The Ethos Of The Cyprus Conflict
Historiography, collective memory and identity have to a large extent been influenced by the Ottoman Empire’s rule, its successor the British Empire and the turbulent inter-communal years prior to and after the island’s independence in 1960. As highlighted by Joseph events and incidents of past years, ethno-political polarisation, communal segregation, educational fragmentation, antagonistic national loyalties, mutual suspicion, fear and mistrust of the other, and the structural inadequacies of the state to bridge these differences have all contributed to a seemingly unwavering ethos of conflict that perpetuates the intractable feuds. These factors have generated steadfast outlooks on territory, security and troop deployment, constitutional features such as power-sharing and political equality, the right of return, freedom of movement, property rights, restitution, education, language, civil service as well as executive, legislative and judiciary matters. Consequently and with the passage of time, such positions have formed assumptions of victimisation, led to the initiation and propagation of a positive self image and the delegitimisation of the opponent and given rise to extreme patriotism. Perceptions of this nature linger within the GC and TC communities, affecting their understanding of the other and their conception of a settlement. Viewpoints stemming from opposite ends of the spectrum are discussed below.
Psychological and social division between the two communities, culminated over the years, has allowed for the adoption of the delegitimising beliefs towards the other community long before the war. Initially as a result of the educational curriculum, where much of the information received about the other was dominated by conflicting viewpoints, but also owing to the dominance of the Orthodox church among the GCs, which constituted a symbol of political and ethnic unity around which much of the “political, social, cultural and intellectual life is associated with” as Joseph indicates, both communities’ perception of the other deviated far from actuality. With regard to education, antagonistic interpretations of the past were conceived that abide to this day. When one community celebrates an event as a trauma the other celebrates that same event as a glorious victory, with both communities ascribing the image of a bad enemy and rival to members of the other community. For example, when TCs commemorate the “Kanli Noel” (Bloody Christmas) 1963 events, the GCs have no official anniversary, whilst in the GC collective memory 1974 is known as “the dark anniversary of the invasion”, while TCs celebrate “Happy Peace Operation”. National holidays therefore, painted with bias and political affiliation, lacking filters to distinguish between Turks and TCs or Greeks and GCs, alongside ethno-political polarisation, enhance national pride, integration and solidarity among the in-group, allowing for the perpetuation of the feeling of victimisation, the emergence of discrimination, the subsequent self-illusion of superiority and the justification of a nature of hatred and division. According to the narrative of the GC community, the military operations undertaken by Turkey in 1974 constitute an illegal invasion, an act of aggression and a premeditated act.
As stated by Ker-Lindsay the second invasion particularly was contrary to international law due to the fact that Turkey’s intentions were not to restore and revert the the situation back to 1960, but rather Ankara had clear intentions to radically change the status quo and implement its own ideology. Such actions, severely delegitimise the Turks and TCs, who supported the operations, justifying the cultivating of anger towards the unlawful intruder and murderer. On the other hand, the TCs perceive the act as an intervention, a legitimate and necessary undertaking to prevent Enosis but also to protect them from the savage GCs who had been persecuting them since the late 60’s. In sharing his account, Dr. Volkan attests that “between 1963-1968, TCs were forced by GCs to live in enclaves under subhuman conditions and eventually occupied only 3% of the island, instead of the 35% they had previously owned. They became caged prisoners, surrounded by enemies”. Condemning the acts of that period, some have even accused the majority GCs of attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing against the minority TCs. According to Vural and Sozen and Patrick (1976) massacres occurred in sealed-off quarters, holy shrines were desecrated, villages were destroyed, 25, 000 lawful inhabitants were forcefully relocated and 500 people were injured or killed and others harassed or kidnapped. Systematic ridicule, division and oppression undeniably justified the need for self-defence and the need for their motherland to intervene and reinstate their rights and dignity.
The events that transpired in 1974 respectively influenced the GC narrative. The loss of 6. 000 GC civilian lives, the forceful displacement of 160, 000 GCs who fled from their homes in the north, the loss of property, the deplorable living conditions of an additional 20. 000 who had been subjected to living in tents for months, the imprisonment and transfer of 2000 GC prisoners of war to Turkey - more that half of which are still missing - and the 1468 individuals’ fate which remains unknown up to this very day, further attest to the negative feelings towards the Turks and TCs. Disappearances in particular constitute a violation of basic human rights, an action many GCs are not prepared to forgive, further perpetuating the portrayal of an unlawful, fraudulent and pain-afflicting rival. The partial distortion of history, or rather the absence of a concise account of history, has allowed for the manifestation of chosen traumas and the development of entrenched collective memories that forge collective victimisation. These nurtured traumas are used to paint a negative image of the rival as well as mobilise and incite. The events that transpired in 1963 and 1974 respectively bore a sense of fear and successive need for security. The adoption of a vicious cycle model of victimising oneself, delegitimise the other, elevating oneself and justify oneself’s goals, has planted an unyielding desire to continue the struggle on a political level. Bryant (2004) shares that “In Greek Cypriot rhetoric, the northern part of Cyprus is referred to as 'occupied areas, ' while the south constitutes the 'free zone’”. And so, while language is used to encourage separation between the two communities and keep peace among personal allegiances, it also aids at validating demands.
Reflected in the requirements for a settlement, the desire of a unitary state, the right of return, compensation, freedom of movement and demilitarisation are all righteous and worthy goals in the eyes of the GCs. The fact that the international community sympathises and supports the GCs morally, politically and materially, allows for a way to escape guilt and shame, while also assisting in the formulation of a positive collective image absorbed in self-praise and justification. A belief paramount to keeping alive the fight for freedom. With regards to a settlement, the TCs on the other hand emphasise bi-zonality, security and the need to avert demilitarisation and retain Turkey as a guarantor, in their pursuit of - or what they perceive as - a safe and protected environment, devout of threats and danger. After all their existence and survival as a minority was once before challenged. Extreme social categorisation and victimisation have been embraced by both communities, with roots tracing back as far as the first calls for Enosis and Taksim respectively in the late 19th century.
Reacting to perceived antagonism and fear, with the out-group’s ambitions discerned as far-fetched and endangering, the sanctioning of a hostile environment and the use of force are rendered inevitable. And so as events of the past feed into the future, the lack of trust and good faith in the other has hampered goodwill and cooperation particularly on a civil level, endangering in turn a peaceful settlement of disputes.
