Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Devil,

It is an interesting contribution and it always helps to have the view of a committed and friendly outsider.

I see many similarities between Cyprus and Ireland. The same imperial overlords, importation of settlers who have become differentiated from the mainland population but not fully assimilated into the local one, two mutually exclusive aims, ie partition and union etc. The one difference is that while the Unionists in Ireland want Ulster to remain British there is no equivalent demand in Cyprus, yet. In time it is arguable that Ireland will be one country by virtue of the progress made by the Republic of Ireland which will work its way through to Ulster. Nothing convinces like prosperity!

To add to your post about "pretended losses". Cyprus is small and those of us born there are attached to localities as well as to the whole island. It is impossible to let go of your personal history and attachments, more so if you can drive to your place of birth in a few minutes but are denied access to it permanently. Any solution must adress these local peculiarities. Above all it must feel fair to the vast majority of Cypriots. Even partition can be made to feel fair if it is mindful of the sensitivities of all Cypriots. One factor that nullifies all pretenses of fairness is the importation of foreign settlers. I can accept losing my property to a fellow Cypriot, in exchange for peace, but I cannot stomach the granting of my property to an imported colonist. Turkis Cypriots realise this but cannot do anything about it because to do so would bring them into confrontation with Turkey.

To get back to partition, I agree with you, if partiotioned officially into two independent states, or if the present situation looks like becoming permanent, then there will be two armed camps in Cyprus and double union will be inevitable. The Republic will have no option but to unite or get into some serious defense agreement with a power that can balance Turkey. Having four army divisions and 400 tanks and ari bases in the south would do that and then it would be the realisation of Turkey's geopolitical nighmare, the one it wanted to prevent by the invasion. Funny how the world changes!

[Tim Drayton]

The only problem is that as with all invaders, the Turks do not want to give up what they have conquered . . .

SO, HOW DO WE MAKE THE TURKS SEE REASON?

That's our stumbling block!

There is a far greater stumbling block: the mindset of a vociferous minority of Cypriots, on both sides, at all levels of society. Many can see no farther than the tip of their noses and have no idea of what is best for the greater good.

Quite frankly, I think Turkey is fed up to the back teeth with Cyprus but dares not lose face by a retreat a) because it would lose a bargaining position and b) it needs to protect the Anatolian immigrants from the pretended ire of GCs. I feel reasonably sure that if a really viable plan were presented, Turkey would be glad to rid itself of the enormous expense of maintaining the soi-disant TRNC. Such a plan would be possible but not as long as we talk about a bi-zonal bi-communal federation, which is not even a half-way house towards a reunion. IMHO, this is not the solution for a new union between GCs and TCs. There are other ways which would be more acceptable to both peoples.

I don't think Turkey takes such a detached view of Cyprus. Turkey has legitimate strategic concerns over this island. Under conditions of war, if a hostile power controlled Cyprus it would be able to block access to Turkey's major ports of Mersin and Iskenderun. When the Turkish Republic was founded under the Treaty of Lausanne, Turkey relinquished any claims that she arguably may have had to Cyprus, which Britain first leased from the Ottoman Empire for 50 years in 1878 and then went on to unilaterally claim as a crown colony during World War I. Turkey relinquished her claims in the expectation that Cyprus would remain a British colony in perpetuity. Rightly or wrongly, Turkey did not feel threatened by Cyprus under British rule. When it become clear that British rule would end, Turkey naturally had an interest in the future of the island. This is why enosis, despite at the time representing the genuine aspirations of the Greek Cypriots, and thus the majority of the people of Cyprus, was rejected in favour of an independent state. Turkey could not consent to Greece gaining control over the island and the major Western powers could not risk a serious dispute between Turkey and Greece in the middle of the cold war. The Western powers, above all, wanted to hold on to the bases and monitoring stations on the island. So instead the RoC with its SBAs was born in an attempt to reconcile various conflicting external interests. I am afraid that Turkey will never just walk away and forget this small but strategically important island. Like it or not, any viable long term settlement will have to address Turkey's strategic concerns as one of its components.

In addition to her legitimate strategic concerns, Cyprus is an issue that can always be called on to arouse the emotions of the Turkish people. Nationalism is, on one level, a convenient tool for the Turkish ruling class to manipulate its own people. We currently see an atmosphere of nationalism being whipped up in Turkey now that a military operation in northern Iraq appears imminent. And the Cyprus card is also being played, with Denktash senior having been brought out to do a well-publicised series of lectures over the past few days. Against this background it is hard to envisage a Turkish government just shrugging its shoulders and forgetting about Cyprus.

[devil]

Tell us then! Here we are not politicians and yet we have never agreed. Do you have the magic answer devil?

Don't tell fibs: everyone in Cyprus over the age of 12 is a politician, and you know it. That is why you never agree!

I don't say I have a magic answer. I have what I believe to be an acceptable answer but it would take years before it could be fully implemented. It would require give and take by everybody because only a compromise is possible. Above all, it would require something that Cypriots tend to lack, discipline. My thoughts revolve round the examples set round small multi-ethnic states, especially island states, with uneven numbers of each ethnicity, where these have been especially peaceful and economically successful.

Incidentally, on a different scale, look at China. The majority ethnicity is Han but the 55 minority groups occupy ~60% of the territory. Have a think why this hotch-potch of peoples are so cohesive; it is not because of the force of the central government, as many believe.

