Gregoris Ioannou, interview by Maria Skora for “Political Critique:
magazine of politics and culture”
“Well, I
hope war doesn’t happen”
The Cyprus dispute: a latent conflict within the EU
Cyprus, an
island visited by approximately two millions of tourist a year. Enjoying its Mediterranean climate, little does one
realize how tragic its history is, marked with occupation and violence: first
under Ottoman rule, then as a British Crown Colony, and finally when in a
domestic conflict neighbours turned agains each other. This dramatic past is
still reflected in the present. It’s fair to say that the ongoing division
between the Republic of Cyprus and The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a
quasi-state without international recognition, is a conflict actually going on
within the European Union, of which many forgot or even are unaware of. In a
broader perspective, the Cyprus dispute shows at glance how an intersection of
big geopolitics, nationalism, and persisting physical division can scar a
society.
Before we
start talking about the future, let’s briefly look back. How exactly did it happen that today Cyprus remains a
divided country and formally remains in the state of conflict?
The division of Cyprus has its roots in the late colonial period. It was
a British Crown colony till 1960, and it was in the context of the
anti-colonial movement the Greek Cypriot community came into clash with the
Turkish Cypriots. It was a gradual process through the first half of the 20th
Century whereby the two communities in Cyprus were ethnized initially based on
religion and adopted separate national identities. They started to perceive
themselves as exclusive of each other - the Christian-Orthodox population,
which also was the majority, imagined itself as part of the Greek nation and so
were the Muslim Cypriots, imagining themselves as Turks, part of the Turkish
nation. In the 1950s it culminated when the Greek Cypriot leadership attempted
to unite with Greece, what the Turkish
Cypriots opposed and responded with the demand that the island should be
divided. In 1958, when the British decided to leave and started negotiating
transition, violence escalated and spread from the paramilitaries to the
population as well. Eventually, due to an agreement met by Greece and Turkey,
an independent state was launched, a sort of consociational republic, with bi-communal representation for all positions of power, a
Greek Cypriot president and Turkish Cypriot vice president, for example. The
British retained two sovereign military bases and left leaving a bi-communal
system based on political equality that needed consent to operate. Nevertheless,
it is important to mention that neither of the leaderships of both communities
believed in a bi-communal united Cyprus
and instead saw the Republic of Cyprus as a stepping stone towards their
national aims - Enosis, a complete union with Greece or Taksim, a permanent
partition of the island, for the Turkish Cypriots. There was mistrust,
unwillingness to abide by the constitution, violence erupted again, and by 1963
the bi-communal state collapsed, Greek Cypriots took control of the state and Turkish
Cypriots withdrew in enclaves.
To what extent geopolitical factors contributed to this status quo?
It’s important to keep in mind that even though the conflict was fueled
by nationalisms of the two communities, Cyprus was a high stake in a bigger geopolitical
game. We need to see the domestic issue with a relation to a broader
competition between Greece and Turkey for influence in the eastern
Mediterranean. Turkey opposed the possibility of Cyprus being annexed by Greece
for many reasons, security being one of them. Cyprus was considered to be, more
or less, in the western sphere of NATO influence. In 1959, when the independent
Republic of Cyprus was proclaimed, it did not become a NATO member. The
international agreement forming the balance of power at the moment of
establishing independent Cyprus was guaranteed by three NATO members: Greece,
Turkey and Britain, not NATO itself. So there was a relative balance between
Turkey and Greece, but it was disrupted in 1963. Then, only in 1974, a new
equilibrium was restored.
And how much the Cold War, if at all, influenced this process?
