Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Resolving the Cyprus Conflict pp 145–189Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Toward Annan’s “European” Solution

  • Chapter

  • 303 Accesses

Abstract

In a statement immediately following the April 2004 referenda, the UN Secretary-General encapsulated his 1999–2004 effort—the Annan initiative—by explaining that his goal had been to facilitate “a reunited Cyprus to join the European Union.”1 Such was the momentum in the Cyprus peace talks that Kofi Annan had declared at his 2003 New Year press conference that “we are within striking distance of reuniting Cyprus.”2 All previous attempts to bring about a political settlement to the Cyprus problem had been unsuccessful in shifting the entrenched positions of the respective parties. In structural terms, failure to link advances in the negotiations with concurrent movements in their external context had meant a disjointed pattern of progress. Yet, what distinguished this period from previous ones was that the UN-negotiated process was both driven and matched by momentous external developments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Philip H. Gordon, “Turkey Overreacts, but the EU Is Not Blameless,” International Herald Times, December 20, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Such threats were repeated several times, see Joseph Fitchett, “Turkey’s Warning on Cyprus Vexes Western Allies,” International Herald Times, November 9, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Department of Defense, “Memorandum for Correspondents (267-M 4, Dec. 1995),” http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec1995/m120495_m267-95.html.

  4. See congressional debate in Senate, especially Senator Larry Piessler, “Missile Sales to Turkey,” Congressional Records, December 18, 1996, S18996–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Glafkos Clerides, Ntokoumenta mias Epohis [documents of a period] 1993–2003 (Nicosia: Politeia, 2007), 131–2.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Michael Barletta, “The Missile Crisis over Cyprus: Countdown to a Crisis?” Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, 1998, http://cns.miis.edu/research/cyprus/countdown.htm; and Erik Jorgensen, “Conflict Averted: The Decision Not to Deploy on Cyprus,” Centre for Nonproliferation Studies, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Richard C. Holbrooke, “Europe’s Chance for Trifecta,” The Washington Post, November 29, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Van Coufoudakis, Cyprus: A Contemporary Problem in Historical Perspective (Minnesota Mediterranean and East European Monographs 15, 2006) 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. M. Rendel, “Mr Callaghan Blames Talks Failure on Turks,” The Times, August 15, 1974. Callaghan’s statement was made in response to Turkey’s foreign minister withdrawing from the second Geneva conference. The conference between the three guarantor powers took place between August 8 and 14, 1974, and in addition to the three foreign ministers, it was attended by the two Cypriot leaders, Clerides and Denktash, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Arthur Hartman, Soviet representative Victor Menin, and UN Secretary-General Waldheim.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kostas Simitis, Politiki gia min Dimiourgiki Ellada [politics for a creative Greece] 1996–2004 (Athens: Polis, 2005), 107.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Marios L. Evriviades, “Europe in Cyprus: The Broader Security Implications,” The Brown Journal of World Affairs 10, 1 (2003): 241–3.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Perry Anderson, “The Divisions of Cyprus,” London Review of Books 30, 8 (2008), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Giilnur Aybet and Meltem Müftüler-Bac, “Transformations in Security and Identity after the Cold War: Turkey’s Problematic Relationship with Europe,” International Journal 55, 4 (2000): 567–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. This narrative is in stark contrast to another boy’s intercultural encounter a few years prior while visiting Turkey. After a few days, the young boy Nikos complained to his parents that he had not seen any Turks. His parents explained that most of the people he saw were Turkish, but he exclaimed, “You don’t understand! I don’t want to see people, I want to see Turks!” Lily Hamourtziadou, “Greek Myths or the Boy Who Wanted to See Turks,” Internationale Schulbuchforschung 21 (1999): 369.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Faruk Sen, “Earthquakes and Foreign Policy,” Turkish Daily News, September 18, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ilnur Cevik, “Ankara and Athens Must Listen to their People,” Turkish Daily News, September 2, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ahmet Davutoğlu, Stratejik Derinlik: Turkiye’nin Uluslararasi Konumu [strategic depth: the international position of turkey] (Istanbul: Küre Yayınları, 2001). Davutoğlu’s views are important if one bears in mind that he was Prime Minister Erdogan’s chief foreign policy advisor and subsequent foreign minister (2009-). Reassessing Turkey’s foreign policy, his book aims to provide a theoretical formulation of a new multidimensional foreign policy and proposed a new Turkish geostrategy, which utilizes its vast historical geostrategic position (which he calls “strategic depth”). On AKP’s new foreign policy, see also Sözen, “A Paradigmatic Shift: New Principles of Turkish Foreign Policy Making” (a paper presented at the annual conference for International Studies Association, San Francisco, March 26–29, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gregory R. Copley, “The Turkish Schism Deepens,” Defence and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy 29, 11–12 (2001): 12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. The Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University identified eight key challenges confronting Ankara: economic frailty, an ossified political elite, division over the military’s domestic role, perception of its importance to the Western alliance, lack of foreign policy vision, lack of reform, regional tensions, and the U.S.-led war on terror; Aleksandar D. Jovovic, “A Turning Point for Turkey,” Schlesinger Working Group on Strategic Surprises (2001): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Philip Robins, “Confusion at Home, Confusion Abroad: Turkey between Copenhagen and Iraq,” International Affairs 79, 3 (2003): 557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. By surveying online discussion of Turkish tertiary students, Lemi Baruh and Mihaela Popescu, in “Guiding Metaphors of Nationalism: The Cyprus Issue and the Constriction of Turkish National Identity in Online Discussions,” Discourse&Communication 2, 1 (2008): 79–96, locate Cyprus’s metaphoric function as a source for replenishing Turkish nationalism.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Heinz A. Richter, “Ankara’s Policy Towards Cyprus and the European Union,” Cyprus Review 13, 2 (2001): 29–45.

