Michalis Ignatiou
I met Alexis Papachelas, in the autumn of 1983, when he entered the bookstore where I worked, in Greek Astoria, and after buying some books of political and diplomatic content, he begged with the kindness that distinguishes him – if we could – to keep “Kathimerini” and “Sunday's Step”.
In the conversation above I was informed that he was studying at Columbia University and that he wanted to become a journalist. I told him, of course, that I was also a journalist and worked in the bookstore because I had been fired for my union activities.
We chatted a lot and continued when he came to get the two newspapers he ordered. Only he made a mistake, and we did not keep them, something that reminds me to this day. I kept the passion he showed for-American-style journalism and we said to stay in touch.
Two years later we met at the Morning office on 37th Street in Manhattan. He started working with us in the newspaper and we did not catch him. He threw ideas, thoughts and suggestions on the table like a machine gun. I told the rest of the management team that Alexis would become a great journalist. After a few months I told him too. He looked at me in his familiar style, when he distrusted something you told him, and I repeated it to him.
SEE ALSO: “A dark room”: Alexis Papachelas's book presented in Cyprus
In the process, he learned the “secrets” of the United Nations, and together we covered the great events of the Cyprus problem. He for Dawn and I for Meridian. We are eyewitnesses of the Homeric battles given to the Security Council by the blessed ambassadors, Michalis Dountas and Konstantinos Mousioutas.
He then spread his wings making the big decision to go to Washington, where he excelled as a correspondent for “Kathimerini” and “Mega”. It was one of the best decisions he made in his life.
In 1989 I had already met the magical world of research when I decided to look for Henry Kissinger's documents in the American archives, which are kept in a space provided by the University of Maryland. While visiting Washington, we met and discussed the investigation as he too had begun to search for documents on the colonels' coup in Greece. He hosted me at his house, where we kept chatting.
I had “warned” him: that the investigation is the most dangerous “mistress” for the journalist. Because at some point he could be called upon to choose between research and journalism, which of course – for those who do not know – are two different things. Judging by his latest book, I would venture to argue that he has been captivated for good by the world of research.
When a journalist, who first and foremost declares himself a researcher, is asked to judge such a book, he immediately starts the investigation. This judges and counts, and then the content. I will testify, then, that the research that has been transformed in this book is amazing, but also fascinating. As any self-respecting researcher does, I read the back pages first. There he presents the handful of documents and other sources he used to write the book (page 579).
Even I, who am accustomed to reading thousands of pages, got lost. The result of the research is shocking. I knew many documents as I met them on my way, not enough. And I advise readers, before they even read the book to do the same. Soak up the pages with the documents and other sources as this will help them judge the book. Apart from the fact that they will appreciate the work of the investigative-journalist.
For his research, he takes from me 10 out of 10. Because, among other things, he shares the pain and anguish of the researcher. The reader does not know that our failures in obtaining documents are more than our successes. And it takes perseverance and patience, which Alexis proved he had. In the end the research proved to be absolutely successful.
Regarding the book and its conclusions. The reader should also be aware that when writing a book of this scope, the author relies on research work and interviews with the protagonists. One and one make two, not eleven. And when the author is honest and says that this conclusion comes out, and the other does not, he shows his honesty. And that is what Papachelas does in this excellent book. In journalism you can “skip” a few things. You are not entitled to write a book, and in fact that emerged after research. After all, no writer who first and foremost respects himself and his readers can falsify documents. They are what they are.
Before I go into the content, I would also like to testify that this is an incredibly well-written book, which shows that it took many hours of extra work to present the ultimate. And he did it. It does not allow you to stop reading.
I am of the “school” that the Americans were the ones who carried out the coup against the disobedient Makarios and the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. And studying Papachelas's book, I have not changed this “life decision”, which was also based on my own research. Both from the documents he cites and from the content of his book, I remain in the same position. Alexis and I have a “difference” in drawing the conclusion, about who gave the green light to Dimitrios Ioannidis to give the order to execute Makarios. I continue to believe that Greece was ruled by the CIA channel and that the diplomats of the American embassy lived in their own world. And I accept that the diplomatic mission had absolutely nothing to do with the treacherous coup in Cyprus. After all, as noted in the book, the diplomats could not meet Ioannidis, something that Gas Laskaris Avrakotos did comfortably, who, according to him, controlled the dictators.
