Grecia Hernandez
Political Science 118
Ethnic Divisions Lead to Ethnic Conflict
In order to understand the reasons for why the Turkish invasion of Cyprus of 1974 occurred, the shared history between Greece and Turkey needs to be discussed and analyzed. By looking at the history of these two countries, the answers will unfold and it will become clear as to why Turkey decided to invade at the time that it did. To solve the puzzle of why the invasion occurred the question: What led to these divisions in the first place,” must be answered. By using an instrumentalist approach to ethnicity, the aim of this paper will be to solve the puzzle of why Turkey invaded Cyprus when it did, and what facilitated the momentous atrocity. Using this approach requires an extensive analysis of the historical events that occurred prior to the invasion. Examining the effects of the state (Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and Britain were all involved) institutions and the elites involved, will illustrate a clearer picture of how these two aspects helped shape ethnic identity and concurrently helped establish the ethnic divisions that culminated in the invasion.
Turkey’s initial invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974 was provoked by the coup organized and headed by the Greek junta to overthrow the elected president of Cyprus, Archibishop Makarios. The coup was organized and staged by the Cypriot National Guard.[1] They wanted to replace Archibishop Makarios with their own leader, Nikos Sampson in an attempt to unify Cyprus with Greece. Turkey saw this as a threat to the Turkish Cypriot population and decided to invade the country. They justified their intrusion by claiming that it was out of protection for the Turkish Cypriots living in Cyprus (even though this population only makes about 18 percent of the country’s population).[2] After the initial invasion the Greek junta backed off and discussions between London and Geneva began in order to determine what would become of Cyprus. After these negotiations failed to come to any consensus, Turkey invaded once more and despite announcing that it would be a short invasion, they sent out 30,000 troops onto the island on August 14 and took control of nearly 40 percent of the island, with 250, 000 Cypriots displaced.[3] Turkey defeated the Greek military power with an overwhelming force and declared the island, the “de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.” Their invasion involved horrific crimes of war including, mass murder, mass rape, ethnic cleansing (with more than 200,000 Greek Cypriots expelled from Northern Cyprus.[4] This according to the international community was a violation of the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 (it indeed was a violation). Democracy was supposedly reestablished in the country of Cyprus under the control of Constantine Karamanlis and Glavkos Clerides, with Turkey being the only country to recognize the republic established.[5]
Research indicates that the history of Cyprus is a troubled one and it is largely due to the ethnic divides that have been placed for many years. Many scholars also agree that Turkey had been planning an invasion in Cyprus for many years and were waiting for the opportune moment in order to follow through with it. Partition of Cyprus is something Turkey had wanted long before Cyprus even became an independent country.[6] However many scholars argue that full blame on Turkey is not right considering the history of the Greek Cypriots. The Turkish people of Cyprus wanted to be recognized by the international community. A scholar and writer, Mr. Denktash argues that, “As years went by and one-sided resolutions contrary to the interests of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey piled up, I became more and more convinced that nothing but a solemn declaration of statehood, combined with intensive efforts to achieve recognition, would move the Greek Cypriot side toward federalism … The world had to see that we existed.”[7] Turkey basically felt like it needed to stand up for itself and they resorted to claiming independence in order to be seen and heard by the international community. This argument opposes the current argument being made by most scholars, that Turkey invaded in order to permanently take control of the island. However, in Mr. Denktash’s writings, he really takes a close look at the suffering of the Turkish Cypriots that had been occurring since 1963. He explains that under the Greek Cypriot internalization, the Turkish minorities were treated as outlaws and that if they had not done anything about it, they would currently still be in the same position. His main argument states that basically Turkey invaded Cyprus because it needed to get attention from the other actors, it needed to do something to get itself out of the suffering the Greek Cypriots had inflicted on the minority.[8] But this is not necessarily true. Turkey had suffered under the Greek Cypriot internalization, but that did not justify the fact that they didn’t just invade the country; they massacred innocent Greek Cypriots in addition to other war crimes. If they were really just looking for attention from the international community, this violence would not have been needed. If Turkey had just wanted to invade Cyprus to make its voice heard, then it would have invaded but it would have refrained from committing such awful atrocities against the Greek Cypriots. The interesting thing about this case is that each country looks back on different time periods in order to justify their position. For example Turkey looks at their period of suffering (1960-1967) while the Greek Cypriots focus on the repercussions of the 1974 invasion. Going back to the central argument: two main contributing factors gave rise to the 1974 invasion: ethnic/political divisions and differences between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots and the coup staged by the Greek Cypriot National Guard. More significant to the argument however, is the historical ethnic divisions between the two communities that embedded the tensions that finally erupted in a full-scale atrocity. These divisions are closely analyzed in the following paragraphs.
The conflict between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots was installed in the island long before the small country even became independent. Cyprus has a long history of violence; this is due in large part to the colonial history it carries. Under British rule in 1878, Cyprus had already developed its characteristics ethnic divisions that would mark the beginning of their downfall. The majority of inhabitants occupying the island were Greeks (80 percent), with only about 20 percent Turkish Cypriots living up in the northern part of the island. The division is due to the cultural and ethnic ties each community had for their mother country. The Greek Cypriots fully identified themselves with the Greek state, Greek language, and with the Greek Eastern Orthodox Church. At the same time, the Turkish Cypriots identified themselves with their mother country of Turkey. This meant they spoke Turkish, followed Turkish culture and the majority of them were devout Muslims of the Sunni sect.[9] Even under constant proximity to each other, both communities managed to stay true to their separate and distinct cultural and ethnic practices. This division turned into a semi-physical separation with the occurrence of the inter-communal violence in 1963.[10] After the Turkish invasion of 1974, there was an even more defined boundary line between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
Throughout the rule of the Ottoman and British, several key factors helped to cultivate the growth of the ethnic, cultural and political differences between the two communities. History provides important indications of the contributing causes that led to the division, going as far back as 1571. During this time the Ottoman ruled the island and after bringing the Roman Catholic Church down, they replaced it with the Greek Orthodox Church, making it the supreme institution of the island. With the Church’s status set in place, consequently the Archbishop became the religious and political leader of the Greek Cypriots. This led to the close connection the Greek Cypriot community felt for their Greek culture. A historian and author, Joseph S. Joseph states that, “For the Greek Cypriots, the Church became a symbol of political and ethnic unity. Most of their political, social, cultural, and intellectual life was associated with religious activities and institutions.”[11] Under the Ottoman military rule and its administration, the two ethnic communities continued to be divided based on religion and ethnicity. The Ottoman administration treated each community as two distinct entities, evidence for this is found once again in Joseph’s book in which he informs, “Taxes were imposed on a denominational basis and administration was carried out with the help of various religious institutions.”[12] This evidence implies that although the Ottoman system of administration helped both communities preserve their ethnic identities, it simultaneously and inevitably embedded politicization of ethnicity. A very dangerous thing to do when dealing with two different ethnic groups living in such close proximity to not only each other, but their mother countries as well. Furthermore, even when Cyprus was under modern bureaucratic British rule, the millet system established by the Ottomans was still set in place. To make matters worse author Joseph illustrates that under the British colonial policy of ‘divide and rule’ it, “Reinforced the ethnic, administrative, and political separation inherited from the Ottoman period. The British administration made no effort to create a unifying Cypriot political culture … [this was] an instrumental [tactic] in securing British control over Cyprus.”[13]
Another reason why the ethnic conflict between the two communities grew even worse was because all matters concerning education, religion and culture still remained under each individual ethnic group (meaning that the religious institution of each community had control over these matters). For example the education system really emphasized the ethnic differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots by promoting the spread of conflicting ethnic values from generation to generation. Their schools were primarily controlled by their respective religious institutions, which placed significant emphasis on religion, national heritage, ethnic values, and the long history of Greek-Turkish rivalry.[14] This education system highly and negatively contributed to the already high tensions between the two communities. Not only did the teaching of national heritage ignite nationality for both communities, it also fostered dangerous emotions: fear and suspicion. With both communities in constant fear of what the other might do to them, the tensions only grew to alarming rates and eventually when the Greek junta staged the coup, all hell broke loose. In sum, the main causal factors that led to the invasion of 1974 are: the millet system established by the Ottomans, church dominance, fragmented ethnic education, growing national loyalties to their mother countries, political polarization, and the British policy of ‘divide and rule’.[15] In other words, institutions placed by the mother countries were what helped each community develop their strong ethnic divisions. Even after the problematic colonial history between Britain and Cyprus ended, the main issue remained to be one of ethnic conflict. With the independence of Cyprus, came new responsibilities for the state, which included taking an active part in the activities of the international arena, and also interacting with other key international players. During this time, Cyprus achieved some significant success: it became a U.N. member, joined the Council of Europe, The British Commonwealth of Nations, and other prominent international organizations.[16] This newfound participation meant that outside parties and institutions could now freely interact with the small island as well as the other countries/parties involved. Evidence for the fact that the ethnic divisions between the two were due to the historical “Ethnic ties between the two Cypriot communities and Greece and Turkey were also instrumental in causing foreign involvement in Cypriot Affairs.”[17] This made it easier to maintain close relations between Greek Cypriots and Greece and between Turkish Cypriots and Turkey. Turkish Cypriots looked to Turkey for military, economic, diplomatic, and moral support. The same goes for the Greek Cypriots’ relationship with Greece. This dependence further deepened the ethnic divisions and consequently put Cypress under the control of the institutions and elites of Greece and Turkey. Despite the establishment of the Republic of Cypress there was no shared common ground between the two ethnic groups for the country to have a chance of taking care of its own political matters without ethnicity dominating the politics of the country. In sum, the history of the ethnic divisions of Cyprus shows that “Political differentiation of groups along ethnic lines can be conducive for the generation of ethnic conflict. This is especially true if in a bi-communal society there are no cross-cutting linguistic, social, and religious ties or other overarching loyalties …” [18] In addition, it only makes the country more susceptible to conflict when the communal elites are unsuccessful at counteracting the negative effects of ethnic and political fragmentation.
