VOLCANIC ISLANDS:
ETHNIC CONFLICT IN
NORTHERN IRELAND, CYPRUS, AND SRI LANKA
John J. McTague
St. Leo College
The breakup of the Soviet Union into fifteen ethnically based states and the violence that has accompanied the disintegration of Yugoslavia have sparked a revival of interest in the study of ethnic conflict in the modern world. Immense conflicts have been endemic in the twentieth century, especially since the end of the Second World War.(1)
Particularly striking are the number of instances of such conflict that have taken place in former British colonies. There have been the unsuccessful Biafran rebellion in Nigeria, the Quebec separatist movement in Canada, the partition of Pakistan from India and later of Bangladesh from Pakistan, and the current movement of Sikhs in the Punjab to secede from India. This paper will examine ethnic separatism in three other former British colonies, all of them islands widely separated from one another: Ireland, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka. Although one is in Western Europe, another in the Middle East, and the third in South Asia, they have a good deal in common, primarily the ethnic conflicts that each has endured since the 1960s.
But before looking in detail at these three islands, let us try to define what we are talking about. If the problems we are describing result from the presence of two or more ethnic groups within the borders of a single state, what constitutes an ethnic group? Its characteristics are a common myth of descent, a shared history, a distinctive shared culture, an association with a specific territory, and a sense of solidarity.(2) Ethnonationalism occurs when "the sentiment of an ethnic minority in a state . . . propels the group to unify and identify itself as having the capacity for self-government," and this frequently leads to ethnic separatism, defined as "a movement by members of an ethnic group to gain autonomy over their own destiny, with the formation of a separate state as the major option."(3)
Ethnonationalism and ethnic separatism exist on all three islands we are discussing here, for each is populated primarily by two ethnic groups, one of which comprises an overwhelming majority. Ireland as a whole (including Ulster) is 77 percent Catholic with a Protestant minority of 22 percent, but Northern Ireland by itself reverses that proportion, with 63 percent Protestants and 36 percent Catholics. Cyprus has a Greek majority of 79 percent and a Turkish minority of 19 percent, while Sri Lanka is 74 percent Sinhalese and 19 percent Tamil, with a third group, Muslims, comprising 6 percent. Competition between the majority and minority groups has been the dominant factor in the history of each island since World War II, as will be illustrated by a brief sketch of the historical background of the three islands.
Ireland's proximity to Great Britain (Belfast is only twenty miles from the Scottish coast) has been of enormous significance to its history. The English began interfering in Ireland as far back as the twelfth century, and had effectively conquered it by the early 1600s. They then began a policy which had momentous consequences; they brought large numbers of English and Scottish Protestant immigrants to settle what at the time was the most rebellious province on the island--Ulster. In time, so many arrived that these Protestants became a majority in that part of Ireland, though vastly outnumbered on the island as a whole. As expected, they remained staunchly loyal to the Crown, helping to put down Irish rebellions in the 1640s and again in 1690. And they dominated Ireland from that time until the twentieth century, maintaining their supremacy over the Catholic population via the British government, which viewed these transplants as the only trustworthy group on the island.
When the Catholic majority began clamoring for home rule and then independence in the years before World War 1, a crisis arose for the Ulster Protestants. Independence would have resulted in Catholic domination, a situation they considered intolerable. Consequently, Protestants demanded a partition that would keep Ulster within the United Kingdom, and they even threatened rebellion if they were forced into a united Ireland.
The British government, placed in the uncomfortable position of abandoning a people who were loyal to the Crown, accepted their arguments, and so in 1922, when Ireland was given its independence, the north was partitioned from it. It remained in the U.K. but was given its own government as well, with a Parliament at Stormont. Ulster was the only part of the U.K. to have such an arrangement. The Stormont government was established on a one-man-one-vote principle, which meant that the Protestants, with a two-to-one majority, totally controlled politics. As a result, Catholics continued to suffer the same discrimination in the north that they had endured for centuries island-wide.
They suffered in silence for the most part until the late 1960s when, inspired by the American Civil Rights Movement, they began their own marches and demonstrations. Protestants reacted violently; the Irish Republican Army came to the aid of the Catholics; and, with Stormont unable to maintain order, the British Army was called in. After three years of near civil war, the Stormont government was suspended in 1972, and since then the province has been ruled directly from London, although this is regarded as a temporary measure. All subsequent attempts at a solution have been vetoed by one side or the other, but at least London and Dublin have shown a measure of cooperation since their 1985 Hillsborough Agreement.(4)
Like Ireland, Cyprus is dwarfed by a large neighbor. Only forty miles south of Turkey, its earliest inhabitants were Greeks, who have always made up the bulk of its population. The Turkish Ottoman Empire conquered the island in 1571, and in the subsequent three hundred years Turkish immigrants made numerous settlements there.
Primarily interested in Cyprus' strategic location, in 1878 the British took over. No serious ethnic problems developed until the 1950s, when the Greeks, who outnumbered Turks four to one, began demanding union (enosis) with Greece. The Turkish minority, totally unassimilated with their island neighbors, responded by asking for partition so they could join their mother country. A 1960 agreement between Britain, Greece, and Turkey rejected both demands and instead granted Cyprus independence, under a constitution protecting minority group rights and mandating a Turkish vice-president and a certain number of Turkish legislators and administrators.
The Greek majority accepted this agreement under duress, and their first president, Greek Orthodox Archbishop Makarios, openly proclaimed enosis as his eventual goal. When he attempted to modify the constitution in 1963, violence broke out. It ended only through U.N. intervention. A second outbreak took place four years later, which again required a U.N. settlement.
Conflict did not again explode until 1974. In the summer of that year, the Greek junta in Athens staged a coup to overthrow Makarios, who by then had abandoned enosis, and replaced him with a former guerrilla fighter. Turkey, refusing to stand idle while enosis was in the winds, launched an invasion of the island and captured the northern 40 percent before heeding a U.N. ceasefire. Most Turks on the island then migrated to the north, while Greeks in that sector were expelled, thereby effectively partitioning Cyprus into two separate, ethnically pure regions. The two sides then began negotiations for a settlement, but in 1983 the north declared itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which has been recognized only by Turkey. Despite that, the Turks remain open to reunification, but only under a federal system, which would grant them considerable autonomy. Negotiations under U.N. auspices have been going on for years but have home no fruit so far.(5)
Like the other two islands, Sri Lanka, lying only forty miles southeast of India, sits in the shadow of a larger country. Its majority group, the Sinhalese, came from the subcontinent about two thousand years ago while Tamil settlers, also from India, date back almost a thousand years. The Tamils, who were Hindu, took over the northern part of the island, while the Buddhist Sinhalese dominated the remainder. Sri Lanka, called Ceylon by Europeans, was never unified until conquered by foreigners, first the Portuguese, then the Dutch, and finally in 1796 by the British.
Despite unification, the two groups remained totally distinct and separate, as in Ireland and Cyprus, so when independence came in 1948 the potential for ethnic violence was great. The Sinhalese, with a three-to-one majority, took over the government under a constitution devoid of protection for minority rights. But problems did not develop until 1956, when a newly elected Sinhalese nationalist government proclaimed Sinhalese the only official language, replacing English in that regard. Tamil protests led to mutual violence, which escalated for two years until settled by a compromise.
But rising Sinhalese nationalism caused continued discrimination against Tamils, and communal riots broke out again in the late 1970s. Then in 1983, after large-scale massacres of Tamils, a major rebellion began in the north, which has continued to the present day. Although several Tamil groups have been involved, the most important has been the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), who demand an independent Tamil state (Eelam) in the northern and eastern parts of the island.
By 1987, the Tigers were receiving aid and training from their fellow Tamils in south India, and the government in New Delhi was pressuring Columbo to improve its treatment of the rebels. This pressure led to a stunning agreement in July of that year, by which the Indian Army was invited by Sri Lanka to enter the north to disarm the Tamils in return for a promise to create a federal system, which would give the Tamils considerable autonomy. The strategy was that, assured that New Delhi would guarantee that the Sinhalese would keep their side of the bargain, the Tamils would lay down their arms.
