Greek-Turkish Conflict and Cyprus in Modern Times, Essay Example

Introduction

Cyprus is an island is known for being the center of trades due to its strategic location and routes. It was the production of copper that started in the Bronze Age that Cyprus made an impact in the world and gain foreign power. The island has become the center and one of the most imperative islands for commerce in the eastern Mediterranean. It also made itself known in international politic as well. It has lived under various rulers from Assyria to Persian. In 1571, the Turks have ruled the island until the invasion of the British in 1878.[1] England ruled Cyprus until 1959 when the Zurich and London Accords took control and established what is known today as the Republic of Cyprus. Since then, Cyprus has experienced a tumultuous amount of independence. But with it comes its long standing clashes with the Greek Cypriots that makes up the 80% of the island’s population while the Turkish Cypriots makes up about 18% of the population and the 2% is distributed between the Maronite and Armenians. Despite the fact that the Greeks comprise the majority of the population, the Turks remained correspondingly dominant in the region.[2] Cyprus, although a small island, is the center of one of the most long-standing intermediation assignment in the whole world. The island is divided into 2 parts. One is the Cypriot Republic that is primarily inhabited by the Greeks while the second part is occupied almost exclusively by the Turkish Cypriots who identify themselves as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Unlike the Republic of Cyprus is recognized internationally while TRNC does not have the same recognition. Only Turkey acknowledges the existence of the TRNC.  Internationally, it is the Republic of Cyprus that is recognized as holding the power and jurisdiction over Cyprus. Yet, its power stops at the green line.

Cyprus History

Cyprus, although small, was able to achieve its own sovereignty. For over 2,000 years it has been populated by people and its colonial antiquity speaks of communal culture and language. Its charisma is enhanced by the plains, scenic mountains, and beaches. More importantly, the customs, traditions and the culture of both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish play an imperative essence to the conflict that is between the two main inhabitants of the island. Invading powers have targeted Cyprus due to its strategic location. It can be found roughly 64 km south of Turkey and 643 km east of Greece in the region of eastern Mediterranean. It is apparent that the struggle between the Greek Cypriots and the Turks can be rooted from the seeming ethnic conflict that exists between the two and has shaped the world’s and the island’s politics as early as the 1950s.[3] But before that, the two groups were living in harmony and peacefully with each other. It has been recorded that in the 19^th century, ethnic tension started to exist between these communities despite the fact that neither of the two communities felt any threats in their co-existence. There might be some differences between the ethnicity, culture and tradition between the two communities, yet they amicably live with each other and enjoyed each other’s friendship, loyalty, state of affairs and sense of belonging.[4] When the Ottoman occupation struggled for power and control over Cyprus, it is reported that it created and contributed to the creation of a bi-communal Cyprus with a notable separation of the two communities. Historians have it that the Ottomans are the ones who imposed a division between the two communities. The clear division is geared towards distinguishing the communities based on their religion. Taxes were levied on the dependent and denominational groups.

All the elements of the Catholic Church were dissipated for the purpose of successfully implementing the means of taxation. This is due to the fact that more religions would mean to more denominations and groups to be taxed successfully while the efficiency of the greater bureaucracy will prove to be incompetent. The separation and division of the religions in the island seems to be the right thing to do due to the fact that the Turks carry their Islamic beliefs and follows the Islamic law. The problem, though, is the fact that only one administrative system can exist in the island and represent two varying religions and ethnicity. While the Turks already understand an administrative system that did not discriminate between the church and the state; the Greek Cypriots’ representative status was given to the patriarch of the church.[5]

Despite this, however, it cannot be denied that the two communities are aspiring to move towards the same goals and objectives as they hold similar beliefs, honor, and family ideals. As a matter of fact, both the Cypriot and the Turks embrace hospitality, respect and other values that are necessary to maintain honor for one’s self. In addition, there is a little distinction between the two communities’ personality and appearances. They carry almost similar features and dress about the same.[6] The apparent distinctions that separate Greeks from the Turks are their villages, their religious symbols and their churches. The houses look the same and they both share food traditions. But because of the difficult living and economic conditions that the communities face, they have developed customs that they share together. These customs cannot be traced to originate only from the Greeks or the Turks. Yet, the separation and the conflict continued on and the two communities have experienced progressive seclusion over the years.