    Google Scholar 

  23. John Redmond, The Next Mediterranean Enlargement of the European Community: Turkey, Cyprus and Malta? (Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1993), 54.

    Google Scholar 

  24. For Turkey’s reaction to the EU’s Cyprus “conditionality,” see Birol A. Yesilada, “Turkey’s Candidacy for EU Membership,” Middle East Journal 56, 1 (2002): 94–111.

    Google Scholar 

  25. UK House of Commons, Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, Turkey, Response of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (London: HMSO, cm 5529, 2002), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. UK House of Commons, Sixth Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee on Turkey (London: HMSO, April 23, 2002), para. 86.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mehmet Ali Birand, “Why Are we so Afraid to Change?” Turkish Daily News, August 14, 2007, linked Cyprus and Armenia as one issue relating to Turkey’s foreign policy. The other two (the Kurdish issue and secularism versus Islam) related to Turkey’s domestic developments. According to Professor Rıdvan Karluk, former PM Mesut Yılmaz believed that the Kurdish issue was the main obstacle to Turkey’s EU accession, when in reality it was Cyprus that regulated Turkey-EU relations. EU-Turkey Information Network ABHaber, “Prof. Dr. Karluk: ‘The Cyprus Issue had Became a Precondition for

    Google Scholar 

  28. State Department, Daily Press Briefing, Richard Boucher, Spokesman, Washington, DC, January 14, 2003, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2003/16641.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  29. The BDH, comprising three political parties and sixteen NGOs, was announced on June 29, 2003 with the distinct aim of gaining enough votes at the forthcoming elections to replace Denktash as chief negotiator at the UN intercommunal talks. The leading personalities of the movement were Mehmet Ali Talat, Mustafa Akinci, and Ali Erel; H. Smith, “United Front Take on Denktash,” Guardian, June 30, 2003. After internal consultations the three parties agreed on a protocol that would “terminate the duties of President Denktash as negotiator,” strongly oppose the “pro status-quo parties in collaboration with the anti-EU forces in Turkey,” and “achieve an agreement on the basis of the Annan Plan by May 2004 and put it to a referendum.” The Protocol was agreed to by the Peace and Democracy Movement (PDM), the Republican Turkish Party-United Forces, and the Solution and EU Party (SEUP), Nicosia, September 4, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Yael Navaro-Yashin, “Confinement and Imagination: Sovereignty and Subjectivity in a Quasi-State,” in Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World, ed. T. B. Hansen and F. Stepputat (Princeton: Princeton UP, 2005), 103–19.

    Google Scholar 

  31. For a more extensive survey of the social-political transformations in northern Cyprus, see Hannes Lacher and Erol Kaymak, “Transforming Identities: Beyond the Politics of Non-Settlement in North Cyprus,” Mediterranean Politics 10, 2 (2005): 147–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Helena Smith, “Northern Cypriots Turn Against Turkey,” Guardian, September 25, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Yael Navaro-Yashin, “‘Life Is Dead Here’—Sensing the Political ‘No Man’s Land,’” Anthropological Theory 3, 1 (2003): 107–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ian Black and Helena Smith, “EU Tells Turkey to Push Cypriot Leader into Line,” Guardian, March 12, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Halil Ibrahim Salih, Cyprus, Ethnic Political Counterpoints (Dallas: University Press of America, 2004), 290–3.

    Google Scholar 

  36. TRNC President’s Office, “Doubts over EU Aid,” Press Release, June 5, 2003, http://www.trncpresidency.org/press/news/doubts.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Furthermore, Edward Newman, “The Most Impossible Job in the World: The Secretary-General and Cyprus,” in The Work of the UN in Cyprus: Promoting Peace and Development, ed. O. P. Richmond and J. Ker-Lindsay (New York: Palgrave, 2001), 127–8, adds the post-Cold War pressure for more activists Secretary-General and how the SG’s efforts were not synchronized with external actors political will.

    Google Scholar 

  38. David Hannay, Cyprus: Search for a Solution (London: I.B. Tauris, 2005), 96–115.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Sophia Kannas, “Verheugen: Cyprus Was the First Casualty of Looming War in Iraq,” Cyprus Mail, March 15, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ann-Sofi Jakobsson Hatay, “The Orphan Peace Plan: Kofi Annan’s Proposal for a Reunited Cyprus,” Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research, Meeting Points Forum (Lund, Sweden, 2004), /forum/meet/2002/JakobssonHatay_Cyprus.html.

    Google Scholar 

  41. For Greek Cypriot attitude variance toward Turkish Cypriots and Turkish settlers/immigrants, see Liana Danielidou and Peter Hortvath, “Greek Cypriot Attitudes toward Turkish Cypriots and Turkish Immigrants,” The Journal of Social Psychology 146, 4 (2006): 405–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Martti Ahtisaari and Gareth Evans, “Three Advantages of the Annan Peace Plan,” International Herald Tribune, April 19, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Makarios Droushiotis, “The Bankrupt Policy of ‘All or Nothing,’” Cyprus Mail, August 7, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Avner Falk, “Border Symbolism,” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 43 (1974): 650–60.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Rebecca Bryant, “A Dangerous Trend in Cyprus,” Middle East Report 235 (2005), http://www.merip.org/mer/mer235/bryant.html.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yücel Vural and Nicos Peristianis, “Beyond Ethno-nationalism: Emerging Trends in Cypriot Politics after the Annan Plan,” Nations and Nationalism 14, 1 (2008): 39–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Nathalie Tocci, EU Accession Dynamics and Conflict Resolution: Catalysing Peace or Consolidating Partition in Cyprus? (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004), 159–67.

    Google Scholar 

  48. For an in-depth analytical account, see Harry Anastasiou, The Broken Olive Branch: Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, and the Quest for Peace in Cyprus (New York: Syracuse UP, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Olli Rehn, “Cyprus: One Year After Accession,” Speech/05/278, Nicosia, May 13, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Michális Stavrou Michael
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2009 Michális Stavrou Michael

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Michael, M.S. (2009). Toward Annan’s “European” Solution. In: Resolving the Cyprus Conflict. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230103382_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation