Turkish Invasion in Cyprus - Research Paper Example

Task: International Relations Turkish invasion in Cyprus s back to July 1974 when its forces of about 6000 troops had their way and landed on Cyprus. According to documentation found in Congregation Record (18108) Cyprus is an island located in the Northern Coast. The Turkish organized a large number of its forces with the purpose of invading Cyprus, something that made them take a good portion of the island. It is worth noting that there were prior plans that the Turkish group had initially initiated for they had a code named of their operation, which was precisely referred to as Attila as indicated in Congregation Record (18108). All these were taking place in the knowledge of three guarantor powers which reacted three days after the Turkish invasion in Cyprus. The guarantor powers that included the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey decided to agree upon the fate of the invaded island. Seemingly, Turkish had a lot of interest in having the most of the island, and, in fact, it ended up acquiring more than a third of the island illegally (Freedman 402). This came as a result of their Attila II pre-planned physical attack which saw them through their acquisition of the island disregarding opinions of other guarantor powers. The above actions were devastative in nature as many things were destroyed ranging from property in the island to individual lives that were claimed in the process of the attack. As a consequence of their brutality, more than 5000 individuals lost their lives. In addition, there resulted a fate unknown, and nobody could account for 1,614 missing Cypriots as well as 4 citizens from the US during the invasion period, Congregation Record (18108). Before the attack on Cyprus by the Turkey, Greece had come up and led a coup whose intention was made known all. As Freedman (402) noted in his book, the Greek-led coup was to unite Cyprus Island with Greece. This is the sole reason why the Turkish military launched an operation to invade the same island to respond and resist the Greek dominion over the same island (Freedman 402). It is a clear fact that Greece was involved in the fight with Turkey over the Cyprus Island which led to atrocious consequences as the one that had previously mentioned. They tried various means of acquisition of the island including military approaches just to win it over Turkey, but it did not succeed as its expectation was. This fight between Greece, and Turkey over Cyprus made them differ over the Aegean territories. As a result, Greece itself tried to apply a diplomacy involvement in solving the issue at hand by then. This included their withdrawal from active participation in the NATO military command from the year that they experienced the fight between them and the Turkey (Freedman 402). This was s due to their partly protest over the issue regarding Cyprus Island that dominated largely by the Turkey. Huth, (136) brings an important aspect of Greek operations which are regarded to be full of diplomacy. For instance, the Greece itself was not willing to confront Turkey by counter attacking them using their available military to continue fighting over Cyprus Island. They avoided this kind of confrontation but rather withdrew and stayed calm over the issue. According to Huth (136), there have been three main crises that rank nationally between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus. The earlier ones, which happened before the 1974 Turkish attack like the 1964 and the 1967 ones, the government of Greece gave in to diplomatic intervention and resolutions. These diplomatic settlements were as a result of threats of using military for intervention posed by the Turkish government. Indeed, the 1974 confrontation did not see Greece use any military confrontation to contest against the Turkish invasion and domination upon Cyprus Island. There was a great challenge to international democratic peace in 1974when Turkey and Greece had the conflict over Cyprus Island, as Diez (169) has realized. It is important to note that, before this confrontation, Greece was fully characterized by the military administration and operation. This military government eventually diminished after the initial Turkish interference in the mid 1974. Surprisingly, not every individual in Greece supported the fall of Greek military regime in Cyprus. In fact, this just initiated a series of public demonstrations in Greece in supporting military action in Cyprus (Diez 170). On the other hand, Turkish domination intensified in Cyprus Island and afterward adopted the use of democracy in governance. The similar aspect was also considered by the Greek government following the invasion by the Turkish government. Most people would expect a peaceful coexistence between the two power guarantors over Cyprus. Moreover, that new perception on democratic regimes in both Greece and Turkey lead them to come together and resolve their issues regarding Cyprus Island in a more diplomatic way. As Diez (169) has observed, this was the real time for the two super powers to base their resolutions over diplomacy due to avenues that were by then available. Some of the expectation included balanced domestic checks as well as strengthened liberal identities. Moreover, there would be a great improvement in the transparency of foreign policy making (Diez 169). However, this doesn’t become a