THE CYPRUS ISSUE

upa-admin 07 Eylül 2015 2.429 Okunma 0
THE CYPRUS ISSUE

If a stone falls on the egg, alas for the egg. If the egg  falls on a stone, alas for the egg.” – A Cypriot proverb

One of the most important conflicts that has promising spectators and also have different parties that has involved might be considered as the “Cyprus Issue”. The island has its importance mostly from the geopolitical position. It is not the bloodiest or deep rooted conflict one at all. Actually our world had seen and keeps seeing more robust conflicts. All countries that have interests on the island are seeking their own benefits which causes to stalemate towards the peace. On this paper, author put a determinant position on London-Zurich Conferences, which were held in 1959 and try to open up the Annan Plan while analyzing the mutual hostilities.

Incidents that are started after the Second World War were followed by the birth of the Cyprus Republic, 1960’s inter-communal clashes and Turkish military intervention in 1974. But in order to understand better, a researcher needs to analyze the treaties and plans which had prepared by similar actors, especially the Annan Plan. Why it was rejected? Who did accept it? To what motives? Motives behind voting the Annan Plan were also very enlightening and helpful for understanding the clashes between two communities. As a matter of fact, the Annan Plan comes as the most detailed and constructive plan has ever been made to solve the conflict. Status quo was mostly defended by the leaders and intentions to solve the problem seemed to be the determinant in the problem solving.

Cyprus from the early ages

Cyprus has always been a land in eye; early records showed that Hittites ruled it and bunch of handovers took place between Hittites and Ancient Egypt till 15th BC (Tuncer, 2005, p. 45). Phoenicians conquered Cyprus from Egyptians in 1000 BC and ended nearly 450 years Egyptian rule. Phoenicians had owned the island till 709 BC, when the islanders asked for Assyrian protection and even paid taxes (Tuncer, 2005, p. 46). From that point, the island was exchanged between different polities, which were successively; Persians, Ptolemies, Byzantines, Franks, Venetians, Ottomans and British. Although there were many states to rule Cyprus, only two of them succeeded to have significant impact on Cyprus in a manner of demography or culture, Greeks and Ottomans (Joseph, 1997, p. 16). Greeks started to migrate to the island during 12th BC while Turks started to settle by big groups just after the conquest of the Cyprus by the Ottomans in 1571. However, Turkish scholar Erol Manisalı claims that Turks who were fleeing from united Anatolia under Ottoman rule ended up on Cyprus and formed the early Turkish communities (Manisalı, 2003, p. 16). Some analysts or actors can make such claims that arrival to the island or population amount on the island could be determinant to solve the conflict. However, these claim never to be healthy to solve such an intense situation. Who migrated before or after should not mean who is the real owner of the island and who does not have a slice of authority on her.

Turco-Russian War and Congress of Berlin

Following to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, under Cyprus Convention, which is signed at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, the Sultan ceded Cyprus to Britain. Britain gained the right to administer and occupy the island while the property rights stayed to the Ottoman Sultan. In exchange, Britain accepted to defend Ottoman lands from the Russian threat. Not long before this convention, Ottomans were defeated to Russians in 1877-1888 Turco-Russian war and forced to sign the Treaty of Ayestefanos on March 3rd 1878, which caused a great threat and costed a great deal to the Ottomans. Consequently, Britain was highly concerned with the Treaty since Russia would become a serious threat to Britain’s trade routes and interest on the way to India and Pacific. Britain and Austria got involved and forced Russia to a sign a much softer treaty than Berlin, which would ease the previous conditions. For this reason, Ottoman Sultan accepted British occupation in Cyprus. Britain had got the administration of an important piece of land on the Mediterranean Sea, by which she can easily defend her colonies and dominions and once again Britain balanced “the balance”.

