Contested migration and settler politics in Cyprus

Abstract

Immigration and settler literatures provide contrasting approaches to the evaluation of conflict between ‘newcomers’ and ‘indigenous’ groups. On the one hand, immigration studies emphasize that newcomers, particularly migrants, almost never fight civil wars; on the other hand, studies on settlers in contested territories expect inherently unstable relations between settlers and native populations affected by colonization projects. While each provides strong evidence to support its argument, neither literature has adequately accounted for hybrid cases where the settler and migrant categories have become almost indistinguishable. The article focuses on Cyprus as a paradigmatic such case. Specifically, it looks at populations transferred from Turkey to the northern part of the island after 1974 described either as settlers or immigrants by rival accounts in the Cypriot conflict. While colonization constitutes a violation of international conventions and a major obstacle to peace, settlers in such places as Cyprus, Tibet or Western Sahara often meet the profile of migrant populations more interested in daily survival issues than in territorial politics. In contrast to other historical or contemporary cases of settler colonialism such as Algeria (France) or West Bank and Gaza (Israel), what is particularly puzzling in Cyprus and elsewhere is the absence of mobilization and politicization among settlers despite perceived discrimination and fear of relocation following a negotiated peace agreement. Addressing this puzzle is essential to bridging the gaps between immigration and settler literatures and in mediating the tensions between conflicting claims over space, land and the political geography of peace settlements in deeply divided societies.

Introduction

In an era of nationalism, settlers and colonization have served as instruments of territorial expansion and control over contested territories. Colonization has often been combined with the ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations, driven by the belief that such demographic engineering will consolidate new and irreversible ‘facts’ on the ground (Lustick, 1993, McGarry and O’Leary, 1993: 10). In recent times, settlers are generally seen as violating international law and, therefore, garner little international sympathy, while in academia, social scientists tend to focus on more vulnerable groups, such as minorities at risk, displaced persons and refugees. Yet settlers in contested territories deserve both sympathy and academic attention, particularly since conflict processes often transform such populations from alleged beneficiaries of colonization to potential victims of discrimination and violence. Moreover, the presence of settlers is a crucial aspect of many conflicts and frequently the main obstacle in peace processes, as manifested recently in Israel/Palestine and in negotiations over the status of Kirkuk in Iraq, the Abyei province in Sudan and Kashmir. More importantly, societies built on a settler/indigenous divide tend to be inherently unstable, as settler expansionism frequently meets indigenous resistance.

However, as this article argues, despite the enormous problems colonization could create for a contested territory, settlers cannot be seen exclusively as a cause of controversy and conflict. To support this argument, the article evaluates two arguably opposing theoretical camps, namely, immigrants vs. settlers, in contested territories, drawing, on the one hand, on the seminal works of Laitin, 1998, Laitin, 2009 and Kymlicka (1995), and on the other hand, on Lustick, 1985, Lustick, 1988, Lustick, 1993. The article situates Cyprus within the broader debate on settlers in contested territories and identifies novel linkages in the intersection of immigration and ethnic conflict literatures. It argues that Turkish settlers in the island exhibit low levels of politicization despite fears of involuntary resettlement primarily because they meet the profile of migrant populations attached to daily survival issues rather than to territorial politics. While the article acknowledges that the resulting fluid categories of settler/migrants are malleable to nationalist framing, it also suggests that those remain amenable to innovative institutional design during peace processes. To make its point, the article analyzes mainstream discourses on settlers and colonization in the context of Cyprus and demonstrates how novel institutional arrangements such as asymmetrical citizenship, alternative compensation schemes and reserved territories for natives groups can facilitate peaceful accommodation of settler/native conflicts. It also integrates studies on accommodation mechanisms with broader theories on ethnicity and migration. Despite the growth of policy studies on peace mediation in territorial conflicts, relevant debates have rarely benefited from theoretical insights in the intersection of migration and ethnic conflict literatures. By specifying the conditions for settler/migrant mobilization and politicization, this study fills an important gap in the literature.