The War Between Cyprus And Turkey - Research Paper Example

The war between Cyprus and turkey Introduction. Cyprus embodies a that has endured problematic ethnic conflicts. Cyprus gained independence from Great Britain in 1960 and since then the inhabitants, the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have been clashing frequently. Conflicts that arise between two different ethnic groups are always a challenge to resolve and Cyprus Island was not an exception. Moreover, the strategic location and the island’s unique history have played a part in the involvement of many parties in Cyprus and the challenges in settling the disputes. Present conflicts between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have been sparked by this historical environment that was between them. The legacy of the many wars and conflicts has created a destabilized situation where both communities cannot trust each other. Pre-war period. Greeks were seen to desire domination over the Turkish Cypriots.in 1878 the British created a legislative council in Cyprus the Greeks demanded more representation and in 1882 the British decided to give the Greeks 9 members and the Turkish Cypriots three. The Turkish Cypriots protested as was expected as they saw its risky having the Greeks dominate. This defensiveness became a primary characteristic in the Turkish Cypriots behavior a notion that the Greek Cypriots did not really comprehend. After the war against the British came to an end the Greek Cypriots did not bother to have talks with their Turkish counterparts or give them assurance. This thus led to a state where although the island was Great Britain’s colony, and both groups were under colonisation, independence was not the outcome of the mutual cooperation by both communities. The two groups were never willing to cohabit as one state as both communities had different objectives. For many years the Turkish Cypriots never understood the Greek Cypriots desire for enosis. They thought that this desire to unite with Greece reflected the Greek Cypriot’s attempts to govern them. In the years 1878-1960, the Turkish Cypriots affiliated themselves with British, which was a serious mistake. This move is what made the constitution contain to privileges leaning on the Turkish Cypriots. If they hadn’t aligned themselves with the British they may have entered independence jointly with the Greek Cypriots. They on their side showed little interest of the powers they were given under the Zurich constitution. Conscious of Turkish government support and Turkish troops in the island they were unyielding in claiming their rights as a separate group even in situations where these rights were unrealistic or conflicted with the state’s interests. The populace of the Turkish Cypriots was small but their leaders still insisted on having the 30% positions in the civil service though qualified people were unobtainable. Between 1960 and 1963, using their veto powers they utterly paralyzed the government (Amussen, 2008). This sparked president Makarios proposals The Greek Cypriots agreed that the constitution had to be revised and was not necessary to be a compromise with the Turkish Cypriots. They made a blunder and continued their discussion to reunite with Greece, a move that was prohibited by their constitution. Turkish had control of 40% of the island and was entitled to 30% of the civil service position, a 40% share in the army with just being 18% of the whole populace. The Greek Cypriot’s actions were even more fueled by this privileges the Turkish Cypriots were liable to in the constitution but had the Greek Cypriots been content with the status quo and accepted those privileges and let go of their desire for the union with Greece, then the Turkish Cypriots just might have been more receptive for some compromise (James, 2011). Nevertheless, this never happened. Instead the leader of the Greek Cypriots, president Makarios attempted to review thirteen amendments of the constitution. The Turkish Cypriot leaders and the Turkish government as expected rejected the proposal but this regardless; president Makarios decided to publicize the proposals and at the same time sought for international support on the case. This sparked the 1963-64 fighting and later the UN involvement in 1964. The Greek Cypriots made yet another mistake in 1967 when president Makarios aborted his desire for the union with Greece due to a Turkish invasion threat. His strategies become an “a wait and see” rather than making concessions to stop the problems as they arise. Making concessions was not on the Greek Cypriot’s agenda as they continued their attempts in garnering support for their case. They later gained the much sought international support but the policies put forward were blind as they failed to recognize the Turkish Cypriots demands and stopped the Greek Cypriots leaders from having talks with their counterparts and covering at least part of their calls. Explanations for the war. The war waged in Cyprus was mainly waged first due to the different ethnicities in the two groups and the fight over which group is more serious. Arguably this can be waged as the strongest force that led to the war. The element of separatism was and still is very distinct. Worldwide such battles have been