Cyprus Conflict: Greece and Turkey, Research Paper Example

Although the Cold War ended decades ago, there remains a handful of ethnic disputes in former Soviet Union territory that has hitherto not been resolved. The geopolitical configurations set up after the Cold War end has clearly not been conducive with terminating simmering tensions due to the fact that various governments in the region have reoriented themselves inward in order to focus on domestic issues in addition to the lack of public support for foreign policy endeavors unless they advance national interests. Ultimately, the rejuvenation of nationalist ambitions renders it far harder to resolve the extant tensions. Cyprus remains one of the most if not the most precarious and most enduring ethnic dispute in the region. Cyprus gained its independence from England in 1960, which resulted in ongoing conflicts between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greeks. The tensions there culminated in the United Nations sending a Peace-Keeping Force in 1964 in addition to the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks a decade after. Ethnic conflicts have historically been arduous to resolve, which the Cyprus conflict typifies. The unique history of Cyprus and its strategic position within the region reveals why there are so many actors involved in the dispute that has rendered it even more difficult to resolve.

Greek and Turkish Involvement and Historical Environment

There are several current disputes that are present between Turkey and Greece that have been exacerbated by the historical environment that has persisted between the two warring nations. Both countries have historically been at war with one another beginning at the end of the nineteenth century. Between 1892 and 1922, various wars broke out, although the first war took place during the 1820s. The legacy of constant warfare has fomented a situation in which trust has broken down between the Turks and the Greeks. The Greeks do not trust the Turks as a result of the period when the Ottomans were in control, and conversely, the Turks lack trust in the Greeks because of when they were freed from Ottoman rule in addition to the dream of conglomerating all former Greek territories, which is referred to as the Megali Idea (Ziegler 20). Currently, the Greeks and the Turks are engaged in various disputes that have germinated out of all of the historical animosity between the two nations. The main dispute between the two parties is the one that exists regarding the continental shelf, neither party can agree to how the shelf should be divided. Beyond emerging as an issue pertaining to international law, the continental shelf has also emerged as a pressing issues with regards to energy for the nation who has control over it. This dispute alone has the potential to provide the spark for an all-out war between Turkey and Greece if the Turkish government authorizes an investigation for the presence of any oil reserves in the regions of it that Greece states belongs to them.

A second pressing issue that has fomented hostility between the two countries is one pertaining to air control duties and responsibilities over the Aegean Sea. Although Turkey contends that they should be in control over the majority of the airspace in the Aegean, Greece argues that the air space belongs to it. Moreover, the two nations have also been unable to agree on the fortification of islands in the Aegean Sea.  Greece predicates its arguments on the fact that it lacks any defense against attacks at the behest of the Turks, which is why the island needs to have fortifications immediately. The Greeks cite the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 as the prime example for why fortifications are necessary and vital.  In addition, the Turks have already built fortifications on a couple of its islands in the region, citing a United Nations Charter that states that the Aegean islands possess the right to defend themselves using fortifications. Undergirding these various territorial endeavors is the persistent skepticism and distrust regarding the Turkish and Greek minorities residing in both Greece and Turkey ass both nations continue to accuse one another of treating minorities within their borders in an adverse manner. Although the contentions articulated by the two respective governments are defensive in nature, when problems foment between the two nations, minorities are indeed mistreated and persistently harassed. The stage for such a tense atmosphere was set in 1923 when the systematic expulsion and murder of over a million Greeks from Turkey when the Turkish government devised a national state ( (Ziegler 89). Not surprisingly, the political, economic, and social consequences for the Greeks were calamitous, as millions of Greeks lacked clothing, employment, and shelter. The resettlement of displaced persons also was the responsibility of the Greek government in addition to future actions that needed to be taken against the Turks for their actions and mistreatment of the Greeks within Turkish borders.

