The Influence of Academicians on the Integration of Reconciliation Among the Youth in Cyprus

Table of Contents

Acronyms

Abstract

Chapter 1 - Nature of Conflict
1.1 - Background
1.2 - Issues and Goals
1.3 - Conflict Map and Narrative
1.3.1 - Actors
1.3.2 - Structures
1.3.3 - Dynamics
1.4 - Literature Review
1.5 - Framework/Model
1.6 - Literature Reframing the Research Question

Chapter 2 - Data
2.1 - Methodology
2.2 - Data Collection
2.3 - Data Analysis
2.4 - Data Interpretation
2.5 - Bridge to Intervention Strategies

Chapter 3 - Intervention Strategies
3.1 - Needs Overview
3.2 - Rationale for Interventions
3.3 - Project Addressing Needs
3.4 - Need: Acknowledgement
3.5 - Need: Nationalism
3.6 - Need: Academic Culture
3.7 - Benchmarks and Evaluation

Chapter 4 - Networking and Sustainability
4.1 - Introduction
4.2 - The Network
4.3 - The Interventions and Challenges to Sustainability
4.4 - Strategies for Sustainability

Chapter 5 - Limitations and Conclusions

Acknowledgement

References

Acronyms

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Abstract

Disagreements, struggles and other countless forms of conflict, in their sketchiest intelligence and appreciation, are critical fragments of individual anthropological continuation. The master thesis investigates, studies and exposes actualities and concerns in one of the several tragedies of violent conflict that occurred in the decade between 1967-1977. The divergence amongst the Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking Cypriots is unmoving merely and incompletely ‘resolute’ nowadays.

The island of Cyprus has a lengthy and prolonged past of indigenous forcefulness and chaos. Through the preceding fifty years, the country has experienced uncertainty, settler and following-settler struggles, conflicting domestic nationalism, violence as well as armed conflict among several of the foremost cultural clusters, invasion, ethnic separation, and vast numbers of refugees. This is what characterizes the ‘Cyprus conflict’ after the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 and the critical time of 1974 as explained by the Greek-speaking Cypriot (Papadakis, Peristianis & Welz, 2006).

The exploration of the core diverging disputes amongst Turkish-speaking and Greek- speaking Cypriots in this section validates that, their topographical discrimination and isolation, from the time of the initiation of the conflict and its occurrences, is not the unhealthiest happening arising. The mental and emotional estrangement between the conflicting ‘societies’, furthermost noticeable amongst the young citizens, is demonstrated in every single phase of collective and constitutional existence. Uncertainties deep rooted to their insecurity on survival, forfeiture of confidence and anticipation of perseverance, nationalism oppression, unattended chronological accusations in addition to unsettled sufferings and distresses are continuously existent.

The central exploration view designed and preserved even further diagnostically and methodically in the literature review, is encircling advanced degree culture and its prospect of whether it can undertake and exploit analytical responsibility and function in conflict resolution and settlement in the island of Cyprus, revealed as an aftereffect of the structured - and with numerous paths - reconciliation determination in the country.

Chapter 1 - Nature of Conflict

1.1 - Background:

Throughout the While innumerable and diverse informants advocate the derivation and foundation of the Cyprus issue contrarily, issue’s existing illustration is majorly distinct through the concerned and disturbed formation of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 as an aftermath of its declaration of independence.

time, regardless of the occurrences of peripheral dominance before the Ottoman and subsequently beside the British Empire conquered in the island of Cyprus, the country possessed and experienced comparative independence and self-sufficiency in terminologies of its own core organization. Greek-speaking Cypriots were officially considered to be eighty percent and Turkish-speaking Cypriots to be eighteen percent of the figure of citizens (Hannay, 2005).

Resistance towards the British Empire surfaced closer to the culmination of World War II. Archbishop Makarios III expanded to an overpowering referendum in the January of 1950, within an election prearranged before the island of Cyprus Orthodox Church, in support and approval of the amalgamation, also known as Enosis, of the country with the previously established and independent Greece. A critical point of vital significance for its indication is when the Turkish-speaking Cypriots and the other minorities of the island were forbidden and disallowed from the right to vote at the referendum.