The Cold War has marked the Cyprus problem, too. Once the violence
started in the mid-1960s and the state collapsed, the United States revised its
position. Rather than supporting an independent, bi-communal republic as it was in the basic agreement,
they reckoned it would be better to have the island co-ruled by Greece and
Turkey, both NATO members. This was what framed the decade between 1964 and
1974, when the Republic was effectively left in the Greek Cypriot hands, under
the leadership of president Makarios, also an archbishop. Makarios, to avoid the American preference for increased
role of Greece and Turkey in Cyprus, opted for the Non-Aligned Movement and
closer relations with the Eastern Block. He was of course not left wing as he
was a bishop, but he developed this policy to prevent dividing the country
between Greece and Turkey. In 1974, when the Greek junta was trying to dictate
policies to Makarios and overthrow him, five days after the coup d’etat, the
Turkish army invaded the island and sealed its partition.
So what is Cyprus today? Do nationalisms of those patron
countries still persist or a genuine Cypriot identity has developed meanwhile?
1974 was a big thing as it completed the process of partition. It was
also significant regarding the ideologies and the building of identity. The
Greek Cypriots felt betrayed by Greece in 1974 and Enosis, the idea of
unification with Greece, was seen as something that could only bring disaster. Claiming the union
with Greece was fully discredited, and Greek Cypriot nationalism shifted from
the idea of Enosis to the idea of an independent Greek Cypriot state,
marginalising the Turkish Cypriot community and treating it as a political
minority. This was a gradual process under way since the late 1950s, prominent
in the period 1964-1974, and entrenched thereafter.
And the Turkish counterpart?
Among Turkish Cypriots, there was a similar trend taking even one step
further in the recent years. Turkish Cypriots initially welcomed the Turkish
intervention because as a smaller community they felt threatened by the bigger
Greek community. However gradually, over the years as the conflict froze, the
Turkish Cypriots found themselves isolated because as a non-recognized state
they don’t have any proper diplomatic relations. So when the Greek-Cypriot
controlled Republic of Cyprus applied for the EU-membership, the Turkish
Cypriots saw it as an opportunity to finally overcome isolation through
unification based on a federal bi-communal
model. The beginning of 21st century, years 2000-2004, were the time of mass
mobilisation against the traditional nationalist leadership and its project of
divided Cyprus. Majority supported the unification. But when negotiations
proceeded and eventually a peace plan was proposed by the UN, the Greek
Cypriots rejected the deal in a referendum.
Why?!
I could think of four main reasons. One is the idea that Cyprus is
essentially Greek and this peace plan was not accommodating
that view, allowing for political equality and power-sharing with Turkish
Cypriots. The second would be the fear of Turkey itself, and its possible influence on Cyprus. Then, there are
conjunctional reasons: economics and the EU. When it comes to the economy,
southern Cyprus was booming and
hence the fear of having to pay the costs of unification. The EU factor is more
interesting as the EU membership was seen in mythical terms – that the Greek
Cypriots would increase their leverage in the negotiations and expel Turkey from the island, together with the 1960 constitution.
But then is Greek and/or Turkish influence still tangible in Cyprus? Are
Greece and Turkey still trying to intervene in this conflict?
This is a good question. After 1974 the influence of Greece declined,
however, it has not evaporated. Cyprus is not a protectorate, but it is neither
fully independent. For example, the Greek state appoints the head of the army
of the Republic of Cyprus. The Greek flag is everywhere, education systems are
very connected. The foreign policy of the Republic of Cyprus is nominally
independent but never complete without the policy of Greece. So there is a
connection. The ongoing division legitimises the belief that having Turkey so
close cannot be dealt away without the backing of Greece. In the post-1974
reality, Turkey influences the north directly, and Greece has some indirect
influence in the south.
But as a non-recognized state, northern Cyprus must be far more
dependent on Turkey than the Republic on Greece?
Regarding northern Cyprus, in
Turkish imaginary, there was this idea of it as a place of the Turkish army who
fought the war for this land and therefore had political control over the
Turkish Cypriot leadership. However, with Erdogan, it has changed. First of
all, he is interested in the reunification of Cyprus. He does not see Cyprus as
a national issue like the military
Kemalists did. Erdogan sees Cyprus in diplomatic terms, as part of his
relations with the west. Once he came to power, the reunification of Cyprus
became really possible. Erdogan is of course not the same today as Erdogan back then - he was more moderate before taking on the
authoritarian route. However, his policy on Cyprus has not changed. He does not
seem interested in maintaining the status quo. He sees the situation as
creating unnecessary problems for Turkey. Nevertheless, with Erdogan the direct influence of
Turkey in northern Cyprus has
expanded, not in the old way of Kemalist style: population, settlers, army. Now
Turkish capital is flowing massively into northern Cyprus,
infrastructure is being built, workers are arriving. Northern Cyprus has actually transformed more in the
last decade than ever before. Furthermore, Islamic networks try to intervene in
the cultural dimension. Remember that Turkish
Cypriots are the most secular Muslims in the world.
So it’s been nearly 45 years of ongoing conflict: physical existence of
the division and constant presence of the military. I imagine the past traumas
must have an impact on society. How does the division of Cyprus influence
Greek- Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities?
How has the division affected the attitudes among both societies in the long
term?
I think the conflict has had a significant impact on society. The
traumas inflicted in the decade between 1964 and 1974 as well as the actual
invasion of 1974 have not been healed. They are cultivated and reproduced by
the power structures in both communities. It is essential to understand that
even though since 1974 the conflict is frozen, it sustains modes of thinking.
You need to see that in relation with the education system: because of the
conflict the education system is overtly nationalist, trying to prepare
children to be able to fight for their country and as male citizens to go serve
in the army (which is obligatory in both sides). And it is not only two
years that you serve in the military, then you go to the reserve and every
couple of months you go to one-day training. Be ready for war when it comes! On
the social level, the existence of the conflict also results in suppressing a
series of other issues and dominating the political scene. Other issues that
could be important are being brushed aside: we don’t have time for LGBTQ
rights, because we have a war going on. We don’t have time for class conflict
because we have an enemy at our door and need to be united. It is restricting
the society and confining political debates.
It is interesting you mention drafting only male citizens and the
constant alert to defend the fatherland. Here, in these patriarchal structures,
one could see parallels with Eastern Europe which also has a history of fights
for independence, what definitely influenced the gender contract and
understanding of male and female roles as citizens. Am I right?
Yes, the Cypriot society is quite patriarchal. Also, during the conflict
sexual violence was used as a weapon of war by paramilitary on both sides and
these are again not processed traumas. Today, women don’t have to serve in the
army, no Israeli concept is in place here, but they have to attend the civil
defence. It’s based on the idea that men fight and women support them.
Ok, but what are the positions of the main political actors in
northern Cyprus and in
the Republic of Cyprus then? What is the position of the Greek-Cypriot left? Is cooperation with
the Turkish-Cypriot left possible?
The Greek Cypriot left was the only political force in the Greek Cypriot
community that maintained contact with the Turkish Cypriot community and was
more oriented towards peace rapprochement. There is a connection because of the
internationalist ideology as well as the idea of prioritising “Cypriotness”, whereas the Greek Cypriot right-wing was more
nationalist, more Greek-centered and less willing to engage with other Cypriots
and compromise with them. However, there are peculiarities in the Greek Cypriot
political scene. The major right-wing party, member of the EPP and in
government now, has a liberal and a right-wing faction, which is much more
dominant. The liberal-oriented politicians have proven to be too week to
influence the policy, and in the last round of the negotiations, although
progress was made, we still didn’t come to the agreement, because there was not
enough political will in the ruling party to push towards an agreement with
Turkish Cypriot leadership.
And what about the Turkish Cypriot politics?
Two left-wing parties have been supporting the compromise. In northern Cyprus, there is a different political system,
a parliamentary one, whereas in the Greek Cyprus it’s presidential. In the
parliament in the north a coalition of left-wing and liberal parties was formed
but the president, who is solely responsible for negotiations, is a traditional
Cypriot peace-oriented leader. There were big hopes when he came to power and
hence the collapse of the talks in Switzerland in 2017 was a big disappointment.
So what are the possible scenarios for Cyprus?
I don’t see too many scenarios, only two are possible basically. One is
launching a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation, what has been negotiated for so
many decades now. In my view, this would be an ideal scenario because it would
allow the conflict to end. I don’t see that scenario happening in the next
years, though. The left is the only actor fully committed to reunification
through federation. On both
sides, that has not changed. What has changed is the power of the left. The
left in both the north and the south is weakened, it’s a global trend. The left
could start the unification - but it’s not strong enough to enforce it. In
theory, of course, all parties want to see Cyprus united - but then it comes to
the compromises that would have to be made, it’s only the left that is sincere.
What are other hurdles on the way to unification? Are there obstructions
on the way still resulting from geopolitical factors?
There are many hurdles. One is that a substantial part of the population
on both sides, but probably more prominent in the Greek Cypriot community, is
opposed to any model of power sharing. There also is the issue of geopolitical
tensions and resources: access to natural gas made this competition even
fiercer. The attempts of Israel to form a new alliance with Greece and the
Republic of Cyprus won’t be conducive for reaching a peace agreement either. So
if there is no peace agreement the only option is the status quo, continuing
the situation as it is, although not viable. But there is another scenario,
even more far-fetched: an agreement that the two sides cannot live together
anymore and therefore they should divide Cyprus permanently. Negotiations on
this issue are really considered today. So far, issues of property, territory,
exclusive economic zones are not seen as important because it's assumed that
after all there will be a united federal state someday. But it makes a huge
difference when you negotiate borders of two sovereign states. And then, on top
of that, the question of natural gas emerges. In the unifying scenario, the gas
belongs to the whole island, but with two states there are two different
economic zones. And this has to be negotiated. Last but not least, there is a
question of political legitimacy - who has the right to actually sign the
agreement on behalf of Cyprus? Negotiating partition, even if in recent years
it has been more heard of in the public sphere, will never gather a majority, I
think.
Isn’t permanent secession
also not favourable because of the European Union? Sort of an adverse situation with Brexit
dispute between the UK and Scotland and
the necessity of renewing the membership when launching a new state entity.
Exactly. Cyprus was accepted in the EU as a whole. The Greek Cypriots
are temporarily governing the Republic pending the solution to Cyprus problem.
This is the official legal situation. Potential partition would be a mess:
legal, political, might even bring violence. So I don’t think it will be pushed
through. Maybe in 10, 20 years things will be different, but now I don’t see
this scenario of partition happening.
So if living together is so difficult but breaking up is not an option -
what will happen?
Well, I hope war doesn’t happen. Continuing this frozen conflict is the
most likely scenario, with different developments happening, decided by Turkey
effectively. There is, for example, Varosha, a “ghost town” as no one was
allowed to settle in there after 1974. The Turkish military keeps it as a sort
of bargaining tool. Now there are rumours that Turkey might actually open it up
for Greek Cypriots to come and live as residents in northern Cyprus. Things can happen on the ground, like there could be direct trade with north Cyprus.
So far, the Greek Cypriot side blocks it claiming it is an illegal territory.
There are even no direct flights to northern Cyprus. Living in
a non-recognized state means that one has contact with the outside world only
through Turkey. And there have been rumours in the last year that at some point
Turkey might decide to annex the north of the island, like Russia annexed
Crimea. That’s still a possibility, a far-fetched scenario but it has been
already publicly discussed.
So what would you wish for the people of Cyprus in 2019?
I wish that the inter-communal contacts increase as I believe it’s the
only thing that can save Cyprus in the future. Whatever happens at the level of
leadership and politics, if social contacts between people continue to exist
and strong relationships are built across the border it can be a step towards
peace.
Gregoris Ioannou is a political sociologist and an Associate Researcher at the
University of Glasgow. He has co-edited a book
volume on populism and the radical left in Europe and authored a monograph on
the partition of Cyprus both forthcoming in 2019. He also participated for many years in the bi-communal peace movement in Cyprus.