These various disputes minus the last one mentioned germinated after the liberation and independence of Cyprus from British colonial rule. The invasion of Cyprus by the Turks in 1974 is attributed with creating both of the issues of fortifying the islands in the Aegean and the dispute over control of airspace over the Aegean. Both of the controversies impact not only the hostile situation in Cyprus but also the relations between the Turks and the Greeks. Both countries possess starkly contrasting perceptions of the ongoing issues, which has resulted in fractured negotiations that has rendered it impossible to come to a permanent settlement. Moreover, both nations have their own respective issues within their domestic politics, which has merely exacerbating the problem with Cyprus. Both nations are actively involved with the events that are taking place is Cyprus, and they react to the situation in Cyprus in a similar way that they react to the internal domestic problems. During epochs in which the Turkish or Greek government is discernibly weak or is undergoing a change in regime, then the respective government adopts a hard-line and seemingly draconian policy towards the island of Cyprus as a way of deflecting the attention of its citizens from the problems that are wracking the nation internally or as a way of critiquing the policies that had been implemented by prior regines. One example of this approach to Cyprus is in the era prior to the 1974 invasion of Cyprus by the Turks. Ecevit, the prime minister of Turkey, was confronted by various economic and political problems, which is why he was put in a tenuous situation in which he was about to lose power in Turkey (Beckingham). Following the invasion of the Cyprus, however, Turkish citizens lauded him as a national hero, thereby forgetting the various internal issues that had been so pervasive prior to it.

Greece has also used the situation in Cyprus for political motives and purposes. Some scholars have contended that a handful of Greek regimes during the middle of the twentieth century fully supported the Cypriot right for self-determination, which the policies towards Cyprus were consistent with (Andriopoulos 188). Such an assertion seems true to a certain extent, as the Greek regimes only demonstrated their support for Cypriot autonomy, although policies in place did not always align, thereby appearing more superficial in nature. When Cyprus first became an independent and autonomous country, George Papandreou emerged as the leader of the opposition political party in Greece, and he was highly critical of the agreements that were signed by the Greek government at the behest of the leader Karamanlis. Had Papandreou been the leader of Cyprus, he would have refused to make so many concessions to the Turkish Cypriots as the Greek leader did. He frequently eschewed the Greek leader for not adopting a more draconian stance against Turkey in the aftermath of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 in addition for enabling Turkey to look for oil reserves throughout the Aegean Sea. Opposition leaders opened that Karamanlis should have publicly called for the confiscation or annihilation of Turkish ships in the Aegean Sea that were searching for the aforementioned oil reserves. Therefore, a litany of conflicts between Turkey and Greece in addition to the internal politics of each nation rendered it hard to come to a permanent resolution or agreement with regards to the problem of Cyprus. The situation thus continues to be an unstable one.

Turks and Greeks in Cyprus: A Storied History

Greek and Turkish Cypriots have historically constituted two separate communities that have relatively cooperated with one another, although they have remained poignantly distinct. Several variations within each community have contributed to such overt separatism, which has spawned the current conflicts in Cyprus. The etiology of the various differences, it must be stressed, stretches farther into the past than the occupation of Cyprus by the British. The most crucial difference between the two communities is nationalism. The Greek Cypriots have historically expressed a desire to unite with Greece, but the Turkish Cypriots have vehemently expressed their opposition to Cyprus unifying with Greece. Enosis refers to the unification of Cyprus with Greece, and the Turks created an oppositional nationalist movement as a counteractive measure. As a result of their varying aims, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots proved unable to reach an agreement or negotiate any settlement that satisfied the two distinct communities. Another significant concern was the allegiance and loyalty of members of both communities. Both groups of Cypriots were clearly far more loyal to Turkey or Greece, their perceived mother country than they were to the island of Cyprus (Salih 26). The lack of patriotism in Cyprus from both Turkish and Greek Cypriots has thus compounded the current issues in addition to the issue of ethnic origin. The different ethnic backgrounds with the respective communities has exacerbated the tensions in Cyprus in a variety of ways. The Turks living in Cyprus perceive of themselves as the direct descendants of the Ottomans, the Greeks claims that they are the descendants of the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. As a result, ethnic enmity and pejorative stereotypes continue to germinate and circulate, and both the Greeks and the Turks claim that their culture is superior to the other.

Indeed, cultural differences further fortifies the level of separation between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, as they have each respectively been influenced by disparate customs, beliefs, and traditions. Due to the chasm between the two communities, an argument can be made that a distinct, Cypriot culture does not even exist. Linguistic and religious differences also reinforce this assertion. These aforementioned differences between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots have rendered it difficult for the two groups to live together in harmony. As such, no solution for the amelioration of the situation in Cyprus has been reached, as both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots to not view Cyprus as their mother nation. Such variations and discernible differences have historically evolved as a result of various incidents that have taken place within each community. It is clear that whenever the Turks supports or pushes for a certain initiative, off principle the Greek community in Cyprus would oppose it. Loizos points to the creation of the Legislative Council in Cyprus at the behest of the British during the nineteenth century as a poignant historical example. While the Greeks pushed to have more representation in the body, the Turks protested the British government’s decision to grant them nine representatives while the Turks were only granted three out of fear that Greek hegemony would yield negative results for the Turkish Cypriots (Loizos 20). This level of defensive behavior has demarked the relations between the Turkish and Greek communities living in Cyprus, and the Greeks have frequently conveyed at their dismay towards the Turks for comporting themselves as such.

