Date: February 3rd, 2003
Location: New York City
Our Slogans: Speak-up For Cyprus! and Unite Cyprus!
Time passes by 1, it has already been seven years since we had a demonstration in New York city. I am going to use the anniversary of that (most insignificant)event as an excuse to reminisce about the past. Time that has passed since that even also implies that all the excitement surrounding the so-called «Annan Plan» negotiations, the European Union entry and the cracking open of the green-line are also way behind us.
It was all that which led us at «The Cyprus Action Network» 2 to dream of a demonstration in New York city, outside the United Nations building to raise attention to bi-communal efforts that demanded an immediate solution to the «Cyprus Problem» 3. It turns out that the anniversary is around the corner.
Back then, it was an awkward situation where both the hopes and divisions were running high. We were (are?) an organization that defined itself as; «The Cyprus Action Network is a grassroots activist organization which seeks to improve the human rights conditions in Cyprus. Instead of concentrating on the political aspects of the Cyprus conflict, CAN wishes to address human rights violations which occur and are not noticed because of the status quoon the island. We deal with issues which range from freedom of the press, to minority rights and education in an effort to create a genuinly independent homeland, where all citizens enjoy freedom and
respect of their human rights. There was just a handful of us but we had envisioned the use of internet as a tool to overcome geographic limitations and as a means to reach large audiences. We had good connections and some experience and we made news in the media in Cyprus and abroad. We were inspired by various student organizations in USA university campuses such as those supporting «Freedom for Tibet» but we were not talking about a place that was so «interesting» to people. Did we significantly contribute to anything? Probably not but we tried. «Epanenosi» is also trying.
Why was it awkward? It was awkward because what was on the table was tough to swallow in terms of human rights and democracy. On the other hand, it was unthinkable to oppose the process which was clearly leading towards something that, if successful, would have provided the background for the creation of something better. So we thought that it was important to say a few words which stressed support for the process without being limited by the then present status of the plan or the long-term future of Cyprus if the plan is adopted. We were optimists and some of us thought that we had the key to the future if we believed in direct action and democracy. I have to admit, I was also bit selfish because I was frustrated that I could not be part of what was going on. Few things like the last bits of my Ph.D. were keeping me busy.
February 28th, 2003 4 was a key date and we wanted to voice our opinion before that deadline. So the idea of the February 3rd demonstration was born. We were saying things that were unpopular and we did not have a base in New York city, therefore, we did not expect a large turn-out but we had decent connections in media in both sides of Cyprus, so we thought we would be heard. We were also lucky that a progressive, libertarian group of Turks in New York city was willing to join our demonstration. This alongside some local Greeks and Greek Cypriots gave us hope.
We were immediately criticized by the «nationalists» (or rather «anti-federationists»), by «pro-federation but not the Annan Plan» crowds and most interestingly by the so-called «pro-unification» groups in north Cyprus who were leading the massive Turkish Cypriot demonstrations. The latter group could not stand the fact that we were straight-out calling Turkey an invader and occupier. They were playing for the «lead puppet» role and this may be troublesome to their future. This is a lesson that became more important during the
disappointing years after the referendum.
What did we demand? Our demands were summarized in our flyer which was handed out to passers-by including diplomats from various countries: A federal solution to the Cyprus problem that satisfies the common and competing interests of all Cypriots based on the UN resolutions and principles.
Representation of the Turkish Cypriot community in the negotiations by its NGOs, since the current leadership no longer represents the Turkish Cypriot community at-large.
- An urgent, comprehensive population census in northern Cyprus, under the close scrutiny and monitoring of international observers, to establish the origins of the citizens living in this part.
- The full demilitarization of the island as part of the solution agreement, thus a schedule for the Turkish army’s withdrawal from the island.
