The Cyprus problem: ideas, realities and might
By Dr Ozdemir A. Ozgur Cyprus Mail | Date not given http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=18989&cat_id=1 THE CYPRUS problem is intrinsically related to, and affected by, the factors of ideas, realities and might. It is related to all of three, and not just one of them. As I have indicated in my study on the `Cultural aspects of the Cyprus Problem' (Cyprus Law Review, July-September 1989, pp. 4207-27 and later in Thetis 9, Mannheim, 2002, pp. 205-17), Greek political culture is very much idea-oriented; it is stuck mainly to ideas, theories, principles and even mythology. This has been so ever since the ancient Greek political philosophies (Plato's ideal state). In short, the Greek mind evaluates things according to the universal and the perfect; the ideas have a reality of their own. The unrealistic nature of Greek politics was the gist of an article entitled `The need for total change of behaviour' by C. Kitromilides in Philelefteros (19 September 1990). Greeks have an idealistic fervour and simultaneous duality of purpose in mind, which can at the same moment encompass two contradictory ideas. The Greek mind sees the particular object but understands is it terms of the idea. On the other hand, Turkish political culture has always been more reality and might-oriented. When the ancient Greek philosophers were promulgating their ideas, the Turks were in Central Asia on horseback with their swords preparing for the Ottoman Empire. In the past, might meant right, as verified by Alexander the Great too. But, as one can clearly see, international relations are not taking place only on the basis of ideas and principles (international law, the Charter of the United Nations), as the Greeks wish, or only on the basis of realities. It is well known from the ancient Greek philosophers that politics is closely related to interests. Subsequently, international politics is also related to interests. But when interests are involved, then might also comes in. In the era of colonialism might meant right. Not any more. But might has not yet been totally eliminated in international relations, as one can see in the recent history of Afghanistan, Iraq and Yugoslavia. The aspect of might, not right, is also visible in the case of Gibraltar between the UK and Spain, although Spain is much stronger than Cyprus, as well as in the case of the British Sovereign Bases in the sovereign state of Cyprus. In this respect, it is very interesting to read former Foreign Minister Mr Nicos Rolandis' article `A nightmarish scenario: what makes us think we can eliminate the entire international community with impunity' in last week's Sunday Mail. Having given some examples, he rightly concluded that "it is astonishing what the powerful can accomplish if provoked". Also, it has recently been written by a Greek Cypriot that for the first time in history, the international community now puts the blame on the Greek side for the non-solution of the Cyprus Problem. Yes, but if we reverse the tables, the Turkish side suffered no cost when the international community put the blame on them. So we see the aspect of might again at play. In addition, another Greek Cypriot has recently written that the stance of the EU vis-�-vis the pseudo-state has changed dramatically since the Turkish Cypriots voted `yes' in the referendum. I may add that not only the stance of the EU, but also the stance of the UN, the USA, the UK and others has changed a lot. Instead of paying serious attention to the efforts being made by some to upgrade the status of the breakaway regime, the government of Cyprus and some others are almost celebrating, as if it was a victory, the fact that Turkey is going to sign the Customs Protocol of the EU. This is very funny to say the least, because Turkey had already declared that it would sign it and, more importantly, it does not mean anything. From what I know, the signing of a multilateral treaty on a specific subject does not mean recognition. This had also been verified by influential members of the EU. In other words, I agree with those who have pointed out that the signing of the Protocol does not mean recognition. Indeed, I do not understand why there is so much childish jubilation at the mere fact that Turkey is going to sign that Protocol. Soon after the referenda in Cyprus, I was invited to a colloquium of the Foreign Ministry in Athens as one of the 11 speakers, where I spoke on the subject of the `Cyprus Question after the referenda: Turkish Cypriot Views'. I pointed out some of the expected negative repercussions from the international community, that is, the UN, the EU, the USA, the UK, etc. I also warned against unforeseen and stronger consequences. I am not a prophet, but indeed we now see the realisation of my anxieties. As a matter of fact, in his above-mentioned article, Mr Rolandis has written: "But today matters have taken a turn for the worse. As a result of our overall policy, we now find ourselves in the sights of the powers that be, we are in a position that any country (even a large country that can pull its weight on the international scene) would take pains to avoid. We, on the other hand, do not seem to realise that we are just a drop in the ocean, the other countries being the ocean." Mr Rolandis and others have warned in their articles against the probability of transforming the breakaway regime into some sort of Taiwan status, that is upgrading its status. Indeed, there is a widespread notion among the Greek Cypriots that we may unfortunately end up with that status or partition. For example, in his article in the Sunday Mail of May 16, 2004, Loucas G. Charalambous, too, expressed the view that we were heading towards partition. Also, as reported by Alithia newspaper of March 13, 2005, Mr Mehmet Ali Talat had already told AKEL that if no solution is found soon what will follow is the European partition of Cyprus. The point that I am trying to make is that it is not always the best practice to stick entirely to principles, legality, etc., just as it is not proper to stick only to realities brought about by might. There may be aspects of a problem that may be as much political as they are legal. Greeks should have taken lessons from their harmful resort to armed struggle against the British (not for independence but for a Cyprus united with Greece), from their failure at the General Assembly of the UN on the subject of self-determination in the 1950s, and from the consequences of their attempt to amend as many as 13 (not one or two) provisions of the Cyprus Construction in 1963. It must be pointed out that because of the Turkish Cypriots and proximity of Cyprus to Turkey, as well as because of strategic, historical, moral and psychological reasons, Turkey is not ready to forget and throw Cyprus out of her sight. The more so, because she is surrounded by Greece on her western frontiers and would not like to be surrounded by Greece in the south, too, through Cyprus, by hook or by crook. Frankly speaking, Turkey's feelings are to some extent shared by the big powers. Here comes again into the picture the role of might and mighty powers. The question is: can the Greek idea confront and beat the might of Turkey and others? We have to use our brains. Of course, there is the UN Security Council resolution 541 of November 18 1983 calling on all states not to recognise the so-called independent Turkish Cypriot state. But is that resolution valid forever? The criteria envisaged by international law for the recognition of a State are the existence of a territory, of people on the territory and effective control of that territory by those people. I would like just humbly to warn: is it beyond imagination that the UN Security Council may ultimately decide to revise its resolution on the grounds that circumstances have much changed after a very long period of time? With regard to the concept of effective control, I remember a parallel notion in the faraway past in Cyprus when it was lawful for somebody to become the owner of a piece of immovable property if that person had the effective control over that property for a certain period of time. I am not arguing that the Annan plan is ideal, perfect or good. It is, however, perplexing to see that the Greek Cypriot side does not wish to give in writing to the Secretary-general of the UN the changes it wants to have in that plan. Is not that refusal a stand against the whole international community? Is the Cypriot side, even together with Greece, so mighty as to play such a game? The voices raised recently among Greek Cypriots against the way to partition are meaningful. If we end up with partition it will mean that Mr Denktash was right and that Dr Ihsan Ali, Ozdemir Ozgur and other Turkish Cypriots who stood up against partition were wrong. In case of partition, we may have to behave properly and apologise to Mr Denktash, who will be proved right. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> -- This is ZESTGlobal. Post articles on international affairs to [email protected] If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTGlobal by sending a blank mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/join/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTGlobal/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
