I found this website while blundering about the www. It is about the origins of the United Nation's force in Cyprus. it seems uncannily similiar to what I have read both on this website and elsewhere had happened later in Bosnia.... http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/UNFICYP.html
The origins of the cyprus conflict - similiar to Bosnia?
- Thread starter JackD
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
While the author tries to be objective this narrative seems to be somewhat slanted in favour of the Turks. Which, having served in Cyprus I can certainly understand. I always found the Turks much more honest and straightforward to deal with, as well as being a far more disciplined and professional force. They were not always particularly cooperative, but at least you knew where they stood. I found the Greek Cypriot forces to be mostly undisciplined rubbish who were frequently outrageous liars.
I don't know how much of a parallel you can really draw with Bosnia. There are several factors that are different:
-there was a governing colonial power in Cyprus until the middle of the 20th century. Even after independence, the colonial power maintained a political and military presence in the country. No parallel in Bosnia (the Austro-Hungarian Empire was kicked out in 1918);
-there are two distinct ethnic/linguistic groups in Cyprus. In Bosnia there is no real ethnic difference (all are Slavs-Bosnian Muslims are just converted Slavs) and no linguistic difference (except for dialects);
-the two ethnic groups in Cyprus were very obviously the clients of two foreign states: Greece and Turkey, who were already in a historically tense relationship. One could draw a similar parallel with Croatian and Serbian involvement in Bosnia but I'm not sure their involvement had the same effect; and
-there were three distinct groups involved in the conflict in Bosnia: Croats, Serbs and Bosniac Muslims. This led to locally shifting alliances especially in the early part of the conflict, and to three competing visions of the future: Greater Serbia, union with Croatia, or an independent Bosnia. In Turkey there were only ever two groups involved in the struggle.
I will grant that there are some similarities. The inhabitants of a country, who had previously lived together more or less peacefully and had begun to mingle socially and economically reached a power-sharing arrangement under external pressure (from the British in the case of Cyprus, from Tito in the case of Bosnia). As a result of intercommunal strife the power sharing agreement fell apart, resulting in brutal atrocities and widening violence that descended into civil war, which lasted until there was foreign intervention: (Turkish, UK and UN in the case of Cyprus, UN. US and NATO in the case of Bosnia) . International attempts at reconciliation have had limited success (probably more in the case of Bosnia).
Cheers
I don't know how much of a parallel you can really draw with Bosnia. There are several factors that are different:
-there was a governing colonial power in Cyprus until the middle of the 20th century. Even after independence, the colonial power maintained a political and military presence in the country. No parallel in Bosnia (the Austro-Hungarian Empire was kicked out in 1918);
-there are two distinct ethnic/linguistic groups in Cyprus. In Bosnia there is no real ethnic difference (all are Slavs-Bosnian Muslims are just converted Slavs) and no linguistic difference (except for dialects);
-the two ethnic groups in Cyprus were very obviously the clients of two foreign states: Greece and Turkey, who were already in a historically tense relationship. One could draw a similar parallel with Croatian and Serbian involvement in Bosnia but I'm not sure their involvement had the same effect; and
-there were three distinct groups involved in the conflict in Bosnia: Croats, Serbs and Bosniac Muslims. This led to locally shifting alliances especially in the early part of the conflict, and to three competing visions of the future: Greater Serbia, union with Croatia, or an independent Bosnia. In Turkey there were only ever two groups involved in the struggle.
I will grant that there are some similarities. The inhabitants of a country, who had previously lived together more or less peacefully and had begun to mingle socially and economically reached a power-sharing arrangement under external pressure (from the British in the case of Cyprus, from Tito in the case of Bosnia). As a result of intercommunal strife the power sharing agreement fell apart, resulting in brutal atrocities and widening violence that descended into civil war, which lasted until there was foreign intervention: (Turkish, UK and UN in the case of Cyprus, UN. US and NATO in the case of Bosnia) . International attempts at reconciliation have had limited success (probably more in the case of Bosnia).
Cheers
