CYPRUS AND TURKEY’S EU PROCESS
By Sedat Laciner
Translated By: Abdi Noyan Ozkaya
Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
June 20 2006
The Republic of Cyprus was not founded as a Greek state or a Turkish
state. It was founded as a state based on the equal partnership of
two ethnic communities and with the guarantorship of Turkey, Greece
and Britain. In other words, the Turkish Cypriots, though less in
number, were not a minority but a founder of the Republic with equal
status. However, the Greek Cypriots considered the Republic as a
‘transitory stage’, a ‘temporary period’ which would eventually lead
to an independent Greek state on the island. It was this ambition
which caused the state to disfunction in Cyprus. First of all, the
Turkish Cypriots were de facto deprived of all their government posts
granted to them by the constitution. The Greeks were placed to all
Turkish contingencies in security forces, and the ultra-nationalist
Greeks made it impossible for Turks to fill their posts in politics
and bureaucracy. As a result, the Cypriot state was usurped by the
Greeks through the violation of the constitution. The Turks were
unable to participate in the executive and legislative bodies.
Moreover, many Greeks from Greece were brought to the island for
settlement. During the course of the events, the international
community as well as Greece and Britain, which were the guarantors
of the Cypriot State and held rights and responsibilities including
military intervention in case of disruption in constitutional order,
only preferred to watch. As the Greek policy of deporting Turks out
of the island occasionally turned into massacres, the UN Peace Force
(UNFICYP) was deployed in the island in 1964. This was the beginning
of the never-ending adventure of the UN in the island.
Though the UN arrived at the island, it neither managed to stop the
violence nor was it able to put the rights granted to Turks into
practice. In the meantime, the armament of the Greeks continued apace.
The military coup in Greece on 21 April 1967 had negative effects on
the Cyprus issue. Although Turkey wanted to intervene in Cyprus as a
guarantor state in these years, this action was prevented by the US
and Britain.
The intercommunal talks failed many times, and the UN and the
international community clearly proved their inability to save
the Turkish Cypriots, who were forced to live in enclaves. But the
Turkish public felt very disturbed upon the release of the photos of
massacred Turks in the international media. Among the photos was a
photo of a child killed in a bathroom. The final event that caused
Turkish frustration took place in 1974. The radical nationalist
Greek Cypriots considered unacceptable even the policies of Makarios
that caused the exclusion of the Turks from the system as moderate
and ousted the Makarios government. As Makarios hardly survived,
more uneasy days were ahead for the Turks. The constitutional order,
which had already ended practically, was now being wiped off by use
of armed force and violence, and the island was being transformed
into a Greek homeland. Turkey called Greece and Britain to stop the
violence and take necessary measures to save the Cyprus Republic,
but she was turned down. The international organizations and great
powers did nothing but released statements of regret for the Greek
coup on the island. Consequently, Turkey, upon the rights granted
to her by international agreements, intervened in the island. Turkey
had two goals with this intervention:
1) To protect the Turkish Cypriots who were facing the threat of
annihilation,
2) To revive the Republic of Cyprus, within the framework of the
international agreements and the constitution.
Turkish troops – though able to seize the entire island – only
seized the north of the island, where Turks were densely populated,
and stopped there. During the 1970s, Turkey permanently defended
that the island be reunited on the basis of the constitution and the
international agreements. In the South, the coup attempt failed and
the Greek Cypriots maintained the Republic of Cyprus unilaterally. On
the other hand, the Greeks did not allow the Turks to cross to
the southern part and to assume posts in any of the government
institutions. However, even the flag of the Republic was designed by
a Turkish Cypriot (Ismet Guney) and the constitution allocated seats
to Turks in every institution including government.
As the Turks were unable to cross to the South, they formed their
own administration in the North. As the Turkish hopes for unification
continued, they did not declare independence; but there were now two
separate states on the island practically.
Unfortunately, the international community has never been neutral
enough in the Cyprus issue. Particularly the Western organizations and
states gave notable support to the Greek side and this support has been
viewed as a ‘Christian solidarity’ by Turkey. The US, which was unable
to protect the Turkish Cypriots and to assist them in regaining their
rights in the state, even resolved on an arms embargo against Turkey,
thanks to the influence of the Greek lobby in the Congress. This may
be the first time that an arms embargo was imposed against a military
ally. By the same token, the then-European Community (EC) strictly
warned Turkey as the Greek Diaspora managed to get support of ‘its
fellows in Europe’. Despite these events, both the US and the EC were
aware of Turkey’s status of guarantorship during the 1970s. Both the
US and the EC admitted that the Cypriot state was unable to join any
international organization without the approval of its guarantors as
it was written down in the international agreements. As Greece was
progressing on the way to the EC (that is, the European Union, EU)
and as Turkey was lagging behind in this process due to the economic
problems and internal political instability, Brussels assured Turkey
that Greece’s membership would not affect the EU’s stance on the
Cyprus and Aegean disputes. In other words, the EU would not act
partial on the Cyprus issue in case Greece is admitted. Naturally,
the promises were broken. As Turkey remained outside, the EU neutrality
was seriously damaged on the Cyprus question.
On the Turkish side, the Turkish Cypriots formed their own
administration on the north of the island in 1975. Though its name
was not a “state”, this structure was a state in fact. In terms of
elections and parliament, it was a more democratic state than those of
Turkey and Greece. On one hand, the Turkish Cypriots tried to overcome
their state needs by practical solutions, while on the other hand
they strived to be included in the state, which was closed to them by
the Greeks in the South, within the limits of the constitution. The
UN’s efforts, expectedly, failed again. The Vienna Rounds could only
produce more distrust. While the Greeks did not admit that Turks were
the constituent community in the Cypriot state, the Turks disavowed
to depend on the mercy of the Greeks. The initiatives followed
initiatives. As the Canadian, English and American proposals were
presented, the Turks were unable to cross to the Greek side even for
negotiations. When the negotiations stalled, the Turkish Cypriots
unilaterally founded their own state in the North on November 15,
1983. However, the Turkish hopes for the unification of the island
continued. Both Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
(TRNC) maintained that the two communities could unify under a single
entity, be it federalism or another solution.
During the 1980s, the TRNC was only recognized by Turkey, and the
Greeks acted as if they were the only representatives of the island.
Not only the flag of the Republic of Cyprus, which was founded
collectively by the Turks and the Greeks, but also all posts in the
ministries, military, police etc. were occupied by the Greeks.
The problem faced by the Turkish Cypriots was not only
non-recognition. Initially, they were barred from exporting potato and
citrus to the EU countries. They were even unable to send a letter. You
needed to write an address in Turkey in order to send a letter to TRNC
from the US or Europe. The world, so to say, ignored the TRNC. The
Turkish Cypriots were even unable to play matches against teams of
other nations. It was impossible to take a direct flight to Northern
Cyprus. The UN efforts, definitely, continued in the 1980s as it did
in 1960s and 1970s. England, the US and other powers continued their
roles as mediators, though useless…
The scene continued with no change in the 1990s. Negotiations,
failures, mediations, and endless plans…
In 1994, the European Court of Justice, with the lobbying of Greeks
and Greek Cypriots, outlawed any trade with the north of the island.
Strangely, the Court decided that the export of potatoes and oranges
from the North was illegal. As the parties on the island were trying
to agree on confidence-building measures, this event cast doubts on
the neutrality of the ‘Europe’. The Turkish Cypriots were isolated
in the EU and the Greek Cypriots were made the sole possessor of the
island. The EU support encouraged the Greeks and the Greek militants
attacked on the Turkish border posts.
The EU, in 1998, listed Cyprus (that is, only the Greek part) among
“the potential countries” to join the EU. As a matter of fact,
this resolution was in violation of the international agreements
in two aspects. First of all, it was impossible for a country with
border disputes to be a member of the EU. Secondly, it was impossible
for the Republic of Cyprus to enter any international organization
without the approval of Greece and Turkey, based upon the agreements
and documents that established the Republic of Cyprus. As Turkey did
not approve the Cyprus’ membership under these conditions, the EU
was defying both its laws and the international agreements.
The UN had to renew its 36-year mission to Cyprus in 2001. The
same year, after failed efforts to convince the EU, Turkey and
TRNC collectively announced that they might consider unification
of the North with Turkey. For Turkey, the EU was, unilaterally
and in violation of all international law documents, preparing to
admit the Greek Cypriots as a member as if they were the only legal
representatives of Cyprus.
The Greek and Turkish leaders, Clerides and Denktaº, started
negotiations with the UN’s good offices in 2002. Same year, the
UN General-Secretary Annan presented a comprehensive plan to the
parties. The plan seemed to be in favor of the Greeks. However,
the lack of a settlement was more to the disadvantage of Turkish
Cypriots. Hence, the Turkish side seemed to be more in favor of
unification on the basis of a federation. As the UN was pressuring the
both sides for a settlement, the US and the EU could have assisted the
UN’s efforts. Especially the EU could have easily pressured the Greek
Cypriots, who were on the accession process, for a solution. However,
instead of this option, the EU called for the full membership of Cyprus
(that is, the Greek side) in the Copenhagen Summit in 2004. So, the
Greek Cypriots were able to obtain whatever they hoped for, that is,
the EU membership and the guarantee of full membership. As a result,
the Greeks had no more expectations from the negotiations.
