THE NEVER-ENDING SYMPHONY CYPRUS QUESTION AND MARXIST ATTITUDE
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
 
Other articles
 

In the geopolitical concepts and rivalry for the re-division of the world, Cyprus is one of the key areas up for re-alignment. Although the island played a crucial role in imperialists' quest for world hegemony, its complete re-division was not achieved during the 20th century. However it is now being put on the dinner table of the 'imperialist wolfs' at the beginning of 21st century.

In 1974, using the excuse of internal developments within the island and a massacre of Turkish Cypriots, the Turkish bourgeois state staged a military landing and occupied the northern region of the island. This created a situation that continues until today. In practice the island has been divided into two: the Greek community in the South and the Turkish community in the North. The Turkish and Greek communities therefore come to the process of re-alignment with an entire generation having grown up under different economic and political conditions.

The Turkish and Greek bourgeois states and the ruling Turkish and Greek forces that act as their extensions in Cyprus have constantly used the Cyprus question in their internal and external policies for many years. Both sides have proclaimed Cyprus a "national" question that cannot be abandoned and in which no concession can be granted. Through the policies they have implemented, the Turkish and Greek bourgeois states and their proxies in Cyprus paved the way, not towards communal existence but towards separation and diverse formation; they tried to estrange the two communities from one another. This policy, which brought mutual enmity to the Turkish and Greek communities, is in the interests of the imperialist forces who are competing with each other and of the chauvinist Greek and Turkish ruling classes.

The Turkish and Greek states and their extensions in Cyprus have played this game for decades. In the mean time, although it has been interrupted in some periods, relations between the two communities have continued. Despite sometimes being left in the background, the Cyprus question has continued to be an important international matter.

Turkey and Greece pull the strings of their puppets in the island and then try to tie these to a post that they perceive to be strong. The posts that are available are the EU or the USA. Therefore it cannot be expected that the political "landlords" in Cyprus would mouth anything other than the words of the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies. And in turn, the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisie; i.e. the "nation wide actors", are taking their cue from the EU and USA, the international actors.

In the period of existence of the Soviet Union, US imperialism acted by considering the Soviet factor in the Cyprus question and mostly it would throw its weight behind the Turkish bourgeoisie due to the Greek side's threat to become close to the USSR. The aim of US imperialism was to keep the USSR at a distance from the Cyprus question. Later, in the period of 1989/1991, the revisionist bloc collapsed and the USSR disintegrated. Since the beginning of 1990s, the EU has therefore substituted for it in active relationship to the Cyprus question.

Between 1974 and 1990, there were two main international actors who were trying to solve or not solve the Cyprus question in accordance with their own interests: the USA and USSR. And since 1990, there are two main international actors who are trying to solve or not to solve the same question in accordance with their own interests: the USA and EU. In both periods, the UN has been active, as supervisory force acting in the interests of the US.

Both centres of rivalry have almost competed with each other in order to solve the Cyprus question according to their own interests. Until now this competition has not produced any result except to keep the Cyprus question imprisoned within a non-solution.

At its meeting on 17 September 1990, the EU Council of Ministers dealt with the membership application of the Greek Cypriot side as if there had not been a problem that continued for years between the two communities in the island. This was the first time that the EU acted as a meddler in the Cyprus question in its own self-interest. Since that date, the history of talks on the Cyprus question has been the history of competition in the Mediterranean region between the EU and USA.

In its report of 15 July 1997 headed "Agenda 2000", the EU accorded Cyprus the status of candidate member, and at the Luxembourg Summit in December 19 97 it included it in the process of enlargement. Thus Cyprus was involved in the full membership talks which began on 31 March 1998. The decision to "prepare Turkey for partnership" was taken at the same meeting.

In the period when this report from the EU was announced, there was a new coalition government in power in Turkey, consisting of ANAP (Motherland Party), DSP (Democratic Left Party) and DYP (True Path Party). This government was swollen with Turkish chauvinism, and went beyond the usual rhetorical statements of support to emphasise the strategic importance of Cyprus and insist that Cyprus is indispensable to Turkey.

In reprisal for the decision taken by the EU, the new government decided to start the process of consolidating with Cyprus. But it used the concept of "special relation" instead of talking about 'consolidation', due to intense international reaction.

The EU held its Helsinki Summit on 10 December 1999. At the meeting, the EU gave the status of candidate member to Turkey after "dramatic" midnight Helsinki-Ankara talks. At the same meeting, it was said that the decision on Cyprus's EU membership would be taken in 2002. In fact at the Copen-hagen Summit (12-13 December 2002), it was announced that Cyprus was going to be made full member on 1 May 2004 together with other 9 candidate members.

The situation has changed since Turkey's EU membership came onto the agenda; since it was accepted as a candidate member at the Helsinki Summit and since 3 October 2005. Although the decision to begin membership negotiations on 3 October 2005 was taken, the EU is not in hurry to make Turkey a member. Although Turkey recognising Cyprus was not an issue in the meeting where the decision to start negotiations for full membership was taken, it is impossible to believe that this question will not appear on the agenda during the process of full membership. The negotiations are going to be tough also because of the Cyprus question. That is to say that it is an open-ended process. But it is also very clear that the Turkish bourgeoisie will seek to profit from the process of negotiations, with the support of the US. Therefore it cannot be expected that the Turkish bourgeoisie will easily desist from the "ownership of right". There will therefore be an attempt to impose the Annan Plan on the agenda in consideration of that possibility. In Cyprus this plan led to a reshuffling of the cards and the creation of new policies.

The Annan Plan is a plan for an imperialist solution. It does not consider the interests of the island's people, it is prepared in line with the interests of imperialist forces and collaborationist administrations and envisages a federal structure in the island based on their interests. The Annan Plan is an imperialist solution that expresses a compromise between the USA and EU.

The plan was prepared in consideration of the interests of the USA, EU and, based on these, of Turkey and Greece. The plan embodies the rivalry between the USA and EU on the island and in the region; the balance of power between them and the demands of the guarantor states who divided the island into two. The plan does not touch the British military bases, legitimises the "right of ownership" of Turkey and Greece over the island, and ensures that the EU will gain influence in Southern Cyprus and Greece, and the USA in Northern Cyprus and Turkey. This is the other reason why the US is talking about support for the "development of the north" after the referenda. That is to say that, within the framework of the Annan Plan, US imperialism is not going to lose very much of its influence over the island through Cyprus' membership of the EU. US imperialism will still wield authority by using the British bases in the island and by benefiting from Turkey's continuing rights of guarantorship. At the same time, it is going to have the opportunity to realise its imperialist policies in the island and the region through those countries that side with the USA on international policies despite their EU membership.

A referandum was hold on 24 April 2004. The result was very interesting: While the Turkish side of Cyprus said "yes" to the plan with 64.9% of the vote, 75.8% of the Greek side said "no". The turnout was 84.35% in the North and 96.53% in the South, which is an indicator of peoples' interest in the referendum. It is clear that the people on both sides are interested in the realisation of a certain solution instead of dissolution. But the result was rather different from the expectations of the hegemonic forces.

What were the parties seeking for, what were they expecting and what did they achieve?

Greece built up its policy of annexation of the island in line with the strategy of Cyprus's entrance to the EU while Turkey's fell outside of the EU. This policy of Greece was also supported because the membership of the whole undivided island, and thus its removal from US influence, served the interests of the prominent imperialist countries of the EU such as Germany and France.

