Cyprus Conflict And Un Failed Attempts For Solution History Essay

This paper aims to analyze the Cyprus Conflict, UN Secretaries-General attempts to resolve it, and reasons for failure. However, rarely hassled discussions and individual schemes, they are awful about the reasons for the refusal to come to the Cyprus problem can be a mediator. Due to simultaneous referenda on 24 April 2004, the Turkish vote on Annan Plan to settle the dispute. Turkish Cypriots declared a town with 65%, while 76% of Greek Cypriots rejected the plan. However, the United Nations is perhaps the most successful intermediary in the Cyprus dispute. According to the schema mediation in the future discussions could be likely to finally come to between the warring parties. The point is to ascertain the reasons for the parties failed to reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem. In approaching this goal, I use mediation theory in order to determine whether it was possible to find an answer through the good offices mission of the UN Secretaries-General in the period 1999-2004. Mediation is not obvious because of the dispute are not able to reconcile, but can be explained through the strategy of the Secretariat of the UN? I chose to analyse the Cyprus dispute and attempt to resolve this issue, since it exemplifies UN Secretaries-General and difficulties that usually accompany the mediation in an ethnic conflict. In addition it clarifies the fact that there are still obstacles to EU enlargement. A somewhat higher level of abstraction, it would be interesting to examine the needs of human security in an ethnic conflict. However, I chose to analyze the failure to resolve the conflict, in order to determine if you get any view in future negotiations. Select period of time, on the grounds that the 1999-2004 establishes a framework for the most recent and intense negotiations carried out under the auspices of the UN Secretaries-General in Cyprus.

Table of Contents

Introduction:

Cyprus gained its independence from United Kingdom in 1960, at the time when Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots were living on the island all together for many centuries, respecting each others customs, religion, language etc. The treaty has been signed between Greece, Turkey, Britain, and Cyprus, guaranteeing Cyprus’ sovereignity, terriotorial integrity and basic constitutional provisions. Provitions of the constitution has not been aplied in real life as it has planned, and Turkish side has been withdrawn from the governance, and tension between two ethnic groups arised and resulted outbreak of violance at the end of 1963 [] . Turks and Greeks could not restore the peace among themselves, so United Kingdom and Cyprus representatives called Security Counsil for urgent act. Security Counsil has met on March 4th 1964, and adopted Resolution 186, recommending establishment of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), which became operational within end of the same month. Since then, many attempts has been done in order to resolve mutual distrust and to restore longstanding peace, but especially Greek Cypriot’s coup d’etat and following Cyprus Peace Operation (or invation) by Turkish Army, not only disrupted the relations, but also hardened normalization process, and increased insecurity. The most serious attempts to bring two sides together have been done by Secretary-General and his good offices at the end of 90’s, and in fact his successors have followed the suit.

So, looking back to 47 years at UN Secretaries-General presence on the island, dispite some local bilateral harrassments the peace has been kept successfully by dividing island in two and establishing the buffer zone. People that are living on the island, has been lived there together for centuries, so why they cannot agree now? Is this just an ethnic conflict or also international politics that want to maintain status quo on the island? Nevertheless, the point we want to concentrate is why UN Secretaries-General is still there and has not been able to resolve problem for 47 years? Is this a failure of UN Secretaries-General peacekeeping politics as a whole, or a failure of Secretaries-General and his good offices? Since UN Secretary-General and his good offices have been the major actors in Cyprus Conflict’s mediation history, we should be looking for gaps and failures in those attempts and all work that have been done on the island for the peace by by them since 1963. Have they really done what needed to be done, and if so, why it did not work?

What is a success in mediation achieved by UN Secretary-General and his envoy?

In the UN Charter Article 97, Secretary-General’s role has been described as chef administrative officer of the Organization. Despite there is no clear role appointed to the Secretary-General in the UN Charter in terms of peace-making or peace-building, in the real life he is the one who appears on scene resolving international problems, and he has usually been the one who conducted peace-building attempts and especially mediations between conflict parties, probably because of his responsibility to “bring to the attention of the Secretaries-General any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”, again according to the UN Charter, Article 99. Another crucial role of Secretary-General is the use of his “good offices” that described on his website as “steps taken publicly and in private, drawing upon his independence, impartiality and integrity, to prevent international disputes from arising, escalating or spreading.” [] 

An UNDPA officer Nita Yawaranajah describes mediation as political ability that performed by the UN Secretary-General or his representatives, through the implement of the Secretary General’s “good offices,” without the use of force and according to principles of the UN Charter [] . Nevertheless, Special Representatives of the Secretary-General has usually been the most crucial elements in conflicts. Coming to the point, how is this world’s most reputable intermediary can perform the most efficient mediation? First, no Secretariat nor the Secretary-General have arms at their disposal so he can not order any military means into battle. His responsibility is to direct usually small, and engaging in no fight military groups, which provides pacific settlemets for disputes and usually forms under decisions of the Security Counsil [] . He does not have physical or economic power, but he has to count on the ethics emerging from the basis of the UN Charter, and on prestigious impartiality.

Another important thing is political support from member states, but he cannot favour any particular state, group, or individual. Neither can he act against Secretaries-General’s decisions, nevertheless Council trusts to the offers he can make as a chief administrator. The individual attempts of the Secretary-General and his staff are very important to their function [] . Today, UNDPA’s Mediation Support unit is also playing an important role for providing a sufficient assistance system for mediation envoys with the adequate staff assistance and consultation, and ensuring that negotiations have the necessary logistical and monetary resources [] . 

The success of Secretary-General in mediation sometimes tied to the degree of influence they enjoy, their political acceptability and their perceived neutrality, according to Rama Mani [] . According to some other scolars, there are also additional conditions for a successful mediation: First, involving international support when possible, pushing conditions to a single mediation process. Second, getting civil society involved, especially in terms of consultations rather then negotiations. Third, when drawing a road map, in order to get more time to prevent violence, short-term and long-term issues have to be seperated. Fourth, informing media and people carefully, and ensuring that the process has been taken in the room is not derailed by outer factors. Fifth, in order to prevent political differences, pragmatism has to be emphasised. Sixth, realizing that mediation is a process, and is a holistic aproach to peacemaking, not an event. And lastly, since mediation process is unpredictable, flexibility, awareness of timing and creativity is crucial. Also, the mediator himself have to constantly reassess, be open to unclear situations and bring new ideas when necessary [] .

There are crucial contributions to the international peace and security by UN Secretaries-General, his speacial representatives and his envoy. Among successful mediations from history we can see Trygve Lie’s work in resolving 1948 Berlin crisis caused by Soviets; Hammarskjöld’s efforts in 1954 China-U.S. airmen crisis, and his noteworthy work in 1956 in Suez Crisis; U-Thant’s preventive diplomacy in defusing Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, is considered as a one of the most important conflict prevention in history in terms of nuclear face-off, and also his successful contribution in resolving dispute in 1963 between Malayas, Indonesia, and the Philippines, resulting in born of Federation of Malaysia; U-Thant’s Under-Secretary-General Ralph Bunche has also achieved a brilliant work by resolving Bahrain problem in 1969-70 between Iran, ruler of Bahrain and surrounding Arab states; Kurt Waldheim’s efforts in containing Arab-Israeli Conflict in 1973 has prevented situation from worsening and from another potential invisible U.S. – Soviet conflict; Perez de Cuellar established a discreet fact-findig mission -which was one of the earliest preventive mission- in 1989 after tension arose between Bulgaria and Turkey that was about taking a military action, but dispute resolved thru bilateral talks: Boutros Boutros-Ghali has lead a very fruitful negotiations between regional groups during local crisis in South Africa in 1992, and also between Eritrea and Yemen in 1995-96 in crisis over the Hanish Islands when parties were about to fight [] .

