Tweet
An Analysis of the Cyprus Conflict with a Psyhoanalytical Approach (I)
By Sezai OZCELIK
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 16 2005
Summary: This study will focus on the psychoanalytical concepts and
theories to explain the borders and barriers among the social groups
and states. The concepts of the minor differences, externalization,
projection, chosen trauma and glories, dehumanization, victimization,
and ethnic identity were used to analyze the historical, psychological
and political barriers between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. In conflıct,
it~Rs necessary to deal with historical and psychological barriers
to achieve lasting and perpetual peace and political solution like
the Annan Plan.
Key Words: , Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, psychoanalysis,
minor differences, externalization, chosen trauma and glories,
ethnic identity.
An Analysis of the Conflict with a Psyhoanalytical Approach:
Psychological, Historical and Political Barriers Between Turkish And
Greek Cypriots (*)
1. INTRODUCTION
This work examines the psychological, historical and political
barriers between Turkish and Greek Cypriots in the context of the
psycho-historical point of view. Although the creation and maintenance
of the borders between the ethnic groups have been explained by the
realist theories, peace research introduces a new perspective how the
border were created and maintained. It examines the issue of barriers
between the ethnic groups through ~Spsychological lens.~T
In this paper, I will mainly analyze the sources of the borders
by applying the psychoanalytical theories into the historical and
political events. The basic concepts, narcissism of minor differences,
suitable target of externalization, projection, chosen traumas and
glories, dehumanization, the egoism of victimization, the need for
the enemies and allies, and the ethnic identity formation, are the
product of the Vamik Volkan~Rs psychodynamic approach.
The case of the conflict presents a good laboratory conditions to
apply these concepts into the real life conflict. First, I will
briefly describe the history of the conflict. Then I will examine
the historical and political sources of the barriers between the
Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The following section, I will examine
the psychoanalytical approach of the border issues between the two
communities.
1.1. Brief Information Cyprus is strategically located in the eastern
part of the Mediterranean Sea and the third largest island in the
Mediterranean Sea , after Sicily and Sardia. These three geographic
characteristics -location, size, and the fact that it is an island-
have been an important factor in the ethnic conflict in . The island
is about 42 miles (65 kilometers) south of Turkey, 64 miles (103 km)
of Syria, 240 miles (386 km) of the north of Egypt and the Suez Canal,
and 500 miles (800 km) of south-east of the Greek mainland.[1] It
has an area of 3,572 square miles (9, 851 square kilometers) and the
island is divided between the Greek Cypriot South and the Turkish
Cypriot North[2]. According to the census of 1960, the population
of the island was about 77 percent Greeks, 18.3 percent Turks and
4.7 percent other ethnic groups, such as Maronites, Armenians,
and Latins.[3] Today, the population of the South is estimated to
be 629,500 (1998). According to the 1996 census in the North, the
population there is 200,587, constituting just over 24 percent of the
total population of the island.[4] The Greek Cypriots are Orthodox
Christians and speak Greek. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots
are in Muslim faith and speak Turkish.
2. HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT Because of its strategic position on
the main routes between Europe and Asia , has been the focus of
the political conflict and the cultural interaction. was colonized
in about the thirteenth century BC by settlers from the Aegean and
Greek colonists. Despite many invasions and periods of foreign rule,
Greek language and culture became dominant. During the Medieval
period, has been held by the Western powers. In 1571, the island was
conquered by the Ottoman Turks. Under the Ottoman rule, the Greek
and Turkish populations have lived relatively peacefully in which
they have collaborated to protest against the Ottoman rule when it
was accused of excessive taxation.[5]
In 1878, leased from the Ottoman Empire to be used as a base from
which to protect the Ottoman Empire against the ambitions of . In 1914,
the island was annexed by on the outbreak of war with the Ottoman
Empire . After became a ~SCrown Colony~T of in 1925, the Greek Cypriots
began their long and intense struggle against British rule to achieve
the part of the Megali Idea (Great Idea): Enosis (unification with
).[6] During the early period of British administration (1878-1925),
the two ethnic communities lived in relative functional harmony
with physical intermixing and social tolerance but without cultural
integration (Fisher, 1992: 2). Between 1925 and 1960 conflict can
be defined like this: the Greek Cypriots agitating for Enosis, the
Turkish Cypriots opposing the movement, and the British Government
replying in the negative to the Enosis demands.[7]
In 1950, Makarios, who would later become the first president of the
Republic of Cyprus, was elected Archbishop. Under the auspice of
the Greek Orthodox Church, an island-wide plebiscite called for an
overwhelming support for Enosis (% 96).[8] With the establishment of
the EOKA (Ethnici Organosis Kyprion Agoniston-National Organization
of Cypriot Combatants), an underground guerrilla organization,
the Greek self-determination campaign began in 1955.[9] Because of
their strategic interests in the Middle East , the British resisted
self-determination and Enosis. The British eventually concluded that
their interests could best be served by retaining the sovereignty
of their military bases on the island and by achieving a political
settlement that would satisfy the interests of the majority Greek
community on the island while protecting the interests of the
minority Turkish community.[10] Prior to 1955, and Turkish Cypriots
never actively involved in the politics of . However, the immediate
danger of Enosis forced them to reexamine their interests in . In
particular, expressed its concern about the future of a Turkish
minority under the majority of the Greek Cypriot rule. Moreover, had
strategic concern about the extension of Greek territory under ~Sits
nose~T. As a result, the Turkish Cypriots aligned themselves with the
British, adopted taksim (partition) as a counter to Enosis and formed
a paramilitary organization (TMT-Turkish Resistance Organization)
to defend their interests.[11]
After the intense and violent intercommunal fighting and
the anti-British struggle by the Greek Cypriots, a solution was
negotiated by, and and resulted in the London and Zurich Accords in
1959 and 1960. The accords prohibited Enosis and taksim and introduced
bi-communal / federal solution for the island. , and had a right to
intervene, unilaterally or together, in order to restore the state
of affairs in the island. The constitution of was designed by three
powers. The president would be a Greek Cypriot and the vice-president
a Turkish Cypriot. There would be a Council of Ministers (7 Greeks,
3 Turks) and a House of Representatives (70 percent Greek, 30 percent
Turkish) elected by a universal suffrage for a term of five years. The
Republic of Cyprus was eventually come into existence on 16 August
1960, with Makarios its first president.
During the end of the 1963, the intercommunal violence caused an
imminent threat for the stability of the island. Nicosia (Lefkoşe),
the capital of the Republic, became a battleground and physical
segregation of the two communities intensified. Between 1963 and
1974, the Turkish Cypriots were forced to live in enclaves on their
own in overcrowded slum conditions. They have lived in 5 percent
of the island~Rs territory and 25,000 Turkish Cypriots have become
refugees. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council decided to send a
peacekeeping force. A buffer zone marked by the ~SGreen Line~T was
drawn between the conflicting groups. Since March 1964, the United
Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has deployed to prevent a recurrence
of fighting and to contribute the maintenance of law and order and
the restoration of normalcy to the island.
The history of the island took a dramatic turn when the
Greek-sponsored coup engineered against the President of Cyprus,
Makarios in July 1974. Because of the fear of Enosis, decided to
intervene unilaterally and seized 37 percent of the island. was
divided into northern (Turkish) and southern (Greek) section by the
~SAttila Line~T, running from through Nicosia (Lefkoşe) to Famagusta
(Gazimagusa). The Turkish intervention caused huge personal and social
tragedies. Approximately, 180,000 Cypriot Greeks became refugees,
fleeing to the south and abandoning their possessions behind. There
was also 6,000 dead and 1615 missing person on the Greek side.[12]
After the coup and war of 1974, the efforts of peaceful resolution
of the conflict have been increased at the intercommunal
level as talks and negotiations between the leaders of the two
communities. Between 1974-1990, the major third-party has been the UN
Secretaries-General. They have attempted to mediate the intercommunal
talks: Denktash-Makarios (1975-1977), Denktash-Kyprianu (1977-1988),
Denktash-Vasiliu (1988-1993), and now Denktash-Klerides. With the
end of the Cold War, the and the European Union began to play more
important role in the negotiation process.
Both sides see the political reconciliation and the solution of
the conflict differently. The Turkish Cypriot community demands the
recognition of its separate political status, which culminated in the
establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern in 1983. On the other
side, the Greek Cypriot community sees the solution of the problem only
in the context of a bi-communal solution that allowed for the ~Sthree
freedoms~T: freedom of settlement, freedom of property ownership,
and freedom of movement. The removal of Turkish forces from island was
another Greek Cypriot precondition for settlement. Furthermore, other
issues had to be dealt with such as the question of Turkish settlers
on the island, international guarantees to replace the 1960 Treaty
of Guarantee, economic reconstruction, exploitation of resources, and
development of infrastructure on a joint rather than unitary basis.[13]
In 1993, the United Nations initiated a new attempt to obtain
agreement that produced the confidence-building measures (CBMs). CBMs
essentially involved the opening of Nicosia (Lefkose) International
Airport (closed since 1974) and the permission of the Greek Cypriots
to reoccupy Varosha/Maras lost in 1974. They failed miserably.
In 1997, the UN tried to bring the two sides together in two meetings,
one in New York, the other in . The question of the sovereignty of
the North became a crucial issue. Recent developments have made the
dispute more difficult to solve. First, the decision by the European
Union to open the membership negotiations with the South stopped the
UN sponsored negotiations that just began after the quake in . Second,
the establishment of a Joint Defense Doctrine between and the South
has alerted about the strategic importance of the island.
The conflict can be analyzed three different levels. At one level,
conflict is an inter-communal conflict that began as a colonial
struggle against British rule. At another level, it is a regional
conflict because of the relationship between and over territory and
resources in the eastern Mediterranean as well as their relationships
with the two communities in the island. For , is mainly as strategic
matter. Because of its great proximity to , could be dangerous for
if in enemy hands. seems as a huge aircraft carrier that threatens
the most of the Turkish main cities and industrial areas. Moreover,
the historical animosity between and was another important factor. For
Greeks, was historically Greek and the part of the Hellenic world. The
Turks represent the chosen traumas such as the lost of Constantinople,
the destruction of the Byzantine Empire and the eviction of the
Greeks from Anatolia after the First World War. Furthermore, it is
an international conflict that involves superpower politics, the
international and regional organizations (the United Nations and the
European Union). At systemic level, the conflict in became entangled in
the politics of the Cold War. The conflict between and over and other
areas were a potential source of weakness on NATO~Rs southern flank.
3. THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS
The Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots have been divided along
linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and religious lines. The Greek Cypriots
speak Greek and identify with the Greek nation, Greek culture and
the heritage of classical and the Byzantine Empire. They put more
emphasis on ~Sthe chosen traumas and glories~T of the Greek nation.
Almost all of them are members of the Orthodox Church, which is
has had a great place on politics, education, and cultural arena of
the Greek Cypriots. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots speak
Turkish and identify with the Turkish nation, Turkish culture, and
the heritage of the Ottoman Empire. Virtually all of them are Muslims
of the Sunni sect.
One of the historical-structural barriers between two communities is
the Ottoman millet[14] administrative system on the basis of religion
and ethnicity. According to this system, each religious ethnic
group was treated as a distinct entity. They had a right on their
administrative issues and they were carried out with the help of the
various religious institutions. After the conquest of by the Ottoman
Empire in 1571, the autonomy of the Orthodox Church was confirmed and
the archbishop was recognized as the religious and political leader of
the Greek Cypriot community. As a result, the church became a symbol of
political and ethnic unity for the Greek Cypriots and it helped them
preserve their religious, ethnic, cultural and political identity. On
the other hand, the millet system contributed to the polarization of
ethnicity. When the British took control over , the millet system was
not completely abolished. Although a modern bureaucratic administration
was established and two communities have introduced some modern
concepts and processes to create a common identity-Cypriot identity,
they still retained control over matters of religion, education,
cultural, personal status, and communal institutions.
Another historical/structural factor is the two ethnic group~Rs
conflicting views about the political past and future of the
island. The Greek side perceived the past history of island embedded in
its chosen trauma and glories. Throughout the British period, Enosis
(union of with ) has been the most persistent and rigid goal of the
Greek Cypriots. It can be interpreted as part of a wider Panhellenic
movement of Megali Idea (Great Idea) which aimed at reconstruction
of the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks~R inability mourn over the lost
of Byzantine Empire and the transfer of this past trauma from one
generation to next, combined with the irredentist nationalism of
the nineteenth century, found its expression in the term of Enosis
on Cyprus. The Megali Idea was result in one major war between and
in 1920-23 and the defeat of the in Asia Minor. Also, it created
the exchange of the population which includes 1 million Greeks and
650,000 Turks. This mass migration also reinforced the perception
of enemy image and the egoism of victimization. On the Turkish side,
the idea of taksim (partition of into Greek and Turkish sections) was
introduced by and as a counter force to Enosis. Both movements were
supported by and respectively. The conflicting goals of Enosis and
taksim led to a political polarization between the two ethnic groups.
The British colonial policy that was based on ~Sdivide and rule~T
maintained and reinforced the ethnic, administrative, and political
separation inherited from the Ottoman period. Unfortunately, the
British administration made no effort to create a unifying Cypriot
identity and political culture. The two communities were treated as
separate groups for administrative purposes and antagonism between
them was stirred. The maintenance of a psychological and administrative
gap between the two ethnic groups was instrumental in securing British
control over .
The political barrier of the conflict was based on in fact the London
and Zurich accords and the constitution. The agreements were signed on
the behalf of the Cypriot people by , and . Also, the constitution that
was the part of the accords was never submitted to a referendum and it
was imposed by foreign powers. From the beginning, the independence,
sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the island were limited
by the station of military forces and the right to interfere its
domestic affairs.
The ethnic dualism was institutionalized in all sectors of public
life. A political framework conducive to ethnic separation was
established. Although the Enosis and partition of the island was
prohibited by the constitution, the alternative system did not promote
integrative politics that cut across the political boundaries. This
~Sparalysis state~T reinforced and preserved the past practice of the
ethnic and political cleavages through institutionalization. Public
institutions that may help to build a common identity and bureaucratic
class promoted the ethnic interests. As a result, the system
paralyzed most vital organs and functions essential for a state and
a society. For example, the disproportional partition of the public
service, the police, and the army, veto right in the government
matters, and separate majority vote in the parliament intensified
the ethnic controversies.
Physically, they lived in separate villages and in separate quarters of
towns. In his study on the political geography of , Richard Patrick
has provided statistical evidence that indicates a substantial
decline in the number of mixed villages containing both the Greek
and Turks from 1881 to 1931.[15] After 1931, the decrease of mixed
settlement became even more eminent, reflecting at the very least
the preference of people of both communities to live in areas where
there was ethnic kinship. According to the 1960 census, there were
114 mixed villages out of a total of 634 (395 were entirely Greek
and 121 entirely Turkish.).[16]
During the intercommunal conflicts in 1963, both communities accepted a
truce that arranged a cease-fire line, now known as the ~Sgreen line~T,
patrolled by British forces. With the deployment of the United Nations
Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), this line became permanent borders between
two communities. After 1974 intervention, a new border was formed in
which both sides were physically separated from each other up until
now. Interestingly, this line is called as the ~SAttila Line~T that
reminds both sides different chosen traumas and glories. For Greeks,
Attila was a barbarian who invaded Rome and destroyed the Roman
civilization that was the continuation of the Hellenistic culture. On
the other hand, Attila is represented glory times for Turkic-Mongol
period for Turks. From outside, they seem similar to in some extent,
but still they still have ~Sminor differences.~T
The segregation of education that inherited from the Ottoman millet
system and the British colonial era has reinforced and sustained the
ethnic cleavage. During the British rule, the two communities had
separate schools which were controlled by their respective religious
institutions. In this period, Orthodox priests and Muslim clergies were
also schoolteachers. Moreover, they virtually established dependent
relations in educational area to their motherlands. The curricula and
textbooks used in Cypriot elementary and high schools were mostly
imported from the two mainlands. As a result, they have focused on
their religious, national, ethnic heritage and values and imported
the long history of Greek-Turkish rivalry into the island.
Because of the lack of the college and universities, both communities~R
youths have gone other institutions in , , and other countries. This
situation has created a lack communal interaction in educational and
intellectual fields and reinforced one-sided ~Sethnic way~T of thinking
among the two communities. For example, the first university in both
sides of the island was established in 1992. The University of Cyprus
has educated the Greek Cypriots since its establishment. The result
was a growing gap in perceptions, attitudes, and conflict behaviors
held by the two communities about each other.
The two communities also had their own newspapers and other
publications which have mostly produced a media war between two
sides. The local press in the island together with imported items
from and emphasizes Greek-Turkish antagonism and enhances mutual
fears and stereotypical perceptions.
The above factors- church dominance, millet system, fragmented ethnic
education, antagonistic national loyalties, political polarization
and the British policy of ~Qdivide and rule~R- contributed to the
preservation of the ethnic identity of the two Cypriot communities
and the generation of a political schism between them. Four centuries
of geographic proximity and physical intermixing did not produce
inter-communal co-existence and common Cypriot identity as a counter
force the dividing effects of religious, administrative, educational,
social, psychological, and cultural differences.
4. PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS
Psychologically and socially, the two ethnic groups remained largely
divided. The first psychological barrier is the issue of the lack
of the common Cypriot identity and the emphasis of Turkish and
Greek identity. Although both communities have lived on the same
island for over 400 years, they have maintained their Turkishness
and Greekness. When the Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960,
there was no Cypriot nation other than two different communities
or nations. After the independence, the two communities continued
celebrating the national holidays of and which were mostly directed
against each other. Moreover, the official flag of appeared only
at certain places, such as Makarios~R presidential palace. On other
places and occasions, the Greek and Turkish national anthems and flags
were used during these celebrations. Up until now, has on national
anthem of its own. When the Cypriot Turks raised the red-and-white
flag of and the Cypriot Greeks displayed the blue-and-white one of ,
both communities reinforced their sense of separateness and their
loyalties to and . As a result, there has been no sign of common
political culture and mass legitimacy for the new state-Cyprus.
Describing the attitudes of the Cypriot toward the official Cypriot
flag, Vamik Volkan, a professor of psychiatry with Turkish Cypriot,
also wrote:
"When my artist brother-in-law was asked to design a flag for the
newly-constituted Republic of Cyprus, he was told that he could
use white, which appears both the Greek and Turkish flags, but that
he had to avoid using red, which appears on the Turkish flag, and
blue, which is used on the Greek flag. Accordingly, he used yellow
with some green, these relating to no country in question. This
yellow-green-and-white banner is still the official flag of . When
the Republic was established, however, Cypriot Turks raised the
red-and-white flag of , and the Greeks flaunted the blue-and-white
one of . The official yellow-green-white one appeared only at certain
locations, such as Makarios~R presidential palace-as an ornament. The
story of a Cypriot flag, designed for an imaginary Cypriot nation,
and the population~Rs response to it, indicates that Realpolitik found
no echo in the psyche of either Cypriot Turk or Cypriot Greek.~T[17]
The second dimension of psychological barrier can be explained by
psychoanalytical approach. This approach focuses on the issue of chosen
traumas and glories, the egoism of victimization, narcissism of minor
differences, the suitable target of externalization, enemy images,
and the ethnic group formation.
Psychodynamic approach rests on in part on the application of
psychoanalytic defense mechanisms, including externalization,
projection, and identification that individuals are used them
to protect themselves from perceived psychological danger.[18]
Externalization and projection are ways of getting rid of unpleasant
self-images, feeling states, thoughts, and impulses which cannot
integrate with the image of the self by attributing them to the
external world. In other words, they involve transferring and
projecting unconscious and unacceptable impulses, thoughts, and
characteristics into an outgroup so that the individual can maintain
an acceptable and cohesive sense of self.[19] Identification is an
unconscious process by which one assimilates the images of another
with oneself. In conflict situation, the ethnic group to which one
belongs is differentiated itself from other groups.
According to Volkan, the border between two ethnic groups reveals
rituals that occur between their members. Erecting a psychological
border between the two ethnic groups that prevents each group~Rs
externalizations and projections from back to in-group is one ritual.
Without a psychological border, each ethnic group would become a
replica of the other. In that situation, the externalization and
projections needed to provide cohesion for group identity would
be unstable. Sometimes these invisible borders are made manifest
in attention to physical borders. When neighbor groups are not in
conflict, physical borders are flexible and large groups reduce their
investment in them. For example, crossing border between and the is
little more than a formality since no threat is involved in moving
from one large group~Rs territory to the other~Rs. Under conflict
situations, however, physical borders serve a double duty: they
provide practical physical protection, and they are ~Spsychologized~T
to represent a symbolic thick skin that protects large groups from
being contaminated.[20]
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1692
--Boundary_(ID_37IBmQAd/cwU/TH/zStBkQ)--
By Sezai OZCELIK
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Aug 16 2005
Summary: This study will focus on the psychoanalytical concepts and
theories to explain the borders and barriers among the social groups
and states. The concepts of the minor differences, externalization,
projection, chosen trauma and glories, dehumanization, victimization,
and ethnic identity were used to analyze the historical, psychological
and political barriers between Turkish and Greek Cypriots. In conflıct,
it~Rs necessary to deal with historical and psychological barriers
to achieve lasting and perpetual peace and political solution like
the Annan Plan.
Key Words: , Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, psychoanalysis,
minor differences, externalization, chosen trauma and glories,
ethnic identity.
An Analysis of the Conflict with a Psyhoanalytical Approach:
Psychological, Historical and Political Barriers Between Turkish And
Greek Cypriots (*)
1. INTRODUCTION
This work examines the psychological, historical and political
barriers between Turkish and Greek Cypriots in the context of the
psycho-historical point of view. Although the creation and maintenance
of the borders between the ethnic groups have been explained by the
realist theories, peace research introduces a new perspective how the
border were created and maintained. It examines the issue of barriers
between the ethnic groups through ~Spsychological lens.~T
In this paper, I will mainly analyze the sources of the borders
by applying the psychoanalytical theories into the historical and
political events. The basic concepts, narcissism of minor differences,
suitable target of externalization, projection, chosen traumas and
glories, dehumanization, the egoism of victimization, the need for
the enemies and allies, and the ethnic identity formation, are the
product of the Vamik Volkan~Rs psychodynamic approach.
The case of the conflict presents a good laboratory conditions to
apply these concepts into the real life conflict. First, I will
briefly describe the history of the conflict. Then I will examine
the historical and political sources of the barriers between the
Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The following section, I will examine
the psychoanalytical approach of the border issues between the two
communities.
1.1. Brief Information Cyprus is strategically located in the eastern
part of the Mediterranean Sea and the third largest island in the
Mediterranean Sea , after Sicily and Sardia. These three geographic
characteristics -location, size, and the fact that it is an island-
have been an important factor in the ethnic conflict in . The island
is about 42 miles (65 kilometers) south of Turkey, 64 miles (103 km)
of Syria, 240 miles (386 km) of the north of Egypt and the Suez Canal,
and 500 miles (800 km) of south-east of the Greek mainland.[1] It
has an area of 3,572 square miles (9, 851 square kilometers) and the
island is divided between the Greek Cypriot South and the Turkish
Cypriot North[2]. According to the census of 1960, the population
of the island was about 77 percent Greeks, 18.3 percent Turks and
4.7 percent other ethnic groups, such as Maronites, Armenians,
and Latins.[3] Today, the population of the South is estimated to
be 629,500 (1998). According to the 1996 census in the North, the
population there is 200,587, constituting just over 24 percent of the
total population of the island.[4] The Greek Cypriots are Orthodox
Christians and speak Greek. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots
are in Muslim faith and speak Turkish.
2. HISTORY OF THE CONFLICT Because of its strategic position on
the main routes between Europe and Asia , has been the focus of
the political conflict and the cultural interaction. was colonized
in about the thirteenth century BC by settlers from the Aegean and
Greek colonists. Despite many invasions and periods of foreign rule,
Greek language and culture became dominant. During the Medieval
period, has been held by the Western powers. In 1571, the island was
conquered by the Ottoman Turks. Under the Ottoman rule, the Greek
and Turkish populations have lived relatively peacefully in which
they have collaborated to protest against the Ottoman rule when it
was accused of excessive taxation.[5]
In 1878, leased from the Ottoman Empire to be used as a base from
which to protect the Ottoman Empire against the ambitions of . In 1914,
the island was annexed by on the outbreak of war with the Ottoman
Empire . After became a ~SCrown Colony~T of in 1925, the Greek Cypriots
began their long and intense struggle against British rule to achieve
the part of the Megali Idea (Great Idea): Enosis (unification with
).[6] During the early period of British administration (1878-1925),
the two ethnic communities lived in relative functional harmony
with physical intermixing and social tolerance but without cultural
integration (Fisher, 1992: 2). Between 1925 and 1960 conflict can
be defined like this: the Greek Cypriots agitating for Enosis, the
Turkish Cypriots opposing the movement, and the British Government
replying in the negative to the Enosis demands.[7]
In 1950, Makarios, who would later become the first president of the
Republic of Cyprus, was elected Archbishop. Under the auspice of
the Greek Orthodox Church, an island-wide plebiscite called for an
overwhelming support for Enosis (% 96).[8] With the establishment of
the EOKA (Ethnici Organosis Kyprion Agoniston-National Organization
of Cypriot Combatants), an underground guerrilla organization,
the Greek self-determination campaign began in 1955.[9] Because of
their strategic interests in the Middle East , the British resisted
self-determination and Enosis. The British eventually concluded that
their interests could best be served by retaining the sovereignty
of their military bases on the island and by achieving a political
settlement that would satisfy the interests of the majority Greek
community on the island while protecting the interests of the
minority Turkish community.[10] Prior to 1955, and Turkish Cypriots
never actively involved in the politics of . However, the immediate
danger of Enosis forced them to reexamine their interests in . In
particular, expressed its concern about the future of a Turkish
minority under the majority of the Greek Cypriot rule. Moreover, had
strategic concern about the extension of Greek territory under ~Sits
nose~T. As a result, the Turkish Cypriots aligned themselves with the
British, adopted taksim (partition) as a counter to Enosis and formed
a paramilitary organization (TMT-Turkish Resistance Organization)
to defend their interests.[11]
After the intense and violent intercommunal fighting and
the anti-British struggle by the Greek Cypriots, a solution was
negotiated by, and and resulted in the London and Zurich Accords in
1959 and 1960. The accords prohibited Enosis and taksim and introduced
bi-communal / federal solution for the island. , and had a right to
intervene, unilaterally or together, in order to restore the state
of affairs in the island. The constitution of was designed by three
powers. The president would be a Greek Cypriot and the vice-president
a Turkish Cypriot. There would be a Council of Ministers (7 Greeks,
3 Turks) and a House of Representatives (70 percent Greek, 30 percent
Turkish) elected by a universal suffrage for a term of five years. The
Republic of Cyprus was eventually come into existence on 16 August
1960, with Makarios its first president.
During the end of the 1963, the intercommunal violence caused an
imminent threat for the stability of the island. Nicosia (Lefkoşe),
the capital of the Republic, became a battleground and physical
segregation of the two communities intensified. Between 1963 and
1974, the Turkish Cypriots were forced to live in enclaves on their
own in overcrowded slum conditions. They have lived in 5 percent
of the island~Rs territory and 25,000 Turkish Cypriots have become
refugees. Meanwhile, the UN Security Council decided to send a
peacekeeping force. A buffer zone marked by the ~SGreen Line~T was
drawn between the conflicting groups. Since March 1964, the United
Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has deployed to prevent a recurrence
of fighting and to contribute the maintenance of law and order and
the restoration of normalcy to the island.
The history of the island took a dramatic turn when the
Greek-sponsored coup engineered against the President of Cyprus,
Makarios in July 1974. Because of the fear of Enosis, decided to
intervene unilaterally and seized 37 percent of the island. was
divided into northern (Turkish) and southern (Greek) section by the
~SAttila Line~T, running from through Nicosia (Lefkoşe) to Famagusta
(Gazimagusa). The Turkish intervention caused huge personal and social
tragedies. Approximately, 180,000 Cypriot Greeks became refugees,
fleeing to the south and abandoning their possessions behind. There
was also 6,000 dead and 1615 missing person on the Greek side.[12]
After the coup and war of 1974, the efforts of peaceful resolution
of the conflict have been increased at the intercommunal
level as talks and negotiations between the leaders of the two
communities. Between 1974-1990, the major third-party has been the UN
Secretaries-General. They have attempted to mediate the intercommunal
talks: Denktash-Makarios (1975-1977), Denktash-Kyprianu (1977-1988),
Denktash-Vasiliu (1988-1993), and now Denktash-Klerides. With the
end of the Cold War, the and the European Union began to play more
important role in the negotiation process.
Both sides see the political reconciliation and the solution of
the conflict differently. The Turkish Cypriot community demands the
recognition of its separate political status, which culminated in the
establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern in 1983. On the other
side, the Greek Cypriot community sees the solution of the problem only
in the context of a bi-communal solution that allowed for the ~Sthree
freedoms~T: freedom of settlement, freedom of property ownership,
and freedom of movement. The removal of Turkish forces from island was
another Greek Cypriot precondition for settlement. Furthermore, other
issues had to be dealt with such as the question of Turkish settlers
on the island, international guarantees to replace the 1960 Treaty
of Guarantee, economic reconstruction, exploitation of resources, and
development of infrastructure on a joint rather than unitary basis.[13]
In 1993, the United Nations initiated a new attempt to obtain
agreement that produced the confidence-building measures (CBMs). CBMs
essentially involved the opening of Nicosia (Lefkose) International
Airport (closed since 1974) and the permission of the Greek Cypriots
to reoccupy Varosha/Maras lost in 1974. They failed miserably.
In 1997, the UN tried to bring the two sides together in two meetings,
one in New York, the other in . The question of the sovereignty of
the North became a crucial issue. Recent developments have made the
dispute more difficult to solve. First, the decision by the European
Union to open the membership negotiations with the South stopped the
UN sponsored negotiations that just began after the quake in . Second,
the establishment of a Joint Defense Doctrine between and the South
has alerted about the strategic importance of the island.
The conflict can be analyzed three different levels. At one level,
conflict is an inter-communal conflict that began as a colonial
struggle against British rule. At another level, it is a regional
conflict because of the relationship between and over territory and
resources in the eastern Mediterranean as well as their relationships
with the two communities in the island. For , is mainly as strategic
matter. Because of its great proximity to , could be dangerous for
if in enemy hands. seems as a huge aircraft carrier that threatens
the most of the Turkish main cities and industrial areas. Moreover,
the historical animosity between and was another important factor. For
Greeks, was historically Greek and the part of the Hellenic world. The
Turks represent the chosen traumas such as the lost of Constantinople,
the destruction of the Byzantine Empire and the eviction of the
Greeks from Anatolia after the First World War. Furthermore, it is
an international conflict that involves superpower politics, the
international and regional organizations (the United Nations and the
European Union). At systemic level, the conflict in became entangled in
the politics of the Cold War. The conflict between and over and other
areas were a potential source of weakness on NATO~Rs southern flank.
3. THE HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL BARRIERS
The Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots have been divided along
linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and religious lines. The Greek Cypriots
speak Greek and identify with the Greek nation, Greek culture and
the heritage of classical and the Byzantine Empire. They put more
emphasis on ~Sthe chosen traumas and glories~T of the Greek nation.
Almost all of them are members of the Orthodox Church, which is
has had a great place on politics, education, and cultural arena of
the Greek Cypriots. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots speak
Turkish and identify with the Turkish nation, Turkish culture, and
the heritage of the Ottoman Empire. Virtually all of them are Muslims
of the Sunni sect.
One of the historical-structural barriers between two communities is
the Ottoman millet[14] administrative system on the basis of religion
and ethnicity. According to this system, each religious ethnic
group was treated as a distinct entity. They had a right on their
administrative issues and they were carried out with the help of the
various religious institutions. After the conquest of by the Ottoman
Empire in 1571, the autonomy of the Orthodox Church was confirmed and
the archbishop was recognized as the religious and political leader of
the Greek Cypriot community. As a result, the church became a symbol of
political and ethnic unity for the Greek Cypriots and it helped them
preserve their religious, ethnic, cultural and political identity. On
the other hand, the millet system contributed to the polarization of
ethnicity. When the British took control over , the millet system was
not completely abolished. Although a modern bureaucratic administration
was established and two communities have introduced some modern
concepts and processes to create a common identity-Cypriot identity,
they still retained control over matters of religion, education,
cultural, personal status, and communal institutions.
Another historical/structural factor is the two ethnic group~Rs
conflicting views about the political past and future of the
island. The Greek side perceived the past history of island embedded in
its chosen trauma and glories. Throughout the British period, Enosis
(union of with ) has been the most persistent and rigid goal of the
Greek Cypriots. It can be interpreted as part of a wider Panhellenic
movement of Megali Idea (Great Idea) which aimed at reconstruction
of the Byzantine Empire. The Greeks~R inability mourn over the lost
of Byzantine Empire and the transfer of this past trauma from one
generation to next, combined with the irredentist nationalism of
the nineteenth century, found its expression in the term of Enosis
on Cyprus. The Megali Idea was result in one major war between and
in 1920-23 and the defeat of the in Asia Minor. Also, it created
the exchange of the population which includes 1 million Greeks and
650,000 Turks. This mass migration also reinforced the perception
of enemy image and the egoism of victimization. On the Turkish side,
the idea of taksim (partition of into Greek and Turkish sections) was
introduced by and as a counter force to Enosis. Both movements were
supported by and respectively. The conflicting goals of Enosis and
taksim led to a political polarization between the two ethnic groups.
The British colonial policy that was based on ~Sdivide and rule~T
maintained and reinforced the ethnic, administrative, and political
separation inherited from the Ottoman period. Unfortunately, the
British administration made no effort to create a unifying Cypriot
identity and political culture. The two communities were treated as
separate groups for administrative purposes and antagonism between
them was stirred. The maintenance of a psychological and administrative
gap between the two ethnic groups was instrumental in securing British
control over .
The political barrier of the conflict was based on in fact the London
and Zurich accords and the constitution. The agreements were signed on
the behalf of the Cypriot people by , and . Also, the constitution that
was the part of the accords was never submitted to a referendum and it
was imposed by foreign powers. From the beginning, the independence,
sovereignty, and territorial integrity of the island were limited
by the station of military forces and the right to interfere its
domestic affairs.
The ethnic dualism was institutionalized in all sectors of public
life. A political framework conducive to ethnic separation was
established. Although the Enosis and partition of the island was
prohibited by the constitution, the alternative system did not promote
integrative politics that cut across the political boundaries. This
~Sparalysis state~T reinforced and preserved the past practice of the
ethnic and political cleavages through institutionalization. Public
institutions that may help to build a common identity and bureaucratic
class promoted the ethnic interests. As a result, the system
paralyzed most vital organs and functions essential for a state and
a society. For example, the disproportional partition of the public
service, the police, and the army, veto right in the government
matters, and separate majority vote in the parliament intensified
the ethnic controversies.
Physically, they lived in separate villages and in separate quarters of
towns. In his study on the political geography of , Richard Patrick
has provided statistical evidence that indicates a substantial
decline in the number of mixed villages containing both the Greek
and Turks from 1881 to 1931.[15] After 1931, the decrease of mixed
settlement became even more eminent, reflecting at the very least
the preference of people of both communities to live in areas where
there was ethnic kinship. According to the 1960 census, there were
114 mixed villages out of a total of 634 (395 were entirely Greek
and 121 entirely Turkish.).[16]
During the intercommunal conflicts in 1963, both communities accepted a
truce that arranged a cease-fire line, now known as the ~Sgreen line~T,
patrolled by British forces. With the deployment of the United Nations
Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), this line became permanent borders between
two communities. After 1974 intervention, a new border was formed in
which both sides were physically separated from each other up until
now. Interestingly, this line is called as the ~SAttila Line~T that
reminds both sides different chosen traumas and glories. For Greeks,
Attila was a barbarian who invaded Rome and destroyed the Roman
civilization that was the continuation of the Hellenistic culture. On
the other hand, Attila is represented glory times for Turkic-Mongol
period for Turks. From outside, they seem similar to in some extent,
but still they still have ~Sminor differences.~T
The segregation of education that inherited from the Ottoman millet
system and the British colonial era has reinforced and sustained the
ethnic cleavage. During the British rule, the two communities had
separate schools which were controlled by their respective religious
institutions. In this period, Orthodox priests and Muslim clergies were
also schoolteachers. Moreover, they virtually established dependent
relations in educational area to their motherlands. The curricula and
textbooks used in Cypriot elementary and high schools were mostly
imported from the two mainlands. As a result, they have focused on
their religious, national, ethnic heritage and values and imported
the long history of Greek-Turkish rivalry into the island.
