Britain is serving its own interests in the heightening tension between the Greek Cypriot administration and Turkey over newly-found gas reserves and is undermining its role as a guarantor of the Cyprus constitution
 
The discovery of natural gas reserves under the eastern Mediterranean seabed has recently put the island of Cyprus under the spotlight of geo-politics. The 4.54 trillion cubic feet of natural gas discovered so far in the Aphrodite field in Block 12 of the island’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) promises to revive the economy, which in March 2013 narrowly survived defaulting from the Eurozone.
While French energy firm Total plans to begin work on Blocks 10 and 11 in 2015, Italian-South Korean consortium Eni-Kogas – which was granted rights to Blocks 2, 3 and 9 – began drilling in Block 9’s Onasagoras field in early October. Parallel to these developments, Israel – which also owns a 15 per cent stake in the Aphrodite field – has also been exploring its options with the Leviathan and Tamar gas fields found in their own EEZ.
Europe is no doubt the primary market for these reserves, as it is looking to diversify its supply away from Russia. Although the possibility of turning Cyprus into an exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is being considered, competing with Algeria in the European LNG market would prove difficult. While discussions about the feasibility of a 1,200 km-long underwater pipeline from Cyprus to Greece are ongoing, experts have already dismissed the project due to the 2,000m depths and the seismic activity of the area.
Therefore, the only realistic option appears to be channelling the gas through Turkey, which is working arduously to become an energy hub in the region. The only problem is that Turkey has opposed any agreements over the reserves until the 40-year-old “Cyprus Problem” has been resolved. To demonstrate their frustration with the Greek Cypriot administration, which has ignored Turkey’s calls to form a joint committee with their Turkish Cypriot counterparts, Turkey started their own exploration in Block 9 under the guard of warships, giving Greek Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades reason to suspend peace talks.
As Turkey does not recognise the Greek Cypriot-controlled government of the Republic of Cyprus – which it claims lost its legitimacy back in 1963 when it failed to uphold the constitutional rights granted to the Turkish Cypriots, who were subsequently ousted from the government – Turkey also does not recognise Greek Cypriot claims to eastern Mediterranean waters. Turkish Cypriot Professor Ata Atun from the Near East University told Anadolu Agency that as an island, Cyprus cannot claim sea territory unless it agrees to implement maritime laws introduced in 1982, which would require all concerned parties, including Turkey, to be a signatory. A former version of the law issued in 1960, to which Turkey subscribes, states that the declared EEZ of Cyprus is actually split between Turkey and Egypt. Therefore, Turkey has refused to recognise Greek Cypriot claims to its EEZ until a solution paves the way for Turkish Cypriots to be reincorporated in the political system.
Instead of pushing harder to achieve a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution to the dispute – in accordance with previous agreements approved by the United Nations – the Greek Cypriot administration has been reaching out to neighbours Israel, Egypt and Greece to form an anti-Turkey coalition in a bid to squeeze them out of any possible deal over the reserves. As EU members, both Cyprus and Greece, along with Israel, are now lobbying Europe to pressure Turkey into recognising the Greek Cypriot administration. On November 13, the European Parliament Plenary passed a resolution calling on Turkish ships to leave Cypriot waters.
Britain’s role
As the former colonial ruler of Cyprus, Britain maintains two military bases on the island and according to the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee (which the Greek Cypriot administration no longer recognises) is alongside Turkey and Greece a guarantor of the Cyprus constitution. However, Britain refused to exercise this right when the Greek junta carried out a coup on the island in July 1974 in an attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece, leaving Turkey to intervene alone. In fact, Britain has abstained from playing such a role since failing to secure a NATO-led intervention in 1964 after then-Greek Cypriot President Archbishop Makarios lobbied the Soviet Union to warn against military action on the island.
Despite often giving lip service to Turkey’s peace efforts in Cyprus, Britain has failed to use its guarantor status to gain political leverage over other EU states in Cypriot affairs. Instead, British Minister for Europe David Lidington recently expressed Britain’s recognition of the Greek Cypriot administration’s right to exploit hydrocarbon reserves within its EEZ, thus conforming to the EU’s position and leaving Turkey to bear the brunt of criticism for its tactics.
However, there is a voice within Britain calling for greater sympathy with the Turkish Cypriot cause. British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, who serves as the secretary-general of the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, rejected the EU’s resolution, slamming the decision as a punishment to the Turkish Cypriots who have “constantly supported the EU’s reunification plan”. Former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later urged the international community to accept the division in Cyprus, stating that partition is the only solution. On December 2nd, Lord Kilclooney asked the British government whether the UK is still a guarantor of Cyprus while pointing out the confiscation of Turkish Cypriot property to make way for a fuel terminal.
After Prime Minister David Cameron’s official visit to Turkey on December 9th, his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu reiterated the two guarantors’ common stance regarding the resumption of the Cyprus peace talks. Only time shall confirm the level of Britain’s commitment to pressure the Greek Cypriots into returning to the negotiation table. Of course, Britain’s chief concern is maintaining its bases in Dhekelia and Akrotiri, and has therefore always been reluctant to take any position that might put this at risk.
As much as Britain’s siding with the EU on Turkey’s behaviour was done to serve Britain’s best interests, as a guarantor of Cyprus, Britain has a responsibility to play a more direct role in encouraging the Greek Cypriots to recognise Turkey’s right to demand involvement in deals over the island’s offshore hydrocarbon reserves. Failure on behalf of the Greek Cypriots to do so will only indicate their unwillingness to solve the “Cyprus Problem”, in which case Britain would owe it to the Turkish Cypriots to recognise the permanent partitioning of the island.
Unfortunately, however, when the Treaty of Guarantee was signed in 1960 – stating that the guarantor powers had the right to take collective or unilateral action in order to re-establish the island’s state of affairs should the constitution be breached – it appears as if each guarantor only intended to fulfil this responsibility in the event that their own interests were threatened. Just as the July 1974 coup by the Greek junta undermined Greece’s status as a guarantor, and the same way the November 1983 declaration of Turkish Cypriot independence (recognised only by Turkey) defeated the objective of Turkey’s 1974 intervention, Britain’s lack of an independent stance on the “Cyprus Problem” has likewise demonstrated that Britain does not really consider itself a guarantor of the Cyprus constitution, but rather a guarantor of its own interests in Cyprus.

Image from: http://www.balkaneu.com/