Unfortunately, it did not work out that way. While most Tamil groups cooperated, the Tigers did not, and India spent two and half frustrating years in an unsuccessful attempt to crush them. Meanwhile, most Sinhalese resented the Indian presence as interference in their affairs and finally got India to withdraw in the spring of 1990. And while Columbo did try to implement the federal power-sharing scheme, the island remains in turmoil with the LTTE in de facto control of the north.(6)
Now let us examine the similarities among the three. All are islands of relatively small size, which gives them a geographic unity based on natural borders. In each case, however, the ethnic composition of each island has fragmented that unity. All three have an ethnic group who regard themselves as the "native inhabitants" and who also happen to comprise the overwhelming majority. The Irish Catholics (77 percent), Greeks (79 percent), and Sinhalese (74 percent), while possibly not the original inhabitants of their islands, have lived there for at least two thousand years and easily predate any other groups currently in residence. Therefore, they regard Ireland, Cyprus and Sri Lanka as belonging to them and to them alone.
On the other hand, the minorities on each island are of more recent origin. Protestants (22 percent) began settling Ireland in the early 1600s, while Turks (19 percent) arrived in Cyprus a few years earlier. Of the three, the Tamils (19 percent) have lived on their island the longest, their settlements going back to the early years of the millennium. And all three came as conquerors, although the Tamils only took over the northern part of Sri Lanka, unlike the English Protestants and the Turks, who ruled all of Ireland and Cyprus. These conquests definitely created resentment, for as conqueror and conquered, there was a natural tendency not to Intermingle, especially because the victorious group was a minority that could easily have disappeared if it failed to maintain its distinct identity.
But there are numerous other reasons keeping these groups apart. Religion, an obvious element separating the sides in Ireland, also plays a role on the other two islands. On Cyprus, the Greeks are overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox, while the Turks are Muslim. And because the conquest occurred at a time when the Turks were considered a major threat to Christian Europe, religious antagonism has been strong on the island from the beginning, even though some Greek Cypriots converted to Islam. On Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese are Buddhists and believe that their island is sacred to their religion. The Tamils, on the other hand, are Hindus, and, although the two religions do not have a history of conflict in Asia, violence is more of a problem on Sri Lanka, because of several major shrines in the central highlands.
National origin is often listed as a source of conflict, but this difference is more imagined than real except on Cyprus. While it is true that the Irish are of Celtic background compared to the English who have heavy doses of Anglo-Saxon and Norman blood, a high percentage of the settlers in Ulster were Scotsmen, who are also Celtic. In Sri Lanka, both Sinhalese and Tamils originated in India, although the former group likes to claim that they came from north India and are therefore Aryan as opposed to the Dravidian Tamils from the southern part of the subcontinent. Only in Cyprus are the ethnic distinctions truly meaningful, for Greeks and Turks really did come from separate origins.
Language is another source of trouble that bears mention. In both Cyprus and Sri Lanka it is a divisive element, because Greeks, Turks, and Sinhalese Tamils each have their own tongue, which few members of the other group have managed to learn. In both countries, the language used in intercommunal discourse is usually English, because it was the official language in colonial days and is generally understood by the educated classes of both majority and minority groups. In Ireland, however, English is the first language of both Protestants and Catholics, despite the efforts of the Irish Republic to revive the native language, Gaelic; therefore, language in Ireland does not contribute to the conflict, as it does on the other two islands.
We have seen that in varying degrees facts of conquest, religion, national origin, and language serve to separate the groups on each island. Adding to this complexity, both majority and minority groups feel quite insecure on all three islands. It is understandable that the Protestants, Turks and Tamils, each of whom makes up roughly 20 percent of the population of their islands, should not feel comfortable, but the Catholic, Greek and Sinhalese comprise approximately 75 percent majorities and still demonstrate great insecurity.