reality but the reverse is true. Regardless of numerous rounds of peace talks that were held in Geneva with the intention of letting the two super powers come to an agreement, there were no positive outcomes over the issue of Cyprus Island. The predicament between Greece and Turkey worsen at that moment ad nothing of significance emanated henceforth. Diez (169) talks of pressure that came from all sorts of sort of places building up in immense stance. These came from the general public and their opinions from supporters of independence that aired their opinions through different news media that entailed the press. There was as well a fear factor of the comeback of military dominion in Cyprus. Therefore, the above were put together, and the result was the unending dispute between Turkey and Greece. Turkish brutality in the invasion of Cyprus has been seen in a number of actions that they undertook. For instance, they deliberately refuse to hearken to peaceful callings for negotiation something that hindered economic growth and political stand and independence. As it is indicated in Congregation Record (18109), the rounds of negotiations that were called to exist between Turkey and Greece literally failed. Reasons behind this immense failure of solution are due to the sluggish nature of the Turkish government to give in to the call of peace, Congregation Record (18108). Turkey generally has no sense of political will to embrace peaceful negotiations. It has refused to be flexible for a change but instead it has intensely refused from its side to consider international laws and resolutions that are offered by the Security Council. This is the place where a good framework of resolution could be found as Congregation Record (18108) indicates. Refusal of Turkish government to abide by this means that there is still a lot of harm and discomforts in store for the individuals in Cyprus Island. Ayoob (124) advocate for better ways of approaching conflicts and interventions that come from external or internal sources. He views the entire occurrences between Turkey and Greece and sees a solution that can only be found in the pursuit of policies that bear an assumption that the same solution of Cyprus is neither in Ankara nor Athens but in Nicosia (Ayoob 124). Ayoob (124) has gone ahead to expose a perception that Athens has fully supported Greek Cypriots who came up with an idea of a diplomatic campaign. This was so with the intension of gaining adequate support so as to fit and have a better position in the international debates and forums. As a matter of fact, the Greece is enjoying an exceptionally low profile in the questions and issues that are continually raised about Cyprus Island. As Ayoob (124) indicates, is worth noting that Greece has ultimately based its ideologies on diplomatic tactics and also majored on prioritizing its guiding principles, in addition to its national security. Further diplomatic approaches that the Greek government undertook while looking for resolution over the Cyprus Island included their entry into the Common Market and their re-entry into NATO (Ayoob 124). They formerly violated the provision of the NATO something that resulted into much conflicts between them and the Turkish government. Additionally, the Greek government has again intensified their popularity the general mass when they rejected the demand by the Turkish government of sorting the Cyprus Island issue through letting have Greco- Turkish relations. As many would expect, this made Greece climb the ladder in fame and popularity. In fact, Greece position ultimately surpassed the Turkish (Ayoob 124). While checking the views and arguments presented about democracy, there is a possibility of democratic elites that are elected with much fame and popularity to fail in administering policies in the manner in which it should (Diez 170). Pursuing the foreign policies would rather be administration constrains and in this case of the Greek, there is a possibility that they would practice these foreign policies due to a great influence from the general mass. The general mass is constituted by the interest of the individuals that might have voted in the super power. Elites that get into power through this form of voting are considered to be incompetent because they will be governing according t the average interest of the voter (Diez 170). Additionally, this guarantor powers in reign will be limited in independent administration. Sole reason behind this is that they are dependant o very many issues to see them through. As Diez (170) has highlighted, power guarantors depend much on other institutions for checks, which include a free press, as well as the parliament. The above is supported by the fact the Greek switch to democracy did not result into the condition that eventually solved the crises that they had with the Turkish government. Works Cited Huth, Paul. standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. MI, US: University of Michigan Press, 1998. Print. Congressional Record. Government Printing Office, 1999. Print. Freedman, Owen. The Middle East from the Iran-Contra Affair to the Intifada. NY: Syracuse University Press, 1991. Print. Diez, Thomas. The European Union and the Cyprus Conflict: Modern Conflict, Postmodern Union. England, UK: Manchester University Press. Ayoob, Mohammed. Conflict Intervention in the Third World. UK: Taylor& Francis Publishers. Read More