 |
||
|
History Articles Documents
|
III. THE AFTERMATH A. AMERICA’S REACTION, THE ARMS EMBARGO. The Johnson Letter was the first signal that forced the Turkish government to reconsider its relations with America. However the second and stronger one came in 1975 when U.S. imposed an arms embargo on Turkey. It also has changed irrevocably certain notions that the Turks had taken for granted. Although the embargo had been imposed by the U.S. Congress over obligations from the Administration, the Turkish public could understand neither this distinction nor the logic behind this move. (Embassy of the Rep. of Turkey, Washington D.C. http://www.mfa.gov.tr/GRUPF/abd.htm) Such an action of course weakened the military strength of the second largest ground force in NATO and suspended the use of bases in Turkey.” (Hart 134) America’s justification for the embargo was that Turkey had used American supplied arms during the peace operation in Cyprus. Under need that decision was the effect of Greek lobbying which argued that such an action was against the rules of U.S. Foreign Assistance Act. However the supporters of this argument ignored the fact that the Greek Cypriots had been using U.S-supplied NATO arms against Turkish Cypriots for over eleven years and that the Greek and Greek Cypriot forces were still using them against the Turks. (Denktash, Cyprus Triangle 78) Denktash interpreted embargo as a mistake because the supply of American arms to Turkey was not a favor but an essential obligation under a military defense alliance. Furthermore embargo did not contribute to the solving of the Cyprus problem but resulted in the mitigating of NATO’s southern flank. B. TURKISH-AMERICAN RELATIONS, 1975-1980. As the nature of Turkish-American relations during the cold-War period, was completely based on the military cooperation and economic assistance, the embargo was not welcomed in Turkey. As a retaliation Turkey turned towards the Soviet Union. After the arms embargo was lifted there seemed to be no frictions left between Turkey and America. At that point one can make an assumption that Turkish-American relations changed due to the American-Soviet relations. When the latter was good America did not feel the necessity of taking Turkey to its side. However when the relations of the two world powers deteriorated America always sided with Turkey. In the case of Cyprus, United States’ involvement had neither benefited U.S. nor helped Greeks or Turks on Cyprus. ....U.S. policy has discouraged both Greece and Turkey from taking primary responsibility upon themselves for the management of their relations and has increased their government’s vulnerability to domestic partisan pressures. (Henze 49). C. THE BIRTH OF THE TRNC AND ITS POLICY. Turkish Cypriots held hostages for eleven years, 1963-1974, in their homeland without being represented in the government established by 1960 treaties. During these years United Nations Peace-Keeping Force tried to provide security for Turkish Cypriots, however it did not help. Starting from the very beginning Turkish Cypriots wanted to co-exist in peace with Greek Cypriots and to share the responsibilities of a bi-zonal and bi-communal government. But all their efforts to negotiate failed and with the collapse of the negotiating process in 1983, Turkish Cypriots established the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. (TRNC) The proclamation emphasized that the declaration of statehood was a manifestation of the right of self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot people. (METU http://w3.metu.edu.tr:8080/ncyprus/cyp7.html) However the Security Council of the U.N. adopted resolution 541, that described the attempt to create TRNC as “legally invalid” and called for the withdrawal of the Declaration of Independence and asked all countries not to recognize the new republic. (METU http://w3.metu.edu.tr:8080/ncyprus/ cyp7.html) While determining their foreign policies, both TRNC and the Republic of Cyprus, had difficulties. “They struggled with the question of how much their foreign policies should be determined by the foreign policy interests and resources of the in motherlands” (Solsten 199). TRNC by the end of 1980s started to break out of its isolation. D. POLICY OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS. Starting with 1974, the policy of the Greek Cypriots became gaining power in order to win an international support to withdraw the Turkish troops from the island and to restore a single government on the island. They continued and are still continuing to enjoy the possibilities of being a recognized legal government. IV. CONCLUSION. According to the Greeks and Greek Cypriot’s the Cyprus Problem simple, in its essence, has been complicated through foreign intervention and has grown into a major dispute between Turkey and Greece. They accuse great powers for not having pressed Turkey hard enough to put an end to its aggressive policy against a small state. They argue that the “ill-conceived abortive anti-Makarios coup” and the Turkish invasion of July and August 1974, resulting in the displacement of some 2000,000 Greek Cypriots, indicate that humanity can not let the Cyprus Problem drag on unresolved for much longer. They put forward the demands of most countries that the foreign intervention and foreign military