EMBARGO, SHMEMBARGO: IT'S ALL GREEK TO ME
STEPHEN HUGH-JONES | ON LANGUAGE AND LIFE | February 22nd 2008
R@punseLL/Flickr
As el Comandante makes his exit, Stephen Hugh-Jones takes a moment to skewer the American trade embargo on Cuba. Not only does it rank among the longest-lasting geopolicy failures in history, but the EU is making the same mistake with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus ...
Special to MORE INTELLIGENT LIFE
So the wordy old rogue is going at last, is he? Buried somewhere in my files--nay, weighing them down--is a bundle of at least 50 closely typed A4 pages, the verbatim record of an "interview" with Fidel Castro by Cuba's state television during the 1990s. How long it took I don't know; at the end the interviewers, if that was the word, thanked el Comandante for all the time he had given us, and I'd like to think, retreated to light fat cigars with a heartfelt sigh of relief.
Alas, that probably isn't true. The cigars, maybe, but among those Cubans who didn't choose or couldn't manage to flee the country--a large majority, whatever the streets of Miami may suggest to the opposite--most retained a solid affection for their boss even after 40-odd years. And I doubt that tongue-in-cheek journalists lasted long in the fidelista media, the only kind there was.
That widespread affection, I'm told, still survives, even if it is more qualified, and these days Raulified, than it once was. For that, Fidel should thank, not least, successive presidents of the United States. He's faced ten, and not one has had the political nous, or will, or maybe strength, to stop beating Cuba with sticks and try carrots instead. Forget the Bay of Pigs--the American trade embargo on Cuba surely ranks among the longest-lasting geopolicy failures in history.
Yet failure was easily foreseeable, and foresight was swiftly proved right. Surprise, surprise. If the mighty neighbour who used to run your country, and cheerfully backed its previous dictator, first lets loose an amateur invasion, and then for 45 years does its best to impoverish you as a step toward removing the new one--well, how would you feel? And would you have rushed to notice how the Cuban road to socialism was quite capable of impoverishing you by itself?
Answering those questions requires no special knowledge of Latin Americans' bipolar feelings about the United States, only of human nature. And, whatever our governments may or may not say, most European media have been happy to tell the White House (as surely the State Department must have?) that when you're in a hole the first step is to stop digging. The embargo is that hole.
So far, so banal, at least east of the Atlantic. How curious, then, that we Europeans for over 20 years have been applying an equally unsuccessful embargo: to the self-declared "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". Whether Turkey should have sent its troops into Cyprus in 1974 is disputable. So too whether it should in 1983 have sponsored the birth a breakaway republic in the Turkish-Cypriot part of the island. There were reasons for both, but maybe not good enough reasons. What's certain, though, is that the TRNC has existed, supported by most of its inhabitants, ever since.
The United Nations and the European Union don't think it should. Both were led to that view in the 1970s not only by Greece and the then government of Cyprus, but notably by Britain, the former colonial power, whose views are plainly biased by its "sovereign" base areas in the Greek-Cypriot part of the island. So an EU bar on trade was swiftly clapped on the new would-be republic. Sharpened by an EU Court judgment in 1994, it has been maintained ever since.
The UN and EU accept the myth, justifiable in international law but rubbish in local fact, that the (solely Greek-Cypriot) government of the island still speaks for all of it. And the EU, predictably led astray by the British, with almost childish folly agreed to let that government bring Cyprus into membership in May 2004, supposing it would accept UN proposals for genuine reunification. In April 2004 Turkish-Cypriot voters said yes to the UN plan. The Greek-Cypriot ones, headed by their president, put two fingers up--and got EU membership nonetheless. The plan may yet be revived, thanks to that president's defeat in this month's "national" (de facto, Greek-Cypriot) elections. But the trade ban has lasted for four more years, and remains in force, now with three cynically self-interested EU countries in favour of it, instead of two.
What also remains, however, is the TRNC. The embargo certainly impoverishes it. If a British wholesaler wants to buy fruit or vegetables there, he can't. If British holiday-makers want to fly there--it's the more beautiful part of the island--they can, but only if the plane halts in Turkey on the way. (And, by the way, the biter's bit. If British police want to lay hands on criminals who have taken refuge in the TRNC, they can't: how can you expect extradition from a country which you say doesn't exist? Still, no doubt this does add modestly to wealth in the TRNC). Yet, however poor, the TRNC survives.
In sum, since the 1980s the EU has been trying, like the United States since the 1960s, to get rid of a regime it disapproves of through impoverishment; a regime, moreover, which, unlike Castro's, practises a tolerable version of democracy, and has never posed any threat to the EU's interests, let alone offered to install the nuclear missiles of its enemies. Like the US, the EU has failed. Yet, like the US, it persists.
My objection is in part political. I hold no brief for the TRNC; I've never set foot in northern Cyprus. But if enough people, in a credible area, want independence enough to grab it, I reckon it's reasonable to agree, like the result or not. The EU accepted the break-up of Yugoslavia; indeed most big EU countries have just rushed to recognise the dismemberment of Serbia by Kosovo's Albanians, which--however strong their claims--threatens the peace of Europe far more than does the existence of the TRNC. Nor can one reasonably try to starve a nation into changing its mind, let alone one that threatens nobody. The EU doesn't try that with Iran or North Korea, still less Cuba. It does try with the Turkish-Cypriots.
But there's a wider objection too. What right has any government, facing no risk of war and for no humanitarian end, to forbid its citizens to buy and sell, to borrow or lend, where they choose? To travel as they choose? Putin's Russia is ostentatiously hostile to my country. It sends its thugs to murder British residents. It could wipe out the lot of us in ten minutes. So do we embargo dealings with Russia? Far from it: British and all other EU firms are free to hurl billions into the Russian economy, to import trillions of cubic feet of Russian gas. So who do we embargo? A wretched little would-be friendly would-be state at the far end of the Mediterranean, for wretched little would-be reasons.
And Britain's media, ever happy (and right) to lecture the White House about Cuba, barely even notice.
(Stephen Hugh-Jones is a former writer and editor for The Economist, where he wrote the Johnson column from 1992-99. He lives now in West Sussex.)
Email this page
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Comments
TRNC article is misleading.
February 25, 2008 - 00:25 — PatricktheRogue (not verified)This article comparing Cyprus to Cuba belies the author's ignorance of both situations. One government came into being as the result of armed insurrection, the other is the puppet state of an armed invader. There is a difference, in history and in view of international law. First, my full disclosure: My wife is half-Greek Cypriot. My father-in-law spent a year and a half in a Turkish prison camp upon capture in the 1974 Turkish invasion. So, if you want to discount the following remarks, be my guest. However, I was posted to the US Embassy in Cyprus for two years, I have roamed every area of the island, and have found friends and admirable people on both sides of the divide. Suffice to say I am intimately familiar with the argument on both sides. Indeed, in the midst of such contentiousness, it is surprising how many folks on both sides have substituted rage for resignation, and even acceptance.
Even my father-in-law is surprisingly understanding of the Turkish Cypriot cause. And, ultimately, the realist in me understands that Greek Cypriots begged their fate by dancing with the ENOSIS devil and preparing insufficiently for Turkish military action. Key lesson: if you are going to oppress an ethnic minority in your country, first make sure they don't have cousins forty miles away with a ferocious military. Or arm yourself appropriately. The Greek Cypriots did neither and suffered the fate of those who ignore the great axioms at their peril.
This does not, however, completely excuse the Turks' actions, during the invasion or, especially, since. Simply put, they deprived tens of thousands of private citizens of their property rights without compensation. They have not even attempted compensation, and they have redistributed the property with abandon while the Greek side has held every last bit of property owned by a Turkish Cypriot in readiness for their return.
The contention that if a "enough people, in a credible area, want independence enough to grab it, I reckon it's reasonable to agree, like the result or not" would condone the ethnic cleansing of the entire northern half of the island and permanently deprive residents on the south of their property and their options to "buy and sell, to borrow or lend, where they choose." If the Greek Cypriot refugees were allowed to return and vote, the TRNC would be dissolved with certainty.
Do you wonder why Greek Cypriots gave the "two-fingered salute" to the Annan Plan? Perhaps you can put yourself in their shoes. My wife's family owned six houses, three businesses, and a few hundred acres of land near Kyrenia. The Turkish government stripped them of this land and property. Everything was gone, including family photos and heirlooms. The Annan plan would have given those from the Kyrenia area no compensation and no right to even purchase their own land back.
These facts do not preclude increased economic engagement of the TRNC, to include steps to diplomatic recognition, but they should not be dismissed out of hand as simple obstinance and a "two-fingered" salute. TRNC should be accepted and integrated in a way that will bolster the rule of law, not enrich a corrupt thugocracy.
