Splitting Cyprus

The first-ever referendum in both parts of Cyprus was held on April 24. It was a potentially decisive moment for the island8217;s Greek Cyp...

The first-ever referendum in both parts of Cyprus was held on April 24. It was a potentially decisive moment for the island8217;s Greek Cypriots 78 per cent of the population and Turkish Cypriots 18 per cent alike. The referendum was perhaps the last opportunity for the unification of Cyprus, divided into northern and southern territories since the Turkish army8217;s intervention in 1974. The referendum put to vote a UN plan for reunification. While 76 per cent of Greek Cypriot voters rejected it, 65 per cent of Turkish Cypriots favoured it. There was no meeting point.

The year 1963 marked the forced/voluntary isolation of Turkish Cypriots from the government, based on the constitutional design for shared governance. If Turkish Cypriots saw their 8220;bad days8221; from 1963 to mid-1974, Greek Cypriots saw their 8220;bad days8221; after the 1974 Turkish military intervention. This Turkish intervention was based on the Treaty of Alliance and Guarantee. It captured 37 per cent of Cyprus8217;s territory for Turkish Cypriots but was condemned as a 8220;Turkish occupation8221; by the Greek side. Many rounds of 8220;communal talks8221; followed. Finally, in 1983, the Turkish Cypriots issued a unilateral declaration of independence.

After 1983, both Cypriot communities met for talks. Terms like 8220;centralised federation8221;, 8220;sharing sovereignty8221;, 8220;federation8221; and 8220;confederation8221; were bandied about. Later, the whole debate centred on the dichotomy of the security-cum-sovereignty agenda, as against the welfare-cum-minority agenda. It was all to no avail.

In March 1998, the Greek Cypriots started preparing for the European Union membership. It was then that the EU put pressure, asking for a reunification of Cyprus before the island joined the European family. EU pressure and US suggestions to Turkish and Greek Cypriots to shift from the 8220;confederation formula8221; to a 8220;federal arrangement8221; eventually led to the UN plan. The 9,000-page plan was presented in November 8217;02. It sought to respect both 8220;exclusive rights8221; and 8220;inclusive character8221; in governance. It was modified three times, providing for two separate governments under a collegiate presidency, comprising four Greek Cypriots and two Turkish Cypriots. It prohibited partition or secession, domination by one side or union with any other country. The plan had the support of the EU and US, as also Greece and Turkey.

The plan8217;s rejection has not prevented Greek Cypriots from entering the EU. But it has closed the doors for the Turks. Greek Cypriots have shifted from their earlier nationalistic demand for a single Cyprus to somehow accepting separation. There are reasons for this. The per capita income of Greek Cypriots is four times higher than that of Turkish Cypriots. They also receive enormous EU assistance. They argue that the UN plan restricted their rights; it was like a union/marriage between two unequal partners, one claiming more rights and the other the same rights. Such economic and psychological barriers may have worked against the plan. The rejection of the plan is a sad development for most of the concerned parties. Turkey has appealed for lifting of economic sanctions against Northern Cyprus and an end to its political isolation. It has also argued that the Turks should not be blamed in the future for not working towards Cyprus8217;s unity.

Meanwhile, as their Greek counterparts enter the EU, there8217;s a question mark over the future of Turkish Cypriots.

The writer teaches political science at Hamdard University, New Delhi