All those invaluable contributions by Secretaries-General, his envoy and all UN Secretaries-General system’s preventive diplomacy unquestionably saved many lifes and prevented huge economic lost. Besides, there are also some efforts that have not necessarily resolved issues and have not prevented conflict, but still have had contributions to peace talks. Among those; 1960-66 Congo Crisis which arose during Hammarskjöld’s tenure and remained while U-Thant was still in office; Kurt Waldheim’s efforts on crisis between Iran and U.S. because of American hostages in U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, were not deterministic, but he did help to contain stressed relations eventhough it almost cost him his life; Perez de Cuellar’s irrefusable work on resolving Argentina – U.K. crisis over Falkland Islands in 1982, could not defuse escalated situation which ended up with war that lasted 6 weeks; lastly, the longest lasting unssuccessful mediation is the one that began in 1963 and, that still remains unresolved, and in a frozen stage: the Cyprus Dispute, which will be analysed and compared with other unsuccessful preventive efforts.

In the light of those information and ideas above about Secretary-General and his envoy as a mediator, and also slight ideas about frame of success in mediation, now we can jump to the Cyprus conflict and analyse the whole progress that has been done by Secretary-General and his envoy since 1963. But before that, I believe we should take a quick look at the history of conflict.

Regional Dimensions of the Cyprus Conflict

The Cyprus conflict is omni-directional, including problems such as sovereignty, territory, property, governance, and security. Today, roughly over 1 million people reside on the island, of which 77% are Greeks, 18% Turks and 5% other minority groups [] . Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) regulates 36% of the island, and 57% of the coastline (Hannay 2005), which placed in relation with the demography, makes the territorial issue an evident constituent of the dispute.

Comparing to Greek Cypriots, Turks are a minor group on the island, hence considering themselves as outsider and depressed. In contrary, Turkish Armed Forces holds troops of around 35 thousand soldiers on the island, therefore Greeks consider themselves as a minority in the region due to this domination. Thinking of Cyprus is located more than 800 km away from Greece and around 70 km down to the Turkish mainland, both ethnicities concludes with unavoidable conflict (Nilsson 2005). Morover, due to military and political movements from 1963 to 1974 most of the Cypriots lost their houses and lands, where Greeks were effected much more than Turks. (Hannay 2005)

In 1974, out of 574,000 Greek Cypriots some 167,000 were refugees in their own country to the south. Conversely, 40,000 Turkish Cypriots had been forced to the north [] . Thus, for obvious reasons, the property issue has been at the heart of all negotiations concerning the Cyprus problem. Another issue regards governance. During most negotiations, discussions have centred on two topics: bicommunality, where the two ethnic groups participate together in administering the state; and bizonality, which implies a certain amount of autonomy over a defined territory. Lastly, the sovereignty issue is about whether or not there should be one or two recognized states on the island, and how much influence that should be allowed from the guarantor powers, i.e. United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey.

The United Nations which consists of most of the world, promote the wider global security and the role of custodian of international peace. In this day in age, military intervention with the warring parties, which are at each other’s throats for what reason? UN peace-keeping missions are all set up for each specific situations worldwide. One specific thing I would consider that a United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) and how it performed an important function in cold/politics after the cold war. In this document, the term I will review the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations in UNFICYP procedures along with political meanings, and how courses can be given to UNFICYP United Nations peacekeeping scenarios.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “a house divided will not stand” in his famous speech. This extract can be identical to the island of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea. One of the largest island in the Mediterranean, Cyprus accommodated from Christian tourists to the Romans, to Crusaders, to Persians and Ottomans. Strategically placed 40 miles off the southern coast of Turkey, Cyprus played a vital role foreign forces base-island for deployment as essential trade connections to the Middle East. For harmony in the island’s craved Greek communities use the southern tip of the island, while Turkish several used in the North. The increase in violence as two edges have begun work to rule over the island. Greek Cypriots seeking to unite the island and Turkish Cypriots fear and mistrust of the Greek majority rules. The two edges of the aggression towards each other. The Greeks claimed Enosis (Greek for harmony in harmony with Greece) for their right to the island. Build as EOKA terrorist who fought was contrary to the British occupation in the early 1960s, took weapons runs counter to Turkey in many villages and towns. Ethno nationalist aggression was difficult, because most police forces were closed by municipal riots within different communities. Two nationwide equipped forces of Greece and Turkey who have been there in the Zurich-London confirmation of melee on both sides.