According to the convention signed on June 4th 1878, Britain would rule and occupy the island; annexed to the precedent convention on July 1st 1878, which was signed by Ottoman’s Foreign Minister Saffet Paşa and Layard, Britain’s Ambassador in Istanbul, specific regulations on pious foundations and incomes and taxes. The most important article of the annexation was “If Russia restores to Turkey and the other conquest made by her in Armenia during last war, the island of Cyprus will be evacuated by the England, and the convention the 4th June, 1878, will be at an end.” Other articles in relation with incomes, taxes and pious foundations were put to the social framework. As a matter of fact, neither the article nor the treaty should be kept in mind, while seeking a resolution to the conflict since Britain abolished the convention and annexed Cyprus illegally in 1914, when the Ottoman Empire had joined to the Central Powers and Turkey, as a successor state to the Ottoman Empire, accepted this c’est en fait at the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

British rule on the island

Under the British rule, there were no serious demographic changes on the island and the bi-communal character of the island was formed and consolidated. In 1960’s, the population was roughly 80 percent Greek Cypriots to 20 percent Turkish Cypriots and other small ethnic groups like Armenians, Maronites, and Latins. According to a Greek Cypriot scholar, Giorgos Zacharia, the problem was started by the anti-colonial struggle triggered in 1955. Due to a general belief, between 1878 and 1955, all Cypriots intermingled and lived in peace and harmony, but when the anti-colonial struggle started and Turkish Cypriots did not involve in it the way Greeks expected was seen as treason. By the way, anti-colonial struggle was determined under idea of enosis, union of the island with the Hellenic Kingdom. Apart from all, Joseph S. Joseph, the author of “Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics”, believes that antagonism between two ethnicities was deepened under British divide and rule policy. National holidays differed, Greek Cypriots fought on side of Greeks and Turkish Cypriots fought on the Ottoman side during the Balkan Wars and Turkish War of Independence (Joseph, 1997, p. 18). This is a serious claim to make, which seems to be true and might be determinant in the antagonism. During 1950’s the only solution for the Greek Cypriots and Greece was enosis whereas Turkish Cypriots defended partition (taksim) of the island between Turkey and Greece. Greece applied to the UN General Assembly for five consecutive times from 1954 to 1958; however, Britain was seeing it as her sovereignty issue and did not intend to accept a solution from the international community.

However, in late 1950’s Britain’s thoughts to the island started to change for several reasons; the bloodiest anti-colonial revolt was performed by the Greek Cypriots which were led by Orthodox Church Archbishop Makarios and founder of the underground armed organization (EOKA) General George Grivas, global pressure especially by Eastern bloc and Third World countries, UN involvement  in the name of a broaden anti-colonial movement and decolonization phenomenon during 1950’s, United States of America’s concern over the island came into force as a motivation towards to heal a “festering sore” at the South Eastern part of her western alliance. One also needs to keep in mind that British powers as being global actor were being diminished after the WW II and she had been retreating from her colonies with some sort of anti-colonial struggles, just like in Cyprus. 1956 Suez Canal crisis was only a symbolic act that her 19th C. flamboyance did not exist anymore.

London and Zurich Agreements

Early in 1959, tripartite talks were held between Britain, Greece and Turkey in Zurich and an agreement was reached to establish an independent state of Cyprus. Final agreements were made by three state and two Cypriot communities in London on 19th of February, 1959. According to Zurich and London Agreements three treaties were signed by relevant states; Treaty of Establishment aimed to defend Britain’s military interest on the island, Treaty of Alliance was a defense pact between Greece, Turkey and Republic of Cyprus, Treaty of Guarantee granted Turkey, Greece and Britain the right to intervene jointly or unilaterally to the island if the status quo which was created by the treaties is to be in danger. The Treaty of Guarantee was the most problematic one between three and the main aim was to prevent either enosis or partition of the island. Under those conditions republic was founded on 16th of August, 1960. All administrative structure was built in order to the constitution. The President of the Republic of Cyprus was a Greek Cypriot, Archbishop Makarios whereas Vice-President was a Turkish Cypriot, Fazıl Küçük. The republic was a federal state and nearly all decision making process were held in separately. The constitution was successfully formed the bi-communal federative republic, which also were causing inefficiency and malfunctioning of the state. House of Representatives were doing meeting in English notwithstanding Makarios and Küçük were not very competent about the language.