The other result of Turkey's military landing in Cyprus in 1974 and its occupation of the northern side of island was to strike a heavy blow against Enosis (annexation of Cyprus) and to force Greece to desist from this strategy. After a period of lack of clarity in which it was avoiding war with Turkey and emphasising its membership of the EU, Greece spoke publicly described the same strategy as the strategy of the EU; thus the Cyprus strategy of Greece and the EU has became collective. As K. Simitis, then Greek Prime Minister, said: "Guarantorship in island is not compulsory". That is to say that the EU's domination in Cyprus means "peaceful" realisation of the Enosis strategy. Since that day, Greece has used the EU in order to practice its Cyprus strategy.

Thus, Greece wanted to gulp down Cyprus by using the EU umbrella. But the referendum results showed that it cannot realise easily this plan.

In contrast with Greece's plan to annex the whole island, Turkey has since the beginning tried to render valid its "taksim" (division) plan. Despite some disagreements from time to time, the USA has always supported this policy of the Turkish bourgeoisie. For what is important for US imperialism is not to let the EU snatch the whole of Cyprus.

The realisation and results of the referendum foreseen by the Annan Plan show that Turkey has gained some successes and opportunities in the sphere of diplomacy on the basis of its taksim (division) policy. Turkey continues to repeat and strengthen its view that the Turkish Cypriot side must be recognised as a state; meanwhile the US and EU statements on the lifting of embargo against the Turkish side and the opening of representation point towards the course of the process.

Most importantly, in reaction to the Turkish bourgeois state's chauvinist orientation and the settling of the Turkish population on the island, the majority of the people on the Turkish Cypriot side have shown their desire for a united Cyprus and the wish to enter the EU as a united Cyprus. This objectively represented an objection, a voice against dissolution and against the status quo. As stated by the Socialist Party of Cyprus (Central Committee of Socialist Party of Cyprus-March 2004): "The referendum is not only going to be about the 'yes/no' of the Annan Plan. The attitude 'yes to referendum and yes in the referendum' through putting weight on the process with an overwhelming majority of people's will, in fact, means 'No to status quo, no to the regime that tries to uphold the status quo'": And the Greek Cypriot people in the south of island also did not give the expected response, again as a result of chauvinist orientation. Thus, in the referendum results, while the Turkish Cypriot side objectively expressed its opposition to chauvinist policies in relation to a united Cyprus and to taksim (division), the Greek Cypriot side did not raise any objection to the status quo.

The Greek side rejected the Annan Plan. But the referendum has become a turning point in relation to plans and policies about Cyprus; although only a few years have passed, it is being understood that the post-referendum period is not going to be the same as the pre-referendum period. There is no doubt that both sides' attitudes have not changed, and it has therefore become clear that these attitudes cannot be expressed through the old policies. The referendum has therefore created the material conditions for the new policies.

In short, US imperialism and EU had taken out a mortgage on the future of the Cyprus peoples, so they were left obliged to make compromises in order to use the island in line with their imperialist interests. The Annan Plan was the expression of this compromising. The people of Cyprus were forced to say "yes" or "no" to this imperialist imposition. This imperialist plan did not involve the question how the people of Cyprus wanted to unite, use their right to self-determination or found a united Cyprus. On the contrary, the plan balanced the interests of US and EU imperialism, and foresaw the adoption of those interests by the people of Cyprus. This imperialist "peace" attempt based on the Annan Plan did not lead to any result. But the new situation; "no" from the Greek side and "yes" from the Turkish side shows the rivalry on Cyprus is going to continue under new conditions.

What makes Cyprus important and what is the place of Cyprus in inter-imperialist contradictions?

In all periods of the history, Cyprus has been important because of its strategic position. And the current stormy situation over Cyprus island also arises from this strategic position. The history of the last few decades - the dissolution produced under the name of solution or the imposed imperialist solution - shows that the hegemonic powers want to shape the island according to their interests. In the so-called solutions to the problem in this period, more correctly its non-solution until certain compromises can be reached; the ball is passed from UN, under the rule of US imperialism, to the EU and from the EU to the UN. And each time Greece and Turkey who want to be the one whose word is law in the island, have tried to put forward their policies of "annexation" and "division" in whichever way is appropriate to the conditions of the day.

Let's look at the parties first:

The balance of power has changed after the disintegration of the revisionist bloc, and we see there are two imperialist camps competing with each other in Cyprus. The US and Britain head one of these camps; Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side are also on this side. The second camp is formed by the EU. This camp is led by Germany and France, who form the hegemonic power within the EU; and beside them there is Greece and Greek Cypriot side. This polarisation has also shown effects on the people of Cyprus and so the people of Cyprus are divided into two as Turkish and Greek communities.

US imperialism is today the main actor designing the future of the island. It also has on its side the historical, political and strategic achievements of British imperialism in the island. Because it knows that alone it cannot possess Cyprus, it struggles with the EU to re-share the island on the basis of its alliance with Britain and Turkey. Thus the Cyprus island will be turned into a protectorate of the USA indirectly and the EU directly. The influence of Turkey and Greece over Cyprus can only be talked about in relation to these protectorates.

The strategic importance of Cyprus for the USA can be understood completely only when considered in the context of US imperialism's geopolicy for world hegemony:

* Cyprus is in the Southwest leg of the USA's Eurasia geopolitics.

* Cyprus is important for control of the Mediterranean region.

* Cyprus occupies a very important place in the USA's "Greater Middle East Project".

* Cyprus is important for the security of Israel, the US gendarmerie in the Middle East.

* Cyprus is important for the control of the route that conveys the Middle East (Iraq) and Caspian Basin oil to the world markets and the shipment point (Ceyhan, Iskendurun Gulf)

While there are dozens of urgent problems in the world, we cannot explain such a degree of interest in Cyprus from rival centres of imperialism like the USA and the EU by their quest for peace. Nor can this interest be explained by the underground riches of Cyprus. The island does not have such riches. What makes Cyprus important is the significant role that it could play within the openings of imperialist powers who want to re-share the world; it's the strategic position of Cyprus Island. The island has always been important for this reason.

The Turkish bourgeoisie, especially since the collapse of the revisionist bloc, no longer considers Cyprus as only a "national" problem. It, at the same time, considers Cyprus with a strategic perspective; it continually emphasises the importance of the island for Turkey's regional interests and security. The Turkish bourgeoisie thinks geopolitically.

In the near future, the Turkish bourgeoisie computes that the oil and natural gas of the Caucasus, Central Asia and Caspian Basin will come to Iskendurun Gulf (Ceyhan) through pipes and will be dispatched from here to the world markets. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has been opened and the Iraqi oil still flows here. Cyprus is in an indispensable position for the control of this strategic region. On 6 April 1998, Ismail Cem, who was the Foreign Minister of Turkey in that period, stated: "The East Mediterranean will be the most strategic region in the years of 2005-2010; therefore we will never desist from the position in relation to Cyprus, which controls the region, for the national security and national interests of Turkey". He announced to the world that Turkey was ready to pay the price.

Trying to be a regional power, the Turkish regime's dreams of hegemony "from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China", and of a "Greater Turkey" in union with the Central Asian Turkish Republics have fell into hot water. Later it also had to stay away from the Mosul-Kirkuk petroleum. However it definitely will not drop Cyprus without gaining some concessions in order to export its strategic importance.