Cyprus was the owner of the long history of confrontation between Turkish and Greek group, both prominent presence on the island. The added stress of emergence of Cyprus became an autonomous State, which exercises self-government caused a deep distrust, stress and even violence. Since 1964, UNFICYP was sent to patrol the neutral zone of the green line. They encompassed peace-keeping activities, such as the maintenance of essential supplies and provisions to protect farmers and harvest time and checking weapons and suspicious traffic. All efforts broke down when Turkey invaded in 1974 and is used in the northern one-third of the island. Peace-keeping force, have maintained an uneasy calm, infinite rank quo was recognised by both sides better response than the compromises necessary for final decision.

This is an issue on which positions could have gotten really ugly, really fast. At each end of the island, calling for assistance with their mother of the nation, to help them battle the conflict with Greece and Turkey in Cyprus was looking as real as ever. The Zurich-London agreements were put into operation, British forces on the island to maintain peace, and alignment. British police to comply with the obligations of uncertain all of Cyprus to take the issue to NATO. This was to continue, it was a very powerful leader warned Makarios, who believes that the only worldwide body that can handle position and not be bipartisan. This complements the more fumes into the pot as leader Makarios rejected out-of-doors help from NATO, the UN Secretary-General acted to hastily repair on Cyprus from chaos, he was in 1964 after two months of disagreement with the Greek Cypriots on the UN Secretary-General adopted a mandate for the peacekeeping force in Cyprus. This mandate was valid for three months and constantly improving on thereafter. Secretary-General to hurry up drive armies there is one of the main part of the shortcomings of UNFICYP. The main reason was just to restore calm and security for the island, not to set the stage of inter-state confrontations between mainland Greece and Turkey and even poor script, if their partners got involved. When you have the potential for world conflict threat in the future, some manufacturer’s key conclusion can tend to jump the gun.

A large part of Cyprus by Greece and Turkey. Not only because it has a community of Turkish and Greek people out there, but also because of their membership in NATO. This confrontation may be tattered and some State, keeping together the very fabric of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During the cold war, NATO nations performed an important function as an anti-communist in the buffer zone. Clashes between the two constituent peoples can I start another Soviet successor in the East. Relevance of persistence was urgently required. UN Secretary-General acted continued to end confrontation and put two public entities to facilitate each other.

The clash led UN Secretary-General towards a threat to world peace. Stabilization of Cyprus was the main purpose of the Secretary-General the issues requiring any true future goals for the islanders. Some scholars would argue that this was intentional to forecasting of requirements so that if more changes required because of doubt about the procedure, the changes may be made without the need for a firm mandate. However, in turn, which UNFICYP procedure simply holds two ethnic and national forces in the embayment.

Today Cyprus is split to the island. “Blue Helmets” patrol not mans land, named the British “green line” under the territorial, which disbanded the Turkish North and Greek South. In the period, UNFICYP did what was sent to the Office, a calm environment in Cyprus that it forces there to put a buffer zone between them, so that over the years, it was nonexistent confrontation between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Not to say that these two people does not end with one another.

