Nowadays
almost half of the world’s population lives in the countries, where the
constitution and the structure of the state are federal. If we put aside the
socialist federalism, implemented in the former socialist countries (e.g. the
USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia), the bourgeois federalism is being
implemented today in 28 developed and developing countries.
Especially
after the Second World War, the former colonialist countries like Great Britain
and France practised a new policy of federalism. In this new period of the
capitalist general crisis, this federalization of
the colonies was realized by bringing federative elements into the constitution
of those countries and by making detailed legal arrangements. Through this, the
possibility of influencing the character, the structure and the form of the new
states, which were about to become independent soon, emerged as an element of
the new colonialism. The aim of this new strategy of the imperialist powers
was to keep the old colonial
territories under their sphere of
influence as long as it was possible and to protect their economic and
strategic interests under the specific conditions of each region.[1]
As
it will be remembered, this policy was tried to be practised under
“self-government” in Cyprus in 1948, but it was not successful, because of the
ambition of the Greek Cypriots for enosis[2]. It was in
the same year, when the radio monitoring facilities of the British and the
Americans were transported from the Middle East to Cyprus[3] and
the Great Britain spent 50 million pound sterling for the construction of the
two military bases at Dhekelia and Akrotiri villages in Cyprus.
There
are enough archieval material in Claude Nicolet’s book “United States Policy
Towards Cyprus, 1954-1974” about the strategic interests of the USA and
Great Britain on the island of Cyprus[4]. Both countries
have used the policy of “divide and rule” in the past and today. The British
are still willing to keep their “sovereign base areas” on Cyprus[5] and the Americans are still willing to keep under
security their communication facilities on the island, which they have been
using since 1949.[6]
Prof.
Nihat Erim, who was teaching Inter-state Law and Constitutional Law in the
University of Ankara, was asked in 1956 by Turkish Prime Minister Adnan
Menderes to prepare a report on the Cyprus issue and to help the government in
shaping the Turkish policy on Cyprus. Erim was also informed by Menderes that a
retired American general, who was a friend of President Eisenhower, was sent to
Ankara and he suggested partition, which was accepted as positive.[7]
Prof. Erim’s first report to the Turkish government had the date of 24 November
1956 and he underlined: “The optimum form of solution is partition of the
island of Cyprus. The idea of partition was discussed between the governments
of Turkey, Greece, England and America in some secret, official or
semi-official negotiations… In view of the probability of the acceptance of the
partition proposal, authorized experts should determine as of today how Cyprus
would be partitioned, so that it would serve the benefit of the Turkish
population in the island and also to the military and economical aspect.” [8]
We already know that there was an American expert on geography, Dr. Alexander
Melamid of the New York University, who was sent to Cyprus after the USA warned
England that the threat of communism was increasing in Cyprus. Dr. Melamid made
a field research on the island and published his findings in the “Geographical
Review” journal in July 1956 under the title “Geographical Distribution of the
Communities in Cyprus”[9] The same expert published
another article in March 1960 under the title “Partitioned Cyprus: A class
study in applied political geography”, proposing two lines for the division of
the island, the first one dividing the island as northern and southern parts
and the other as eastern and western parts.[10]
In June 1956, the US President Eisenhower asked his Foreign Minister
Dulles during a meeting if it is possible to put an end to the conflict by
partitioning the island, shifting the Turkish Cypriots to the northern part?[11] When the US President met British Prime Minister
Macmillan in March 1957 in Bermuda island, he told him during the four-day
meeting: “The military bases are enough for us. They can divide the rest among
themselves.”[12]
The architect of the
Turkish policy on Cyprus, Prof.Nihat Erim, suggested in a speech in Ankara on
14 January 1958 that a Turkish state with a population of 120 thousand could be
established in Cyprus. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriots started to
attack the British for the first time on 27/28 January 1958 in order to force
the implementation of the partition plan. The common demonstrations of the
Greek and Turkish Cypriots on 1 May 1958 against partition and the terror
events were followed by a series of murder and intimidation attacks on the
progressive Turkish Cypriot workers.[13] In summer
1958, the TMT staged many provocations in order to show that the Turkish
Cypriot community should be regarded as one of the main players in the Cyprus
problem.
Nicolet
writes: “Zorlu had told Dulles in Washington that the Turkish idea of partition
did not necessarily need to include a geographical division of the island. It
may be enough, the Foreign Minister had said, “that the two communities ... be
given the idea that neither was being governed by the other.” This concept
sounded surprisingly compatible with the status of independence of the island.”[14] Thus the Republic of Cyprus, which declared its
independence in 1960, was the result of a diplomacy, which was driven “towards
some form of partition of Cyprus, if not geographically, then at least in terms
of administration.”[15]
According
to an evaluation by Prof.Stanley Alexander
de Smith, the most complicated and detailed constitution
of the world after the constitution of Kenya was prepared in Cyprus. As the
rights of the communities were to be controlled through guarantees and
limitations and to be balanced, constitutionalism was parallel with communal
egoism.[16] Through long and complicated
precautions, it was planned to avoid the misuse of the rights by the both
sides, but an influential organization of a state was not realized.
THE CONFLICT IN 1963 AND THE TURKISH THESIS
When Makarios
declared his 13 points of amendments to the Constitution on 6 December 1963,
they were immediately rejected by Turkey, since the amendments would give some minority
rights to the Turkish Cypriot community.
On 21 December 1963,
intercommunal clashes started and the underground organizations, which had
their connections with the foreign powers, became influential again in both
communities. The Greek Cypriot leadership was aiming the union of the island
with Greece and the Turkish Cypriot leadership was planning to create the
conditions for the partition of the island. Now Cyprus problem was once again
on the international arena.
From Nicolet’s book we read that in a working paper, prepared by Donald A.
Wehmeyer, a US legal adviser, on 11 December 1963 that a Treaty of Joint
Sovereignty between Greece and Turkey was proposed. Wehmeyer added to his
memorandum “Outline of Possible Cyprus Settlement” an important ingredient for
a solution, which would be more attractive to Turkey: Cyprus should be divided
into provinces. Certain provinces would be administered mainly by Turkish
Cypriots and this would create an illusion of partition or federation.[17]
Salahi R.Sonyel writes that the British government hit upon an interesting
solution, which was the reconstruction of Cyprus as a federal solution: “Thus
on 3 January (1964), Sir Francis Vallat asked H.G.Darwin, a constitutional
expert, to produce a paper examining the possibility of dividing Cyprus into a
Turkish and a Greek area, which might be formed into a federal state. Even if
such a plan was feasible a number of problems were foreseen in its application.
Darwin composed a memorandum, in which he suggested a federation of two states,
one predominantly of Greek, and the other of Turkish populations. He also
suggested an exchange of population in order to realise the Turkish state. The
capital of the Turkish state would be Kyrenia.”[18]
In Summer 1964, Makarios rejected the Acheson Plan, which was discussed in
Geneva and which envisaged the union of Cyprus with Greece on the condition
that a military base would be given to Turkey in Karpas peninsula. President
Makarios was re-elected in 1968 with his new policy of “feasible solution”,
instead of enosis.
We
read again from Nicolet’s book: “Acheson was fully indulging himself in
studying the different proposals that had emerged in Washington throughout
spring of 1964. In Brands’ words, “he was ready to devise a plan that would
eliminate the Cyprus problem by eliminating Cyprus.” A suggestion he was
particularly intrigued with was Don Wehmeyer’s scheme of 24 April, providing
enosis with an illusion of partition or federation to the Turks by the
establishment of certain provinces to be administered by Turkish Cypriot
eparchs, as he cabled to Ball on 8 July.[19] And
this was finally realized with a so-called “controlled intervention”[20] in summer 1974, which was decided by the Deputy
Foreign Minister of Greece, Christos Ksantopoulos-Palamas and the Turkish
Foreign Minister, Osman Olcay. The two ministers met on 3-4 June 1971 during
the NATO ministerial meeting in Lisbon and discussed how to get rid of Makarios
and put an end to the independence of the Republic of Cyprus by partitioning
the island through “double enosis”.
