Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T20:38:55.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Document The Dispute over Cyprus: Facts and Interpretations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 November 2013

Abstract

Along with those case studies he did on the Middle East, the Cyprus case study that is presented here was meant to have been part of István Bibó's Paralysis of International Institutions and the Remedies. A Study of Self-Determination, Concord among the Major Powers, and Political Arbitration (Hassock, Sussex: The Harvester Press, 1976), written between 1965 and 1974, but it was finally left out of the volume. István Bibó (1911–1979) was a seminal Hungarian democratic political thinker, international lawyer, and the last legitimate minister of the 1956 revolution, and, in this case study, he pointed out that there is no such entity as a Cypriot nation. Cyprus is the clashing and splitting area of the Greek and the Turkish nation-making processes. His detailed analysis is based upon this assumption. It has been translated by Péter Pásztor (Szentendre, Hungary).

Type
Focus: Regimes of Memory
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Note

1. Characteristically, the international community and the UN accepted the exclusively Greek-run Cyprus government as a successor of the two-nation state, not because this was deemed to have solved the problem, or because the Greek Cypriot politicians were shrewd enough to obtain this recognition, but because Cyprus had a seat in the UN and it was to be filled by somebody or other, and it was easiest to accept the incumbent Greek president, Archbishop Makarios, who meant a continuity, as the representative of a wholly changed Cypriot state. Also characteristic of the power afforded by being a representative was the change in Makarios’ position; in 1959, when concluding the treaties between Great Britain, Greece and Turkey, the leaders of the Greek Cypriot community, including Archbishop Makarios, who did not agree with its stipulations, had been given the opportunity, the humiliating conditions owing to unequal partners, of accepting or next-to-impossible rejecting it, not of negotiating and amending it. As soon as ‘Black Mak’ was elected president in consequence of the treaty, he became a decisive and unavoidable factor capable of pulling the strings of world politics, when the force immediately behind him was not much more than that of the former, somewhat less organized Greek Cypriot community.Google Scholar