Where is Turkey going: thinking the unthinkable
Mainland Turkish presence and influence in north Cyprus is ubiquitous and unregulated. Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974 in accordance with the Treaty of Guarantee ostensibly to safeguard the independence of Cyprus but in truth to reassert Turkish strategic interests and safeguard the security of the Turkish Cypriots. That was then. Now many Turkish Cypriots are extremely concerned about the appearance of extremist Islam in Turkey and the possibility of Turkey's realignment away from the West. They do not regard President Erdoğan's Turkey with the same respect and affection as they did the secular Turkey of Atatürk which they feel is being deliberately eroded by the present government in Turkey.
President Erdoğan has compelled Turkish Cypriots to think the unthinkable about what would happen if Turkey became an extremist religious country and unsuitable to act as a guarantor power. Not many people remember the Treaty of Guarantee between Turkey and Cyprus. The other state parties are Britain and Greece. Under the agreement each of the guarantor powers has the right to take remedial action in the event of a breach of the treaty. The breach that occurred in 1974 was an attempt by Greek army officers to unite Cyprus with Greece, which is expressly prohibited by the treaty. The right of the three guarantor powers to take military action is controversial. It was included as a result of the delicately balanced independence arrangements that enabled Cyprus to become independent in 1960 and was designed to avoid union with Greece by the Greek Cypriots and partition by the Turkish Cypriots.
The treaty is recognized by the UN and has to be read in a way that is consistent with the UN Charter. Military action under the Treaty of Guarantee is permissible to preserve the independence of Cyprus in the context of the right to self-defense or a request based on self-defense. In the context of those restrictions on the use of force under the UN Charter, the Treaty of Guarantee is of procedural rather than substantive importance. Its existence concentrates the mind against any attempt at union or partition and imposes an obligation on the guarantors to consult and seek concerted action before acting unilaterally. Otherwise the treaty does not authorize any of the guarantor powers to use force over and above what is authorized by the UN Charter.
After World War II the system of security based on guarantees is outmoded and not relevant in a world order based on a permanent peace rather than periods of peace between wars. If the Turkish Cypriots manage to sort out the Cyprus problem within the structures and institutions of the EU, their security will cease to be an issue and the need for guarantees will be obsolete. After all, most of the countries in the EU fought two world wars, often on opposite sides, and yet do not need guarantees because their best guarantee is membership of the EU itself.
The founding fathers of the EU set it up to prevent war, and whatever its faults in this respect the EU has been a spectacular success. But for the Turkish Cypriots the EU is also the best example of the meaning of political equality, a principle President Rauf Denktaş tried to persuade the Greek Cypriots about since 1960. So the tension in Turkey between secularism and religion is also an opportunity. Sometimes thinking the unthinkable is no bad thing.
- Alper Ali Rıza, QC, of Goldsmith Chambers, London, is a barrister and freelance writer.
http://www.todayszaman.com/op-ed_where- ... 62938.html
