How Does Turkey’s Greater Democratization Influence the Handling of the Cyprus Dispute? Essay

Introduction

The Cyprus issue has been a major part of Turkey’s political agenda since 1974 with nationalistic sentiments and security concerns dominating the discourse about the problem. The importance of Cyprus to Turkey has remained significant with Turkey consistently asserting its national interests in Cyprus.

According to the Turkish ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Cyprus is an issue involving Turkey’s vital national and strategic interests”¹. The Turkish government has therefore invested significant amount of effort and commitment to the issue.

Even so, there have been significant changes in Turkey’s handling of the Cyprus dispute as a result of moves by Turkey towards greater democratization. These moves have primarily been as a result of progress towards EU membership by Turkey. Turkey has undertaken substantial reforms to conform with the Copenhagen criteria which are a prerequisite to becoming an EU member state.

In addition to this, Turkey has displayed considerable enthusiasm to resolving the Cyprus conflict. This paper will assess how Turkey’s greater democratization has and continues to influence the handling of the Cyprus dispute.

This paper shall discuss how Turkey’s greater democratization has influenced the positive steps towards resolution of the Cyprus dispute. The paper shall demonstrate that by offering Turkey the possibility of full-EU membership, the EU propelled profound changes in Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy.

Brief Historical Overview of Turkey

Modern day Turkey traces its roots to the Ottoman Empire which was a powerful and important player in the European state system. This powerful entity was brought to an end following World War I and Istanbul was occupied by British and French forces. However, The Turks managed to gain freedom from European occupation under the 1920 Treaty of Sevres.

The modern Republic of Turkey was subsequently founded in October 1923 and its present day borders established.² Turkey differs significantly from the other EU constituents in that it is not Christian, does not share Europe’s Greco-Roman cultural and historical heritage, and is not geographically located on the European continent³.

The guiding principles of the new Turkish state were secularism and homogenous nationalism. The newly formed Republic of Turkey was keen to elevate itself into a modernized state. Therefore, from its birth, Turkey embarked on a Westernization process so as to elevate its status and improve its security both at home and abroad.

The Cyprus Island was once under Turkish rule as a result of the conquest of the Ottoman Empire in 1951. The Island was then leased to Britain but following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the island became a British colony hence marking an end of the Turkish claim.

Even so, there existed Turks on the Cyprus Island and hence Turkish interest in Cyprus continued. Another reason for this interest was because Turkey viewed Cyprus as strategically located and hence of military significance.

The Cyprus Issue

The conflict between the two ethnic groups which reside on the island of Cyprus: the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots has been a major part of international politics for nearly half a century. The Republic of Cyprus obtained international legal standing in 1960 through a compromise result negotiated by the governments of the United Kingdom, Greece, and Turkey.

Majority of the Greek Cypriots hoped for a union of Cyprus with Greece while the majority of Turkish Cypriots supported the division of the island between the two motherlands of Turkey and Greece.

Under such a foundation, it was agreed that the guarantor powers (United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey) could directly interfere with the domestic affairs of the newly formed state of Cyprus in the event that circumstances spun out of control.

Even after its independence, the Greek-Cypriot dominated Cyprus remained a volatile region. Greco-Turkish conflicts broke out in the new republic of Cyprus on 21 December 1963. These fighting broke off because of the lack of security for the Turkish elements in the government. As a result of this, the partnership government which had been formed by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots broke down.

Turkey planed an all out invasion of Cyprus in 1964 but the move was stopped due to US diplomatic pressure. Inter communal fighting continued between the two ethnic groups and an escalation of this fighting led to the break down of the constitutional order that had united the Island. In the summer of 1974, a Greek-inspired coup on Cyprus led to the invasion by Turkey of the northern part of the island.

The Turkish military intervention on the island was carried out in the face of strong objections and pressure from Turkey’s key Western allies. This demonstrates the significance that Cyprus holds to Turkey. The Turkish intervention of 1974 led to a partitioning of the island into two distinctive zones: the northern Turkish and southern Greek. In consequence of this invasion, Turk-Cypriots now hold 40% of the island’s territory.