The bothersome part, for some, was what we had put in the introduction:
The Mediterranean island of Cyprus has been split into a Greek Cypriot south and Turkish Cypriot north since Turkey’s invasion in 1974 following an abortive coup by Greek and Greek Cypriot supporters of union with Greece. Only Turkey recognizes the breakaway Turkish
Cypriot state, keeping 40,000 troops on the island. Around 100,000 Turkish settlers moved to the island from Turkey since 1974. Peace negotiations have been unsuccessful in reuniting the island for the last 28 years. In November 2002 U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan presented a plan to reunify the island before the Greek side, which is the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus, joins the European Union. 28 February 2003, is the deadline set by the U.N. for reaching
a settlement. As the deadline approaches, massive demonstrations are being held in Cyprus in favor of reunification of the island. However, Mr. Denktash, the so-called representative of the Turkish Cypriots insists on not showing good faith in the negotiations and on rejecting vital provisions of the U.N. plan. Although recent polls and demonstrations indicate that Mr. Denktash has lost the majority support he once enjoyed amongst Turkish Cypriots, he is still
supported by the unelected army generals and senior bureaucrats in Turkey who see Cyprus as a vital Turkish interest.
Unfortunately, in retrospect, I think that our demands and our statements should have been more radical. Around the same time, I had also written an article titled «This Homeland is Ours» said the masses 5 which concluded saying:
I am now in United States completing my PhD. I am from the generation right after the division of the island. I grew up in a community hostile to the «other side». In elementary school, I was
forced to attend rallies supporting our «president» when he declared his state – illegal and unrecognized by all except Turkey (suprise!). In high school, I woke up when bombs exploded in front of our house. In college, I was on the internet stirring trouble. Now, I am proud to see people are going to rallies to get what they want, ignoring the threats.
I am, however, not proud that my island is still divided, my people are still oppressed, still away from their homes, still do not know the fate of their missing, still are emmigrating , still are …
About a year after this demonstration, after we have «succeeded» in accomplishing our primary demand about the February 28th deadline of an agreement to proceed to the next step of a referendum, and before the unfortunate referendum, it was just too clear that our dreams were
being crushed (yet again). 6.
What a pity! All that energy, all that excitement was actually used as a make-up for Turkey and was largely ignored by the so-called «NO!» crowd amongst Greek Cypriots 7. We entered the EU without being a «whole» and without any vision to go beyond the mess that were leaving behind – something about «time flies by».
Anyway, before I digress too far. The point is that Cypriot people have been going through similar processes again and again. This time around, I am not involved as deeply as before but every time I look around from this blog to the newspapers, I see the same arguments, similar
faces, hopes, disappointments. In my previously mentioned article, I had said:
Wake Up
Whatever the outcome of these negotiations would be, we have to create conditions that lead to the formation of a «pan-Cypriot» -in its true sense – political movements. It is very sad to see excited Turkish Cypriots of the «Annanist» sort get shocked upon hearing that their Greek Cypriot compatriots do not share the same excitement. The vice versa, Greek Cypriots seeing Turkish Cypriot’s shock is also very sad. Do we have to continue living in a fake-democracy? Do we have to pretend working for a united island while being in an inherently divisive political atmosphere? I do not think so. We are in this soup precisely because no matter which side of the political spectrum we were situated at, no matter how progressive our ideas were, they are
still lacking a solid, «pan-Cypriot» foundation. We should wake up. Let’s not limit our vision to Annan-plan. Let’s view it as one of the many things that happened in course of independence – which we still did not get -. If we can not do this, if we can not take advantage of the developments to shape them according to our desires, then we might as well accept defeat.
Am I willing to do so? No.
I hope you are not willing to accept defeat either and one day things will change more dramatically.
Photos from the demonstration.
Footnotes:
1 I like saying that; «I think the Turkish Cypriot community is now sitting back idle while the time flies by. It is not exactly our fault since again and again, we are being deceived by the
face-lifts that the status quo gets. After all, we did get a few pieces of bone to keep us busy.»
http://www.hamamboculeri.org/authors/tdr/tdr5272004.html
2 For more information about, now inactive, Cyprus Action Network please see
http://www.cyprusaction.org .
3 Various documents and information about demonstration is available at http://www.cyprusaction.org/protests/feb3/
4 We had a few words to say about potential scenarios about that deadline and we have visited Euro-MPs and others and voiced our opions. http://www.cyprusaction.org/protests/europefeb19/
5 http://www.cyprusaction.org/protests/articles/durduran022003.html
6 I do not have any false pretensions here, many others had seen beyond what was on the surface. I am just reminiscing about those days. I had made this point in an article titled » Ramblings about The Annan Plan» published in «Hamamboculeri» at
http://www.hamamboculeri.org/authors/tdr/tdr262004.html
7 I realize this is a point that is arguable and needs to be expanded for clarity but I won’t do it
now.
Author: Turgut Durduran (ulugeyik)
<durduran(at)stwing(dot)upenn(dot)edu>
Tags: annan-plan, demonstrations, protest, Κύπρος
Loading ...
Dear Turgut,
it is with great pleasure that i just read the first post by a fellow countryman from the T/C community. I welcome you to Epanenosi 2010 and I feel that the blog has already gone a step beyond our initial expectations. We have a lot of ground to cover in order to establish the understanding between our two communities. It’s a tough and tiring task and every so often the lack of progress results in disappointment.
In this blog you will meet contributors from almost all the political spectrum except from the far right. Our common goal is to unite our strength and fight for the unification of our country. The vast majority of visitors are coming to the blog and commenting in good faith. The result is usually a dialog of a fairly high standard. I hope you enjoy it.
Welcome again!
welcome comrade Turgut,
it is useful to pick up the threads of resistance to the status quo, going back not just to 2003 but even further back to the 1990s when rapproachment started in Ledra Pallace (and when Denktas prevented T/C from attending there,) in Pyla in the presence of secret police from both sides.
the threads of the past struggles constitute not just an inspiration for the future struggles but also a material force as the living social memory of our histories, especially of our generation who grew up in the de facto taksim context.
@Gregoris:
Indeed, Cypriots have been struggling for «reunification» or «rapprochement» for decades. You can find it in statements and actions of progressives back in late 60s, early 70s, perhaps earlier. Many years, we had this little article translated about post-1974 activities:
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~durduran/bicomm2.txt (poor english translation)
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~durduran/bicomm.txt (original in Turkish)
useful chronicle by Alpay
to be sure common struggles of g/c and t/c date as far back as the Ottoman times, when Christian and Muslim farmers revolted against the Ottoman authorities and its Church collaborators.
in the British times, there were the common labour struggles
and in the independence period the struggles for coexistence and the resistance to the chauvinism of both Greeks and Turks.
however in the late 1980s or early 1990s i think that there was a qualitatively new sort of struggle, against territorial taksim and the reification of the Other. in this current struggle 2003 marks our big victory, extended in 2008 with the opening of Ledra street
The ones from the Ottoman times, they might be upset if they heard you call them «t/c» or «g/c»
heheh.
A very warm welcome from me too Turgut!
It’s been a long time since we first «met» through the Cyprus list (I think it was early 1997), and we still have to work on it.
Thank you for your post.
I disagree on many points, on which I will hopefully commnet later:)
Turgut,
Although I am writing here with a pseudonym, back then we exchanged several emails with you and others trying to find ways to do something. Although years have passed and like you said the ups and downs create disappointment I am still very commited to work with people that believe in disegregation and unification not of two different, alien and strange groups that need to be kept apart by the law and constitution but the reapproachement of brothers and sisters torn apart by circumastance through love and forgiveness for one another. I know that your heart is at the right place. If you are willing to lead something in the US let me know and I may be able to help…..if you want write to cnoosltaas@yahoo.com and I will remind you who I am.
[...] Επανένωση λοιπόν, γράφει σήμερα ένα κείμενο ο Turgut Durduran. Είναι νομίζω η πρώτη φορά που γράφει Τουρκοκύπριος σε [...]
Thanks for the kind comments and although I do not recognize who is who, nice to see some familiar ‘faces’.
@Στροβολιώτης:
«I disagree on many points, on which I will hopefully commnet later:) »
go for it, fire please….
Hosgeldin/Welcome Turgut…
Your article gives us hope and motivation, especially the part with the step-by-step theory. I agree, that we must not give up…»Whatever the outcome of these negotiations would be, we have to create conditions that lead to the formation of a “pan-Cypriot” -in its true sense – political movements.»
Hello Turgut,
Very good article, thank you.
Just 1 comment and 1 question:
«It was awkward because what was on the table was tough to swallow in terms of human rights and democracy. On the other hand, it was unthinkable to oppose the process which was clearly leading towards something that, if successful, would have provided the background for the creation of something better.»