Republic is in danger

In 1963, President Makarios proposed an amendment to the constitution but Vice-President Küçük vetoed the proposal under the pretext of that amendment only proposed in order to cripple Turkish Cypriots position in the republic and Turkish Cypriots retreated from the government. At this point, Akritas Plan was introduced secretly by Greek Cypriots. It was detailed program analyzing the deadlock within the decision making organ and represent Turkish Cypriots as the responsible from it. According to the plan Turkish community must be eliminated and enosis must be realized. It was secret because Greek Cypriots was worried about Turkey to intervene to island (Öymen, 2007, p. 438; Tuncer, 2002, p. 92). On January 1st 1964, Makarios declared that Greek Cypriots seceded from the treaties sign at the end of the London and Zurich Conferences. After this decision of Greek Cypriots, 1963-64 incidents happened and lots of Turks and Greeks were killed. Turkish Cypriots moved to the northern part of the island and founded a self-determining organ and the island practically separated from this point.

To the separated Cyprus

From 1967 to 1974, Cyprus fragmented and divided gradually and numerous attempts to re-establish the peace remained inconclusive. On 15th of July, EOKA leader Nikos Sampson staged a coup d’etat against Makarios and claimed himself as the new president of “Hellenic Republic of Cyprus”. Nevertheless, Turkey had decided to intervene and operated a military quest oriented from the fourth article of the Treaty of Guarantee. After a very short while junta at the Greece had dismantled and Makarios returned to the presidency of Cyprus. On 13th of February 1975, Cyprus Turkish Federal State was established and UN Security Council disapproved it with a declaration. On February 12th 1977, new Turkish leader Denktaş and Makarios agreed on four articles of principle which was mainly about establishing an independent, impartial federal republic on the island. Those articles would constitute the core principles for the next talks and negotiations, which was meant to solve the separation to the island. On 3rd of August 1977, Makarios had passed away and Markos Kyprianou replaced him as the new leader of the Greek Cypriots. Kyprianou stood against the four articled principle which were signed by Makarios, and the negotiations deadlocked once again when people’s hope were stirred up. Under those circumstances Turkish Cypriots founded Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) on November 15th of 1983. On 18th of November 1983, UN Security Council adopted a resolution no. 541 to deplore declaration of the independence of TRNC and condemned the independence and called it illegal and asked for an urgent withdrawal, also declared it incompatible to the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960. Resolution called upon all states to not recognize any other state than the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey was the only recognizer of the TRNC, who faced multiple economic embargoes due to this recognition.

Attempts to unite the island

From 1984 to 1993, UN spearheaded to negotiation talks between TRNC and South, two de Cuellar plans and Boutros-Boutros Ghali’s “set of ideas” were to be rejected. In 1997, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called two communities for talks and two meeting were held in New York and Switzerland, where Annan’s plan was negotiated. Despite parties did not accept to go through with the plan, Annan forced for a referendum simultaneously and separately in two side of the island. In 2004, Greek part of the island rejected the plan by 75 percent, while Turkish Cypriots voted for “yes” by 64.9 percent. The parties left the talks and status quo was protected until 2008, when the new Greek Cypriots president, Christofias was elected. From that point of time, every now and then negotiations were held but no one can say there is a bit progress towards unification and solution of the problem.