This is the principle understanding of the Turkish bourgeoisie; it is an understanding that has become a state policy. We, of course, also know about how in new-colonial imperialist servant Turkey these state policies and the hot "red lines" that are considered as the cause of war, can disappear and become indistinct due to the balance of power. In the future, it will be no surprise to see Turkey withdraw from its policies on Cyprus in return for some concessions during the process of negotiations with the EU.

In its competition with the US over Cyprus and Mediterranean region, the EU appears to be committed on the subject of the hegemony of all Cyprus. The sole dimension to this commitment is the geopolitical importance the island holds. The EU is not capable of creating a geopolitical foreign policy - which is the expression of "national" will, political totality - because it is not an integrated political entity. It is not in a situation of developing a "national" will and continues to exist by balancing the rivalry between the EU's imperialist countries. Therefore, we can only call the EU's commitment to Cyprus an ostensible "geopolitical commitment". By dominating Cyprus, the EU also plans to be a power in the Middle East.

There is no other explanation for the EU's interest in making the island with so many problems a member. Because there is nothing that Cyprus will add to the EU other than its strategic position. Cyprus is a dagger that the EU plans to use to stab the USA's "Greater Middle Eastern Project".

As regards the Germany-France binary, who are in the dominant position in the EU, Cyprus is in the position of an indispensable base for these imperialist countries to reach the Middle East. The island joining the EU moves the border of the EU 500 km further east from Crete; thus the EU is in a position to control the whole Mediterranean. Such an expansion runs counter to the interests of the US imperialism.

For all these reasons neither US imperialism nor the EU as a whole cannot keep out of Cyprus.

The hegemonic struggle conducted in the recent past between US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism in the Mediterranean and its surroundings today has been replaced with a competition between the centres of rivalry such as the USA and EU. In connection with the relativity and shifting of the balance of power between the centres of rivalry, there are few possibilities for an imperialist solution to the Cyprus question:

* The balance of powers between the imperialist countries in Cyprus will not change to any meaningful degree and dissolution in Cyprus will remain the solution as it is today.

* US imperialism will accept defeat in the face of the EU in the region and the Turkish bourgeoisie will join with the EU. In such a situation US imperialism would lose its influence in the region, at least in Turkey that its realisation and indirectly the Turkish Cypriot side. This is a very unlikely possiblity.

* The contradiction between US imperialism and the EU will sharpen and the EU, by taking a step back, will leave Cyprus. Taking into consideration the Greek Cypriot side's membership of the EU, this is again a possibility but its likelihood is rather low for today. It is however a possibility that would be realisable if the contradictions between the USA and EU were to gain the dimensions of an inter-imperialist war.

* In a situation where talks end with no outcome, the de facto division of Cyprus will be approved de jure. Thus, the USA and the EU will share the island as a joint sphere of influence. This is a possibility that can be realised any time by the USA and EU.

* During the negotiations for EU membership, Turkey will be conditioned to recognise Southern Cyprus as Cyprus; developments show a slight tendency towards this. In this situation there would be two alternatives for the Turkish bourgeoisie: a) It will accept the EU's imposition and subjugate Cyprus's strategic importance for Turkey and its being a "national" cause to EU interests. This will show that Turkey has distanced itself from the US and begun to act according to the EU interests. Certain parties of the Turkish bourgeoisie may preach that stepping back from Cyprus in order to gain access to the EU is the right step for Turkey's national interests. For example, this is the position of the organisation of the Turkish bourgeoisie, TUSIAD (Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen). Following Turkey's candidate-membership of the EU, TUSIAD has abandoned the official viewpoint on Cyprus and taken the attitude that there should be a solution that is appropriate to the policies of the EU, as it believes that the EU has gained strategic importance in the world capitalist system. TUSIAD considers Cyprus as an impediment to the process of membership of the EU. b) In the face of imposition of the recognition of Cyprus during the membership negotiations, Turkey would set forth its opinion in scathing terms: announce that it desists from becoming a member and the division of Cyprus will be a reality. The army and the bourgeois circles sharing this viewpoint will not desist from Cyprus easily: As we mentioned above, they will not desist basically for two reasons; 1) Because it is a "national" cause. 2) Because of its strategic importance for the interests of the bourgeoisie thinking geopolitically.

The geo-politician fascist Muzzaffer Ozbag, who considers Cyprus as part of the geography of Turkey, explains in the following words the geo-strategic importance of Turkey and so of Cyprus:

"From the birth of the inter-state community and the establishment of international relations until our day, the geography of Turkey - involving the Petty-Asia Peninsula, Thrace, the Turkish canyons and the Cyprus island, the Aegean islands, which are the extensions of Anatolia - has been one of the world's most prominent and even the most important point of focus in the geopolitical and geo-strategic plans. The geo-political importance of the geography of Turkey is being made constant by its special ability to be a bridge, door and lock to the movements and entrances-exits of the east-west, north-south and by its central position in the inland sea basins in the crossroad region of these continents and in this85 huge block of earth that is formed by Asia, Europe and Africa, described as the "Ancient World" by historians and the "world island" by geo-politicians. The possibility of directing and controlling the laws of nature, inter-continental transportation and commercial, military and political activity compel any force -that has got interests on the regional, continental and universal scale or follows a politic of superiority- to be interested in the geography of Turkey.

It is very clear that a Cyprus based on the formation of two separate states by two peoples - whose common subsistence today has become impossible - will form a serious threat to Turkey and peace in the hands of a power that is hostile and a stranger to the region, and a state that would be outsourcing for its imperialist boss." (Article "the Vital Importance of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for the Security of Turkey", from his compilation "Upon the Geopolitics of Turkey and the Turkish world", ASAM Publications, 22, Ankara, 2001, Page 365-370-371).

When declaring the attitude of the General Staff of the Army on the Cyprus question, General Hilmi Ozkok said: "The process of imprisoning Turks in Anatolia will be almost completed through a Cyprus settlement that threatens the security of Turkey and does not ensure its security needs." There is no difference between this understanding and the understanding created in ASAM about the strategic importance of Cyprus. This viewpoint is also the viewpoint of the Army and the bourgeoisie.

The Annan Plan has not been accepted, but the discussions about the results of the referendum and various developments show that the Cyprus question has now entered a new phase. After the referendum the US and EU did not kept the promises of "help" that they had given the Turkish Cypriot side. Turkey's effort to achieve the recognition of the Turkish Cypriot side as an "independent" state, the final forcing of Turkey to recognise Southern Cyprus in connection with its membership to the EU and visits of some delegates from the US to Northern Cyprus was followed by the visits of some businessmen from Azerbaijan. A private airline company from this country then began the first direct flights to Northern Cyprus.

Turkey's situation in comparison to the pre-referendum past is much more difficult and also much easier. That is to say the consideration and perspective of the questions is going to define the alternative.

First Alternative:

Firstly, Turkey is not in a position to go for EU membership whatever it costs. This would mean accepting the position of the EU and Greece on the subject of Cyprus. Such submission would lead to an endless stream of other impositions. Moreover, it will be shown that the Turkish bourgeoisie's attitude towards Turkish communities and states outside the borders of Turkey is not sincere. In a situation of such submission, the communities will think, "those who are selling Cyprus will sell us easily". Consequently the bourgeoisie will be seen as an unreliable guardian of the Turkish "national" cause. It is difficult to envisage a bourgeoisie that is eager to ride its horse from the Adriatic coasts to the Great Wall of China will make such a concession.