In 1983, the Turkish Cypriots declared an independent Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) whose boundaries extended from the green line established by the UN separating northern and southern Cyprus.

However, Turkey is the only Nation which recognizes this self declared state.. Efforts have been made to try and settle the issue with the invention of Greece and Turkey to no avail. The United Nation and European Union have also made attempts to try and aid the settling of the issue to no avail.

Turkey and Greece Relations

Turkey’s relationship with Greece has a direct bearing on its handling of the Cyprus dispute. Since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus following the 1974 Cyprus crises, Greece regarded Turkey as a major security threat. This was because of the close proximity for Greece to Turkey and the much smaller population of Greece as compared to Turkey.

In addition to this, Turkey repeatedly rejected Greece’s proposal for a bilateral non-use of force pact. All this was under the backdrop of Turkey gradually increasing her military capabilities. The acquisition and deployment of the Russian s-300 anti-aircraft missile system by Cyprus lead to increase anxiety by Turkey over the intentions of Greek-Cyprus.

Greece-Turkey relationships are of major significance in Turkey’s EU membership goals. Turkey has historically had a clear adversary within the EU in the form of Greece. The enmity between these two states had served as a major blocking point to Turkish candidacy up until 1999. This is because even if Turkey were to meet all the conditions for membership to the EU, Greece would veto Turkey’s membership in the EU.

Relations between Turkey and Greece started to warm up during the Kosovo conflict when the two governments acknowledged the need for improved relationships. The catastrophic earthquakes that hit Turkey and Greece in August and September 1999 further improved relationships between the two nations.

Greece’s swift reaction to the Turkish tragedy changed the mood between the nations and resulted in similar good wiled reactions by Turkey following the Greece earthquake. Both countries through official and private initiatives sought to alleviate the plight of earthquake-torn Greeks and Turks. Following this events, Greece accepted the granting of EU candidate status to Turkey in the December 1999 EU Summit.

This was a monumental step since Greece had always been opposed to Turkey’s ambition to join the EU. Ker-Lindsay states that in view of the belief in the power of the EU to transform Turkey into a less threatening neighbor, Greece has since 1999 become one of the strong protagonists of eventual Turkish membership⁴.

The Cyprus Dispute and Europeanization of Turkey

The Europeanization process has assisted Turkey’s ambitions to join EU since. This is because Europeanization in essence implied adoption of an active approach towards the Balkans and advocating the region’s eventual integration into the structures of the European Union. Turkey’s ambitions to become an associate or full member in European institutes and the European Union in particular go as far back as the early 1960s.

These ambitions were best articulated in 1987 when Turkey formally applied for admission to the European Community in April 1987. At the moment, Turkey is an associate member of the EU, and has yet to accede to the EU and become a full member.

While political reforms have been ongoing since transition to civilian rule in 1983, their speed and magnitude has been catalyzed by the candidacy for membership and the start of accession talks with the EU. A big incentive for Turkey to join the EU was the huge economic crisis that Turkey experienced between 200 and 2001.

This crisis was an important force in propelling reforms towards EU membership. EU membership promised significant material benefits and in a time when Turkey was experiencing one of its worse economic crises, the potential benefits associated with EU membership looked promising.

From the very onset of Turkey’s EU membership aspirations, the Greek-Turkish conflicts over Cyprus posed a serious problem to Turkey being given candidate status. Turkey is a predominantly Muslim country and this had resulted in issues of bad blood as a result of the Islamophobia that is typical of much of the Western.

Painting an image of a democratic and peaceful Turkey has therefore been a key goal of the government over the past decade. These factors have influenced the stance taken by the AKP government with regard to the Cyprus issue. Turkey was determined to show that it was not the party refraining from reaching a solution to the dispute.

In order to gain the world’s support, Turkey was determined to achieve a lasting peaceful solution to the Cyprus issue. Çelenk asserts that a major motivation for Turkey’s willingness for peace was “to prove the rightness and good will of the Turkish side to the world”⁵. This would further aid in Turkey’s quest for Europeanization and integration into the EU.