The events and policies imposed by the Greek and Turkish states only aggravated the ethnic tensions, which was ultimately what facilitated the invasion of 1974 however it does not fully answer the question of why Turkey finally made the decision to invade. Many scholars argue that Turkey had been planning to invade Cyprus for many years and finally had a “legitimate” excuse to intervene. The central argument made before is that Turkey did not invade Cyprus on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot minority; they invaded because they feared that if Greece annexed Cyprus it would mean serious danger to the security of Turkey, especially because of Cyprus’ key geographical location in the Mediterranean. So logically Turkey wanted to essentially rid itself of an extended Greece in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. However, many scholars argue that Turkey actually did have a legitimate reason to invade. For example, William Hale along with Henry Kissinger argue that under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, Turkey had a more rightful authorization for intrusion than they did back in the invasion of 1964 and 1967. They argue that, “If Turkey had not invaded, then Cyprus would probably have been united with Greece, the Turkish Cypriots massacred or expelled, and the Greek Colonel’s regime consolidated.”[19] Of course Kissinger had a reason to defend Turkey in its decision to invade given that during this time, he believed Turkey’s value to American security interests was of more importance than the Karamanlis Government (Former Prime minister of Greece).[20] Why was Turkey more important? According to authors Brendan O’Malley and Ian Craig American interests were vested in Turkey in that, “Turkey housed vital U.S. bases and sophisticated electronic listening-posts along the Soviet border, installations which made possible, for example, intelligence on Russian military moves … and monitoring of Soviet missile activity.”[21] Under these political circumstances there was nothing really to stop Turkey from invading, it had British and U.S. support and despite the fact that it violated international law, Turkey went ahead with the invasion, with the rationale that under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 (which prohibits Cyprus to form any union with another state and legitimizes the use of force to preserve the sovereignty of Cyprus),[22] it had the right to intervene in order to protect the Turkish Cypriot minority. However these reasons were merely excuses for invading the island. As stated before, Turkey invaded out of desire to expand, fear and concern for their own security. Also, Vassilis Fouskas brings up a crucial counterargument to the statement issued by Kissinger and Hale: during the time period from 1967 to 1974 there hadn’t really occurred any severe inter-communal events and therefore, “Hale’s assertation cannot be taken as proof of causal links leading to the invasion.”[23] Therefore the invasion of Cyprus had nothing to do with wanting to protect the Turkish minority living there. Due to the long history of ethnic and political division in Cyprus between the Turkish Cypriot minority and Greek Cypriot majority Turkey was able to conveniently use the pretext of invasion “out of protection” for the Turkish minority from the violent Greek junta. Turkey wanted to take full control of the strategically placed island in order to preserve their national security and interests. The divisions put forth by Turkey, Britain and Greece up until Cyprus’ independence, were the key factors that eventually led Turkey to invade in 1974.
In using an instrumentalist approach to the conflict of ethnicity in Cyprus research has showed that the administrations of the state institutions of Greece and Turkey helped to shape ethnic identity as well as foster a deep sense of permanent nationalism. The religious institutions established by the Ottomans back in the 16th century further nourished nationalistic ties to the respective mother countries and they lasted even up until Cyprus won independence in 1960. Under British control, the divisions were only deeper engraved with the ‘divide and rule’ system it enforced. Some scholars and authors argue that Turkey invaded because it wanted to protect its ethnic minority in northern Cyprus, there are a few that say Turkey invaded because it wanted the Turkish Cypriots to be internationally recognized. While that may be true, the research conducted indicates that the most logical explanation for why Turkey invaded is it was protecting its national interests and security. It wanted full control of Cyprus and they couldn’t risk allowing Greek expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean Basin. Turkey knew that if Cyprus unified with Greece it would be a danger to Turkish security. What is undoubtedly true in the case of Turkey and Cyprus is that the invasion wouldn’t have occurred had the ethnic tensions between the two communities lessened and improved after Cyprus’ independence. But instead they worsened with time, and the states of Greece and Turkey played the most significant role in promoting dangerous nationalist pride. By examining these state institutions and the systems of administration they put in place, it is easy to see why the invasion occurred when it did and not before or after. As seen in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus: governing a state with political differences that are based on ethnic lines usually result with an eruption of large-scale ethnic conflict.