ARTICLE, SHMARTICLE: TAKE THIS GARBAGE DOWN
February 25, 2008 - 14:39 — Visitor (not verified)Stephen Hugh-Jones wrote the following: " I've never set foot in northern Cyprus. But if enough people, in a credible area, want independence enough to grab it, I reckon it's reasonable to agree, like the result or not. "
Stephen, thank you for solving the Northern Ireland problem (as well as the Cyprus one) in one simple sentence. It is a shame that you were never allowed to become Prime Minister or never were bright enough to become an esteemed academic advocating the "Hugh-Jones simplistic approach on International conflicts". Alas, you are a failed writer on an online magazine, even though it is clear that in your fantasy world, you are probably a great success.
There is a special word for someone that admits freely of knowing nothing about the geopolitical system of the subject at hand, or any of the legalities of it, but still freely express its printed views for the world to read: Idiot!
The two red-faced
February 25, 2008 - 23:08 — Jamie (not verified)The two red-faced correspondents above may like to note that the article does not concern the 'occupation' of northern Cyprus.
It has to do with the EU attitude to the northern republic now and over the past few decades.
The crux of the matter is this: The northern republic exists, in a de facto sense. All past issues aside, what is gained from not recognising it and not trading with it, and how can this be fair? As Mr Hughs-Jones sees it, the present EU position is one corrupted by vested interests, historical hatred and specious legality. Are there any arguments for continuation of the status quo that aren't an expression of moral indignation?
Idiocy
February 27, 2008 - 04:57 — S Hugh-Jones (not verified)Me, if I want to call a man an idiot, I add my name, and I've never known why the Web rejects that common courtesy. But I can understand that one might not want to claim authorship of a comment so empty of argument. There's an old lawyers' saying "Bad case? Abuse plaintiff's attorney." Not that I'm an attorney for the TRNC, merely for some common consistency, common sense and perhaps even common decency in the EU's attitude to would-be separatists. Is this particular "Visitor" (unlike the perfectly sensible US diplomat above) perhaps an attorney for the opposite? SH-J.
Separatists
February 29, 2008 - 06:33 — Historian (not verified)For the record, the countries most of whose inhabitants at one time or another wanted independence enough to grab it, or indeed fight for it, included Greece, the United States, India, Algeria, Poland, Norway, Slovakia--and Cyprus. Does angry "Visitor" wish they had all been stopped?
The Case for Sanctions as a Foreign Policy Tool
February 29, 2008 - 12:09 — Colin (not verified)What seems to be lost in the discussion of whether to maintain or abandon sanctions on any country is the necessity of maintaining an economic lever to influence other nations. If there is a nation that is being manifestly unjust toward its own people, or a neighbor, I think that most people would agree that a liberal, rights-centric democracy should not sit idly by. Unfortunately there are not many things one nation can do to influence another unfriendly one.
"Soft" measures, such as diplomatic negotiations, non-binding resolutions in the UN General Assembly and strongly worded condemnations are easy enough to produce but have little chance producing a meaningful effect. These actions have a low cost, but also are usually ineffective. Military incursion has it's own share of glaring problems. An invasion usually produces results, but seldom the desired results and carries an extreme cost.
There are very few options in the middle ground between diplomacy and military intervention. Economic sanctions are the most obvious (and some would argue, the only) meaningful measure of a foreign-policy action that carries more weight than diplomatic engagement at less cost than military action. Governments do respond to economic pressure, as demonstrated by the effectiveness of economic sanctions in encouraging the Apartheid regime in South Africa to peacefully step aside. This does not happen all the time and admittedly, much of the pressure falls on people who may be no friends of the government, but what other options are there?
Many people seem to prefer offering economic incentives and using trade as a carrot rather than a stick. This only works if you are offering it to nations that have not transgressed against rights, If we were to offer oppressive nations monetary rewards for ceasing their oppression, it would quickly set a precedent for any petty dictator to engage in odious behavior in the hopes of securing a payment from international bodies. North Korea has been playing this game with great effectiveness over the last two decades.
So, when considering economic sanctions, we must remain aware of what each instance of their use would say about their utility as a tool in general. If we remove sanctions without achieving a positive result, it sends the message that they can simply be waited out without ceasing the objectionable behavior. I will admit that sanctions, as a tool, are often a sledgehammer in situations that call for a scalpel, but what other meaningful options to we have?
Sanctions as a tool
March 20, 2008 - 06:53 — SH-J (not verified)Sanctions worked with apartheid South Africa. Where else? Still, agreed, they are a possible tool. But sanctions that haven't worked? For over 40 years against Cuba--and that arguably solidified its citizens behind Castro, rather than the reverse? SH-J
A comment
May 8, 2008 - 02:36 — Concerned reader (not verified)I have no problem with Turkish/Greek Cypriot people on both sides and have very good friends that also live on both sides of the Island but I have a few things i'de like to say. This is my personal opinion. A Genocide was ordered on Turkish Cypriots and the problem existed long before any war broke out and long before Turkey came. Turkey came to the rescue of Turkish Cypriot's because frankly, there was a plan to wipe them out on this island.