But what this entire UN Secretaries-General test? Total know-how and achieving sustainable peace on the island over the past 30 years or so, provided UN Secretaries-General, understanding governance ethno nationalist confrontation as we further look into events like Bosnia and Serbia. The difficulty is that most of the worldwide management and perseverance glimpsed not confrontation or in written form yet, so Cyprus image as one of the United Nations peacekeeping commitments are invaluable as soon as possible on how to handle and operate according to two public entities involved in the conflict ethno nationalist positions. Deeper into the logistics procedures, UNFICYP have been great improvements in the design and operation of the infantry. Training and other operational objectives were applied without holding up to test the sustainability message that will check the other peacekeeping arrangements, such as in Latin and South America, where significant functions of UN Secretaries-General intervention, preventive diplomacy and peacemaking between groups and nations.

Looking from out-of-doors, you can mark it as a kind of political party bowl, those that the explorer is used to analyse the development of the pathogens and other organisms. Over the years, Cyprus went on break and uncompromised island split up, but with little or no conflict. Leading many to accept as factual that the identical when you have two ethno nationalist founded the assemblies at finishing each other’s operational response to calm (and only quiet in simplest form) will be presented in a buffer, such as the UN Secretary-General did. Quoting a well loved evening offspring, their idea of “should be a separate” principles of know-how to the UN Secretaries-General in Cyprus. Situation, as Lebanon and Sri Lanka ethno nationalist founded the conflict. There are places where required buffer zones to help warring parties or States in Treaty environment where they can talk quietly without underlines confrontation on their shoulders. Events like Bosnia and Serbia, which attract such confrontation, some responses from the public actors and NGO’s call to draw ethnic lines farewell facilitate conflict. Not glossy shell therapy ethno nationalist clashes, but functional.

Others might say that “time heals” a resolution to the confrontation. Simply put, you can wear a confrontation over time, acknowledged that either do not disturb each other edge. But looking at UNFICYP, they just Turkish and Greek Cypriots from killing each other and not anything more so for 30 years or so of quiet but little resolution. But numerous external live, which may encourage contractual environment for peace and harmony, non-state actors, particularly NGOs and other associations that help civil society and humanitarian assistance. These forces down in essence destroys the residual confrontation doorways, and to bring to the table to talk. Another powerful feature must be made in public entities that deal with conflict. Mediation at the largest class adds legitimacy to these converses towards peace and stability. Under the “new world order” the UN Secretaries-General still has forces after the Secretaries-General. Country A and B can be based on 10 years of ethnic confrontation between the two states. But only when they are carried out in the recent trend towards normalization then calm the construction, of the buffer zone, allowing each region to cool to seek the support of the international community, which will supply the catalytic assistance packages make it calm we glimpse of any thing to get finished and finished at the end of the year. Not saying this demonstration is flawless, but each position deserves an answer.

Overall, the situation in Cyprus has with invaluable know-how in logistics planning and management process as ethno nationalist founded the conflict. Monotony on the island should not be construed as meaning not to beat the United Island, but rather in-depth look at how to handle the position, which might have higher meanings than just ethnic based conflict. It is important to understand, because many opponents can express mail freeze conflict entails the era of “new wars” talked about in class. World wide confrontation with steam from two nationalist arguments may involve proxy forces international argument catastrophic proportions. Future of UN Secretaries-General procedures may require comprehensive data for processing both clashes such as it may jump up in the future. UNFICYP delivered to the table and control regimes entails position passed stage success. I think it’s like a vaccine that can be used in other positions to some class that point tranquility and stability.

 The Annan Plan

11 November 2002, the Secretary-General handed out the first of the five versions of a comprehensive and comprehensive settlement, renowned as the Annan plan. The UN was still conspicuously adapt’s formulator scheme utilising clean mediation “through a outlook equation to explain the dispute. Already in July 2001, the Special Adviser de Soto was employed on an article with an overview of components to be encompassed in the town, numerous founded on previous Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali in “set of ideas” in 1992. De Soto article summaries suggestions that subsequent assisted as Annan submitted to the parties in November 2002.

