Negative peace and breach of rights
12.09.2008
Niyazi Kizilyurek
We can say that the basic element behind the negotiations to achieve a solution held in Cyprus today is the element of ‘Land of Equality’.
The element that influences the negotiations between the Greek Cypriot community that holds the Republic of Cyprus based on political equality within their power and the Turkish Cypriot community that took hold of 37% of the land on the island in 1974 is the element of “equal representation in the government parallel to the percentage of land owned.” This is why the Greek Cypriot side comes up with land and ownership issues during the process of negotiation and will probably come up with the demilitarisation of the island in parallel to their demands. And the Turkish Cypriot side wants to achieve equality in all aspects of life.
Of course the demands of the sides are not figured by their personal will and preferences, however, the concrete political and military balances signal to such ‘bases of agreement’. If we are clearer in phrasing then the Greek Cypriot side know that all attempts they have made since July 1974 to get the Turkish military forces off the island have been left unfulfilled and they know that there is no balance of power to achieve a ‘military solution’. Therefore they feel forced to a solution through negotiations and know that they have to take steps that they see as ‘compromising’ and have to expand their vision. One of the basic things they need to do is to make changes in the Republic of Cyprus they control by themselves and adjust it so that the Turkish Cypriots could be part of it.
1960 Republic constitution gives rights to both communities
The Turkish Cypriot and Turkish side realised that the political situation after July 1974 was not sustainable and despite all attempts they made they could not succeed in legalising a separate state and decided to ‘compromise’ and head for agreement and felt the necessity to expand their vision accordingly. Land and ownership indeed take the lead in the case.
If we take a look at the negotiation elements we listed above, we can clearly see that what is considered to be ‘compromising’ is in fact the rights of communities. For instance the political equality of the Turkish Cypriot community is their basic right declared as per the 1960 constitution. In a very similar case it is well known that the property in the North of Cyprus is mainly owned by the Greek Cypriot community.
Both sides reluctant to compromise
We are up against a clear paradox here despite the naked truth about this. Although it is not completely right, both sides feel that they are under the ‘burden of compromises’ as per the new Cyprus Negotiation process that started in 2008. One of the reasons for this is that the main ideology that still directs communities is nationalism and the mutual breach of rights has been carved into the minds of the communities along with the stronger call for nationalistic demands of breach of rights. Most of the Greek Cypriots find it difficult to realise that the political equality of Turkish Cypriots is a historical, political and legal fact. Turkish Cypriots on the other hand have considered post 1974 as the ‘end of time’ for very many years.
In such a medium of ideology and political culture reaching out to compromise that peace turns to a process of severe pressure with different factors to follow rather than being the choice of the communities in which case the outcome could only be an agreement that could be graded as ‘the lesser of two evils’. The process is called Negative Peace. If, on the other hand, we could see that the negotiation process is making-up for the mutual breach of rights then we would not have worried about compromising, and the language of policies would not have been so away from peaceful talks.