prevalent in Africa and in some cases the war is because of different religions. History beyond the independence of Cyprus taught them that their community was heroic while the other was barbaric or their respective community was in the right while the other was in the wrong. The difference in ethnicities magnified the differences the Turkish Cypriots in their constitution rights. Eventually a war erupted based on ethnic cleansing of the island to rid Turkish Cypriots of the land (Christos, 1991). Over the years the two Cypriots groups have tried to cooperate with each other but have still remained separate. This separatism prevails due to some differences. For instance, The Greek Cypriots initially wanted to be united with Greece while the Turkish Cypriots were against the union with Greece.as a result of these dissimilar objectives, the two groups were not willing to come in to a comprise for a satisfactory settlement for both parties. Another difference is related to allegiance of the two communities. Both groups are more devoted to turkey or Greece than to Cyprus. Neither isolates themselves from their mother countries and act independently, as result there is no patriotism for Cyprus. To complex the situation further both groups rise from different ethnicities. The Greek Cypriots have a dissimilar ethnic background from the Turkish Cypriots (Oliver, 1998). The former consider them as being in the lineage of Plato and Aristotle while the latter consider themselves as arising from ottoman ruler’s lineage. As result, ethnic animosities have ensued further leading to stereotyping each other that either is culturally superior. In addition the religions are different and so are the cultures. The two groups have generally been in different culture sides as there values, beliefs and customs are influenced by the traditions of the Greece and the Turks further keeping the separation fire alive. Arguably, it can be asserted that there is no elaborate Cypriot culture. The differences have been developing through in several situations so much that when one side proposes the other opposes. Even during the prewar period the two groups were alienated from each other and after colonization in 1960 the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot trust between the two groups intensified. It can be argued that this distrust was a base for the factors that led to the war. There was never a Cyprus identity at one time, and this separatism brewed animosity between the two communities further making their relations harsh and thus the war. There were separate structures formed to protect both communities this still reflects the building of separate structures within the state. The two groups never mingled. There were no cross community parties competing for both the Turkish Cypriots votes and the Greek Cypriots votes meaning that a Greek Cypriot could not vote for a Turkish Cypriot and vice versa (Amussen, 2008). Often, the Turks accused the Greek Cypriots for exploiting the Turkish Cypriots. There was economic stagnation in the island contributed by both parties. The Turkish Cypriots leaders encouraged the purchase of Turkish products attempts to create a separate economy and yet not having the needed capabilities. The Greek Cypriots compounded this stagnation by imposing an economic blockade against the Turkish Cypriots since august 1964. The battle to ascend to power historically has been a significant contributor to the war in many lands and Cyprus was an example. For the Greek Cypriots the desire for power was fuelled by the desire of uniting the island with Greece while the Turkish Cypriots wanted power so as to have their demand on partition of the land. This push and pull for the power and unpractical demands that couldn’t be accepted sparked the initiation of the EOKA for the Greek Cypriots side to continue advocating for enosis and on the Turkish side they formed the Turkish defense organization. They were too affiliated to their mother communities to ever have a common ground. When one party felt that the power relations were aligned to the other party they sought to change it as Makarios did and as the Turkish government did in the second invasion. The constitution itself failed to take into account that the incorporated power protection system increased antagonism because of the discriminations and insecurities involved. The provisions of the 1960 arrangement were the major factor that prompted its collapse three years later and eventually caused the war (House of Commons foreign affairs committee report, 2005). The amendments proposed by president Makario would have made the Turkish community give up many of their rights and privileges as a minority including revoking the top officials veto power. In 1960, the constitution fell apart and communal violence followed. Greece, turkey, Great Britain and the guarantors of the Zurich constitution that led to the state’s independence wanted to send a NATO force to the island. Late in 1963 the conflict spread in the island. The Turkish fighters were less potent as they were outnumbered by the Greek Cypriots (Amussen, 2008). The Greek Cypriots on the other hand were provided with guns from their foreign powers. A significant number of both communities caught in the crossfire lost their lives; others were massacred by the Greek or Turkish Cypriots. Homes were looted and razed to the ground as the war progressed. The Turkish government reacted and cancelled 12000 residential permits of Greek citizens living in Istanbul, turkey, confiscating their property. The violence was flaring and although President Makarios and Dr. Kucuk called for peace, they were ignored and fighting was unrelenting. Meanwhile, the Turkish government had the Turkish army move from their barracks and seizes the most strategic part of the island along Kyrenia road (Pierre, 1982). It provided a link to turkey’s military invasion. This road was crucial to Turks strategic thinking so much that they maintained jurisdiction of that place all through 1974.greek Cypriots could not use the road unless they were accompanied by a UN convoy. By 1964, the death toll was at 193 Turkish Cypriots, 133 Greek Cypriots and a further 41 and 209 Greeks and Turks missing respectively all presumed dead. In 1964 the then united stated president had asserted that it refuted any possible invasion in Cyprus and that it would not assist turkey if the invasion led to a conflict with the soviet union. A month later within a framework prepared by the US secretary of state, talks between Greece and turkey (Dudley, 2005). After that crisis, the Turkish Cypriots began forming groups at the several areas manned by the National Guard and directly supported by turkey. The Greek Cypriots forces responded by limiting their access to basic supplies. Skirmishes broke out yet again in 1967, meanwhile the Turkish Cypriots continued to advocate for more freedom of movement. Turkey threatened to invade for the purpose of protecting him Turkish populace from possible utter elimination (ethnic cleansing) by the Greek Cypriots forces (Hensiger, 2010). To avert this disaster, a compromise was reached. Greece was authorized to recede some of its troops from the island and the state’s government lightened the restrictions to mobility and access to basic supplies to the Turkish population. In 1974 however, Greek Cypriot intelligence learned of an imminent coup against president Makarios as he was seen to be deviating from the original ideal of uniting with Greece. The coup had come into power in 1967 and had the support of the United States but was condemned by Europe (Claude, 2001). They alleged president Makario of being a communist sympathizer and therefore tried to undermine him. Later Makario wrote an open later to Gizikis protesting about the Greek military and the direct activities of the EOKA-B (Greek terrorist organization). At the same time he ordered the removal of 600 Greek officers in the National Guard from Cyprus. The Greek government was not pleased and responded by assenting to the coup. On 15 July, 1974 the government was overthrow and president Makarios narrowly absconded death and was rescued by the Britain government. The coup headed by Nikos Sampson who was fanatically anti-Turkish was declared the new president. The new government took control of the media stations and in the take over 91 Greeks was killed. Turkish Cypriots were left unharmed to avoid a Turkish invasion. As a result the US secretary of state was sent to mediate the dispute (Dudley, 2005). Turkish Cypriots immediately made a list of demands, one wanting the removal of Nikos Sampson, the admission of Turkish guards to protect their population, the withdrawal of Greek officials from the National Guard and equal access to the sea for the Turkish Cypriots from the N. coast. The demands were not accepted as they would lead to Turkish dominance in the island. Britain denied the proposal to let the Turkish government use its bases on Cyprus. The Turkish government was not pleased and in 20 July, 1974 Turkish heavily armed troops landed on Cyprus on its northern coast on the base that it was there legally to protect the Turkish population and to also guarantee Cyprus’ independence. They expended the clear and hold strategy and forced the Greek Cypriots to move to the south.th Greek Cypriots fled their homes. The UN Security Council obtained a ceasefire two days later but the Turks violated it and they widened their territory (James, 2005). On July 23, 1974, the coup collapsed because of these events. Later Constantine Karamanlis was sworn in prime minister and decided against any other military involvement in Cyprus as the Turkish forces were stronger. This was closely followed by Sampson’s abdication of presidency to Glafcos. A major contributing factor to the emergence of the second invasion would be when external guarantors of that state are given the right “to take action “Peace so as to preserve a constitutional arrangement. The constitution incorporated the guarantee treaty that had allowed turkey, Britain or Greece to take action to rectify a breach of the contract. This was the case in Cyprus where turkey invoked the treaty to justify its invasion, a move that led to the partition of the country. This treaty which the parties involved was at the best interests of both communities was the seed of destruction of communal existence on Cyprus (James, 2011). Talks then commenced between 25 and 30 July 1974 with Glafcos Clerides being the Greek Cypriots representative and Rauf Denktas the Turkish Cypriot’s representative. The talks bore no fruits as a compromise was not reached. In the second round of talks, turkey demanded from the state to consent to its plan for a federal state as well as population transfer. The Turkish foreign minister had said to the prime minister some code statement to mean “ready to go into war” an hour after the talks the statement to the prime minister was made and on august 14, 1974 turkey initiated its “ second peace operation” to gain dominance over 40 % of Cyprus(Amussen, 2008). This was a success as the troops progressed even to the south making the Greek inhabitants refugees. This conflict prompted the consent of the transfer of the Turkish Cypriots from the south to the north if they wished to do so. This move did not however safeguard sovereign integrity but contrarily led to the partition of the republic with the northern part marked as a separate political entity. On February 13, 1975 turkey declared these occupied regions a federated Turkish state. To this effect the UN created a green line to avoid any future ethnic conflicts (House of Commons foreign affairs committee report 2005). Post-war relations. The war in Cyprus did not serve to resolve the issues that led to its war that is the separatism. Both sides more than ever adhered to their ethnic identity and no guidelines were put forth to forge for a Cyprus identity to separate the state from ethnicity. The country has still seen continuing hostility between the two communities. The groups accuse each other of not wanting to understand the others suffering. One major result of war is that the warring groups only remember their suffering and no the other parties. Despite the cold war being over, a substantial number of ethnic conflicts are yet to be resolved. The post war system has not provided a cordial environment to ending these disputes more so because the leaders have turned inward to concentrate on domestic issues. Furthermore the revitalization of nationalist aspirations makes it harder to settle these issues (Hensiger, 20100. The present conflicts are directly linked to the historical animosity. They are constantly disagreeing even on basic matters. The continental shelf dispute and the air control in Aegean are examples of disputes. In addition human relations have not improved Greeks in turkey have often been mistreated and Turks in Greece have been harassed as well. For the island to realize its full potential the ethnic dynamic must be broken and each group needs to stop viewing the other as a security threat and stop leaning to their mother nations that have controlled their affairs in a long time (Honnay, 2005). Conclusion. The discussion above Cleary reiterates that the two communities were not willing to change their positions; even today they do not trust each other and are constantly reacting negatively to the actions of the other community. Had there been a body that encouraged consensus between the two groups within the state then relations would have been smoother and therefore communication easier. The failure of the constitution to ameliorate this depicts that cypress was responsible for its misfortune. The birth of Cyprus can be resembled to the concept of an arranged marriage where both parties are against – with both of them in love with different people who were at the wedding but they failed to say “I object” when asked. Independence was not anticipated by either party. The future for the new independent state looked bleak. Each community has its account of the events that transpired. The adversities have happened but in essence “once a historical adversity becomes a chosen trauma, the truth doesn’t really matter even in years to come” (Hensiger, 20100 One lesson however stands out when people do not view each other as equals and respect the rights of the other then true independence is merely a facade while internally envy, hatred and desire to exile the other community are waiting to explode! Works cited. Amussen, Jan. “Cyprus at War” London: Tauris &Co. Ltd. 2008. P.19.Print. Christopher, Brewin.”European Union and Cyprus” Huntingdon: Eothen Press. 2000. Print Christos P. Ioannidis. “In Turkey’s Image: The Transformation of Occupied Cyprus into a Turkish Province.” New Rochelle, NY: Caratzas. 1991. Print. Claude, Nicolet. “United States Policy towards Cyprus, 1954-1974”. Manheim: Bibliopolis.2001. Print. Dudley, Barker. “Cyprus and International Peacemaking” London: Hurst. 2005 Honnay, David. “Cyprus: The Search for a Solution”. Palgrave. Macmillan.2005.print. Ker-Lindsay James. “EU Accession and UN Peacemaking in Cyprus” Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print Ker-Lindsay, James. “The Cyprus Problem: What Everyone Needs To Know” Washington. Oxford University Press.2011. Print. Oliver, Richmond. “Mediating In Cyprus: The Lobby For Cyprus Study Group, Origins Of The Present Crisis” London: Frank Cass. 1998. Print Pierre, Oberking. “The Road To Bellapais: The Turkish Cypriot To Northern Cyprus. “Social Science Monographs, 1982. Print. Shane, Hensiger. “The History of the Cyprus Conflict: A Background and Peace Building Strategies.” California. California Press. 2010. Amazon Books. Internet Source The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Report On Cyprus. February 1, 2005 Read More