|
|
REUNIFICATION OF CYPRUS: ANOTHER FAILURE
by Ruben Safrastyan
Since occupation of the Northern Cyprus by the Turkish army in 1974, which resulted in division of the island into two parts – Greek and Turkish, the problem of reunification of this country has been in the focus of the international community. All attempts to solve the Cyprus problem in 30 years have failed. The last attempt was UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s plan for Cyprus settlement – probably the only one that passed from pure negotiations to the preliminary phase of realization – it was decided to hold two separate referendums for each part of the island. This relative success of Kofi Annan’s plan can be explained by the fact that there had already been a decision on Cyprus’s membership in EU since May 1, 2004, and that the pressure on both Cypriot and Turkish sides was extremely intensive.
The final version of the plan, which the parties agreed to submit on referendums after long discussions, was a result of three substantial revisions, where at last the Turkish side’s demands were taken into account. This huge 9-thousand paged document envisaged establishment of the confederative “United Cyprus Republic”, which had to be consisted of two equal component states – Greek and Turkish. Without discussing the plan in detail, we would like to remind that the Greek population rejected Kofi Annan’s plan on the April 24 referendum by 76% of votes, meanwhile the Turkish community said “yes” to the plan (67% of votes). So, the plan was rejected. And, as it was decided in advance, the Greek part as an internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus became a full EU member. The status of the Turkish part remained unclear.
Positions of the parties
The Turkish community of Cyprus was divided with regard to Kofi Annan’s plan. “President” R. Denktas was against the plan, treating it as unfavorable. He is supporter of an independent Turkish state in the north of the island. His main opponent – “Prime-Minister” M. Talat is supporter of Annan’s plan. He and his supporters thought that it was possible to improve the hard economic situation on the Turkish part of Cyprus only by some compromises and approving the plan.
T. Papathopolos, President of Cyprus and leader of the Greek community, was against Annan’s plan, believing that it legitimized the results of the Turkish occupation, in reality contributing to the division of Cyprus. He urged the population to vote against the plan. His opponents, in particular, the Communist AKEL Party (30% of seats in the Parliament) first supported the plan, but later they changed their minds, because the Greek side has not got expected security guarantees. The influential Greek clergy was also against the plan.
The Armenian community of Cyprus first supported the plan, hoping that the unification of the country would lead to boosting the economy, which was in the interests of Armenians as well. But after the call of President Papathopolos, the community sharply changed its approach.
The Government of the Turkish Prime-Minister R.T.Erdogan spared no efforts to introduce into the previous versions of the plan some changes favorable for the Turkish Cypriot side, and Prime-Minister considered the last version most favorable. R. T. Erdogan treated the settlement process from the point of view of the EU membership. He treated the settlement process from the point of view of the EU membership.
Nearly all oppositional parties in Turkey considered that Kofi Annan’s plan eradicated the results of the victory of the Turkish army in 1974 and characterized the government’s decision as a betrayal of national interests.
The highest military circles treated Annan’s plan as defeating for Turkey in January 2004 and as a matter of fact did not change this opinion, though formally declaring their neutrality. The main point in the plan for them was that Turkey would be forced to withdraw its troops form the island. As a matter of fact, the military supported Denktas. Their aim was to preserve control over the northern part of the island and use it as a military stronghold.
The present conservative government of Greece officially supported Annan’s plan, but in reality they supported President Papathopolos’s negative approach, because only the Greek part’s membership in EU strengthens the Greek positions in that organization. The main oppositional left wing party, proceeding from the logics of the political struggle, supported Annan’s plan and noted that it is the best option for the unification of Cyprus.
The European Union and its member states have repeatedly declared that they are in favor of the plan and welcome the unified Cyprus’s EU membership. However, some circles around the EU leadership noted that they preferred to see only the Greek part among the EU members. Their approach was based on the following:
- realization of Annan’s plan required a very big amount of money – dozens of billions USD (According to some sources, this amount was to estimate about 27 billion USD, only 10 billion of which were the expenses for refugees), most of which was to be allocated by the EU (the other major donors were USA and Japan).
- the EU membership of the United Cyprus meant its Turkish component state’s membership as well, which would not be welcomed by conservative forces in the EU;
- the EU membership of the United Cyprus also meant that Turkish was to become the EU’s 21st official language, which could bring financial, organizational and psychological difficulties.
The USA played an important role behind the scenes of the negotiating process, exerting pressure on the Greeks and Kofi Annan in favor of the Turkish side. It had got support from Great Britain. Both are ardent supporters of the Turkish EU membership, and they considered the settlement of the problem in accordance with Annan’s plan as an important step toward that direction. At the same time some information allows to suppose that in reality the US found that the option of the divided Cyprus was more corresponding to its interests, because in that case it would be easier to use the northern Cyprus as an important military base thanks to cooperation with the Turks.
The United Nations and K.Annan personally were very much interested in the realization of the plan, as far as they treated it as an important step to restoration of the UN’s prestige, shattered as a result of the Iraqi crisis and the US unilateral steps. Undoubtedly, there was also some personal interest of the UN Secretary General, because he could be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The last days, when it was clear that the Greek side was going to vote against, he was very active in his efforts to save the plan, holding his name, from failure. In particular, he proposed to postpone the referendum, but did not get support from the parties concerned, including the US. He only succeeded in urging the US and United Kingdom to submit a joint draft proposal to consideration of the UN Security Council, which, in case of approval, could have been an additional pressure on the Greek side. However, the Russian veto failed that last attempt to save the plan.
Russia’s veto, the first in 10 years, was a hopeless attempt to remind the whole international community about its past superpower status. Unlike the previous stages of the discussion of the Cyprus problem, Russia was totally pushed out of the whole negotiating process on Annan’s plan, and even was not informed in advance that the US and UK were preparing their draft resolution.