Changes in Turkey’s Approach to the Cyprus Problem

Prior to the 1999 Helsinki Summit, Turkey’s Cyprus policy was based upon rigid nationalistic lines. The problem was thus perceived as one of “national cause” and indeed a matter of national security. A resolution of the Turkish Parliament of 1999 presented a solid framework for Turkish policies towards Cyprus.

The document stated that unless the reality of two separate states in Cyprus was acknowledged and equal treatment afforded to the two states, no settlement could be achieved. An internationally recognized TRNC would pacify Turkish security concerns hence increasing the likelihood of a settlement.

Turkey also asserted that the application of Greek Cypriots for EU membership on behalf of the whole island was against the founding treaties of 1960 which specified that the interests of each of the guarantors (Turkey and Greece) be respected.

Turkish leaders made it clear that Turkey would not relinquish Cyprus for the sake of EU membership and up to 2003, the Turkish government was threatening to counter EU integration with Cyprus by increasing integration between Turkey and the TRNC. Annexation of the TRNC was even considered by the Turkish government in several incidences.

Following the Helsinki Summit of the EU in 1999, the southern part of the island of Cyprus was allowed to join the EU despite the fact that there was no settlement of the Cyprus issue. Çelenk notes that the same summit imposed the settlement of the Cyprus issue as one of the necessary preconditions that Turkey had to address before joining the EU⁶.

This precondition accentuated the fact that an amicable settlement of the conflict on the island was inescapably tied to Turkey’s EU membership. By offering Turkey the possibility of full-EU membership in December 1999, The EU Helsinki Council provided a strong motivation for change in Turkey’s domestic politics⁷. This helped to propagate a series of radical reforms with regard to the democratization process

Çelenk reveals that Turkey’s political agenda have had significant bearings on the Cyprus issue with Turkish foreign policy uncompromising attitude towards Cyprus being countered by its willingness to adopt greater democratization and hopefully become an EU member state⁸.

Ulusoy explicitly states that the changes and alignments in Turkey’s foreign policy are closely related to democratization under the pressure of the EU accession process⁹.

Since her application to the EC in 1987, Turkey adopted a strategy that was based on rejecting any linkage between the Cyprus issues and EU-Turkey relations. However, the 1999 Helsinki Summit established a clear linkage between the progress of the nature of Turkey-EU relations and the resolution of Turkey’s conflicts with her neighbors.

The coming to power in 2002 of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) presented a new dawn in Turkey’s foreign policy. While the governments before AKP had strongly opposed any compromise in resolving the Cyprus issue. The policy adopted by the AKP government which demonstrated a willingness to pursue a solution through a positive attitude was a major breakthrough.

A crucial distinguishing characteristic of AKP from the previous governments was that it openly accepted the linkage between Turkey-EU relations and the Cyprus issue. An EU progress Report on Turkey issued on November 5, 2003 stated that “lack of a solution in Cyprus can pose a serious obstacle to Turkey’s EU process”¹⁰. This statement was the first official link of Turkey’s EU membership with the Cyprus issue.

The Turkish government therefore sought to support international efforts for the unification of Cyprus since the Cyprus issue had direct bearings on Turkey’s EU ambitions. The EU summit in December 2004 noted that Turkey had contributed positively towards the solution of the Cyprus problem.

The summit also recognized the improvement in Turkey’s relations with her neighbors. Following the failed referendum of the Annan Plan as a result of the Greek-Cypriots vote, Turkey’s policy on the Cyprus issue started to move toward delinking its membership perspective from the resolution of the conflict.

Accession talks could not begin immediately after the 1999 candidacy status of Turkey due to Turkey’s non-compliance with the Copenhagen political criteria. Beginning in 2001, the EU has published Accession Partnership documents that illustrate issues that Turkey should address in its bid to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria.

In December 2004, negotiations were deemed as being ready to commence since the European commission judged that Turkey had “sufficiently fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria”¹¹. IT should be note that Accession negotiations are not negotiations in the literal sense of the word, but rather the candidate county’s progressive adoption of EU laws and regulations.

Following this, Turkey embarked upon intensive legislative reforms so as to meet the Copenhagen criteria. These reforms were aimed at bringing Turkish democracy up to European standard by eliminating the authoritarian aspects of the Turkish constitutional and legal system.

Effects of Turkey’s Democratization efforts to Cyprus dispute

Turkey’s democratization efforts have had a significant positive impact on the Cyprus issue. Before the democratization efforts, Turkey was content to undertake a passive stance in the solution of the Cyprus dispute. The coming to power of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) in November 2002 marked a significant change in the Turkish government’s Cyprus policy.

Çelenk notes that right after the general elections, the leader of AKP, Tayyip Erdogan, pointed to the need for a fundamental change in the policies that had been in place for the previous 30 years¹².

Erdogan argued that the passive policies that had until then served the status quo could not be expected to result in a solution for the Cyprus issue. A radical change in Turkey’s attitude towards the issue was proposed as the key to attaining a solution.

Democratization is characterized by voting rights and the primacy of civilian rule over military rule. Turkish politics traditionally represents a contest for power between civilians and the military which has historically exerted a lot of influence over the country’s politics.

The military through the National Security Council (NSC) often expresses its views on issues and has a huge influence on the policymaking process. Diez notes that as of 2000, features of Turkey’s political landscape continued to resemble those of the 1970s with the military playing a dominant role in Turkish politics via the NSC¹³.

Turkey’s EU membership process caused significant changes since the EU demanded for democratization in Turkey. This demand required that the TAF would no longer be a political actor or have immense influence on the policymaking process.

In essence, the EU membership ambitions called on the curbing of the influence of the army in the political arena. Due to the huge public support for EU membership in Turkey, the military could not openly oppose steps towards democratization.

The move by the AKP to restructure the foreign policy was the first major challenge on the values of the army since Turkey announced its ambitions to join the EU. This move challenged the policies and values that had for a long time promoted the influence of the military in the domestic and foreign affair policies of Turkey.

In fact when the government began to take a series of initiatives in line with the new stance regarding Cyprus, the TAF also came up with its plans. While the government’s plan was accommodating and in line with the Annan Plan, the military’s pan took a different attitude towards the Annan Plan and regarded it as unacceptable¹⁴.

The Land Forces General when as far as to state that “the UN Cyprus Plan was unacceptable, could lead to violence and it threatened Turkey’s interests and island’s security”¹⁵. Following this declarations, the army pledged its continued support for the Northern Cyprus leader and his approach to the Cyprus problem. This illustrates the power struggle that continued between the civilian rulers and the army.

As a democracy, Turkey’s leaders would have to rely more and more on the support of the domestic population to ensure their reelection. Increasing the political party’s powers presented one of the best ways to achieve this. As it were, there was huge public support for EU membership in Turkey. The ruling party AKP was keen to work towards achieving the desires of the people so as to increase its popularity.

The ruling Turkey’s party, AKP, adopted a different strategy in dealing with the president of the TRNC. While the previous Turkish foreign policy had praised the Turkish Cypriots leader and supported his methods for dealing with the Cyprus dispute, the AKP government criticized him and challenged his policies and attitudes towards the Cyprus Issue.

Turkey’s new policy was in line with the EU’s attitude since Turkey wanted EU membership. By restructuring the Cyprus policy in a manner that was supported by the EU, the AKP demonstrated to the people its resolve to achieve EU membership. This provided a means of protecting the interests of AKP by increasing the party’s power and domestic support.

Prospects of Turkey Democratizing and Solving the Cyprus Problem

Over the course of the last 10 years, Turkey has made significant progress towards democratization both as a result of public pressure but mostly so as to join the EU. Turkey has also increasingly shown its commitment to solving the Cyprus problem in line with the wishes of the US. The referendum to vote for the Annan Plan in 2004 demonstrated Turkish resolve to settle the Cyprus issue.

The Annan Plan was a United Nations proposal to settle the dispute of the divided island nation of Cyprus by creating the United Cyprus Republic under terms that were agreeable to all the key actors in the dispute. The Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of the plan with a 64.9% majority mostly as a result of the influence of Turkey.

It was the Greek Cypriots who rejected the Annan Plan with a 75.8% vote against. The negative response to the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots was a disappointment to most members of the EU.

This was because the resolution of the Cyprus problem was a major goal of the EU and it was always assumed that the leaders of the Turkish-Cypriot community were the main opponents of the unification of the Island.

Despite the positive developments made by Turkey, her prospects for membership still remain out of reach. The main reason for this is the slow pace of democratization that is exhibited in Turkey. The Turkish military and conservative politicians have been pointed out as the two parties mostly responsible for the slow progress.

These two groups fear that the extensive political freedoms that democratization in line with EU requirements would bring could endanger the unity of the country by empowering separatist groups. For Turkey, the Cyprus problem has not been a typical foreign policy issue but rather a “national cause” which has had clear repercussions on the power struggle in Turkey.

The Cyprus issue has been used as a populist tool by hardliners in Turkey due to the issues high nationalist resonance. Ulusoy reveals that the Cyprus issue has since the early 1950s been used by political elites for the purpose of inciting nationalism, populism and hence diverting the attention of the public from domestic, social, and economic problems.

Issues with the Cyprus situations became evident in 29 July 2005 where Turkey issued a declaration stating that its signature in the EU summit in December 2004 (where the decision to extend its Customs Union with the EU to al new member states including Cyprus) did not constitute recognition of the divided island.

This declaration was met by a counter declaration by the EU which clearly asserted that recognizing all EU member states was mandatory for the accession process to proceed¹⁶. This meant that Turkey had to recognize the Republic of Cyprus as a precondition to becoming an EU member state.

In addition to this, the 2005 framework of negotiations for Turkey included clauses that required Turkey to take steps to contribute to a favorable climate for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue. Even with increasing pressure from the EU to normalize her relations with Cyprus, Turkey continued to show opposition to Cyprus.

Specifically, Turkey insisted that Cyprus be excluded from EU-NATO strategic cooperation in crisis management. In the late 2005, Turkey denied all Cypriot-flagged ships access to its ports and even closed its airspace to Cypriot aircrafts.

Turkey and the Middle East

Part of the reason why Turkey is so important to Europe is because of its strategic location as a buffer state between Europe and the Middle East. Turkey’s potential influence to countries in the Middle East is also monumental. Zucconi declares that the model Turkey is increasingly offering to Middle Eastern countries can have a great impact on their evolution towards democratic politics¹⁷.

A Turkey that is visibly integrated in the EU would have an even bigger political impact on Turkey’s immediate neighbors. Turkey’s integration would create a strong pressure for introduction of democratic politics through out the Middle East

The EU also deems Turkey as a key ally in the troubled Middle East region. As far back as 1946, the US regarded Turkey as an important military factor in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East and hence US provided the Turks with military assistance to wade off the Soviets. At the present, the regions volatility is accentuated by the growing power of Iran whose pursuit of nuclear weapons is cause for concern.

Turkey’s membership in the EU would stabilize the volatile Middle East by removing the likelihood of a confrontation between Iran and Turkey¹⁸. This is because Iran would be highly unlikely to challenge a Turkey that is an EU member.

Turkey’s Human Rights Situation

One of the EU accession requirements as articulated in the Copenhagen criteria is that a country’s political system be characterized by democracy and a respect of human rights. Before its candidacy to the EU, Turkey was characterized by gross human right violations.

Cases of police torture, extrajudicial killings and lack of a free press were rampant. Following its Candidacy status with the EU, Turkey has undertaken significant steps so as to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria. These steps have involved marked changes in the human rights scenario of the country.

The Criminal Justice System of Turkey was historically marred with allegations of human right abuses. In preparation for EU membership, Turkey has made substantial improvements in this area. To begin with, reforms of the prison system and creation of the Monitoring Boards and a new system of enforcement judges has been implemented.

There has also been the reduction in the length of time between arrest and trial so as to ensure that people do not spend too much time in police custody. Turkey also included provisions for retrial of individuals whose convictions were found by the European Court of Human Rights to be in violation of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In addition to this, reforms were adopted in 2002 that lifted the death penalty in peace time and expanded the freedom of expression and greater freedom for non-Muslim religious minorities.

There have been marked improvements in pretrial detention and Turkey’s new Penal Code, adopted in September 2003 and due to take effect in April 2005, defines torture and ill-treatment in accordance with international conventions. Members of security forces may not be held personally liable for judgments of torture or ill-treatment by the ECHR.

Despite these drastic improvements in Turkey’s constitutional and legal system through the above named reforms, the implementation process is slow. In the areas of individual rights, there have been continued cases of torture and abuse by the police. Ulusoy reveals that there were 11 cases of extra judicial killings reported in the year 2008¹⁹.

Despite the alleged freedom of expression, there is still continued prosecution of writers, journalists, and publishers who are critical of the government. As of 2007, while allegations of police torture had declined markedly, abuses were still common especially in political cases.

Discussion

Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy have been undergoing profound changes since 1999 to the present time. These changes have included Turkey’s handling of the Cyprus issue. Undoubtedly, the greatest external force influencing Turkey’s handling of the Cyprus issue is its candidacy status with the EU.

Without EU membership aspiration, it is highly unlikely that Turkey’s political system would have moved so rapidly to reform Turkey’s political system into a democracy. The Cyprus issue is linked to the relationship between Turkey and the EU. This has a significant effect on the Cyprus issue since prospects of EU membership are an important factor in the construction of Turkey’s Cyrus policies.

From this paper, it is clear that the restructuring of Turkey’s policy towards Cyprus was as a result of the establishment of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government. The AKP’s ability to shape new policies concerning Cyprus was as a result of the army’s limited area of interference. This limited interference was due to reforms made for the sake of EU membership.

Greece is historically a dominant actor in the development of relations between Turkey and the EU and a cordial relationship between Greece and Turkey is helpful for Turkeys EU membership ambitions. The relationship between greater democratization and Turkey’s EU membership is that the more democratized Turkey becomes, the more it would adopt a more compromising style and a more EU-oriented outcomes.

As such, as Turkey becomes more democratized, the participation of various societal groups in the foreign policy-making process would result in the adoption of more co-operative attitudes towards other democracies.

However, there has been inconsistency of EU member states over Turkey’s place in the Union. For all its attempts at fulfilling the conditions set in order to become a member of the EU, Turkey still faces strong opposition from some of the major EU member states.

A number of influential European leaders most notable of whom are Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have continued to openly oppose Turkey’s EU membership. The EU leaders who are against Turkey’s membership have advocated that Turkey-EU relations should continue on a partner that would not lead to full membership, but rather a status labeled as “privileged partner”²⁰.

This is proposed to be the major factor that is undermining the reform process in Turkey. The anti-reformist forces in Turkey point to this mixed reaction as proof that EU membership is unachievable for Turkey and as such, the democratization process should be stopped.

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to analyze the impact that Turkey’s greater democratization has on the handling of the Cyprus dispute. It has been noted that Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy have been undergoing profound changes since 1999 to the present time as a result of EU membership aspirations.

There has been a significant change in Turkey’s handling of the Cyprus issue and specifically, the past decade has witnessed a surge in attempts to resolve the issue with Turkey playing a very dominant role. Turkey’s handling of the Cyprus issue has been influenced by the reconstruction of Turkey’s image in the international arena and the need to maintain good relations with the EU even as Turkey aims for accession into the EU.

The Turkish government has actively tried to resolve the Cyprus issue albeit with little success. The paper has also reviewed Turkey’s Human Rights situation and while Turkey’s status is not yet at par with EU standards, the current situation represents a marked improvement from the human rights state from the past decades.

However, this paper has taken care to point out that there still exists opposition to the democratization efforts and political reform in Turkey by some of the by political elites. This opposition may seriously undervalue the political transformation and progress that Turkey has made up to date. Even so, there is immense societal pressure for the Turkish government to join the EU hence the anti-reform forces are most likely to fail.

While the Cyprus issue is yet unsolved, this paper has demonstrated that the democratization process in Turkey as well as the goodwill and efforts of the Turkish government have broken the stalemate that surrounded the issue since 1974. A solution to the Cyprus problem is closer to being realized now than it ever was in the past three decades.

Bibliography

Çelenk, A. A., ‘The Restructuring of Turkey’s Policy towards Cyprus: The Justice and Development Party’s Struggle for Power’. Turkish Studies, 8:3, 2007, pp. 349-363.