Secondly, the contradictions between the US and EU sharpen gradually. The possibility of periodical dE9tente cannot prevent the gradual deepening of the contradictory pro-cess. Therefore, the US will not easily allow Turkey to surrender to the EU on the subject of Cyprus in order to become a member. For, in such a situation, the US would be giving Cyprus to the EU. But US imperialism will not accept this without a fight due to the importance of Cyprus to its geo-politics.

Second Alternative:

Due to the importance of Cyprus as we mentioned above, the Turkish bourgeoisie will resist the EU by risking an end to the membership process. This is a stake-all gambit. In this situation the EU's influence on Turkey will be weakened and its extension through Turkey to the Middle East will be a dream. It should not be forgotten that in the case of such a step by the Turkish bourgeoisie US imperialism would play an important role. In order to keep the EU away from the region, the US will continue to encourage Turkey as it has until now. Possibly it may also give it some crumbs.

It does not matter from what perspective or alternative it is considered, the question hangs upon the course of rivalry; the balance of power between the US and EU. Therefore, Turkey's situation is rather difficult in comparison with the past.

What should be the Marxist attitude to the solution of the Cyprus question?

In a small island with a population of just 700.000, the world's best-known leading imperialist bandit countries are fighting and kicking each other, whilst declaring that all this is for the future of the Cypriot people, so they can live in peace. Part of their deception involves threatening the people of island. They are trying to force them to accept the Annan Plan by saying, "this is the last chance". They are creating an atmosphere that the "Republic of United Cyprus" will be founded through the Annan Plan. They are establishing a republic via a plan that has been prepared without asking and taking into consideration the viewpoints of the Turkish and Greek people, the real owners of the island!

In Page 3 of the plan, it says: "The Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland hereby agree with this Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem, and commit themselves to sign together with Cyprus the appended Treaty on matters related to the new state of affairs in Cyprus, which shall be registered as an international treaty in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations."

This is how those who say they will bring peace to the island explain that the people of Cyprus cannot decide their own future.

The Annan Plan upset the Turkish and Greek status quo, which was valid till then, and forced these countries to reconsider their strategies about Cyprus. Until that day, the compromise as a non-compromise, the solution as a non-solution had continued. Together with this plan, a new opportunity for "peace" was presented as different to those of the past. The will of the people of Cyprus was not required for this "peace". The future of Cyprus was related to the balance of power between those who are fighting for hegemony in the island under the name of "peace" and "united Cyprus". As happened in the past, the present "peace" contained the signatures of Greece, Turkey and Great Britain. The United Nations, European Union and the US are also grinning out from under the signatures.

The Cyprus island has always been occupied, dominated and bought and sold by the hegemonic forces of each period as the geographic horizons of mankind widened and the plundering and hegemony spread out. Such that it was rented by the Ottomans and later declared as an independent republic by exterior powers. Cyprus has been governed by whichever powers dominate the Eastern Mediterranean but not by the Cypriots. The Cypriot people have never been consulted within these developments. Throughout history, the Cypriot people have been deprived of their right to self-determination. And now again the Cypriots are excluded as a whole in the new search for "peace".

The working class and labourer masses on both sides of the island are far from generating a solution as the product of their own will and from forming an organisation with this purpose. The bourgeois hegemony in both parts, the chauvinism and enmity -which has been fed, provoked and always kept alive- have played a determining role in the creation of this situation. The people of Cyprus in both regions have not until now come up with any option beyond those contained in this or that form of bourgeois option. Therefore they have been forced this or that way, but continually run after and obey bourgeois options.

The EU is the popular option of the last period. There is a huge belief that the EU could solve all the problems and bring peace and welfare to the island.

High living standards of the Greek side play an important role for the Turkish side in considering EU as a saviour. There was al-so a big influence of this situation when the Turkish side said "yes" to the Annan Plan. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to be surprised at, that one of the powers responsible for putting the island into this situation is now being considered as the saviour.

It is impossible to reach a stable solution on the Cyprus question under the conditions of imperialist occupation and rivalry. No solution as a result of imperialist politics could provide a real peace in Cyprus. Cyprus may achieve an improved standard of living under the hegemony of the US and the EU imperialism and this may continue for a while, but together with the changes of the power balance between the imperialist centres of rivalry, someone may "scratch" Cyprus again and the collisions which have supposedly disappeared may start again.

The Cypriots, i.e. the native people of the island, are the ones who will bring a permanent solution to the Cyprus question. Therefore, for the creation of the material conditions for the real solution, Turkey and Greece have to pull all their military forces out of the island, and Great Britain, USA and EU have to totally withdraw from the island. Only under these conditions can the people of the island find the possibility of freely determining their future.

The Cyprus problem is not a problem between the people of the island. The ones who make Cyprus a problem are Turkey, Greece and the imperialist powers who want to dominate Cyprus together with their domestic collaborators. These are the problems due to the rivalry between them. These powers are the main ones responsible for making the Cyprus situation into a collision between the people.

The Socialist Party of Cyprus has placed following understanding in its programme: "The organisation of relations between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in peaceful solidarity is impossible in a continuing situation of on the one hand, conflicts between the major imperialist powers for their interests, and on the other the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and the politics of safeguarding in our island the interests of the big and regional powers upon this hegemony, in the conditions where the regional and local bourgeoisies' conflicts for interest have been inter-related. The solution of the Cyprus question is impossible". Imperialism and the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies and their extensions in Cyprus have made impossible the democratic solution of the Cyprus question in today's conditions. Cyprus is de facto divided into two both geographically and politically, and both peoples in the island are being made to be estranged from each other. Both peoples are separated from each other with reactionary, national chauvinist barriers. This is a decisive obstacle before them to develop a common will. And this is the greatest obstacle to the "United Cyprus".

MLCP supports every activity that serves the unity and freedom of the Cypriot people. It supports the demands for ending the occupation for a united and independent Cyprus, withdrawing of all the military forces in Cyprus, closing down of the bases, ending the guarantees of Turkey, Greece and Britain etc, and upholds them as its own demands.

United and Democratic Cyprus means the common future of the Turkish and Cypriot people. However this is the issue of a revolution. United and Independent Cyprus could be obtained with the formation of a socialist Cyprus. Only then the freedom, equality and brotherhood of the people would be realised on the basis of peoples' voluntary unity. The real solution in Cyprus would be the creation of the Cypriot peoples' own will and activity.

The question of revolution in Cyprus raises difficulties due to the strategic characteristic position of the island, the question of power, the efforts of imperialist powers to choke revolution in Cyprus, the participation of the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies in this, and the lack of a strong socialist country or countries. International solidarity and struggle within the Cyprus revolution, therefore, is compulsory. So the idea, which the Socialist Party of Cyprus has also given a place in its programme- "to conduct a consistent struggle within international solidarity together with the workers of Turkey, Greece and Britain and all the world labourer movement for the immediate fulfilment of our desire for peace" points out the internationalist, historical and political tasks.