EU’s entering to the picture

During 1990’s a third international organization besides UN and NATO started to intervene to the dispute; European Union (EU). Before 1990’s EU saw the problem as in UN’s authorization, however, after the Dublin summit in 1990, EU started to diagnose her relation with Turkey over Cyprus dispute (Öymen, 2006, p. 462). On July 3rd 1990, Southern Cyprus applied to the EU’s membership process and accession begun as the representative of the whole island. Turkey and Turkish Cypriots stated that the island was practically divided and application was against to the Treaty of Alliance, which was signed on 1960. This was also the general perspective from the experts on international law. After all, Southern part of the island achieved to become a full-member to the EU in 2004 as “Republic of Cyprus”.

Origin of the conflict

The dispute is very much related to the Greek-Turkish rivalry. Greeks were the first nation that gained independence from the Ottoman Empire. Greek revolt started in 1821, and Greece became an independent nation in 1830. Before the nationalism movement which was seen with the effects of French Revolution, communities were partially autonomous according to millet system. At that point, one needs to remind that Greek Cypriots were also very much motivated with the idea of Greek independence, and they share the same nationalistic ideas with their brothers and sisters in Greece. Greek Cypriots helped the movement, provided volunteers, money and arms, as well as declared enosis for the first time (Öymen, 2006, p. 406).

Greek Cypriots constitutes approximately 80 percent while Turkish Cypriots 20 percent, by small groups of Maronites, Latins and Armenians (Joseph, 1997, p. 16). One also needs to keep in mind that during the Balkan Wars and Turkish War of Independence two communities on the island fought on the side of their kins. The island could not be subjected to a physical rivalry until 1955, but there were always the proxy tensions which were originated from Turkey-Greece rivalry.

Tolerance and empathy are two determinants in peacemaking and they come with education as well as connection. In 1920’s, in Cyprus, two communities were having different education systems, law enforcements, ideologies and religious practices. Either communities were playing national anthems and using flags of their motherlands while celebrating their national holidays. Greeks and Turkish Cypriots built their national sentiments against the rivalry to each other. 400 years of residence on the same island should be enough to produce inter-communal bonds between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Joseph, 1997, p. 18). However, physical intermingling lacked between two ethnicities. This fragmented condition provided very dangerous environment, yet bloody clashes have to wait for another 30 years.

Britain, after occupied the island, did not have any intensions to merge the two communities. Besides when she was ruling, merging would not the best for the interest of the Empire. British were very much famous with her “divide and rule” policy in order to protect her need and interests on her colonies. Cyprus was no different than any colony so she divided and ruled. During early years of British administration, Greek Cypriots declared their motivations and intentions about island’s annexation to Greece. Britain, while not allowing any national enthusiasm, she reminded to Turkish Cypriots that they also were the equal essence and their consent should be also taken while Greek Cypriots claiming any decisions towards to future to the island. Turkish Cypriots were very fond of the Kemalist idea but Greek nationalism was more settled than Turkish nationalism during the inter-war era.

Internationalization of the dispute

Before WWII, Britain saw the Cyprus issue as her own domestic problem. But after the big war, international conditions changed so did Britain’s perspective against Cyprus. In 1955, Britain invited Greece and Turkey to the London Conference in order to interview the Cyprus issue and she was keen enough to think dragging Turkey into already international conflict (Öymen, 2006, p. 418). Britain wanted to benefit from the clash between Greece and Turkey and this brought another dimension to the issue. Now two NATO allies would be turning to each other. On the other hand, USA, as an important actor on Western Alliance, forced counterparts to solve the problem immediately, due the fact that USSR was getting involved to the island. AKEL, Greek Cypriots’ communist party linked to communist international and was putting pressure upon Makarios, while he was up to being the new leader of the international Non-Align movement (Joseph, 1997, p. 23).

In 1960, Cyprus Republic was proclaimed and the constitution was prepared according to the three founding treaties, which were negotiated and signed due to the rightful concerns and diplomatic achievement of Turkey. Turkish Cypriots were willing equal political recognition and treatment that they deserve and seek since the colonial time. On the other hand the fragmentation in living conditions, education, municipalities and law enforcement were causing inefficiencies in state functioning. Especially in tax regime two communities could not be in the same page, which would cause impatience from Greek Cypriots towards Turkish Cypriots. But one should consider Turkish Cypriots were few with respect to Greek Cypriots and under another regime oppressing them would be easily done. As a matter of fact 13 points of constitution amendment proposal were to be seen equalitarian in representational terms yet lifting political equality and protection over Turkish Cypriots would cause unwilling scenes. Consequently, 1964 would a date for a much more divided Cyprus, yet who was not united all.

Dean Acheson’s Plan

Acheson plan, which was presented by American Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1964, stands like the most possible solution scenario of all. The plan proposed that Cyprus would be ceded to Greece under the condition of Karpasia peninsula, which is the northern part of the island, and Kastellorizio (Meis) to be given to Turkey. Semi-independent Turkish zones would be established throughout the island and foreign commissioners to be appointed in order to safeguard the granted rights to the Turkish community in the Greek part of the island. The plan was seen as “as double enosis” which would fulfill the enosis that Greeks wanted and covered also the partition that demanded by Turkey. The plan was rejected by Greek Cypriots wherefore they wanted the whole island to be part of the Greece. While First Acheson Plan was accepted by Turkish community, Second Acheson plan was rejected while Turkey was inclined that the plan is to be passed.

Turkey’s perspective

Besides being concerned over Turkish Cypriots’ rights and safety, Turkey was considering her own defense and security outcome. Defense of her southern flank is very much related to condition on the island due to her geographical stance to Anatolia. The importance of the island was not just for Turkey but also for NATO and Western allies in order to protect their interest towards Middle East from a potential Soviet threat. Turkey’s point on the issue stated by Fatin Rüştü Zorlu in 1955, London Conference: “Island of Cyprus has a great importance on Turkey’s defense and security manners. If Cyprus would not be considered in wartime, Turkey’s sustainability on her capacity and strength would not be supplied” (Öymen, 2006, p. 149). Under these circumstances, a military base up in the north and pretty enough lands for Turkish Cypriots to live and rights to be protected in other parts of the Turks would be seen as an ideal plan. However, Greek Cypriots leadership did not accept a single plan until 1960’s, apart from the Plaza Plan, which was presenting overwhelmingly Greek thesis.

The Annan Plan

Last concrete plan of all was presented by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary of General succeeded Egyptian diplomat Boutros-Boutros Ghali in 1996. The plan was revised five times due to the harsh negotiations and mutual intolerance. The final plan was to unite the island under the name of “United Cyprus Republic”, covering the whole island but British military bases, and to be constituted as a federation and two constituent states of Turkish Cypriot state and Greek Cypriots state to be joined under the federal government apparatus. Weak central power was in the agenda of the UN as well as strong and extensive power on areas like education and religion that the independence should be shared by two states with abolishing both enosis and partition. A Presidential Council which would be formed according to the population ratio, six voting members in order to choose President and the Vice-President of the Republic. A bi-cameral legislature, an Upper House with 48 members, 24 members from each community would be constituted. A Chamber of Deputies, 48 members, was to be formed due to the population ratio. A Supreme Court would be appointed by the Presidential Council, equally distributed Turkish and Greek Cypriot members and three foreign commissioners. A Reconciliation Commission was to be founded in order to bring to communities together and to find a solution to the remaining disputes. Guarantorship would be remained within the Treaty of Guarantee. No restrictions on freedom of movement while freedom over property ownership and settlement was restricted in respect with bi-communal character of the state, yet this prohibition would be in operation till Turkey joins to the EU. Territorial adjustments would be 72:28 ratio in favor of Greek Cypriots, 45000 listed settlers/immigrants would be allowed to stay on the island origined both from Turkey or Greece. According to the plan, most complex issue was the future of the displaced people. Some of them would be settled in the new territories while rest would be either compensated or would be given back their own properties. Turkey and Greece would both acquire military bases and the plan would allow them to station 6000 units in the short run. In the long run, withdrawal of the foreign troops would be in process and they would return to their numbers in the 1960 treaties, which were 650 Turkish units to 800 Greek units. Furthermore, each federal state should be seen as equal political partners which should be bi-zonal partnership while enjoying a common future intention to ensure peace, security and prosperity under a united independent Cyprus. United Cyprus Republic should have good relations with Turkey and Greece, and looking forward to EU accession, which would include whole Cyprus and the overall solution, would be united into acquis communautaire.

According to Ahmet Sözen and Kudret Özersay, who are the authors of “The Annan Plan: State sucession or continuity”, the plan was the most adequate in order to both community to accept it because it was the natural end and the evolved product of the former ones as well as being the most comprehensive and detailed plan to issue the Cyprus conflict (Sözen & Özersay, 2007, p. 138). The authors claim the plan might not be the most ideal but a feasible one, did not allow maximization of the demands of the conflicting parties. The further claim was the plan created neither a new state nor allow the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus and would made impossible the former concerns to reappear.

Problems in the Annan Plan

The Annan Plan might seem as adequate, yet it was created as 9000 page and before fully negotiated and accepted, was put in front of the people of the island as a referenda. First of all the plan was very detailed to be in referenda and even 200 pages summary were not read and known by the leadership of the two communities. Under those conditions the plan was voted by two communities separately. While leadership of two communities was asking from their people to vote “No”, Turkey was putting pressure in order to pass the plan. From 1990’s when the EU started to see the dispute in Turkey’s responsibility, she put a pressure on Turkey to solve 30 years of division. EU recognized the origin of the problem as Turkish intervention while it is clear that military operation brought peace to the island. Turkey’s membership candidacy to the EU altered her idea towards the Cyprus dispute. From this point, Turkey started to see Cyprus as an obstacle to her prestige to towards international community and to her accession to the EU. In 1999, Turkey was recognized as a candidate for full-membership to the EU in Helsinki Summit and negotiations were started in 2005, a year after the Annan Plan referenda.

Referenda on the plan

Separated and simultaneous plan was held on 24 April 2004. Papadopoulos and Denktaş had campaigned “No” while Talat, then Prime Minister of TRNC, was campaigning “Yes” and feeling a strong support from Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s premier. Apart from Turkey’s pressure, the attractiveness of a possible accession to the EU made Turkish Cypriots community to vote “Yes”, while Greek Cypriots voted “No”. Practically the plan was not to put into power. Furthermore the EU accepted a fragmented and divided state as their new member in spite of the conditions above.

What motives are behind?

According to a survey made by Ahmet Sözen between 1997 and 2005, motives of the two communities were different. No concession willing to be made and the solutions to be accepted in a manner of win-win (Sözen & Özersay, 2007, p. 19). Greek Cypriots preferred a unitary state or strong federation and they favored 80:20 ratios in the state representation. Greeks also did not want to see Turkish military troops to be settled on the island and they wanted to quit from the Guarantorship Treaty, which would cause again a potential intervention of Turkey. Greek Cypriots looked to the freedoms essential in order to break down the bi-communal character of the island and wanted at least 75 percent of the island. About displaced people, Greek Cypriot leadership imposed return of their old properties and they strongly opposed the remaining of the Turkish settlers who were come after 1974. Turkish Cypriots were more willing to accept a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation and two sovereign consistent politically equal states while they preferred 50:50 ratios in the legislatorial representation. Turkish Cypriots considered Turkish military presence as a guarantee for peace and obstacle to Greek domination and also they see the Treaty of Guarantorship as sine qua non. In a loose federal state, Turkish Cypriots wanted 29 percent of the island and in order to solve the problem of the displaced people they were in favor of paying economic compensation instead. Turkish Cypriots also did not want to send back Turkish settlers while defending human rights and on being conscious that their leave would change the population measures drastically.

At that point, motives against voting also needed to be clarified. Greek voted “no” because their expectations were high and they did not see any of their conditions to be augmented. Turkish settlers/immigrants were to be stay on the island and Turkish troops would leave the island gradually. Greeks reservations on them were hard to be fulfilled. The plan was also seen by the huge majority of the island by a falsely designed apparatus which was pioneer of the secret diplomacy and lacked stating the true problems of the Cypriot communities. Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan because abolition of the embargo and ending of the isolation were very tempting. They were sure that better living standards were waiting them after the unification, plus the EU membership.

Cyprus today

Leaders of the islands and embargo tired Turkish Cypriots tend to change their ideas and ease their reservations in order to achieve to a fully united and independent state. However, the situation remained nearly the same if we look at last ten years. The southern part of the island entered to the EU but none of their problems seen to be changed. The living conditions of the Turkish Cypriots are better than the EU citizen Greek Cypriots and the democratic impasse is to be seen. Especially during last five years, with the Greece bailout dispute and fiscal breakdown, Greek Cypriots are also face-to-face with bad moral, economic stagnation and social unrest. Although, borders are opened for several years small numbers of Greek Cypriots are passing to the northern part of the country. This is the news of two communities still do not trust one and another.  Turkish military presence seems to be still the core difference in two perspectives.

A new hope for solution?

After the election of 2015, when Mustafa Akıncı was elected as the new president of TRNC, unification talks started with a high motivation and it seems that Akıncı is willing to solve this dispute under his term. The prestige that would bring to the leader who solved the problem is tremendous and Anastasiadis, the Greek Cypriot leader, also wants to enjoy it alongside with Akıncı. Nevertheless, Turkey’s interest on the island still remains and Turkey only would allow the unification under the condition of Turkey being full-member to the EU. The Cyprus issue, from the Turkish perspective, it was not altered in years and under different governments. During last sixty years lots of governments were appointed but the national stance towards to the Cyprus dispute remained as it was. UN and EU desire for an easy solution and the end of the separated situation of the island while NATO and USA are willing to maintain a balance between Greece and Turkey.

The End

Finally, Cyprus issue was the most fragmented and famous international dispute in the Middle of Europe, Africa and Asia. The problem is seen impossible to leave it to two founding ethnicities of the island. USA has its own concerns, while British, EU and UN have their own benefits. Geopolitical stance of the island made the problem more complex in order to resolve. The Annan Plan was the latest of the plans, but the conditions on the island turned the plan into a failure. More mutual interactions will be remedy of the problem, on the basis of tolerance and with a peaceful, constructive education. Moreover, healthy and impartial negotiation process is what Cyprus dispute need.

Basri Alp AKINCI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

– Joseph, S. Joseph, Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics, St. Martins Press, New York, 1997.

– Manisalı, Erol, Avrupa Kıskacında Kıbrıs, Derin Yayınları, İstanbul, 2003.

– Öymen, Onur, Silahsız Savaş: Bir Mücadele Sanatı Olarak Diplomasi, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul, 2006.

– Sözen, Ahmet & Özersay, Kudret, “The Annan Plan: State succession or continuity”, Middle Eastern Studies, 43: 1, pp. 125-141, 2007.

– Tuncer, Hüner, Kıbrıs Sarmalı: Nasıl Bir Çözüm?, Ümit Yayıncılık, Ankara, 2005.

http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/p_zurich.html.

http://web.deu.edu.tr/kibris/articles/app.html.

http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Treaty_of_Lausanne.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2839603.stm.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/annan-cyprus-problem_maps_26feb03.pdf.

http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_100001_09/04/2004_41606.

http://www.kyrenia.com/Documents/items/cyprus_convention_1878.htm.

http://www.conflictstudies.nl/access/wiki/site/conflictstudies/akritas%20plan.pdf.

Leave A Response »

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.