One must be able to judge, try to go back and research and learn the conditions of the time. Coups, which were fashionable in that decade, were carried out by the CIA. The ranks in the target countries did not have the slightest contact with the American diplomats, who learned of the coups after they took place. There are many examples, especially in Latin American countries, except in one case in which a Greek-American diplomat appears to have participated.
I also ask: Was there the slightest case of Ioannidis ordering the coup in Cyprus, without the knowledge of the CIA? None… And especially given the relationship of Avrakotos with Ioannidis.
The book, as I testified above, did not change my mind. On the contrary, he confirmed it to me. The documents revealed by Papachelas speak for themselves. What he does not say, because he failed to confirm it – and in his honor he underlines it – is the American who gave the order. His name, although he seems to know it…
Ioannidis answers the author's questions through his sister, Despina Alzaraki. And this is the first time we know the way of thinking of the invisible dictator. What it says; That the CIA knew about the coup against Makarios and that it was a lie that he conveyed them, through his collaborator, that he would not move against Makarios.
Papachelas, on page 311, lists the unanswered questions. I copy and subscribe, adding that I believe that the “job” was done by Avrakotos.
The author notes:
“But the most crucial question is what Ioannidis and Avrakotos discussed in the hot days of July before the overthrow of Makarios. We know from the stories of the Greek-American agent that, when the CIA sent him to convince Papadopoulos not to execute Andreas Papandreou, he read the official message but urged him to “clean up”. Avrakotos hated Andreas and according to several testimonies the same was true for Makarios. Can he say to Ioannidis about Makarios, what he said to Papadopoulos about Andreas? “You do not care about America, did you clean the motherfucker?” “They probably took the answer with them to their grave”, the author notes.
The book is a diamond for both conversations and interviews that allows the reader to listen with his ears. I can not deny that I cried listening to the talks at the War Council of July 20, 1974 (page 369). Cyprus was burning and Ioannidis was living in his imaginary world. I was 16 years old when my father came and woke us up at 6 in the morning to announce the cowardly invasion of Cyprus. The announcer of RIK, in a pompous voice, told us that the mortal forces are strongly resisting. The father turned and told us that this (which was happening) was different from the 1964 bombings. And he proved to be absolutely right.
THE CONFESSION OF THE DICTATOR IOANNIDIS
Forty-seven years later, Papachelas gives us the opportunity to listen with our ears Ιω Ioannidis, in essence, tells the other conspirators to let them enter Kyrenia and then we intervene. What exactly does he say according to the audio presented by the author?
“They will go to Kyrenia. And after they leave then they will enter. They do what the Turks want… After taking the port, Kyrenia and uniting Nicosia, then they will stop. That's what we are sure of. “
This phrase needs analysis, dear readers. I ask: Does Ioannidis reveal the double betrayal with this phrase? Why let them enter Kyrenia and then reach Nicosia? Was that the deal? Should the Turks enter from Kyrenia to Nicosia only? This passage, I confess, will haunt me for a long time to come.
Cyprus has fallen victim to an unprecedented betrayal
I also studied the rest of the audio excerpt that reminded me of one of the documents of Thomas Boyat, then head of the Cyprus Office, when he describes an enraged Ioannidis telling the then US Deputy Secretary of State Joseph Sisco that he will become Digenis Akritos and will overthrow Constantius Constantine. This man was the leader of the Motherland… That is why the Turks occupied ruthless Cyprus and held it hostage from July 20, 1974 until today.
I could write a book about Papachelas's work, but the space of the newspaper is limited. I would also not want to spoil the reader's right to study and judge for himself.
The author, I believe, gives all the answers based on his research and the secret documents he publishes. She is honest and most importantly does not make any effort to convince the reader of her own view of things. This requires honesty. He cites the facts dryly – in terms of consistently serving American journalism – cites his documents and sources.
At the end of the study of this amazing book you will feel -especially Cypriot readers- a knot in the stomach. You may never leave… Because first of all you will realize that Cyprus fell victim to an unprecedented betrayal, in which Greek officers participated.
I highly recommend this book by Alexis Papachelas, especially to young people. I honored him as a journalist. I also honor him as a researcher. Nowadays, research is limited to funny reports, especially on TV channels. But we must not forget that research is the heart and lungs of independent journalism.
Papachelas, with his book, delivers a resounding lesson to young journalists and in fact invites them to follow his example. The classic research, as he mentions honoring, among others, me and Costas Venizelos, is the most shocking part of journalism, even today. And of course I'm not referring to document theft as it's become fashionable…
