Sunday, December 29, 2013

IMMIGRATION IN THE OCCUPIED NORTHERN PART OF CYPRUS: IMMIGRANTS AND ASYLUM SEEKERS FROM TURKEY AND OTHER COUNTRIES


Cyprus is located at the crossroad of three continents and has been a convenient place for the refugees throughout its history. Due to its proximity to problematic regions, Cyprus has been an easy access country for asylum seekers, who want to flee from the oppressive regimes and for the immigrants, who are seeking a more prosperous life and migrate from their country of origin merely for economic reasons. Today, thousands of people, who want to enter the EU, use Cyprus as a transit centre.

Right after the military occupation of northern part of our island in 1974, Turkey sent thousands of Anatolian refugees in order to settle in the occupied part of Cyprus, according to the Turkish policy of colonization. They were given the homes and the properties of the Greek Cypriots, who fled from the invading Turkish troops to the south of the island. An illegal state, “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” was declared in 1983 unilaterally on the Turkish occupied areas of the island. Thousands of Anatolian settlers were given the citizenship of the “TRNC” and they have been voting along with the Turkish Cypriots in the local and general elections.

On 9 March 2009, the Afrika newspaper announced that according to the information the newspaper gathered, the number of the original Turkish Cypriot voters was 62,500, i.e. one third of the total number of the voters of the approximately 180,000 voters. About 47,000 Turkish citizens were waiting to get the citizenship of the TRNC after the elections, the newspaper added. Writing in the same newspaper, the columnist Turgut Afsaroglu estimated that there were 173,000 voters, out of which 63,000 were of Cypriot and the remaining of Turkish origin. According to the last census, made on 4 December 2011, the population of the TRNC was declared as 294,906. This number excludes tourists, temporary workers and people, who stayed in the “TRNC” for less than a year.

It is estimated that there are about 200,000 illegal Turkish workers, who came to the island for a better living, either with their families or as individuals. In recent years, 30-40 thousand Turkish workers returned to Anatolia because of economic reasons und unemployment. Now, there is a demand for cheaper labourers, coming from the third countries, like Philippines, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaidjan, China, Vietnam and Bangladesh.

According to police statistics, between 2000 to August 2012, a total of 2,526 refugees entered the Turkish occupied northern Cyprus either through seaports or airports. 139 refugees entered through Ercan (Tymboo) airport. 122 refugees entered through Kyrenia Tourism Seaport and 156 through Famagusta Seaport, making a total of 417 persons, who used the official ports of entry. The remaining 2,109 persons entered the occupied areas illegally from various seashores, using mainly the Karpasia peninsula. Those, who could not be caught up and landed illegally are not included in this number. They were able to cross the green-line and take refuge in South Cyprus.

Although there is a difference between a migrant and a refugee at least in legal terms, they are categorized under the same title in North Cyprus. Due to the lack of information in the general public and the media, the issue of refugees is often associated with human smuggling and the human rights dimension of these refugees are being discussed lately. Each time a person enters the TRNC through“illegal” or rather “unregulated” ways, s/he is mentioned as a refugee in the media, therefore, people, who might have migrated for economical reasons are confused with those, who could be a refugee.

Below you will find the number of refugees, caught in the last ten years in North Cyprus:

Year       Refugees

2000          32

2001        192

2002        114

2003        100

2004        163

2005        241

2006        398

2007        328
 
            2008        749 (most of them used the T/C ferry-boat sailing between Famagusta and Latakia)
           
            2009        125

2010          27

2011          47

2012 August 10

Total: 2,526

Most of the refugees came from Syria (1705) and Iraq (376), where a war is going on. The nationalities of 178 refugees were not identified and 76 Syrian illegal immigrants could not be found. 31 Syrians are still being looked for. In the 12 years, 12 Syrians, 1 Turk and 1 Egyptian died on the way, as their boat overturned.

Country of origin    Number

Syria                        1,705

Iraq                             376

Turkey                          94

Georgia                         57

Palestine                        27

Iran                                16

Afganistan                     15

Uzbekistan                     13

Pakistan                         11

Bangladesh                    11

Lebanon                           8

Egypt                               8

Jordan                              2

Senegal                            2

Litvania                           1

Tadjikistan                      1

Mongolia                        1

Unidentified nationality/
            could not be found      178

Total:                        2,526

Turkish Cypriot advocate Öncel Polili, in his Report entitled “Refugee Rights in North Cyprus” for the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation (Nicosia, May 2012), makes the following observations: “Some of the people who applied for refugee status and are residing in North Cyprus came to North Cyprus with the help of human smugglers and through so-called ‘irregular’ ways. Moreover, there are some university students -mostly Palestinian- who applied for asylum also. Similarly, there are those who entered North Cyprus through official ways and applied to UNCHR for asylum. (...)