Demand for Independence

The development in Cyprus is characterized by enosis, increasing antagonism between the Turks and the Greek, self-determination and world superpowers. During the colonial rule of the British in Cyprus, the hostilities between the two communities have grown with the desire to identify with the “parent” country. Nationalism became prominent and as it increases, negative response loop trapped the two communities. Countries like Greece and Turkey are encouraging Cyprus to be more nationalistic for tactical purposes. Furthermore, the conflict and the divisive nature of the two communities have been more intensified as they took opposing sides during certain wars like the First World War, the Balkan wars and even the Greek-Turkish war that happened in 1919-1923.[7]

The main nationalistic sentiments of the two communities can be traced in the promotion of enosis and taksim. The Greek Cypriot promotes enosis to manifest the desire for self-determination. Due to the fact that the Greek Cypriots comprised the 80% of the total population in Cyprus, the Turks are being viewed as the minority. The Turks are just being viewed as immigrants who just adapted to the ways of living in the Republic of Cyprus. In response to such sentiment, the Turks have promoted taksim. This is due to the fact that there is a growing fear that because of their small number, they will be powerless against the Greek Cypriots. It is a known fact that the minority, most of the time, suffers from oppression and discrimination against the majority of the population. If the Turks will not be protected by its own government and republic they are susceptible for mistreatment. With the on-going conflicts, the majority will trample on the minority and the Turkish Cypriots might end up like prisoners in their own land. The approach is more of a realist trying to solve the problem based on the existing power rather than the utilization of the idealist approach wherein the aim is to balance power that will eradicate injustices in both communities. However, the conflicts cannot be attributed to the foreign policies that are being tried to provide solution.

In order to combat the fear of what could potentially damage and hurt the Turkish Cypriots, the promotion of taksim is justified. This is a movement that endorses insulation, separation and protection from the majority of the population that is the Greek Cypriots. With the help of the movement, it cannot be denied that the Turkish Cypriots will be able to form a republic of their own.

Social identity is imperative for a nation or a community to stand on its own. The Greek and the Turkish Cypriots, at a certain time, were living in harmony with each other. They are interdependent. But as soon as both communities started to see the importance of social identity and the knowledge of their own unique culture and tradition, they became suspicious of each other.  Such lack of connection and empathy has yielded a wide gap in their relationship with each other. Even the British’s sympathy towards the Greek Cypriot started to dwindle with their continuous demand for enosis. As a matter of fact, the demand for enosis is so intense that it started guerilla activities and flared up rampaging and rebellion as they fear a sense of desertion from the British.

It did not help that a plebiscite was conducted in Cyprus back in the 1950s. This is due to the fact that 98% of the population voted for enosis. The plebiscite was an unfair move conducted and spearheaded by the elected Archbishop Makarios III. The result of the voting is known even before the ballots were counted considering that the majority of the population are the Greek Cypriots, it is expected that enosis will be voted for. The problems and conflict escalated and have attracted the attention of international politics such as NATO and the UN. Instead of solving the problems and the conflicts between the two communities, the threat was heightened and felt by the Turks.

On the other hand, the Greek Cypriots became obstinate to people who have shown support and sympathy to the Turkish Cypriots. All the while, the Turkish Cypriots lost control over the governance of the island and have increasingly feel resentment towards the other community for what they thought is lost, fear and lack of empowerment. It is undeniable that the lack of empowerment is the worst thing that could ever happen to a minority as it can open the floodgates to discrimination and racial prejudice. The lack of voice and control at certain degree leaves a minority group vulnerable to neglect in terms of societal issues and concerns.

One of the good things about international politics is that every nation and leaders are given the power to intervene if necessary to promote social justice and peace. In the 1960 Cypriot constitutional treaty, international interest was drawn from different nations. The international politics did not like the way the Greek Cypriot is stockpiling weapons and the separation that they want against the Turkish Cypriot community.

In the end, the Republic of Cyprus failed to separate the church and the state. At one point, the president of the republic is also the church’s archbishop. Even the leaders were imprisoned in the tradition that they have wanted to eradicate since time immemorial. The question that needs an answer now can be geared towards resolving the problem of the land. Would there be success in implementing policy? Or would it be just another failed attempt? The truth is that there is no policy that can be forced upon the two communities: Greeks and Turks. Imposition and forcing certain policies will not work. The only way that the communities will listen is if these policies are to be negotiated. The root of the problem cannot be solved just by utilization of internal initiatives. External factors and pressures must be utilized as well to scratch the surface of the issues surrounding the conflicts. There should be a stronger support system for the mediator between the two communities from countries like Canada, United States of America, Europe and the United Kingdom. Regardless, the process can be long and daunting. The central problem lies on the absence of the constitutional consensus in Cyprus. However, there is still hope for reconciliation due to the fact that the history of the republic opens the pathway to the negotiation of just policies that are acceptable to both communities.