Works Cited
1. Burke, Peter and Stets, Jan. Identity Theory. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009)
2. Bowman, Jim. “Seeing What’s Missing in Memories of Cyprus.” Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 18:199-127. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=12&sid=dc283a60-b07e-45df-a7e3-321a81bb7517%40sessionmgr4. (Accessed March 03, 2010).
3. Coufoudakis, Van. International Aggression and Violations of Human Rights: The Case of Turkey in Cyprus. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2008).
4. Couloumbis, Theodore A. The United States, Greece, and Turkey: The Trouble Triangle (New York: Praeger, 1983).
5. Crawshaw, Nancy. “Cyprus.” In Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1985.
6. Denktash, Rauf R. The Cyprus Triangle 2nd Edition. (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1986), 107
7. Dr. P.N. Vanezis Cyprus, The Unfinished Agony. (Great Britain: The Ptiman Press, Bath, 1977), 62-63.
8. Fouskas, V. Reflections On the Cyprus Issues and the Turkish Invasion of 1974. In the UCSB Article Database,
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=12&hid=106&sid=c919b0c3-cff3-421b-9738-28ef26bb1f58%40sessionmgr1040 (Accessed February 26, 2010).
9. Fouskas, Vassilis and Tackie, Alex. Cyprus: The Post Imperial Constitution (New York: Pluto Press, 2009), 20.
10. Hale, William. Turkish Foreign Policy 1774-2000. (London: Frank Case, 2000), 123.
11. Joseph, S. Joseph. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. (Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD, 1997), 16
12. Mallinson, William. “U.S. Interests, British Acquiescence and The Invasion of Cyprus.” 2007. Volume 9, 494-508. http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=6&hid=106&sid=dc283a60-b07e-45df-a7e3-321a81bb7517%40sessionmgr4. (Accessed February 28, 2010).
13. O’Malley, Brendan and Craig, Ian. The Cyprus Conspiracy. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 156.
14. Posner, Daniel. Institutions and Ethnic Politics in Africa. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
15. Stavrinides, Zenon. "A Long Journey to Peace." Harvard International Revew 27.2 (): 84-85. UCSB Library http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=10&hid=103&sid=dc283a60-b07e-45df-a7e3321a81bb7517%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=17274931\. (Accessed March
16. The Tech. “Turkey Deserves More Blame for Cyprus.” 1994. Volume 114, number 53, http://www.mit.edu:8001/activities/hellenic/tech-articles/athanasiadis.html.
[1] Fouskas, V. Reflections On the Cyprus Issues and the Turkish Invasion of 1974. In the UCSB Article Database, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=12&hid=106&sid=c919b0c3-cff3-421b-9738-28ef26bb1f58%40sessionmgr1040 (Accessed February 26, 2010).
[2] Fouskas, V. Reflections On the Cyprus Issues and the Turkish Invasion of 1974. In the UCSB Article Database, http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=12&hid=106&sid=c919b0c3-cff3-421b-9738-28ef26bb1f58%40sessionmgr1040 (Accessed February 26, 2010).
[3] O’Malley, Brendan and Craig, Ian. The Cyprus Conspiracy. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 156.
[4] Ibid, 160.
[6] Dr. P.N. Vanezis Cyprus, The Unfinished Agony. (Great Britain: The Ptiman Press, Bath, 1977), 62-63.
[8] Ibid
[9] Joseph, Joseph. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. (Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD, 1997), 16
[10] Ibid, 17-20
[11] Joseph, Joseph. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. (Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD, 1997),17.
[12] Ibid, 16
[13] Ibid, 18.
[14] Joseph, Joseph. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. (Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD, 1997), 16
[15] Ibid, 18
[16] Couloumbis, Theodore A. The United States, Greece, and Turkey: The Trouble Triangle
(New York: Praeger, 1983).
[17] Joseph, Joseph. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. (Great Britain: Macmillan Press LTD, 1997), 18.
[18] Ibid, 34.
[20] O’Malley, Brendan and Craig, Ian. The Cyprus Conspiracy. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 199-200.
[21] O’Malley, Brendan and Craig, Ian. The Cyprus Conspiracy. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 200.
[22] Fouskas, Vassilis and Tackie, Alex. Cyprus: The Post Imperial Constitution (New York: Pluto Press, 2009), 20.
[23] Ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment