Cyprus partition 50 years on: Stavri Kalopsidiotou

Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, cannot afford the perpetuation of the current status quo, which, in the words of the UN Secretary General himself is not viable. On the 50th anniversary of the 1974 tragic events Cyprus and its people, Stavri Kalopsidiotou explains the efforts to reunite the island and remedy the human rights violations of all Cypriots who have been suffering the consequences of this de facto division.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the 1974 tragic events, the consequences of which are ongoing and cannot be altered in the absence of a comprehensive, political solution based on the agreed parameters of the United Nations. On 20 July 1974, following the treacherous coup d’ etat of the Greek junta and its local collaborators (EOKA B) aiming at the overthrow of the democratically elected government, Turkey illegally invaded Cyprus and continues to occupy militarily 37% of its territory in stark violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus. Unfortunately, despite various efforts to reunite the island and remedy the human rights violations of all Cypriots who have been suffering the consequences of this de facto division (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots), this unacceptable status quo remains ongoing.

In the years that followed the tragic events of 1974 and up until today, the determination of pro-peace political forces and civil movements to reach a comprehensive, just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem has faced several challenges. Whilst the public discourse locally has been held hostage to extreme nationalist rhetoric and politics of ‘real-politic’ essentially inhibiting the prospects of rebutting the divisionist fait accompli, Turkey has continued to entrench the division on the ground through furthering the illegal settlement of the occupied part of the island, embedding more military structures and hegemonizing financially and culturally the Turkish Cypriot community. Amidst this context and notwithstanding the urgency to resume negotiations and address the real reasons for past negotiating failures, some political forces and figures have insistently been refusing to draw lessons from the history of the Cyprus problem and insist on the involvement of NATO in the post-solution arrangements.

Ignoring its professed role in the illegal interventionist saga which culminated with the coup d’etat and the Turkish invasion in the summer of 1974, they suggest that it becomes the main security anchor for future stability in Cyprus. Notwithstanding NATO’s internal dynamics, in which Turkey is a major actor, as well as its inability to perform the role of a peace guarantor, the proponents of this view dangerously overlook the need to truly safeguard the independence of the Republic of Cyprus. Much like in other cases relating to Cyprus, foreign interventions in all their facets, including through legal arrangements in the context of the Zurich-London Agreements of 1959 (which paved the way for the Republic’s recognition of independence in 1960) have been detrimental for the political stability and social cohesion on the island, as well as inevitably for the real security of Cypriots.

Unquestionably, both the Treaty of Guarantee by which Turkey, Greece and the UK were rendered ‘guarantor powers’, as well as the Treaty of Establishment with which the UK secured for itself a strong military presence on the island through the establishment of military bases occupying a significant percentage of the territory of Cyprus, fall within negative and legally ambiguous arrangements. Hence, their inception prompted the imminent reaction of the left and progressive movements in Cyprus, which continue to claim that such guarantee regimes are anachronistic and that the presence of foreign military bases compromises the vision of a demilitarized island and of a world community based on peaceful coexistence and cooperation. Notably, the stated support of the UK for the termination of the Treaty of Guarantee with the comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem, as expressed during the Conference for Cyprus in 2017 (Crans Montana) is a positive step. As well as its professed readiness in 2004 to disengage from some designated areas currently occupied by the military bases. Nevertheless, in the absence of a solution these remain relevant only as political commitments and of course, the military disengagement from some areas can only be accepted as an intermediate step towards the full dismantlement of the military bases.     

The disruption of the free will of the people of Cyprus through the relevant agreement being one ground for this position, another significant one relates to their use; namely, the militarization of the island and their aggravating engagement in aggressive military operations in the region or in illegal espionage activities. It is of great concern that, as confirmed by various publications, contrary to their established provisions they are used by non-Commonwealth countries, the USA to be more precise, including against Iraq amidst totally illegal expeditions. Not to mention that such activities also perpetuate insecurity for the local population and have hazardous consequences for the ecosystem.

Having stated all the above, it becomes evident that it is not in the benefit of the Cypriot people and of the international community as a whole, that foreign military bases remain established in Cyprus. It is not even in the interest of any international stakeholder, who is striving for a viable settlement in Cyprus, as any foreign military presence will keep providing the alibi for rendering Cyprus hostage to dangerous foreign external policies that can only de- stabilize the country. The attaining of a non- handicap self- determination, which is a right in itself for the people of Cyprus, the realization of our long-standing cause of demilitarization and transition to a paradigm of peace in the region and worldwide, shall be respected. After all, if Britain truly stands for what it preaches then democracy and international law shall prevail. Cyprus, shall be disengaged from the shadows of a loaded past, and be freed to provide a peaceful prospect to its people.

The analysis above of course, does not deny that the first priority of Cypriots remains the termination of the illegal Turkish occupation and that amidst the longest experienced stalemate of the peace process, attention must be drawn to the resumption of the negotiations. In searching for a ‘common ground’, as the UNSG has recalled various times since the collapse of the process at Crans Montana (2017), the deviation of Turkey from the agreed basis for the solution and the insistent appraisal of the unacceptable ‘two-states solution’ is not encouraging. Nevertheless, any ideas for accommodating as a lesser evil its call for ‘sovereign equality’ between the Republic of Cyprus and the illegal regime of ‘TRNC’, are not in conformity with the principles of international law and will provide a dangerous precedent for other secessionist efforts. On the contrary, the continuation of the negotiations from the point where they were interrupted ensures that the solution will be on the basis of a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation with political equality as set out in the relevant Resolutions of the UN. By safeguarding the body of work that has been agreed so far at the negotiations, achieved convergences and the Guterres Framework, critical and sensitive issues that have been agreed between the two sides will not be opened up; which is extremely important in striving for a balanced agreement as soon as possible, for avoiding further adventures and complications.

Cyprus and its people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, cannot afford the perpetuation of the current status quo. In the words of the UN Secretary General himself it is not viable. In the absence of a solution within the UN parameters, Cyprus will remain hostage to foreign interests and its people will never see their inalienable human rights being respected. Anything different is not an option; neither for Cypriots ourselves striving for the reunification of our country and people, nor should it be for any international stakeholders truly interested in security and stability for the wider region. At current times, with the wider region suffering the devastating effects of aggressive wars and genocidal acts being observed without any honest remorse, public reaction and political pressure for result-oriented peace negotiations based on past agreements and mutual respect must increase. That is, if a principled world order to the benefit of humanity is to survive the chaos of self-interests, militarization and aggression.   


Stavri Kalopsidiotou is member of the Central Committee of AKEL, Cyprus Problem Bureau

This article appeared in our latest journal

Support our work – donate, become a member, affiliate your local organisation’s branch or volunteer

The views expressed in the articles published on this website do not necessarily represent those of Liberation

Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap