July 9, 2008
The island of Cyprus, located in the northeastern Mediterranean, 40 miles from the southern shores of mainland Turkey, 60 miles to the west of Lebanon and little further from Syria and Israel, was known as the island of Aphrodite, the goddess of love in mythology.
So powerful was the romantic charm of the island that the famous English king, richard the lion heart, saw it fit to get married there, on his way to Jerusalem during the crusades.
Cyprus served as the location for a scene in Shakespeare’s famous tragedy, Othello; and became the subject of a book titled “bitter lemons” by renowned British author, Lawrence Durrell.
Legend has it that, so good was the taste of its wine that it played a role in tempting the Ottoman Sultan, Selim the second who was known for his love of wine, to conquer it in 1571.
In more recent times, the name Cyprus has become almost synonymous with conflict.
What is it that has plagued this beautiful corner of the ancient world and cast that dubious title on it?
Is it its strategic location at the crossroads of ancient civilizations and modern sea routes? we do not forget that the great British statesman, sir Winston Churchill, once described Cyprus as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier”.
Is the Cyprus conflict a lingering legacy of the cold war – a victim of super power rivalry? Or of competing national interests between the regional powers?
Is the problem of Cyprus a problem from without – a vestige of colonialism and British policy of divide and rule?
Or is it from within – an ethnic dispute between its two national peoples, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, who are fighting for dominance or their share of the island, respectively?
The answer is probably a little bit of all of the above. this is what makes it so complex, some would say “Byzantine”.
The former Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Glafkos Klerides, wrote the following in the third volume of his memoirs titled “Cyprus my deposition”:
“just as the Greek Cypriot preoccupation was that Cyprus should be Greek Cypriot state, with a protected Turkish Cypriot minority, Turkish preoccupation was to defeat any such effort and maintain the partnership concept, which in their opinion the Zurich agreement created between the two communities. the conflict, therefore, was a conflict of principle both sides were prepared to go on arguing and even, if need be, to fight rather than compromise. The same principle is still in conflict, even today…”
(memoirs of former Greek Cypriot leader, Glafkos Klerides, entitled “my deposition”, vol 3, page 105)
To fully appreciate where we are in Cyprus today we have to take a step back and look AT the background of the conflict. Call it perspective, stocktaking or simply looking down memory lane. But this is an absolute necessity in a complex situation such as Cyprus – a conflict which has deep roots.
The skies of Cyprus are mostly clear and blue and is blessed with sunshine 300 days of the year. But the political landscape in Cyprus is so clouded by the propaganda and disinformation that, some issues need to be clarified in order to see the facts clearly:
Fact # 1: Cyprus is not, and has never been a Greek island. It was occupied by many ancient empires and peoples ranging from the Hittites to the venetians. In Hellenic times, the Greeks established trading colonies on the island, but according to British historian George C. Hill, in his authoritative book called “the history of Cyprus”, “Cyprus was never an integral part of Hellenic Greece” (vol. iv pp 488-9). in more recent history, Cyprus was ruled by the Ottoman Turks from 1571 to 1878 when it was leased to great Britain. The British colonial rule lasted until 1960, when Cyprus became independent.
The independence itself was a compromise. the Greek population wanted to unite with their motherland Greece while the Turkish population wanted the island to be returned to its former ruler, Turkey. To reconcile the two national aspirations a partnership republic was created instead. the two communities would rule the island conjointly. neither would be able to dominate the other.
Fact # 2: there is no “Cyprus nation”, but there are Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as two distinct peoples co-inhabiting the island. the first Greek Cypriot leader, archbishop Makarios, was first to admit this:
“No Greek who knows me can ever believe that i would wish to work for the creation of a Cypriot national awareness. the agreements have created a state, but not a nation”
(Archbishop Makarios, in a statement to the Cyprus mail of March 28, 1963)
Fact # 3: There are no majorities and minorities in Cyprus, but two distinct peoples of equal political and legal status. Although today the Greek Cypriots are more numerous than the Turkish Cypriots, our relationship with each other has never been one of “majority and minority”. The U.N. secretary general’s statement of September 12, 2000, among other documents, supports the principle of political equality of the two parties. It refers to a “comprehensive settlement enshrining a new partnership” and stresses that each of the two parties “represents its side and no-one else”. The Annan plan, which is the latest U.N. effort for a settlement, makes clear in its main articles that our relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political equality, where neither side can claim authority or jurisdiction over the other. The separate simultaneous referenda on April 24, 2004 confirmed the fact that there exist two equal sides or peoples on the island, neither of which represents the other.
Fact # 4: The Cyprus problem did not start in 1974, but in 1963, when an armed onslaught was launched against the Turkish Cypriots in order to annex the island to Greece. this fact, among other things, is evidenced by the presence of the United Nations peace-keeping force on the island since 1964, which belies Greek Cypriot claims that the problem starts in 1974 with Turkey’s arrival. lt. general George Karaiannis (the mainland Greek army officer then in command of the “Cyprus army” told Ethnikos Kiryx, an Athens daily, on June 13, 1965:
“… in august 1960…president Makarios decided to proceed with…organizing the Greek Cypriots for battle.”
(Karaiannis, in an article in the Greek newspaper Ethnikos Kiryx on June 13, 1965)“When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963”
(Karaiannis, in an article in the Greek newspaper Ethnikps Kiryx on June 15, 1965)
Fact # 5: Turkey did not “invade” nor is she “occupying” Cyprus. the Turkish intervention of July 20, 1974 did not come about as an “invasion” but in response to a coup d’état organized by Greek junta on July 15, 1974. It came in the wake of 11 years of bloodshed and agitation perpetrated by the Greek Cypriots with the aim of annexing the island to Greece. Turkey’s action was in accordance with the treaty of guarantee of 1960, and was fully legal and legitimate. The legitimacy of the Turkish intervention was confirmed, among others, by the consultative assembly of the council of Europe:
“Turkey exercised its right of intervention in accordance with the article IV of the guarantee treaty of 1960”
Even the Athens court of appeal, in its decision of March 21, 1979, held that Turkey’s intervention in Cyprus was legal:
“The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London agreements was legal. Turkey, as one of the guarantor powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits… are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this intervention.”
(Decision no. 2658, dated march 21, 1979)
Fact # 6: The Greek Cypriot side is not the victim but the perpetrator of the 40-50 year old Cyprus conflict, in which the Turkish Cypriots are the real victims despite their liberation by Turkey IN 1974.
Here are some samples from the international news media:
“In Cyprus terror continues. Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turks from villages. Thousands of people are abandoning their homes, lands, herds: Greek terrorism is relentless. This time, the rhetoric of the Helens and the busts of Plato do not suffice to cover-up their barbaric and ferocious behaviors.”
(Il Giorno, January 14, 1964, report by Giorgio Bocco)
“Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide…”
(The Washington Post, February 17, 1964)
And here is an example from the U.N. secretary-general’s reports:
“The economic restrictions being imposed against the Turkish Cypriot community, which in some instances has been so severe as to amount to veritable siege, indicated that the government of Cyprus seeks to force a potential solution by economic pressure.”
(Report of the U.N. secretary general s/5950 of September 10, 1964)
Fact # 7: The Turkish Cypriot side is not the intransigent party blocking the solution of the Cyprus question.
Negotiations for a solution have been carried out under the good offices mission of the U.N. secretary-general since 1968. The Turkish Cypriot side continues to participate in these negotiations, in A constructive manner. The aim has always been to establish a new partnership state between the two sides on the basis of well-established U.N. parameters which emerged over the course of long years of negotiations -PRINCIPLES such as THE political equality of the two sides, bi-zonality and bi-communality of a likely settlement.
After numerous failed attempts, the U.N. comprehensive settlement plan of March 31, 2004 came into being as the outcome of four and a half years of negotiations. the Turkish Cypriot people approved it by 65 percent in the separate, simultaneous referenda held in both sides of the island on April 24, 2004. Aware of the fact that a settlement requires compromise, the Turkish Cypriot people have endorsed the plan despite the great sacrifices it entailed for them.
The Greek Cypriot side’s overwhelming rejection by 76 percent of the plan, however, came as a shock to the international community, which considered the plan as a window of opportunity. With its rejection of the settlement plan, the Greek Cypriot side has clearly shown that it is not ready to enter a power-sharing arrangement with the Turkish Cypriot side on the basis of the political equality of the two peoples.
in view of their affirmative vote, the international community and particularly the European union made numerous pledges and indeed took decisions for the lifting of the restrictions on the social, economic and political development of the Turkish Cypriot people.
In his report to the security council, May 28, 2004, the then U.N. secretary-general called upon U.N. security council members to
“give a strong lead to all states to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies, to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development…” (Para. 93)
It should of course be kept in mind that the lifting of the isolation is not an end in itself. The heeding of the U.N. Secretary-General’s call would also help the Greek Cypriot side reconsider its current negative stance as it would indicate the international community’s resolve not to allow the Turkish Cypriots to be kept under restrictions forever. Furthermore, it would bridge the current economic gap between the two sides, paving the way for a smoother transition to a new state of affairs in the event of a settlement.
Yet as times goes by and four years have passed since the historic referenda of April 2004, Turkish Cypriots continue to be kept in isolation, due to Greek Cypriot obstructionism; lack of political will on the part of the international community and the resultant inaction.
The unilateral membership of the Greek Cypriot side into the E.U. without first reaching a settlement has certainly further complicated the Cyprus issue, by making the Greek Cypriot leadership more intransigent and maximalist vis-à-vis the settlement of the Cyprus problem.
Since its accession to the E.U., the Greek Cypriot side has been exploiting its membership In order to block every step of the E.U. aimed at the easing of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.
It is understood that the Greek Cypriot side aims at the postponement of the settlement with the hope that in the course of time it can do away with the established U.N. parameters and consequently the fundamental and legitimate rights of the Turkish Cypriot people. Needless to say, such an unrealistic strategy is bound to fail.
The remarks of the former Greek Cypriot leader Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos at the general assembly of the United Nations (in September 2006) reveal the true intentions of the Greek Cypriot side. his words clearly indicate that the only acceptable solution to the Greek Cypriot side lies through the assimilation of the Turkish Cypriot people within the Greek Cypriot state, or as he put it, through “osmosis”.
While paying lip service to a federal solution, the Greek Cypriot side envisages a unitary state and is not ready to agree to any formulation which would require power sharing with the Turkish Cypriots. The responsibility here lies with the international community. The Greek Cypriot side, through concrete action, should be encouraged to see that a solution in the island can only be achieved through acceptance of the fact that there exist two equal peoples on the island.
The Turkish Cypriot side continues to be committed to the settlement of the Cyprus problem under the auspices of the U.N. Secretary General and on the basis of the established U.N. parameters. our proposal for the resumption of the full-fledged negotiations and the confidence building measures remain at the table.
It is thin enthusiasm for a settlement that leads the Turkish Cypriot side to interpret positively the recent change of leadership in the South. The Turkish Cypriot side welcomes the new Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias’s decision to meet with President Talat on March. 21, the Turkish Cypriot Side welcomes the two leaders’ agreement at the meeting to set up a number of working groups and technical committees. The Turkish Cypriot side welcomes their agreement to open the Lokmaci-Ledra Gate. And most of all the Turkish Cypriot side welcomes their agreement to start full-fledged negotiations under the auspices of the U.N. Secretary-General in September.
There is a changed climate. Hopes are high among international players that a mutually acceptable settlement will be more seriously sought by the current Greek Cypriot leader than his coalition partner and predecessor, Tassos Papadopoulos. Yet no one is minimizing the difficulties that lie ahead. Many fear that this may be “Another False Dawn” as the former U.N. Secretary-General’s adviser on Cyprus, Alvaro de Soto, titled his recent opinion in the International Herald Tribune.
Turkish Cypriots, however, are not alone in wanting to emphasize the positive and are looking forward to a power sharing settlement that respects the political equality of the two peoples on the island
