Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle

Home , Cypriot nationalism, Greek nationalism, Islam in Cyprus, Sia Anagnostopoulou

Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle New Perspectives on South-East Europe Series Editors: Spyros Econmides, Senior Lecturer in International Relations and European Politics, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Kevin Featherstone, Professor of Contemporary Greek Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Sevket Pamuk, Professor of Contemporary Turkish Studies, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK Series Advisory Board: Richard Crampton, Emeritus Professor of Eastern European History at St Edmund Hall, University of Oxford Vladimir Gligorov, Staff Economist specialising in Balkan countries, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, Austria Jacques Rupnik, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre d’études et de recherches internationales of Sciences Po, France Susan Woodward, Professor, The Graduate Programme in Political Science at The City University of New York, USA.

South-East Europe presents a compelling agenda: a region that has challenged European identities, values and interests like no other at formative periods of modern history, and is now undergoing a set of complex transitions. It is a region made up of new and old European Union member states, as well as aspiring ones; early ‘democratising’ states and new post-communist regimes; states undergoing liberalising economic reforms, partially inspired by external forces, whilst coping with their own embedded nationalisms; and states obliged to respond to new and recurring issues of security, identity, well-being, social integration, faith and secularisation. This series examines issues of inheritance and adaptation. The disciplinary reach incorporates politics and international relations, modern history, economics and political economy and sociology. It links the study of South- East Europe across a number of social sciences to European issues of democratisation and economic reform in the post-transition age. It addresses ideas as well as institutions, policies as well as processes. It will include studies of the domestic and foreign policies of single states, relations between states and peoples in the region, and between the region and beyond. The EU is an obvious reference point for current research on South-East Europe, but this series also highlights the importance of South-East Europe in its eastern context, the Caucusus, the Black Sea and the Middle East. Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle Cyprus, Greece and Turkey

Edited by Ayhan Aktar Professor, Department of International Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey Niyazi Kızılyürek, Professor, Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus, Cyprus and Umut Özkırımlı Associate Professor, Department of International Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey; Senior Visiting Fellow, The Hellenic Observatory, London School of Economics Editorial matter and selection © Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek, Umut Özkırımlı 2010 All remaining chapters © respective authors 2010 Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2010 978-0-230-57915-6

All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First published 2010 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978-1-349-36780-1 ISBN 978-0-230-29732-6 (eBook) DOI 10.1057/9780230297326 This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources. Logging, pulping and manufacturing processes are expected to conform to the environmental regulations of the country of origin. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Contents

Acknowledgements vii Notes on the Contributors viii Introduction xiii Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı 1 Bringing History Back into Nationalism? 1 John Breuilly Part I Turkish and Greek Nationalisms: Past and Present 2 Conversion of a ‘Country’ into a ‘Fatherland’: The Case of Turkification Examined, 1923–1934 21 Ayhan Aktar 3 The Use and Abuse of Archaeology and Anthropology in Formulating the Turkish Nationalist Narrative 36 Suavi Aydın 4 Turkish Nationalism Reconsidered: The ‘Heaviness’ of Statist Patriotism in Nation-Building 47 Günay Göksu Özdog˘an 5 Dismantling the Millet: Religion and National Identity in Contemporary Greece 61 Renée Hirschon 6 Nationalism in Greece and Turkey: Modernity, Enlightenment, Westernization 76 Spyros A. Sofos and Umut Özkırımlı 7 Nostalgia, Self-Exile and the National Idea: The Case of Andrea Mustoxidi and the Early Nineteenth-Century Heptanesians of Italy 98 Konstantina Zanou 8 Narratives of Diplomats: Representations of Nationalism and Turkish Foreign Policy in Cyprus, 1970–1991 112 . Gül Inanç 9 Alternative Forms of Nationalism: Superiority through Law in Greek Foreign Policy 130 Harry Tzimitras

v vi Contents

Part II Nationalism in Cyprus: Past and Present 10 History, Myth and Nationalism: The Retrospective Force of National Roles within a Myth-Constructed Past 149 Michalis N. Michael 11 Securing the Office of Müftü: Nationalism, Religion and the Turks of Cyprus 160 Altay Nevzat 12 Rauf Denktas¸: Fear and Nationalism in the Turkish Cypriot Community 175 Niyazi Kızılyürek 13 The Complexities of Greek Nationalism in its Cypriot Version 194 Sia Anagnostopoulou 14 The Referendum of 24 April 2004: A Resounding Victory for Greek Cypriot Nationalism 204 Caesar V. Mavratsas 15 AKEL: Between Nationalism and ‘Anti-Imperialism’ 218 Stavros Tombazos Notes 236 Bibliography 257 Index 274 Acknowledgements

This book grew out of a conference we organized on 10–11 November 2006 at the University of Cyprus. We would like to thank the University of Cyprus and in particular the students of the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies who helped us with the many exigencies of this conference. We would also like to express our gratitude to the participants of this conference for kindly allowing us to assemble their papers in an edited volume. We owe special thanks to Michael Walsh, Associate Professor of Art History at Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta, for his meticulous editing and to Cemil Boyraz and Eirini Kechriotis for preparing the final manuscript for publication. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of Palgrave Macmillan for their comments and criticisms on an earlier draft of this book and our editors, Amy Lankester-Owen and Alison Howson, for believing in this collective endeavour.

vii Notes on the Contributors

Ayhan Aktar worked at the Department of Political Science and International Relations, Marmara University, Istanbul until his early retirement in 2006. He also worked as a Visiting Professor at the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, University of Cyprus, Nicosia before joining the Department of International Relations at Istanbul Bilgi University as an adjunct Professor. He was one of the organizers of the conference titled as ‘The Ottoman Armenians during the Demise of the Empire: Issues of Democracy and Scientific Responsibility’ which was held in Istanbul, September 2005. His publications include Varlık Vergisi ve ‘Türkles¸tirme’ Politikaları [Capital Levy and ‘Turkification’ Policies] (2000) and Türk Milliyetçilig˘i, Gayrimüslimler ve Ekonomik Dönüs¸üm [Turkish Nationalism, Non-Muslims and Economic Transformations] (2006). Recently, a collection of his articles have been translated into Greek and will be published under the title of I Tourkia stous Tourkous [Turkey belongs to Turks!] (2010). Sia Anagnostopoulou is Associate Professor of History at the Depart- ment of Political Science and History of Panteion University, Athens. She also taught at the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies, Nicosia between 1995 and 2004. Her publications include Mikra Asia, 19os Ai.–1919: Hoi Hellenorthodoxes Koinotetes Apo to Millet Ton Romion Sto Helleniko Ethnos [Asia Minor: The Greek Orthodox Communities, Nineteenth Century–1919: From the Rum Millet to the Greek Nation] (1997), Tourkikos Eksynchronismos: Islam Kai Tourkokyprioi Ste Daidalode Diadrome Tou Kemalismou [The Modernization of Turkey: Islam in Relation to Kemalism] (2004) and a collection of articles From the Ottoman Empire to the Nation-States: The Case of Greece and Cyprus (2004, in French and English). Suavi Aydın is Associate Professor at the Department of Anthropology, Hacettepe University, Ankara. His publications include Modernles¸me ve Milliyetçilik [Modernization and Nationalism] (1993), Kimlik Sorunu, Ulusallık ve ‘Türk Kimlig˘i’ [The Identity Question, Nationality and the ‘Turkish Identity’] (1998), Antropoloji Sözlügü [Dictionary of Anthropology] (ed. with Kudret Emirog˘lu) (2002), Küçük Asya’nın Bin Yüzü: Ankara [The Thousand Faces of Asia Minor: Ankara] (with K. Emirog˘lu, Ö. Türkog˘lu and E. D. Özsoy) (2005), ‘Amacımız Devletin Bekası’: Demokratikles¸me

viii Notes on the Contributors ix

Sürecinde Devlet ve Yurttas¸lar [‘Our Aim is the Perpetuity of the State’: The State and Citizens in the Process of Democratization] (2005). His published translations are Culture by Raymond Williams (1993) and Environment and Ethnicity in the Ancient Middle East by Pavel Dolukhanov (1997). John Breuilly is Professor of Nationalism and Ethnicity at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His recent publications include Nationalism, Power and Modernity in Nineteenth-Century Germany (2007), the Introduction to the second edition (2006) of Ernest Gellner’s Nations and Nationalism and, co-edited with Ronald Speirs, Germany’s Two Unifications: Anticipations, Experiences, Responses (2005). He is currently editing the Oxford Handbook of the History of Nationalism as well as working on a monograph on the modernization of the German lands between 1780 and 1880. Renée Hirschon is a Senior Research Fellow and College Lecturer at St Peter’s College, University of Oxford. A long time Research Associate of the Refugee Studies Centre, Oxford University, she is a Senior Member of St Antony’s College, Oxford University and serves on the Academic Committee of its European Studies Centre. Her publications include Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe (1988), which was translated into Turkish in 2000 and Greek in 2004. She has written numerous articles on Greek culture and identity, gender, oral history, linguistic behaviour, and on forced migration and diasporas. In 1998, she initiated a dialogue between Turkish and Greek scholars, published in an edited multidisci- plinary volume: Crossing the Aegean: An Appraisal of the 1923 Compulsory Population Exchange between Greece and Turkey (2003), which was translated into Turkish in 2005. . Gül Inanç is Assistant Professor of History at Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta. Her publications include ABD Diplomasisinde Türkiye, 1940–1943 [Turkey in US Diplomacy, 1940–1943] (2002), Türk Diplomasisinde Kıbrıs, 1970–1991 [Cyprus in Turkish Diplomacy ] (2007) and Büyükelçiler Anlatıyor, Türk Diplomasisinde Irak [Iraq in Turkish Diplomacy] (2007). She is currently working on prosopographical research on Turkish diplomats and on a monograph entitled Turkey on the Eve of the Cold War: Yalta and San Francisco Conferences. Niyazi Kızılyürek is Professor in the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia. His previous publications include H Kypros Peran tou Ethnous [Cyprus beyond the Nation] (1993), Dog˘mamıs¸ bir Devletin Tarihi: Birles¸ik Kıbrıs Cumhuriyeti x Notes on the Contributors