The major reason for this majorityite insecurity is that each minority has a "big brother," a powerful country that feels a kinship to the minority and regards itself as their protector. In each case that big brother has interfered on the island in favor of the minority despite the opposition of the majority group.
In Ireland, the British have intervened continuously since the twelfth century, and on the eve of the Irish people's greatest triumph, the achievement of independence, Britain spoiled it by partitioning Ulster to preserve Protestant dominance. It is the continued British presence there that has prevented the Irish Republic from retaking the province and reuniting the island.
In Cyprus, Turkey was one of the guarantors of the 1960 treaty that gave the island its independence, and it had the right to intervene if the Turkish minority was endangered. The Ankara government threatened to do so twice in the 1960s and finally carried out this threat in 1974 after the anti-Makarios coup. Since then it has been the Turkish army that has ensured the continued existence of the regime that controls the northern 40 percent of the island. As with Ulster, Northern Cyprus exists on the insistence of its big brother.
As for Sri Lanka, it is only recently that foreign interference has complicated its ethnic relations. The state of Tamil Nadu in southeastern India contains many millions of people who are ethnically related to the Tamils of the island, and they took a strong interest in the rebellion that broke out in 1983. Within a short time, the LTTE was establishing bases in the state of Tamil Nadu, which provided LTTE with supplies. Because Tamil Nadu is a powerful state in India's federal system, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi could not afford to ignore the issue, and so he attempted to mediate the conflict in Sri Lanka several times without success.
Then in the summer of 1987, with Columbo launching a major offensive to crush the Tamil rebellion, protest in India reached such levels that Gandhi sent humanitarian aid to the Jaffna peninsula, center of the revolt. This bold action jolted President J. R. Jayewardene into realizing that the conflict could not be resolved without India's involvement. As a consequence, he invited the Indian Army to serve as peacekeepers. But two years later, New Delhi acceded to Sri Lanka's request to withdraw, even though the task of pacifying the Tamil areas had not been completed. And since Gandhi's assassination in May 1991, widely attributed to the Tigers, anti-LTTE sentiment has been so virulent that aid from Tamil Nadu has been almost entirely eliminated.(7)
Another strong similarity is that partition, which is the ultimate goal of ethnic separatists, has either been accomplished or is the stated objective of the minority groups on all three islands. In Ireland, of course, the creation of Northern Ireland is a classic example of ethnic partition, enacted to protect the Protestant minority from Catholic rule. In Cyprus, partition has been in effect between Greeks and Turks since 1974, although the permanence of this situation is in doubt. And in Sri Lanka, the creation of a Tamil state in the northern and eastern provinces (Eelam) is the stated goal of most Tamil groups, although there is evidence that those who are more moderate than the Tigers would settle for less.
Why has partition been held out as the magic solution? Largely because the minority groups claim that they suffer massive discrimination at the hands of the majority. But while that accusation may be true in the cases of Cyprus and Sri Lanka, there is little evidence of it in Ireland, possibly because of lack of opportunity. Until 1922, Britain ruled all the island, denying Catholics the chance to control their own destinies. Since the partition, the north has been dominated by Protestants with little Catholic input. In the Irish Republic, Protestants comprise a mere 5 percent of the population but, although the Catholic Church does exert strong influence on the government, there have been few complaints of religious discrimination.
The other two islands, however, are a different story. In Cyprus, the Greek majority preferred enosis to independence and Makarios, who felt the same way, tried to revise the constitution to reduce Turkish safeguards. Also, a pro-enosis guerrilla group (EOKA-B) operated on the island with tacit government cooperation. Turkish fears of being annexed to Greece were soundly based, and the 1974 coup was so blatant that Ankara was able to respond aggressively--with an invasion--without being punished by the world community.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamils did not even have the constitutional protection that had been given to the Turks. While the constitution guaranteed individual rights, it contained no safeguards for the Tamils as a group.(8) Consequently, with the rise of Sinhalese nationalism after the 1950s, Tamils have seen Sinhalese made the sole national language, Buddhism given a special status in the country, official anti-Tamil discrimination sanctioned in university admissions, and Sinhalese colonization of the Tamil homelands in the north and east sponsored by the government. Additionally, the so-called Indian Tamils, who arrived in the 1800s to work on plantations in the central highlands, have been denied citizenship since independence. Sinhalese nationalism stresses the belief that the island is their only homeland, while the Tamils can always return to India; thus it does not tolerate minority group rights.