Currently, there is no legislation is in effect to regulate asylum applications in the TRNC. Due to the fact that the TRNC is a de facto state, UNCHR have not had any direct relation with TRNC. However, until 2008 through the agency of Humanitarian Aid Mission, and since March 2009 through the agency of Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation (TCHRF) and Refugee Rights Association (RRA), asylum applications are being delivered to and examined by the Cyprus branch of UNHCR.TCHRF and RRA also work to secure other rights of refugees and asylum seekers. The absence of other organizations, whose focus is to support refugees and asylum seekers, is noticeable.

Most of the asylum applications made to the UNCHR are by Iraqi of Palestinian origin refugees. Also, there are asylum applications from nationals of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cameroon, Iran, Palestine and Turkmenistan. Many other Iraqis of Palestinian origin made their asylum application to UNHCR, when they were in the north Cyprus and later on they crossed to the south. The recent developments in Syria led to increase applications made by Syrians. Those, who come to the north Cyprus, get the chance to reach UNHCR, make an asylum application and obtain admission, are resettled in a third country that accepts refugees. Those, who do not get admission, can be deported to their country of origin.” (p.88-89)

Despite the lack of any legal regulations, refugees from Iraq and Palestine were allowed to reside in the TRNC until 2009. According to the records of the RRA, though the exact numbers are unknown, authorities took deportation decisions against more than 30 asylum seekers. In 2010, 3 asylum applicants were deported and in 2011 the decision for the deportation of 25 people was taken and executed. These numbers are only those known by the RRA and actual numbers are estimated by the RRA to be significantly higher. Moreover, the RRA officials were also informed that many asylum seekers were not admitted at the ports. As mentioned above, the refugees are being deported from the TRNC in contradiction to the 1951 Refugee Convention for either entering the country in so-called ‘irregular’ ways and/or because they are sentenced to prison.” (p.91)

Most of the refugees, who enter North Cyprus through so-called irregular or regular ways, come to North Cyprus with the aim of crossing to the Republic of Cyprus, which has a more structured refugee policy.

As stated in 2007 Annual Green Line Report, according to the data submitted by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, the number of illegal immigrants detained after crossing the Green Line increased from 725 in 2002 to 3,796 in 2003 and 5,287 in 2004 before decreasing again to a level of 5,191 in 2005 and 3,778 in 2006. In the reporting period, 2,844 illegal immigrants (more than 97 % of all illegal immigrants detained) are reported by the Cypriot Police to have entered the government controlled areas across the Green Line).

According to the 2008 EU Annual Green Line Report, the number of third country nationals crossing the Line illegally remains an area of serious concern. In the reporting period, according to the data submitted by the authorities of the Republic of Cyprus, the total number of detected (or apprehended) illegal immigrants more than doubled (increase from 2,919 to 5,844), reaching the highest level ever.

According to the EU Green Line Report, which covered the years 2008 and 2010, partially CYPOL figures from May 2009 to April 2010 indicate a 54% decrease in illegal migration across the Line from the northern part of Cyprus to the government-controlled areas. 2,546 illegal migrants were apprehended within the government-controlled areas (excluding those refused crossing at Green Line crossing points) down from 5,560 illegal immigrants in the previous period.

In order to prevent “illegal” crossings to the Republic of Cyprus controlled areas, Turkish Cypriot authorities took measures such as not allowing the entry of many asylum seekers through legitimate ports and took the deportation decision against those, who entered “illegally”. Despite the requests of the RRA from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to provide information on how many people have been
deported for the reason above, no information was provided. (p.92)

The unique political structure of the TRNC generated a distinctive asylum process for refugees. Often refugees come to TRNC without any documents or they enter through irregular ways. Moreover, sometimes people, who come to study at the universities in the TRNC, also seek asylum. Asylum applications are made to the UNHCR through civil society organizations. UNCHR determines the applications and those, who qualify as refugees, are resettled in a third country. Authorities from the TRNC do not get involved in the process nor do support the refugees almost in any way. The authorities mostly take the decision to deport refugees.

In regard to the protection of refugees on legal grounds, the Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention guards the principle of non-refoulement alongside the CAT, ECHR and ICCPR. Though these treaties are part of the TRNC domestic law, specific laws to protect refugees have not yet been legislated. Moreover, neither have the 1967 Protocol been adopted, which allows the removal of the time and place limitation of the 1951 Refugee Convention. Penalising the“illegal entry” of the refugees is the most crucial problem faced by refugees. These penalties both take away refugees’ liberty and also often eventuate with their deportation. To that end it is a crucial necessity to re-regulate the exercise of penalizing refugees in the instance of “illegal entry” within the context of contemporary human rights law. The lack of any legislation regarding refugees and the attempts to regulate this matter solely by referring to the international treaties cause many complications in handling issues about refugees. International human rights treaties are general regulations and the states are required to adopt their own laws in order to comply with these treaties in the best condition. To that end, the legal status of the refugees residing in the north Cyprus is not yet clear as well as how they would benefit from their other rights. Those, who get the chance of not being deported as a result of their application to the court, are nonetheless left in the shadow in terms of how to benefit from economic and social rights such as health, housing, work or civil rights like marriage and decisions are dependent upon the individual decision of the authorities of the time. (p.143)

Turkish Cypriot advocate Ceren Göynüklü writes the following in her Report about the“Human Rights of Migrant Workers in North Cyprus”, prepared again for the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation (Nicosia, May 2012): “Although authorities do not give information on the official number of registered migrant workers in the northern part of Cyprus as of 2011, there is an approximate figure. The numerical data in question puts forth the existence of an informal market based on foreign workforce. The primary reason of the supply for foreign workforce is the emergence of a public deficit for unskilled workers and intermediate staff. In specific sectors and lines of business, the supply of domestic workforce is far from being adequate. These include sectors and lines of business like construction, industry, agriculture, services, household services, tailor, cleaner, dealer, salesclerk and gardener. As those occupations are not preferred by the society, the workforce deficit is met with migrant workers. However, the most important reasons of the demand for employing migrant workers is the demand for cheap workforce and exploitation purposes like being able to employ workers for a long time and as dependent on the employer”. (Göynüklü, p.81)

With the law adopted in 2006, issues like social security and reserve fund premium deposits, preliminary permit and work permit have been introduced as requirements for employing foreign workers, and labour became costly for the employers who in turns opted for cheaper manpower. At those times, workers have begun to be brought from third countries. Apart from the demand for cheap manpower, one of the main reasons of employing workers from third countries is that these people are more vulnerable to exploitation because of their conditions in their own countries and their being able to be put to work in poorer conditions for longer periods. When the business owners making demands from third countries are analyzed, it is seen that their firms are generally uninstitutionalized. Said third countries include Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Philippines, China, Vietnam, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Bangladesh, Kazakhstan and African countries. Recently, an increase in the number of workers from Turkmenistan is also being observed.

Between the years 2005-2006, workers have begun to be brought from Pakistan. Pakistani workers working for 50 dollars in their own countries were accepting to work for 300 dollars in the northern part of Cyprus. Also, they had no demands for social security. Pakistani workers are employed in the construction sector, agriculture, animal-breeding and restaurants. (Yet, there is a Pakistani population in the northern part of Cyprus coming from the past.) They are especially demanded in the construction sector and in the industry as their wages are lower in comparison to the workers from Turkey.

The unskilled worker deficit mentioned above is compensated for largely by workers from Turkey. Particularly before the legal amendments on employing foreign workers in 2006, workers from Turkey have been employed for long periods.

The Breakdown of Work Permit Procedures for Foreign Workers (1999-31.10.2009)

Total       Initial                  Extension         Work permit cancellations     Final total (net)

36,230     18,830 (%56)     15,690 (%43)        15,145                                21,115

Work Permit Applications by Workers from Turkey (1999–2005) (*)

Year         New         Renewal     Total

1999       4,156          1,672         5,828

2000       4,611          1,502         6,113

2001       3,924          1,387         5,311

2002       3,521          2,307         5,828

2003       4,124          2,374         6,498

2004       9,656          2,773       12,429

2005     38,464          7,546       46,010

(*) Mehmet, Özay, Mehmet Tahiroğlu, Fatma Güven Lisaniler & Salih Katırcıoğlu,“Labor Mobility and Labor Market Convergence in Cyprus”, Turkish Studies, 8(1): 43-69, March 2007.

Distribution of Workers from Turkey by Region in 2005

City                            New     Renewal    Total

Lefkoşa (Nicosia)      18,905       4,344     23,249

Girne (Kyrenia)         12,643       2,309     14,952

Mağusa (Famagusta)   5,780          748       6,528

Güzelyurt (Morphou)  1,136          145        1,281

____________________________________________________________

Total                          38,464       7,546      46,010

As explained above, employing foreign workers without a work permit is prohibited and the employer has a responsibility at this point. As a result of the changes made in 2006 and thereafter with respect to employing foreign workers, the number of undocumented migrant workers has decreased to some extent. The authorities’ statements indicate that as of September 2008, there were 5-6 thousand undocumented workers.” (p.83-84) Due to the lack of efficient inspections, undocumented migrant workers working in many other sectors cannot be identified. Also, identification is sometimes not possible due to other reasons. For example, individuals working in hospitals as nurses are reflected as companions and happen to remain as illegal. The authorities intervene when they find out about such a situation yet this situation.  Activity reports of the Department of Labour cannot be precluded as the nurses reflect themselves as the relatives of the patient.

The biggest number of undocumented workers is found in the construction sector due also to the increase of constructions in rural areas. The construction sector is followed by restaurants, places where wholesaling and retailing takes place, barbers, hairdressers, cafes and bars.” (p.85-86)

Advocate Ceren Göynüklü writes as her “Conclusion” the following: “In the light of the aforementioned, it is seen that there are significant indicators of forced labour and very grave violations of human rights of migrant workers in the North of Cyprus. Migrant workers migrate to the northern part of Cyprus in the hope of employment and a better life due to reasons like poverty and unemployment in their own countries. The demand to employ migrant workers however is based on the demand for cheap and dependent labour.

Workers brought from different countries of origin are put to work under very poor conditions in sectors like construction, industry, agriculture, and services. Migrant workers are subjected to debt bondage, their passports are seized and they are threatened by different means. Workers who are subjected to forced labour practices are faced with human right violations in many aspects.

Employers fail to fulfil their legal obligations concerning accommodation, payment of fees, wages, working hours and leave. Migrant workers put to work with very low wages are forced to live and work under unhealthy and degrading conditions. They may occasionally be put to work for very long hours and/or without a work permit. Migrant workers who are employed in works lacking occupational safety especially in the construction or industry sector where there is a high degree of danger are faced with the risk of occupational accidents. There are migrant workers who lost their lives or who were seriously injured in the occupational accidents that took place.

Although there is a similarity in general, the form and size of victimization of migrant workers might vary between countries of origin and the sectors those workers are employed. Workers brought from foreign countries except Turkey form the more risky groups in terms of forced labour due to factors like the language problem, poorer living and economic conditions in the countries of origin and exploitation of those conditions by the employers and dependence to the employer which is more than that of workers from Turkey.

When the government’s approaches to migrant workers and their protection are considered, it is clearly seen that the government policies fall short of protecting the migrant workers. The deficiencies within the laws and failing to implement existing laws are significant barriers in protecting the migrant workers and eliminating existing violations. In addition to that, lack of efficient mechanisms of recourse for migrant workers is also one of the main problems. Inspections made to implement the laws merely focus on “illegal” workers and other rights and human rights of migrant workers are ignored. Two basic factors concerning this issue are unqualified and unquantified personnel and lack of a political will for the protection of migrant workers.

The problem of “illegal” workers is a phenomenon recognized and expressed by many circles in the North of Cyprus. However, the approach to this problem is not centred on human rights. These undocumented workers who are subjected to 100 more grave violations in comparison to other migrant workers are regarded as an economic and social problem, yet the human right violations they are subjected to are completely ignored.

Besides their victimization, migrant workers are subjected to ethnic and class discrimination both in social life and workplaces. Most of the time, ethnic and class discrimination approaches and exploitation are sought to be legitimized by employers. In addition, the ethnic and class discrimination prevailing in the society hinders the emergence of a social campaign against the problem.

In that regard, the government is required to take the necessary legal and administrative steps and take the necessary measures with respect to the protection of migrant workers and the existing violations. The trade unions, trade bodies and the civil society that have not assumed an efficient role in relation to the problem until now are faced with a significant task at this point.

Lastly, a very important issue should be added. There are also findings on human trafficking for the purpose of forced labour in the North of Cyprus. Migrant workers are generally under risk in that respect and many of them are victims of human trafficking.” (p.99-100)

(This paper was presented at the Joint Meeting of the Political Committees of the European Movement International (EMI) Members Council, on the theme of EU illegal immigration, with a focus on Syria, held at the Hilton Park Hotel, in Nicosia-Cyprus, on 30th November 2012.)

 

FORMS OF CYPRIOTISM IN THE TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY: OBSTACLES AND NECESSARY CONDITIONS


            I would like first to give you some examples and to explain what I mean with the word “Cypriotism”. It was at the beginning of the year 1927 when Ronald Storrs, the British Colonial Governor of Cyprus, wanted to use for the first time officially this term in the government offices instead of the term “native” which he thought could be degrading. He mentioned about this decision in his report, dated 9 June 1932. Mr.Amery, the Minister of Colonies also wanted that the subject of “Cypriot patriotism” would be taught more at the Greek Cypriot schools in order to stop the dissemination of nationalism among the pupils. Mr. Amery also put the idea forward that the Cypriots should have a flag of their own and this new flag could be introduced together with the liberal constitutional amendments in 1925. But the authorities at the Ministry of Colonies did not approve the idea of banning the use of the Greek flag in Cyprus.[1]

            The growing resentment of the Greek Cypriot masses against the British colonial regime which culminated in the formation of the Communist Party of Cyprus in 1926 caused also the reaction of the Greek Cypriot nationalists, who were alarmed by the policy of the Communist Party, which was against the enosis policy of the nationalists. The British colonial administration was also alarmed that the Communists could have wider support of the people and they could raise a struggle for the independence of the island. Although the CP did not have a followship among the T/C community, there were some contacts, for example the correspondence between the communist newspaper Neos Antropos and the T/C Birlik newspaper in 1925 or the organization of the T/C workers in the common Labour Centre in Limassol in 1924.[2] The colonialists were quick enough to turn their strategy of supporting Cypriotism into tolerating the nationalist propaganda, made in the both communities.

            The Turkish Cypriots had always been against the union of the island with Greece (enosis) and since from the start of the British administration in Cyprus, they raised every year their voice at the opening ceremony of the Legislative Council, where the G/C representatives spoke about their demand for enosis. But the nationalist attitude of the G/C members of the parliament did not stop the T/C members from cooperating with their compatriots in economical matters. For example, Hafiz Ziyai Efendi and Dervish Pasha voted in June 1902 together with the G/C members for the abolition of the Tribute paid to the Ottoman Empire by the Cypriots, which should be paid only by the British. A government official went to the mosque and provoked the T/Cs to protest against this cooperation with the G/CS. Irfan Efendi and the deputy Mufti also spoke at the mosque and provoked the community against the Moslem members of the Legislative Council. The two T/C members of the Legislative Council were forced after this event to change their policy of cooperation with the G/Cs at the parliament in order not to be accused of being pro G/C. It is interesting to note that Irfan Efendi was appointed in February 1904 as the T/C delegate of Evkaf by the British colonial government.[3]

            Sir Harry Luke wrote that when Britain declared the annexation of the island with the British Empire, it was his duty to tell the news to the T/C notables who were together in an engagement ceremony of Mehmet Munir’s daughter on 5 November 1914 at the house of Mufti Ziyai. They heard the news with “dignified resignation”.[4]             The T/C leaders visited the other day the British High Commissioner and told him that they accepted the change of status of the island and that they would be loyal to the British administration. On the other hand the chief kadi, Mufti, Irfan Bey and Sevket Bey sent a letter to the British authorities that they were against the demand of the G/Cs for enosis and instead of this, the island should be permanently b a part of the British Empire. If enosis would be realized, it would be a disaster for the 60 thousand Muslims of Cyprus.[5]

As the G/C nationalists raised their nationalist campaign for enosis and disseminated the feelings of mainland Greek nationalism in Cyprus, a section of the T/C elite also started to import mainland Turkish nationalism into Cyprus. The deputy of the British High Commissioner in Cyprus, Mr.Stevenson, sent a secret report to Vicont Milner, dated 26 April 1919, that Young Turks were active in Cyprus and that Mehmet Esat, Dr. Huseyin Behic and Hasan Karabardak were the leaders of a party called “Union with Turkey”.[6] They disseminated a rumour that the Greeks would attack the Turks during the Easter week, causing enmity between the T/Cs and G/Cs. The T/C members of the Parliament, Mr. Irfan and Mr.Hami were not involved in these activities. The main instigators of these events, who provoked the T/Cs to make a rebellion, were arrested and imprisoned by the British.

            According to the minutes of the Legislative Council, the T/C members of the parliament started to demand “the return of the island to the Ottoman Empire” more often during the period between March 1911 and June 1917.[7]             

            Because of the difficult years of the First World War, there was no publication of any T/C newspapers between 1915 and 1919, therefore two weekly newspapers, Dogru Yol (8 September 1919) and  Soz  (15 February 1921) started their publication in order to inform the T/Cs about the developments in the world, in Turkey and on the island. In 1922, there were 23 newspaper published in Cyprus, 6 of them being in Turkish language. The top-selling newspaper was the G/C owned Eleftheria (1700-1800 copies) and the second in the row was the T/C owned Soz newspaper (1200 copies).[8]

            Mrs.Beria Remzi Ozoran, the daughter of the owner of the Soz newspaper, gave the following information about the subjects dealt with in the T/C press of those years:

“In these newspapers and journals, there were articles dealing with what the T/Cs should do, in order to continue the existence of the Turkish entity on this green island and in order to live on these territories with dignity. Struggle against illiteracy, organization of the T/C community, economic development, the establishment of a national bank were the necessity of the day. The majority of the intellectuals who were civil servants and the teachers were under difficult conditions, because of the high cost of living and the T/C farmers were in crisis because of their debts. The Turkish monuments in Cyprus should be preserved. The T/Cs should come together and form companies so that they could have a strong economy in order to survive under a foreign administration.

The T/C press followed the liberation struggle in Anatolia step by step and collected money for the victims of the disaster in Anatolia through solidarity campaigns. The T/C newspapers did not hesitate also to defend the rights of the T/Cs against the G/Cs’ demands for enosis.” [9]

            The publication of the Soz newspaper was appreciated in Ankara with great interest and it received many years financial support from the Turkish governments. Soz was the main organ, which helped the dissemination of the Kemalist ideas among the T/Cs. For the internal affairs, the editor and the owner of the Soz newspaper, Mehmet Remzi wrote on 7 March 1921 the following under the title “Our Parliament”:

            “Today our Parliament is going to be opened. It is the duty of the government to tell the G/Cs that the enosis issue which terrorized the people of the island is closed once and for all. This dangerous game is being played so many times that our security-loving people cannot bear it anymore. If this thorny issue which damaged the relations between the two communities of the island will be removed, the parliamentarians of both sides will have enough time to investigate the real needs of the country and they will negotiate the mutual draft laws in an atmosphere of trust... If the Christian members think that they have more rights than their compatriots Turkish Cypriots on this island, then they have to accept that the T/C members do not tolerate the discussion of Cyprus-Greek issue at the Legislative Assembly.”

            We read in the Alithia newspaper of 30 April 1921 a letter of a T/C ex-member of the parliament. He supported the cooperation of the T/C and G/C members and he pointed the fact that it was only in the last 10-15 years that the T/C and G/C members made it as a habit to complain mutually in the Parliament. Whereas in the early days of the British Administration, they cooperated in local matters.[10]     

            We can find other articles published in the G/C press. For example, Mr.Ioannis Clerides, was writing in Eleftheria of 2 April 1926 under the title “If the T/Cs would cooperate with the G/Cs” the following:

“Our Moslem brothers have to understand that they have common interests with us and the progress and the prosperity of both the G/Cs and T/Cs depends on the cooperation of the two communities.[11]

            Similar views were expressed by Mr.Yorgo Hadjipavlou in an article published in the “Nea Laiki” newspaper of 23 September 1927: “We could go forward only if we cooperate with the T/Cs.” He wrote three months later again in the same newspaper on 23 December 1927 that there was no chance of cooperation in the Legislative Council, since the T/C members were under the influence of the British colonial government through Evkaf. Therefore the G/Cs should support the populist T/Cs so that they can enter the parliament and get rid of the pro-Evkaf leaders. Only these progressive T/Cs could reject to be the secret keys of the government. Mr.Hadjipavlou went further and recommended that leaflets in Turkish should be printed and the deficiency of the T/C members in defending the local interests should be exposed to the T/C community.[12]

            We observe here that since the beginning of the British administration in Cyprus, the number of the T/Cs together with the British members of the Legislative Council were designed to be equal to the number of the G/C members. The representation of the both communities was reflected in the parliament, not according to the ratio of the population. The T/C minority was seen politically as a guarantee against the enosis demands of the G/C majority. There were separate electoral lists and separate mainland-nationalist-oriented educational programmes for the T/Cs and G/Cs, which hindered them to develop a common Cypriot political policy against the British colonial administration.

            This was already stressed by Dr. Eyyub, a T/C member of the parliament in his speech at the parliament’s opening ceremony on 11 November 1925. He said that the G/Cs and the G/Cs were not ready for a full cooperation on political matters. So they had to put aside the political questions and cooperate in other issues which would bring prosperity to the whole island. We see that this was realized later through the common activities of the MPs in the struggle against trachoma, tuberculosis, venerial diseases, for the abolition of the tax of tithes, for a forest policy and for the financial support of the farmers.

            We observe again during the elections of 1930 that Mr.Yorgo Hadjipavlou supported the election campaign of Nedjati Bey, who was the Kemalist candidate against Mr. Munir, the Turkish delegate of Evkaf. He was supported by Asaf Bey, the Turkish consul in Cyprus. While the populist Mr.Nedjati spoke at the Parliament that Cyprus was a part of Anatolia, the pro-British Dr.Eyyub, also an MP, criticized in his articles, published in the pro-Evkaf “Hakikat” newspaper, that the nationalists wanted to copy everything done in Turkey, even if the two countries had different administrative and social structures.[13]

            Mr.Nedjati was named by the British governor Ronald Storrs in his memoirs as “that little Turk, the 13th G/C member of the Legislative Council”[14]  When Mr.Nedjati voted on 28 April 1931 together with the G/C members against the draft Law of Customs Tariff and Revenue, the automatic support of the T/C members failed, since the other two T/C MPs were absent during the voting. This was another case of cooperation after the one when the T/C and G/C members voted together against the Draft Budget of 1927 in the Legislative Council.

            When the British colonial government wanted to impose the aborted draft law, the pro-enosis nationalist events of October 1931 were started by the G/Cs. The British administration took this opportunity to abolish the Legislative Council and it suspended the constitutional order which followed a period of oppression until 1941.

            During the oppressive period of the new British colonial governor Mr.Palmer, the Greek and Turkish nationalisms were put under pressure for a while. On the other hand the movement of the working people was getting strong after 1942. The British used both nationalisms as a remedy in order to oppress the working people. Nationalism was seen less harmful than a common front of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot workers against British Administration.

            In the 1930’s the nightmare of the British colonialists was that the concept of Cypriotism would be in the foreground and leave Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot nationalisms behind. Mr.Palmer, the British Governor, was of the opinion that after the idea of “Enosis” was forgotten, “Cypriot nationalism” would replace it. According to Mr.Palmer, the only way to stop or postpone this development was to establish a new administrational structure which would provoke inter-regional difference of identity. The Governor Palmer, in a secret report sent to London on 23 October 1936, was saying the following:

            “In order to have ease in the future on the island, we have to continue the administration on the basis of exceptis excipiendis (opening the way to exceptions), on the basis of districts. Thus the concept of Cypriot nationalism -which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an eroded value- should be pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark. Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s “nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.” [15]

            During the oppressive period which started with Governor Palmer, we observe the cooperation of the G/Cs and T/Cs for the autonomy of the island, a common political aim. The T/C “Ses” newspaper in 1937 under the title “Political Association” reproduced a news item from the G/C “Eleftheria” newspaper that a joint political association by the G/Cs and T/Cs was established for the support of the autonomy of the island, with branches established in every town, besides Nicosia. The well-known Nicosia advocate Mr.Yiannis Clerides was the leader of this Political Association. Ex-member of the Legislative Council M.Hami, member of the Larnaca Town Council advocate Mr.Celal Shefik, member of the Limassol Town Council dentist Mr.Nazif were among the T/C notables who participated at the formation of this Association in their respective towns.[16]

            The political cooperation of some T/Cs with their compatriots was attacked immediately in the T/C press. An article under the title “Is the political and cultural unity of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots going to start instead of a Turkish-British cooperation?” was published in “Ses” newspaper of 25 June 1937 (No.99) to this effect where the participation of Mr.Mustafa Hami, one of the ex-Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council which was closed, was being criticised and the following was written:

            “If this situation continues, the government will soon see the unity of policy and culture of Turkish and Greek Cypriots rather than the traditional cooperation between the Turks and the British in Cyprus. Today’s policy is the shortest way for appreciation of this aim by the government. Otherwise Turkish Cypriots’ complaints should be heard and satisfied. It is certain that central government will think likewise.”

            This main article which was published in the “Ses” newspaper, one of the Turkish Cypriot press organs defending Turkish nationalism and Kemalism, gives us a good idea of the dominant Turkish Cypriot way of thinking.

            We have to point out that, right after these developments, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots fought and served together during the Second World War on the side of the British on various fronts and at home they organised themselves in the same trade unions against difficult economic conditions. At this point, it has to be emphasised that the enosis policy of the Progressive Party of the Working people of Cyprus (AKEL), which was formed in 1941 was the biggest obstacle for T/Cs’ political cooperation.

            In 1955, when the EOKA’s gunned terrorist activities started for the abolition of the British administration and for the union of Cyprus with Greece, the British colonial administration used the Turkish Cypriot police and commandos against the EOKA. The collaborationist Turkish Cypriot leadership adopted the British plans which aimed at the partition of the island (taksim) as a political solution against enosis. This was enough to cause a conflict among the Cypriots.

            The Turkish Cypriot underground organization TMT forced the Turkish Cypriot trade unions not to cooperate with the G/C trade unions, thus destroying the foundations of the common economical and political struggle. At the end of the day, neither the Greek Cypriots’ aim for enosis, nor the Turkish Cypriots’ aim for taksim was materialised, but a limited independence was given to the partnership republic of Cyprus which was established in 1960. The unity of action of all Cypriots could not be developed under this new common shared aim and this caused new bitterness.

            On the day of independence, 16 August 1960, we see the first issue of the T/CS newspaper “Cumhuriyet” (Republic) which was published by the two T/C advocates, Ahmet Muzaffer Gurkan and Ayhan Hikmet. For the first time, the ideas of Cypriotism were being propagated among the T/Cs, through an oppositional newspaper and later by the organization of a political party. The “Cumhuriyet” writers were supporting the news that the independence of Cyprus meant, not to union the island with one nation or state, but to govern Cyprus by the Cypriots. Unfortunately these staunch supporters of the Republic of Cyprus were killed by the T/C underground organization TMT on 23 April 1962, on the pretext that “they served the interests of the G/Cs”. They were warned before they were murdered that “if they did not believe in the existence of the national struggle of the T/CS, they should be silenced.”  

            Dervish Ali Kavazoglou, who was a T/C member of Central Committee of the AKEL was also murdered together with his G/C trade-unionist friend on 11 April 1965. He was against the partitionist policies of the T/C leadership and for the friendship and cooperation of the two communities in Cyprus.

            As the imperialist foreign powers and their tools on the island were against the independent development of the Republic of Cyprus which followed an independent non-aligned foreign policy, they were continuously inciting nationalistic and anti-communist feelings of the island’s population. We observe again in this period that a Cypriot awareness could not be developed to a sufficient degree. The guarantors of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus were members of the NATO, i.e. Britain, Greece and Turkey and they did not want to see a Cypriot state, free of their influences for reasons known to themselves.

            On the other hand, Archbishop Makarios, the President of the Republic did not believe in the idea of creating a new Cypriot nation. He told to an Italian newspaper that the London Agreements created a new state, but not a new nation.[17]

In those times, contrary to the processes in Europe, many African and Asian states were formed before the consolidation of a nation. In the case of Cyprus, the partnership lasted only three years, because the T/C leadership withdrew from the state apparatus. The intercommunal clashes between the pro-enosis G/Cs and the pro-partition T/Cs complicated the solution of the ethnic-national question in Cyprus.

            We observe that the separatist policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since 1958 was one of the reasons that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots could not have a common political aim during the period until 1974.

In the summer of 1974, the coup d’Etat was staged in Cyprus by the Greek Junta of Athens against President Makarios and this followed by the Turkish invasion and the occupation of the island’s 37% territory. The G/Cs were forced to leave the occupied areas and the T/Cs living in south of the cease-fire line were transported to the northern part. The new state of affairs forced the T/Cs to have closer relationship with Turkey. The T/Cs became under the direct influence of the mainland Turkish economy, politics and culture.