[The History of an Unborn State: The Republic of United Cyprus] (2005), Milliyetçilik Kıskacında Kıbrıs [Cyprus in the Grip of Nationalism] (2002), O Kemalismos [Kemalism] (2007), Glafkos Klerides: Tarihten Güncellig˘e bir Kıbrıs Yolculug˘u [Glafkos Klerides: The Path of a Country] (2007), Kıbrıs Görüs¸meleri, 1968–2008 [Cyprus Talks between 1968 and 2008] (2009) and Federalism in Cyprus (with Tufan Erhurman) (2009). Caesar V. Mavratsas is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Cyprus, Nicosia. His publications include two monographs on Greek Cypriot nationalism and Greek Cypriot politics, Antiparathesis tou Ellinikou Ethnikismou stin Kypro: Ideologikes Antiparathesis kai i Kinoniki Kataskevi tis Ellinokypriakis Taftotitas 1974–1996 [Facets of Greek Nationalism in Cyprus: Ideological Contest and the Social Construction of Greek Cypriot Identity 1974–1996] (1998), translated into Turkish in 2000, and Ethniki Omopsixia kai Politiki Omofonia: I Atrofia tis Ellinokypriakis Kinonias ton Politon stis Aparxes [National Unanimity and Political Consensus: The Atrophy of Greek Cypriot Civil Society at the Dawn of the Twenty-First Century] (2003). Michalis N. Michael is a Lecturer at the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia. He received his Ph.D. at the same department in February 2004 with a dissertation on ‘The Formation Process of an Institution of Political Power: The Church of Cyprus, 1754–1910’. His publications include three monographs concerning the relationship between the Orthodox monasteries in Cyprus, economy and the land-tenure system, and I Ekklisia tis Kyprou kata tin Othomaniki Periodo (1571–1878). I Stadiaki Sigkrotisi tis se Thesmo Politikis [The Church of Cyprus during the Ottoman Period, 1571–1878: The Formation Process of an Institution of Political Power] (2005). His latest book is an edited collection entitled Ottoman Cyprus: A Collection of Studies on History and Culture (with M. Kappler and G. Eftihios, 2009). Altay Nevzat is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Eastern Mediterranean University, Famagusta. His doctoral thesis was published as Nationalism Amongst the Turks of Cyprus: The First Wave (2005). His other publications include ‘Potential Outcomes of the Cyprus–EU Accession Process’ (with Ishtiaq Ahmed, 1999), ‘Ronald Storrs ve Mısırlızade Necati: Valinin “Onüçüncü Rum” ile Kars¸ılas¸ması’ [Ronald Storrs and Mısırlızade Necati: The Governor’s Encounter with the ‘Thirteenth Greek’] and, most recently, ‘Politics, Society and the Decline of Islam in Cyprus: From the Ottoman Era to the Twenty-First Century’ (with Mete Hatay, 2009). Notes on the Contributors xi

Günay Göksu Özdog˘an is Professor of Political Science at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Marmara University, Istanbul. Her publications include Balkans: A Mirror of the New International Order (edited with Kemali Saybas¸ılı, 1995), Redefining Nation, State and Citizen (edited with Gül Tokay, 2000), the Turkish Historical Foundation’s research prize-winning ‘Turan’dan ‘Bozkurt’a: Tek Parti Döneminde Türkçülük, 1931–1946 [From ‘Turan’ to ‘Gray- Wolf’: Turkism During the One-Party Period, 1931–1946] (2001), . . Uluslararası Ilis¸kilerde Sınır Tanımayan Sorunlar: Göç, Yurttas¸lık, Insan Hakları, Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Küresel Adalet ve Güvenlik [Transborder Issues in International Relations: Migration, Human Rights, Gender, Global Justice and Security] (edited with Ayhan Kaya, 2003). Her latest book is Türkiye’de Ermeni Olmak: Cemaat, Birey, Yurttas¸ [Being Armenian in Turkey: Community, Individual, Citizen] (with Füsun Üstel, Ferhat Kentel and Karin Karakas¸lı, 2009). Umut Özkırımlı is Associate Professor and Director of Turkish–Greek Studies (with Harry Tzimitras) at The Department of International Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University and a Senior Research Fellow at The Hellenic Observatory/The European Institute, London School of Economics. His previous publications include Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction (2000), Nationalism and its Futures (edited collection, 2003) and Contemporary Debates on Nationalism: A Critical Engagement (2005). His most recent books are Tormented by History: Nationalism in Greece and Turkey (with Spyros A. Sofos, 2008) and Milliyetçilik ve Türkiye- . Avrupa Birlig˘i Ilis¸kileri [Nationalism and Turkey–EU Relations], translated into English (forthcoming). He is currently working on the second edition of Theories of Nationalism. Spyros A. Sofos is Senior Research Fellow in European and International Studies at the European Research Centre and the Helen Bamber Centre for the Study of Conflict and Human Rights of Kingston University, London and Coordinator of the Mediterranean Studies@Kingston Research Unit. His previous publications include Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe (edited with Brian Jenkins, 1996) and Tormented by History: Nationalism in Greece and Turkey (with Umut Özkırımlı, 2008). His latest book is Islam in Europe: Public Spaces and Networks (with Roza Tsagarousianou, forthcoming). Stavros Tombazos is Assistant Professor at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia. His previous publications include Le temps dans l’analyse économique: les catégories xii Notes on the Contributors du temps dans Le Capital (1994) and Pagkosmiopoiisi kai Eyropaiki Enosi [Globalization and the European Union] (1999). He has published numerous articles on the political and economic aspects of globalization and European integration, hegemonic systems and development of Third World countries and the Cyprus problem. Harry Tzimitras is Assistant Professor of International Law and Director of Turkish–Greek Studies (with Umut Özkırımlı) at The Department of International Relations, Istanbul Bilgi University. He is also an Adjunct Professor of International Law at Koç University, Istanbul. His previous publications include ‘The Emerging Framework of Greek–Turkish Relations: Traditional Clichés and New Perceptions’ (2006), ‘Kritikos Anastohasmos ton Ellinotourkikon Sheseon: Esoterikes Parametroi kai Exoterikes Metavlites’ [Critical Rethinking of Greek–Turkish Relations: Internal Parameters and External Variables] (2004), ‘Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and the Development of the Law of the Sea: The Role of the International Court of Justice’ (1997) and Ifalokripida ton Nision sti Diethni Nomologia [The Continental Shelf of Islands in International Jurisprudence] (1997). Konstantina Zanou has recently concluded her Ph.D. thesis at the University of Pisa with a dissertation on ‘Expatriate Intellectuals and National Identity: Andrea Mustoxidi in Italy, France and Switzerland (1802–1829)’. She is currently a Marie Curie Fellow, affiliated as a researcher to the University of Nicosia (Cyprus). Introduction Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı

Walking through the Ledra Palace checkpoint in the dead zone of Nicosia and along the demarcation line which divides Cyprus into Northern and Southern parts, one cannot help but notice an inflation of flags: Turkish and Turkish Cypriot in the North; Greek, Republic of Cyprus and recently EU flags in the South. If you happen to pass by a Greek Orthodox church in the South, you would also come across a yellow flag with a double-headed eagle figure representing Byzantium. Obviously the historical and political realities behind these antagonistic national symbols are not simple. This inflation of flags and the visible contest between national symbols in Cyprus is indicative of a stubborn and uncompromising clash of nationalisms – a salutary reminder of the all-too-easily forgotten fact that Cyprus has always been the playground of the nationalisms of Greece and Turkey. The encounter of these two nationalisms takes us back to the nineteenth century when the winds of Enlightenment and the French Revolution were wreaking havoc in the territories of the crumbling Ottoman Empire. Greek nationalism, a product of the political develop- ments in Europe, was the first national liberation movement achiev- ing independent statehood in 1830. Subsequently, modern Greece embarked on a protracted nation-building process in constant warfare with the Ottoman Empire. Greek intellectuals and merchants were the moving force behind the nation-building process which in this case involved a move from ‘nation’ to ‘state’. In the course of the uprising against Ottoman rule, and after an independent state had been founded, nationalist elites made intensive use of proto-nationalist attachments and symbols, such as religion and language, and transformed them into cornerstones of modern Greek national identity. Central to this process was the concept of ‘historical continuity’ that revolved around a new