The strategic aspect of the problem
Cyprus has a unique geographical location – the island is only in 65 km from the Turkish seaport Ceyhan and about 150 km from the key Middle Eastern countries. It also allows to control the seaways, leading to Suez canal. The location of Cyprus explains the importance of what is going on around it.
It was in the period of British domination when the island was first used as an “unsinkable” aircraft carrier. Then British Prime-Minister A.Eden stressed the exclusive importance of Cyprus in securing oil supply to his country. At present there are two British military bases with 4000 servicemen. These bases had been actively used during the Iraqi wars. One of these bases is now reportedly used in the US-British radio-electronic intelligence system ECHELON.
Within the same system there is also one not so large US electronic intelligence station on the island. The Americans are reportedly planning to enlarge and modify it into an ECHELON-based center to be used in the combat against the threats of international terrorism, stemming from the Middle East countries. In addition, according to American military analysts, the USA discusses the issue of deploying a big military base to solve, among other “traditional” tasks, two new issues: to protect a secure supply of the Azerbaijani and Iraqi oil shipped from the Turkish seaport Ceyhan, and to use it in the future as an instrument of pressure in the process of shaping the Greater Middle East by its – US-designed way. If the reunited Cyprus were within the EU, then taking into account the EU-US contradictions, revealed during the Iraqi war, it would have been more difficult for the United States to realize its plans.
The Turkish military also show great interest in the Cyprus issues. Now there are about 40.000 Turkish soldiers, deployed in the northern part of the island, whose task is secure Turkey’s domination in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, as the Turkish military analysts put it. They are noting that the USA and Turkey have coinciding interests in militarization of Cyprus. That is why the Turkish military, discussing their plans after the failure of Annan’s plan, hope for the US assistance. In particular, they are discussing the program of increasing the number of Turkish soldiers in the north of the island up to 70.000 putting them under the NATO, actually, the US command.
The European Union has also recently shown its interest in the strategic location of Cyprus. J. Solana, EU High Representative for the common foreign and security policy (EU HR for the CFSP) emphasized in one of his latest statements that Cyprus is very important for the EU security.
Analytical considerations
Taking into account the above political, military and strategic circumstances, we can conclude that in reality Turkey was interested in the divided Cyprus to keep the northern part of the island under its control. So apparently, the support of Annan’s plan by Erdogan’s government was aimed at deceiving the international community, first of all, the Europeans, raising Turkey’s chances for the EU membership in the guise of the “peace-loving” state.
The United States was also not interested in the realization of Annan’s plan. At the current phase of its global policy, the only superpower of our times prefers to see Cyprus divided.
For the EU – as a unified structure, the most important are economic and political problems, and not military and strategic goals. That is why we think that the EU has not used its all leverages to pressure the Cypriot Greeks and as a matter of fact this structure has already got used to the failure of Annan’s plan.
So in reality only the UN in the person of the author of the plan and majority of Cypriot Turks strongly supported the plan. However, the opponent side was much mightier. The plan – and with it another phase of the Cyprus settlement – failed.
The new situation and its possible developments
Now a new situation is shaping in the Cyprus settlement. The Greek part is already a full-fledged EU member with all advantages of the membership. New opportunities for its economic development have opened. Quite a hard economic situation of the Turkish part of the island remains intact. Its legal status remains indefinite. As a matter of fact, it is an occupied territory (of an EU member state), which is fraught with complications, first of all for Turkey. The EU is also in a new situation, because it is for the first time that a part of the territory of one of its members is occupied by other country.
Although this new situation requires time to perceive all its peculiarities and to get used to them, however, some of the parties involved have already started to implement certain political actions which come to prove our hypothesis that they not only predicted this new situation, but even carefully prepared its appearance as well.
For example, declaring the new situation as its biggest diplomatic victory, Turkey is carrying out a large-scale diplomatic “attack” in the following two directions, one – basic, and another – secondary.
● Using the fact that the majority of Cypriot Turks voted for Annan’s plan, and that Turkey officially supported it, Erdogan’s government during all official and non-official meetings with representatives of foreign countries raises the question of recognition of so called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ” (in 21 years of its existence this “republic” was recognized only by Turkey);
● The same arguments are used by Turkey to soothe the negative attitude of the EU and international community on its policy aimed at final division of Cyprus and to avoid the new obstacle on its path to the EU.
This policy has not brought any dividends to Turkish diplomacy. Reportedly, four Muslim countries, which previously promised to officially recognize the Northern Cyprus, have refused to do it last moment (The identity of these four countries is still unknown to public). Turkey only succeeded in persuading the inexperienced Azerbaijani president to deliver appropriate statement, but the latter a few days later repudiated that statement.
It is necessary to note that the policy of the Turkish Government is based on the obvious illogical grounds: as far as the Turkish community of Cyprus voted for Annan’s plan, i.e. for the unification of the state, they are trying to use it for legitimization of the division of that very state, which had been divided by them by force.
The EU and the Greek side’s policy is also being shaped now. They hastily promised to render economic assistance to the Turkish part of Cyprus. Appropriate negotiations with its “Prime-Minister” M.Talat, supporter of the unification, have been held. It is possible to conclude that the interests of the EU and the Greeks have started to coincide – both support the unified Cypriot state.
It is possible to predict that by means of economic leverages, they will try to strengthen the positions of those Turks, who were in favor of the unified state, hoping that coming to power and ousting Denktash’s supporters, they would demand the withdrawal of Turkish troops from the northern part of the island, paving a real way to the unification of the country.
Thus, not only the divided status of Cyprus remains intact, but also the main parties involved do keep opposing approaches regarding the future of the country. In these conditions, the possibility of further militarization of the island can be defined as real.
May 26, 2004 |
|
|
