For my policy paper I want to discuss a particular section
of the EU’s membership criteria of the it’s enlargement policy: “stable
institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect
for and protection of minorities.” I want to analyze this policy against the
backdrop of the Cyprus accession into the EU on May1, 2004. An ethnically divided island between the Greek
and Turkish peoples, Cyprus has been one of the longest running conflicts that
have been unsuccessfully mediated and negotiated; Cyprus’s accession without
unification was made possible and the island became a full member state in the
EU but only represented by the Greek Cypriots.
Looking at this specific policy, the puzzle it seems is that
there does not appear to be a clear definition of certain terms in this policy
which has allowed for controversial enlargement such as Cyprus. This policy is
a condition to which countries, mainly those under previous Soviet control,
must adhere to if they wish to seek membership into the EU; however, this
policy has led to a controversial accession and I think it is worth analyzing to
ensure that the policy is sound.
Here is a short examination of the aftermath of the
accession of Cyprus into the EU:
Today, the northern Cypriot government, the TNRC, is only
recognized by Turkey, while the EU and all other countries recognize the
Republic of Cyprus as the only legitimate government for the whole island.
However, the Republic of Cyprus only controls the southern Greek portion of the
state while the northern government, which is seen as a Turkish military
occupation zone by the EU, is controlled by the Turkish Cypriots. So by virtue,
the north is considered to be under the rule of the Republic of Cyprus, but
since the EU views the north as a Turkish military zone, it is exempt from EU
legislation. The European Parliament allocates seats based on the population of
a state; in Cyprus’ case, the EP gives seats based on the entire Cyprus island
population but only to the southern Cyprus individuals. In essence, the Greek
Cypriots are have more leverage in the parliament because of the Turkish
Cypriot population but does not allocate any benefits or power to them.
Rachel - I think this would be very interesting. I didn't realize that Cyprus was divided and it would definitely be interesting to see how the EU can play a role in facilitating unification through their enlargement policy - or if this has been an issue before. Also, your point about how the Cyprus population is represented within the European Parliament is interesting. It's interesting to see that this divide has actually translated to the EU level and I wonder what the implications of that are.
ReplyDeleteI am already curious about the outcome of this paper. Is it going to be a historical policy analysis about what led Cyprus here? Or prescriptive with recommendations on what should be done? Like Emily, I had no idea the country was divided. Is unification even on the table? The only other time I can think of hearing about two EU countries merge was the re-unification of Germany in the 80's. Also, very good point about the implications of only counting the southern half of the island as the 'population' for representative purposes within parliament. I would think that Cyprus would hope to enlarge its influence through proper unification, but I know little about the conflict that has divided it...
ReplyDeleteFrom previous research that I've done this prolonged conflict is over whether the state should be reunited or made into a federal system, similar to the UK. I believe the Greek Cypriots want reunification while the Turkish want the federal system; however, over the 50 plus years of this conflict as leaders transition and the next generation comes into power, it seems as though the two sides are becoming more divided.
DeleteSo I just read that the border between the north and south has been open and no incidents were reported because of this but I don't know if this means that there is inter-ethnic communication and dialogue happening or if there is just free movement throughout the country but no interaction between the two groups.
DeleteRachel -- you have a good general topic area here and you've done a good job in starting to specify the puzzle and problem that you propose to analyze. It'd be good to provide a bit more detail on how this particular issue is a puzzle vis-a-vis theory (how does it not fit our expectations? Does the policy/problem area challenge existing understandings of European Integration, and accession in particular?). As Ryan noted, you should also clarify whether you intend to conduct a historical policy analysis or a prescriptive policy analysis. You're off to a good start, though!
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure which direction I want to go with this topic as far as a historical analysis or prescriptive; I guess with more research I will come to a decision. And thanks for these critical questions as they will help me narrow my research for this paper. On the top of my head I believe the problem challenges the idea that the EU promotes democracy, which is true, but now the EU must begin to question the quality of democracy within a state.
DeleteI, like everyone else, think this will be a very interesting analysis and I look forward to discussing it with you as you go along. I personally wonder why the EU ever agreed to Cypriot accession in the first place. The EU seems to be rather weary of getting involved in messy political situations, especially in terms of expansion. I know that Turkey has long been interested in EU membership, but discussions regarding that have often been slow and fruitless. It would be interesting to see if, in the near future, the EU would take a conflict revolutionary role with respect to this issue.
ReplyDelete