Dr. Edmond Melhem – Cyprus belongs to Syria Part I
Since 1974, Cyprus has been divided into two governments: One controls two-thirds of the island in the south, where Greek is predominantly spoken, and the other controls the remaining one-third of the island in the north, where Turkish is spoken. The two territories are separated by a buffer zone maintained by UN Peacekeeping Forces, which have served in Cyprus since 1964 following the outbreak of inter-communal fighting in December 1963.
“Greek” and “Turkish” Cypriots share many customs but possess different loyalties and maintain distinct identities based on religion, language and close ties with their respective “motherlands.” The “Greek” Cypriots identify themselves with the Hellenistic past, whereas the “Turkish” Cypriots believe they are direct descendants of the Ottoman Turkish conquerors who conquered Cyprus from the Venetians in 1571 and ruled it until 1878.[1] Moreover, the Greek and Turkish flags are more displayed than the flag of Cyprus. The national spirit for the love of Cyprus is weak. There is an absence of patriotism. Instead, leaders and educators press for either Hellenism of Cyprus to achieve enosis (i.e., to unite Cyprus with mother Greece) or Kemalism to attain Taksim. “Turkish’ Cypriot leaders have always contended that Cyprus had never been part of Greece and therefore could not be given to Greece. On the other hand, The “Greek” Cypriots, prompted by the Greek Orthodox Church, had begun to struggle for union with Greece as early as 1825.[2]
Irrespective of what the Cypriots believe about their distinct identities and the languages they speak, the true motherland of Cyprus, according to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), is neither Greece nor Turkey, rather it is natural Syria.
The SSNP considers the island of Cyprus as an integral part of the Syrian homeland, namely the Fertile Crescent. Moreover, the party designates the island as the star of the Fertile Crescent. As stated in the fifth basic principle of the party:
“The Syrian homeland is that geographic environment in which Syria, as a nation, evolved. It has distinct natural boundaries and extends from the Taurus range in the northwest and the Zagros mountains in the northeast to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in the south and includes the Sinai peninsula and the Gulf of Aqaba, and from the Syrian Sea in the west, including the island of Cyprus, to the arch of the Arabian desert and the Persian gulf in the east. (This region is also known as the Syrian Fertile Crescent and Cyprus is its star)”.
How does the SSNP justify the inclusion of Cyprus within the natural boundaries of Syria? The answer to this question can be found in the explanation of the fifth basic principle of the party. Sa΄adeh asserts that
“Cyprus is a portion of the Syrian land in the water. Its geological formation is an extension of the Syrian mainland and its geographic position renders it a supplementary part of land. Moreover, its strategic location is crucial to the security of the Syrian homeland. I should also emphasize that, in ancient times, the Island came under Syrian control after the Canaanites (Phoenicians) settled in it and incorporated it into their homeland. Remnants of that settlement exist on the Island to this day.”[3]
[1] In that year, through diplomacy a bilateral treaty was signed allowing Great Britain to take over the administration of the island while the Ottoman Empire was to retain sovereignty over it, in return for a British promise to support Turkey in the event of a Russian attack on her.
[2] In 1966, Archbishop Makarios speaking for Enosis declared: “The eternal desire of Cyprus is to unite with motherland Greece and fight for Greece. Our only and invariable aim is Enosis… the desire and aspiration of the Greek Cypriots is to unite Cyprus as a whole with the national body. We took over Cyprus as an undivided Greek island. We have preserved it as such. Now, we shall deliver it undivided to the mother’s bosom.” Quoted in Denktash, R. R. The Cyprus Triangle, K. Rusten & Bro. and George Allen & Unwin, London, 1982, p. 109.
[3] Antun Sa´adeh, Al-Muhadarat al-‘Ashr (The Ten Lectures), Beirut: SSNP, 1976, p. 86.