IMPERIALIST CONSPIRACY IN 1974
A de facto
situation was created by an aborted coup d’Etat against President Makarios,
organized by the fascist Greek junta and its military forces in Cyprus on 15
July 1974. This created an opportunity for Turkey to intervene five days later
to the internal affairs of Cyprus. Turkey occupied the 37% of the northern part
of the island and on 16 August 1974, on the 16th anniversary of the foundation
of the Republic of Cyprus, the island’s territory was partitioned into two
regions, one in the North for the Turkish Cypriots and the other in the South
for the Greek Cypriots. With the transfer of population across the partition
line, a bi-regional ethnically cleansed geographical division was attained de
facto. It remained to form a de jure central government for the “federation”,
which was the aim of the Turkish government since 1964.
In
a declassified Secret Memorandum sent from Helmut Sonnenfeld, Counselor of the
US State Department to Secretary Henry Kissinger on 14 August 1974, the order
was this: “...assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure
Turks, we will get them a solution involving one third of the island, within
some kind of federal arrangement.”[21]
After two further days
of fighting, the Turkish military occupied the approximately 37 per cent of
Cyprus that it still holds today, according to a plan that had existed since at
least 1964, possibly even since the 1950’s.” [22]
Five
rounds of intercommunal talks took place in Vienna from 1975 to 1976 and a
summit meeting between G/C Leader Makarios and T/C leader Rauf Denktash
declared in 1977 their agreement on four guidelines for a solution of the
constitutional problem on a bi-communal federal basis. The intercommunal talks
continued also after the unilateral declaration of independence in 1983 under
the name “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which was recognized only
by Turkey.
THE WAY TO UNITY IN CYPRUS PASSES FROM REAL FEDERALISM
Some circles seem to
accept a federal Cyprus state, which will have a central government with weak
authority, when they speak of re-unification of the two separate regions
created de facto after 1974. But the official Turkish perception of a
federation has the same meaning of a confederation, which envisages the
partition of the island. One has to bear in mind here what the former
Prime Minister of Turkey, İsmet İnönü spoke about the Turkish policy on Cyprus
in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 8 September 1964.
He underlined: “In
order to be within the legal framework, we started to discuss instead of saying
officially partition, we say a form of “federation”![23]
This official form of
federation is synonymous with confederation, which envisages the partition of
the island. Therefore, this statement is very important for the understanding
of today’s Turkish policy on Cyprus.
Under
the circumstances existing today on our island, the only way out is to
transform the existing unitary or functional federal state into a bi-communal,
bi-zonal federal state in order to gain the reunification of the state and the
island of Cyprus. Therefore the following prerequisites are valid for a federal
government, which the British Constitutional expert Sir Kenneth Wheare writes in
his book “Federal Government”.[24]
I
quote from Ramesh Dutta Dikshit’s book “The political geography of
federalism-An inquiry into its origins and stability” (New York 1975), where he
refers to Wheare and writes that Wheare has tried to isolate various factors
for union and separation, which appear to him as necessary factors in the
origins of federalism. He enumerates the following half-dozen factors, all of
which operated in the U.S., Switzerland, Canada and Australia, to produce a
desire for union among the communities concerned[25].
Those factors are the following: [26]
1.
Need for common defense: Is there a need for common
defense for the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, who have lived over 400
years side by side on this island? Of course there is such a need against
imperialism and its aggressive organization NATO, which wishes the partition of
the island and to stop the struggle of the people of the island for social
liberation. It is imperative for the leaderships of both communities to follow
a policy of peaceful coexistence consistently and to put Cyprus out of the
sphere of influence of NATO.
2.
Desire to be independent of some foreign power and a realization that only
through union independence be achieved: From the point
of view of the progressive and democratic forces, which have understood that
the way to the complete independence of Cyprus is through unity, the demand for
being independent from the imperialism and its military bases as well as from
the “motherlands” are valid as ever.
3.
Expectations of economic advantages from union: Expectations
of economic advantages from union are very wide especially among the Turkish
Cypriot working masses.
4.
Some political association of the units involved prior to their federal union: From
the point of view of certain political parties with class approach, there is an
association of political aims of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots
before the federal union. This association of political aim will be crystalized
better in a democratic system.
5.
