On visiting northern Cyprus after the re-opening of Ledra / Lokmacı Street, Turkish Chief of Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt classically described the Turkish Armed Forces' role in Cyprus as a 'protector of Turkish Cypriots.' But further comments revealed a deeper agenda with chilling clarity. Referring to the forthcoming talks between Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat, Büyükanıt asserted: “It is always beneficial to talk, problems are always solved by talking but reaching an agreement is not enough alone for withdrawal of troops from Cyprus.” “There can't just be any old agreement…. Even after the solution the army will not be withdrawn from Cyprus, until a sustainable and equitable peace is established.” he added. But said it was up to politicians to explain to the Cypriots what is meant by a “sustainable and equitable peace.”

Barely a few weeks later, Turkish Land Forces Commander Gen. İlker Başbuğ told a news conference at the Turkish Peace Force headquarters in Cyprus that the Cyprus issue was a common national cause of both Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.  A common cause but not necessarily synonymous, Başbuğ summarized Turkish feeling: "The Cyprus issue is dependent on two basic principles. One of them is our responsibility to ensure security of Turkish Cypriots and the other is that Cyprus has a strategic role in regard to Turkey's security.” Başbuğ so far treats the two as equally important but then swiftly changes his tone: “No possible solution could satisfy both the Greek and Turkish communities on the island itself. But if a deal could be worked out that satisfied Greece and Turkey, it is believed that the rest would be relatively simple.”  

THE GENERAL'S MESSAGE

The fact that Turkey has its own strategic national interests in Cyprus does not surprise me, nor is it unnatural. In his article “Acheson had wide-ranging plan”, Crosby. S. Noyes, Foreign Affairs Editor of the Washington Star asserted: “Greece and Turkey, as responsible members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), have an interest in settling the Cyprus problem that transcends their interest in the Greek and Turkish communities on the island.” Does the 1959 Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus not bear the signatures of five parties (the UK, Turkey, Greece and the Two Communities) to it? Naturally, a solution too will require all five. Indeed some signatories like Greece may be less active in the region, but statements by Generals Büyükanıt and Başbuğ at a point in time when there are two progressive Cypriot leaders in power are negotiating towards a solution that looks realizable is as important in its timing and as in the message it is conveying.   

REALITY CHECK

A reality check, the message I deduce is that beyond the usual political, property, human rights and economic dynamics, there are equally important but more readily ignored military dynamics to the Cyprus problem. Historically, Cyprus has always been of strategic importance to the great powers whoever they happen to be. It was for this reason that unlike other colonies, Britain maintained sovereign bases on the island. In the 1959 Treaty of Establishment Britain, a NATO state acquired two sovereign base areas (SBA) in addition to 25 other strategic sites including listening posts on top of Mount Olympus, in the Troodos Mountains, an Akamas firing range, a Nicosian Airfield and Famagusta Port and 15 other installations. (Cyprus, July 1960, London HMSO Amnd.1093). The United States, a NATO state is said to use Geçitkale / Lefkonico airport in northern Cyprus to fly directly to other bases in the Middle East. Unauthenticated reports too such as the Thomas Mooney letter circulating around the internet even describe how military installations are used for 50% of all espionage in the Middle East, with NATO member Turkey's 50,000 troops in northern Cyprus delegated the role of protecting these NATO assets from land attack. 

CYPRUS IS ALREADY IN NATO

As you can see, Cyprus is already frequently used by NATO. In fact I would go further and add that Cyprus is indirectly a NATO member, represented by its 'motherlands' but without any voice of its own. According to A. C. Chrysafis, author of “Who shall govern Cyprus, Brussels or Nicosia?” Cyprus has always lacked military alliances. Perhaps the seeds were sown by President Makarios who while a close ally of the Soviet Union and its satellite states insisted that Cyprus be non-aligned in a world that was divided by ideology, Capitalism vs. Communism. Makarios' acrimony towards his former colonists earned him the title “Red Priest” which inevitably lead the Western powers to back a Greek coup d'état by fascists in Cyprus led by war criminal Nicos Sampson against him, while at the same time secretly edging Turkey on to occupy the north. The result of pretending to be non-aligned has left Cypriots feeling deceived by the West, defenseless, and frustrated. I wonder if Cyprus had been a NATO partner and had Makarios not metamorphosized Castro's rejectionism, would Cyprus have been divided? 

NATURAL ALLY

As a Cypriot, I believe Cypriots have to help themselves first. Tragically, Cypriots still have not grasped their island's strategic importance to the West and the need for a regional solution. Few ever talk of the military dynamics of a solution or the benefits of cooperation and partnership with the West. In fact there is an allergy to NATO by some Cypriots. Arguments against finding a Cyprus solution within NATO have triggered a series of arguments. Some opponents cry: “we must not bow to 'imperialists' or 'capitalists,'” yet the same people ignore the fact that Cyprus is already a member of the most capitalist bloc of former imperialist nations- the European Union (EU).

Some claim NATO tortures terrorist suspects but even none NATO states torture terrorist suspects, it is neither a practice I agree with nor one limited to NATO. Some argue that NATO is a threat to our neighbours, but which of our neighbours are our allies? Iran, Libya and Syria are hermit states which pose a danger to the region, Iraq is too unstable, and Bahrain is too small and insular, while Saudi Arabia is too culturally different yet reliably pro-Western when it needs to be.

Out of all our neighbours Turkey, despite its ills is perhaps Cyprus' closest natural ally but sadly the current situation where Cyprus is still 33 years on technically at war with its natural ally is very unnatural, negative for the stability of the entire region and unsustainable. The existing Cyprus problem is as a consequence an embarrassment to the EU, and NATO. Locked in a memory of past crimes, animosity and anger, a vicious circle has developed that prevents Cypriots moving forward. The dilemma is well known, a report published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) in January 2008 stated, “Cyprus will continue to come under international pressure to re-start negotiations to find a solution to the division of the island, as the issue continues to cause difficulties for the EU and NATO ……. But a solution will be difficult to achieve”. 

BENEFITS OUTWEIGH NEGATIVES

Cypriots should not forget the past and should not give up on justice for crimes but should encourage reconciliation and finally rebuild relations with our neighbours. With benefits that outweigh the negatives, NATO may not be perfect in an idealist world but as Cyprus is already in NATO it ought to benefit from it. NATO provides a forum for reconciliation with our natural allies, which has helped avert war between NATO partners Greece and Turkey many times and would shift our relationship with Britain of ex-colonial to partner and ally. A solution for Cyprus would give Cypriots (all of them) a voice that was previously denied and empowering the Cypriots to approve any NATO use of its soil. Furthermore a NATO Cyprus would be protected by NATO Shield in a region where a nuclear arms race is already a reality but where at the moment Cyprus and its people (all of them) are unprotected.

To find a solution in Cyprus that would benefit Cypriots alone is thus not enough. If Cyprus is to be reunited and if it is to grasp a sustainable and equitable peace, a Cyprus solution has to be a regional solution providing an incentive to all signatories for a solution. Moreover, if this future state is to survive without divisive internal and external interference then Nicosia must be able to rely on support from London, Washington, Athens and Ankara to protect Cyprus' unity. Eliminating the harmful status quo and restrictions imposed by occupation, a NATO Cyprus would greatly reduce troop numbers while converting the remaining NATO military presence to protect Cyprus' interests and unity.