Understanding the Cyprus Issue

“The state of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice- President being Turk elected by the Greek and Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively”- Article 1, Constitution of Cyprus

“Local peacebuilding and national peace and channels of communication can be promoted through grassroots communication. Building multiple organizations would lead to building more trust among the ordinary people in such a way mutual interest facilitates the foundation of peace. Through civil society promoting the relationship between local and national level, ultimate peacebuilding can be achieved.[1]”- Christopher Michell.

Introduction: -

As per Michael E. Brown’s 1997 work on “Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict”, four main factors tend to create internal conflicts in a state: discriminatory political institutions, exclusionary national ideologies, intergroup politics, and elite politics. The longevity of a conflict, primarily when it involves the element of national identity and national territory, the conflict becomes complicated on structural grounds. The struggle then translates into either creating a new national identity or retaining the status quo with retaining the essence of the current national identity. In the conversion of mitigating the hostility between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, there are 4 schools:- the first school concentrates on coercive intervention to create a balance of power, second school concentrate on non-coercive intervention through confidence building or ripe moment and power-sharing, third schools argue that just political order is important and supporting civil society, and the fourth school includes the use of the conflict resolution workshops which seek to reduce stereotyping in the citizen level, as per John Burton's 1972 work “World Society”. Question of Cyprus conflict is the question of creating a national identity in Cyprus which is of paramount importance to mitigate the hostilities between the two ethnic groups, in a way the people of Cyprus should promote their Cypriots attachment instead of external attachment towards Greece by Cypriot Greek and attachment to Turkey by Turkish Cypriots[2]. Finding commonality between these two ethnicities inside Cyprus in away way both ethnicities feel secure toward each other is a path for a solution. For external stakeholders, Greece, and Turkey the issue is not concerned whether to gain Cyprus’s future ability to challenge international superpowers or annexing a larger part of the territory in the Mediterranean. The challenge for both the stakeholders then becomes extend that venture of external attachment towards Greece by Cypriot Greek and attachment to Turkey by Turkish Cypriots[3]. So, the question becomes what has been the historical interaction within the Cyprus conflict? What will become the crucial element of restoring and maintaining peacebuilding for the conflict?

History of Cyprus Dispute: -

Cyprus conflict, among the theorists of national identity and ethnic conflicts, is currently the most difficult conflict to resolve. Conflict is the eruption between Turkish and Greek Cypriots on the island had a different language, culture and religion and these elements have dragged the external actors which have been struggling for independence and fighting for self-governance. Cyprus in this interaction has been a victim. Victim of its geographical significance as a region has been conquered by multiple regimes such as Greeks, Egyptian, Roman, Ottoman as British was the last empire that took over Cyprus from the Ottoman empire from 1878 until independence in 1960[4]. Cyprus being the ground of the conflict brings about national, regional, and international dimensions as the solution will account for multiple actors. In addition to the ethnic nationalism in terms of conflict between Greek -Turkish Cypriots, there are other actors such as Turkey and Greece. Moreover, there are international actors such as the European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the United Nations[5]. As Cyprus connects three continents, its geopolitical importance has lent it both vulnerability and strengths. The history of this dispute is then translated as the history of external powers contesting on foreign land.

Lack of national identity and lack of commonality is the root causes of conflict within the Cypriot society[6]. When Britain took over the administration of the island, they did not allow these two ethnicities to intermingle[7]. During the independence, the task of uniting the ethnicities into a single state became much more difficult. The actual independence struggle itself was to reunification with motherland Greek which was unacceptable for Turkish Cypriots. The guerrilla war itself that was initiated by Greek Cypriot was to reunify with Greece, not for its independent state. The reunification was not in the interest of neither of the actors i.e., Turkey, and Great Britain. So, the conflict started, and later the North Cypriots self-declared their ethnic state. External powers fueled the conflict for their interest[8]. Settled by the ancient Greeks, the island later fell under the Ottoman Empire. The dichotomy of the growing communities was further accentuated by a stark juxtaposition of the concepts of “enosis” and “Taksim”[9]. Most Greek Cypriots wanted union with Greece (enosis) whilst most Turkish Cypriots wanted partition (Taksim)[10]. Following the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Ottomans ceded Cyprus to Great Britain. The transition from Ottoman rule to a British colony paved the way for the island’s independence in 1960. It could be argued that the foundation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 constituted a compromise formula that many people did not support- the concepts of enosis and Taksim were deeply rooted[11]. It seems that “independence” was a formula preferred by the then colonial power, Great Britain. The Cypriot Constitution of 1960 served as a double-edged sword; whilst the Turkish minority was given a considerable degree of administrative power, it was viewed as an unjust settlement and thus exacerbated the animosity between the two communities. Inter-communal violence broke out on the island in late 1963 and centuries of peaceful coexistence collapsed. On the 15th of July of 1974, EOKA-B (a paramilitary group) directed by the Greek junta, overthrew the government of President Makarios with the aim of enosis. On the 20th of July 1974, Turkey, citing the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee as a legal basis for its actions, sent troops to Cyprus to allegedly protect Turkish Cypriots[12]. The invasion of Cyprus by Turkey in 1974 resulted in the partitioning of the island, the North occupied by Turkey and the South by the Greek Cypriots. Since 1974, the last divided capital stands still in time. Some 180,000 Greek Cypriots fled to the South to escape[13]. The United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus maintains a buffer zone between the two, commonly known as the “Green Line”[14]. The demarcation not only serves as a scar, but it has become a way of life. To justify the invasion, Turkey has argued that it was in line with the Treaty of Guarantee signed in 1960[15]. Such allegations do not seem to have a sufficient legal basis, the operation constituted an illegal use of force and there was no justification for the Turkish occupation. From a legal perspective, it has been argued that the verbatim in Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee and particularly the word “action” does not authorize the use of force or military action. Even if Article 4 was to be construed as authorizing the use of force, it is inconsistent with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The Treaty of Guarantee cannot take precedence over the UN Charter. Specifically, under Article 103 of the UN Charter, the Treaty of Guarantee is rendered void ab initio[16].

Turkish Cypriot community holds this strong understanding that the Turkish intervention of 1974 was not illegal, countered by what Greek Cypriots believe for the Northern part of the country, as it was based on Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee under which Turkey, as one of the guarantor powers, had the right to intervene and create the status quo to protect Turkish Cypriots. An act of protecting their own ethnic identity is the principal argument that Is used for the intervention and prolonged activity in the state. Proclamation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in 1983 was condemned by the UN Security Council and only Turkey recognizes the status of TRNC, which currently stands to be the persistent objector in the area and allows TRNC to extend its venture for the right to self-determination[17]. The legality of the Northern self-proclaimed Republic is rather dubious under the scope of international law. The TRNC was created because of Turkish military intervention; the recognition of an entity as a state that is created by the unlawful use of force is forbidden under international law. As a result, there is no international recognition for the TRNC. The TRNC still exists as a de facto state with its population living on its territory, governed by its democratic government. Therefore, two different administrations exist on the island, one de jure and one de facto. It is an undeniable truth that both communities on the island have suffered. Since 1981, there has been a Committee for Missing Persons in Cyprus, which includes members of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities[18]. After the Turkish invasion of 1974, there had been a clear violation of the Rule of Law, an incontestable blow to democracy and an undeniable trampling on human rights. Many people from both sides lost their homes whilst others were killed or remain missing until today. Over the years, many cases have been referred to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). A landmark ruling was made in the case Loizidou v Turkey in 1995. The ECHR found that the displaced Greek Cypriots remained the lawful owners of their properties in Northern Cyprus, and nothing adopted by the TRNC had validly affected their rights as lawful owners[19]. ECHR puts an important obstacle in terms of island’s reunification talks.

Question of Peace: -

Cyprus geographically is important for major powers in the region therefore all three external countries such as Greece, Turkey, and Britain sought to keep influence on the Island. Both Greek and Turkey alongside Britain in a variety of ways intervened in the internal situation of the people of Cyprus. The population in Greece attached to different countries to protect themselves from another side. In such a way the idea of union with Greek the mainland for Greek Cypriot was the goal[20]. And for the Turkish Cypriots, the partition of the Island was a case of maintaining the Turkish identity. The importance of the Island came to the surface even more in the period between 1960 -1974 when the two ethnic groups divided, and the external powers entered the conflict with support confined to nationalism toward both sides. National identity is what binds the people together, in Cyprus. But for the new generation in Cyprus, there are other elements alongside religion and language to become an individual identity. Most of the new generation are speaking fluently English which gives them a new allegiance and a new identity. In the modern era, principles of gender, human rights, freedom, and democracy are the main goals for human beings to stand for it[21]. So multiple factors replaced the traditional elements of identity building. Geopolitical interests in Cyprus have played a big role in regional politics in the Middle East. This significance made the Island a victim of regional and international politics. It is an important gateway for three continents namely Asia, Europe, and Africa[22]. Due to its location which is connecting three continents, has attracted major powers. It locates in a place that can control the connections of the most important chokepoints in the Mediterranean such as Bab-el-Mandeb, the Suez channel, and the Hormuz Strait[23]. Through these chokepoints import and export from oil and gas producers are transported to industrialized countries. From Cyprus, it is easier to surveil all these chokepoints and from modern time, for the same, United States of America (USA) has established an intelligence base to observe the Eastern Mediterranean and further.

Currently, the Greek administration of Southern Cyprus is accepted as the representative by the international community and United Nations as per the international law, which the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey all believe as an issue of recognition and center of deadlocks in negotiations. The demographic that Cyprus holds in this issue is like the Lebanese Civil War and the Arab- Israeli War in 1967 which has led to migration waves from Palestine to Lebanon and these migration issues changed the demographics of the country and changed the demands of the Muslim communities affected in the issue[24]. Twenty per cent of the population was comprised of Turks on the island[25]. As a majority, Greek Cypriots demanded more because they did not accept Turkish Cypriots as a co-founder and an equal community while there was a big difference between the populations. Turkish Cypriots are aware of the dangers of a united Cyprus. They do demand equal representation for preventing possible conflicts and securing their community. The Annan Plan (2004), also known as the Cyprus reunification plan, showed this to the world[26]. The Annan Plan was offered by the U.N. to solve the Cyprus issue. The plan offered equal representation for both communities in many state organs. A referendum was held on both sides in 2004. The Annan Plan was supported by 65% of Turkish Cypriots but supported by only 24% of Greek Cypriots, and thus it was rejected[27]. While many Cypriots see Turkey’s support and protection as a guarantee against persecution, the European Union’s attitude toward the TRNC creates a feeling of insecurity among Turkish Cypriots and makes the negotiations between Turkish and Greek Cypriots unbalanced and unhealthy[28]. The compositional contest that dwells in the region indicates that a peaceful two-state solution will be the best as once the international recognition of TRNC is given then obstacles for sustaining peace would be a diplomatic reality. But this solution is controversial and at the same time contradicts the value system of western civilization and the United Nations. Violating the right of self-determination of Turkish Cypriots is paradoxical to what western civilization stands for but standing against the military intervention is also crucial simultaneously. The hallmark of a two-state solution should not be taken hastily without strengthening federations and decentralization of power between the communities. These elements will finally decide on building conclusive peace for the island. The solution stands at a critical juncture where the interests and power of both the communities and their insecurities are not to be threatened and met at the same time at a reasonable scale.

Notes

[1] Kyris, George. (2012). The European Union and the Cyprus problem: a story of limited impetus. Eastern Journal of European Studies. 3.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Melike Ba?türk (2011). "The Issue of Cyprus in the EU Accession of Turkey," Claremont-UC UndergraduateResearch Conference on the European Union: Vol. 2011, Article 4. pp: 19-20

[5] G. Kyris (2013). “Europeanisation and Conflict Resolution: The Case of Cyprus”. London School of Economics.

[6] Melike Ba?türk (2011), ibid.

[7] Kyris, George. (2012), ibid.

[8] Y. Papadakis (2005). “Locating the Cyprus Problem: Ethnic Conflict and the Politics of Space”. Macalester International, Vol 15 (11).

[9] ibid

[10] Ibid.

[11] C.Anno (24th March 2015). “The Unresolved Cyprus Problem”. Le Petit Juriste.

[12] Kyris, George. (2012), ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] D. Aslan (5th May 2021). “International Community assured gridlock in Cyprus Issue”. Daily Sabah.

[15] M.Christou (22^nd May 2021). “Cyprus’s last chance to solve the Cyprus issue is threatened by its corrupt political elite”. The European Sting.

[16] Dan Lindley, Historical, Tactical, and Strategic Lessons from the Partition of Cyprus, International Studies Perspectives, Volume 8, Issue 2, May 2007, Pages 224–241

[17] Ibid.

[18] H. Tzimitra & M. Hatay (October 2016). “The Need for Realism: Solving the Cyprus Problem through linkage politics”. Center on the United States and Europe. Brookings Institution, Policy Paper.

[19] European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), Loizidou vs. Turkey [No. 58201/1998] (Strasbourg: Grand Chamber,1998)

[20] Yeliz ?ahin, “Reuniting Cyprus: New Dynamics & Implications for Turkey – EU Relations”. EconomicDevelopment Foundation. Istanbul. June 2016. Nu: 282. p:52.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Nikolas Kyriakou & Nurcan Kaya, “Minority rights: Solutions to the Cyprus Conflict”, Minority Rights GroupInternational. 2011. p: 20.

[23] Ibid.

[24] B.R. Amim (11th May 2021). “Cyprus conflict: How could be Resolved and Reunified?”. Modern Diplomacy.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Yeliz ?ahin, “Reuniting Cyprus: New Dynamics & Implications for Turkey – EU Relations”. June 2016, ibid.

Pic Courtesy - Datingjungle at unsplash.com

(The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent views of CESCUBE.)