When Makarios signed the 1960 agreements one of the reasons was the blackmail and force from abroad and the other reason was because he hoped that those agreements were not the final solution but something that could be changed to something better (better from his point of view of course). Obviously the TCs didn’t see it this way and the results are well known.
I think we should learn from the mistakes of the past. It is naive to believe that [b]any[/b] group of people will voluntarily give up any privileges and powers granted to them, no matter how unfair, undemocratic and disproportional those privileges and powers are. Yes, there is always a small minority of selfless people in every group, but these people are always the exception, not the rule.
Therefore if we accept some solution then that solution must be, at the very least, something that we can live with without the need for any changes. And if in the future it can change to something better then great, it will be a bonus.
[quote]A federal solution to the Cyprus problem that satisfies the common and competing interests of all Cypriots based on the UN resolutions and principles.[/quote]
What are the competing interests of Cypriots?
@ρεαλιστής:
The quote is taken bit out of context, I was talking about early 2003 when we *could have* affected the outcome (more later). But, regardless, I do not have any doubt that Annan-plan (as it was voted on) or any other version that was tabled in that process would have led to the background for the creation of something better *than* what we have now. Right now, we do not have any foundation to build on — period.
Laws and agreements are important but they mean nothing without the will to make them «work» and I do not mean just obeying them. They «work» if they provide the frame-work for a prosperous, happy population. If we are willing, we can find examples of this around the world.
There is no comparison here to the situation around the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus. I won’t bother with an (endless) argument about the details of that situation either. Back then, there was no chance for them to work whatever the specifics were. None of the major players wanted them to work and the general population was heavily suppressed. If we have not moved beyond that, we are in trouble — but I think we did.
Your point about «living without the need for any changes» is well taken but that would make me quite pessimist which I won’t accept. My vision for Cyprus is bigger than «re-uniting» the island. It is more utopic than any proposal for a solution. So I will take a «softened» version of that statement.
About effecting the outcome. This is one major shortcoming I see with the various protests that surround events like Ban’s arrival in Cyprus. It is a pity that a simple demand for «peace» is still so hard to reach that we are not arguing too much about *what* it should be.
Dear Turgut,
My earlier reference to disagreements might have raised some expectations in fact, but I hope I will disappoint all those affected!
I don’t think that we disagree on the end result, I dare say though that I sometimes find you too conservative on the methodology! I would ally with the devil to overcome the devils still separating our island!
What you did back in 2003 was certainly courageous. Even if it was way beyond the reach of Denktash, you were exposed in front of your community at a difficult circumstance.
Not as much though as it would have happened a few years before that. By that time the TCs were on the streets, fed up with the situation and demanding a solution.
Still you were criticized:
“We were immediately criticized by the “nationalists” (or rather “anti-federationists”), by “pro-federation but not the Annan Plan” crowds and most interestingly by the so-called “pro-unification” groups in north Cyprus who were leading the massive Turkish Cypriot demonstrations. The latter group could not stand the fact that we were straight-out calling Turkey an invader and occupier. They were playing for the “lead puppet” role and this may be troublesome to their future. This is a lesson that became more important during the disappointing years after the referendum.”
Although the 2004 attempt failed, not because of the TCs, it is useful to look at the facts again. I believe it was enough that tens of thousands of people were on the road, demonstrating against Denktash and for a solution. It was really not important whether they were emphasizing the invasion and occupation aspect. I mean, if we had reached a solution, then we would get rid of both the invasion and the occupation, and the whole range of human rights violations, so why care about semantics?
Furthermore, despite the overwhelming acceptance of these two terms as the core issues of the Cyprus problem by the GC community, it is true that most of the TCs do not look at it this way! Right or wrong, it didn’t really matter then, because if they had to accept the invasion – occupation interpretation before heading to the streets, they would probably NOT head to the streets, so the whole thing would have been killed.
I was moved and thrilled by the TC crowds then, I knew that it was something good that would lead to better days.
It didn’t, but surely you cannot blame these people!
“What did we demand? Our demands were summarized in our flyer which was handed out to passers-by including diplomats from various countries: A federal solution to the Cyprus problem that satisfies the common and competing interests of all Cypriots based on the UN resolutions and principles.
Representation of the Turkish Cypriot community in the negotiations by its NGOs, since the current leadership no longer represents the Turkish Cypriot community at-large.”
That was right as long as Denktash was in power. When he was gone, you kept up your opposition tactics, even if that was not mentioned in this pre dated article!
Talat is far from perfect, and he has been even under greater influence from Turkey compared to Denktash, because the latter’s stubbornness and strong willingness made him a force that was actually influencing Turkey!
What changed though is that Turkey decided to play game, and decided to see what she could get from getting rid of the Cyprus problem.
In this respect, I really do not care if the puppet regime in the north is a true representative of the society, or if they have the right ideology on a spectrum of many other things.
What I care about is whether they care for the solution. For me it is enough to say that Talat is pro-solution.
Enough said.
He will most probably not solve it, but remembering how it was before that…
“Did we significantly contribute to anything? Probably not but we tried. “Epanenosi” is also trying.”
I think you did.
And I hope we do.
Strovolioti, that’s it?
It is disappointing lol
Talat is pro-solution…. he may be but he is still promoting Turkey’s interests which like I mentioned before some it has to do with leaving seeds in the new arrangement for future problems if Turkey decides so. The will of Cypriots is diluted by Turkish citizens that are given the right to vote in the referendums. I think we have a fundamental difference of assesement of Turkey and Turkey’s role.
Once more I will stand on the individuals rights. It may be the «realistic» approach to accept a process that allows settlers vote in the referendums but it destroys and distorts the will of the natives. I am not saying that the T/C agree with the G/C but I do say that the Turkish gov and the settlers dillute their will. The right of each individual to be heard is denied by the policies of the occupying force. We may accept it as «realistic» but once more I would not jump up and down. I don’t want to be realist anymore….it became a dirty word.
In my opinion, the great truth in Turgut’a article is that reunification desperately needs a political movement that crosses the separation line. I wonder how long it would take the political establishments on both sides to kill such an effort.
@Turgut Durduran:
Turgut, my nick name here means «realist» and you said that your vision is utopic, and I suspect that there lies the difference in the way we view things.
What we have today is a de-facto division. With something like Annan plan we would have a de-jure division. Half of Cyprus would be officially Greek, and the other half would be officially Turkish, linked together in a very weak federation/confederation. I really don’t see how the TCs, who have struggled for decades for partition, would voluntarily give up any privileges and powers and accept any more unity than the absolute minimum required by the Annan plan.
The majority of TCs do not want unification. Even most of those who are in the streets demonstrating, what they really want is a solution to their own problems which are a result of living in an unrecognized state ruled by a foreign power. Once those problems are solved then it is clear to me that there will be no motive for them for any democratic reforms or more unity.
Realist,
You cannot really deduce the TCs motives or aims.Applying the aims and motives of the nationalists and militarists of the north to the whole population of TCs is not realistic. By the same token they could say thet GC want to monopolise the government; why would the GCs give up the total control of RoC that they have been enjoying since ’63?
@Στροβολιώτης:
I don’t think that we disagree on the end result, I dare say though that I sometimes find you too conservative on the methodology! I would ally with the devil to overcome the devils still separating our island!
The point is the nature of the alliance. I am willing to align with people for particular goals and not the traditional (or «conservative») «unconditional support» that we often hear. I think you are suggesting that when you say «That was right as long as Denktash was in power. When he was gone, you kept up your opposition tactics, even if that was not mentioned in this pre dated article!» . Talat and co get my support to the attend the negotiations. They get my support for some of what they say in the negotiations but not most . Devil is often in the details but they are important in this case. Talat and co have shown no tangible benefits towards a solution or improvement of the socio-economic life of Turkish Cypriots.
@ρεαλιστής:
I am not (edited to add «not») going to get into a discussion about what T/Cs want and what they have struggled for over many decades. I would rather agree to disagree with you on that.
About your statement:
«What we have today is a de-facto division. With something like Annan plan we would have a de-jure division. Half of Cyprus would be officially Greek, and the other half would be officially Turkish, linked together in a very weak federation/confederation.»
It is «utopic» to believe that there is any other «solution» besides a federation (devil in the details again) that has the potential of being implemented right now. If you do not see the difference between the present situation and even something as poor as the Annan-plan besides the «de-jure» vs «de-facto», there is not much to say but what is the point of discussing the Annan-plan any further, other than ultimately leading to an exercise in finger-pointing?
@ρεαλιστής: Dear real ist. I think we should be crystal clear of our historical facts to start with, You stated that «When Makarios signed the 1960 agreements one of the reasons was the blackmail and force from abroad and the other reason was because he hoped that those agreements were not the final solution but something that could be changed to something better (better from his point of view of course). Obviously the TCs didn’t see it this way and the results are well known».
The above leaves a lot to be desired. For a start, Makarios had no option but to sign the accord because the struggle of EOKA was failing miserably by then and the British told him that they could arrest Grivas any moment they wanted. Secondly, Makarios never believed in an independent Cyprus and he merely used the agreement as a stepping stone to achieve his life-long ambition, for which he took an oath to shed the last drop of his blood, until final success, that is, union of Cyprus with Greece. He made several speeches immediately after his return to Cyprus to this effect. He was not mincing his word either, he was very explicit.
Had the agreement been given a chance to work, it could have evolved into something better, sadly we would never know. Makarios, just like TMT within the Turkish Cypriot community, had a different agenda, I am afraid. Being a strong personality (ethnarch too!)he even got his arch enemy up to that point of time, AKEL, to become a staunch supporter and ally in to his vision of enosis.
We are responsible, I am afraid, for much of what happened later, that probably would happen inevitably …
We are indeed responsible as CYPRIOTS for what happened, on both sides of the conflict. Instead of pointing the finger to one or the other side and trying to weigh whose fault it is the most, we should as Cypriots again point at the ones that benefit from the division. Who are they? How do they benefit and where do they stand in the face of a solution? Gregoris enlish article gives some useful clues…
@Turgut
It took me long enough… but here I am.
You said:
«…Whatever the outcome of these negotiations would be, we have to create conditions that lead to the formation of a “pan-Cypriot” -in its true sense – political movements….»
Although I think we might be a bit late… please take a look at my comment in Umut’s post / article.
Here.
Dear all,
I learned the existence of this place “Epanenosis” from another discussion group “Forum against Racism and Narionalism” of the Yahoogroups. I am happy to meet here also Turgut Durduran, with whom I had contact years ago in another internet group.
Turgut wrote in his concluding remarks the following in his e-mail: “Whatever the outcome of these negotiations would be, we have to create conditions that lead to the formation of a “pan-Cypriot” -in its true sense – political movements.”
This was also my view in a contribution I wrote lately in the Forum I mentioned above:
“ If we don’t discuss in this group certain questions, we shall remain only as a supporter group of the two negotiating leaders! There are many young people, who are not politically informed at all about federation, even about who are the Turkish Cypriots! They think that we are the children of the Turkish settlers! A coexistence of almost 440 years on this island is not known to the new generations of G/C’s: Our common struggles against the high taxes of the Ottoman rulers, common strikes against the local and foreign capitalists during the British administration, the influences we had from each other in social and cultural life, common votings on economical matters at the Legislative Council, when enosis issue was not put on the agenda in 1903 and 1931 etc.
After 1974, what kind of common vision can we build and how can we promote this, among the communities on the both sides of the partition line? Our «Movement for Independent and Federal Cyprus», which was established in September 1989 could not develop, because of the restrictions put by the Denktash regime for contacts. But now we have the chance to meet and communicate easily. I am very disappointed after I won the case in ECHR, unfortunately, I could not use my freedom of organization in the new circumstances, since there is no pan-cyprian political organization, which will work for the enlightenment of the people for a democratic and federal Cyprus…
Is it enough to issue letters of support for the two leaders? If OPEK type of organizations can enlighten the G/C community on certain issues, why can we not organize bi-lingual or English discussions for a wider audience or even for ourselves? Why can we not in a position to publish something without the financing of a foreign institution? Does this mean that there is no material ground for common political organizations?
You can read some of my articles in English at this address:
http://www.kibrisim.org/Belgeler/An/index.htmlBest regards for all of you, my compatriots
Ahmet Djavit An
PS. Sorry for the second post. As I was trying to translate the Greek instructions and send my post, my letter was also translated by the Google into Turkish. That’s why you have the first mechanical Turkish translation, which is not O.K.
Can you please remove the privious post of mine?