Does the TRNC really represent Turkish Cypriot self determination?

Alkan CHAGLAR

In the Turkish Cypriot community one recurrently hears calls by our many leaders to take ownership of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). With this attitude, the TRNC is presumed to exclusively represent or symbolise Turkish Cypriot interests, and if ever one deviates from this way of thinking by claiming that perhaps Turkish Cypriots already have their own state – the Republic of Cyprus, then you are accused of treachery, disloyalty or of demoting Turkish Cypriot self-determination. However, does the TRNC, an entity designed one thousand miles away in Ankara really represent Turkish Cypriot self determination?

ORIGINS OF TRNC
To embark on any attempt to answer this question one is compelled to look at the origins of this political entity. The TRNC may or may not have Turkish Cypriots working within its structure, to some extent it serves a purpose for running the day to day affairs of the North, but one cannot avoid the fact is it was never founded by the popular will of the Turkish Cypriot community. Recalling the November 15 1983 declaration of independence, there was no prior campaign, no prior popular demonstrations on the streets for independence, nor a plebiscite to consult the Turkish Cypriot community on such an important issue.
In typical military style, foundations for the TRNC were laid behind doors far away. In fact, despite the harrowing events that unfolded during the civil war in Cyprus, hardly any Turkish Cypriots envisaged breaking away from the Republic of Cyprus as a solution to political problems or as a way of restoring self-determination. Indeed self-determination was not the underpinning idea behind the creation of the TRNC, but the protection of the strategic interests of Turkey. Turkey had long sought to protect its southern flanks and avert any possible Greek annexation of the island, but Ankara knew it had to do more than send troops to protect her interests in the long-term; a chosen leadership, a state through which that leadership could control and politically active settlers was essential.

SELF-DETERMINATION
Yet in spite of these strategic interests, the principle of self-determination normally coined together when referring to nations is still used by many to justify the formation and longevity of the existence of the TRNC. But without lending support to any notion of nationhood, self-determination in my view is not separate from the principles of human rights in general, that is to say, political freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech and religious freedom and others, which all communities and individuals deserve and strive for. Contrary to scepticism by successionists, both individual and collective political freedom can be achieved within a single state and within the framework of international law, without dispossessing another community. Yet misused by groups intent on justifying why one group of people should have its own sovereign territory or which country’s sovereign territory they should belong to (i.e. Greece or Turkey), the notion of self-determination is often hijacked as a tool by those seeking Apartheid separation.
However, those postulating the representation of self-determination by the TRNC should note a few irregularities to their claim. Firstly, after the meclis (parliament) of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (TFSC) approved Ankara’s new state, pluralistic politics were hardly encouraged. Turkish Cypriot opposition leader and Presidential candidate at that time, Ozker Ozgur had been charged in connection with an article published in the newspaper Yeni Duzen was put under house arrest. At the time he faced a possible seven-year prison sentence for criticizing the Denktash leadership.
Having consulted a copy of the European Parliament Resolution for 9.7.1987 the heads of the three Opposition parties in Northern Cyprus, Mr. Ozker Ozgur Mr. Ismail Bozkurt and Mr. Ismet Kotak, who together represented 55% of Turkish Cypriot votes in this period, all had appealed to the international community at the time to denounce the policy of “suppression, intimidation and blackmail” carried out against the Opposition by Ankara’s chosen leadership. According to the report, the three leaders denounced the “destruction of democracy” and the “decadence and corruption” in Northern Cyprus.

A STATE OF COHABITATION
Secondly, in a bid to anchor the new “baby homeland” to Turkey, Turkish settlers from the poorest provinces of Anatolia were shipped in to increase support for the new state. To the shock of disenfranchised Turkish Cypriots, the new arrivals were encouraged to vote on their first day. This new arrangement effectively transformed the TRNC into a state of cohabitation between the interests of Ankara, the Turkish settlers, and then indigenous Turkish Cypriots. To date, the TRNC is possibly the only place in the world to import its voters.
Given free homes or plots of land whose Cypriot owners had previously been forced to leave, the new arrivals who today number half of the North’s population thanked the President of their new home for his gifts by voting for him time and time again. The votes were not only useful in allowing the President of the day to consolidate his grip of power but were useful in changing the tide in elections. During the legislative election of 06 May 1990, UBP a party that favours the unity of Northern Cyprus and Turkey gained 54.7%, while pro-solution, pro-reunification DMP (an election alliance party for CTP, TKP, YDP) gained 44.5% of the popular vote. Settler votes were crucial to keeping the same faces in power; it is hardly surprising Turkish Cypriots complained of disenfranchisement for so long. Faced with such tactics on the part of those who had filled the new TRNC power vacuum and who were backed of course by the occupying Turkish military, it was hardly surprising that the biggest export of the TRNC, an entity long regarded as “legally invalid” by the United Nations, was mainly young Turkish Cypriot people.

REALITY of TRNC
No doubt the TRNC provides a mechanism for governance in Northern Cyprus despite being surrounded by illegality, however, faced with its origins, purpose and such a poor record for actually representing the Turkish Cypriots themselves the TRNC proves that it is not synonymous with the political freedoms of Turkish Cypriots. The fact that this entity, which has only proved to be a state of cohabitation between interests of Ankara, the settlers followed by the Turkish Cypriots in recent years is no accident, but a reality of what the TRNC was designed for in its early days.
No closer to grasping political recognition today than it was 23 years ago, the status of the TRNC also raises questions as to why we as a community hesitate to regain our status in the Republic of Cyprus and dispute the Greek Cypriot monopoly of this state, whose unchallenged policies often are to the detriment of the needs and interests of our community. Those seeking the unlikely goal of recognition, an act that international law and the UN opposes, must realize that even if this was one day achieved, the TRNC with its origins and continuing tide of settlers will not be a state any more representative of the political freedoms of Turkish Cypriots than it is now - it would pave the way for the North to become a recognized satellite Turkish state.