presence must cease and Cyprus must be left alone to settle its own problems. They blame Turkish government for turning a deaf ear to all these calls. (Hellenistic http://www.hri.org/Cyprus/Cyprus-Problem/p-introduction.html) McCaskill pointed out in his essay, that Cyprus does not have a very high priority in Washington these years. In contrast to former years when they spent considerable time looking for a solution, Cyprus has come to be regarded as a problem to be solved rather than as a situation to be managed. (43) Today America’s policy of Cyprus is to support the UN Secretary General’s proposals since they feel that that offers the greatest chance of success. However in the beginning United States preferred the de-internalization of the Cyprus question, and finding solutions away from the United Nations, that is, through NATO and bilateral negotiations between Greece and Turkey. “The United States did utilize the U.N. in Cyprus in order to legitimize solutions that served its broader politico-strategic interests, or when there were no other alternatives available” (Coufoudakis 65). Therefore the failure of NATO mediation and Turkey’s right to intervene as one of the guarantors, brought about the stationing of the UNFICYP in March 1964. Turkish government supports a negotiating process in Cyprus and admits that it would continue to support the legitimate rights of the Turkish Cypriots arising from the international agreements. In the past Turkish Government insisted on guarantees to assure the security of the Turkish Cypriots but today Greek Cypriots demand the same thing by indicating the presence of Turkey. Turkey has been stating that it must have unilateral intervention rights in Cyprus; it must have a military presence on the island, and be the guarantor of the Cypriot constitution. Today the Greek government and both Greeks and Greek Cypriots are under the influence of the Greek Orthodox Church, which still continues to dream of ultimate union between Greece and Cyprus in spite of all that has happened. Greek Cypriots are still encouraged to believe that Enosis, is a credible possibility and that the support of the idea is their national duty. The Government of Cyprus wants the formation of an international conference that would deal with the international dimensions of the Cyprus problem, meaning the withdrawal of the Turkish troops, the withdrawal of the Turkish settlers, and the question of the international guarantees. They also demand a high-level meeting between the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot sides to discuss the implementation of the so-called three freedoms- the right to move freely across the lines dividing the north and the south; the right to own property; and the right to settlement. A solution to the Cyprus question has to be fair, and realistic and should be based on the political and sovereign equality of Turkish-Greek Cypriots communities. The fact that negotiations and intercommunal talks have been going on since 1968, with intervals, does not encourage both communities to expect an immediate settlement. Coufoudakis in his article argues that the only solution to the Cyprus problem is to find a workable, reasonable, federal solution for Cyprus that can be negotiated freely, without the threat of force directly between the Cyprus Government on the one hand and the Turkish Cypriots on the other. (73) The Turkish Cypriot people and the Greek Cypriot people are the co-owners of Cyprus and the island is the common home of both peoples. Turkish Cypriots believe that the statusqou could be replaced by a viable solution mutually accepted by both sides. They make some of their ideas and suggestions public with the hope that they will receive a positive response from the Greek Cypriot side. They remain committed to a viable bi-communal and bi-zonal federal solution as set out in high-level agreements. The Turks are of the opinion that for the establishment of a federal relationship, first and foremost, there is the need to create an environment of mutual trust, cooperation and partnership between the partners. Turkish Cypriots believe that a viable settlement in Cyprus can only be achieved through dialogue and negotiations. (Embassy of the Rep. of Turkey, Washington D.C. http://home.imc.net/turkey/p-cypr12) Turkish Cypriots want to live in peace with Greek Cypriots as an equal people and support the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation based on the political equality of the two parties. An opportunity of such a thing was missed in 1983 and 1986. Also in the negotiations that have taken place in 1988 and 1990, there was disappointment. What is apparent from after thirty-three years of negotiations, summits and informal and formal talks, is that there is still a lack of communication between the two communities in the island. They look as if they desire the same things, however they mean different issues while the terminology is the same. For example both Communities look for an independent country, but the understanding of independence differ for both sides. Whereas Turkish side means the continuation of the Guarantor rights of Turkey, the Greek Cypriots take independence as getting rid of the 1960 Treaties. As far as this lack of communication continues, none can find the answer of the question. |