Pavlos Tzermias, Geschichte der Republic Zypern (The History of the Cyprus Republic), Francke Verlag, Tübingen 1991, 783 pages (published in Germany)
Pavlos Tzermias has been writing on the
Cyprus problem since 1958 and he is well-known for his news reports in the
“Neue Zürcher Zeitung” of Switzerland. This voluminous book on the history of
Cyprus follows his other two books published in German: New Greek History
(1986) and New Greek Literature (1987). His fourth book deals with the life and
deeds of Constantine Karamanlis (1992).
The author, who is also a scholar at the
University of Freiburg, Switzerland, introduces us an extensive political
history of the Cyprus Republic in four sections: Cyprus before the formation of
the Republic (pp.1-51), The formation of the Cyprus Republic (pp.52-206), From
the state-crisis to the Turkish invasion (pp.207-442) and Cyprus since the
tragedy of 1974 (pp.443-645). The rest of the book lists the extensive notes to
the main text (pp.647-733), a chronology of Cyprus (pp.735-737) and the
reference sources on the history of Cyprus in English, Greek, German, Turkish
and French (pp.739-767). A detailed index (pp.769-783) ends up the book, which I
recommend everyone, who has interest in the Cyprus problem.
As a Turkish Cypriot, I found this
evaluation of the history of Cyprus
Republic very informative and unbiased. Pavlos Tzermias managed to catch
the roots of the problem: The conflicting ideologies of enosis (union of Cyprus
with Greece) and taksim (partition of the island between Turkey and Greece) of
the two communities living on the island of Cyprus. He gives us a good example
of political cooperation of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots for the
solution of internal problems in the Legislative Council during the British
colonial period of 1924-1927 (p.37). On the other hand, he underlines the grave
failure of the Greek Cypriot side, not calculating the opposing Turkish Cypriot
factor against the demand of enosis (pp.55, 56, 69, 72, 94)
The author writes: “The enosis movement
made its great failure by not dealing extensively and seriously with the
parallel right of self-determination of the Turkish Cypriots (p.67). Another
German writer, Franz Georg Maier, had already stressed the formula for a
workable Cyprus Constitution of 1960: “It could only work if all Cypriots
accepted its basic principle, namely the recognition of the Turks as full
citizens and not as an ethnic minority.” (Cyprus: From the earliest times to
the present day, London 1968, p.162) The aim of the Cypriots in the 1960’s
should be the creation of a state of two communities, living together without
surrendering their identities.
As Pavlos Tzermias stresses (p.70), the
Greek Cypriots has underestimated the influence of the Turkish Cypriot
nationalism, which was grown parallel to the Kemalist nationalism in Turkey.
Although the Turkish Cypriot sources on the development of this phenomenon were
not used in this book, one could see the negative effects of the counter-acting
Turkish and Greek nationalisms in Cyprus in the course of the political
history.
In fact, I agree with the concluding
remarks of the author that an absolute turn from nationalism to Cypriotism is
necessary. From my point of view, the way to the final solution of the Cyprus
problem can be safeguarded only by a common struggle for building an idea of a
common Cyprus state and a common awareness of Cypriotism. The full independence
of Cyprus from the influences of the two so-called motherlands, Greece and
Turkey, should be reached. The so-called “Sovereign Base Areas” of the former
colonial power, Great Britain, should be abolished together with the mainland
Turkish and Greek contingents on the island, which support the fanatics on both
sides.
The separatist Turkish Cypriot
leadership was clever enough to exploit the plans of the Greek Cypriot
leadership for the Hellenization of the Cyprus state. Pavlos Tzermias stresses
rightly the important point that the Greek Cypriot arrogance for power has
created the preconditions for the Turkish Cypriot leadership to implement its
partitionist plans (pp.333, 358, 641) Now that the 37% of the territory of the
Cyprus Republic is under the occupation of the Turkish Army for the last 20 years,
it is high time to find new methods for the survival of the Cyprus Republic
through the full implementation of the relevant UN Resolutions. Appropriate
conditions should be created for fruitful negotiations for a new federal Cyprus
Republic without the threat of the Turkish military power, which continues to
trample the Agreement of 1960 and the International Law.
I have also learned from the documents
referred in the book that the Republic of Turkey was against the membership of
the new Cyprus Republic to the UN (p.226), an annexionist policy, which still
hinders the free development of the intercommunal cooperation and friendship.
It is true that the Turkish Cypriot leadership started its political marathon
with the “Association of the Turkish Minority of the Island of Cyprus” (KATAK)
in 1943, but it ended up with the Turkification of the occupied part in 1974 as
the Greek Cypriot leadership tried to Hellenize the Cypriot state. The
established authority of the Cyprus Republic was able to fight against the
EOKA-B, whereas the TMT turned into an illegal statelet under the protection of
the Turkish Army. As Pavlos Tsermias writes (p.548), the Cyprus Republic does
not want any more to adjust its clock with those in Greece, but the separatist
policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership continues.
For a just and lasting solution of the
Cyprus problem, the principles of the international law and basic human rights
should be respected. It is left for us to ask why Turkey is still regarded as
one of the three guarantor powers of 1960 since she does not respect the
territorial integrity, independence and sovereignty of the Cyprus Republic.
Pavlos Tzermias is right to write: “Injustice cannot be answered with
injustice!” (pp. 482, 565)
(This review was published in English in the
Cyprus Review Journal, Volume 6:2, Fall 1994, pp.
108–109. The Turkish translation of this article was published in Yeni
Düzen daily newpaper, 29 August 1994)