When the conflict with the British commences, the Greek Cypriots never discussed with the Turks about plans or actions taken, which resulted in a fractured independence movement for both communities. The entire island of Cyprus was a British colony, so both communities were affected by the fight for independence, yet a joint movement never manifested. Prior to Cyprus gaining its independence, both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots possess diverging objectives as well as expectations. As mentioned previously, the Greeks living in Cyprus wanted to unite with mainland Greece, while the Turks discussed their desire for the island to be divided between the two separate communities. Once Cyprus achieved independence from Great Britain, the two communities had to reached a settlement, although they both asserted that they did not want to live together as a singular state (Loizos 28). Greek leaders living in Cyprus made several mistakes in the aftermath of Cyprus’ independence which exacerbated the problems that were already present on the island. They believed that Cyprus’ constitution should be revised, thereby not rendering it a compromise that both sides accepted. Cyprus’ constitution forbade Cyprus to unite with Greece, yet the leaders of the Greek Cypriots continues to talk about the union in the near future. This desire to unite with Greece sprang from the fact that the Constitution in Cyprus granted Turkish Cypriots various privileges. Had the Greek leaders acknowledged and accepted the privileges for the Turks within the Constitution and disregard their desire for unification with Greece then an agreement or form of compromise possibly could have been reached.

Rather, the leader of the Greeks in Cyprus, Makarios, attempted to amend the Cyprus Constitution through a proposal for thirteen new provisions. The Turkish government and the Turks living in Cyprus both vehemently rejected the proposed amendments. President Makarios opted to discuss the proposed amendments publicly, hoping to galvanize support from around the globe. As a result of the proposed amendments, fighting erupted during the 1960s, forcing the United Nations to become involved in order to avoid further escalation. Another mistake made by the Greeks in Cyprus occurred in 1968 when Makarios again decided to let go of the objective of unification with Greece due to the fact that a Turkish invasion was imminent. As such, the Greek leader shifted his strategy, which consisted of the Greeks waiting to see what took place. Thus, Makarios made various concessions in order to get rid of the simmering problem therein. Although the leader claimed that concessions would be made, the Greeks in Cyprus rather continued to try and garner support for the proposed amendments. While the Greek Cypriots did garner support from around the globe, the policy nonetheless still failed to recognize any of the legitimate appeals articulated by the Turks living in Cyprus. As such, no concessions were granted, which resulted in the breakdown of discussions between the two obstinate leaders of the Cypriots.

The leaders of the Turkish Cypriots also made several mistakes that merely exacerbated the tensions on Cyprus between the two communities. The Turks were in control of over forty percent of the island, approximately one-third of the Turks there are refugees, which rendered it difficult for them to create a well-functioning community. Turks living in Cyprus had a difficult time understanding why the Greeks living on the island so badly wanted to unite with Greece. Moreover, they also failed to comprehend why the Greek Cypriots evinced such a high level of insecurity  as a result of the so-called double minority components within Cyprus and the tense situation therein. Rather, the Turks believed that the Greek desire to unite with the mainland represented their attempt to dominate the Turkish Cypriots. A more funereal mistake by the Turkish Cypriots was made between the 1870s and 1960 when they forged an alliance with Great Britain. Some scholars believe that if the Turkish Cypriots did not shift their wait and see strategy, then the Turks may had forged an alliance with the Greek Cypriots upon Cyprus gaining independence from the British (Loizos 19). Independence resulted in the Turkish Cypriots gaining various privileges and rights despite the fact that they only made up approximately eighteen percent of the population in Cyprus. They were granted over thirty percent of the civil service jobs in addition to forty percent of the army positions. Moreover, they were granted the right to veto any policies that were passed in addition to other political privileges. Greek leaders did not inspire confidence amongst the Turkish Cypriots,  who did not exhibit any desire or interest to exercise the various powers delineated within the Zurich Constitution (Stephens 174). Rather, they were quite cognizant of the fact that Turkey gained power at their expense, and that there were Turkish troops stationed in the island.

The Turkish Cypriots were adamant that they occupy at least thirty percent of the civil service positions at once, even if they lacked merit or there were no available workers to fill these positions. During the early 1960s, the Turkish Cypriots also utilized their veto powers in order to completely stagnate and paralyze the Cypriot government (Stephens 180). It was these various actions undertaken by the Turkish Cypriots that propelled the leaders of the Greek Cypriots to draft the thirteen constitutional amendments that spawned the  1960s crisis in addition to the involvement of the United Nations. As such, the Cyprus issue stagnated. The Turks often argued that Turkish Cypriots were frequently exploited at the expense of the Greeks on the island, conveying a general indifference to the rampant poverty amongst Turkish Cypriots according to some scholars. In addition, the Greek Cypriots implemented an economic blockade during the middle of 1964, which resulted in economic stagnation within the Turkish Cypriot community. It must be noted, however, that the leaders of the Turkish Cypriots were also responsible for this stagnation because they encourage the Turks on the island to solely purchase Turkish commodities, thereby resulting in the creation of a proxy economy that was isolated from the mainstream. The Secretary-General of the United Nations attested to this reality, promulgating that the self-imposed isolation of Turkish Cypriots was to blame for the economic stagnation within their community. As Loizos states, the leaders of the Turkish Cypriots encouraged the Turks on the island to avoid engaging in any contact or communication with Greek Cypriots, thereby exacerbating the poverty evident in refugee corners (Loizos 20). The decisions and actions made by the leaders of both communities can thus be blamed for the persistent destabilization of Cyprus, as the lack of trust combined with the hard-line stances both the Greeks and Turks took has resulted in ongoing tensions therein.

The Cyprus Problem: Conflict Analysis

Although there has not been any direct, physical violence in Cyprus for a protracted period of time, the root causes of the conflict still exist, which poses various hindrances to ever attaining any sustainable peace solutions. Such root causes must be addressed in order for sustainable peace to manifest. Various stages of the conflict needs to be examined in order to gain a better understanding of one of the most intricate conflicts that has taken place during the modern era.

The conflict, although it had historical roots, developed during the 1950s in which the Greeks and Turks were searching for their respective identities. This initial stage is the most significant in terms of analyzing the Cyprus conflict from a holistic perspective since it was in 1955 that violence broke out. It was during this phase of the conflict that the Taksim, or the development of partition as its primary aim  amongst the Turkish Cypriots, and Enosis, or “union” amongst the Greeks on the island germinated. The Greek movement for unification with Greece commenced in 1950 and pushed for the British colonial overlords to be moved out of power, subsequently unifying with Greece. The Enosis movement emerged as the main nationalist push amongst Greeks in Cyprus.  This movement conveyed how Greeks on the island were fueled by nationalistic sentiments and the desire for self-determination. Greece had failed to overthrow their British overlords, which propelled Greece to campaign to the United Nations for the Cyprus issue in addition to where it fit within the Hellenistic world (Xydis). Unfortunately, the issue of Cyprus was never presented within the United Nations talks as a result of adroit diplomatic maneuvering. It should also be noted that the Greek Orthodox Church played an integral role in the Enosis movement, as it governed the contours and path of the nationalist movement. Makarios III was serving as Cyprus’ archbishop, which is why he was pushed to the center of the political movement in Cyprus as the religious leader of the Orthodox Church on the island. As such, it is unequivocal that the political movement was intrinsically linked to religion. The notion of enosis did not germinate out of the orthodox church, yet because the church was the most authoritative institution in the lives of Greek Cypriots under British colonial rule and directed the movement as a result. Because of the firm grip of the church on the enosis movement, it remain tethered to traditional and nationalist values (Markides). In response, the Turkish Cypriots countered with a call for partition of the island along communal lines, which was a movement dubbed Taksim, resulted in their alignment with the British, thereby showing support for various colonial policies. In return, the Turkish Cypriots maintain positive relations with them.

The attitudes of both the Turkish and Greek Cypriots should be taken into consideration in order to provide a nuanced understanding of the conflict that has persisted for such a long period of time. Self-perceptions in addition to how each party viewed the other side is important in this discussion.  The Greeks living in Cyprus viewed themselves through the perception of legitimacy, meaning that the notion of ENosis was driven by the perceptions that the island of Cyprus itself was intrinsically Greek. Unifying Cyprus with Greece the motherland was a logical outgrowth of this fact. As such, the Greeks possessed a wholly righteous view of themselves with respect to Cyprus. Within this line of thinking, it is clear that the Greeks believed that Greek inhabitants on the island were indigenous, which is why the Greeks and not the Turks were the legitimate leaders of Cyprus. This belief was enhanced by the statistical reality that the Turks constituted a very small minority on the island, which can be explained by looked at the migration patterns of Turks to the island during the Ottoman Empire centuries previous. Extant scholarly literature examine the perceptions of Cypriots within respective communities, especially the work done to examine the different attitudes within the Greek Cypriot community between the liberals and conservatives therein. Although the conservative Greek Cypriots mentioned the expansion of Greek identity and the importance of spread Hellenism, the more liberal Greeks did not agree. Indeed, left-wing attitudes supported more compromise with the Turks as well as the notion of Cypriotism. As such, it must be underscored that the   Greek Cypriot movement was not a homogenous one, especially in the nascent stages of the conflict with regards to the Enosis campaign. Communists within the Greek campaign were rendered traitors and anti-Greek because they did not support the Enosis movement and thus posed a threat to the Christian Greek community.  While the ideology of Enosis was unequivocally hegemonic, it is important to note that there are diverging attitudes and perceptions, although the minority beliefs did not impact the conflict in any significant manner. It is clear that the Greek Cypriots view themselves as the rightful rulers of the island since the indigenous Cypriots were Greek, which is why enosis, or unification was pushed for,

Turkish Cypriots, in contrast, perceives of themselves as a minority that is struggling to subsist on the island, thereby posing an uncertain future for them. Turkish leaders pointed out how various movements predicated on ethno-nationalist ideologies had taken place on other Greek islands such as Crete. They argued that the Enosis movement was very similar to those other movements that have taken place. Crete was one such island in which the Greeks were successful in uniting the island with the motherland Greece. As a result, the Turks inhabiting the island were uprooted and forced to move to Anatolia. As such, the Turkish Cypriots believed that if the Greek Cypriots were successful in their push for Enosis, than the Turkish Cypriots would again be forced to uproot themselves, being sent into exile back to Turkey. Another possible consequence would be that they would be subjugated under the rule of the Greeks living on the island. Turkish Cypriots therefore framed themselves as targeted victims if Enosis was successful. As a result, the Turkish Cypriots conveyed such negative sentiments towards the Greek Cypriots, which is why they rallied for partitioning on the island.  As a result, the Turkish Cypriots cooperated with British colonial authorities in order to safeguard their minority status in addition to their authentic identity on the island. These contrasting attitudes between the Greeks and the Turks did not germinate radically unlike Greek perceptions. Rather, they developed as a result of the violence that broke out between the two different communities.

Interestingly, the Greek Cypriots perceived of their Turkish counterparts as natural foes to their nationalistic movement because of how much the Greeks outnumbered the Turks on the island in addition to the majority of Turks on Cyprus speaking Greek. As such, Greek Cypriots argued that the Turkish Cypriots were not actually ethnically Turkish. In the nascent stages of the conflict, the Turkish Cypriots evinced a degree of indifference towards the Enosis movement until the 1950s. 1954 marked the beginning of the armed struggle that broke out between these two camps, which is when the notion of Taksim gained traction so that ethnic homelands were created on the island. This movement undermined Enosis because it eschewed the fundamental principle that the entire island of Cyprus was of Greek origin. Divide-and-conquer practices by the British during the 1950s, which is when the Turkish Cypriots increasingly partnered with the colonial overlords. This alliance culminated in the formation of the Turkish Defense Organization known as TMT. Although this organization did not engage in widespread, violent armed conflict with the Greeks on the island,  they did engage in small-scale conflicts. More significantly, the British government in Cyprus escalated the tensions between the Turks and Greeks through the creation of a police forced that was made up almost of all Turkish Cypriots.

Bibliography

Anastasiou, Harry. The Broken Olive Branch: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict and the Quest for  Peace in Cyprus. Indiana: Author House, 2006. Print.

Beckingham, F. C. “The Turks of Cyprus.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute   of Great Britain and Ireland 87.2 (1957).

Borowiec, Andrew. Cyprus: A Troubled Island. United States: Praeger Publishers, 2000. Print.

Diez, Thomas (ed). The European Union and the Cyprus Conflict: Modern Conflict, Postmodern Union. Manchester: University Press, 2002. Print.

Loizos, Peter. The Heart Grown Bitter: A Chronicle of Cypriot War Refugees. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.

Salin, Ibrahm. Cyprus: Ethnic Political Components. Oxford: University Press of America, 2004. Print.

Xydis, Stephen. “The UN General Assembly as an Instrument of Greek Foreign Policy: Cyprus, 1954-58.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution 12.2(1968).

Ziegler, David W. War, Peace, and International Politics, Longman, 1997. Print.