an area with a big Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot
population – as far as the Greek Cypriots are concerned, in their majority they
are supporters of the British Labour Party (and AKEL of Cyprus). Haringey is
considered as a stronghold of the Greek Cypriot supporters of the Labour Party.

As far as I know his parents are not Cypriots. “Says Fanoulla Argyrou. (Read
Fanoulla Argrou’s review of the Fouskas/Tackie booklet on the website of TA NEA
newspaper of London:

Meet Mr. Tackie, the answer to the Cyprus problem, here:

AKEL, incidentially, is the Communist party of Cyprus.

In fact, Tackie is not even born to Greek-Cypriot (or Greek) parents, his
heritage is from Ghana. A sad commentary on the state of affairs for the
official Cypriot “lobby” is this new reliance on a writer, who laces his booklet
with the word “bullshit” (literally), to provide the answer as to how to deal
with the Turks.

Regardless, it was AKTINA FM (recipient of government monies and community
monies) and its reporter Demetrios Rhompotis
(writer of “NEO” a magazine glossy of photo-ops flooded with Cypriot “lobby” ad
money) in New York, that rushed to promote Tackie’s and Fouskas’ solution to the
Cyprus problem.

In the interest of educational purposes and fair play we provide the following
critique by Leonidas Leonidou of “CYPRUS, the Post-Imperial Constitution by
V.K.Fouskas and A.O.Tackie”.


A critique on the book CYPRUS, the Post-Imperial Constitution
by V.K.Fouskas and A.O.Tackie

This 110 pages booklet was published earlier this year. The whole philosophical
approach of the book is based on the wrong assumptions and shows a superficial
understanding of the Cyprus issue and history in general.

It is evident that the authors, in one stream of their thoughts, start from
their wrong conclusion that the Cyprus problem can only be resolved by two
leftist community leaders and make a desperate attempt to prove it right by the
use of their “humbug” and “bullshit” theories.

The book suggests that the Cyprus issue and the de facto situation ended as a
bicommunal dispute and not an issue of invasion, occupation of one country by
another resulting in the violation of many basic human rights. By doing so it
reduces the impact and the full control that Turkey exerts on the Turkish
Cypriots and suggests that the goodwill of the two leaders could solve the

It also puts aside the issue of the continued violation by Turkey of the
founding agreements of the Republic of Cyprus including that of sovereignty the
restoration of which the neighbouring country used as pretext for the invasion
of Cyprus.

There are too many historic inaccuracies. I mention here a couple: The 1950
Referendum was not for self-determination but for Enosis and was not done by
Archbishop Makarios II and not III. George Papandreou sent an army division in
1964 in a desperate Greek attempt to face the almost daily invasion threats made
by Turkey and not for a regime change. It also suggests that in 1964 the
Americans sent General Grivas to Cyprus in order to implement the Acheson plan.
This constitutes a gross inaccuracy of the historic facts. Grivas rejected the
Acheson plan.

One other inexcusable simplification in the book is the parallelizing of TMT
with the action of the EOKA campaign. Yet the differences are so fundamental and
obvious even to those unacquainted with the island’s history.

But the most sticking omission of this study is the failure to highlight a
fundamental difference: In Cyprus, an 18% minority taking advantage of these
policies and of the political inadequacies of the 82% Greek majority leadership
managed to drive Cyprus into a political turmoil for almost a century and
achieve their unfounded, unjust and inhuman goal: partition, created by the
British imperialistic and Turkish expansionist foreign policies. On the other
hand the exercise of the right of Self determination was a moral and just
process in resolving majority-minority issues. It was guaranteed for the small
nations by the Atlantic (1941) and Potomac (1954) charters. In 1939 Turkey
applied it to annex Alexandreta with only a majority of 57% and Britain
masterminded its application for Gibraltar to stay British in 2002 and 2005 with
a majority of 60%.

In summary, the historic inaccuracies and the shallow understanding of the
Cyprus issue by the authors puts a shadow on what they set out to do i.e. that
the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots is a fallacy. Yet, for an expert analyst
this should not present such a difficult task.

Leonidas Leonidou

London June 2009

Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA)
2578 Broadway #132
New York, NY 10025
New York: Tel. 917-699-9935

The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is a grass-roots, not-for-profit
movement created to support genuine self-determination and human rights for the
people of Cyprus.

To be added to CANA's Action Alert e-mail distribution list, or to introduce
CANA to a friend or colleague, please forward the pertinent name and e-mail
address, with the subject heading "Add e-mail to CANA distribution list", to

You are encouraged to forward this action alert to five or more individuals who
may have an interest in our e-distributions or in CANA’s mission.

You may post any CANA article, press release or action alert on the internet as
long as you credit CANA and the author(s).