Technically this is called an invasion and I have heard this phrase many times, as I have the phrase 'occupide area' and also that the TRNC does not 'exist'.
First of all, it was more a rescue than an invasion. Secondly The turkish republic is not 'occupied' by turkish cypriots, they live here in there home land. And thirdly by saying TRNC does not exist is also saying the people here dont exist.
I am very happy that the south side has been accepted into the EU but why not the North side exactly?
For every story that can be told of a missing loved one, a killed loved one or someone misstreated in any shape of form, there is also one to match it in the other community of the Island.
If moving forward means that the North stays embargoed and the south is now an EU member, does something sound not quite right there?!
I have stepped foot on both sides, spoken to both communities and phisically experienced the effects of this isolation and its not nice I can tell you.
So If I recap very briefly on the history of the Island, an order of Genocide was ordered on the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey came to the rescue (no comparison on weapons etc as you can see with your own eyes in the museums where you will see turkish cypriots had guns made from bicycle bars), then the North side is punished with embargoes, non recognition etc etc etc
Its not just fruit and veg that cant be traded and no direct flight, its also for example pet travel, to bring a pet back to the UK, it has to go into quarantine in the UK, in DEFRA'S words it is purely political. Is this right? There is no case of rabies on the Island but one side gets to travel freely and the other doesnt! Even the animals end up suffering!
On finishing my comment I want to say again, I look at the facts, not taking sides because I do cry inside for both communities but I cannot soften the truth. This is the reality, i didnt even bring in the horific stories that are REAL of things that happened.
The TRNC deserves to be recognised and the people should not be punished any longer for something that they did not create in the first place.
Where is the justice?!
I know there will be people possibly disagreeing with my comment and you are also entitled to your opinion but before you write a reply attempting to personally attack me please think first as I am entitled to mine.
I wish peace to all.
I have a friend in Cyprus.
May 8, 2008 - 13:06 — Sergey (not verified)I have a friend in Cyprus. he said that sometimes they have communication problems with Turkish peolpe there. May be the embargo is in native people interest?
A comment
May 9, 2008 - 03:44 — Concerned reader (not verified)Yes sometimes there would be a communication problem but that would be generally limited to the difference in language although most cypriots speak both languages and also english. Embargoes are in no ones interest and have absoloutely no benefit apart from in extreme circumstances as we have seen for example in the sale of toys toxic to children. The 2 communities are generally used to living seperately with the option to cross the buffer zones when they wish but to completely ignore & misstreat the TRNC is outrageous in my view.
Concerned reader, well, i
May 9, 2008 - 09:16 — Sergey (not verified)Concerned reader, well, i think you are right. Embargo is in no one interest INSIDE Cyprus. May be there are some other interests there?
Painting black and white with a gray brush
November 13, 2008 - 04:34 — PatricktheRogue (not verified)Re: "First of all, it was more a rescue than an invasion. Secondly The turkish republic is not 'occupied' by turkish cypriots, they live here in there home land."
I have never heard even a Greek Cypriot claim that Northern Cyprus is occupied by Turkish Cypriots. It is the Turkish Army that they are concerned about. As well as thousands of resettled Turks brought in from the Anatolian hinterlands to pad out the population numbers in the north.
And as for the invasion being a rescue of Turkish Cypriots from mistreatment, all accounts generally bear this out, though claims of "genocide" are a little far-fetched. There were reported statements from some of the most radical elements of the Greek junta with regard to wholesale slaughter, but there was no deliberate, planned annihilation of the Turkish Cypriot communities on the order of the Jewish holocaust or the recent atrocities in Rwanda. Turkey had many avenues available other than an outright invasion. And, once having committed to an invasion, they could have worked with the international community to resettle those Greek Cypriots back into their homes. They could have worked with all the governments involved to at least outline a plan to remove their forces and return the island to normalcy. They did none of these. There are some defensible reasons to invade the island to protect their cousins in Cyprus. There are no defensible reasons that I know of to continue to occupy the same land 34 years later. There are no good reasons to continue to deprive the Greek Cypriots of their property and their heritage. It is time for Turkey to grow up and join the community of nations. It wants to be a full fledged democracy respected throughout the developed world? Let it begin to honor the rule of law.
And to the earlier posts asking what reasons exist to continue resistance to making the TRNC a permanent fact, I suggest: respect for the rule of law and property rights. Turkey continues to flout both and should not be rewarded for doing so.
Post new comment