Turkish Cypriot people tested for their ‘Turkishness’

By Niyazi Kizilyurek

Instead of having a democratic debate on opposing political ideas, people choose to question the ‘Turkishness’ of Turkish Cypriots, an approach that will do nothing but strengthen the Turkish Cypriot identity movement.

During the Gecitkale dispute in 1967, a group of Turkish Cypriot people arranged a march towards the Turkish Embassy in Nicosia and strongly protested against Turkey. The reason for this protest was that Turkey had not landed any soldiers on the island to interfere with the dispute. The Turkish Cypriot people had experienced such a disappointment before, in 1964. Even though there was a clash between the two communities in 1964, Turkey did not interfere, against all the expectations.

These examples surely show how the Turkish Cypriot people developed an allegiance and trust for Turkey throughout the historical developments. We could even go further back in time. For example, during the years 1919-1922, the Turkish Cypriot people arranged campaigns to support the National Struggle for Independence.

When Mustafa Kemal entered Izmir, there were festivals arranged in Nicosia and Turkey was blessed as the true ‘motherland’. After the Republic of Turkey was founded and Ataturk reduced the action plan of Turkish nationalism within the ‘National Contract’ borders, it was again the Turkish Cypriot people who arranged actions, together with England, in order to draw Turkey’s attention towards Cyprus. Until the early 1950s, despite the Turkish authorities who were saying “we do not have a problem with Cyprus”, Turkish Cypriot nationalists were still paying a great deal of effort into engaging Turkey with the Cyprus issue.

While drawing your attention to the above facts, I do not intend to suggest that Turkish Cypriots have been ‘nationalists since the beginning of time’. My intention is to show that the Turkish Cypriot society had to turn toward Turkey at the beginning of the 20th century due to historical issues. The rise of Hellenic nationalism and the way that Greek Cypriots adopted Enosis as their national politics forced the Turkish Cypriot society to search for a ‘shelter’.

With a counter-nationalistic movement of their own, they identified themselves with Turkey. After 1954, when Turkey started to get involved in the Cyprus issue, Turkey and Turkish Cypriot people decided to act together against Enosis with a shared interest.
1974: The Breaking point

It is a truth that the Turkish Cypriot society became fully dependent on Turkey throughout the period when they were trying to get a hold on Turkey. Despite the fact that this dependency caused some problems ever since it was established, one cannot really point to any real crisis between the two communities before 1974.

Even when the ‘Special Chamber of War’ removed the ‘society’s leader’, Dr. Kucuk, from his chair and replaced him with Rauf Denktas, no real tensions emerged. Back then, the Turkish Cypriot society as though it were under threat of the Greek Cypriot society and this ‘main conflict’ overshadowed the other problems. The nationalist ideals of the society fit with the main political stream of the period but still the pressures from Turkey on the Turkish Cypriot society caused discomfort among the young and educated part of the society, especially the teachers.

After 1974, the relations between Turkey and Turkish Cypriot society changed totally. As Turkey’s military presence on the island allowed the Turkish Cypriot people to believe that they were free, they started to reorganise their lives with a certain sense of euphoria, but then they started to feel the shadow of Turkey over their heads.

The fact that Turkey interferes with every aspect of life while the Greek Cypriot society stopped being a direct threat and the threat of Enosis became history, has changed the dynamics of Turkish-Turkish Cypriot relations.

On the one hand there was Rauf Denktas, who did not aim for solution politics based on the support he got from Ankara, while on the other hand there were the ever increasing economic problems which led to the emergence of huge angry crowds. Ankara started to interfere in the political life and democracy issues that had never ceased to exist while Ankara was in search of a ‘comprehensible Turkish Cypriot’ caused the Turkish Cypriot people to start looking for a different solution.

There were also cultural and identity problems that emerged apart from the political and economic issues. The relations among the Turkish people who moved to Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot people had been tense since the beginning. The main reason for this was that the Turkish people questioned the Turkishness of the Turkish Cypriot society.

Ercument Yavuzalp, who stayed in Cyprus for many years as the Turkish Ambassador once stated this interesting comment: “The Turkish people who came to Cyprus are looking for an exact match of their traditions, behaviours and reactions from the Turkish Cypriot people. However, historical developments had created some inevitable differences between the two elements. These differences are not indicators of the lack of dependency of Turkish Cypriot people towards their national origins or their lack of love for the motherland.” I

t is unfortunate that this statement, which relates nationalism to conditionality, has never been fully understood by those who were trying to homogenise the Turkish Cypriots with the values of Turkish nationalism.

‘Turkishness criterion’ may cause bi-polar status in Cyprus
The above mentioned political and cultural atmosphere forced the Turkish Cypriot society, which entered the 20th century with an admiration for the motherland, into searching for a more ‘Cyprus-centred’ solution in the future. The demands for solution and democracy in Cyprus have moved in parallel with the development of a national identity, where ‘Cypriot’ has become the more important part of the Turkish Cypriot identity.

The way that Turkish Cypriot people turned towards a solution in Cyprus with the beginning of the 21st century was actually overlapping with the interests of Turkey.

Eventually, the support of Turkish Cypriot people for a comprehensive solution in Cyprus was seen as a big gain for Turkey during their move towards EU membership and it played a major role in the EU’s decision to start negotiations with Turkey.

But there is a major difference among the ‘share of interests’ that emerged in the 1950’s against Enosis and the ‘share of interests’ that came to the agenda as a result of today’s situation. While Turkey enjoyed the cooperation of Turkish Cypriots against Enosis, this political act was embraced by all of Turkey’s foundations and political figures.

But today, Turkey’s move towards EU membership and its obligations to undergo democratic reforms has divided Turkey politically and this situation in Turkey has directly affected the political figures that support a solution in Cyprus.

The unacceptable behaviour shown to President Mehmet Ali Talat and Prime Minister Ferdi Sabit Soyer by Lieutenant General Halil Kivrikoglu is partially a reflection of the above mentioned situation. What is worse is that instead of having a democratic debate about their different political ideas, some people chose to question the ‘Turkishness’ of the Turkish Cypriot people. This exclusionary approach will do nothing but strengthen the Turkish Cypriot identity movement.

A similar problem occurred between Greece and the Greek Cypriots during the 1960’s when there were reactions among the Greek Cypriots after a series of orders that came from Athens. These reactions caused some fractions in the society which led the country to the military movement of July 15th. Recently some Turkish political circles have taken a very dangerous stance which may lead to serious mental barriers being erected between the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot people which could lead to divisions in the Turkish Cypriot society. Creating classifications of ‘comprehensible and incomprehensible Turkish Cypriots’, and furthermore doing this classification on the basis of Turkishness, will only create grounds for chaos.