 

 

Archive

 

2019
March
2018
November September
June March
2017
October
2008
December January
2007
January
2006
January
2005
April
2004
September

 

THE NEVER-ENDING SYMPHONY CYPRUS QUESTION AND MARXIST ATTITUDE
fc Share on Twitter
 

In the geopolitical concepts and rivalry for the re-division of the world, Cyprus is one of the key areas up for re-alignment. Although the island played a crucial role in imperialists' quest for world hegemony, its complete re-division was not achieved during the 20th century. However it is now being put on the dinner table of the 'imperialist wolfs' at the beginning of 21st century.

In 1974, using the excuse of internal developments within the island and a massacre of Turkish Cypriots, the Turkish bourgeois state staged a military landing and occupied the northern region of the island. This created a situation that continues until today. In practice the island has been divided into two: the Greek community in the South and the Turkish community in the North. The Turkish and Greek communities therefore come to the process of re-alignment with an entire generation having grown up under different economic and political conditions.

The Turkish and Greek bourgeois states and the ruling Turkish and Greek forces that act as their extensions in Cyprus have constantly used the Cyprus question in their internal and external policies for many years. Both sides have proclaimed Cyprus a "national" question that cannot be abandoned and in which no concession can be granted. Through the policies they have implemented, the Turkish and Greek bourgeois states and their proxies in Cyprus paved the way, not towards communal existence but towards separation and diverse formation; they tried to estrange the two communities from one another. This policy, which brought mutual enmity to the Turkish and Greek communities, is in the interests of the imperialist forces who are competing with each other and of the chauvinist Greek and Turkish ruling classes.

The Turkish and Greek states and their extensions in Cyprus have played this game for decades. In the mean time, although it has been interrupted in some periods, relations between the two communities have continued. Despite sometimes being left in the background, the Cyprus question has continued to be an important international matter.

Turkey and Greece pull the strings of their puppets in the island and then try to tie these to a post that they perceive to be strong. The posts that are available are the EU or the USA. Therefore it cannot be expected that the political "landlords" in Cyprus would mouth anything other than the words of the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies. And in turn, the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisie; i.e. the "nation wide actors", are taking their cue from the EU and USA, the international actors.

In the period of existence of the Soviet Union, US imperialism acted by considering the Soviet factor in the Cyprus question and mostly it would throw its weight behind the Turkish bourgeoisie due to the Greek side's threat to become close to the USSR. The aim of US imperialism was to keep the USSR at a distance from the Cyprus question. Later, in the period of 1989/1991, the revisionist bloc collapsed and the USSR disintegrated. Since the beginning of 1990s, the EU has therefore substituted for it in active relationship to the Cyprus question.

Between 1974 and 1990, there were two main international actors who were trying to solve or not solve the Cyprus question in accordance with their own interests: the USA and USSR. And since 1990, there are two main international actors who are trying to solve or not to solve the same question in accordance with their own interests: the USA and EU. In both periods, the UN has been active, as supervisory force acting in the interests of the US.

Both centres of rivalry have almost competed with each other in order to solve the Cyprus question according to their own interests. Until now this competition has not produced any result except to keep the Cyprus question imprisoned within a non-solution.

At its meeting on 17 September 1990, the EU Council of Ministers dealt with the membership application of the Greek Cypriot side as if there had not been a problem that continued for years between the two communities in the island. This was the first time that the EU acted as a meddler in the Cyprus question in its own self-interest. Since that date, the history of talks on the Cyprus question has been the history of competition in the Mediterranean region between the EU and USA.

In its report of 15 July 1997 headed "Agenda 2000", the EU accorded Cyprus the status of candidate member, and at the Luxembourg Summit in December 19 97 it included it in the process of enlargement. Thus Cyprus was involved in the full membership talks which began on 31 March 1998. The decision to "prepare Turkey for partnership" was taken at the same meeting.

In the period when this report from the EU was announced, there was a new coalition government in power in Turkey, consisting of ANAP (Motherland Party), DSP (Democratic Left Party) and DYP (True Path Party). This government was swollen with Turkish chauvinism, and went beyond the usual rhetorical statements of support to emphasise the strategic importance of Cyprus and insist that Cyprus is indispensable to Turkey.

In reprisal for the decision taken by the EU, the new government decided to start the process of consolidating with Cyprus. But it used the concept of "special relation" instead of talking about 'consolidation', due to intense international reaction.

The EU held its Helsinki Summit on 10 December 1999. At the meeting, the EU gave the status of candidate member to Turkey after "dramatic" midnight Helsinki-Ankara talks. At the same meeting, it was said that the decision on Cyprus's EU membership would be taken in 2002. In fact at the Copen-hagen Summit (12-13 December 2002), it was announced that Cyprus was going to be made full member on 1 May 2004 together with other 9 candidate members.

The situation has changed since Turkey's EU membership came onto the agenda; since it was accepted as a candidate member at the Helsinki Summit and since 3 October 2005. Although the decision to begin membership negotiations on 3 October 2005 was taken, the EU is not in hurry to make Turkey a member. Although Turkey recognising Cyprus was not an issue in the meeting where the decision to start negotiations for full membership was taken, it is impossible to believe that this question will not appear on the agenda during the process of full membership. The negotiations are going to be tough also because of the Cyprus question. That is to say that it is an open-ended process. But it is also very clear that the Turkish bourgeoisie will seek to profit from the process of negotiations, with the support of the US. Therefore it cannot be expected that the Turkish bourgeoisie will easily desist from the "ownership of right". There will therefore be an attempt to impose the Annan Plan on the agenda in consideration of that possibility. In Cyprus this plan led to a reshuffling of the cards and the creation of new policies.

The Annan Plan is a plan for an imperialist solution. It does not consider the interests of the island's people, it is prepared in line with the interests of imperialist forces and collaborationist administrations and envisages a federal structure in the island based on their interests. The Annan Plan is an imperialist solution that expresses a compromise between the USA and EU.

The plan was prepared in consideration of the interests of the USA, EU and, based on these, of Turkey and Greece. The plan embodies the rivalry between the USA and EU on the island and in the region; the balance of power between them and the demands of the guarantor states who divided the island into two. The plan does not touch the British military bases, legitimises the "right of ownership" of Turkey and Greece over the island, and ensures that the EU will gain influence in Southern Cyprus and Greece, and the USA in Northern Cyprus and Turkey. This is the other reason why the US is talking about support for the "development of the north" after the referenda. That is to say that, within the framework of the Annan Plan, US imperialism is not going to lose very much of its influence over the island through Cyprus' membership of the EU. US imperialism will still wield authority by using the British bases in the island and by benefiting from Turkey's continuing rights of guarantorship. At the same time, it is going to have the opportunity to realise its imperialist policies in the island and the region through those countries that side with the USA on international policies despite their EU membership.

A referandum was hold on 24 April 2004. The result was very interesting: While the Turkish side of Cyprus said "yes" to the plan with 64.9% of the vote, 75.8% of the Greek side said "no". The turnout was 84.35% in the North and 96.53% in the South, which is an indicator of peoples' interest in the referendum. It is clear that the people on both sides are interested in the realisation of a certain solution instead of dissolution. But the result was rather different from the expectations of the hegemonic forces.

What were the parties seeking for, what were they expecting and what did they achieve?

Greece built up its policy of annexation of the island in line with the strategy of Cyprus's entrance to the EU while Turkey's fell outside of the EU. This policy of Greece was also supported because the membership of the whole undivided island, and thus its removal from US influence, served the interests of the prominent imperialist countries of the EU such as Germany and France.

The other result of Turkey's military landing in Cyprus in 1974 and its occupation of the northern side of island was to strike a heavy blow against Enosis (annexation of Cyprus) and to force Greece to desist from this strategy. After a period of lack of clarity in which it was avoiding war with Turkey and emphasising its membership of the EU, Greece spoke publicly described the same strategy as the strategy of the EU; thus the Cyprus strategy of Greece and the EU has became collective. As K. Simitis, then Greek Prime Minister, said: "Guarantorship in island is not compulsory". That is to say that the EU's domination in Cyprus means "peaceful" realisation of the Enosis strategy. Since that day, Greece has used the EU in order to practice its Cyprus strategy.

Thus, Greece wanted to gulp down Cyprus by using the EU umbrella. But the referendum results showed that it cannot realise easily this plan.

In contrast with Greece's plan to annex the whole island, Turkey has since the beginning tried to render valid its "taksim" (division) plan. Despite some disagreements from time to time, the USA has always supported this policy of the Turkish bourgeoisie. For what is important for US imperialism is not to let the EU snatch the whole of Cyprus.

The realisation and results of the referendum foreseen by the Annan Plan show that Turkey has gained some successes and opportunities in the sphere of diplomacy on the basis of its taksim (division) policy. Turkey continues to repeat and strengthen its view that the Turkish Cypriot side must be recognised as a state; meanwhile the US and EU statements on the lifting of embargo against the Turkish side and the opening of representation point towards the course of the process.

Most importantly, in reaction to the Turkish bourgeois state's chauvinist orientation and the settling of the Turkish population on the island, the majority of the people on the Turkish Cypriot side have shown their desire for a united Cyprus and the wish to enter the EU as a united Cyprus. This objectively represented an objection, a voice against dissolution and against the status quo. As stated by the Socialist Party of Cyprus (Central Committee of Socialist Party of Cyprus-March 2004): "The referendum is not only going to be about the 'yes/no' of the Annan Plan. The attitude 'yes to referendum and yes in the referendum' through putting weight on the process with an overwhelming majority of people's will, in fact, means 'No to status quo, no to the regime that tries to uphold the status quo'": And the Greek Cypriot people in the south of island also did not give the expected response, again as a result of chauvinist orientation. Thus, in the referendum results, while the Turkish Cypriot side objectively expressed its opposition to chauvinist policies in relation to a united Cyprus and to taksim (division), the Greek Cypriot side did not raise any objection to the status quo.

The Greek side rejected the Annan Plan. But the referendum has become a turning point in relation to plans and policies about Cyprus; although only a few years have passed, it is being understood that the post-referendum period is not going to be the same as the pre-referendum period. There is no doubt that both sides' attitudes have not changed, and it has therefore become clear that these attitudes cannot be expressed through the old policies. The referendum has therefore created the material conditions for the new policies.

In short, US imperialism and EU had taken out a mortgage on the future of the Cyprus peoples, so they were left obliged to make compromises in order to use the island in line with their imperialist interests. The Annan Plan was the expression of this compromising. The people of Cyprus were forced to say "yes" or "no" to this imperialist imposition. This imperialist plan did not involve the question how the people of Cyprus wanted to unite, use their right to self-determination or found a united Cyprus. On the contrary, the plan balanced the interests of US and EU imperialism, and foresaw the adoption of those interests by the people of Cyprus. This imperialist "peace" attempt based on the Annan Plan did not lead to any result. But the new situation; "no" from the Greek side and "yes" from the Turkish side shows the rivalry on Cyprus is going to continue under new conditions.

What makes Cyprus important and what is the place of Cyprus in inter-imperialist contradictions?

In all periods of the history, Cyprus has been important because of its strategic position. And the current stormy situation over Cyprus island also arises from this strategic position. The history of the last few decades - the dissolution produced under the name of solution or the imposed imperialist solution - shows that the hegemonic powers want to shape the island according to their interests. In the so-called solutions to the problem in this period, more correctly its non-solution until certain compromises can be reached; the ball is passed from UN, under the rule of US imperialism, to the EU and from the EU to the UN. And each time Greece and Turkey who want to be the one whose word is law in the island, have tried to put forward their policies of "annexation" and "division" in whichever way is appropriate to the conditions of the day.

Let's look at the parties first:

The balance of power has changed after the disintegration of the revisionist bloc, and we see there are two imperialist camps competing with each other in Cyprus. The US and Britain head one of these camps; Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side are also on this side. The second camp is formed by the EU. This camp is led by Germany and France, who form the hegemonic power within the EU; and beside them there is Greece and Greek Cypriot side. This polarisation has also shown effects on the people of Cyprus and so the people of Cyprus are divided into two as Turkish and Greek communities.

US imperialism is today the main actor designing the future of the island. It also has on its side the historical, political and strategic achievements of British imperialism in the island. Because it knows that alone it cannot possess Cyprus, it struggles with the EU to re-share the island on the basis of its alliance with Britain and Turkey. Thus the Cyprus island will be turned into a protectorate of the USA indirectly and the EU directly. The influence of Turkey and Greece over Cyprus can only be talked about in relation to these protectorates.

The strategic importance of Cyprus for the USA can be understood completely only when considered in the context of US imperialism's geopolicy for world hegemony:

* Cyprus is in the Southwest leg of the USA's Eurasia geopolitics.

* Cyprus is important for control of the Mediterranean region.

* Cyprus occupies a very important place in the USA's "Greater Middle East Project".

* Cyprus is important for the security of Israel, the US gendarmerie in the Middle East.

* Cyprus is important for the control of the route that conveys the Middle East (Iraq) and Caspian Basin oil to the world markets and the shipment point (Ceyhan, Iskendurun Gulf)

While there are dozens of urgent problems in the world, we cannot explain such a degree of interest in Cyprus from rival centres of imperialism like the USA and the EU by their quest for peace. Nor can this interest be explained by the underground riches of Cyprus. The island does not have such riches. What makes Cyprus important is the significant role that it could play within the openings of imperialist powers who want to re-share the world; it's the strategic position of Cyprus Island. The island has always been important for this reason.

The Turkish bourgeoisie, especially since the collapse of the revisionist bloc, no longer considers Cyprus as only a "national" problem. It, at the same time, considers Cyprus with a strategic perspective; it continually emphasises the importance of the island for Turkey's regional interests and security. The Turkish bourgeoisie thinks geopolitically.

In the near future, the Turkish bourgeoisie computes that the oil and natural gas of the Caucasus, Central Asia and Caspian Basin will come to Iskendurun Gulf (Ceyhan) through pipes and will be dispatched from here to the world markets. The Baku-Ceyhan pipeline has been opened and the Iraqi oil still flows here. Cyprus is in an indispensable position for the control of this strategic region. On 6 April 1998, Ismail Cem, who was the Foreign Minister of Turkey in that period, stated: "The East Mediterranean will be the most strategic region in the years of 2005-2010; therefore we will never desist from the position in relation to Cyprus, which controls the region, for the national security and national interests of Turkey". He announced to the world that Turkey was ready to pay the price.

Trying to be a regional power, the Turkish regime's dreams of hegemony "from the Adriatic to the Great Wall of China", and of a "Greater Turkey" in union with the Central Asian Turkish Republics have fell into hot water. Later it also had to stay away from the Mosul-Kirkuk petroleum. However it definitely will not drop Cyprus without gaining some concessions in order to export its strategic importance.

This is the principle understanding of the Turkish bourgeoisie; it is an understanding that has become a state policy. We, of course, also know about how in new-colonial imperialist servant Turkey these state policies and the hot "red lines" that are considered as the cause of war, can disappear and become indistinct due to the balance of power. In the future, it will be no surprise to see Turkey withdraw from its policies on Cyprus in return for some concessions during the process of negotiations with the EU.

In its competition with the US over Cyprus and Mediterranean region, the EU appears to be committed on the subject of the hegemony of all Cyprus. The sole dimension to this commitment is the geopolitical importance the island holds. The EU is not capable of creating a geopolitical foreign policy - which is the expression of "national" will, political totality - because it is not an integrated political entity. It is not in a situation of developing a "national" will and continues to exist by balancing the rivalry between the EU's imperialist countries. Therefore, we can only call the EU's commitment to Cyprus an ostensible "geopolitical commitment". By dominating Cyprus, the EU also plans to be a power in the Middle East.

There is no other explanation for the EU's interest in making the island with so many problems a member. Because there is nothing that Cyprus will add to the EU other than its strategic position. Cyprus is a dagger that the EU plans to use to stab the USA's "Greater Middle Eastern Project".

As regards the Germany-France binary, who are in the dominant position in the EU, Cyprus is in the position of an indispensable base for these imperialist countries to reach the Middle East. The island joining the EU moves the border of the EU 500 km further east from Crete; thus the EU is in a position to control the whole Mediterranean. Such an expansion runs counter to the interests of the US imperialism.

For all these reasons neither US imperialism nor the EU as a whole cannot keep out of Cyprus.

The hegemonic struggle conducted in the recent past between US imperialism and Soviet social imperialism in the Mediterranean and its surroundings today has been replaced with a competition between the centres of rivalry such as the USA and EU. In connection with the relativity and shifting of the balance of power between the centres of rivalry, there are few possibilities for an imperialist solution to the Cyprus question:

* The balance of powers between the imperialist countries in Cyprus will not change to any meaningful degree and dissolution in Cyprus will remain the solution as it is today.

* US imperialism will accept defeat in the face of the EU in the region and the Turkish bourgeoisie will join with the EU. In such a situation US imperialism would lose its influence in the region, at least in Turkey that its realisation and indirectly the Turkish Cypriot side. This is a very unlikely possiblity.

* The contradiction between US imperialism and the EU will sharpen and the EU, by taking a step back, will leave Cyprus. Taking into consideration the Greek Cypriot side's membership of the EU, this is again a possibility but its likelihood is rather low for today. It is however a possibility that would be realisable if the contradictions between the USA and EU were to gain the dimensions of an inter-imperialist war.

* In a situation where talks end with no outcome, the de facto division of Cyprus will be approved de jure. Thus, the USA and the EU will share the island as a joint sphere of influence. This is a possibility that can be realised any time by the USA and EU.

* During the negotiations for EU membership, Turkey will be conditioned to recognise Southern Cyprus as Cyprus; developments show a slight tendency towards this. In this situation there would be two alternatives for the Turkish bourgeoisie: a) It will accept the EU's imposition and subjugate Cyprus's strategic importance for Turkey and its being a "national" cause to EU interests. This will show that Turkey has distanced itself from the US and begun to act according to the EU interests. Certain parties of the Turkish bourgeoisie may preach that stepping back from Cyprus in order to gain access to the EU is the right step for Turkey's national interests. For example, this is the position of the organisation of the Turkish bourgeoisie, TUSIAD (Association of Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen). Following Turkey's candidate-membership of the EU, TUSIAD has abandoned the official viewpoint on Cyprus and taken the attitude that there should be a solution that is appropriate to the policies of the EU, as it believes that the EU has gained strategic importance in the world capitalist system. TUSIAD considers Cyprus as an impediment to the process of membership of the EU. b) In the face of imposition of the recognition of Cyprus during the membership negotiations, Turkey would set forth its opinion in scathing terms: announce that it desists from becoming a member and the division of Cyprus will be a reality. The army and the bourgeois circles sharing this viewpoint will not desist from Cyprus easily: As we mentioned above, they will not desist basically for two reasons; 1) Because it is a "national" cause. 2) Because of its strategic importance for the interests of the bourgeoisie thinking geopolitically.

The geo-politician fascist Muzzaffer Ozbag, who considers Cyprus as part of the geography of Turkey, explains in the following words the geo-strategic importance of Turkey and so of Cyprus:

"From the birth of the inter-state community and the establishment of international relations until our day, the geography of Turkey - involving the Petty-Asia Peninsula, Thrace, the Turkish canyons and the Cyprus island, the Aegean islands, which are the extensions of Anatolia - has been one of the world's most prominent and even the most important point of focus in the geopolitical and geo-strategic plans. The geo-political importance of the geography of Turkey is being made constant by its special ability to be a bridge, door and lock to the movements and entrances-exits of the east-west, north-south and by its central position in the inland sea basins in the crossroad region of these continents and in this85 huge block of earth that is formed by Asia, Europe and Africa, described as the "Ancient World" by historians and the "world island" by geo-politicians. The possibility of directing and controlling the laws of nature, inter-continental transportation and commercial, military and political activity compel any force -that has got interests on the regional, continental and universal scale or follows a politic of superiority- to be interested in the geography of Turkey.

It is very clear that a Cyprus based on the formation of two separate states by two peoples - whose common subsistence today has become impossible - will form a serious threat to Turkey and peace in the hands of a power that is hostile and a stranger to the region, and a state that would be outsourcing for its imperialist boss." (Article "the Vital Importance of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for the Security of Turkey", from his compilation "Upon the Geopolitics of Turkey and the Turkish world", ASAM Publications, 22, Ankara, 2001, Page 365-370-371).

When declaring the attitude of the General Staff of the Army on the Cyprus question, General Hilmi Ozkok said: "The process of imprisoning Turks in Anatolia will be almost completed through a Cyprus settlement that threatens the security of Turkey and does not ensure its security needs." There is no difference between this understanding and the understanding created in ASAM about the strategic importance of Cyprus. This viewpoint is also the viewpoint of the Army and the bourgeoisie.

The Annan Plan has not been accepted, but the discussions about the results of the referendum and various developments show that the Cyprus question has now entered a new phase. After the referendum the US and EU did not kept the promises of "help" that they had given the Turkish Cypriot side. Turkey's effort to achieve the recognition of the Turkish Cypriot side as an "independent" state, the final forcing of Turkey to recognise Southern Cyprus in connection with its membership to the EU and visits of some delegates from the US to Northern Cyprus was followed by the visits of some businessmen from Azerbaijan. A private airline company from this country then began the first direct flights to Northern Cyprus.

Turkey's situation in comparison to the pre-referendum past is much more difficult and also much easier. That is to say the consideration and perspective of the questions is going to define the alternative.

