by zan » Fri Mar 14, 2008 6:14 pm
Cyprus and the problem of Racism
If one is to understand “racial” discrimination in Cyprus, one must appreciate the fine
linguistic and cultural issues relating to the meaning of the key terms and the extent to
which they are considered to be morally, politically and socially deplorable or
repugnant. The concept of φυλή (Greek for “race”) is not redundant in public
discourses not even in the so-called ‘politically correct’ media world. In any case, in
Cyprus there is little sense of political correctness in the media language and society
3
at large. The term “race” can be and is being used without the inverted commas in
spite of the fact that Cyprus has signed and ratified all the UN and other international
instruments which totally reject the pseudo-scientific theories of race and consider the
term itself to be totally discredited and therefore abandoned (see National Report of
the Republic of Cyprus on the Conclusions of the European and World Conference
against Racism 2002). Racism, in Greek ρατσισμός or φυλετισμός, is certainly
deplorable, unacceptable and morally reprehensible as a phenomenon for Greek-
Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots alike and it would be fair to say that for the vast
majority of Cypriots racism is considered to be a serious offence. Nonetheless, the
dominant view, as shown in a variety of surveys as well as public discourses (as it
will be shown further down) is that this “bad” practice either happens elsewhere or if
it is brought home it is Cypriots who are the victims of racism: Cypriots have suffered
in the hands of colonialism; Cypriot migrants have suffered from the racism of the
indigenous populations (eg. in the UK, USA and Australia). More importantly the
slogans of the nationalists in Cyprus who oppose a federal solution of the Cyprus
problem are that any federal system that relies on the notion of ethnicity is inherently
racist, as were the London Zurich Accords in Cyprus. Racist was considered to be the
Turkish policy in Cyprus as the continued occupation of the Northern part of Cyprus
expelled and excludes 200.000 Greek Cypriot refugees from their homes and,
following Yugoslavia where the term “ethnic cleansing” was discovered by the media,
Turkey is accused of having followed a racist policy that ethnically “cleansed” the
north of Cyprus from the Greek-Cypriots and has demographically altered the
population by bringing settlers to replace them.
Whilst there is no doubt that the Greek-Cypriots expelled from the occupied territories
by the Turkish army in 1974 were victims of a policy that racially discriminated
against them, unable to return to and enjoy their homes, this argument is by and large
used to undervalue and underestimate the historical context and nationalist politics of
both communities, the role of Greece and Turkey and international politics.
Nationalist discourse which has been generalized as a state ideology through
schooling and media coverage of national anniversary celebrations and national
heroes, ignores the fact that between 1964-1974 Turkish-Cypriots had also been the
victims of violence, sectarian massacres in the hands of army and paramilitary groups,
of generalized ethno-racial discrimination and were forced to withdraw into enclaves.
There is literature examining the politics of memory, memorials and museums from
ethnographic and anthropological perspectives; hardly surprising in a conflict-ridden
island such as Cyprus, where historiography essentially mirrored the nationalist
perceptions of history by both communities (see Papadakis 1993).
The issue of racism against migrant workers was up until very recently dismissed as
‘isolated incidents’ by the authorities, a matter that attracted serious criticisms of
institutional racism or at least government inaction. The racism debate with migrants
at the receiving end and Greek-Cypriots as the perpetrators did not ‘fit in’ the national
story of victimisation of Greek-Cypriots. Of course not all Greek-Cypriots are
perpetrators and not all migrants are victims, but the power structure puts migrants at
the receiving end.
A careful reading of the Second Report on Cyprus of ECRI may lead to the conclusion
that what we have is institutional racism, underlying the whole legal and
administrative system, that is responsible for the employment and general
4
implementation of the framework of entry and stay in Cyprus. The Report falls short
of using the term ‘institutional racism’, but a careful reading reveals a resemblance
with the kind of structural practices associated with the what Lord Macpherson called
‘institutional racism’ (Macpherson 1999). As defined in his Report, point 6.17:
“Unwitting racism can arise because of lack of understanding,
ignorance or mistaken beliefs. It can arise from well intentioned but
patronising words or actions. It can arise from unfamiliarity with the
behaviour or cultural traditions of people or families from minority
ethnic communities. It can arise from racist stereotyping of black
people as potential criminals or troublemakers. Often this arises out of
uncritical self-understanding born out of an inflexible police ethos of
the “traditional” way of doing things. Furthermore such attitudes can
thrive in a tightly knit community, so that there can be a collective
failure to detect and to outlaw this breed of racism.”
For Cyprus then in all but name the picture painted by the report is particularly
gloomy, the underlying policy effect that are indeed discriminatory as the ECRI report
note with concern. The inadequacy of remedies in some situations is mentioned in the
executive summary:
Problems of racism, xenophobia and discrimination persist, however,
and immigrants appear to be in a particularly vulnerable position in
this respect. The rights of immigrant workers, notably domestic
employees, are often not respected and the remedies available in these
cases are not always effective”
In fact the issue of ‘excessive violence by the police’ is noted in the executive
summary:
Of serious concern are reports of use of excessive force by the police
against aliens who enter or stay in Cyprus illegally and the detention
of this category of persons for long periods of time pending
deportation.”
The report refers to immigration officers who require training on human rights; to
public figures, whose remarks may lead to a xenophobic climate all of which cause
the ‘vulnerable position of migrants’. Also ECRI notes that “foreigners account for
almost 30% of the total prison population of Cyprus” and that in most cases, they are
detained for offences linked to their right to stay in the country and very rarely for
violent crimes. ECRI encourages the Cypriot authorities to carry out research on the
causes of the disproportionate representation of foreigners in Cypriot prisons.
Migrant workers themselves regularly complaint about the treatment they get from the
police and other authorities, such as social workers, for mistreatment and racial
discriminationiii. The most effective means of screening has proved to be the
Commissioner for Administration or Ombudsmaniv, as noted also by the ECRI
Report. As with the previous year most complaints about human rights violations
came from migrant workers: Out of 1999 complaints 156 were from migrants, mostly
migrant workers (Ombudsman Annual Report 2002: 35) and the tendency is for the
complaints to rise every yearv. For the years 2000 and 2001 most complaints by
migrant workers were against the Immigration Office and Police (Immigration
Section). The Report notes that the sharp rise of 52,94% in comparison to the year
2000, is the result of the tougher line of the administration to exercise control on
5
immigration; the increase in the cases of violent abuse or violation of human rights
against migrants and the creation of support institutions to inform them and assist
migrants.
The Ombudsman Annual Report (2002) for the year 2001 is illuminating on the kind
of practices followed by the administration ranging from failure to remedy situations
of maltreatment to policies without due process to extreme harshness.
Characteristically the Report (2002: 41) notes “the administration exhausts all the
reserves of strictness” when it comes to implementing legal provisions as regards
deportation of any migrant worker who loses his/her job, which is the polite way of
saying that the authorities are harsh. Furthermore, the Report refers to the prejudicial
situation migrant workers are, in a very unequal employment relationship with their
employers, and is critical of the practice whereby the employers use the Police to get
rid of their former migrant employee so that they can obtain permit to bring a new
one, leaving no opportunity for migrant employee to complain or put his/her case.
“The possibility of recourse to the Labour Tribunal the Supreme Court is in most
cases a theoretical one”, the Report notes (2002: 41).
It is on this basis that a reading of the ECRI report on Cyprus, by taking all the
information available that leads to the conclusion that institutional racism is
structurally embedded in the legal and administrative system that racialises migrant
workers. However, a great deal needs to be researched in the different areas of policy
formulation so that any underlying patterns of structural discrimination is revealed
and tackled.
They are? Have you been conducting a survey again? WHere did you hear this?