Because of the lack of the college and universities, both communities~R
youths have gone other institutions in , , and other countries. This
situation has created a lack communal interaction in educational and
intellectual fields and reinforced one-sided ~Sethnic way~T of thinking
among the two communities. For example, the first university in both
sides of the island was established in 1992. The University of Cyprus
has educated the Greek Cypriots since its establishment. The result
was a growing gap in perceptions, attitudes, and conflict behaviors
held by the two communities about each other.
The two communities also had their own newspapers and other
publications which have mostly produced a media war between two
sides. The local press in the island together with imported items
from and emphasizes Greek-Turkish antagonism and enhances mutual
fears and stereotypical perceptions.
The above factors- church dominance, millet system, fragmented ethnic
education, antagonistic national loyalties, political polarization
and the British policy of ~Qdivide and rule~R- contributed to the
preservation of the ethnic identity of the two Cypriot communities
and the generation of a political schism between them. Four centuries
of geographic proximity and physical intermixing did not produce
inter-communal co-existence and common Cypriot identity as a counter
force the dividing effects of religious, administrative, educational,
social, psychological, and cultural differences.
4. PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS
Psychologically and socially, the two ethnic groups remained largely
divided. The first psychological barrier is the issue of the lack
of the common Cypriot identity and the emphasis of Turkish and
Greek identity. Although both communities have lived on the same
island for over 400 years, they have maintained their Turkishness
and Greekness. When the Republic of Cyprus was established in 1960,
there was no Cypriot nation other than two different communities
or nations. After the independence, the two communities continued
celebrating the national holidays of and which were mostly directed
against each other. Moreover, the official flag of appeared only
at certain places, such as Makarios~R presidential palace. On other
places and occasions, the Greek and Turkish national anthems and flags
were used during these celebrations. Up until now, has on national
anthem of its own. When the Cypriot Turks raised the red-and-white
flag of and the Cypriot Greeks displayed the blue-and-white one of ,
both communities reinforced their sense of separateness and their
loyalties to and . As a result, there has been no sign of common
political culture and mass legitimacy for the new state-Cyprus.
Describing the attitudes of the Cypriot toward the official Cypriot
flag, Vamik Volkan, a professor of psychiatry with Turkish Cypriot,
also wrote:
"When my artist brother-in-law was asked to design a flag for the
newly-constituted Republic of Cyprus, he was told that he could
use white, which appears both the Greek and Turkish flags, but that
he had to avoid using red, which appears on the Turkish flag, and
blue, which is used on the Greek flag. Accordingly, he used yellow
with some green, these relating to no country in question. This
yellow-green-and-white banner is still the official flag of . When
the Republic was established, however, Cypriot Turks raised the
red-and-white flag of , and the Greeks flaunted the blue-and-white
one of . The official yellow-green-white one appeared only at certain
locations, such as Makarios~R presidential palace-as an ornament. The
story of a Cypriot flag, designed for an imaginary Cypriot nation,
and the population~Rs response to it, indicates that Realpolitik found
no echo in the psyche of either Cypriot Turk or Cypriot Greek.~T[17]
The second dimension of psychological barrier can be explained by
psychoanalytical approach. This approach focuses on the issue of chosen
traumas and glories, the egoism of victimization, narcissism of minor
differences, the suitable target of externalization, enemy images,
and the ethnic group formation.
Psychodynamic approach rests on in part on the application of
psychoanalytic defense mechanisms, including externalization,
projection, and identification that individuals are used them
to protect themselves from perceived psychological danger.[18]
Externalization and projection are ways of getting rid of unpleasant
self-images, feeling states, thoughts, and impulses which cannot
integrate with the image of the self by attributing them to the
external world. In other words, they involve transferring and
projecting unconscious and unacceptable impulses, thoughts, and
characteristics into an outgroup so that the individual can maintain
an acceptable and cohesive sense of self.[19] Identification is an
unconscious process by which one assimilates the images of another
with oneself. In conflict situation, the ethnic group to which one
belongs is differentiated itself from other groups.
According to Volkan, the border between two ethnic groups reveals
rituals that occur between their members. Erecting a psychological
border between the two ethnic groups that prevents each group~Rs
externalizations and projections from back to in-group is one ritual.
Without a psychological border, each ethnic group would become a
replica of the other. In that situation, the externalization and
projections needed to provide cohesion for group identity would
be unstable. Sometimes these invisible borders are made manifest
in attention to physical borders. When neighbor groups are not in
conflict, physical borders are flexible and large groups reduce their
investment in them. For example, crossing border between and the is
little more than a formality since no threat is involved in moving
from one large group~Rs territory to the other~Rs. Under conflict
situations, however, physical borders serve a double duty: they
provide practical physical protection, and they are ~Spsychologized~T
to represent a symbolic thick skin that protects large groups from
being contaminated.[20]
http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1692
--Boundary_(ID_37IBmQAd/cwU/TH/zStBkQ)--