A few weeks before the submission of the Annan Plan to the sides,
Tassos Papadopoulos defeated Clerides, who were on the negotiation
table by then, in the parliamentary elections in the South. As a
result, a leader who was opposing the Annan plan became the president
in the Greek side and the prospect for the approval of the plan was
in jeopardy. On the eve of the plan’s referendum in both sides of
the island, the EU and the US announced that the party which voted
in favor of the plan would be rewarded whereas the one which voted
negatively would face the consequences. Significant promises were
given especially to the Turkish side. It was promised that direct
talks would be initiated with the TRNC and the isolation on the
Turkish side would be lifted, provided that the TRNC voted in favor.
The Turkish side overwhelmingly voted in favor of the Annan Plan. The
situation was exactly the opposite in the Greek part. The Greeks
overwhelmingly voted against the plan. TRNC and Turkey were hopeful
about the results. It was hoped that the Greek side, which voted
“no”, would face the consequences whereas the promises given to the
Turkish side would be realized.
To demonstrate their goodwill, Turkish Cypriots not only voted “yes”
in the referendum but also opened the borders with the South. They
allowed the passage of all Greek Cypriots to the North. So, the Greeks
personally saw that there were people in the North and that Turks were
human beings just like Greeks. But the promises were soon forgotten and
it was the party who refused the plan, not the one with the goodwill,
which was rewarded. The Greek Cypriot Administration was admitted
in the EU as the representative of the Republic of Cyprus on May 1,
2004. The Turkish Cypriots were left outside. Thus, the confidence
crisis between Turks and the EU peaked.
It has been more than two years since the referendum was carried out.
The isolation of the Turkish Cypriots still continues. However, the
Greek Cypriots do not even attempt to negotiate with the Turkish
side. Because the Greek side is an EU member and the problem has
become an issue between the EU and the Turkish Cypriots. The EU,
which was an “arbitrator”, has suddenly become “the other party” in
the problem. Likewise, the UN General-Secretary clearly stated that the
Cyprus’ membership to the EU caused a deadlock in the peace process.
Honestly, the EU’s admission of Cyprus, that is the Greek Cypriots
unilaterally, was madness. The admission caused deadlock on the
issue. This policy made it causeless for the Greeks to negotiate with
the Turkish side. However, much more madly and incomprehensible is
to condition Turkey’s membership on the Cyprus issue. To condition
Turkey’s membership on a problem that the UN was unable to settle for
42 years, that is, the Cyprus problem, is to never let Turkey into
the EU. It is to have no goodwill. It is to come up with reasons to
procrastinate Turkey. To demand new concessions from Turkey, though
Turkey has given all, still not stepping forward even an inch is to
act unjustly against Turkey. It is even mocking with Turkey. But
this isn’t surprising. There are countries which oppose Turkey’s
membership due to cultural reasons, and France and Austria are the
leading countries of this position. These countries can not prevent
Turkey’s membership on the basis of economic and political criteria.
Both the December 15 (2004) and October 3 (2005) summits have proved
that Turkey’s economy and democracy easily met the minimum requirements
of the EU. In this case, there is no reason left to impede Turkey’s
membership. There are only few obstacles left against Turkey as it
is evident that Turkish economy, the world’s 17th largest, performs
far better than Romanian and Bulgarian economies.
One of these obstacles is the Cyprus issue, and the other is the
Armenian problem. The Cyprus issue hasn’t been resolved for half a
century and the Armenian problem hasn’t been resolved for a century.
It seems that a solution is impossible with these conditions because
Turkey is told to “shut up and accept what is said”. Given that it is
almost impossible for Turkey to accept this situation, to condition
Turkey’s membership on the Cyprus and Armenian issues means that the
EU doesn’t want Turkey’s full membership.
The EU should be more sincere within this context. The procrastination
policy no more works. The EU violates its own rules one by one. It
makes up new criteria to leave Turkey outside and this harms EU more
than it harms Turkey. There is very little Turkey can lose at the end
of this process because Turkey has reached this level without the EU,
or even despite the EU. Hence, Turkey will not face much difficulty
if she proceeds without the EU from now on. But how easily can the EU
without Turkey proceed? We will cover this topic in our next comments.
–Boundary_(ID_HNMF68pV8P1JAOD2N/om0g)- –
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress