Name/Surname Beyza Melis Sağlık Contract No. TR2016/DG/04/A1-02/0759 Sector as of the Application Date(Public Sector-University-Private Sector) University Institution as of the Application Date Hacettepe University Title as of the Application Date...

Ek 1: Bursiyer ve Programa Ait Bilgi Formu

Adı-Soyadı	Beyza Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Sözleşme No.	TR2016/DG/04/A1-02/0759
Başvuru Yaptığı Sektör (Kamu-Üniversite-Özel Sektör)	Üniversite
Başvuru Esnasında Bağlı Bulunulan Kurum	Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Başvuru Esnasında Bağlı Bulunulan Kurumdaki Unvan	Öğrenci
Çalışma Alanı (AB Müktesebat Başlığı)	Dış, Güvenlik ve Savunma Politikaları
Öğrenim Görülen Ülke	Belçika
Öğrenim Görülen Şehir	Brüksel
Programın Öğretim Dili	İngilizce
Üniversite	University of Kent
Fakülte	Brussels School of International Studies
Bölüm	International Conflict and Security
Program Adı	MA
Programın Başlangıç/Bitiş Tarihleri (PDS belgesindeki tarihler)	14.09.2019 / 14.09.2020
Öğrenim Süresi (ay)	12
Tez/Araştırma Çalışmasının Başlığı	Towards a Foucauldian Reading of Identity Formation: The Power Relationships of the Colonial Rule in the Production of the Knowledge of Ethnicity in a Divided Island: Cyprus
Danışmanının Adı/Soyadı	Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx
Danışmanının E-posta Adres/leri	x.xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx

Annex 1: Scholar and Programme Information Form

Name/Surname	Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx
Contract No.	TR2016/DG/04/A1-02/0759
Sector as of the Application Date (Public Sector-University-Private Sector)	University
Institution as of the Application Date	Hacettepe University
Title as of the Application Date	Student
Field of Study (i.e. EU Acquis Chapter)	Foreign, Security and Defence Policy
Country of Host Institution	Belgium
City of Host Institution	Brussels
Language of the Programme	English
Host Institution	University of Kent
Faculty	Brussels School of International Studies
Department	International Conflict and Security
Name of the Programme	MA
Start/End Dates of the Programme (as in the PDS)	14.09.2019 / 14.09.2020
Duration of the Programme (months)	12
Title of the Dissertation/ Research Study	Towards a Foucauldian Reading of Identity Formation: The Power Relationships of the Colonial Rule in the Production of the Knowledge of Ethnicity in a Divided Island: Cyprus
Name of the Advisor	Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx
E-mail/s of the Advisor	x.xxxxxxxxx@xxxx.xx.xx

INTRODUCTION 1

Chapter I: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 4

GOVERNMENTALITY 5

XXXXXXXX AND GOVERNMENTALISM 6

TECHNOLOGIES OF GOVERNMENTALITY 10

MORAL ORTHOPEDICS 11

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 14

2.1 HISTORICAL SOCIOLOGY 15

2.2 GENEAOLOGY 16

2.3 RESEARCH LIMITATIONS 19

CHAPTER III: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 21

CHAPTER IV: EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS 24

4.1 POWER & KNOWLEDGE IN COLONIAL REALITY: GOVERNMENTALITY OF THE BRITISH COLONIALISM 25

4.2 ETHNICIZATION OF EDUCATION 27

4.2.1 PERIOD OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE 29

4.2.2 PERIOD OF DENATIONALIZATION 35

4.3 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS 38

CHAPTER V: POLICY IMPLICATIONS ON EUROPEAN UNION (EU) 40

CONCLUSION 44

BIBLIOGRAPHY 48

ANNEX ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Abstract

By mainly focusing on Xxxxxxxx’x work, this dissertation is specifically structured around the ‘power-knowledge nexus’ and examines the roots of the formed identities in Cyprus by a historical sociological analysis of the system in the colonial period with particular focus on education policies due to its socialization aspect. It argues that communal segregation in schooling and curricula was a deliberate divide-and-rule policy of the British Empire in order to enhance the ethnic consciousness among the communities. Ethnicity, just like any other identity, was institutionalized for the ends of colonial governance. Thus, the research question is: How did the colonial rule of the British Empire in Cyprus produce the knowledge of ethnicity through its education policies? This dissertation also reflects on the contemporary situation with a specific focus on the EU and the motherlands, Turkey and Greece and addresses the security issue by emphasizing the parties’ security concerns and justifications.

Özet

Esas olarak Xxxxxxxx'nun çalışmalarına odaklanarak, bu tez özellikle 'iktidar-bilgi bağı' etrafında yapılandırılmıştır. Kıbrıs'ta oluşan kimliklerin köklerini sömürge dönemindeki sistemin tarihsel sosyolojik analizi ile inceler ve özellikle eğitim politikalarına odaklanır. Bu tez, okul ve müfredettaki toplumsal ayrışmanın, Britanya İmparatorluğu'nun kasıtlı bir böl ve yönet politikası olduğunu ve topluluklar arasında etnik bilinci arttırmak için kullanıldığını savunmaktadır. Etnisite, tıpkı diğer kimlik unsurları gibi, sömürgeci yönetimin amaçları içim kurumsallaştırılmıştır. Dolayısıyla, bu tezin en temel ana araştırma sorusu şudur: İngiliz İmparatorluğu'nun Kıbrıs'taki sömürgeci yönetimi, eğitim politikaları yoluyla etnisite bilgisini nasıl üretti? Bu tez aynı zamanda AB'ye ve anavatan olan Türkiye'ye ve Yunanistan'a odaklanarak ve tarafların güvenlik endişelerini ve gerekçelerini vurgulayarak, günümüz güvenlik konularını incelemektedir..

Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank my supervisor Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx. The doorto his university and VIRTUAL office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble spot. He consistently allowed this research to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever he thought i needed it.

I would also like to express my gratitude to Xxxx Xxxxx for INTRODUCING

me to Xxxxxxxx as well as his support on the way.

I would like to say a special thank you to the Xxxx Xxxxxx Scholarship Programme and its staff who made this research possible in the first place.

I am gratefully indebted to the valuable comments of the dear scholars; Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Xxxxx Xxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx and Xxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx and of my friends; Xxx, Xxxxx, Xxxx and Xxxx.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my family, my boyfriend and all my beloved friends for providing me with their unfailing support, continuous encouragement and for putting upwith my constant mental break-xxxxx throughout year.

This accomplishment would not have been possible without them.

Introduction

Upon its opening to public crossings in April 2003, the main checkpoint of the border which separates the Northern and Southern parts of Cyprus in Nicosia/Lefkoşa witnessed a protest. Alongside the protesters, there was also a donkey native to the island of Cyprus with a fake passport issued for ‘Mr. Cypriot’. Three people in relation to the protest were arrested by the Turkish Cypriot police and made the headlines the next day in the Northern Cyprus’ newspaper Afrika. It was reported as “2 Greeks, 1 Turk and 1 true Cypriot were arrested.” in order to mock the expression of “the only natives of the island of Cyprus are the donkeys” by Xxxx Xxxxxxx, the former president of Northern Cyprus (Şahin, 2011). Such banal terminology was used to stress the ethnic differences between the two communities by implying neither was indigenous to Cyprus except for the wild donkeys of Karpasia/Karpaz (Vural and Özuyanık 2008). Since the early days of conflicts, social and political discourse has been dominated by the similar references to the inter- communal relations between Turks and Greeks. This begs the question of how these identities became the dominant unit of social segregation in the first place1.

The origins of such ethnic identities, which can ,in a way, be referred to as boundaries, have been widely debated by scholars across many different fields. Xxxxxxxx (2015) categorizes these debates under three main ideologies: primordialism, whose main assumption is that ethnic identity is fixed and inherent thus ethnic conflicts stem from ancient hatred between the parties to such conflict (Xxxxxx 1973); instrumentalism, which perceives ethnicity as an instrument resorted by coalitions in order to maximize their benefits on a rational basis (Xxxxxxx 2002); and lastly

1 Adopted from the Dissertation Proposal submitted on March, 2020.

constructivism, which takes identity as a social category that is fluid and can be shaped by an event or series of events (Xxxxxx 2008). This dissertation will be contributing to the discussion by approaching the issue of ethnicity through the lenses of post-structuralism which argues that an accurate understanding of the knowledge would require studying not only the knowledge itself but also the systems of knowledge in which it was produced. No knowledge, hence, is free from power and thus should be viewed uncritically.

By mainly focusing on Xxxxxxxx’x work, the dissertation will specifically be structured around the ‘power-knowledge nexus’ and will examine the roots of the formed identities in Cyprus by a historical sociological analysis of the system in the colonial period with particular focus on education policies due to its socialization aspect. It argues that communal segregation in schooling and curricula was a deliberate divide-and-rule policy of the British Empire in order to enhance the ethnic consciousness among the communities. Ethnicity, just like any other identity, was institutionalized for the ends of colonial governance. Thus, my research question is: How did the colonial rule of the British Empire in Cyprus produce the knowledge of ethnicity through its education policies?

In order to address this research question, this dissertation will begin with an exploration of the theoretical formulation of the key concepts. The first chapter is dedicated to review Xxxxxxxx’x overall stance on colonial-era identity formation under the framework of ‘Power- Knowledge Nexus’ and ‘Governmentality’. It will be followed by the second chapter on Methodology which aims to equip the reader with the analytical tools to determine whether the British Empire utilized ethnic segregation as a form of power. The analysis will be conducted by utilizing historical sociology analysis which is complemented by Xxxxxxxx’x genealogy. This section also highlights the limitations of the research. The third chapter provides a concise

historical background of Cyprus in order to lay a basis for further analysis. It focuses on the chronological timeline of the evolution of the formation of the Turkish and Greek communities and their interactions prior to The British rule. The fourth chapter conducts an in-depth historical sociological analysis within the methodology’s defined scope. The aim of this chapter is to critically analyze the education structure and policies set by the British Empire during its reign -- starting with the analysis of the period of laissez-faire and ending with the period of denationalization. The subsequent fifth chapter reflects on the contemporary situation with a specific focus on the EU and the motherlands, Turkey and Greece and addresses the security issue by emphasizing the parties’ security concerns and justifications. The dissertation ends with the concluding remarks which review and argue how the summation of the work substantiates the hypothesis that by segregating the Cypriot society along ethnical lines, the British Empire generated a deep societal divide that served to the colonial ends at the first place but later accumulated into the conflict of the 60s.

Chapter i: Theoretical Framework

The core theoretical framework for this dissertation is the “power-knowledge nexus”, which revolves around Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx’x view that knowledge emerges as a product of interrelated historical practices and the power relationships of the time. In his own words:

“‘The exercise of power itself creates and causes the emergence of new objects of knowledge and accumulates new bodies of information...the exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power It is not possible for power to be exercised without knowledge. It is impossible for knowledge not to engender power.” (Xxxxxxxx 1980).

By reflecting upon Xxxxxxxx’x understanding, Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2019) argues that such an understanding has mainly two implications. Firstly, power and knowledge are depicted as coterminous. Xxxxxxxx argues that throughout history, the shift from one structure to another in power relations has led to a change in the way society develops knowledge. He rejects the view of knowledge as an objective outcome and sees it rather as a subjective outcome of nominally historical power practices. Through his examination of these practices, he asserts that power cultivates knowledge. Subsequently, Xxxxxxxx contends that knowledge through social practices has the capacity to enforce the norms of power (Xxxxxxxx 1980).

Secondly, he emphasizes that power is not a purely negative concept. In Xxxxxxxx’x words, “we must cease once and for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms such as exclusionary, repressive or concealer because power, rather, ‘produces reality; it produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.” (Xxxxxxxx, 1995).

1.1 Governmentality

Xxxxxxxx attempted to widen his understanding of power by including the art of government in his later work. His interest in ‘the genealogy of government’ and ‘political rationalities’ made him formulate the term gouvernementalité (governmentality) by combining the terms of gouverner (government) and xxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxx) (Xxxxx 0000). By this neologism, Xxxxxxxx stresses “the interdependence between the exercise of government (practices) and mentalities that underpin these practices.” (Fimyar 2008). In other words, governmentality is a form of power exercise that aims to run the subjects governable via distinct methods developed to shape and alter the subject’s conduct. Thus, it problematizes the relationship between the governor (genealogy of the state) and the governed (genealogy of the subject) by rationalizing the forms of power exercises (Xxxxxxxxxx 1993). In this context, Xxxxxxxx does not refer to the government as its modern conceptualization in political terms. Rather, it is used in its general meaning of ‘conduct of conduct’ (Xxxxx 2002). Mentioning the relationships and mechanisms of power reaffirms the presupposition that “certain people exercise power over others.” (Xxxxxxxx 1982). Governmentality is mainly concerned with the specificity of this power relationship and pertains to “techniques and procedures for directing human behaviour” (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2017). Xxxxxxxx questions the rationality of this disciplinary power of the state practices afflicting populations by raising questions such as “by what means is it exercised?” and “what happens when individuals exert (as they say) power over others?” (Xxxxxxxx 1982).

While he provided several definitions for the concept, the most prominent one which is also in the scope of this dissertation, refers to governmentality as “the ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific albeit complex form of power, which has as its target population, as

its principal form of knowledge political economy, and as its essential technical means apparatuses of security” (Xxxxxxxx 2002). Through this system, the regimes, power practices, and pieces of knowledge are to be “structured, internalized, and normalized to exercise power over and through certain sectors of society” (Wyn and White 1997). In short, studying governmentality essentially is to examine the diverse governance practices and the historical state structures in order to draw an analogy of power, knowledge, and government reflected upon state practices (Xxxxxx 2007).

1.2 Colonialism and Xxxxxxxx

Xxxxxxxx'x essay on governmentality argues that a certain mentality, that he termed governmentality, has become the common ground of all modern forms of political thought and action. In his later works, Xxxxxxxx focuses on outlining the genealogy of power by seeking the peculiar historical models through which power has functioned in peculiar ways (Xxxxxx, Xxxx and X’Xxxxx 2004). While Foucauldian concepts and frameworks are also embedded in the

practices of the colonial era, there is almost a calculated absence of the colonial world in his work. It is curious that “for the most part he preserved a scrupulous silence on such issues and has, as a result, been widely criticized for alleged eurocentrism” (Young 2004). However, Xxxxxxxx’x analysis of power-knowledge and governmentality still appears to provide us with the necessary tools to unpick the relationships of colonial Europe. In this synthesis, colonial power can be regarded as the accumulation of practices of the colonial states customarily referring to the “Western European conquest of alien people and the imposition of imperial rule with all its political, economic, and cultural accouterments” (Xxxxxxxx 1971). Concordantly, colonial knowledge refers to those forms and bodies of knowledge that were produced by the colonial states in order to exert domination over their colonized subjects around the world (Xxxxxxx 2003). This domination was dependent not just upon military and political means but also upon the power of knowledge which was formulated as cultural technologies of rule. The colonized subjects were alienated from the means of power and became the subjects of knowledge rather than the objects of knowledge (Xxxxx 2001).

The colonial domination inevitably led to a situation of dependency which systematically subordinated the colonized subject on the basis of the imported culture on many levels (Nwanosike and Onyije 2011). This dependency relationship generated certain structural features. Firstly, the colony was known to be the hinterland of the métropole, which was reproduced through the developments that took place in major institutions of the colonized society. These institutions were structured in a way that would enable the colonizers to maintain the dependency. Ultimately, this order suggested the presence of two distinct societies: a dominant and a dominated society. Xxxxxxxx (2014) identifies two key features of this governmentality structure: the practices of

domination by aliens which serve interests and gains accrue to the alien rules, and being such a rule the aliens attempt to shape the flow of governance in particular ways.

A feature that particularly characterized the colonial power structure of the British Empire was the divide and rule system. The new political system was depicted as a restoration rather than an ad hoc response to the legitimacy crisis. According to Xxxxxxx, this system was the story of the success of the British Empire and its legacy of nurtured local hatreds can be seen “wherever the Union Flag flew, from Muslim-Hindu hatred in Pakistan and India, to Catholic-Protestant hatred in Ireland, to … Jew-Arab hatred in Modern Israel” (Xxxxxxx 2001). The colonial power had the incentive to play two different national claims off against each other. Thus, it was colonial differences that enabled the colonial rule to take segregative actions. According to Xxxxxxxxxx (1993) power was posited on the notion of upholding the colonial differences. The differences that were deployed by the colonial power varied in different contexts (Kalpagam 2014). The colonial powers attributed new and much looser meanings to the pre-existing identities such as caste in India, tribes in Africa, and ethnicity in Cyprus as the signifiers of the social, economic, and political status and produced the notion of colonial differences on the basis of these identities. The colonial rule was what Xxxxxxxx called “an inclusion through exclusion” (Xxxxxx 2006b). In a generic sense, it “invented traditions” in order to forge a restored colonial order bent to the interests of the colonial elite (Xxxxx 2001). The logic of such a rule was to “push the processes of government in the direction of a rationalization of administration and the normalization of the objects of its rule.” (Xxxxxxxxxx 1993).

What is important about colonial segregation is that it constructed the definition of the other which is needed to define one’s self-identities. As Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx (2011) argue, there is no us without them. The sense of identity comes from the sense of opposition and

complementarity: we are what they are not. Unless there is an opposition and complementarity between the social groups, they could ignore each other at all odds. Thus, what causes the clashes between these social groups is their identity-based differences (Xxxxxxxx 1985). Ethnicity being the main unit of analysis for this dissertation, ethnic groups denote to “a collectivity of people who are united by a cultural or emotional bond and form part of a larger population with whom they compete for political, social and economic resources” (Xxxxx and Muura 2014). Members of these groups are often conscious of their belonging to a certain group. Furthermore, they build their identities on the notion of the other’s distinctiveness. Building an identity may refer to either the content of the …such as the belief among the Greek Cypriots that they cannot live with Turkish Cypriots and vice versa, or the boundary rules, such the belief among the Turkish Cypriots that they are Turkish and among the Greek Cypriots that they are Greek (Battle 2012; Korostelina 2014).2

Colonial societies are known to accommodate several different ethnic groups under the rule of one colonial regime (Xxxxxxxx 1985). The regime is established on maintaining its power by promoting unequal balance of power between the ethnic groups, meaning that the groups lack equal access to power structures and resources. Thus, ethnic segregation is a structural strategic by-product of the colonial elite’s effort to hold or acquire power (Furnivall 2014).

As seen in the definition of Xxxxx and Xxxxx (2014), each group, consciously or unconsciously, uses their ethnic identity as an instrument to gain control over these structures and resources. As a result, ethnic stratification intensifies due to those power struggles. The main question arising here is “how elites can convince their followers to adopt false beliefs and take actions that the followers would not want to take if they understood what the leaders were up to”

2 See the work of Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2008 for a further discussion on the role of ethnicity on intergroup structures.

(Xxxxxx and Xxxxxx 2000). Thus, what the British colonial elite did was to spread such an ethnic consciousness to the base by implementing certain policies, education being a key field. So that the identities of Turk and Greek are reproduced “through the everyday actions of ordinary folk, that is, “on the ground” (Ibid.).

1.3 Technologies of Governmentality

Policy is central to the Foucauldian analysis of power and governmentality, being one of the three technologies of power, the other two being economic and diplomatic/military (Denzin and Xxxxxxxx 2006). In Foucauldian terms, policy refers to the instrumental level of government and implicates the channels through which certain power practices are conceived and enforced (Xxxxxx 2006). It is facilitated by the state to control the behavior of the populations via biopolitics3, which allows a certain degree of state intervention into the everyday lives of citizens. All the practices of power “work toward disciplining through normalizing” (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2006). Through his study, Flyvbjerg (1998) also provides a striking illustration of how policy serves to rationalize the pursuit of the powerful interests of the rulers.

Within the body of policy studies, a critical approach to educational policies did not emerge until the 1980s. The emerging notion of schools being one of the sites of cultural reproduction brought about scholar interest in the field (Xxxxxxxx and Passeron 1990). As part of a broader critique of social reproduction, discourse, and the state under advanced capitalism, the research on educational policy was enriched by the contributions of Foucauldian perspective, which regards

3 Biopolitics is about “control over relations between the human race, or human beings insofar as they are as species, insofar as they are living beings, and their environment, the milieu in which they live” (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2003).

policy as a practice of power—that is, the production of normative discourse for the reproduction of inequality, hegemony, and subordinated political subjects (Xxxxxx 2006b). Xxxxxxxx'x development of ideas on the field went hand in hand with the development of new educational procedures and relays through which individual and collective subjects could be managed, their contexts could be regulated, their capacities could be augmented, and their effects could be channeled to governance (Ibid.)

The production of education policy as a contested political process in which dominant groups position themselves best to order an education system in its own vision and interests nurture the relations of power and knowledge (Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2009. In this sense, the focus is to lay out a theoretical framework to analyze the reflections of educational policy practices on the power-knowledge nexus. Accordingly, it aims to examine how the pedagogical experience, called education, has been produced through historical forms of constraint and their analytical corollaries, discourses of teaching, and learning. Given renewed interest at the federal level in the relationship of educational research, policy, and practice, what would it mean to put Xxxxxxxx to work to foreground the complications and interrupt assumptions of a tidy, linear relationality between education and the production of knowledge?

1.4 ‘Moral Orthopedics’

In the early modern world, it was not yet a foregone conclusion that the schools would become the chief socializing mechanism intermediate between the family and the world of work. Prior to schools being the predominant forms of modern education, the main institutions offering education were family, salvation, and apprenticeships. Schooling has been a disciplinary response to the need to manage growing populations and meet the greater demand for education, and it

emerged as a generalized method of education, resulting in the institutionalization of education (Xxxxx 1981). Central to the Foucauldian account of education is the examination of the power- knowledge mechanisms through which populations can be controlled, also known as Moral Orthopedics (Xxxxxx 2006b). Depicting schooling as “the pedagogical manipulation of space and time”, Xxxxxxxx points to the production and circulation of knowledge under the control of power- holding bodies (Xxxxxx 2006a). Early forms of schooling, among many other strategies, intended to rationalize the governance of the populations. This rationalization passes through certain stages, each of which was characterized by distinct techniques of discipline and regulation. It, first and foremost, aimed at rationalizing the management of individuals. Its functions were for a long time largely restrictive and negative, containing social problems rather than promoting social development (Xxxxxx 2006b). Through time, it became clearer that school was not merely an institution that offered education; but also, a platform through which individuals are excluded from the rest of society in order to entangle them to relations of power and knowledge. It was in constant pedagogical competition with the institutions from the previous era (Xxxxxx 2006a).

Only once schools had begun to demonstrate their peculiar mastery of disciplinary techniques for managing people, under pressures emanating as much from below and from the peripheries as from above and the center, did systematic instruction and its instrument, the school, appear as more than merely one amongst many competing strategies. As the colonial economy expanded, formal education was increasingly the means of transference from the old social order to the new, as well as for upward mobility within the colonial society (Baber 2001). From its inception, the system of education, which evolved in colonized states, served to maintain pre- existing social inequalities, as well as to engender new social cleavages. Along these lines, colonial educational systems within the British Empire frequently segregated students based on ethnicity

and race and granted ethnic communities considerable control over their schools, and education in former British colonies potentially institutionalized ethnic cleavages and competition (Lange 2009). Colonial educational policies xxx xxxx be seen as crucial instruments to aid this strategy of "efficient exploitation", efficiency being judged mainly on an economic cost/return basis (Altbach and Xxxxx 1984).

Chapter ii: Methodology

The adequate exploration of how identity formation is designed within the colonial regime in Cyprus necessitates an effort to recover and understand the power practices of political and social control in the late 19th and early 20th century in Cyprus. Hence, this dissertation, on the one hand, is engaged with the historical sociology approach. Historical sociology, to answer the question posed in the title, studies the historical transformations in societies, the events and conjunctions that paved the way for those transformations, and the further social conditions that those transformations brought about (Xxxxxxxx 2013). The aspects of historical sociology also attracted Xxxxxxxx’x interest, which was reflected in his search for vicissitudes of history and emergence of things (Xxxxxxx and Isin 2003).

Consequently, he developed the method of genealogy as a standard where the grounds of the true and the false grounds come to be distinguished via power mechanisms. Thus, this dissertation applies Xxxxxxxx’x method of genealogy to the units of the research. It aims to bring an understanding of identity formation by examining its emergence and descent. Given the multilayered nature of the Cyprus Issue, this project resists a reduction to a clear and concise methodology. It attempts to stick to a synthetic method that would allow us to study the historical narratives in the light of theoretical implications.

2.1 Historical Sociology

Historical sociology builds its epistemology on the knowledge of historical reality. It criticizes the historians’ general intention on studying “what happened” in the past as it finds such a purpose both empirically and theoretically misguided. According to Xxxxx (1981), such an intention is “hopeless” for several reasons. Firstly, he argues that the information about history is almost infinite and surpasses the limits of any historians to collect the whole information and to provide a comprehensive analysis. That’s why historians often end up with only a small proportion of the available sources to conduct their research. Secondly, the things that happened in the past can be relatable and complementary to the current literature only when historians provide relative interpretations and raise questions based on the material they examine. Thus, history sociologists aim to extend the scope of the writing and studying history to a “unique explanatory frame,” which would not primarily focus on the “pastness” of the phenomenon but instead on the “representation” of events (Xxxxxxx 1992).

Historical sociologists see history and sociology as complementary fields considering the sociologists’ tendency to “get caught in illusions of the present” and historians’ potential to “be trapped by the limits of their own empirical data if not aided by theory” (Xxxxxxx and Xxxx 2003). Historical sociology serves as an intermediary model to fill in the “empty theoretical boxes” in history. Xxxxx, the researcher’s task is to utilize historical evidence while providing a theoretical basis to capture the patterns in the past regarding societal changes (Xxxxxxx 1994). Later, those patterns serve to interpret the contemporary phenomena to clarify a trajectory that included the present and understanding the options open, the paths closed, and the forces at work (Xxxxxxx 1980).

Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx has been one of the most influential scholars on historical sociology with his work centered around a variety of themes such as knowledge, power, and governance which raise “methodological-theoretical questions about continuity and discontinuity in historical change and the historical specificity and embeddedness of categories of knowledge” (Xxxxxxx and Isin 2003).

2.2 Genealogy

In his essay, Xxxxxxxxx, Genealogy, History, Xxxxxxxx (1977) deconstructs the critique of traditional history by Xxxxxxxx. He begins by introducing particular phrases used by Xxxxxxxxx in the analysis. These phrases are discussed within the constructed framework of “wirkliche Historie” by Xxxxxxxx, which can be understood as effective history. Xxxxxxxxx makes a distinction between wirkliche Historie and the prevailing historical narratives, “because it is not based on any constancy”; as Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx (2018) argues, “history will be effective insofar as it reintroduces the discontinuous in our own way of being.” According to Xxxxxxxx, history in a traditional sense is concerned with Xxxxxxxx, discovering the truth of historical origins, whereas effective history should be concerned with the mapping of Herkunft, the descent, of a phenomenon through history and Entstehung, its historical emergence (Xxxxxxxx 1977). These are three essential features of Xxxxxxxx’x analysis and are understood as below.

Firstly, he states that he is also not concerned with the Ursprung (origin). He argues that genealogy is not an attempt to trace the origins as such an attempt would indispensably assign an essence to things. Rather than abstract ideas, Xxxxxxxx pursues the vicissitudes of history (Xxxxxx 2009). Secondly, genealogy studies Herkunft. Meaning descent, Herkunft aims to pursue “subtle,

singular, and sub-individual marks that might intersect in [an individual, sentiment, or idea] to form a network that is difficult to unravel” (Xxxxxxxx 1977). Accordingly, it examines the patterns and incidents that produce knowledge. Lastly, genealogy studies Entstehung, which refers to emergence. The emergence of knowledge stems from the power struggle between the internal subjects or their struggle against external conditions. Thus, one must study the emergence of a phenomenon through its formulation by power domination, which is also central to Xxxxxxxx’x power-knowledge nexus (Xxxxx 2001). Xxxxxxxx argues that this methodology would allow the writing of an effective history. While searching for origins holds the potential to hide and ignore the relationship between knowledge and power, the search for the descent and emergence serves to uncover that relationship. As the object of the genealogy exists in the present, the history of its emergence and “the bringing to light of the historical power struggles that sired it” is its goal (Xxxxxx 2009). This dissertation aligns itself with Xxxxxxxx’x stance on genealogical history. It engages in genealogy to dig into how colonial power operated in the emergence of knowledge of ethnic identity and how it was utilized as the dominant practice of governance segregation. Thus, to understand the everyday colonial segregative practices, this dissertation aims to deconstruct the vocabulary of ethnic identity and education.

Even though Xxxxxxxx ensures his readers that his primary concern in his work is not identity formation, particularly racism, he still addresses “the birth of state racism” through which he provides insights that compel the reader’s attention (Stoler 1995). He reads racism as a crucial element of state power used as a form of purification to legitimize state violence (Xx Xxxxxxxxx 2011). He questions where the enemy is constructed and concludes that it is organically located within the governance structures (Xxxxxx and Besley 2014). Xxxxxxxx’x positioning on racism contributed to the literature by its distinctive and prescient analysis in several ways (Stoler 1995):

firstly, instead of focusing on the meanings of race, he is concerned with the power mechanisms and discourses which race is embodied into the state structures and reconceived through. He examines the concept as an infusion of vocabulary with different political meanings. Secondly, “the changing force of racial discourse is not understandable in terms of clean semantic breaks. Again, what occupies Xxxxxxxx are the processes of recuperation, of the distillation of earlier discursive imprints, remodeled in new forms” (Stoler 1995). Thirdly, as the most crucial distinction to this dissertation’s analysis, he argues that 19th-century racism is not reinforced through the biological scientific meaning of racism but rather through the normalizing power of the state (Paternek 1987). 19th-century science may have set the basis for the legitimization of the biological racial classifications, but it does so by drawing on the vocabulary of the early struggle of races (Stoler 1995).

To acquire the British accounts of ethnic identity formation, this dissertation studies the central aspect of the British colonial empire’s education policies on the islands in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It consists of an analysis of 19th and 20th-century British documents accessed through secondary sources (Lange 2009; Xxxxxxx 2005; Xxxxxxxxx 2008), especially colonial reports, legal documents and intra-government communication, and education materials. The period was a time of significant political and educational events contributing to the transformation of local identities from religious to ethnonational ones. Even though this dissertation mainly focuses on the period of laissez-faire, it does not abstain from reflecting on the following periods. It argues that the phenomena of the era were systematically utilized by the colonial empire to promote Greek and Turkish identities, respectively, to xxxxxx antagonism between them. The problem that this dissertation aims to pose is neither the origins of ethnic identity nor its issues reflected on the colonial grounds. Instead, it is a matter of showing how a specific political,

sociological, and historical knowledge cannot be studied independently of the power mechanisms of the state, institutions, or any other power-holding bodies and vice versa.

Even though this dissertation focuses on the power dynamics of colonial rule to understand identity formation on the island, it refrains from essentializing any cause. It thus acknowledges the existence of complexities in history and the interdependence between those complexities. As Abbott (1991) argues, “there is never any level at which things are standing still. All is historical.” and “since no cause ever acts except in complex conjuncture with others, it is chimerical to imagine the world in terms of independent causal properties acting in and through independent causes”.

2.3 Research Limitations

As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations. The findings of this study have to be seen in the light of these limitations. The first one regards the material used in the study and possible biases of the researcher, also known as internal limitations. This dissertation mainly draws on the findings of the secondary sources. Even though there are several references to the primary sources such as Foreign Office Documents, Colonial Reports, Textbooks and Curriculums, these are accessed by the cited researchers’ previous studies. While designing and conducting the research, the dissertation concluded that secondary sources would be optimal considering the scope, time, and budget of the study. On the other hand, it also sought to find a vested interest in the materials and followed independent analytical research. Due to the nature and design of the research and theoretical implications, the dissertation develops a relativist approach that argues that there is no such a thing as “achieving absolute knowledge of the world”.4

4 See White, 1983 for detailed discussion on ‘Absolute Knowledge’ by Xxxxx.

However, even such an approach has its inherent paradigm being that it does not leave any scope for internal dissent about fundamentals. Thus, it acknowledges that the validity of any knowledge is relative to its social location (Xxxxxxxxxx and Gomm 1997).

The second scope of limitation is concerned with external limitations such as constraints in the time scope, access to archives, language barriers, and general challenges. Due to the limited time and scope of the research, this dissertation lacks detailed explanations for several issues, such as the Ottoman Empire’s policies, which were crucial for the development of communal segregation in the first place. Also, as the dissertation’s scope was the identity formation rather than the conflict itself, it does not provide the reader with an insight into the conflict years. Due to the available sources being mostly in Greek and English and not in Turkish, and the limited availability of the archives due to COVID-19 regulations, the dissertation draws mainly on the secondary English sources. The primary design of the research was to employ archive research in Turkey and Cyprus, which would equip the writer with access to valuable primary sources accumulated throughout history. However, the travel regulations due to COVID-19 put a burden on the search. Also, the writer’s exposure to the Turkish education system for many years might have implications on their cultural biases towards general issues. Yet, the writer attempted to utilize a self-reflexive method throughout each stage. Lastly, with the changing regulations and procedures due to COVID-19, access to several books, online libraries, and working areas provided by the University of Kent were severely limited.

Chapter II: Historical Background

Cyprus has a population of around 1.2 million. It is currently de facto partitioned into two spheres: the South which is administered by the Republic of Cyprus and accounts for 60% of the island and the North which is under the control of the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is only recognized by Turkey. The dominant international view sees the Northern Region as occupied by the Turkish forces. The population is made of several ethnic groups, comprising of 80% Greek Orthodox Community, 18% Turkish Muslim Community and a very small percentage of Maronite, Latin and Armenian minority. Attalides (1979) examines the history of the island under three distinct phases: the phase of coexistence, the phase of separation and conflict, and trends in the present.

The two communities first came into contact with each other upon the occupation of the island by the Ottoman Empire from its former sovereign, the Republic of Venice, in 1571. While the presence of Muslims in Cyprus precedes the Ottoman conquest of 1571, it was not until the post-conquest era that a considerable amount of Muslim community settled in the island (Xxxxxx and Hatay 2009). As part of the Ottoman settlement policy, soon after the occupation, Ottoman rule was imposed through the placement of Ottoman military forces. Almost four thousand men were involved, about a thousand soldiers from the military elite of the Janissaries and Spahis, and a small force of almost 2800 cannoneers to garrison the castles. However, the island was still suffering from under-population, thus consequently from low levels of agriculture. Thus, The Ottomans responded to this crisis by settling Anatolian peasants in the island, which was a form of forced population that was popular in the Ottoman administration. However, there is no consensus amongst scholars with regard to the number and composition of the Muslims of that era (Xxxxxxxxx 2010).

Upon Cyprus falling under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, the Sharia law and millet system were gradually imposed on the island. The Christian population of the island, predominantly Greek Orthodox community, gained the zımmi status which was given to non- Muslim subjects of the Empire. They were subjected to pay certain taxes such as cizye in return for their partial autonomy and protection to be provided by the Empire. The millet system “was a form of indirect rule based on religious difference” (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2016). It based the administration of the communities on religion rather than ethnicity as “the boundaries of the two did not necessarily coincide, religion being a qualitatively wider category in classifying people than their ethnicity” (Xxxxxx and Hatay 2009). This system’s individual identity was determined by one’s membership in a religious community thus fostering and institutionalizing a religioun- based identity. The system allowed the regime to divide the populations into communities and to devolve partial powers to the community leaders who would serve as intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. The communities mostly enjoyed a great amount of autonomy in their communal realms (Barkan and Xxxxxx 2015). It was evident that the Sharia law favored the Muslims, in this case the Turkish communities in the islands. Until the end of the 18th century, this situation did not cause any tension between the communities (Cassia 1986). As a matter of fact, the Ottomans were welcome on the island in the first place, mainly because 'they hate the Latins more than the Turks' and the Church certainly benefited from its political responsibilities” (Xxxxx 1976). The church had the partial autonomy which gave it the power to administer its community’s own affairs. Even though the Ottoman rule kept the religious communities bureaucratically separate, as Kızılyürek (2016) maintains, there was a long period of coexistence. There is also evidence to suggest that the two ethnic communities had inter-marriage relationships

during the 19th century (Morag 2004). Also, there were numerous incidents, both communities allied together and formed an oppositional front to the Ottoman rule.

Starting from the late 18th century, the Russian Empire emerged as a serious threat to Ottoman sovereignty. Thus, the Ottomans were in search of an ally in order to protect their territories. Through the Congress of Berlin in 1879, Britain pledged to respect and defend the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire against Russian aggression in exchange for taking over the administration of the island of Cyprus. While the island formally stayed under Ottoman sovereignty under the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, the British used the island as a place d'armes as announced by British Prime Minister, Xxxxxxxx (Hunt and Coldstream 1982)

Chapter iv: Empirical Analysis

Cyprus presents a distinctive contemporary case, known as the Cyprus Dispute. While the formation of a multiethnic society upon the withdrawal of the colonial regime is not peculiar to the Cypriot state, the prolongation of the conflict hosting one of the most prolonged standing peacekeeping missions makes it a unique case. Caught amid contested interests, colonial heritage, and divided society, Cyprus remains to be an unresolved political question (Xxxxxxxx 2006). While there are many sources available in the literature focusing on the conflict years, the previous eras have not attracted the interests of many scholars Periods of happiness (periods of non-conflict), as Xxxxx et al. (1992) claim, are the blank pages in history, which is also valid in the case of Cyprus The literature on the dispute is dominated by the narratives that read the conflict based on primordial discourses that treat the ethnic identities primordial.5 They lack problematizing the construction of these ethnic identities in the previous eras. They often neglect to acknowledge the colonial dimension in the partition of the island and its contributions to the erection of borders between the communities of Greek and Turkish Cypriots by fueling the antagonisms and distrust (Gregoriou 2004).

This dissertation aims to take a structuralist approach to uncover the power structures that underlie the relationship between the two communities. First, how did the historical trajectory of British colonialism influence the shaping of the respective schooling on the island? Second, how did the segregated education, in turn, promote the two local ethnic identities? To uncover the roots of the consolidation of the two local ethnic identities on the island, this dissertation describes the

5 Please see Hadjipavlou, 2007 for a detailed discussion on the implications of primordialism on Cyprus Dispute.

main aspects of British colonial education policy on the island and their reflections on educational events that contributed to the transformation of local identities from religious to ethnic ones.

4.1 Power & Knowledge in Colonial Reality: Governmentality of the

British Colonialism

Known as the ‘empire on which the sun never set,’ the control of the British Empire spread worldwide through its colonies (Xxxxxx 2009). Reflecting the gouvernementalité of the British empire towards Cyprus, the rulers utilized several strategic tools to maintain the “vast support of staff of clerks, technicians, teachers, and medics who handled the day-to-day tasks of colonialism” (Xxxxxxx 2003). The British recognized public authorities, gave them powers, and collaborated with them to maintain colonial control of the land and its peoples. This form of representative government can be understood by looking at the conceptualization of it by Xxxx (2010). He argues that the coexistence of different nations under the same government can be beneficial for governance desirable until the “undeveloped” countries are educated into (a British-styled form of) self-government, in an atmosphere of respect for the differences they present. He also makes a distinction regarding the representative government between the British colonies of European and non-European origins. He argues that they represent the civilized and barbarian stages of development, respectively. He divides them into two classes, saying that the British possessions in America and Australia have been composed in a similar way to the ruling country’s civilization and are capable of, and ripe for, representative government (Xxxxxxxx 2016). They are “the dependencies whose population is in a sufficiently advanced state to be fit for representative government” (Mill 2010). The others, like India as he argues, are still at a considerable distance from achieving that state (Ibid.).

The British adoption of the policy of representative government in hinterlands demonstrates “the process of politicization of presumed group cleavages,” which augured the future intergroup, which increasingly segregated the two communities, at the individual, group, and institutional levels (Pollis 1973). Such gouvernementalité brought along certain segregatory power practices that would serve to consolidate the colonial power. As in other British colonies, Cyprus was under a system of indirect rule through limited self-government and this marked the beginning of the phase of separation and conflict. From its outset, the Legislative Xxxxxxx’x composition and its decision-making process illustrated that colonial administration wanted a form of parliamentarianism to be used to advance British colonial objectives and solidify Great Britain’s political control over the island above all. Based on the doctrine of divide-and-rule, the colonial rulers found it expedient to use the Turkish Muslim community to check Greek political demands (Morag 2004).

The Legislative Council became the forum where Great Britain’s divide-and-rule policy became evident. The very make-up of the Legislative Council and its legislative process contributed to perpetuating differences between the two communities, which ultimately served the colonial interests. The 1882 Constitution provided that the Legislative Council was composed of eighteen members in total. Nine were Xxxxxxxxx Greek, three were Muslim Turkish, and six were appointed by the High Commissioner who had the casting vote. This equation worked at the Greek political disadvantage as the British Administration depended on the three votes of the Turkish ethnic minority to offset the nine votes of the Greeks. It seems that the new council of the 1882 Constitution not only did provide a base for bi-communal cooperation but promoted animosity between the two ethnic communities (Xxxxxxxxx 2019).

The political powers of the Orthodox/Greek and Islamic/Turkish authorities were limited by the active interference of the colonial government in everyday life. The religious authorities of each community were given two primary powers. First, the British recognized them as representatives of their respective communities and consulted them over policy issues. Second, they were given considerable control over the provisioning of communal goods and services. The most notable of these was education. Educational settings were seen as the ground on which the knowledge of ethnicity could be instrumentalized and enhance colonial power. Consequently, public authorities were given extensive—but not full—control over the staffing and curriculum of schools, and education was thoroughly ethnicized (Lange 2009).

4.2 Ethnicization of Schooling

Almost a century-long British rule on the island and its control over education was primarily dominated by the response to “what knowledge is of most worth,” originally posed by (Xxxxxxx 1865), both in ideological and practical terms. In the early years of the acquisition of Cyprus, the British authorities stated that education structures were “equally primitive” to the ambiguous governance of the state and the indifference of the population (Xxxxxx and O’Brien 1930). The colonial take-over of Cyprus was slowly done through a combined policy of “control through assimilation” and “conquest by regulation” (Xxxxxxxxx 2004). Over time, this practice was articulated in the enhancement of ethnonational awareness (Morag 2004). Thus, the British implemented several policies and mechanisms to reform those structures in a modernizing and civilizing manner. These included “a shift from a decentralized system of educational policy and

administration, instituted and regulated by the British themselves at the beginning, toward a more centralized system” (Gregoriou 2004).

This shift can be observed in the two periods of laissez-faire (1878 till the early 1930s) and denationalization (mid-1930s till 1960) distinguished by Persianis (1978). The laissez-faire period was characterized by the fewer interventionist policies of the British Empire in the education field. When the British took over the control, the political reality of the island already coincided with the British policy of indirect rule. Thus, they solely needed to redefine the identities of the communities in light of the new political situation which would reinforce colonial rule. This era experienced a shift from religion-based identity to an ethnicity-based one in communal sense (Xxxxxxxx 1985). This period was followed by the period of denationalization through which the Empire pursued a more active policy on educational matters mainly because of Cyprus becoming a Crown Colony. Also, the British were triggered by the rising nationalist aspirations among the communities. By abandoning their segregative practices, they aimed to establish a more unified Cyprus but failed to do so.

What is important in this point of the analysis is that the reader must not be mistaken by the delusion that the fact that British abandoned their segregative policies in the second era would

,by any means, mean that governmentality and ethnicity lost its importance as a level of analysis. Such a shift was generated by mainly the decolonization attempts and nationalist movements, thus the knowledge of ethnicity maintained to be both a challenge and complement to the colonial power structure. This study does not go in depth into neither the decolonization nor the nationalization readings of the era but acknowledges their relevance for a more extensive understanding of the identity formation. Even though the type of knowledge production differed in both eras, what they both had in common was the Empire’s incentive to prevent any type of

oppositional front that would challenge the colonial power. Moreover, the Empire , in both eras, utilized education as a means to create and institutionalize a certain type of knowledge of identity. As Xxxxxxxx (1980) suggested, neither the power nor the knowledge was static. They were in a constant transformation depending on the political conditions.

4.2.1 PERIOD OF LAISSEZ-FAIRE

When the British Empire took over the island, there were already pre-established religious schools by the Ottoman Empire. However, the British restructured the educational mechanisms6. The duties, such as the determining and enforcing the regulations for teachers, the supply and maintenance of education institutions and the formulation of school curriculum were allocated to the three different bodies: Town or Village School Committees, the District Committees, and the Boards of Education, all of which were assigned independently to the Greek and Turkish communities. Every school was solely linked to one community. The District Committees composed of a total of six members, four elected and two ex-officio members who were the District Commissioner and the Bishop of the District, and were assigned by the Colonial Office. The Committee was responsible for the regulations for teachers and were to hear appeals from the Town or Village Committees. The Town or Village Communities were equipped with roughly the same responsibilities as the District Committees but had specialties regarding their area. The Boards of Education consisted of three groups of members: one group elected by the District Committee, one group nominated by the Greek or Turkish members of the Legislative Council, and one group of ex-officio members representing the interests of ethnic groups they belonged to.

6 See Xxxx, 1952 for a detailed analysis of the education system in Cyprus.

The Boards were primarily assigned with the duty to formulate the curriculum to be used in schools and to provide the Colonial Office with the recommendations for the grants to be given to schools and the number of teachers to be recruited (Gregoriou 2004).

The first half of the colonial rule was characterized by the dominance of Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, the Colonial Secretary of the era, in the politics of the island. Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx defined two main principles of the colonial education policies in Cyprus (Georghallides 1979). The first one was that these policies should be tailored to the needs and conditions of the colonial regime in Cyprus. In other words, he opposed a standardized Anglicizing understanding of the previousadministrators, such as Xxxxxxxx and the Reverend Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx. The second one was targeting the population of the island. Kimberley argued that the Regime should not engage in any activities that would lead to the formation of an oppositional front against the Empire among the population. Thus, he suggested limited interference by the Empire in the educational affairs through mere participation in the administrative arrangements. The ‘laissez-faire’ tactic of the Empire led to the formation of the educational policy in Cyprus to be “very easy” (Persianis 1978). The communities principally followed the educational practices of their mother nations, Greece and Turkey, and adapted to almost every single policy introduced in these countries (Ibid.). The implementation of the policy dealt with many aspects from the curriculum to governance, administration, and assessments. Hence, the education bodies of the islands were disregarded in the decision-making process, blocking the way for the formation of a comprehensive and inclusive policy (Koutselini and Persianis 2000).

The Colonial Administration’s concern that co-education could trigger the formation of an opposition among the population prompted the Board of Education’s endorsement of ethnically

segregated education. This segregation was not sought solely on a functionalist tone (Xxxxxxxxx 2004). Rather, the belief was that the ethnicity matters in society existed for so long and it should stay that way. According to Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (1946) who was an educator in and a subject of the British Empire at the time, it was deemed necessary to conserve and prosper the existing differences that were much deeper than just religion and language. Thus, the Regime suggested that it would be to the benefit of the society and of itself to respect the societal structure rather than attempting to overcome it , which would be against reality.7

When the British took over the island from the Ottomans, the majority of the population was illiterate. The schooling was fairly limited, and the schools could only be found in big cities such as Nicosia/Lefkoşa, Limassol/Limasol and Larnaca/Tuzla. With the reforms introduced by the Colonial Office, the education received a major impetus. There was a systematic attempt to increase the number of schools and pupils (Pollis 1973). Notwithstanding financial constraints, some progress had been made by the end of the century. For example, the Empire transformed one of the well-known high schools in Nicosia/Lefkoşa, Nicosia/Lefkoşa High School into a teacher training school apart from it serving as a secondary school (Persianis 1996) . Also, the state aid system was reformed. During the Ottoman rule, only the Turkish-community schools were able to benefit from the state educational aid. However, the British made this aid available to the Greek community. Moreover, the state aid had increased to an average subsidy of £15,40 per school by 1886 While there were only 91 schools in Cyprus in 1881, the number increased to 273 by 1901 (Katsiaounēs 1996). Xxxxxxxxxxx (1976) attributes these reforms not only to the budget allocated to the education but also to the social mobility among the society demanding for higher literacy and

7 As the original work of Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is in Greek, this part is adapted from the interpretation of Xxxxxx, 2001 on their work.

for better and more education. The increasing demand also bore the need to employ more teachers. The teachers for the community schools were imported from the mother states.

The attempts of the British Empire to modernize and secularize the society in a Western manner encountered resistance from both communities and led them to, instead, model their mother nations on their educational practices. The schools devoted a lot of time to history teaching which was mainly based on the mother nations’ heroic narratives as can be seen in Table 1 below. Inevitably, the youth was socialized into the members of these imagined communities with strong ethnic ties (Kanno and Norton 2003). As it was discussed on Xxxxxxxx’x stance on education, the classrooms were used for the pedagogical manipulation of the pupils in order to produce knowledge which would be in line with power norms. The history narratives were structured in a way that the history of Cyprus was only an extension of either the history of Greece or the history of the Ottoman Empire/Turkey. The introduction of the history of Cyprus is relatively new (Photiou 2005).

Table 1: Narratives of the History of Cyprus (Xxxxxxxxx, 2008, p.15)8

The Greek elementary school curriculum of 1898 was composed of Greek history and language and the fundamental sciences such as math, physics, geography, etc. The history and language dominated curriculum intended to follow an education policy to raise Hellenic citizens. The youth was taught to be the guardians of the Hellenic culture (Pinar 2014). Xxxxxx was the political destiny of the island, thus the education was the structure to set an intellectual basis for this purpose. In a short time, schools became the centers where the teachers were imported from mainland Greece and young Greek Cypriot students were sent to mainland Greece to create a common national consciousness based on historical narratives which glorified the Hellenic pride (Bénéï 2012). The majority of the history textbooks utilized in these schools mainly focused on the conflicts and animosities between Greece and Ottoman Empire (later Turkey). The Greek textbooks also excluded the Turkish community from the ‘imagined community’ by emphasizing

8 Even though the table reflects on the curriculum of 1974, the scholar suggests that it demonstrates the accumulated knowledge of ethnic segregation.

the Greekness of the Greek Cypriot population based on religion and language and by depicting the Turkish community as ‘archenemies’ of the Greeks (Xxxxxxxxx 2008).

The main shift in the Greek Cypriot schooling narratives was the one from Christianity to Hellenism, from a religious-wise affiliation to an ethnic-wise affiliation. This shift was mainly based on the secularist policies of the British Empire. The Greekness was not defined by religion anymore. Rather, it was defined by Greek language, Hellenic culture, and indivisible Cypriot territory. As stated in the cover page of one of the major history textbooks of Greek Cypriot curriculum, “Cyprus is and has been Greek and nothing but Greek” and “Cypriots were and are Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx.”.9All the books taught at schools use the word Cypriots (Kyprioi) as synonyms with Greeks (Ellines). The aim of these practices was to inculcate in the pupils the ethnonational consciousness that would imply that Greeks were the only true population of the island and the presence of another group would threaten their identities (Ibid.)

Similar to the Greek system, Turkish Cypriots also imported their education material from the Ottoman Empire/Turkey to be utilized in the schools. In the school books, the term Our Motherland Turkey was widely employed. The Turkish Cypriots were depicted as ‘Turks’ and the Cypriot territory was associated with the Turkish borders (Xxxxxx and Hatay 2015). As a school textbook states, “from historical-geographical, strategic and economic perspectives, Cyprus is connected to Anatolia”, whereas “for Greece, Cyprus has no significance at all neither from a historical nor from a strategic perspective” (Ibid.) Also, the education materials regarding the history and geography of Cyprus started to be taught at Turkish schools in a much earlier time than the Greek schools. The history textbooks depict the arrival of the Ottomans as the heroes which come to the help of the Greek Cypriots under the oppression of Venetians. Thus, the Greek

9 See the work of Xxxxxxxxx,2008 for the originals of covers of the textbooks.

Cypriots were portrayed as betrayers of a tolerant Empire (Kızılyürek 1999). Furthermore, the education material and officials referred to the Greek Cypriots as ‘Rum’ which is a term that is designated to describe the descendants of the Byzantine Roman Empire who inhabit in the land of the Ottoman Empire and that “in Turkish is currently usually employed to refer to three categories: the Greek Orthodox community (Rum milleti) living in the Ottoman Empire, present-day Greeks living in Turkey and Greek Cypriots” (Lytra 2014). For the Greeks of mainland Greece, they employ the term Yunan (Ionian). The term Rum, therefore, embodies an implicit treatment of the Greek Cypriot as the previous subjects of the Ottoman Empire and defines a differentiation between Greeks and Greek Cypriots. This differentiation was utilized to deny the Greek Cypriots claims to the Greek identity and consequently to the idea of enosis (Serter 1990). The use of “Rum” for Greek Cypriots implicitly identifies them as previous subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and certainly different from Greeks, thus denying them their claim to a Greek identity and delegitimizing their political demands for union with Greece (Lytra 2014).

4.2.2 Period of denationalization

1925 marks the year in which Cyprus was officially recognized as a crown colony. Starting from that year, the British started following a more active policy over the affairs of the island. Almost right after that, the Advisory Committee on Education set up a meeting in order to discuss the educational matters of the island. Also, an influential name in the formulation of colonial education policies, Sir F .D. Xxxxxx was invited to that meeting (Persianis 1996).10 The British saw this as an opportunity to formulate an education policy to use the education as a means to

10 See the work of the scholar for specific references to Colonial Office reports.

reshape the cultural identity of the population (Xxxxxx 1937).11 The era was characterized by the British’s attempt to create a unified Cypriot identity by eradicating the political orientation of the Turkish and Greek communities towards their motherlands and “acquire a higher conception of their responsibilities as Cypriots and of the position of Cyprus as a part of the British Empire” (ibid)12. The Cypriotization of the education services aimed to create a new class that would serve as an intermediary class between the colonial office and the society. In the 1930s and the 1940s, the Cypriotization “a great political value in stabilising at least a section of the Cypriot population by giving them and their relations a stake in the administration”.13

The building block of the denationalization policies was the introduction of the Elementary Education Law of 1933. For the first time in its colonial history, Cyprus bore witness to the Colonial Governor to hold the sole power over the education, particularly over the curriculum and education materials taught at schools (Gregoriou 2004). 14. Only a few years after that, the British designated a new curriculum in 1935. The colonial rule had two objectives while implementing the curriculum: firstly, it aimed to replace the communities’ links to their motherlands with the ones to the Cyprus nation. Secondly, it depicted the educational reforms as attempts of establishing a system which is ‘Cyprus-centered’, prioritizing the local needs and demands and which was free of external political interests. In other words, the denationalization efforts were done in the name of educational progressivism.(ibid) The reform consisted of “sweeping changes” in the teaching materials, such as the substitution of locally prepared textbooks for those prepared in Greece and Turkey by the Ministries of Education and removal of the history and geography of the

11 This part was adapted from the interpretation of Persianis, 1996 due to lack of access to the original work. 12 See the work of the scholar for specific reference to Confidential Dispatch of the High Commissioner King Xxxxxx to the Secretary of State for the Colonies

13 See the work of the scholar for the specific references to the Note to Mr Xxxx, Minutes of the Ministry of Colonies.

14 See the work of the scholar for the specific references to Elementary Education Law.

motherlands from these materials (Persianis 1996). The explicit purpose was the Cypriotisation of the two communities. As the Colonial Report of 1935 served it, “the programmes of Orthodox- Christians and Moslem schools now differ in nothing but their religion and language of instruction”.15

What stimulated the British Empire to implement these policies was the rising vocal expression of national aspirations with the beginning of the 20th century, particularly within the Greek community. As the enosis movement turned into a prominent figure in the island's politics, the British failed to establish a unity mainly due to the rooted ethnic segregation which was intensified by the previous century’s colonial policies. By 1950, the British rule introduced several reforms that aimed to alter the constitutional structure of Cyprus. However, the legacy of the strongly imposed segregation in the previous era impeded the reform process. The politics of the island proceeded to be dominated by the two fully-fledged ethnonational claims. According to the Greek community, they held the right to live under the rule of mainland Greece by means of enosis. According to the Turkish community, on the other hand, the mother nation Turkey held the right to protect the Turkish community in Cyprus from the aggressive intervention of Greeks. The lack of understanding and communication among the triangle of the mother nations, Cypriot communities, and the British regime consequently led to several confrontations between the parties known as the phase of

15 See the work of Persianis,1996 for the specific references to the Colonial Report.

4.3 Chapter Conclusions

The governmentality of the British colonial rule, which aimed to justify and rationalize its practices, resulted in two distinct eras regarding the educational strategies. This chapter attempted to provide a theoretical framework to uncover the underlying attempts of the Empire by relying on the premises of Power-Knowledge Nexus

Since the population of Cyprus was viewed as the subjects of the colonial rule rather than being objects, the British resorted to power practices which were solely designed for the ends of the colonial rule and often neglected the communal realities. The policies of the period laissez- faire enabled the production of a knowledge based on ethnic divisions between the communities. The era was characterized by the autonomy of the communal authorities and the segregative education policies. The history narratives played a key role by depicting the communities as archenemies of each other. However, the new political realities introduced by 20th century such as decolonization and nationalization movements appeared to challenge the authority of the British Empire. Also, Cyprus was recognized as an official Crown Colony following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. Thus, the British developed a more active and interventionist policy over the island.

Starting with the second era, new policies such as the adoptions of a new education law and new curriculum were introduced. The British stated their aim to create a unitary Cypriot identity in order to bring an end to the rise of nationalist groups on the island, and consequently to gain rationality and justification over their governance once again. However, the pre-produced knowledge of ethnicity was so strong that their attempts proved counterproductive. The knowledge remained to constantly challenge and shape the colonial power. The British was not able to

rationalize and legitimize its power practices deemed necessary for the production of a new knowledge, thus it failed to do so.

Chapter V: Policy Implications on EU’s Foreign, Security and

Defense Policy

This section lays out the contemporary trends. The ethnonational aspirations that were rooted in early communal segregations gained momentum by the 1950s. The period of 1950-60 experienced “a number of novel aspects that added to its complexity, and which came to have important consequences for the Zurich-Xxxxxx Agreements and the subsequent Constitution.” The emergence of Xxxxxxxx, an influential Greek-Cypriot politician with strong ties to the Orthodox church, as the leader of the Enosis movement provided a solid standpoint for the Greek nationalist movement. The armed struggle initiated by XXXX and received counteraction by Turkish Cypriot turned the Cyprus Issue into an international and thus led to the inclusion of several other stakeholders (Xxxxxxxxxx 2008). Thus, the Cypriot issue turned into an open dispute between the states of Greek and Turkey. The British responded to these insurrections by inviting both states to the London Conference in 1955 to discuss “political and defense questions affecting the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus” (Stavrinides 1976). The governmentality of the British was to transform the nature of the Cyprus dispute by turning into a dispute between the states of Greece and Turkey rather than the one of between The Empire and the Cypriot communities. So that, the principle of self-determination which was included in the Atlantic Charter of 1941 would not be applicable to Cypriot case (Hatzivassiliou 1991). As it was expected, Greece stated their demand for self-determination on the island which was strongly objected by Turkey on the grounds that it would pave the way for enosis and endanger the security of Turkish state and the Turkish-Cypriot community of the island. Delineating their own interests n Eastern Mediterranean, Britain came up with an alternative proposal which would give Cyprus a form of partial self-government to which both states opposed. Thus, the talks ended with no success (Xxxxxxx 2000).

The further polarization of the communities by the British led to many incidents of intercommunal rioting and to formation of a counter-attack organization by the Turkish-Cypriots called as Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı (TMT), Turkish Defense Organization (Xxxxxxxxx 2008) In order to bring an end to communal violence, the parties came together once again in Zurich in 1959. Known as the Zurich Agreement, the Agreement laid the constitutional arrangements under which the Republic of Cyprus would operate. As the Article 1 of the Treaty suggested:

“The State of Cyprus shall be a Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President Turkish elected by universal suffrage by the Greek and Turkish communities of the island respectively.”16

The sovereignty and territorial integrity of the island was guaranteed by the Treaty of Guarantee signed between Britain, Greece and Turkey (Sözen 2004). As it was stated in Article 4, in case of an emerging threat to these principles, The guarantor powers should

“...undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.”17

16 See Annex I for the full text of the Agreement.

17 See Xxxxx XX for the full text of the Agreement.

Within a system of partially autonomous administrative, political, social and armed units, the enclaves of Turkish Cypriots took the form of a “small state”. The Greek counterparts opposed such a parallel organism within the depicted borders of the Republic of Cyprus .The unitary independent state of Cyprus, hence, did not survive long and ended in partial disintegration with the violent clashes starting from 1963 between the two communities. The period between 1963 - 1974 was one of intercommunal violence and ethnic strife (Müftüler-Bac and Güney 2005).

The communal violence concluded in the military intervention by Turkey in 1974. Greek Cypriot community depicted is a “barbaric invasion of their island” through which the Turkish Cypriot minority would attain an unfair share of a larger and more rich part of the current territory (Xxxxxxxxx 2008). On the other hand, Turkish Cypriot community called it a “peace operation” conducted by the Motherland Turkey in order to provide a just solution to the ongoing violence against them. Also, Turkey used Article 4 as a justification for the operation claiming that it is not possible to re-establish any state of affairs as it was already devastated by the violent Greek insurgencies. Thus, a new state of affairs needed to be established for the conclusion of peace over the island. However, the international opinion regarded the operation as an “unjust” and “violent” intervention to the internal affairs of Cyprus (Türkmen 2005). Following the military intervention, a sequence of events started and still has implications on contemporary politics.

A relevant topic to that discussion is the accession of Turkey to the EU which has mostly become emphasized since Cyprus and Turkey applied for EU membership. Both countries are influential factors in the security of Eastern Mediterrenean and the conclusion of a peace agreement is widely desired by all the parties (Suvarierol 2003). Even though the resolution of the Cyprus dispute is not laid down as an explicit criterion for the accession of Turkey to the EU in any legal texts, it is widely acknowledged the accession of Turkey is currently dependent on its cooperation

on the Cypriot Dispute (Xxxxxxxx 2002). Main reason is that the EU has been following an active Foreign, Security and Defense Policy18 as a means to be a dominant international actor. An unresolved conflict and a divided island inextricably appear to hinder the cooperation between the member states. Also, the integration of Turkey to the customs union as part the accession process would a priori necessitate a multilateral recognition of the borders of the Republic of Cyprus. As almost all the EU Accession negotiation chapters has either opening or closing benchmark requiring Turkey to expand Customs Union to the whole of a Cyprus and open the air and naval spaces to vessels and aircrafts registered to Cyprus, it would essentially require to recognize Cyprus as a whole and as an independent country. Falling to do so under current circumstances impedes the accession negotiations to proceed further (Xxxxxxxx and Triantaphyllou 2012).

18 The definition of this acquis is stated by xxxxx://xx.xxxxxx.xx/ as “the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) and the European security and defence policy (ESDP) are based on legal acts, including legally binding international agreements, and on political documents. The acquis consists of political declarations, actions and agreements.

Member States must be able to conduct political dialogue in the framework of CFSP, to align with EU statements, to take part in EU actions and to apply agreed sanctions and restrictive measures. Applicant countries are required to progressively align with EU statements, and to apply sanctions and restrictive measures when and where required.”

Conclusion

The question of “Who is a real Cypriot?” has dominated both academic and political discussions throughout history. As a country that was caught amid contested interests and violent communal conflicts, the question has not lost its relevance up to date. While many scholars have expanded on the conflict years as an attempt to reflect on this question, the power structures of the previous eras which have played crucial roles in the production of communal identities have often been neglected. This dissertation is an attempt to shed light on the production and reproductionof these identities.

The case of Cyprus clearly illustrates that the power holding bodies have created new political realities that were complemented by the production of knowledge of a certain identity. To develop a structuralist interpretation of ethnic identities in Cyprus has necessitated the examination of the British colonial era which lasted for almost a century-long. By analyzing the educational structure formed by the British Empire, this dissertation has argued that the divide-and-rule policy of the British Empire intentionally provided an educational basis for ethnic segregation in the Cypriot community. This policy utilized ethnicity as a means to consolidate its colonial power. Even though the British intended to abandon their segregative education policies starting from the early-1930s and to adopt a more unitary policy, the already-produced ethnic-consciousness interrupted such an intention and culminated into the violent inter-communal conflict.

For the British Empire as a strong colonial power, Cyprus was an important hinterland located in the Eastern Mediterranean. Thus, it required an adapted governmentality that would allow the Empire to achieve a certain level of legacy and superiority in the eyes of the subjects of the rule, which would let it fully functional and administer. (Pollis 1973) Education, as Xxxxxxxx puts, was a tool of pedagogical manipulation to socialize the youth into a desired mindset. The

previous ruler, the Ottoman Empire, had already established a segregated schooling system for the Muslim and Non-Muslim communities. However, a religion-based segregation would prove useless due to the majority of the island already being Christian, the Empire introduced a more valid and useful basis for its administration and transformation of the society, ethnicity (Morag 2004).

Throughout the period of laissez-faire, the communal authorities enjoyed a great level of autonomy over the schooling of their communities. Consequently, each community imported their teachers from the motherlands and focused heavily on the teaching of Turkish or Greek history. The authorities, such as Town or Village School Committees, the District Committees, and the Boards of Education, were individually assigned to each community. Especially the history textbooks depicted the us figure as the true population of the island and them as barbaric or betrayers (Xxxxxxxxx 2008).

The period of denationalization was marked by the official recognition of Cyprus as a Crown Colony. Following that development, the British started following a more active policyon the ground. Also, the rising ethnonational aspirations of the insurgency groups such as EOKA and TMT prompted the British Empire to transform its governmentality regarding the island. From then on, the policies of the Empire attempted to produce a common Cypriot identity but failed to do so (Persianis 1996).

At first glance, such a shift can be seen contradictory to the main hypothesis of this dissertation. However, from a Foucauldian stance, knowledge and power are in a circular relationship complemented by governmentality, meaning that “the exercise of power perpetually creates knowledge and, conversely, knowledge constantly induces effects of power…” (Xxxxxxxx 1980) The British governmentality was simply concerned with maintaining its power by

rationalizing its practices. Thus, even if the forms of the state policies changed, there was a common mentality behind them which was based on the notion of identity production that would complement the power structures. In the former era, the Empire needed to maintain communal segregation in order to prevent any type of oppositional front against itself. The colonial power produced the knowledge of ethnicity by resorting to segregative practices as discussed earlier. Over time, the notion of ethnicity consolidated in such a way that emerged as a threat to the authority of the Empire. The emergence of insurgency groups such as EOKA and TMT further undermined the rationality and legacy of the colonial authorities. Thus, the British decided to transform the conceptualization of the knowledge and employ policies that would promote the formation of a unitary Cypriot identity rather than segregated Turkish/Greek Cypriot identities as can be seen in the Colonial Office reports, education materials, and confidential dispatches of the authorities. However, the factors such as the wave of spread of nationalist movements and decolonization impeded the rationalization of a common Cypriot identity. Therefore, the whole process is, in fact, in accordance with Foucauldian theory on power knowledge nexus and the different practices of the British rule is not contradictory. The latter attempt to produce a new form of identity, indeed, does not confront the theory but rather complement the key aspect of rationalization in the eyes of the colonial subjects.

Hosting one of the prolonged peacekeeping missions, the Cyprus Dispute remains to be a contemporary issue with many implications on the international arena. As the prolongation of the frozen conflict poses a threat to particularly the security of the Eastern Mediterranean Region including Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and therefore the EU, the settlement is desirable by all the conflict.

Bearing all of this in mind, this dissertation attempted to provide a structuralist reading of the ethnic formation in Cyprus. It aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the British colonial power mechanisms and Turkish/Greek ethnic identities in the education field through a Foucauldian stance. As the scope of this study was limited in terms of presenting primary sources and expanding on various aspects, future studies could fruitfully explore this issue of power- knowledge nexus in order to disentangle the complexities of education and ethnic formation in different settings and eras.

Bibliography

Xxxxxx, X. (1991). History and Sociology: The Lost Synthesis. Social Science History 15:201. Xxxxxxxx, S.A. and Triantaphyllou, D. (2012). The NATO–EU–Turkey trilogy: the impact of the

Cyprus conundrum. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies 12:555–573.

Xxxxxxx, P.G. and Xxxxx, X.X. xxx. (1984). Education and the Colonial Experience. 2nd rev. ed. New Brunswick [N.J.] U.S.A: Transaction Books.

Xxxxx, X. and Xxxxx, O. (2014). British Colonialism and the Creation of Acholi Ethnic Identity in Uganda, 1894 to 1962. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 42:239–257.

Attalides, M.A. (1979). Cyprus: Nationalism and International Politics. Edinburgh: Q Press. Xxxxx, X. (2001). Colonizing nature: scientific knowledge, colonial power and the incorporation of

India into the modern world-system. British Journal of Sociology 52:37–58.

Xxxxxx, X. and Xxxxxxxx, G. (2016). The Ottoman Millet System: Non-Territorial Autonomy and its Contemporary Legacy. Ethnopolitics 15:24–42.

Battle, D.E. ed. (2012). Communication Disorders in Multicultural and International Populations. 4th ed. St. Xxxxx, Mo: Elsevier/Xxxxx.

Xxxxx, X. (2012). Manufacturing Citizenship: Education and Nationalism in Europe, South Asia and China. London: Xxxxxxxxx.

Xxxxxxx, V.E. (1980). The Uses of Theory, Concepts and Comparison in Historical Sociology.

Comparative Studies in Society and History 22:156–173.

Xxxxxxxx, P. and Xxxxxxxx, J.C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society, and Culture. 1990 ed.

Theory, culture & society. London ; Xxxxxxx Park, Xxxxx: Sage in association with Theory, Culture & Society, Dept. of Administrative and Social Studies, Teesside Polytechnic.

Xxxxxxxxx, X. (2010). Convivencia under Muslim rule: the Island of Cyprus after the Ottoman Conquest (1571-1640). University of Milan.

Xxxxx, X. (2001). Politics out of History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Xxxxxx, X. (2001). An Aesthetics of Self: Moral Remaking and Cypriot Education. Comparative Studies in Society and History 43:583–614.

Xxxxxx, X. and Hatay, M. (2015). Turkish Perceptions of Cyprus: 1948 to the Present. PRIO Cyprus Centre.

Xxxxx, M.B. and Xxxxxxxx, X.X. (2019). Postmodern Management Theory. [Online]. Available at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxxxxxxx?xxxxxxx&xxxxx0000000000000

[Accessed: 12 March 2020].

Xxxxxxx, X. (2001). Xxxxxxxxxxx’x Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History. Boston: Xxxxxxxx Mifflin.

Xxxxxx, P.S. (1986). Religion, politics and ethnicity in Cyprus during the Turkocratia (1571–1878).

European Journal of Sociology 27:3–28.

Xxxxxxxxxx, X. (1993). “The Colonial State,” in The Nation and Its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton University Press:14–34.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (2006). A Double Imagination: Memory and Education in Cyprus. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 24:285–306.

Xxxxxx, M., Xxxxxxxxx, M.M. and Xxxxx, X.X. (2011). Us Versus Them: Social Identity Shapes Neural Responses to Intergroup Competition and Harm. Psychological Science 22:306–313.

Xxxxx, X. ed. (1976). The Movement for Greek Independence, 1770-1821: A Collection of Documents. Studies in Russian and East European history. London: Macmillan.

Xxxxxxx, M.W. (2002). Explaining corruption: An institutional choice approach. Crime, Law and Social Change. Crime, Law and Social Change 38:1–32.

Xxxxx, X.X. (1981). The Expansion of Education. Review of Research in Education 9:151.

Xxxxxx, X. (2006a). From Confinement to Attachment: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx on the Rise of the School.

The European Legacy 11:121–138.

Xxxxxx, X. (2006b). Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx on Education: A Preliminary Theoretical Overview. South African Journal of Education 26:177–187.

Xxxxxxx, X. and Xxxx, X.X. xxx. (2003). Handbook of Historical Sociology. London ; Thousand Oaks, Xxxxx: SAGE.

Xxxxxx, N.K. and Xxxxxxxx, M.D. eds. (2006). Qualitative Inquiry and the Conservative Challenge.

Walnut Creek, Xxxxx. : London: Left Coast ; Troika [distributor].

Xxxxxxxxxx, P. (2008). British Intelligence and the Cyprus Insurgency, 1955–1959. International Journal of Intelligence and CounterIntelligence 21:375–394.

Xxxxx, N.B. (2001). Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

Xxxxxx, X.X. and Xxxxxx, D.D. (2000a). Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity.

International Organization 54:845–877.

Xxxxxx, X.X. xxx Xxxxxx, D.D. (2000b). Violence and the Social Construction of Ethnic Identity.

International Organization 54:845–877.

Fimyar, O. (2008). Using Governmentality as a Conceptual Tool in Education Policy Research.

Educate - Special Issue:3–18.

Flyvbjerg, B. (1998). Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Morality and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (1995). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. 2nd Vintage Books ed. New York: Vintage Books.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (1977). Xxxxxxxxx, Genealogy, History. In: Xxxxxxxx, D. F. ed. Language, Counter- Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interview. Xxxxxxx University Press.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (2002). Power. Xxxxxxx, X. X. xx. Essential works of Xxxxxxxx 1954-1984. Number Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx ; Vol. 3. London: Penguin.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (1980). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books.

Xxxxxxxx, X. et al. (2003). Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de Xxxxxx, 1975-76.

1st Picador pbk. ed. New York: Picador.

Xxxxxxxx, X. et al. (2017). Subjectivity and Truth: Lectures at the Collége de Xxxxxx, 1980-1981.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (1991). The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality: With Two Lectures by and an Interview with Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx. Xxxxxxxx, X., Xxxxxx, X. and Xxxxxx, P. eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (1982). The Subject and Power. Critical Inquiry 8:777–795.

Xxxxxxxxx, X.X. (2014). Colonial Policy and Practice a Comparative Study of Burma and Netherlands India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xxxxxx, X.X. (2009). Translating the Hijra: The Symbolic Reconstruction of the British Empire in India. University of Alberta.

Xxxxxx, X. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Georghallides, G. (1979). A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus, 1918-1926 : With a

Survey of the Foundations of British Rule. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre,.

Xxxxxxxxx, X. (2004). De‐scribing hybridity in ‘unspoiled Cyprus’: postcolonial tasks for the theory of education. Comparative Education 40:241–266.

Xxxxxxx, X.X. (1992). Temporality, Events, and Explanation in Historical Sociology: An Introduction.

Sociological Methods & Research 20:403–427.

Hadjipavlou, M. (2007). The Cyprus Conflict: Root Causes and Implications for Peacebuilding.

Journal of Peace Research 44:349–365.

Xxxxxxxxxx, X. and Xxxx, R. (1997). Bias in Social Research. Sociological Research Online 2:7– 19.

Xxxxx, G.W.F. et al. (1992). Lectures on the Philosophy of World History. 1. paperback ed., [Reprint].

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

Xxxx, X. and Xxxxxxxxxx, X.X. xxx. (1982). Footprints in Cyprus: An Illustrated History. London: Trigraph.

Xxxxxxxxx, C.P. (2019). Cyprus under British Colonial Rule: Culture, Politics, and the Movement toward Union with Greece, 1878-1954. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books.

Xxxxxx, B. (2007). From micro-powers to governmentality: Xxxxxxxx’x work on statehood, state formation, statecraft and state power. Political Geography 26:34–40.

Xxxxxxx, X. (2000). Britain and the Cyprus problem at the united nations, 1954–58. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 28:113–130.

Kalpagam, U. (2014). Rule by Numbers: Governmentality in Colonial India. Lanham: Lexington Books.

Xxxxx, X. and Xxxxxx, B. (2003). Imagined Communities and Educational Possibilities: Introduction.

Journal of Language, Identity & Education 2:241–249.

Katsiaounēs, R. (1996). Labour, Society, and Politics in Cyprus during the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. Texts and studies of the history of Cyprus. Number 24. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Centre.

Xxxxxxxx, A. (1971). Introduction: A Special Issue Colonialism and Education. Comparative Education Review 15.

Kızılyürek, N. (1999). National memory and Turkish-Cypriot textbooks. Internationale Schulbuchforschung 21:387–395.

Korostelina, K. (2014). Intergroup Identity Insults: A Social Identity Theory Perspective. Identity

14:214–229.

Koutselini, M. and Xxxxxxxxx, P. (2000). Theory‐practice Divide in Teacher Education at the University of Cyprus and the Role of the Traditional Values of the Orthodox Church. Teaching in Higher Education 5:501–520.

Xxxxxxxx, X. (2013). What Is Historical Sociology? Cambridge: Polity Press.

Xxxxx, X. (2009). An Education in Violence: British Colonialism and Ethnic Conflict in Cyprus and Sri Lanka. SSRN Electronic Journal [Online]. Available at: xxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxx0000000 [Accessed: 18 July 2020].

Xxxxx, X. (2002). Xxxxxxxx, Governmentality, and Critique. Rethinking Marxism 14:49–64. Xxxxxxxx, B.A.U., Sutton, M. and Xxxxxxxx, X. (2009). Education Policy as a Practice of Power:

Theoretical Tools, Ethnographic Methods, Democratic Options. Educational Policy 23:767–795.

Xxxxxxxx, N.G. (2002). Greek-turkish Dilemmas and the Cyprus EU Accession Process. Security Dialogue 33:429–442.

Xxxxx, X. ed. (2014). When Greeks and Turks Meet: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Relationship since 1923. Publications of the Centre for Hellenic Studies, King’s College London. Number 15. Farnham, Xxxxxx, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Xxxx, X.X. (2010). Considerations on Representative Government. [Online]. Available at: xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxx.xx/xxxxx?xxxxxxxxx://xxx.xxx/00.0000/XXX0000000000000 [Accessed: 13

Xxxxxx 2020].

Morag, N. (2004). Cyprus and the Clash of Greek and Turkish Nationalisms. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 10:595–624.

Müftüler-Bac, M. and Xxxxx, A. (2005). The European Union and the Cyprus Problem 1961–2003.

Middle Eastern Studies 41:281–293.

Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx X. (1946). Education in Cyprus during British Rule, 1878-1946.

Limassol.

Xxxxxx, X. and Hatay, M. (2009). Politics, Society and the Decline of Islam in Cyprus: From the Ottoman Era to the Twenty-First Century. Middle Eastern Studies 45:911–933.

Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, J. (2018). An Introduction to Xxxxxxxx's Nietzschean Genealogy. International Journal of Philosophy 6:19.

Xxxxxxxxx, Oba.F. and Xxxxxx, X.X. (2011). Colonialism and Education.

Xxxxxx, X. (2006). Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. International Journal of Lifelong Education 25:213–230.

Xxxxxx, M., Xxxx, X.X. xxx X’Xxxxx, A.-M. (2004). Education Policy: Globalization, Citizenship and Democracy. London ; Thousand Oaks, Xxxxx: Sage Publications.

Xxxxxxxxx, Y. (2008). History Education in Divided Cyprus: A Comparison of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Schoolbooks on the ‘History of Cyprus’. Oslo, Norway: International Peace Research Institute.

Xxxxxxxx, M.A. (1987). Norms and normalization: Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx’x overextended panoptic machine.

Human Studies 10:97–121.

Persianis, P. (1978). Church and State in Cyprus Education : The Contribution of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus to Cyprus Education during the British Administration. Nicosia, Cyprus.

Persianis, P. (1996). The British Colonial Education ‘Lending’ Policy in Cyprus (1878-1960): An intriguing example of an elusive ‘adapted education’ policy. Comparative Education 32:45–68.

Xxxxxx, M.A. and Xxxxxx, T.A.C. (2014). Social Exclusion/Inclusion: Xxxxxxxx’x analytics of exclusion, the political ecology of social inclusion and the legitimation of inclusive education. Open Review of Educational Research 1:99–115.

Xxxxxxx, X. (2005). Segregated Education in Cyprus Between 1920 and 1935. PhD Dissertation. Xxxxxx, X. (2009). Decolonization and the Collapse of the British Empire. Inquiries Journal/Student

Pulse 1.

Xxxxx, X.X. xx. (2014). International Handbook of Curriculum Research. 2. ed. New York, NY: Xxxxxxxxx.

Xxxxxx, X. (1973). Intergroup Conflict and British Colonial Policy: The Case of Cyprus. Comparative Politics 5:575.

Xxxx, N., O’Xxxxxx, P. and Xxxxxxxx, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2:83–104.

Xxxxx, X. (2011). Open borders, closed minds: The discursive construction of national identity in North Cyprus. Media, Culture & Society 33:583–597.

Xxxxxxxx, F.A. (1985). Colonialism and the Emergence of Fulani Identity. Journal of Asian and African Studies 20:193–202.

Xxxxxx, X.X. (1990). Kıbrıs Tarihi. Lefkoşa, Kıbrıs: Kıbrıs Türk Tarih Kurumu.

Xxxxxxx, X.X. (2003). Living with Colonialism: Nationalism and Culture in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Colonialisms. Number 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Xxxxxxx, N.J. (1994). Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: An Application of Theory to the British Cotton Industry. Aldershot, Hampshire, England; Brookfield, Vt., USA: Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx ; Distributed in the U.S. by Ashgate Pub. Co.

Sözen, A. (2004). 5 A Model of Power-Sharing in Cyprus: From the 1959 Xxxxxx-Zurich Agreements to the Xxxxx Plan. Turkish Studies 5:61–77.

Xxxxxxx, X. (1865). What knowledge is of most worth? In: Education: Intellectual, Moral, and Physical. New York: D Xxxxxxxx & Company, pp. 21–96. Available at: xxxx://xxxxxxx.xxx.xxx/xxxxx/00000-000 [Accessed: 13 Xxxxxx 2020].

Stavrinides, Z. (1976). The Cyprus Conflict: National Identity and Statehood. Wakefield: The author. Stoler, A.L. (1995). Race and the Education of Desire: Xxxxxxxx’x History of Sexuality and the

Colonial Order of Things. Durham: Duke University Press.

Xxxxxx, R. (1937). Orientations. London: Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx.

Xx Xxxxxxxxx, X. (2011). Xxxxxxxx’x Genealogy of Racism. Theory, Culture & Society 28:34–51. Suvarierol, S. (2003). The Cyprus Obstacle on Turkey’s Road to Membership in the European Union.

Turkish Studies 4:55–78.

Xxxxxxxx, X.X. (2016). Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxx and Representative Government. Princeton University Pres. Tilly, C. (1981). As Sociology Meets History. Studies in social discontinuity. New York: Academic

Press.

Türkmen, F. (2005). Cyprus 1974 Revisited: Was It Humanitarian Intervention? Galatasaray University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Department of International Relations.

Verkuyten, M. and Xxxxxxxx, A. (2008). Intergroup structure and identity management among ethnic minority and majority groups: the interactive effects of perceived stability, legitimacy, and permeability. European Journal of Social Psychology 38:106–127.

Xxxxx, X. and Xxxxxxxx, E. (2008). Redefining Identity in the Turkish-Cypriot School History Textbooks: A Step Towards a United Federal Cyprus. South European Society and Politics 13:133–154.

Xxxxxxx, P.B. (2003). Precolonial Intellectuals and the Production of Colonial Knowledge.

Comparative Studies in Society and History [Online] 45. Available at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxx_X0000000000000000 [Accessed: 2 July 2020].

Xxxx, X.X. (1952). Education in Cyprus : Some Theories and Practices in Ecucation in the Island of Cyprus since 1878.

Xxxxx, X. (1983). Absolute Knowledge: Xxxxx and the Problem of Metaphysics. Series in Continental thought. Number 4. Athens, Ohio: Ohio University Press.

Xxxxxxxx, D.U. (2015). How Useful are the Main Existing Theories of Ethnic Conflict? Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies [Online]. Available at: xxxx://xxx.xxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxx/xxxxx.xxx/xxxx/xxxxxxx/xxxx/0000 [Accessed: 12 March 2020].

Xxxxxx, X. (2008). Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making. Ethnic and Racial Studies

31:1025–1055.

Xxx, X. and Xxxxx, R. (1997). Rethinking Youth. [Online]. 1 Oliver’x Xxxx, 00 Xxxx Xxxx, Xxxxxx XX0X 0XX Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx: SAGE Publications Ltd. Available at: xxxx://xx.xxxxxxx.xxx/xxxxx/xxxxxxxxxx-xxxxx [Accessed: 2 July 2020].

Xxxxx, X. (2004). White Mythologies: Writing History and the West. 2nd ed. London ; New York: Xxxxxxxxx.

APPENDIX 1

CO NF E R E NCE O N C Y P RU S

Documents signed and initialled at Xxxxxxxxx House on 19 Februor y 1959

M E MOR IN D UM SE T T I NG O U T T HE A GR EE D FO U N D A T I O N FO R T HE FI N A L SE TT L EM E N T (3F TH E

PR O B L E M O F C Y PR US

The Prime Minister of the United-Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Greece and the Prime Minister of the Turkish Republic.

Taking note of the Declaration by the Representative of the Greek-Cypriot Com- munity and the Representative of the Turlush-Cypriot Community that they accept the documents annexed to this Memorandum as the agreed foundation for the final settle- ment of the problem of Cyprus.

Xxxxxx adopt, on behalf of their respective Governmcnts, thc docurrtcnts annexed to this Memorandum and listed below, as the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus.

On behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

HnROLD MxCMILLAN

London,

February 19, /959.

On behalf of tire Government of the Xxxxxxxx of Greece

C. KxRAMANLIS

On behalf of the Government of the Turkish Republic

A. MENDERES

List of Documents Annexed

A. Basic Structure of the Republic of Cyprus.

B. Treaty of Guarantee between the Republic of Cyprus and Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey.

C. Treaty of Alliance between the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey.

D. Declaration made by the Government of the United Kingdom on 17 February 1959.

E. Additional Article to be inserted in the Treaty of Guarantee.

F. Declaration made by the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers on 17 February 1959.

G. Declaration made by the Representative of the Greek Cypriot community on 19 February 1959.

H. Declaration macle by the Representative of the Turkish Cypriot community on 19

February 1959.

I. Agreed Measures to prepare for the new arrangements in Cyprus.

I I

E N G L I SH TR A NS LA TIO N OF T H E D O C U M E N TS A GR EE D I N T HE F R E N C H T EX TS A N D Ih I TI A LLED BY T HE G R F EK A ND T U R KISH

P R I M E M I N I S T E R S A T Z UR I C H O N F E B R U .A R Y 1 1, 1 9 5 9.

BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS

1. The State of Cyprus shall be a Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President Turkish elected by universal suffrage by the Greek and Turkish communities of the Island respectively.

2. The official languages of the Republic of Cyprus shall be Greek and Turkish. Legislative and administrative instruments and documents shall be drawn up and promulgated in the two official languages.

3. The Republic of Cyprus shall have its own flag of neutral design and colour, chosen jointly by the President and the Vice-President of the Republic.

Authorities and communities shall have the right to fly the Greek and Turkish flags on holidays at the same time as the flag of Cyprus.

The Greek and Turkish communities shall have the right to celebrate Greek and Turkish national holidays.

4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected for a period of 5 years.

In the event of absence, impediment or vacancy of their posts, the President and the Vice- President shall be replaced by the President and the Vice-President of the House of Representatives respectively.

In the event of a vacancy in either post, the election of new incumbents shall take place within a period of not more than J5 days.

The President and the Vice-President shall be invested by the House of Representatives, before which they shall take an oath of loyalty and respect for the Constitution. For this purpose, the House of Representatives shall meet within 24 hours after its constitution.

5. Executive authority shall be vested in the President and the Vice-President. For this purpose they shall have a Council of Ministers composed of seven Greek Ministers and three Turkish Ministers. The Ministers shall be designated respectively by the President and the Vice-President who shall appoint them by an instrument signed by them both.

The Ministers may be chosen from outside the House of Representatives. Decisions of the Council of Ministers shall be taken by an absolute majority. Decisions so taken shall be promulgated immediately by the President and the Vice-

President by publication in the official gazette.

However, the President and the Vice-President shall have the right of final veto and the right to return the decision of the Council of Ministers under the same conditions as those laid down for laws and decisions of the House of Representatives.

6. Legislative authority shall be vested in a House of Representatives elected for a

period of 5 years by universal suffrage of each community separately in the proportion of 70 per cent for the Greek community and 30 per cent for the Turkish community, this proportion being fixed independently of statistical data. (h B. The number of Repre- sentatives shall be fixed by mutual agreement betwccn the communitics.)

The House of Representatives shall exercise authority in all matters other than those expressly reserved to the Communal Chambers. In the event of a conflict of authority, such conflict shall be decided by the Supreme Constitutional Court which shall be composed of one Greek, one Turk, and one neutral, appointed jointly by the President and the Vice-President. The neutral judge shall be president of the Court.

7. Laws and decisions of the House of Representatives shall be adopted by a simple majority of the members prcsent. Thcy shall be promulgated within 15 days i1’neither the President nor the Vice-President returns them for reconsideration as provided in Point 9 below.

The Constitutional Law, w’ith the exception of its basic articles, may be modified by a

majority comprising two-thirds of the Greek members and two-thirds of the Turkish members of the House of Representatives.

Any modification of the electoral law and the adoption of any law relating to the

municipalities and of any law imposing duties or taxes shall require a simple majority of the Greek and Turkish members o1’ the House of Representatives taking part in the vote and considered separately.

On the adoption of the budget, the President and the Vice-President may exercise their

right to return it to the House of Representatives, if in their jtldgement any question of discrimination arises. If the House maintains its decisions, the President and the Vice - President shall have the right of appeal to the Supreme Constitutional Court.

8. The President and the Vice-President, separately and conjointly, shall havethe right of tinal veto on any law or decision concerning foreign affairs, except the participation of the Republic of Cyprus in international organizations and pacts of alliance in which Greece

‹Ind Turkey both participate or concern ing defence and security as defined in Annex I.

9. The President and the Vice-President of the Republic shall have, separately and conjointly, the right to return all laws and decisions, which may be returned to the House of Representatives within a period of not more than 15 days for reconsideration.

The House of Representatives shall pronounce within 15 days on any matter so returned. If the House of Reprcsentatives maintains its decisions, the President and the Vice-President shall promulgate the law or decision in question within the time-limits lived for the promulgation of laws and decisions.

Laws and decisions, which are considered by the President or the Vice-President to discriminate against either of the two communities, shall be submitted to the Suprerne Constitutional Court which may annul or confirm the law or decision, or return it to the House of Representatives for reconsideration, in whole or in part. The law or decision shall not become effective until the Supreme Constitutional Court or, where it has b een returned the House of Representatives has taken a decision on it.

10. Each community shall have its Communal Chamber composed of a number of representatives which it shall itself determine.

The Communal Chambers shall have the right to impose taxes and levies on members of iheii community to provide for their needs and for the needs of bodies and instimtions under their supervision.

The Communal Chambers shall exercise authority in all religious, educational, cultural and teaching questions, and questions of personal status. They shall exercise authority in questions where the interests and institutions are of a purely communal nature, such as sporting and charitable foundations, bodies and associations, producers’ and consumers, co-operatives and credit establishments, created for the purpose o1’promoting the welfare of one of the communities. (NB. It is understood that the provisions of the present paragraph cannot be interpreted in such a way as to prevent the creation of mixed and communal institutions where the inhabitants desire them.)

These producers’ and consumers’ co-operatives and credit establishments, which shall be administered under the laws of the Republic, shall be subject to the supervision of the Communal Chambers. The Communal Chambers shall also exercise authority in matters initiated by municipalities which are composed of one community only. These munici- palities, to which thclaws of the Republic shall apply, shall besupervised in their functions by the Communal Chambers.

Where the central administration is obliged to take over the supervision of the institutions, establishments, or municipalities mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs by virtue of legislation inforce, thissupervision shall beexercised by officials belonging to the same community as the institution, establishment, or municipality in question.

11. The Civil Serx’ice shall be composed asto 70 per cent of Greeks and as to 30 percent of Turks.

It is understood that this quantitative division will be applied as far as practicable in all grades of the Civil Service.

In regions or localities where one of the two communities is in a majority approaching

100 per cent, the organs of the local administration shall be composed solely of officials belonging to that community.

12. The deputies of the Attorney-General of the Republic, the Inspector-General, the Treasurer and the Governor of the Issuing Bank may not belong to the same community as their principals. The holders of these posts shall be appointed by the President and the Vice-President of the Republic acting in agreement.

13. The heads and deputy heads of the Armed Forces, the Gendarmerie and the Police shall be appointed by the President and the Vice-President of the Republic acting in agreement. One of these heads shall be Turkish and where the head belongs to one of the communities, the deputy head shall belong to the other.

14. Compulsory military service may only be instituted with the agreement of the President and the Vice-Prcsident of the Republic of Cyprus.

Cyprus shall have an army of 2,000 men, of whom 60 per cent shall be Greek and 40 per cent Turkish.

The security forces (gendarmerie and police) shall have a complement of 2,000 men, which may be reduced or incrcased with the agrccment of both the President and the Vice- President. The security forces shall be composed as to 70 per cent of Greeks and as to 30 per cent of Turks. However, for an initial period this percentage may be raised to a maximum of 40 per cent of Turks (and consequently reduced to 60 per cent of Greeks) in order nottodischarge thoseTurksnowserving in the police, apart fromtheauxiliary police.

15. Forces, which are stationed in parts of the territory of the Republic inhabited, in a proportion approaching 100 per cent, by members of a single community, shall belong to that community.

16. A High Court of Justice shall be established, which shall consist of two Greeks, one Turk and one neutral, nominated jointly by the President and the Vice-President of the Republic.

The President of the Court shall be the neutral judge, who shall have two votes.

This Court shall constitute the highest organ of the judicature (appointments, promotions of judges, etc.).

17. Civil disputes, wfiere the plaintiff and the defendant belong to thesame community, shall be tried by a tribunal composed of judges belonging to that community. If the plaintiff and defendant belong to different communities, the composition of the tribunal shall be mixed and shall be determined by the Hlgh Court of Justice.

Tribunals dealing with civil disputes relating to questions of personal status and to religious matters, which are reserved to the competence of the Communal Chambers under Point 10, shall be composed solely of judges belonging to the community concerned. The composition and status of these tribunals shall be determined according to the law drawn up by the Communal Chamber and they shall apply the law drawn up by the Communal Chamber.

In criminal cases, the tribunal shall consist ofyudges belonging to the same community as the accused. If the injured party belongs to another community, the composition of the tribunal shall be mixed and shall be determined by the High Court of Justice.

18. The President and the Vice-President of the Republic shall each have the right to exercise the prerogative of mercy to persons from their respective communities who are condemned to death. In cases where the plaintiffs and the convicted persons are members ofdifferent communities theprerogative ofmercy shall be exercised by agreement between the President and the Vice-President. In the event of disagreement the vote for clemency shall prevail. When mercy is accorded the death penalty shall be commuted to life imprisonment.

19. In the event of agricultural reform, lands shall be redistributed only to persons who are members of the same community as the expropriated owners.

Expropriations by the State or the Municipalitiesshall only be carried out on payment of a just and equitable indemnity fixed, in disputed cases, by the tribunals. An appeal to the tribunals shall have the effect of suspending action.

Expropriated property shall only be used for the purpose for which the expropriation was made. Otherwise the property shall be restored to the owners.

20. Separate municipalities shall be created in the five largest towns of Cyprus by the Turkish inhabitants of these towns. However:

(a) In each of the towns a co-ordinating body shall be set up which shall supervise work which needs to be carried out jointly and shall concern itself with matters which require a degree of co-operation. These bodies shall each be composed of two members chosen by the Greek municipalities, two members chosen by the Turkish municipalities and a President chosen byagreement between thetwomunicipalities.

{b) The President and the Vice-President shall examine within 4 years the question whether or not this separation of municipalities in the five largest towns shall continue.

With regard to the localities, special arrangements shall be made for the constitution of municipal bodies, following, as far as possible, the rule of proportional representation for the two communities.

21. A Treaty guaranteeing the independence, territorial integrity and constitution if the new State of Cyprus shall be concluded between the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, tie United Kingdom, and Turkey. A Treaty of military alliance shall also be concluded between the Republic of Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey.

These two instruments shall have constitutional force. (This last paragraph shall \e inserted in the Constitution as a basic article.)

22. It shall be recognized that the total or partial union of Cyprus with any other Statt, or a separatist indepcndence for Cyprus (i.e. the partition of Cyprus into two independrit States), shall be excluded.

23. The Rcpublic Of Cyprus shall accord most-favoured-nation treatment to Grist Britain, Greece, and Turkey for all agreements whatever their nature.

This provision shall not apply to the Treaties between the Republic of Cyprus and lie United Kingdom concerning thc bascs and military facilities accorded to the United Kingdom.

24. The Greek and Turkish Governments shall have the right to subsidise institutions

for education, culture, athletics, and charity belonging to their respective communities. Equally, where either community considers that it has not the necessary number of schoolmasters, professors, or priests for the working of its institutions, the Greek md Turkish Governme nts may provide them to the extent strictly necessary to meet thtir

needs.

25. One of the following Ministries—the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, or the Ministry of Finance—shall be entrusted to a Turk. If the President and ltte Vice-President agree they may replace this system by a system of rotation.

26. The new State which is to come into being with the signature of the Treaties shallbe established as quickly as possible and within a period of not more than 3 months from the signature of the Treaties.

27. All the abovc Points shall be considered to be basic articles of the Constitution of Cyprus.

E. A.-T.

† A. M.

Annex I A

S. L.

F. R. Z.

F K

The defence questions subject to veto under Point 8 of the Basic Structure are as follows:

(a) Composition and size of the armed forces and credits for them.

(b) Appointments and promotions.

(c) Imports of warlike stores and of all kinds of explosives. (‹ft Granting of bases and other facilities to allied countries.

The security questions subjcct to veto are as follows:

(a) Appointments and promotions.

{b j Allocation and stationing of forces.

(d) Police laws.

It is prox'ided that the right of veto shall cover all emergency measures or decisions, but not those which concern the normal functioning of the police and gendarmerie.

{b)

T R E A T Y O X X X X X XX X X X

Xxx Xxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxx of the one part, and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey of the other part:

I. Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the basic articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest;

II. Desiring to co-operate to ensure that the provisions of the aforesaid Constitution shall be respected;

Xxxxx agreed as follotvs:

A R T I X X X 0

Xxx Xxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxx undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution.

It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. With this intent it prohibits all activity tending to promote directly or indirectly either union or partition of the Island.

AR T I C L E 2

Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note ot‘ the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution.

They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their pow'er, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

A R T IC L E 3

In the event nf any breach of the pro› isions of the prcscnt Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together. with a view' to making representa- tions, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

A R TI C L E 4

The present Treaty shall enter into force on signature.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to register the present Treaty at the earliest possible date with the Secretariat of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter.'

E. A.-T.

† A. M.

S. L.

' ‘Treaty Series No. 67 (1946)’, Cmd. 7015, p. 21.

FRZ F.K

TR E A T Y OF A L LI A N C E BETWE z x rH E R E P u a c i c o› c v PR U s, G REE CE A N X X XX X X X

0. Xxx Xxxxxxxx xx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Turkey shall co-operate for their common defence and undertake by this Treaty to consult together on the problems raised by this defence.

2. The High Contracting Parties undertake lo resist any attack or aggression, direct or indirect, directed against the independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus.

3. In the spirit of this alliance and in order to fulfil the above purpose a tripartitc Headquarters shall be established on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.

4. Greece shall take part in the Headquarters mentioned in the preceding article with a contingent of 950 officers, non-commissioned officers and soldiers and Turkey with a contingent of 650 officers. non-commissioned ofBcers and soldiers. The President and the Vice-President of the Republic of Cyprus, acting in agreement, may ask the Greek and Turkish Governments to increase or reduce the Greek and Turkish contingents.

5. The Greek and Turkish officers mentioned above shall be responsible for the training of the Army of the Republic of Cyprus.

6. The command of the tripartite Headquarters shall be assumed in rotation and for a period of one year each by a Cypriot, Greek and Turkish General Ofhcer, who shall be nominated by the Governments of Greece and Turkey and by the President and the Vice- President of the Republic of Cyprus.

E. A.-T.

A. M.

S. L.

F.R.Z

FK.

I I I

D E C LA R A T I O N B Y T H E GOV ER N MENT O F T HE K N I TE D K I N G DOM

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, having examined the documents concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, comprising the Basic Structure for the Republic of Cyprus, the Treaty of’ Guarantee and the Treaty o1 Alliance, drawn up and approved by the Heads of the Governments of Greece and Turkey in Zurich on February 11, 1959, and taking into account the consultations in London, from February 11 to 16, 1959, between the Foreign Ministers of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom Declare:

A. That, subject to the acceptance of their requirements as set out in Section B below, they accept the documents approved by the Heads of the Governments of Greece and Turkey as the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus.

B. That, with the exception of two areas at

(a) Akrotiri —Episkopi—Paramali, and

(b) Dhekelia—Pergamon —Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx—Xylophagou, which will be retained under full British sovereignty, they are willing to transfer sovereignty over the

Island of Cyprus to the Republic of Cyprus subject to the following conditions:

(1) that Such rights are secured to the United Kingdom Government as are necessary to enable the two areas as aforesaid to be used effectively as military bases. including among others those rights indicated in the Annex attached, and that satisfactory guarantees are given by Greece, Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus for the integrity of the areas retained under British sovereignty and the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights referred to above;

(2) that provision shall be made by agreement for:

(i) the protection of the fundamental human rights o1’ the various com- munities in Cyprus;

(ii) the protection of the interests of the members of the public services in Cyprus;

(iii) determining the nationality of’ persons affected by the settlement;

(iv) the assumption by the Republic of Cyprus of the appropriate obligations of the present Government of Cyprus, including the settlement of claims.

C. That the Government of the United Kingdom welcome the draft Treaty of Alliance between the Republic of Cyprus, the Kingdom of Greece and the Republic of Turkey and will co-operate with the Parties thereto in the common defence of Cyprus.

D. That the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus shall come into force and the formal signature of the necessary instruments by the parties concerned shall take place at the earliest practicable date and on that date sovereignty will be transferred to the Republic of Cyprus.

E. A.-T.

† A. M.

XXXXXX XXXXX

XXXX XXXxXXX-XXXX

F. R. Z.

F. K.

Annex

The following rights will be necessary in connexion with the areas to be retained under Rritish sovereignty:

(a) to continue to use, without restriction or interference, the existing small sites containing military and other installations and to exercise complete control within these sites, including the right to guard and defend them and to exclude from them all persons not authorised by the United Kingdom Government;

(b) to use roads, ports and other facilities freely for the movement of personnel and stores of all kinds to and from and betw'een the above-mentioned areas and sites;

(d) to use public services (such as water, telephone, telegraph, electric power, etc.);

(e) to use froin time to time certain localities; which would be specified, for troop training;

f) to use the airfield at Nicosia, together with any necessary buildings and facilities on or connected with the airfield to whatever extent is considered necessary by the British authorities for the operation of British military aircraft in peace and war, including the exercise of any necessary operational control of air traffic;

(g) to overfly the territory of the Republic of Cyprus without restriction;

(/i) to exercise jurisdiction over British forces to an extent comparable with that provided in Article VII o1‘ the Agreement regarding the Status of Forces of Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty,’ in respect of certain offences committed within the territory of the Republic of Cyprus;

(i) to employ freely in the areas and sites labour from other parts of Cyprus;

(j) to obtain, after consultation with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, the use of such additional small sites and such additional rights as the United Kingdom may, from time to time, consider technically necessary for theefficient use of itsbase areas and installations in Cyprus.

A D D I TI O N A L A R TIC L E T O B E I NSER T E D I N THE T RE A TY OF G U A R A NTEE

The Kingdom of Greece, the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus undertake to respect the integrity of the areas to be retained under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom upon the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, and guarantee the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights to be secured to the United Kingdom by the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with the declaration by the Government of the United Kingdom.

S. L.

t A. M.

E. A.-T.

F. K.

FRZ.

XX XX X X X XXX X X X X X X X XX E E K A N D T U R K ISH K O R EI G N M I N IS T E R S ON F E B R U A R Y 1 7, 1 9 5 9

The Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, having considered the declaration made by the Government of the United Kingdom on February 17, 1959, accept that declaration, together with the document approved by the Heads of the Greek and Turkish Governments in Zurich on February 11, 1959, as providing the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus.

t A. M.

S. L.

‘Treaty Series No. 3(1955),’ Cmd. 9363.

E. AVEROFF-TOSSI2ZA FATIN R. ZORLU

D E C L A R A T I O N M A D E BY T HE R E P R E SE N T A T I V E O F T HE

G R r r x - C Y P R IOT C O M M U N I TY O N F E BR X X X X 0 0, 00 00

Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, representing the Greek Cypriot Community, having examined the document concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus drawn up and approved by the Heads of the Governments of Greece and Turkey in Zurich on February 11, 1959, and the declarations made by the Government of the United Kingdom, and by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey on February 17, 1959, declares that he accepts the documents and declarations as the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus.

S. L. E. A.-T.

F. K.

† ARCHBISHOP XXXXXxXX

FR.Z

V I I

D E C L A R AT1(3 N MA D E B Y TH E R EPR E SE NT A TI VE O F T HE T U X X XXX - X X X X XXX X XX X X XX TY ON F EB R U A R Y 1 9, 1 9 5 9

Dr. Xxxxxxx, representing the Turkish Cypriot Community, having examincd thc documents concerning the establishment ot the Republic of Cyprus drawn up and approved by the Heads of the Govcrnmcnts of Greece and Turkey in Zurich on February 11, 1959, and the declarations made by the Government of the United Kingdom, and by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey on February 17, 1959, declares that he accepts the documents and declarations as the agreed foundation for the final settlement of the problem of Cyprus.

S. L. E. A.-T.

} A. M.

FRZ

X.XXXXXXX

VI I I

A G R EED M EAS U R ES TO P R EP A R E FO R TH E N E W A R R A NG EM E NTS I N Y P R U S

1. All parties to the Conference firmly endorse the aim of bringing the constitution (including the elections of President, Vice-President, and the three Assemblies) and the Treaties into full effect as soon as practicable and in any case not later than twelve months 1’rom to-day’s date (the l9th of February, 1959). Measures leading to the transfer of sove- reignty in Cyprus will begin at once.

2. The first of these measures will be the immcdiatc establishment of:

(n) a Joint Commission in Cyprus with the duty of completing a draft constitution for the independent Republic of Cyprus, incorporating the basic structure agreed at the Zurich Conference. This Commission shall be composed of one representative each

of the Greek-Cypriot and the Turkish-Cypriot community and one representative nominated by the Government of Greece and one representative nominated by the Government of Turkey, together with a legal adviser nominated by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, and shall in its work have regard to and shall scrupulously observe the points contained in the documents of the Zurich Conference and shall fulfil its task in accordance with the principles there laid down;

[b) a Transitional Committee in Cyprus, with responsibility for drawing up plans for adapting and reorganising the Governmental machinery in Cyprus in preparation for the transfer of authority to the independent Republic of Cyprus. This Committee shall be composed of the Governor of Cyprus, the leading representa- tive of the Greek community and the leading representative of the Turkish community and other Greek and Turkish Cypriots nominated by the Governor after consultation with the two leading representatives in such a way as not to conflict with paragraph 5 of the Basic Structure;

(c) a Joint Committee in London composed of a representative of each of the Govern- ments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, and one representative each of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities, with the duty of preparing the final treaties giving effect to the conclusions of the London Conference. This Committee will prepare drafts for submission to Governments covering inter alia matters arising from the retention of areas in Cyprus under British sovereignty, the provision to the United Kingdom Government of certain ancillary rights and facilities in the independent Republic of Cyprus, questions of nationality, lhe treatment of the liabilities of the present Government of Cyprus, and the financial and economic problems arising from the creation of an independent Republic of Cyprus.

3. The Governor will, after consultation with the two leading representatives, invite individual members of the Transitional Committee to assume special responsibilities for particular departments and functions of Government. This process will be started as soon as possible and will be progressively extended.

4. The headquarters mentioned in Article 4 of the Treaty of Alliance between the Republic of Cyprus, the Kingdom of Greece and the Republic of Turkey will be established three months after the completion of the work of the Commission referred to in paragraph 2 (a) above and will becomposed of a restricted number of officers who will immediately undertake the training of the armed forces of the Republic of Cyprus. The Greek and Turkish contingents will enter the territory of the Republic of Cyprus on the date when the sovereignty will be transferred to the Republic.

S.L.E.A.-T. F.RZ.

NO. 5475. TREATY OF GUARANTEE. SIGNED AT NICOSIA ON 16 XXXXXX 1960

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part,

I. Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest,

II. Desiring to co-operate to ensure respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution,

Have agreed as follows: -

Article I

The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution.

It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.

Article II

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.

Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.

Article III

The Republic of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey undertake to respect the integrity of the areas retained under United Kingdom sovereignty at the time of the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, and guarantee the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights to be secured to it by the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with the Treaty concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus signed at Nicosia on to-day's date.

Article IV

In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions.

In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.

Article V

The present Treaty shall enter into force on the date of signature. The original texts of the present Treaty shall be deposited at Nicosia.

The High Contracting Parties shall proceed as soon as possible to the registration of the present Treaty with the Secretariat of the United Nations in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed the present Treaty.

DONE at Nicosia this sixteenth day of Xxxxxx, 1960, in English and French, both texts being equally authoritative.

For the Republic of Cyprus:

Ο XXXXXX XXXXXXXX F.kucuk

For Greece:

G. XXXXXXXXXXXXX

For Turkey:

Xxxxx Xxxxx

For the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Xxxx Xxxx

Document Metadata

Table of Contents

Name/Surname Beyza Melis Sağlık Contract No. TR2016/DG/04/A1-02/0759 Sector as of the Application Date(Public Sector-University-Private Sector) University Institution as of the Application Date Hacettepe University Title as of the Application Date...

Document Metadata