First Alternative:

Firstly, Turkey is not in a position to go for EU membership whatever it costs. This would mean accepting the position of the EU and Greece on the subject of Cyprus. Such submission would lead to an endless stream of other impositions. Moreover, it will be shown that the Turkish bourgeoisie's attitude towards Turkish communities and states outside the borders of Turkey is not sincere. In a situation of such submission, the communities will think, "those who are selling Cyprus will sell us easily". Consequently the bourgeoisie will be seen as an unreliable guardian of the Turkish "national" cause. It is difficult to envisage a bourgeoisie that is eager to ride its horse from the Adriatic coasts to the Great Wall of China will make such a concession.

Secondly, the contradictions between the US and EU sharpen gradually. The possibility of periodical dE9tente cannot prevent the gradual deepening of the contradictory pro-cess. Therefore, the US will not easily allow Turkey to surrender to the EU on the subject of Cyprus in order to become a member. For, in such a situation, the US would be giving Cyprus to the EU. But US imperialism will not accept this without a fight due to the importance of Cyprus to its geo-politics.

Second Alternative:

Due to the importance of Cyprus as we mentioned above, the Turkish bourgeoisie will resist the EU by risking an end to the membership process. This is a stake-all gambit. In this situation the EU's influence on Turkey will be weakened and its extension through Turkey to the Middle East will be a dream. It should not be forgotten that in the case of such a step by the Turkish bourgeoisie US imperialism would play an important role. In order to keep the EU away from the region, the US will continue to encourage Turkey as it has until now. Possibly it may also give it some crumbs.

It does not matter from what perspective or alternative it is considered, the question hangs upon the course of rivalry; the balance of power between the US and EU. Therefore, Turkey's situation is rather difficult in comparison with the past.

What should be the Marxist attitude to the solution of the Cyprus question?

In a small island with a population of just 700.000, the world's best-known leading imperialist bandit countries are fighting and kicking each other, whilst declaring that all this is for the future of the Cypriot people, so they can live in peace. Part of their deception involves threatening the people of island. They are trying to force them to accept the Annan Plan by saying, "this is the last chance". They are creating an atmosphere that the "Republic of United Cyprus" will be founded through the Annan Plan. They are establishing a republic via a plan that has been prepared without asking and taking into consideration the viewpoints of the Turkish and Greek people, the real owners of the island!

In Page 3 of the plan, it says: "The Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland hereby agree with this Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem, and commit themselves to sign together with Cyprus the appended Treaty on matters related to the new state of affairs in Cyprus, which shall be registered as an international treaty in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations."

This is how those who say they will bring peace to the island explain that the people of Cyprus cannot decide their own future.

The Annan Plan upset the Turkish and Greek status quo, which was valid till then, and forced these countries to reconsider their strategies about Cyprus. Until that day, the compromise as a non-compromise, the solution as a non-solution had continued. Together with this plan, a new opportunity for "peace" was presented as different to those of the past. The will of the people of Cyprus was not required for this "peace". The future of Cyprus was related to the balance of power between those who are fighting for hegemony in the island under the name of "peace" and "united Cyprus". As happened in the past, the present "peace" contained the signatures of Greece, Turkey and Great Britain. The United Nations, European Union and the US are also grinning out from under the signatures.

The Cyprus island has always been occupied, dominated and bought and sold by the hegemonic forces of each period as the geographic horizons of mankind widened and the plundering and hegemony spread out. Such that it was rented by the Ottomans and later declared as an independent republic by exterior powers. Cyprus has been governed by whichever powers dominate the Eastern Mediterranean but not by the Cypriots. The Cypriot people have never been consulted within these developments. Throughout history, the Cypriot people have been deprived of their right to self-determination. And now again the Cypriots are excluded as a whole in the new search for "peace".

The working class and labourer masses on both sides of the island are far from generating a solution as the product of their own will and from forming an organisation with this purpose. The bourgeois hegemony in both parts, the chauvinism and enmity -which has been fed, provoked and always kept alive- have played a determining role in the creation of this situation. The people of Cyprus in both regions have not until now come up with any option beyond those contained in this or that form of bourgeois option. Therefore they have been forced this or that way, but continually run after and obey bourgeois options.

The EU is the popular option of the last period. There is a huge belief that the EU could solve all the problems and bring peace and welfare to the island.

High living standards of the Greek side play an important role for the Turkish side in considering EU as a saviour. There was al-so a big influence of this situation when the Turkish side said "yes" to the Annan Plan. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to be surprised at, that one of the powers responsible for putting the island into this situation is now being considered as the saviour.

It is impossible to reach a stable solution on the Cyprus question under the conditions of imperialist occupation and rivalry. No solution as a result of imperialist politics could provide a real peace in Cyprus. Cyprus may achieve an improved standard of living under the hegemony of the US and the EU imperialism and this may continue for a while, but together with the changes of the power balance between the imperialist centres of rivalry, someone may "scratch" Cyprus again and the collisions which have supposedly disappeared may start again.

The Cypriots, i.e. the native people of the island, are the ones who will bring a permanent solution to the Cyprus question. Therefore, for the creation of the material conditions for the real solution, Turkey and Greece have to pull all their military forces out of the island, and Great Britain, USA and EU have to totally withdraw from the island. Only under these conditions can the people of the island find the possibility of freely determining their future.

The Cyprus problem is not a problem between the people of the island. The ones who make Cyprus a problem are Turkey, Greece and the imperialist powers who want to dominate Cyprus together with their domestic collaborators. These are the problems due to the rivalry between them. These powers are the main ones responsible for making the Cyprus situation into a collision between the people.

The Socialist Party of Cyprus has placed following understanding in its programme: "The organisation of relations between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in peaceful solidarity is impossible in a continuing situation of on the one hand, conflicts between the major imperialist powers for their interests, and on the other the hegemony of the bourgeoisie and the politics of safeguarding in our island the interests of the big and regional powers upon this hegemony, in the conditions where the regional and local bourgeoisies' conflicts for interest have been inter-related. The solution of the Cyprus question is impossible". Imperialism and the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies and their extensions in Cyprus have made impossible the democratic solution of the Cyprus question in today's conditions. Cyprus is de facto divided into two both geographically and politically, and both peoples in the island are being made to be estranged from each other. Both peoples are separated from each other with reactionary, national chauvinist barriers. This is a decisive obstacle before them to develop a common will. And this is the greatest obstacle to the "United Cyprus".

MLCP supports every activity that serves the unity and freedom of the Cypriot people. It supports the demands for ending the occupation for a united and independent Cyprus, withdrawing of all the military forces in Cyprus, closing down of the bases, ending the guarantees of Turkey, Greece and Britain etc, and upholds them as its own demands.

United and Democratic Cyprus means the common future of the Turkish and Cypriot people. However this is the issue of a revolution. United and Independent Cyprus could be obtained with the formation of a socialist Cyprus. Only then the freedom, equality and brotherhood of the people would be realised on the basis of peoples' voluntary unity. The real solution in Cyprus would be the creation of the Cypriot peoples' own will and activity.

The question of revolution in Cyprus raises difficulties due to the strategic characteristic position of the island, the question of power, the efforts of imperialist powers to choke revolution in Cyprus, the participation of the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisies in this, and the lack of a strong socialist country or countries. International solidarity and struggle within the Cyprus revolution, therefore, is compulsory. So the idea, which the Socialist Party of Cyprus has also given a place in its programme- "to conduct a consistent struggle within international solidarity together with the workers of Turkey, Greece and Britain and all the world labourer movement for the immediate fulfilment of our desire for peace" points out the internationalist, historical and political tasks.