The first version of the Annan plan shortly before an important Summit of the Council of Europe in Copenhagen from 11 to 13 December 2002, when Cyprus is to receive an official invitation to join the European Union. Denktash, so far in New York, where he is recovering from open heart surgery, asked for more time to review proposals. After pressure from the Government of Turkey, Denktash had agreed to negotiate, although serious reservations about many of the proposals. Denktash reservations were so fundamental that a new set of proposals to get the current negotiations. For this reason, on 10 December, Annan presented a revised version of his plan, which should serve as a basis for negotiations in Denmark. But rather than go to Copenhagen, DenktaÅŸ went to Ankara for treatment. His representative at the Summit, “Foreign Minister” Tahsin ErtuÄŸruloÄŸlu, it is clear that there is nothing to negotiate. Cypriots still don’t realize that they can get what they wanted by unilateral action, making it much harder for the UN to effective mediation. Despite all these negotiations were nonetheless resumed in January 2003 and lasted until mid-February. Kofi Annan has set a deadline for agreement on 28 February, the date that increasingly appear to be very optimistic, especially when the excuses that are still subject to Rauf Denktash approach to negotiations.

Schedule of talks was complicated by the fact that the Greek Cypriot presidential elections were held in February 2003. Tassos Papadopoulos, known as one, was elected President and installed on 28 February. Annan therefore waited until February 26 to submit second revised plan, which included a British proposal to abandon 45 99 square miles, configure the sovereign British base in Cyprus since the independence.

In December 2003, the Turkish Cypriot went to parliamentary elections, which were made Mehmet Ali Talat (CTP – Republican Turkish Party), leader of the pro Annan Plan, the Prime Minister. However, CTP was forced into a coalition with Serdar Denktash (Democratic Party), who became Foreign Minister. By Serdar Denktash, Rauf’s father may be the lead negotiator for the Turkish Cypriots, albeit with weak moral and political position.

The Secretary-General has the ability to use power and influence of the States concerned, which in turn can influence the decision-making of the parties to the conflict. Really growing concern in Turkey that Cyprus dispute would affect its desire to join the EU led to a request on 24 January, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Annan to resume negotiations as soon as possible. Erdogan added that Turkey would allow the UN to fill the “gaps” in the agreement.

Consequently on April 24th, in two simultaneous referenda on the plan for the reunification of the island, Greek Cypriots declined from 75,87% while the Turkish Cypriots accepted it with 64,91% [] .

Reasons of Failure

As Annan Plan considered as closest moment of reunification of the island, the alignment can request reply why not come to the city can be briefly analyze the thinking of persons concerned who have rejected proposals; the Greek Cypriots. They have a couple of reasons for refusal the Annan Plan. Firstly, it is important to note that the only answer, one way or another greater benefits were organized by the Greek Cypriots. The south Greek side of the island is economically more powerful than its Turkish north, so it declared equivalent and gain access to the European Union. The Turks in comparison, who lived seperated-from-the-world for years thought that their future is in being a part of state which would be a member of the EU (Christophorou 2005). Besides, one of the most important problems was security issue. As long as Turkish troops remain on the island, it seems that Greeks will feel insecure. Annan Plan was also insufficient in terms of constitution of mechanism that ensures Greeks to return and settle in their old properties in north (Palley 2005).

Going back, the core of the conflict occurred when the United Kingdom took over the administration of the island from Ottoman Empire as a condition of that would protect the country from Russia in the late 19th century. The ethnic conflicts in the island escalated during the 20th century, notably because of Britain’s policy of supporting the Turkish Cypriots on the island to Greek Cypriots in order to retain control of the island. The British wanted to maintain its military bases because Cyprus was and is a very strategic location from which to keep under review the Middle East. Greek Cypriots ambitions was to achieve Enosis, unification with Greece, and the Turkish Cypriots had the objective of the island would be divided between Greeks and Turks.

When the British realized that they couldn’t retain control they chose to invite Turkey and Greece to the tripartite talks on the island’s independence. It was also noted that the Turkish Cypriots a veto concerning how Cyprus was ruled. Britain was allowed to keep its military bases on the island and still have two military zones on the island. While the British were content to keep its military bases and the Turkish Cypriots to accept a solution which they protected themselves against the majority, was the Greek Cypriot side very unhappy with the new State. Their ultimate goal was constantly Enosis, where they did not want anything to do with the Turkish Cypriots. Greek Cypriot side violated the Constitution relatively quickly and drove over Turkish Cypriots constitutional rights, which led to the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the Government in 1963 and began to build up their own institutions.

To force the Turkish Cypriots to remission between 1960-1963 Greek Cypriots staged widespread violent campaigns. During this time thousands of Turkish Cypriots were murdered and hundreds were forced to flee their villages. The immediate reason was that extreme nationalist Nicos Sampson, with the help of the military junta in Greece staged a coup on the island in order to unite Cyprus with Greece.

The Turkish invasion can be divided into two phases. The first was that the Turkish army had established a bridgehead on the North of Cyprus, this was followed by the Conference in Geneva which proved to be fruitless. When Turkey decided to initiate the second phase and invade 37% of the island. The invasion was at the same time that the Greek Cypriots fled south while Turkish Cypriots went to the opposite side. In practice, created two entirely homogeneous areas and the violence that has raged in the island in decades ended.

The United Nations Secretary-General intervened after the invasion, and was the renewal of the mandate of a peacekeeping force whose mission has been to keep the two zones separated and preserve peace on the island. An international trade embargo was launched simultaneously with the Northern Turkish side of the island. These talks have continued since then, but both sides have been unable to reach a final agreement. Since the happenings in 1974 for the position in Cyprus stayed serene, whereas stress rarely arise. Both edges usually highly regarded the ceasefire and the infantry rank quo. As frequently asserted by the Secretary-General, he continues serene but should not obscure the detail that there is only a cease-fire in Cyprus, not peace. The Security Council has frequently announced that the rank quo is not an agreeable alternative. In the nonattendance of advancement in the direction of the deduction of the affirmation between the two edges stay, the general position with rapid stress, developed by happenings out-of-doors and in Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriots declared independence in 1983. The idea was that the new independent State would enter into a union with the Greek Cypriots on equal terms. We did not want to see a repeat of “constitutional coup” by 1963. Negotiations for an united island have continued between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots ever since.

Conclusion

When the EU would be extended to the East during the 1990s, Greece as the requirement that the Greek Cypriots would also be made to members of that country would not use the veto against enlargement. Why was the EU with the need to open negotiations with the Greek Cypriot side. Be assured, however, during this time the Turkish side that a divided Cyprus would not be able to become a member, that is, that the conflict should be solved first, because it was against the EU’s own policies to take in States with such disputes.

In order to make EU membership possible were worked both sides of the United States, EU and UN Secretary-General to new negotiations and to accept a new agreement, which was named the Annan Plan by the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. 2004 went to the polls on the both sides and plan received 65% of yes votes on the Turkish side, while the Greek side voted no with 76% after Greek Cypriots president urged their people to say no. The week after was the Greek Cypriots enter the EU that Cyprus’s only representatives, while the Turkish side which voted yes is still waiting for the EU to fulfil the promises made at the time of the vote that the EU promised easing trade sanctions against the North Cyprus.

This means that the Greek Cypriots was rewarded for their no and that they can veto against Turkey in many cases. On the other hand, do not apply EU laws and benefit for Turkish Cypriots and the trade embargo against the North continued.

The new situation has also created new legal issues. The Republic of Cyprus may, under its Constitution not to be part of any union or no cooperation unless all are included in these organizations or collaborations. At the same time, Greece, United Kingdom and Turkey being the most “developed countries”, under the same Constitution. Furthermore, it is possible to challenge the membership of the Republic of Cyprus, both morally but also in legal terms, in that the Turkish side was not included in the decision-making process. In the longer term, the EU’s involvement in this conflict is complex and difficult a solution. It is now more votes in the island’s two communities to go their own ways, if we cannot reach a solution soon.