Turkish history in Cyprus
The conflict in Cyprus resulting in the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974 and stalemating in the subsequent partition and frozen dynamics which exist today, represents in many ways the latest conflict between the Greek and Turkish states or a "significant part of the larger Greco-Turkish issue with a thousand year history." Both the Greek-Turkish war of 1920 and the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 ensured that both Greece and Turkey have "unmixed" their populations to a degree quite remarkable considering the multiethnic nature of each state prior to these events. Cyprus is the last territory where large numbers of ethnic Cypriot Greeks and ethnic Cypriot Turks once lived together and where Greece and Turkey still have major roles to play in resolving (or prolonging) conflict between the two communities. A major, unresolved irritant in relations between the two states is Cyprus and the problems of that island have followed a path which closely parallels that of each respective community’s "benefactors" in Greece and Turkey.
The dynamics of conflict in Cyprus between the ethnic Turkish community and the ethnic Greek community have been heavily influenced by the fact that each community is watched over and "guaranteed" by an outside power – Greece takes a paternal interest in the Greek community and Turkey does the same with the Turkish community. This arrangement, guaranteed by the 1960 Constitution of Cyprus, has resulted in the two communities following the same dynamic their ethnic kin in Turkey and Greece have followed in relation to one another – namely the "interpretation of present events through the mental representation of past traumas, as well as glories".
The challenge then is to wean each community away from this dynamic and encourage the development of a Cypriot identity separate from reliance on the ethnic or religious identity of either of the guarantors of Cyprus’s two major communities. In this report as well as the ones following it we will make specific recommendations to assist in peacebuilding and peacemaking measures which we hope will build the confidence of both communities in one another and in the Cypriot state outside of its current reliance on the "guarantor" powers of Turkey and Greece.
Prior to British rule
There is significant disagreement as to relations between the two communities before the British assumed control of Cyprus in 1878. Greek Cypriot writers tend to mention the 1832 execution of the Cypriot Orthodox archbishop and clergy by the Ottoman Empire for alleged sympathies with those seeking independence for Greeks. But in the period after the British took control of Cyprus it can generally be agreed that "Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalism and intercommunal distrust intensified in series of steps or "rachets."
Their security seems to involve imperialism
The Turks have stabilized their Kurdish "problem." I can't sympathize with the Turks no. They invaded Cyprus on the pretext of saving the Turkish minority (20%) by occupying a third of the island. Basically, it's like Greece invading Istanbul to safeguard the Greek minority there. They have a history of terrorizing the Kurds, jailing them for voicing separatist views (I'm talking about peaceful groups and Kurdish politicians), and now they want to dictate terms to Kurds outside of Turkey. Sorry, but I really don't think the Turks are thinking of anything but land and power. It's not about security and if the Kurds in Turkey are so happy to be dominated by them, then why is there even an issue here? A Kurdish state next door shouldn't make a difference
Yes, that's a possibility, but I'm not sure that
Is such a bad idea. This kind of shows to me that the Turks aren't ready for EU membership in this regard. Spain hasn't been this restictive with the Basques and the Czechs and Slovaks split peacefully. The Turks are being extremely selfish and imperialist. It's obvious that all they care about vengeance against the Kurds for some terrorist acts (which they basically blame on all the Kurdish separatists, peaceful and militant) and of course they want land. Pure and simple. Why else would they have gone into predominantly Greek Cyprus and seize a third of the island? Less than a fifth of the island was Turkish and they seize a third
Oil-For-Food is a smokescreen
The oil-for-food 'scandal' is a cynical smokescreen
By Scott Ritter
12 December 2004
United States Senators, led by the Republican Norm Coleman, have launched a crusade of sorts, seeking to "expose" the oil-for-food programme implemented by the United Nations from 1996 until 2003 as the "greatest scandal in the history of the UN". But this posturing is nothing more than a hypocritical charade, designed to shift attention away from the debacle of George Bush's self-made quagmire in Iraq, and legitimise the invasion of Iraq by using Iraqi corruption, and not the now-missing weapons of mass destruction, as the excuse
A Few Responses to Selected President Bush
"The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth."
The analogy with Hitler's Germany and other Axis powers is spurious. Germany was the most powerful industrialized country in the world in the 1930s. Iraq, by contrast, is a poor, third-world country that has had most of its military infrastructure destroyed and has been under the strictest military and economic sanctions in world history