[Nikitas]

Tim

These strategic concerns were addressed and are addressed every time, with the undertaking that an independent Cyprus will unilaterally forego a fundamental element of independence- an army. All Greek Cypriot proposals to date include the provision for a totally demilitarised Cyprus. Apparently this is not enough and we must conclude that Turkey's strategic interests do not stop in the prevention of hostile powers taking over the island.

In any case, with modern cruise missiles any southeastern Greek island can block Turkey's southern ports, so the argument no longer holds true.

A hint was given by Bulent Ecevit in an interview with Greek daily Eleftherotypia some years back when he said double union was out of the question because that would turn Greece into a Middle Eastern power. No one asked Greece if it wants to become such a power, and history has since proven that it definitely does not. In the end it looks like technology, history and Turkey's own development and direction leave only the emotional factor as the major motive force behind the issue.

[Nikitas]

A general question-

Why do military men always talk of soft underbellies and point to the south of a nation when they do? By what standard is the south of every country assume to be soft? Is this some hidden Freudian thing that afflicts army people?

[Tim Drayton]

Take an atlas of the world and find a small peice of island territory some distance from the mainland to which it belongs which is not a forgotten, neglected backwater. Can you find an example?

Plenty: Jersey/Guernsey, Guadeloupe, Corsica, Okinawa, Gibraltar (not really an island, but practically so), Vancouver Is., Newfoundland, Penang, Kalimantan, Tasmania, Hawaii, Tierra del Fuego (incidentally another partitioned island!), Bute, Zealand/Funen (actually richer than the mainland), etc. Didn't even need to open an atlas, these names came from the top of my head.

I take your point, but I think you have missed mine. Jersey/Guernsey are as far as I know quite proseperous and, yes, they are islands which are some distance from the British mainland, but they are not divided islands. Quite a few of the other places you mention are, in my opinion, economically undeveloped backwaters, so I don't see how they disprove my argument. Is Tierra del Fuego an economic powerhouse?
What I was really trying to say was that under double enosis, the two parts of the island would become insignificant and distant backwaters of their respective motherlands, and that Cyprus will fare better economically as a united island.

[devil]

I would not consider double enosis as a solution. I think you are barking up the wrong tree. Of course we all want Cyprus to be united. That is why I evoked an enosis between GCs and TCs.

Actually, both sides of TdF are richer than the mainlands close to them. Chile's oil comes from TdF and Argentina is developing it industrially (electronics etc.). I don't say that it is an economic powerhouse compared with Santiago or BA, but it is not impoverished nor a "forgotten, neglected backwater".

There is another recently partitioned island that should serve as an example of what happens when partitioning occurs for ethnic reasons: Timor.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas,

A general question-

Why do military men always talk of soft underbellies and point to the south of a nation when they do? By what standard is the south of every country assume to be soft? Is this some hidden Freudian thing that afflicts army people?

A most influential book for me was Norman Dixon's "On the psychology of military incompetence", first published in the late 1970s I think. There are some fascinating sections both on how military leadership has habitually (at least in the modern period) spoken in a highly sexualised way about people in general and about tactics and strategy in particular. Dixon also refers to, if I remember rightly, what he calls the 'bullshit complex' which is essentially a Freudian interpretation of the military's obsession with shit and defecation.

On a Freudian account, I suppose, the 'soft underbelly' is the lower abdomen of the uterus and vagina, to be easily taken and invaded.

I remember in the official (UK govt) reporting of the 1982 Falklands War the govt spokesperson, Ian Macdonald (?), reported with a straight face and no sense of Freud that British troops had "... engaged in a pre-dawn frontal insertion on sleeping Argentine troops ..."

[Tim Drayton]

Tim

These strategic concerns were addressed and are addressed every time, with the undertaking that an independent Cyprus will unilaterally forego a fundamental element of independence- an army. All Greek Cypriot proposals to date include the provision for a totally demilitarised Cyprus. Apparently this is not enough and we must conclude that Turkey's strategic interests do not stop in the prevention of hostile powers taking over the island.

In any case, with modern cruise missiles any southeastern Greek island can block Turkey's southern ports, so the argument no longer holds true.

A hint was given by Bulent Ecevit in an interview with Greek daily Eleftherotypia some years back when he said double union was out of the question because that would turn Greece into a Middle Eastern power. No one asked Greece if it wants to become such a power, and history has since proven that it definitely does not. In the end it looks like technology, history and Turkey's own development and direction leave only the emotional factor as the major motive force behind the issue.

Nikitas, I hear what you are saying. The Cyprus problem remains unresolved, though, so all proposals remain hypothetical. I am simply saying that Turkey has certain legitimate concerns and they have to be taken into account. If a particular proposed solution addresses these concerns, then fine.

Unfortunately, as much I would love to see a totally demilitarised Cyprus, since America appears determined to continue with its current neo-imperialist adventure in the Middle East, and Britian shows no signs of abandoning its support for this venture, I don't see that getting rid of the British bases is an attainable medium-term goal, given Cyprus's proximity to the conflict zone. As such, dare I play devil's advocate and voice a suggestion that has long been at the back of my mind? How about offering Turkey a sovereign base similar to the SBAs in return for giving up the rest of the occupied territory? Unpalatable as this may seem, isn't it better for Turkey to have 2% of Cyprus than 38%? This would surely be enough to address Turkey's strategic defence concerns.

[Nikitas]

Copperline- THANKS I am going to buy and read that book!