The Soz newspaper which started its publication in 1978 turned to be the main critic of the intervention of the Turkish politicians into the T/C internal affairs. The influx of mainland Turkish settlers in the occupied areas threatened the existence of the T/Cs. This led them to re-identify their communal characteristics as T/C community. A series of panels on T/C identity, folkloric exhibitions and historical research were done in the 1980’s.[18]

            The T/C intellectuals started to ask themselves the question “who are we?” as they looked into the history of their cultural heritage. A new T/C identity developed in the process of ongoing experiences on two fronts, one in their relationship with Turkey and the other one with the G/Cs. The similarities and differences were reviewed and reassessed.

As it is well-known, the cultural, the scientific and the literary heritage are the three important components of the national consciousness. Here we see the responsibility of the researchers for the development of a common Cypriot consciousness. They have to research the common cultural heritage and use these common elements for a common political aim. The cooperation between the two communities in the commercial and social life and in trade union movement in the past are the good examples of the coexistence of the two communities. 

            The class character of the state has a big role to play in the formation of the Cypriot consciousness. There has to be a clearly designed state policy for the support of a Cypriot identity. The organs of the mass media should also play a constructive role in this respect since they can easily reach to the homes of almost all citizens. 

            We see that especially after 1974, two different identities emerged: One in the north of the divide, possessing the separatist TRNC as an expression of T/Cs’ nationalist identity and another one in the south of the divide, as the sole owner of the Cypriot state which has distinctively a G/C character. This is similar to the prediction of the British Governor Palmer in 1937: “The concept of Cypriot nationalism -which will be emerging as a new concept after Enosis becomes an eroded value- should be pushed away as much as possible and left in the dark. Now it is almost not living. Cypriots are either their district’s “nationalists”, or they are Greek or Turks.” 

            The activities of the News Cyprus Association which was formed in March 1975 were aimed to preserve the existence of the state of Cyprus and to avert the danger of partition by behaving first as Cypriots and then as a member of the respective community. Unfortunately in the past 30 years, this movement of intellectuals could not turn into a political movement which could organise great masses of T/Cs and G/Cs under a common Cypriot identity.         

In order to reach at this main goal, there should be common political parties of T/Cs and G/Cs, seeking common political aims. The full equality of all the communities living on the island in the fields of politics, economy and culture could only be achieved through common political parties which will fight for a democratic federal state and against all kinds of separatism and discrimination. A correct policy for the solution of the problem of nationalities is indispensable and this is the responsibility of the party of the working class, the AKEL. Unless the AKEL review its policy for the T/Cs and turn to them, no step could be achieved with the existing nationalist policies and this would consolidate the partition of the island.  

    

(This paper was read for the first time at the seminar of the New Cyprus Association held on 10 November 2005 in Limassol under the subject “Cypriot Identity: Reality or Necessity?”)

 



Notes:
 
[1] An, Ahmet, The development of Cypriot Awareness, Nicosia 1998, p.34
[2] An, Ahmet, The good old days of the cooperation among the Cypriot Working Class, paper read at the Conference of the PEO/DEV-IS on 13 October 2005 in Nicosia and Michalis Michaelides, Turkish Cypriot Working Class and the Cyprus Labour Movement 1920-1963, Cyprus Review, Fall 1993.
[3] G.S.Georghallides, A political and administrative history of Cyprus, 1918-1926, Nicosia, p.72 and A.An, Formation of T/CS Leadership 1900-1942, Nicoisa, 1997, p.14-15
[4] Sir Harry Luke, Cyprus: A Portrait and an Appreciation, London 1965, p.87-88
[5] Sir George Hill, A History of Cyprus, Cambridge 1972, p.521
[6] Stavros Panteli, The New History of Cyprus, London 1984, p.98
[7] Jacob M.Landau, Pan-Turkism in Turkey: A Study of Irredentism, London 1981, p.48
[8] Cyprus Blue Book 1922
[9] Yeni Kibris, The T/CS community during the years of Liberation in Anatolia, Yeni Kibris, April 1987
[10] Quoted from S.G.Georghallides, ibid, p.198
[11]  Quoted from Costas P.Kyrris, Peaceful Coexistence in Cyprus under British rule (1878-1959) and After Independence, Nicosia 1977, p.44
[12] G.S.Georghallides, ibid, p.67
[13] Ahmet An, Formation of the T/C leadership, Nicosia 1997, p. 149 and p.165
[14] Orientations, London 1943, p.502
[15] Quoted in Ahmet An, Development of Cypriot Awareness, Nicosia 1998, p.43
[16] Ahmet An, Why was it not possible to develop a Cypriot Awareness?, in Quo Vadis Cyprus?, Istanbul 2002, p.264-274
[17] Cyprus Mail and Akin, 28 March 1963
[18] Ahmet An, An Overview of the Research Studies on the Identity of the T/Cs, in “Articles on the Turkish Cypriot Culture”, Nicosia 1999, p.222-230