The basis of the policies that are being implemented in Cyprus is founded on the imperatives of the policy of realism. This policy focuses on the means of utilizing diplomacy in emerging solutions that can help solve international problems through the ratification of the distribution of power. The flaw on this system is that the problem should be solved by the changing of that power towards a greater equity.

Independent Cyprus

Finally, after the long battle, threats, wars, rebellion, truce, civil upset and capitulation, Cyprus transitioned from being a colony to a self-governing Republic within the Commonwealth. This event led to a new developmental phase in the island. This has become very apparent in the years of 1960-1974. The intercommunal contention between the two communities had grown so intense that it has been followed by their separation with the military involvement of a third party. Every time that the issue on independence and enosis is being brought forward to the international politics, the principles such as self-determination and equal rights always follows-through. The need for an immediate solution to the rift between the two communities is one of the primary concerns of the international politics. Hence, in 1959, multilateral conferences were conducted between Turkey, Great Britain and Greece in order to plan out the independence of Cyprus to incorporate a constitution and treaty agreements. Surprisingly though, the two communities (Greek and Turkish Cypriot) did not have any participation in the process of negotiations of the issues at hand. Rather, they just signed all the documents and the agreement in its finality. Therefore, the agreements were, in actuality, only conducted bilaterally and between Greece and Turkey under the British executive post.

However, even in the absence of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots’ participation in the settlement, the agreements covered all the essentials of an independent community. These essentials include the ethnic, cultural, historical, religious and linguistic aspect of their motherlands and these factors mapped out the settlements of the communities. The foundation of the independence of Cyprus is laid on a) treaties of establishment and guarantees; b) agreement geared towards the Republic of Cyprus’ structure and; c) constitution. In the 16^th of August 1960, all these agreements were signed accordingly.[8]

The Treaty of Establishment’s main function is to safeguard the military interest of Britain on Cyprus. By virtue of this treaty, 2 British military bases were established. The Treaty of Alliance, on the other hand, functions as a pact between Greece, Cyprus and Turkey. This alliance enables the establishment of the Turkey and Greece military bases on the island with a total number of 650 and 950 troops correspondingly. In order to ensure that Cyprus, comprising primarily of Turkish and Greek Cypriots, is able to maintain its independence, security, the integrity of its territory, and prohibit any forms of activities and undertakings that will cause the partition of the land, pledge to the Treaty of Guarantee. Greece, Britain, and Turkey became the guarantor of the Cypriot independence.

With the independence granted, the two main communities in Cyprus had their own distinct languages, ethnicity and culture solidified and their identities restored. The major function of the drafting of its constitution is to regulate and provide protection for the Greek and Turkish Cypriots. As a matter of fact, the constitution enabled the two communities to celebrate their own holidays respectively. The Greeks and the Turkish Cypriots are given the privilege to have their own national holidays and celebrate the same without the interference of the other. This privilege also extends to enabling the two communities to use their respective flags without any form of restrictions from each other. In addition, they were also granted with the right to continue their affiliation with their motherlands (Greece and Turkey) to enable growth of their religious, educational, athletics and cultural well-being. This is a very important aspect of the Cyprus independence. To be free is to be able to expand the horizon and broaden the potential of exploiting the cultural and ethnic relevance of their existence. To be independent is to be able to relate and utilize the resources of the land to keep the tradition and the culture alive amidst the various cultures present.

However, it can be hypothesized that although settlements are signed and agreed upon, there are still issues and conflicts that eventually re-emerged. This is due to the fact that the main issues of establishing identity are not really solved in the very beginning. This is particularly true in cases where problems that need solutions are perplexed with components that are identity-based. Therefore, it can be said that while the constitution and the settlements entered upon by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots seem to resolve the conflicts between the two, it might have just expanded the strife and further divided the two ethnicities that have resulted to a more strenuous form of mistrust.[9] It is also apparent that it is not the fault of the nations and leaders involved in international politics that the crisis in Cyprus escalated. If only the British acted on the demands that were presented by the communities and before the individual’s nationalism became non-negotiable, the bi-communal identity problems and issues would have probably solved themselves.

Independence and EU Membership

Even with the proclamation of independence, the strife between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots did not cease. As a matter of fact, the events that followed the independence were highlighted with armed combat, struggle of power between the enosis and takism and communal misunderstanding. There is a never-ending utterance of threats, discrimination and attempts (both successful and failed) to invalidate one community.

As a matter of fight, the battle with enosis and takism has resulted to a rigid formation of the identity of the groups resulting to separation and a wider distance between the two. It has to be remembered that the main purpose of the constitution is for the two communities to maintain peace and harmony and to make sure that there will never be partition in the islands. But that is not what is happening. Their own stand, identity, nationalistic views and political theories are threatening their co-existence. Truthfully, it is apparent that the Greek Cypriots are frustrated with the constitution because in their views, it did not meet the standards that should have been followed through in the creation of a unified Republic of Cypriot. This is somewhat true when the constitution has created a separate communal institutions giving the Turkish Cypriots a stronger position when it comes to bargaining- the very same motive for the promotion of the takism movement.

The communal constitution, although separately applied, allows the Turkish Cypriots to hold positions in the government and fight for their rights and preservation of culture. It is in this situation that the Greek Cypriots have resulted to violence and attacks against the Turks. These violence and attacks can be traced from 1963. And again, the NATO and international politics intervened to put a stop to the increasing violence and unnecessary deaths resulting from the conflict between the two communities.

Modern Cyprus

Since then, the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots have entered into a cease-fire agreement. In April 2003, attempts were made to pass the Annan plan- a comprehensive peace treaty. There are also attempts to negotiate a successful and strong concurrence of the republic that is unified.

Yet, these attempts failed miserably due to the oppositions coming from the leader of the Turkish Cypriot. Because of the division and partition of the two communities, membership with the European Union was not achieved. Since the European Union accession was voted in, the entire land has been under the laws of the said union regardless of the opposition coming from the Turks. Nevertheless, despite the division that is very apparent in the land, the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots are living in peace- meaning there are no reports of violence and other related ethnic-driven conflict. In addition, it can be remembered that both the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots wanted to establish their identities with their motherlands. The same did not happen. Nationalism emerged and manifested by the movements of enosis and takism but that is as far as the communities went.

Despite the apparent peace and absence of violence, the conflict is not yet solved. The communities are just living civilly with each other. Hence, an imperative question can be asked. What will trigger yet another attack of violence? The conflict is not resolved and it could mean that it is just waiting for a trigger to explode and all the hard work and treaties that were drafted will be blown away once the fight starts again. Just like in any other conflict and resolution process, there is a need to dig deeper and provide solution to the main problem before anyone can move on. The conflicts between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots are issues that can be traced in as early as the 1500s. Unless those issues and conflicts are resolved and not just hidden in the guise of treaties, settlements and constitution, there will always be a chance that the violence and attacks that the world is trying to prevent will happen again.

Conflict Management

There are various ways in which the conflict between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots can be resolved. It cannot be denied conflicts are more evolutionary than being static. Meaning to say, despite of the discrete approach in trying to hide it, the consequences resulting from the conflict will always arise. It is evolutionary in such a way that without the proper process of solving the conflict, it will not go away. Symptoms and consequences will always be manifested especially when it reaches the peak and the boiling point. Understanding the conflict is likewise necessary. Since the conflicts between the two communities in Cyprus are rooted from the preservation of their individual cultures and identities, plans, goals and treaties must be drafted around it. The cultural, social, political and historical aspects of the well-being of the communities must be taken into great consideration in trying to provide solutions.[10]

Shared cultures, interdependence and values must be balanced as well as the distribution of power between the two. It is a known fact that both communities are in strife against each other because of a long standing battle of identity and fear that one of them will annihilate the other community especially when it is the majority who has most of the voting power. Until a balance in power in two opposing sides is achieved, there will always be fear, threats and intimidation however subtle they may be.[11] Truthfully, it will always be hard to try and convince people to live amicably with each other when they have to fight for their existence and establish their identity. This is the situation in Cyprus based on the historical accounts of its actuality. International politics, with the collaboration of the ruling power in Cyprus will eventually achieve a truthful conflict resolution it needs.

Progress and Conflict

Cyprus is undeniably progressing but leaders specifically its Foreign Minister revealed that the conflict in Cyprus is still persisting. The federal outline of the island speaks of a presidential rotation which is one of the main agenda in the proposal made to solve the conflict and to finally acquire a negotiation process in the island. In addition, one of the main causes of frustration in Cyprus is the fact that their attempt to join the European Union will not be granted unless the island’s divided inhabitants get reunified.

Elucidating on the issue of the rotational presidency, it is a system wherein Cyprus will be seeing a Turkish and Greek presidency in the future. It means that the two communities will rotate in governing the island. However, people view this system as unfair. This is because of the fact that the determination of the presidency in the island will only be given to one community at a time.[12] It is unfair because, in a sense, it is a way of stripping other citizen of their right to vote for the people they think have the skills, knowledge and the heart to govern Cyprus. Not to mention that voting is one of the human rights that cannot be taken away from someone. Another issue related to the rotational presidency is that granted that people can vote for their leaders, the fact that one community is outnumbered by another poses a threat to the unbalanced distribution of power. It can be seen that some of the Turkish Cypriots are in favor of the rotational presidency while some of the Greek Cypriots are not. It will all depend as to who will benefit more from the system and who will reap the consequences more. A rotational presidency might be a good way to solve the problem in the unbalanced distribution of power and it is worth the time to be negotiated.

Conclusion

With all the foregoing, it can be said that the problems existing between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots are rooted from their cultural, traditional, linguistics well-being and self-determination. Because of the fact that Greek Cypriots comprise the majority of the total population in Cyprus, it puts the minority in the back seat. The presidency and all other important decisions are coming from the majority. This affects the Turks in a huge manner. Their very existence, as they feel it, might be in jeopardy. They are both struggling and fighting to be the dominant and controlling power to the point of violence and attacks. The international politics, clearly, can only do so much to solve the problems. Treaties, settlements and constitution provide a way to mitigate the problems but at the end of the day it is the voice of the inhabitants that needs to be heard.

Undeniably, from the outside looking in, it can easily be said that Cyprus only need to balance the power and all will be good. However, this is not easy to achieve because the conflict is evolutionary and not static. These two communities will fight for self-determination and cultural preservation and they will not let one community to rule over the other. The mere threat of rotational presidency against ethnic domination causes problems. It will be a long road to solving the problems in the island. But it will happen especially that Cyprus is progressing and is doing well economically speaking. International politics and the European Union must always be ready to intervene in such cases of violence and attacks brought about by the conflicts. The inhabitants might be living in peace and harmony right now but because of the fact that the root of the problem has not been addressed yet, fights can erupt anytime. It would seem like a tragedy waiting to happen.

Reference

Coufoudakis, V. “The Dynamics of Political Partition and Division in Multiethnic and Multireligious Societies – The Cyprus Case.” Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976.

Kriesberg, L. “Nature, Dynamics, and Phases of Intractability.” Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Miller, L. Cyprus: The Law and Politics of Civil Strife. Harvard University, 1968.

Northrup, T. “The Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict,” in L. Kriesberg, Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation (1989). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press

Patrick. R. Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963-1971. Ontario: University of Waterloo, 1974.

Ramady, M. “The Role of Turkey in Greek-Turkish Cypriot Communal Relations,” in Coufoudakis. Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976.

G. Xydis. Cyprus: Conflict and Conciliation, 1954-58. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967.

Volkan, V. Cyprus: War and Adaptation: A Psychoanalytic History of Two Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979.

[1] M. A. Ramady. “The Role of Turkey in Greek-Turkish Cypriot Communal Relations,” in Coufoudakis. Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976, 4.

[2] Richard A. Patrick. Political Geography and the Cyprus Conflict: 1963-1971. Ontario: University of Waterloo, 1974, 329.

[3] Terrell A. Northrup. “The Dynamic of Identity in Personal and Social Conflict,” in L. Kriesberg, Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation (1989). Syracuse: Syracuse University Press

[4] Van Coufoudakis. “The Dynamics of Political Partition and Division in Multiethnic and Multireligious Societies – The Cyprus Case.” Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976, 32.

[5] Linda B. Miller. Cyprus: The Law and Politics of Civil Strife. Harvard University, 1968, 3.

[6] M. A. Ramady. “The Role of Turkey in Greek-Turkish Cypriot Communal Relations,” in Coufoudakis. Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976, 15.

[7] M. A. Ramady. “The Role of Turkey in Greek-Turkish Cypriot Communal Relations,” in Coufoudakis. Essays on the Cyprus Conflict. New York: Pella Publishing Co., 1976, 35.

[8] S. G. Xydis. Cyprus: Conflict and Conciliation, 1954-58. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967, 97.

[9] S. G. Xydis. Cyprus: Conflict and Conciliation, 1954-58. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1967, 14.

[10] Louis Kriesberg. “Nature, Dynamics, and Phases of Intractability.” Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 68.

[12] Vamik Volkan. Cyprus: War and Adaptation: A Psychoanalytic History of Two Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1979, 13.