Cizre, U., Secular and Islamic politics in Turkey: the making of the Justice and Development Party. Routledge, 2008.

Diez, T., The European Union and the Cyprus conflict: modern conflict, postmodern union. Manchester University Press, 2002.

Kabasakal, Z., Human rights in Turkey. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007.

Ker-lindsay, J. ‘The Policies of Greece and Cyprus towards Turkey’s EU Accession’. Turkish Studies, 8: 1, 2007, pp.71-83

Killias, C, et al., Greece and Turkey in the 21st century: conflict or cooperation, a political economy perspective, Nova Publishers, 2003.

Kinacioglu, M. & Oktay, G., ‘The Domestic Dynamics of Turkey’s Cyprus Policy: Implications for Turkey’s Accession to the European Union’. Turkish Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 261–273, June 2006.

Oguzlu, T & Kibaroglu, M., ‘Is the Westernization Process Losing Pace in Turkey: Who’s to Blame?’. Turkish Studies, 10: 4, 577 — 593, 2009.

Onis, z. & Keyman, Fuat., ‘Helsinki, Copenhagen And Beyond: Challenges To The New Europe And The Turkish State’. International Relations, March 2003.

Sozen, A., ‘A Paradigm Shift in Turkish Foreign Policy: Transition and Challenges’. Turkish Studies, Vol. 11, No. 1, March 2010, pp. 103–123.

Ulusoy, K., ‘The Europeanization of Turkey and its impact on the Cyprus problem’. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, Volume 10, Number 3, December 2008.

Yesilada, A., Some expected and some not-so-expected Benefits of Turkey’s EU Membership for both Parties. European Union Studies Conference, May, 2007.

Zucconi, M., ‘The Impact of the EU Connection on Turkey’s Domestic and Foreign Policy’. Turkish Studies, 10: 1, 2009, pp.25-36.

Footnotes

¹ T Diez, The European Union and the Cyprus conflict: modern conflict, postmodern union. Manchester University Press, 2002, p.57.

² Oğuzlu, T & Kibaroğlu, M, ‘Is the Westernization Process Losing Pace in Turkey: Who’s to Blame?’, Turkish Studies, 10: 4, 2009, p.577.

³ ibid., p. 580.

⁴ J Ker-lindsay, ‘The Policies of Greece and Cyprus towards Turkey’s EU Accession’, Turkish Studies, 8: 1, 2007, p. 74.

⁵ A Çelenk, ‘The Restructuring of Turkey’s Policy towards Cyprus: The Justice and Development Party’s Struggle for Power’, Turkish Studies, 8:3,2007, p.351.

⁶ ibid., p. 351.

⁷ Z Onis & F Keyman, ‘Helsinki, Copenhagen And Beyond: Challenges To The New Europe And The Turkish State’, International Relations, March 2003, p.34.

⁸ Çelenk, op. cit., p. 350.

⁹ K Ulusoy, The Europeanization of Turkey and its impact on the Cyprus problem. Journal of Southern Europe and the Balkans, Volume 10, Number 3, December 2008, p.313.

¹⁰ M Kinacioglu, & G Oktay, ‘The Domestic Dynamics of Turkey’s Cyprus Policy: Implications for Turkey’s Accession to the European Union’. Turkish Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2006, p.267.

¹¹ Onis & Keyman, op.cit., p.36.

¹² Çelenk, op. cit., p. 351.

¹³ Diez, op. cit., p. 171.

¹⁴ Çelenk, op. cit., p. 356.

¹⁵ ibid., p. 357.

¹⁶ Ulusoy, op. cit., p. 318.

¹⁷ M Zucconi, ‘The Impact of the EU Connection on Turkey’s Domestic and Foreign Policy’, Turkish Studies, 10: 1, 2009, p.34.

¹⁸ A. Yesilada, Some expected and some not-so-expected Benefits of Turkey’s EU Membership for both Parties. European Union Studies Conference, May, 2007, p.4.

¹⁹ U Cizre, Secular and Islamic politics in Turkey: the making of the Justice and Development Party. Routledge, 2008, p.188.

²⁰ ibid., p.185.