Psychological approaches to International Politics. The case of Cyprus

Résumé du document

Located at a strategic position in the eastern Mediterranean sea, Cyprus, in the course of its history has frequently switched hands among powers which maintained an interest in the region. The list of its successive rulers includes the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Phoenicians, the Byzantines, the Venetians, the Ottoman Turks, and finally before the 1960 declaration of independence, the British. Amidst all of these populations, only two of them had a significant impact on the demographic structure of the Cypriot society. The Greeks, which settled on the island during the second millennium B.C; and the Turks, which set foot on Cyprus during the period of the Ottoman Empire, in 1571, when the armies of Lala Mustapha seized Famagusta, which was last city to resist them on the island. Cyprus remained under Ottoman rule until the congress of Berlin in 1878 when it was ceded to Britain. The terms of the agreement stipulated that Britain was to occupy and administer the island in exchange of a promise to help Turkey defend itself against Russia if the need arose. In 1914, after Turkey had joined forces with the Central powers, Britain unilaterally declared the 1878 convention null and annexed Cyprus.

Extraits

[...] Ibidem, p 225. Ibidem, p 235. Parenthesis mine. Volkan, idem, p 240 Doob, Leonard, Cypriot Patriotism and Nationalism, Journal of Conflict Resolution June 1986, p 383-396. Ibidem, p 390. Cited in Doob, idem, p 390. For the content of these treaties see Appendix and 3. [...]

[...] The second example of misperception which caused the conflict to grow is yet again about intention and about Enosis. After the eruption of violence in 1963 and the increasing internationalisation of the problem through the UN, Makarios decided to abandon the goal of Enosis and adopted a policy of independence and non-alignment. Several factors which I will briefly enumerate explain this change of orientation. First of all, Cyprus had to abandon Enosis because Makarios wanted to gain support for his cause from third world and eastern bloc countries. [...]

[...] Psycho-cultural interpretations In this part of my work I will focus on a notion that might help us explain the Cyprus problem. In his analysis of identity and ethnic conflict Ross[15] develops the notions of psychocultural interpretations. This notion refers to “deeply rooted worldviews that help people make sense of daily life, and provide psychological meaningful account's of a group's relationship with other groups their actions and motives [They] are revealed in group's narratives recounting their origin, history and conflict with outsiders, as well as in the community's symbolic and ritual behaviour.”[16]. [...]

[...] Cited in Joseph, idem, p23. Ténékidès, Idem, p 149. Bar-Tal Daniel, Geva Nehemia, A cognitive Basis of International Conflicts, in Stephen Worchel and William G Austin edited, Pychology of Intergroup Relations, Tel Aviv University Joseph, idem, p 26. Joseph, idem, p26. Cited in Joseph, idem, p 49. Joseph, idem, p50. Ténékidès, idem, p216. [...]

[...] However, despite this official change of policy for Makarios and the elites in Nicosia, Enosis remained popular amidst some parts of the population in Greece and Cyprus. As a result “political leaders in both countries had to follow double-faced tactics in order to assure pro-enosis groups that their long-established “national aspiration” was not betrayed.”[13] It is this last factor which in fact led to a misperception of intention from the Turkish Cypriot side. Indeed, getting contradictory signals the Turks interpreted this apparent switch of goals as unreal and manoeuvring aimed at misleading the Turks and world opinion”[14]. [...]