Centuries of conflict have shaped Cyprus into the divided island we see today; a UN buffer zone runs through the middle of it, splitting it into its respective Turkish and Greek zones and dividing the capital of Nicosia. Despite multiple referendums, talks, and UN-mediated negotiations, there has yet to be a lasting solution to the so-called Cyprus dispute. For decades, diplomats have triedto resolve this conflict to little avail, earning its title of “the graveyard for diplomats”. With political opinion split on possible outcomes and optimal solutions, how will Cyprus’s political structures change in the coming years, if at all?
Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders meet with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon Source: UN News
To understand the claims both Greece and Turkey have on Cyprus, one must first understand the complex political history of this island. Ownership of Cyprus has changed hands countlessly over centuries, from the early Hittites to the Romans, and eventually to the Ottomans who conquered the island in 1857. Under Ottoman rule, ethnic Turks began migrating to the predominantly Greek island, living mostly in harmony with their Greek neighbours. Cyprus was annexed by Britain in 1914 and remained a crown British colony until 1960 when independence was established; the Republic of Cyprus was proclaimed, and a power sharing constitution was agreed on between Greek and Turkish authorities. In the decade that followed Cyprus’s independence, tensions between the Greek Cypriot majority, many of which favoured Enosis (union) with Greece, and the Turkish Cypriot minority erupted, leading to the establishment of a UN peacekeeping mission in the region. As tensions escalated, the Greek military junta backed a Greek-led coup on the island to oust then President Makarios and replace him with pro-Enosis nationalist Nikos Sampson in July 1974. Turkey responded to Greece’s efforts to annex Cyprus by invading the North of the island just 5 days later, going on to capture around 1/3 of the island’s total area; hundreds died, and thousands were displaced in the fighting that followed as Greek and Turkish forces battled for dominance over Cyprus. The UN eventually stepped in to broker a ceasefire which saw population exchanges across an established UN buffer zone that still exists to this day.
Turkish troops during the invasion of Cyprus, Source: Financial Times
The republic of Cyprus (the state officially proclaimed in 1960) maintains de jure (legal) sovereignty over the entirety of the island. However, Turkish troops have remained in Northern Cyprus since their 1974 invasion and have self-declared independence from the republic as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, a country only recognised by Turkey. Because of this, the Republic of Cyprus is de facto partitioned into two areas: the South which is under the control of the Republic, and the North which is under the control of the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In recognising the Republic of Cyprus, the international community (apart from Turkey), views the occupation of Turkish forces in the north to be illegal under international law. Proposals to bring lasting peace to the region vary on the scale of complete unification and a two-state solution. Here lies the Cyprus dispute. Across centuries many diplomats have tried, and ultimately failed to resolve the situation, why?
Map of Cyprus, Source: GIS online
Put simply, each nation’s respective public opinion on the matter has never been able to line-up with that of the other nation across the years; often when Greek Cypriots favoured a one-state solution, Turkish Cypriots did not and vice-versa. Such was the case during Kofi Annan’s attempts to solve the issue, the UN Secretary General working through five revisions of plans for a federated republic before coming up with a potential solution which, when put to a referendum, was accepted by Turkish Cypriots, yet rejected by Greek Cypriots. For the most part the Turkish have been the more hesitant of the two to unify. Although there was a flash of hope when Mustafa Akıncı, a left-wing moderate who favoured unification, was elected president of Northern Cyprus in 2015, under the current hardliner president, Ersin Tatar, unification seems unlikely. Tatar, who is said to have a close relationship with Turkish president Recep Erdoğan, has indicated that he is unwilling to back down from both his and Erdoğan’s insistence on a two-state solution. Since Cyprus, at least legally, has sovereignty over the entire island of Cyprus, it too refuses to deviate from its position of unification. Matters are further complicated by the issues of EU membership since Cyprus is an EU member, yet neither Northern Cyprus nor Turkey are. Northern Cyprus is heavily reliant on Turkey for its economy and security; assuming a unification deal allowed for these strong ties to remain in place, could Cyprus and Turkey agree on, for example, migration laws that still fit existing EU rules? As if negotiations weren’t complex enough, the strained relations shared by Greece and Turkey, both of which support different outcomes complicates the chances of a solution. With the island home to some 30,000 Turkish troops, would Turkey ever agree to pull its troops out should an agreement come together, or would Greece respond by sending more of its own troops, escalating tensions in what is already one of the most heavily militarised regions of the world?
For the first time since the Crans Montana talks in 2017, diplomats once more took on the challenge of finding an agreement between the two entities earlier this year. Unsurprisingly, talks failed yet again. Whilst one could write lengthy theses on the reasons for this lack of success, some of the key causes for the failure of the 2021 Cyprus talks, headed by UN Secretary General Antonio Gutteres, help to explain why resolving the issue remains unlikely in the future. Firstly, talks were harmed by the ever-present Greek-Turkish strained relations which flared up in the Eastern Mediterranean as Turkey sent vessels, accompanied by warships, to search for natural resources in disputed maritime boundaries, sparking increased Greek military activity in the region. More importantly, two key points of contention arose between the two nations that highlights why reaching a settlement continues to be challenging. The first is with regards to each nations’ respective guarantor status; In the 1960 constitution, both Greece and Turkey were granted Guarantor status, which promised them the opportunity to intervene in Cyprus if Cyprus broke any of the clauses in its constitution. Greece is willing to give up this status whilst Turkey is not. Next, the countries disagree over the role the EU should play in mediating discussions; whilst the Republic of Cyprus asserts that EU input is essential, Northern Cypriot officials believe that the EU is not sufficiently impartial and therefore should not be included in any discussions over the future of the island.
Northern Cyprus PM Tatar meets with Turkish President Ergdogan
For now, it appears as though the confusing status quo will persist in Cyprus; Both parties disagree on the fundamental issues of negotiations, the greatest of these being whether to completely unite or separate. Indeed, compromises between nations appears especially unlikely given the recent success of far-right, nationalist parties in both the Republic and Northern Cyprus. Yet, some remain hopeful; the UN Secretary General himself expressed his optimism for a future solution, claiming that he will “not give up” and announcing shortly after failed negotiations this May that further rounds of talks would be held “In the near future”. It remains to be seen whether or not Antonio Guterres’s perseverance will be rewarded with a peace settlement that has eluded his predecessors for decades.
Sources:
Comments