A REVIEW OF A BOOK IN GERMAN BY PAVLOS TZERMIAS: THE HISTORY OF THE CYPRUS REPUBLIC

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)