Seeing Cyprus again after an absence of more than a decade causes a renewed sense of sadness. Although most Americans are unaware of the situation, an ugly, militarized dividing line still runs down the center of that unfortunate country more than 36 years after Turkey’s invasion. The desolate, UN-patrolled “buffer zone” in the heart of the capital, Nicosia, resembles a Mediterranean version of the Cold War’s Berlin Wall.
An even more appalling sight exists in the port city of Famagusta, once the leading resort destination in Cyprus—and, indeed, in the entire eastern Mediterranean. Since 1974, the Turkish army of occupation has fenced-off a portion of the city, including the principal tourist hotels along the beach, and refused to allow the Greek Cypriot owners to return. Strangely, though, the Turks never took over operation of that area themselves. Instead, they have preserved it as a “ghost city.” Looking at blocks and blocks of empty high rises (most now with their windows broken out) is a truly spooky experience.
Turkey’s appalling behavior in occupied Cyprus (which is 37 percent of the island) raises the inevitable question of the extent (if any) of America’s culpability. After all, Turkey is a fellow NATO member, and U.S. leaders have always asserted that NATO stands for the preservation of peace and the rule of law. Yet at a minimum, Washington looked the other way in 1974 while its ally invaded and occupied a neighboring country. And in the decades since then, U.S. criticism of Turkey’s behavior (which includes the systematic desecration of Christian churches in the occupied territory) has been, at best, perfunctory.
Privately, policymakers in both Republican and Democratic administrations argue that the United States has little alternative, since Turkey is a pivotal power in its region and a crucial U.S. security partner. That attitude illustrates the dilemma that Cato foreign policy analyst Malou Innocent and I are exploring in a book that we’re writing, Dubious Partners: Washington’s Authoritarian Allies and American Values. It focuses on the willingness of the world’s leading capitalist democracy to make common cause with regimes that are neither capitalist nor democratic. That situation was most evident during the Cold War when the U.S. supported such corrupt autocrats as the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos, and Mobutu Sese Seko, but it is also a characteristic of U.S. policy in the so-called war on terror.
Turkey does not entirely fit the profile, since it is at least a quasi democracy. But Ankara’s conduct, especially in Cyprus, is distressingly similar to that of more clearly odious allies. The underlying question is: To what extent should U.S. leaders compromise important American values in the name of protecting national security—or advancing Washington’s foreign policy objectives? Our preliminary conclusion in Dubious Partners is that U.S. officials over the decades have been far too willing to compromise—or even outright violate—those values. They have done so on numerous occasions when the stakes did not come close to justifying such a sacrifice.
Washington’s failure to speak out against Turkey’s egregious behavior in Cyprus is one example (albeit, perhaps not the worst) of such moral cowardice. No one is suggesting that the United States bomb Turkey or send in the Marines to expel the invaders—although it should be noted that Washington did lead a massive military effort to punish Saddam Hussein for a similar land grab in Kuwait. One does have a right to expect that the United States will take an ethical stance in the conduct of its diplomacy. Washington has failed that basic test with respect to its policy toward Turkey on the Cyprus issue.
Comments
I have rarely seen such an example of selective use of facts outside of direct propaganda. "The desolate, UN-patrolled “buffer zone” in the heart of the capital, Nicosia, resembles a Mediterranean version of the Cold War’s Berlin Wall." I don't think the East Germans were popping over to the West for their weekly grocery shopping nor were the West Germans having a night out in the East for a bit of roulette."Washington looked the other way in 1974 while its ally invaded and occupied a neighboring country." You conveniently leave out any relavent context such as the fact that the Greek military government of the time engineered a coup in Cyprus to annex the island to Greece. They were also a US ally. Moreover, this came after 10 years of Turkish Cypriots , a technically equal partner in that "neighboring country" , who were 18% of the population were forced into small enclaves of 3% of the island and denied basic necessities while enduring sporadic attacks. You also fail to mention that under the international treaties that created Cyprus Turkey had the right to intervene under the circumstances. The crime of Turkey under international law was the defacto partition rather than returning the island to the status-quo."No one is suggesting that the United States bomb Turkey or send in the Marines to expel the invaders—although it should be noted that Washington did lead a massive military effort to punish Saddam Hussein for a similar land grab in Kuwait."Either you have done no research and do not have the relavent facts, you are willfully misrepresenting the facts or your powers of analysis are so fundamentally flawed you do not see the obvious errors in your comparisons. Whatever the reason, the only moral stance to be taken regarding this article is one against such flawed journalism.Our national interest is obviously better served through a relationship with a growing regional power and energy hub of 80,000,000 who have supported the United States through the last 60 years rather than an insignificant island nation of 800,000 people who by in large blame the United States for every ill that has befallen them and were de facto allies of the Soviet union during the Cold War (even now their president is communist).
This report is not correct.
Cyprus was handed back to the Greek and Turkish communities under an agreed constitution by Britain; The guarantors were Greece Turkey and Britain. The Greek and Turkish communities agreed to abide by this constitution and not change it in any way; also not to seek to join Greece or Turkey. The roles of the President and Vice President were defined and both had to agree to pass any law.
The Greek Cypriots change the rules and passed legislation without Turkish Cypriot agreement; there was a military coup by Greek freedom fighters and they tried to join with Greece. The guarantors should have intervened yet refused to act together Turkey was forced to act alone to save more Turkish Cypriots being murdered.
Makarios had openly vowed to remove all Turkish Cypriots from the Island and the Turks had been persecuted and killed also deprived of representation in the government for a very long time. The world did nothing about this GENOCIDE.
Maras was owned by the Islamic Church Foundation who sold it to the Greek community for 1.5 million pounds yet this sum was never paid.
The Annan Plan was accepted by the Turks yet rejected by the Greeks and to date there is no agreement between both parties; so in all likelihood the Island will divide into two separate states when the UN leave.
It is true that perhaps Turkey could have removed some of there troops; yet I ask you if America had their people killed and some of their land taken; would you not want your army on the border when you got it back.
Percentages are misleading as they do not count the thousands of Turks who were bought and forced out and emigrated all over the world to find jobs and a peaceful place to live without fear of death.
The other comments by Galen Carpenter also need to be treated with a very large pinch of salt; and had he visited North Cyrus he would have seen many Greek shops and families living in peace. He did not notice in the South the text books of Greek children who are still fed hate and lies; perhaps he needs to look harder.
His views about America are also biased; as in this instance America did stop the war and has been using quiet diplomacy here ever since. I do not agree with every action America has taken and maybe quiet diplomacy is the better option as it would make them a little more loved in the world.
It is easy for people to criticise our leaders perhaps he should run for office and then see how difficult it is to be right all the time and please people who distort the truth to make political points.