 |
||
| History early history 1964-1974 after 1974 Articles Documents
|
CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. 1959-1960
V. APPENDICES
Introduction Cyprus question remains a dilemma throughout its chronological journey from 1950s onward. The purpose of this study is not to deal with the entire history of Cyprus problem, or of the history of Greek-Turkish frictions or of Turkish-American relations. Rather it is a period study, concentrating on only a 15 year period, starting with the Zurich-London Agreements and ending with Turkey’s military intervention. The study also includes a brief history of America, Turkey and Cyprus triangle - and gives a summary of current issues. I have given more attention to the issues involved between the years 1959 and 1974. I have done this because the problem is so complex and so widely misunderstood especially this phase of its evolution has been completely ignored by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots. This period was decisive for the ossification of the Cyprus problem. Therefore a research into the events that took place during these years, will prove to be fruitful for the understanding of the essential nature of the Cyprus problem. The uneasy atmosphere of the 1959 and 1960 ended up with 1963, 1964, 1967, and 1974 crises. Therefore it would be sensible to examine these crises to understand the origin of the Cyprus problem and why it has remained on issue until the present. This is why I prefer to limit my study of the Cyprus issue by focusing only on these years. I strongly believe that initial diagnosis of the problem is vitally important for a healthy solution to be achieved. The Cyprus first appeared as a colonial issue at the U.N. General Assembly in 1954 and is still continues unresolved today. Parker T. Hart, the former U.S. ambassador to Turkey between the years 1965-1968, in his book Two NATO Allies at the Threshold of War, names the problems in Cyprus as the split personality of the island. The island has a split personality because throughout their history the two communities in the island had been brought up by the ideas of Enosis and partition on the one hand and the formation of their nationalities on the other. The fact of Cyprus’ being the homeland of two distinct peoples; Greek and Turkish Cypriots, contributed to the division of their identities. Besides the ethnic, religious, linguistic, racial, national, and social differences between the two communities, for many years they were not able to speak for themselves. Instead their motherlands did. Greek Cypriots speak Greek, are Orthodox Christians and share the culture of their motherland Greece, whereas Turkish Cypriots speak Turkish, are Muslims and assume their motherland Turkey’s values. Zurich and London agreements were imposed on Turkish and Greek Cypriots and they had no chance apart from signing them. When Makarios tried to form an independent nation in Cyprus, he met with the strong rejection of Greece. Furthermore, Unites States without considering the needs of the Cypriots, for many years saw the island as a conflict that may lead to a war between its two NATO allies. Turkish Government in the beginning of the problem tried not to intervene in the Cyprus question by saying that “Cyprus Problem is not the problem of Turks or Greeks, but the problem of Turkish and Greek Cypriots”. However this objectivity did not bring anything to Turkey up to the 1970s. On the other hand Greece, as their policy of Cyprus, tried to make the Cyprus problem a friction between the Turkey and themselves just after the 1950s. They claimed and still claim that Cyprus is a Greek island, and the people living on it are Greeks. Also by saying that Turkey invaded the island and forced Northern Greeks to migrate, they try to gain international support. The Turks objected to this claim by saying that it was the Greek army, that invaded the island on 15 July 1974, in order to unite Cyprus with Greece. They argued that they intervened in order to bring peace to the island and when this was achieved they said that they would leave the island. Turks justify themselves by arguing that if it had been an invasion, then they would have occupied the whole island. Unless there was an intervention the whole island would have been under Greek domination. Greece force international organizations to suppress Turkey to withdraw its forces from the island. Yet, Turkey says that there is no need to do such things and they claim that they would withdraw from the island when they believed that Turkish Cypriots were safe. They explain the reason for preserving their forces in Cyprus by basing their argument on the fact that Greek Cypriots are being heavily armed and support the terrorist attacks against the Turkish Republic by sheltering terrorist organizations in Cyprus. Also another Greek claim is that the Turks do not want the Cyprus problem to be resolved and, for this reason they sabotage the negotiations between Greek and Turkish sides. However this does not reflect the truth for the Turkish side. They argue that it had always been the Greek side who cut relations first. Another aim of Greek Government and Greek Cypriots is to carry the Cyprus problem to the International arena. By doing this they try to get the support of Third World Countries who dislike the Guarantor powers and problem causing minorities. Through following such a way Greeks desire to have the support of Russia. The Turkish Government on the other hand, would prefer to follow the United States desire to solve the Cyprus problem inside the region. The Greek Government by doing so aim to create problems for Turkey in every platform. It may be inferred that The Greek Government tries to publicise to the whole world that The Turks are irredentist people and they are a great threat to both Greece and Europe. The response of the Turkish government to such an accusation is very strict. They claim that Greece had extended its borders seven times against Turkey since its becoming an independent nation in 1832. The Turkish Government supplies historical evidence for this claim. According to the Turkish opinion Greeks make use of every situation to mitigate the position of the Turks. For example they resemble Saddam’s invading Kuwait to Turkey’s intervention in 1974. For Turks, Greece always acts as a spoiled child and in return gains some privileges. Greece is the country that loses in the battlefield, but gains victories during the negations. Turkey on the other hand have the image of accepting every proposal at the table proposed. Turkey’s foreign policy is based on a synthesis of a deep-rooted state tradition and the aspirations of contemporary Turkey. The basic principle of Turkish foreign policy is the motto “Peace at home and Peace in the World”. Turkey fully respects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all its neighbors and other countries of the world. The relationship between Greeks and Turks is very much influenced by the fact that the two peoples try to get rid of their Ottoman background. (Gürel, Tarihsel Boyut ,5) The fact that for many years they have lived together and shared a common experience brings them together rather than driving them apart. Although both countries are NATO allies, associates in the EU and have common values, that there are problems between them to be resolved between the two including the Cyprus problem; which is probably the central issue, should not affect their good neighbourly relations. Trying to put the blame on the other side both countries continue accusing each other by saying that the problems have been created by the other side. “Greece regards Turkey as its most serious security threat” (McCaskill 35) but should Turkey do the same thing. Assuming that the other country is the Washington’s favored ally in the region, one might lose a healty outlack on the problem which craves for solution. However Greek-Turkish relations play a major role in U.S.-Greek relations and Turkish-American relations. Ellen Laipson marks in her article “Cyprus: A Quarter Century of U.S. diplomacy” that “Cyprus is often cited as a major failure in the foreign policy of the Kissenger era and goes on to say that “Kissinger himself reportedly considers the crisis his greatest failure”. (McCaskill 41). Americans are aware of the fact that their Cyprus policy has been interrupted by the Turkish government both in 1974 intervention and their refusal to withdraw their troops from the island afterwards. In both cases Turkey is supposed to not to listen to America’s warnings. After such events U.S. decided not to get involved actively in the Cyprus issue but cooperated with and supported the United Nations Secretary General. In the first chapter of this study I aim at giving a brief summary of the history of Turkish-American relations and Cyprus itself. I also make an analysis of Turkey’s and Greece’s Cyprus policies up to the 1950s. In the second chapter, Zurich and London agreements and 1963, 1964, 1967 and 1974 crises will be examined in detail, because the periods of 1959-1974 are crucial in understanding the Cyprus problem. While putting this problem under scrutiny I will also try to point out to United States’ perspectives on this issue. The third chapter starts with American Arms Embargo towards Turkey, continues with the Turkish-American relations up to the 1980s and ends with the Cyprus policies of TRNC and the republic of Cyprus. In the conclusion part the justifications of each side is given; including the Turkey, Greece and America. |