ETHNICITY, RELIGION, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SECURITY: THE CYPRIOT OFFSHORE DRILLING CRISIS By: GREGORY A. FILE Bachelor of Science Political Science Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2010 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts May, 2012 ETHNICITY, RELIGION, NATURAL RESOURCES, AND SECURITY: THE CYPRIOT OFFSHORE DRILLING CRISIS Thesis Approved: Dr. Nikolas Emmanuel Thesis Adviser Dr. Joel Jenswold Committee Member Dr. Reuel Hanks Committee Member Dr. Sheryl A. Tucker Dean of the Graduate College i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………....1 Synopsis……………………………………………………………………....1 Literature Review………………………………………………………….....5 Why Alliances Form……………………………………………….....5 Regional Security Complex Theory…………………………………..6 Ethnic Similarity……………………………………………………...6 Religious Similarity…………………………………………………...8 Hydrocarbon Trade…………………………………………………...10 Security Concerns…………………………………………………….12 Culture and Non-Culture Theory…………………………………………......14 Culture………………………………………………………………..14 Non-Culture…………………………………………………………..16 Methods………………………………………………………………………18 Small – N……………………………………………………………..19 Case Selection………………………………………………………...19 Methodology……………………………………………………….....21 ii Chapter Page II. CYPRUS: THE PIVOT…………………………………………………………28 History……………………………………………………………………….28 The Demographics of Cyprus……………………………………………….33 The Grievances………………………………………………………………36 The Offshore Drilling Crisis…………………………………………………38 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...40 III. THE TRADITIONAL ACTORS: GREAT BRITAIN, GREECE, AND TURKEY 42 Great Britain………………………………………………………………….42 Ethnicity………………………………………………………………43 Religion……………………………………………………………….45 Hydrocarbons…………………………………………………………47 Security……………………………………………………………….49 Conclusion……………………………………………………………51 Greece………………………………………………………………………...52 Ethnicity………………………………………………………………52 Religion……………………………………………………………….54 Hydrocarbons…………………………………………………………56 Security……………………………………………………………….59 Conclusion……………………………………………………………61 iii Chapter Page Turkey……………………………………………………………………….62 Ethnicity……………………………………………………………..62 Religion……………………………………………………………...65 Hydrocarbons………………………………………………………..67 Security……………………………………………………………...70 Conclusion…………………………………………………………..73 IV. THE NEW ACTORS: RUSSIA AND ISRAEL ………………………………74 Russia………………………………………………………………………..74 Ethnicity……………………………………………………………..75 Religion………………………………………………………………77 Hydrocarbons………………………………………………………...80 Security……………………………………………………………….81 Conclusion……………………………………………………………84 Israel…………………………………………………………………………..84 Ethnicity………………………………………………………………85 Religion……………………………………………………………….87 Hydrocarbons…………………………………………………………90 Security……………………………………………………………….92 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….97 iv Chapter Page V. CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………….98 REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………104 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Division of Cyprus………………………………………………………………………..113 2 Cypriot Offshore Hydrocarbons…...……………………………………………………..114 3 British Bases.……………………………………………………………………………..115 4 Leviathan Field.…………………………………………………………………………..116 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Data...…………………………………………………………………………...117 2 Results: Great Britain...………………………………………………………...118 3 Results: Greece………………………………………………………………....119 4 Results: Turkey………………………………………………………………....120 5 Results: Russia.………………………………………………………………....121 6 Results: Israel...………………………………………………………………....122 7 Results Summary………………………………………………………………...123 vii Chapter 1 Introduction I. Synopsis On September 18, 2011, the Republic of Cyprus began offshore drilling in conjunction with Noble Energy (BBC, 2011). Once the offshore drilling began, events quickly escalated into a crisis. Moments after the announcement was made by the Republic of Cyprus, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus granted drilling concessions to the Republic of Turkey. The Turkish government then sent a naval team into the disputed waters (Al Jazeera, 2011). Turkish intervention led to responses by both Israel and Russia. Israel backed the right of the Republic of Cyprus to drill for offshore resources in their Exclusive Economic Zone (or EEZ)1 and even offered to send their air force to protect the Republic of Cyprus from perceived Turkish threats (Jerusalem Post, 2011; Debkafile, 2011). This has led to harassment between the Turkish navy, and the Israeli navy and air force (Debkafile, 2011; Today’s Zaman, 2011a). Russia entered the fray on the side of the Republic of Cyprus. Russia has sent two submarines to Cyprus and dispatched their lone aircraft carrier battle group to support the claims of the Republic of Cyprus (Fenwick, 2011; Hurriyet, 2011). It is imperative for political