xiii xiv Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı interpretation of the histories of ancient Greece, the Byzantine Empire and the modern Greek state portraying the Greek ethnos as a single, organic whole which continued to exist uninterruptedly through time and space. This particular narrative left its imprint on modern Greek national identity in the form of a Hellenic–Orthodox synthesis. The process of national-identity formation received a further impetus by the doctrine of Megali Idea, the basis of irredentist Greek nationalism (Skopetea, 1988), which strove towards a Hellenic–Orthodox political union by liberating all Greek Orthodox communities still living under Ottoman rule and beyond. The mobilization of proto-nationalist tradi- tions or ‘invention of tradition’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger, 1983), was so successful that, as Herzfeld (1986) and other scholars have observed, all traces of the ‘invention process’ have been erased and Hellenic national identity, which is a direct product of historical and political conditions, has been accepted as a prehistoric, primordial given (Kızılyürek, 2002; see also Hirschon and Zanou in this volume and Kitromilides, 1990). The rise of Turkish nationalism, on the other hand, took more the form of a transition from ‘state’ to ‘nation’. This was a case of civilian and military bureaucrats taking control of the Ottoman state apparatus and starting its transformation into a nation-state. This process began with the opposition of Young Turks towards the end of the nineteenth century, and reached its zenith with the formation of a republic in 1923 which immediately embarked on the creation of a new, secular and Westernized future. In contrast to Greek nationalism, Turkish nationalism turned its back on proto-nationalist attachments and excluded the Ottoman-Islamic legacy from public life, replacing it with its own modernist secular narrative. Modern Turkish national identity was for- ever traumatized by this dramatic rupture with the past. The Kemalist doctrine was unable to fill in the moral vacuum created by the rejection of the Ottoman-Islamic value system. Modernization from above failed to produce an integrated and seamless national identity; the project of assimilating and integrating the ex-Ottoman subjects into citizens of the modern Turkish state has never been realized fully and the ‘Kemalist republican ideal’ was not embraced by all members of the society (Kızılyürek, 2008; see also Aydın and Özdog˘an in this volume). Despite the differences in the historical construction and the implementation of the Greek and Turkish nationalist projects, both nationalisms shared the generic quest for homogenization characteristic of the nationalist imagination. In common with other more or less contemporary nationalisms, they strived to ‘unmix’ their respective populations. The strategies that were employed to deal with ‘heterogeneity’ were similar, Introduction xv starting with the mutually agreed compulsory exchange of populations where nearly 1,200,000 Anatolian Greeks and 400,000 Rumelian Muslims were exchanged following the stipulations of the Lausanne Treaty signed by the diplomats of the two nation-states in July 1923 (Aktar in this volume; see also Aktar, 2003 and Hirschon, 2003). Other strategies of homogenization included a host of unilateral means such as extermination, deportation, policies and processes of assimilation, mar- ginalization, demographic engineering and discriminatory economic policies, and even erasing the traces of the presence of the ‘other’ from the territories they previously occupied. Where minorities persisted or could not be eradicated, strategies of rendering them voiceless, such as the systematic changing of family names, banning the use of other mother tongues and alphabets, were also employed. Despite their putative differences and the alleged superiority of each of the two nationalisms over the other, a common undercurrent of violence, symbolic and material, seems to have been the common denominator (Özkırımlı and Sofos, 2008, ch. 6). More importantly, the Greeks of Istanbul and the Turks of western Thrace who were excluded from the exchange of populations of 1923 continued to be perceived as the fifth-column activists of the ‘other’ and penalized by Ankara and Athens under the pretext of ‘reciprocity’ (Akgönül, 2008). Another battleground of Greek and Turkish nationalisms was Cyprus. Nationalism in Cyprus developed in tandem with the processes of the formation and building of the Greek and Turkish nation-states. This led to the politicization of each ethnic community in Cyprus in a mutually exclusive way and created an aspiration not for an independent common state in Cyprus, but for unification with the ‘motherlands’ – the policies of enosis (unification) and taksim (partition) respectively. Both ethnic communities embraced an ideology of unification based on similar ethnocultural pretexts, perceiving themselves to be ‘an organic part’ of the Greek and Turkish nations and engaged in a bipolar nationalist conflict. This process did not occur concurrently. Greek nationalism in Cyprus began to take shape after the modern Greek state was formed and preceded Turkish nationalism by almost a century. Turkish nationalism in Cyprus, on the other hand, appeared as counter-nationalism and over time emulated the Greek nationalist discourse that it countered, taking the form of a political programme for unification with Turkey based on the same ethnocultural arguments (Kızılyürek, 2002a; see also Michael, Nevzat and Anagnostopoulou in this volume). The island was given the name Megalonisos (Big Island) by Greek nationalism and Yavruvatan (Babyland) by Turkish nationalism. Cyprus xvi Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı began to appear on maps, first of Greece and then of Turkey. In this process, the ‘locals’, in the absence of any claims on their part to be citizens of Cyprus, identified with the Greek and Turkish nations respectively. In Cyprus, it is impossible to detect any sign in recent history of a political/ideological effort aimed at creating a common state and homeland. There was no push to make Cyprus more than just a geographical space and turn it into the political home of all Cypriots (see Kızılyürek and Tombazos in this volume; see also Papadakis, 2005). However, despite all these political campaigns, the existing aspirations proved impossible to realize. The Greek Cypriots were unable to achieve enosis by uniting with ‘Motherland Greece’, nor were the Turkish Cypriots able to secure legitimacy for taksim. Instead an independent Republic of Cyprus has been founded under the pressure of Western alli- ance at the height of the Cold War, but has proved short-lived and failed to solve the conflict between two national communities. The past 50 years have witnessed a long and frustrating process of intercommunal talks and several ‘UN proposals’ for a settlement in Cyprus. However, all proposals failed and turned the island into a ‘graveyard of diplomats’ . (see Inanç in this volume). The latest attempt by the UN to reach a comprehensive settlement, named after the former Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, has been rejected by the Greek Cypriot vote (see Mavratsas in this volume). As mentioned above, the Cyprus problem cannot be understood independently of Greek and Turkish nationalisms. The relationship within this ‘troubled triangle’ is dialectical: the motherlands not only exported their nationalisms to the island, but they also shaped and strengthened nationalist passions domestically, turning Cyprus into a ‘national question’ for themselves. Historically speaking, the Cyprus question had been an instrument of national homogenization in both Greece and Turkey. For example, it enabled the Turkish government to deport most of the members of the Istanbul Greek community as the result of intercommunal clashes in Cyprus in 1964. And it was again the ongoing antagonism in and on Cyprus that gave a free hand to Greek authorities to deny the basic cultural and economic rights of the Turkish community in western Thrace. The Cyprus question was also utilized on both sides of the Aegean to consolidate the role of the army in domestic politics and functioned as a pretext for military interventions (Veremis, 1997; see also Tzimitras in this volume). It even brought both countries to the brink of war on several occasions. This complex and mutually reinforcing relationship among nationalisms in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus reminds us of Hans Kohn, one Introduction xvii of the founders of the academic study of nationalism, who once said: ‘a study of nationalism must follow a comparative method, it cannot remain confined to one of its manifestations’ (1958: ix; see also Breuilly in this volume). Taking this truism as a point of departure, we organized an international conference under the auspices of the Department of Turkish and Middle Eastern Studies of the University of Cyprus, Nicosia, entitled ‘Nationalism in the Troubled Triangle: Cyprus, Greece and Turkey’ on 10–11 November 2006. This was the first conference on nationalism that brought together scholars from Greece, Turkey and both sides of the dead zone in Cyprus – and beyond. This is precisely what makes the present volume more than a random collection of essays on nationalism in what we have called ‘the troubled triangle’. Although there have been several attempts to study nationalism in individual cases or comparing any two cases (see e.g. Birtek and Dragonas, 2005; Frangoudaki and Keyder, 2007; Millas, 2004 and 2005), there have been very few attempts to explore these issues in all three countries. In that sense, this book is one of the rare accounts of nation- building processes and nationalist politics that conjoins the three cases, offering not only a systematic study of nationalisms in general, but also presenting more specific, thematic, comparisons – of political leader- ships, institutions, foreign policies and so on. The present volume is original in one other important respect. Until relatively recently, historiography in and on Cyprus, Greece and Turkey has tended to reproduce frameworks of interpretation informed by the respective nationalist imaginaries. With a few notable exceptions, scholars have largely adopted similar positions, accommodating the status quo and accepting nationalist agendas without subjecting these to a comparative critical examination. It is only in the past decade that we have witnessed the publication of a significant body of work questioning nationalist narratives (see e.g. Kızılyürek, 2002a; Özkırımlı and Sofos, 2008). The chapters that follow carry on this tradition by offering a critical perspective on history and politics in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey which have been traditionally determined by nationalist discourses that portray the ‘Greek Cypriot’, ‘Turkish Cypriot’, ‘Greek’ and ‘Turkish’ identities as the reincarnation of a perennial ‘Greek’ or ‘Turkish’ essence. In this reading, the emergence of the ‘Greek’ and ‘Turkish’ national movements at the end of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is explained as a process of ‘awakening’, belated, nonetheless inevitable, and Cyprus is treated as an organic extension of the ‘Greek’ and ‘Turkish’ nations. The reality on the ground, however, is more complicated than this particular interpretation would have us believe. xviii Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı

The volume opens with an introductory chapter by John Breuilly on the intricate links between history-writing and nation-state formation. Comparing Germany with the cases of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, Breuilly traces the evolution of historical scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, laying particular emphasis on the importance of rescuing history from the claws of nationalism. In Chapter 2, Ayhan Aktar illustrates the mechanisms through which Turkish nationalists converted the ‘country of the Turks’ into the ‘Turkish fatherland’ from the beginning of the twentieth century onwards. This entailed the homogenization of the population through demographic engineering – the shuffling of different ethnic and religious groups within Anatolia and the settlement of incoming Balkan refugees in the towns where there was a considerable number of non-Muslim inhabitants. The process of homogenization of the population was completed by the deportation and massacre of Anatolian Armenians during the First World War and the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey in 1923. Aktar also overviews the ‘Turkification’ policies implemented in the first years of the Turkish Republic, drawing on archival material from the Public Record Office, and shows the extent to which the newly formed Turkish nation-state adopted xenophobic attitudes towards non-Muslims employed by foreign and public utility service companies throughout the 1920s. Suavi Aydın’s chapter is an attempt to deconstruct the structural and ideological components of the Turkish official history thesis. After the formation of the nation-state in 1923, the founding fathers of the Republic contemplated a new version of history that would fit the emerging Turkish national identity by redefining Turkish people as one of the constituent peoples of Western civilization. In this context, they made ample use of archaeology and anthropology to ‘scientifically’ establish that the Turks were the real creators of classical civilizations. Using an extensive state-sponsored excavation programme, Kemalist historians tried to demonstrate that ancient Turks were similar to Europeans in terms of their physical characteristics as well, that is they belonged to the Indo-European family of nations and not to the Mongoloid ‘yellow race’. Günay Göksu Özdog˘an, in Chapter 4, deals with the invention of a past suitable for Kemalist understanding of Westernization, the nationalization of Anatolia as a homeland and the indoctrination of militant patriotic sentiments among the citizens. Özdog˘an underlines the fact that ‘civil patriotism’ did not evolve in Turkey and that an important way to conceptualize Turkish nationalism begins with the recognition Introduction xix of the prevalence of the ‘state’ over the ‘nation’. In order to create a Turkish nation, the republican regime not only invented a nationalist mythology and a history thesis, but also imagined a primordialist con- ception of nation that had survived throughout the centuries. What is more, the nation-builders utilized homeland images, myths and symbols in order to nationalize space and territorialize national identity. The nationalization of territory is complemented by the use of state symbols, flags, anthems and leader cults, along with the construction of national monuments and commemorative sites. Özdog˘an argues that a return to the official theses of the 1930s helps to decipher the problems created by that incongruity as well as showing that the past was constructed in a selective manner to meet the priorities of Kemalist nationalism. In Chapter 5, Renée Hirschon argues that the understanding of Greek nationalism requires the clear recognition of the Ottoman past, a crucial factor often ignored even by liberal reformers in Greece itself. In particular, the analysis demonstrates the close overlap between religious and national identity and the deeply entrenched cultural patterns which accompany it. She likens this to an enduring mindset reminiscent of the millet system where identity was based on religious affiliation. Even though in Greece it has been possible since the mid-nineteenth century to register a child’s name directly in the civil registry, this is largely ignored or unknown so that the most common practice is for the name to be conferred through baptism. Though incomprehensible to a European secular mindset, the widespread outcry and mass demonstrations in 2000 against a new form of ID card omitting reference to religious affiliation should be seen against this background. Personal identity in Greece is a conglomerate of national, religious and cultural features, and, significantly, much religious practice, formal and informal, takes place in the public realm. Orthodox Christian practice is integral to everyday activity, constituting a ‘way of life’ so that the dichotomy between ‘sacred’ and ‘secular’ does not apply, nor does the common- sense division between ‘public and ‘private’. These particular cultural and historical features provide the context in which Greek nationalism should be assessed, both by comparison and by contrast with the phenomenon in other countries in the region. In their ‘alternative’ reading of the emergence of Greek and Turkish nationalisms, Sofos and Özkırımlı argue (in Chapter 6) that the leap from empire to ‘nation-state’ was not as straightforward as nationalist historiography would argue. The formation of the Greek and Turkish nations was not the result of a process of ‘national awakening’, but a xx Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı transformation largely associated with the ‘desire’ of at least some of the protagonists to dispense with the ‘oriental’ status of their societies which, it was thought, was mainly the outcome of the negative influence of the Ottoman Empire. It thus constituted a response to the agonizing questions of how to both ‘save’ and transform the Ottoman Empire, or how to best prepare for the post-Ottoman era. Nationalism, the authors contend, was not the only option available to those who set themselves the task of reforming their societies; it was possible to encounter a number of alternative political projects and identity options along the continuum between independence and reform, and these were clearly identified and debated by intellectuals of both societies from the late eighteenth century onwards. Konstantina Zanou’s essay (Chapter 7) studies the emergence of Greek national identity within the ambience of the early nineteenth- century Heptanesian (from the Ionian Islands) intellectuals who were living in Italy. Concentrating specifically on the case of the (self-)exiled Corfiote Andrea Mustoxidi (1785–1860), Zanou attempts to draw some conclusions about the role played by ‘distance’ and ‘nostalgia’ in the formation of the Greek national idea. She argues that such an idea, sprung initially from the late eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century intellectual atmosphere of the expatriate Greeks in Europe, was largely constructed on a series of nostalgic and utopian perceptions created from a position of actual and mental distance from the country. Through Mustoxidi’s and other Italo-Heptanesians’ cases, she analyses how nostalgia, in its various forms (personal or collective, spatial or temporal, real or imaginary), operated in stimulating and defining national identification. . Gül Inanç’s chapter is a preliminary attempt to place the role of diplomats within a comparative context in relation to the practice of Turkish nationalism, particularly in Cyprus during the period 1970–91. Through an analysis of a series of interviews conducted with the Turkish ambassadors who served in Cyprus during this specific time period, two main themes are identified. One is the changing and continuing nature of Turkish nationalism throughout the period in question; the other is the implementation and the practice of nationalism in foreign policy by a diverse range of bureaucratic figures, some of whom were considered . appropriate to meet the challenges of change and/or continuity. Inanç’s discussion enables us to consider where diplomats and bureaucrats of the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs stood in the process of the production and practice of nationalism with regard to Turkey’s policy vis-à-vis Cyprus. Introduction xxi

Harry Tzimitras (Chapter 9) shifts our focus to contemporary Greek foreign policy and shows how international law can serve as a tool for asserting national superiority internationally and domestically. According to Tzimitras, references to law in Greek foreign policy have traditionally provided a sense of security against a politically mightier counterpart, in this case Turkey, and guaranteed Greece’s place among the ‘civilized’ nations of Europe, firmly distinguishing it from Turkey’s ‘barbaric’, dangerously revisionist stance. Yet its daily invocation in domestic political discourse and its abuse by various institutions and agents, including the media, Tzimitras notes, turns international law into a form of ‘banal nationalism’, constantly reaffirming and reproducing the image of the law-abiding, righteous nation in the everyday life of its citizens. The second part of the book on nationalisms in Cyprus begins with Michalis N. Michael’s exegesis into the relationship between myths and the construction of a national past among Greek Cypriots. Focusing on three particular events set in the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, Michael shows how the Church of Cyprus and the High Clergy have been appropriated by nationalist historiography in the twentieth century as ‘national’ institutions, symbolizing the nation’s continuity from time immemorial. Yet the narratives propagated by nationalist historiographies are hardly fixed and immutable, as the changing symbolic role of the office of Müftü for the Turkish community of Cyprus shows. According to Altay Nevzat (Chapter 11), Turkish nationalists initially appropriated the office of Müftü to stress their distinctiveness from the island’s pre- ponderant Orthodox Greeks and their equality with this community which possessed its own autocephalous Church. In his study of the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas¸, Niyazi Kızılyürek, in Chapter 12, traces the origins and evolution of Turkish nationalism in Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot community, a numerical minority in Greek Cypriot-dominated Cyprus, discovers the ideology of nationalism as a reaction against the prevailing Greek Cypriot nationalism, and under the influence of modern Turkey and Kemalist ideology. ‘Fear’ is the driving force which mobilizes the Turkish Cypriot community in an attempt to defend itself against the Greek Cypriot domination. In developing a strong tendency for separation, Turkish nationalism in Cyprus reorganized the Turkish community against unification of the island with Greece and for the final partition of the island. Rauf Denktas¸, as the most outspoken Turkish Cypriot nationalist, turned the notion of the partition into his life project, exploiting and politicizing the Turkish xxii Ayhan Aktar, Niyazi Kızılyürek and Umut Özkırımlı

Cypriot fear which was the outcome of the unequal development of the two communities throughout Cypriot modernity. The downfall of Rauf Denktas¸ was again related to the gradual decline of this fear and the growing desire among Turkish Cypriots for living together with the Greek Cypriot community. Sia Anagnostopoulou deals with the reflections of Greek nationalism in Cyprus and studies the tensions created by the failure of Cyprus to become part of Greece and by the eventual imposition of independent statehood. Despite the fact that the Greek Cypriots had to organize their political life under the roof of the Republic of Cyprus, Greece remained as the ‘national centre’, a fact that caused permanent political strains between the Cypriot state and Greece. The general interests of the nation (Hellenism) and the particular interests of the Greek Cypriots entered into a new era of conflict when Nicosia emerged as a ‘second national centre’ where the political decisions were made which influ- enced the life of the entire nation. This dualism was best expressed by Archbishop Makarios who, as an Ethnarch, was loyal to Hellenism, but as the President of the Republic of Cyprus was mainly concerned with the interests of Greek Cypriots. Sia Anagnostopoulou stresses this ‘double role’ of Makarios in analysing his political discourse. In Chapter 14, Caesar V. Mavratsas focuses upon the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriot community in the referendum of 2004 and analyses the background to this rejection by examining the prevailing political culture of the Greek Cypriot community. For Mavratsas, the main reason behind the rejection of the Annan Plan is to be found in the ideology of Greek nationalism in Cyprus which considers the island as a ‘Greek territory’ and turns against any initiative which will lead to living together with Turkish Cypriots on the basis of political equality. In fact, Mavratsas argues, the Greek Cypriot political culture suffers from a ‘double talk’: on the one hand, Greek Cypriot political leaders try to convince the international community that they are willing to find a solution to the Cyprus conflict based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal state, but on the other hand they refuse the political equality of the Turkish Cypriot community. In the last chapter of the book, Stavros Tombazos analyses the historical trajectory of the Greek Cypriot left-wing movement, and its relation to nationalism and anti-imperialist struggle, starting from the Communist Party of Cyprus which was established in 1926 and continuing with AKEL up until today. His main argument centres on the belief that although the Communist Party of Cyprus remained loyal to class politics, AKEL from the very beginning of its establishment in 1941 Introduction xxiii sought to create alliances with the nationalist forces. For Tombazos, the anti-imperialist rhetoric of AKEL is in fact a pretext for its nationalist orientations. Studying AKEL’s political decisions at various critical junc- tures, including the rejection of the Annan Plan in 2004, he ends by arguing that the breakaway from nationalism and alliances of nationalist forces is an urgent need for AKEL if the left-wing movement wants to contribute to the solution of the Cyprus conflict.