Following three months, that was when he was ‘appointed’ as Archbishop Makarios III. The nationalist portion of the Turkish-speaking Cypriots in comeback to the profound Greek- speaking Cypriot objective and ambition of Enosis (amalgamation) crafted and subsequently generated the TMT-Turk Mukavenet Testikali, which translates to ‘Turkish Defense Organization’ which was initiated beside Rauf Denktash, later on the leader of the Turkish- speaking Cypriot community for about twenty-two years. In contrast and competitiveness to the desire for Enosis, this association promoted and encouraged Taksim, in other words detachment and unification among Turkey. Throughout the years and more specifically in 1955, a freshly shaped body, with the name EOKA - Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston, which translates to National Organization of Freedom Fighters, was formed. EOKA initiated a ‘revolutionary’ rivalry versus British (Guelke, 2001).

Alongside the British positioning of Turkish-speaking Cypriot forces to assist in subjugating the National Organization of Freedom Fighters, the cynicism amongst the two major ‘societies’ developed considerably. To continue, the Turkish-speaking Cypriots observed the empire of Great Britain in the form of an equal and convincing arrangement of shield and potential defense in contradiction to the Greek-speaking Cypriots and their partisan objectives of Enosis with the republic of Greece. However, this occurrence for the Greek-speaking Cypriots, as explained and structured by them, was versus British imposing imperative as well as unconventionality and freedom. (Guelke, 2001).

Alongside forcefulness intensifying, British Empire acknowledged the conquest and subjugation must discontinue in Cyprus. The vulnerabilities and endangerments escalating the cultural and indigenous struggle were indulging grander, and subsequently the hypothetical but probable encounter among NATO confederates, such as Greece and Turkey, was becoming indefensible. Within 1959 and more specifically in February, following the involvement and interpolation by the U.S., the governments of Turkey and Greece corresponded and settle to a nonalignment and sovereignty of Cyprus as guarantors.

Moreover, the prime minister of Great Britain in the 1960s, Harold McMillan specified that what remained from the British Empire was organized to abolish the occupation of the island, in the case that it might preserve its army centers, which currently maintains. (O’Malley, Craig, 2001). The independence and establishment of the republic of Cyprus found Archbishop Makarios to be assigned as the President and Mr, Fazil Kuchuk as the Vice President of the country centered on the constitution (Hannay, 2005).

That was the initiation of a distressed and edgy influence as well as authority allocation association amongst the Turkish-speaking and the Greek-speaking Cypriots developing to the eruption and outburst of a domestic ethnic violent conflict. The escalation to a war occurred in 1974, following the intimidation before the frontrunners of the punishing and life-threatening armed establishment in the country of Greece, entitled Junta, resulting to a demoralizing coup.

The potential overthrow of the legitimately elected government of the Republic of Cyprus lead to the invasion from Turkey, which based on the constitution of 1960, has the right to intervene and protect the Turkish-speaking Cypriots as one of the motherlands. Vast figures of citizens of the Republic of Cyprus were murdered and colossal numbers of the population were led to evacuate their residences as refugees in order to ‘attain’ the ethnological and cultural ‘genocide’ of the two major communities of the island. The Turkish-speaking Cypriot displaced individuals of the south were forcefully relocated to the north and the painful antithesis followed for the Greek-speaking Cypriots.

The detachment and separation between the Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking Cypriots was entirely fulfilled after the August of 1975 during the Vienna III Agreement (Gürel & Özersay, 2006, p. 16) that while it facilitated the realistic preparation of the interchange, it lacked the lawful justification. To continue, the Turkish-speaking community entitled the segment of the country that is residing as the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus” in1983 and subsequently as the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. This ‘authoritatively’ confirmed their division from the official and legitimate island of the Republic of Cyprus. Nevertheless, Turkey is still the single one, which distinguishes and concedes that part as a genuine and lawful state (Rothman, 1999).

Though numerous negotiating and settlement determinations have been instigated or introduced throughout the time, the furthermost latest effort has been the vote on resolving the issue and reunifying Cyprus through accommodating or declining the, once again, improved correction of the long-standing proposal of the United Nations, the fifth one, identified with the title ‘Annan Plan for Cyprus’.

The entrance of the Republic of Cyprus as a member state in the European Union has not resulted to a settlement following the disapproval of the Greek-speaking Cypriot community in accepting the proposed plan (Guelke, 2001). An innovative round of negotiations has resumed. This prominently takes place following negotiations freezing as a result of the violation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of Cyprus by Turkish-flagged deep-sea gas-deposits exploratory vessel. There is a fast-moving, all-encompassing and projecting resolution that is presently under establishment among the leaders and the negotiators of the two communities, Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Mavroyiannis from the Greek-speaking Cypriot community and Mr. Akinci and Mr. Nami from the Turkish-speaking community respectively.

1.2 - Issues and Goals:

Acknowledgement:

Within the ethnic division in Cyprus, there are numerous concerns developing from through the influence on bi-communal advanced graduate school education and its associations. To begin with, acknowledgement and appreciation may be classified as one of the core issues of the procedural repercussions as well as present-day standing of the conflict in Cyprus. Whilst, it has been determined and validated through exploring the information provided with identification to the individualities as well as occurrences powering and propagating the ethnic and cultural struggle in Cyprus within the background section of Chapter 1 (see page 5), the Cyprus conflict current status is in voluminous conducts an exclusive-individuals-propelled opposition. This argument is intensely demonstrated over the persistent sermonize throughout identification concerns, which are imperative for Turkish-speaking as well as the Greek-speaking Cypriot communities. This results in leading the schemata for all overseeing as well as regulating managements on Cyprus, severely harming the potential or existing creativities for inter-and-bi- communal interaction, collaboration and dialogue.

Nationalism:

To continue, another issue critically concerning the academicians influence on the reconciliation process of the two communities majorly affected by the Cyprus conflict is nationalism. Its immensely impactful forms include social pressure and the compression control of media. The peripheral, public setting unrelatedly of the acknowledgment of a reconciliation philosophy and the optimistic determination by the Turkish-speaking Cypriot community to discuss for a diplomatic resolution is motionless crowded amid numerous ‘arguments and irregularities’ (Hadjipavlou, 2004, p. 201), within which the initiative to participate in shared conversation and deliver innovative choices of investigation may develop challenging.

It is especially obvious on one occasion when a conversation may be introduced or discretions are obtainable in the open eye of the public, indicating the arrangement and shape of difficulties surfacing from both the administrators and the community remaining assiduous in either presenting or suggesting proceedings in a meticulous method so to participate in the open conversation.

The apparent public dishonor as well as the distress of personally being mentioned as outrageous or depreciated fundamentalist who supports the bi-communal potential of the two communities is furthermore assisting as incentive for numerous of the potential individuals who would like to be involved in rapprochement, to abstain from commitment and relationship among collaborators coming “the other community”. This form of social burden is predominantly observed further intensely within the Greek-speaking Cypriot community, which in the case of being coexist with employment or developments in the Turkish-speaking Cypriot community, results in the observance of the passport. This, based on the majority of the population and inevitably the academicians either in their professional or personal environment, is characterized as a ‘settling action’ in regards to the Turkish-speaking Cypriot community declaring a territory. People’s nationalism denotes the whole incident as a ‘compromise’, which indicates the approval and tolerance of the current status quo. The attitude and perception of the academicians from both communities is vividly demonstrative of the social pressure accompanying even developments that are initiated and/or are taking place in each one’s communities or in impartial lands; culminating to a never-completely-disproven-and-denied societal oppression. This arrangement of public burden can originate inside an academic establishment in any of the two communities, where several scholars and academicians express an insight as well as sensitivity that in a particular approach its additional dynamic commitment within the reconciliation field might drive to struggle. Academicians are exposed to different forms of social pressure that may appear in varying arrangements such as above-board, lawful heaviness from their own establishments as well as patrician and contemporary compression from their coworkers, associates and partners. The critical significance and consequence of this approach is the encompassing to a state of avoidance, escaping and distress as an arrangement of functional organizational suffering as questioning individuals’ actions.

Within this approach, the above-mentioned formula of distress is considerably additionally intensified and experienced through the influence as well as control of media that in several occurrences has been impartial, however in numerous other ones, media has performed a extremely unconstructive functions towards the individuals passionately involved in the peacebuilding process through reconciliation. Deleterious descriptions have been imposed to those entities and individuals. Some of those include classifications of being conspirators and/or corrupted. This mirrors the power of media and acts as a symptom as well as warning of the nature of collective burden exercised on entities across media, elimination and sometimes even forbidding the potential of cooperative joint creativities.

Academic Culture:

Moreover, one more issue concerning the impact and control of academicians towards the individuals involved in the reconciliation process on the island of Cyprus is the educational values and philosophies in the arrangement as well as aftermath of propagation of accomplishments and the function and responsibility of finance within this field. Repercussions of this collision contain nationalism and the unmistakable importance on what separates the individuals among the communities instead of the countless existences that connect and unite them along the entire ‘arena’ of the phases of life on the country. Specific cases of such incidents may include the happening that the majority of typical academicians are nevertheless extremely distress of the possibility of accomplishing the ‘unacceptable and incorrect’ act and/or as educators to be considered or sense as an academician that is required to belong to one of the two communities and perform the teaching responsibilities based on that. The education system in its majority and mostly through the perception of the academicians is considered to be disregarded by the other community but furthermost importantly by its own implementers. Academicians underestimate their impact on the youth of island and also tragically their influence on the societies in general. To continue, Greek-speaking as well as Turkish-speaking educators consider each other as of lower standard and of untruthful impact on the respective community. This unfortunately confirms the sign of the countless forms of destructive labeling and susceptibilities, which arise in education in both of the communities. In addition, there are obvious relations among the consequences of separatism and particular negative labeling. Within the arena of educators, there is ambiguity concerning the beliefs and attitudes of academicians on prospective functional as well as organizational encouragement. To continue, these are delivered in situations of peripheral financial support established for cooperation amongst the two communities that are significantly characterized by the occasional understandings and arrangements between educators.

However, this is not a fresh approach towards reconciliation. These seem to occur as aftermaths of the separatism, antipathy, labeling and uncertainty that rationalize and ‘validate’ the observed little encouragement and financial support of establishments for bi-communal initiatives. This reveals that support is being specified specifically to individuals and communities, as well as that is not protected from the dogmatic, diplomatic and communal repercussions of identification disputes. To add, peripheral grants are directed to individuals or organizations from recognized regions, limiting the development of capacity building in the effort to support rapprochement of the two communities on the island through reconciliation.

1.3 - Conflict Map and Narrative

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Figure 1: Conflict Map - Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Actors of the Ethnic Conflict In Cyprus

1.3.1 - Actors

Primary Actors:

One of the primary actors in the ethnic conflict in Cyprus and moreover to the long- standing ambition for reconciliation is the Greek-speaking Cypriot community. It currently resides in the southern part of the island. The GS Cypriot youth is in its colossal majority studies at public or private schools in the southern portion of the country. There are internationally recognized domestic universities, which fascinate and subsequently enroll the mainstream of the population of the college students. A noteworthy figure of high school graduates, predominantly of the private ones, register and attend universities in the United Kingdom for the undergraduate and graduate level.

The second and last of the two conflicting primary actors on the island is the Turkishspeaking Cypriot community. The TS Cypriots reside in the northern third of the country. There are private and public schools, which accommodate equally the youth. Turkey solely recognizes the universities in the northern part of the island. This limits the number of TS Cypriot students who study domestically, since most of them are enrolled at universities in the UK.

Secondary Actors:

Greece as well as Turkey, as two of the secondary actors, are also two of the three guarantor countries of Cyprus, along the United Kingdom based on Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee established during the independence process of the island of Cyprus in 1960 (Ministry Foreign Affairs, 2015).

Article IV:

“In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.”

As a result of the above article, all three countries, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom have military presence on the island. After the tragic incidents of 1974, the Greek military presence - ELDYK is located in the southern part of the country. On the other hand, the TOURDYK - the Turkish military presence on the island is located in the northern region of the country. The two countries have diplomatic associations among them, however, their history has been full of tragedies and there are daily violations of the agreements in between them, such as the abuses of the respective airspace by their military aircraft.

To continue, other secondary actors are the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU). UN is present on the island with several of its programs such as the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and the United Nations Development Program. The Security Council (SC) of the United Nations renews the mandate of UNFICYP every year. Based on the mandate (2015),

“UNFICYP was originally set up by the Security Council in 1964 to prevent further fighting between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. After the hostilities of 1974, the Council has mandated the Force to perform certain additional functions.

In the absence of a political settlement to the Cyprus problem, UNFICYP has remained on the island to supervise ceasefire lines, maintain a buffer zone, undertake humanitarian activities and support the good offices mission of the Secretary- General.”

The cooperation between UNDP and Cyprus tangled nearly the full UN System of establishments as well as support organizations, and enclosed numerous public and financial zones. The island has had a time-honored collaboration alongside the UNDP continually from the time of Cyprus independence in 1960. This collaboration has developed in a meaningful self- assurance in various diverse arenas, with the republic of the island currently obtaining as well as encompassing additional countries in its assistances and capabilities across the UN agencies.

European Union, through its initiating up of agreement discussions alongside the government of the island of Cyprus, lead to a innovative facilitator as well as promoter for a resolution. Midst those who reinforced the change, the dispute was exposed that any country not a member state of the European Union, including Turkey, might not ensure a sanction or disallowance on the attainment of Cyprus. This may originate the potential that the consultations may inspire the entirety of the parties to be further reasonable. Nevertheless, challengers of the change explored and debated that the conclusion of the evaluation may eliminate the motivation of any of two communities on the island towards the resolution of the ethnic dispute, such as the Greek-speaking Cypriot community’s desire to influence and achieve a resolution.

Tertiary Actors:

As a conclusion of the various levels of actors, the tertiary actors include the bicommunal, cultural and educational organization on the island. Examples of such establishments and their actions include the CYPRUS: C.E.L.T. for Peace (C.E.L.T.), Association for Historical Dialogue and Research (ADHR) and the Cyprus Friendship Program (CFP). The influence of those initiatives on the youth of the island include the residencies of CFP (2015):

“The Cyprus Friendship Program (CFP) brings together teenagers from both Cypriot communities to promote peaceful interaction and understanding between the two groups. CFP is a year-long peace-building and leadership training program […]. By developing cross-cultural friendships, the teens build mutual respect for each other, breaking down the historical stereotypes and mistrust that exist.”

As well as those innovative and fresh ideas and actions of the C.E.L.T. organization (2015):

“The purpose and goal of this project is to bring Greek speaking Cypriot and Turkish speaking Cypriot students and youth (of the age 14-18) together at the residency camp in Paphos. The project provided the opportunity to build a long lasting workshop of events and train potential students and young professionals as mentors who can start rapprochement, reconciliation and conflict resolution programs within their own schools, communities and societies. The anticipated outcome of the project is to raise awareness of the constructive potential of both communities when working together. “

Lastly, the most academically advanced due to its focus on historical approach and depth with the arena of international affairs and conflict resolution is the AHDR and its countless projects such as the Home for Cooperation (H4C) (2015). In general:

“The AHDR contributes to the advancement of historical understanding amongst the public and more specifically amongst children, youth and educators by providing access to learning opportunities for individuals of every ability and every ethnic, religious, cultural and social background, based on the respect for diversity and the dialogue of ideas.

[ADHR is achieving its desired ambitions] by creating opportunities for educators, youth and children to be benefited by the latest developments in history teaching and learning, nurturing a critical understanding of the linkages between perceptions of history, attitudes and behaviors towards the “other” and history education, developing educational materials for educators and students, and increasing public awareness on the importance of dialogue and [multi-perceptiveness]. “

1.3.2 - Structures

Political:

Cyprus, and more specifically the ethnic Cyprus conflict, is a opulence of a separated culture unconstrained from imposing foreign burden, however in such a occasion, the resolution to the struggle was established, not beside the settler authority, except through the 'mother lands' of Greece and Turkey. Subsequently, once the settlement - Treaty of Guarantee showed to be ineffective and unachievable, they developed to a state of not ‘circumvention’ of attachment in the argument, which was an ambiguity to harmony and peace in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - Mediterranean region, and therefore to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Efforts desired and completed before the Cypriots to determination of the disagreement within the mandates and agencies of UN and the EU are cautiously observed and assessed, alongside global compressions that are effusively evaluated within consideration. A resolution is critically fundamental for the advancement of attainment of Turkey to the EU.

[...]