scientists and policy makers to understand the underlying issues that resulted in the final alliance configurations. The formation of these alliances led to 1 The Republic of Cyprus, Greece, and Russia are signatories to the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas which delineates the EEZ. Turkey, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and Israel are not parties to the agreement (U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas, 1982). This has made the ownership of the Eastern Mediterranean Resources more problematic. This will be discussed further in the Israel chapter since it impacts them the most. 1 the development of the central research question: What factors are responsible for the formation of these alliances and specifically, which of these factors have led to the current alliance of nations in the Cypriot offshore drilling crisis? Examining this question will shed light on why states aligned the way they did during the Cypriot offshore drilling crisis. By understanding these relationships, policy makers and academics will be able to propose policies to mitigate conflict escalation. A brief survey of the literature is warranted as to what triggered this recent crisis. The trigger is the impact of natural resources on conflict and alliances. Many scholars have found that the presence of natural resources serves as an aggravating force between two hostile actors. Especially among resource poor groups, natural resources have led to fierce competition. Natural resources have provided the money needed for an actor to modernize or equip its fighting force. The desire for the wealth that comes with natural resources has triggered numerous conflicts (Humphreys, 2005; Herbst, 2000; Bannon and Collier, 2003; Le Billon, 2001; Renner, 2003). It appears that the drilling undertaken by the Republic of Cyprus has geopolitical consequences for the region. Alliances are an important factor in the study of conflict. Scholars have found that nations form alliances for the primary reason of security. Alliances are formed in order to deter attack from another hostile country. This is known as the deterrence effect. One country will not attack another country if that country knows the target country has an array of allies willing to fight to defend it (Walt, 1985; Leeds, 2003). Under the umbrella of alliances, there are many different factors that influence the formation of these alliances. These factors will be incorporated as the different hypotheses tested in this study. These factors are: ethnic similarities, religious similarities, hydrocarbon trade, and security. 2 The first component of alliance formation is similar ethnicity. This occurs when a country intervenes to help another actor that shares the same ethnicity (Davis and Moore, 1997; Petersen, 2004). Traditionally, this intervening to help a kindred ethnic group has been equated with irredentist policies. This occurred in the 1930s when Germany intervened in Czechoslovakia to protect the German ethnic group living in the Sudetenland. In 1979, China intervened in Vietnam to protect the interests of the ethnic Chinese residing in that country (Ambrosio, 2001; Kornprobst, 2008). This ethnic component will form one of the factors leading to the current alignment of nations during the offshore Cypriot drilling crisis. The second component of alliance formation is similar religion. This term is used to denote an alliance between two actors due to a religious commonality. Usually this is done between similar religious factions in order to block the threat of another religion (Lewis, 1998; De Juan, 2009). A country will form an alliance with another group that has similar religious beliefs in order to protect the religious liberties of that particular group. Historical examples include the Russians offering protection to their fellow Orthodox Christians in Constantinople in the 1800s, or the French offering protection to the Maronite Catholics in Lebanon in the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Both of these examples were undertaken by powerful Christian majority countries to protect the minority Christians living under Muslim rule (Bugbee, 1877; Spagnolo; 1977). Since this could be the case in this particular instance, the role of religious similarities will be studied as a component in this analysis. The third component influencing alliance formation is trade, specifically trade in hydrocarbons. There have been studies conducted to see how trade influences alliance formation. The global environment is divided between those who have resources and those who are resource poor. States use their resources to attract other states to their cause. In return for 3 their support, those resource poor states will gain trade benefits (Long, 2003; Long and Leeds, 2006; Fordham, 2010;