Geographical neighbourhood: Geographical neighbourhood
is the most appropriate in Cyprus, where the small island is divided into two.
6.
Similarity of political institution. Although there is a
similarity of the political institutions on both sides, there is a difference
in the level of maturity of the democratic life. But this can be developed with
mutual solidarity and especially with the elimination of the anti-democratic
elements, without any outside interference.
Moreover, there will be common political organizations based on class approach
rather than on ethnic-national origin.
It
will be noted that Wheare excludes from this list of prerequisites for union,
factors such as community of language, of “race”, of religion or of
nationality.
To
these six prerequisites Wheare adds one more: “Leadership or
statesmanship at the right time” which is the most wanted
patriotic merit that we need nowadays from all the political leaders in Cyprus.
Another point of
view, which should not be overlooked is that the solution of the problem in the
concrete conditions of Cyprus depends on one hand on the elimination of the
influences of imperialism and neo-colonialism and the military bases and on the
other hand to decide how to solve the internal question of nationalities, which
I see as the main issue. But the determining factor is not the difference
between the two communities. On the contrary, it has to be stressed that the
class struggle in the whole country and in the international arena will be
decisive.[27]
It seems that the following fear of the imperialists is still valid, first
mentioned in the 1989 International Yearbook of Communist Affairs: “If the
north and the south of Cyprus will be united in a future “Federal Cyprus”, the
electoral power of the Greek and Turkish communists can win the majority of the
votes in any Presidential elections of such an unusual government.[28] But here the crucial problem is not, as the
bourgeois circles suggest, “which community will govern the other one”, but
“which class will have the power in his hand on the whole of the island.” This
is my evaluation.
(This paper was read
at the two-day Conference entitled “The Cyprus Problem, its Resolution and the
Broader Implications” organized by The Center for European and International
Affairs” at the University of Nicosia, on 11 and 12 March 2016.)
[1] W.G.Grafski-B.A.Straschun,
Federalism in the developing countries of Asia and Africa, Moscow, 1968, quoted
in Ertan Yüksel, Federal Solution in Cyprus, Ortam newspaper, Nicosia, 22-23-24
January 1985
[2] Greek word for
union of Cyprus with Greece
[3] New York Times,
17 May 1949
[4] Claude Nicolet,
Removing the Greek-Turkish Bone of Contention, Mannheim und Möhnesee 2001. For
a review of the book, see Ahmet An, The origins of Cyprus Conflict in the light
of the American Documents, Yeni Çağ newspaper, Nicosia, Three articles on 21
and 28 March 2003 and 4 April 2003.
[5] Nicolet, ibid, p.87
[6] Nicolet, ibid, p.141
[7] Nihat Erim,
Cyprus as I know and I have seen, Ankara 1975, p.18
[8]Erim, ibid,
p.22 and 24
[9] Vol.46, No.3,
New York 1956, s.355-374
[10] Vol.59, March
1960, Chicago, s.118-123
[11] Nicolet, ibid,
p.92
[12] ibid, p.101
[13] Ahmet An, The
victims of the TMT, Nicosia 2008, pp.25-39
[14] ibid, p.133
[15] ibid, p.133
[16] Prof. S. A. de
Smith, The Commonwealth and its Constitutions, London 1964, p.285
[17] Nicolet, ibid,
p.226 and 229
[18] Cyprus, The
Destruction of a Republic and its Aftermath, British Document 1960-1974,
Extended second edition, Ankara 2003, pp.78-78
[19] Nicolet, ibid,
p.257
[20] Nicolet, ibid,
p.213
[21] Cyprus Weekly,
10 August 2007
[22] Nicolet, ibid,
p.452
[23] Dışişleri
Belleteni, October 1964, Number:2, p.63
[24] Sir Kenneth
Wheare, Federal Government, London 1953
[25] ibid, p.37
[26] ibid,
pp.220-222
[27] See also Ertan
Yüksel, The way to unity in Cyprus passes not from a confederal, but from
federal state, Ortam newspaper, 20-21 December 1984
[28] p.530,
see also Ahmet An, How the USA look at the Turkish Cypriot Left? Socialist
Observation, Nicosia, October 1993, No.5