Still another question is the treatment the minority has given the majority when the opportunity has presented itself. Since partition has been carried out in Ireland and Cyprus, we have two examples to consider. Neither is encouraging.
In Ulster, the British set up a devolved Parliament at Stormont, based strictly on the principle of majority rule. Because Protestants have consistently had a two-to-one majority, they have totally dominated this government, with little input from Catholics. The result has been widespread anti-Catholic discrimination in local government, housing, and employment. This discrimination has begun to be lessened since the imposition of direct rule in 1972. The irony is that Protestants demanded partition, because they feared mistreatment in a united Ireland, but they have carried out the same policies in Ulster that they claimed Catholics would implement.
In Cyprus, the Turks have been even more blatant. They have expelled most Greeks, about 200,000, from the north of the island and have confiscated farms, homes and even churches, while importing Turks from the mainland to replace the lost population. They clearly intend Northern Cyprus to be an ethnically pure Turkish area.
The Tamils in Sri Lanka have only lately had much opportunity to demonstrate how they would govern, because the Tigers now control the Jaffna peninsula. There they have perpetrated atrocities against Sinhalese and even those Tamils who have cooperated with the government or the Indian Army, although in fairness the record of their opponents is scarcely any better. The eastern province, which all Tamil groups insist should be part of Eelam, contains large numbers of Sinhalese (25 percent) and Muslims (32 percent); there the Tigers have recently been conducting a murderous war against the Muslims, who generally prefer Sinhalese rule.
What of the future? None of the three islands is in a satisfactory situation now. While only Sri Lanka is currently in a crisis, both Northern Ireland and Cyprus could explode at anytime. Protestant-Catholic tensions just below the surface as events of the past decade have shown. And the Greeks still fume over the Turkish invasion and the 200,000 refugees it created, while the Turkish sector is not economically viable on its own. Partition alone has not proved to be the answer on either of these islands, nor will it likely provide a satisfactory solution in Sri Lanka, given that it would create a Tamil majority state with Sinhalese and Muslim minorities. What is the answer then?
For both Cyprus and Sri Lanka, it would appear that a decentralized federal system might be the best solution. Realistically, neither island is large enough to support two separate states and each would be far stronger economically if unified. Both Northern Cyprus and Tamil Eelam would be dominated by their big brothers, Turkey and India, a status that has already clearly emerged. In fact, each might end up being annexed, rather than remain independent but weak. If this were to happen, they would follow the Ulster example in its relationship to Great Britain. However, that would only increase the paranoia of the Greek Cypriots and Sinhalese, who already fear Turkey and India. Moreover, it would seem that neither Turkish Cypriots nor Tamils desire annexation. In 1983, the Turks chose to declare independence rather than takism, union with the mother country, and since then they have accepted the principle of reunification as long as it is based on a federal system with considerable autonomy. The major roadblocks to a settlement are lack of agreement over the right of return for the 200,000 Greeks expelled from the north after 1974, and the fate of 50,000 Turkish immigrants from the mainland along with the Turkish army currently on the island.(9)
Any solution in Sri Lanka appears further away, for the LTTE has vowed to settle for nothing less than independence; but with their aid from India almost eliminated, they have been slowly losing ground throughout 1992 in their war with the Sri Lankan army. Therefore, out of necessity, they may be forced to come around to the idea of a federal system. Further complicating the situation is that President Ramasinge Pre has sworn never to accept a decentralized government on the island, a stand strongly supported by the Sinhalese population. Clearly, both sides will have to make major concessions if peace is ever to come to Sri Lanka.(10)
In Ireland partition is likely to remain the norm for the foreseeable future. It was effected fifty years earlier than the partition of Cyprus and has been internationally recognized, while the other has not been. Even the mention of Irish reunification outrages many Protestants, and both London and Dublin agreed at Hillsborough in 1985 that such could not take place until a majority in Ulster desire it. Britain's immediate goal is to restore Northern Ireland's self-government but in a Protestant-Catholic power-sharing arrangement that would render past discrimination less likely to be repeated. Such is the aim of the talks that began in 1992, but they are bound to be slow and laborious. However, the mere fact that Protestant and Catholic leaders of the province are talking together is a positive step, albeit a small one.(11)
As in Yugoslavia, long-simmering ethnic feuds have caused enormous bloodshed and suffering on these three islands in the past twenty-five years. Only a willingness to compromise will bring peace to Ireland, Cyprus, and Sri Lanka. On the latter two islands, such compromise will likely result in a single state but with a federal system that will give Turks and Tamils a strong measure of self-determination in their own affairs. In Ireland it will mean acceptance for a considerable time of the partition, but creation of a new government in the north that will give Catholics a share of power commensurate with their population.
ENDNOTES
1. An excellent survey of this topic can be found in Charles William Maynes, "Containing Ethnic Conflict," Foreign Policy 90 (Spring 1993), 3-21.
2. Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations (New York, 1987), 22-30.
3. Frederick L. Shiels, Ethnic Separatism and World Politics (Lanham, MD, 1984), 4.
4. Information on Ireland for this and later discussion is drawn from Anthony Kenny, The Road to Hillsborough (Oxford, 1986); Katherine 0. See, First World Nationalism (Chicago, 1986); Denis Barritt and Charles Cater, The Northern Ireland Problem (Oxford, 1972); Edward Moxon-Browne, Nation. Class and Creed in Northern Ireland (London, 1983); Alan J. Ward, ed., Northern Ireland: Living with the Crisis (New York, 1987); Michael MacDonald , Political Violence in Northern Ireland (Oxford, 1986); and Sarah Nelson, Ulster's Uncertain Defenders (Belfast, 1984).
5. Infomation on Cyprus for this and later discussion is drawn from Stavros Panteli, A New History of Cyprus (London, 1984); John Koumoulides, Cyprus in Transition, 1960-1985 (London, 1986); John Reddaway, Burdened with Cyprus (London, 1986); Christopher Hitchens, Cyprus (London, 1984); Anita Walker, "Enosis in Cyprus: Dhali, a Case Study," Middle East Journal vol. 38, no. 3, 474-94; and R. R. Denktash, The Cyprus Triangle (London, 1982).
6. Infoffnation on Sri Lanka for this and later discussion is drawn from Satchi Ponnambalam, Sri Lanka: National Conflict and the Tamil Liberation Struggle (London, 1983); Y. Pisadasa, Sri Lanka: The Holocaust and After (London, 1984); James Manor, ed., Sri Lanka in Change and Crisis (London, 1984); S. J. Tambiah, Ethnic Fratricide and the Dismantling of Democracy: Sri Lanka (Chicago, 1986); C. R. deSilve, Sri Lanka: A History (New Delhi, 1987); and C. Manogaram, Ethnic Conflict and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka (Honolulu, 1987).
7. Bryan Pfaffenberger, "Sri Lanka in 1987: Indian Intervention and the Resurgence of the JVP," Asian Survey 28 (Feb. 1988): 137-47; Marshall R. Singer, "Sri Lanka in 1990: The Ethnic Strife Continues," Asian Survey 31 (Feb. 1991): 140-45; and India Today, Jan. 31, 1992, 151; Feb. 15, 1992, 67; Feb. 29, 1992, 69, Mar. 15, 1992, 147.
8. "The extent to which a state thus institutionalizes GROUP rights as distinct from, and in addition to, individual rights is perhaps the main differentiating factor of ethnic policies." Robert Wirsing, Protection of Ethnic Minorities: Comparative Perspectives (New York, 1981), 348.
9. New York Times, Aug. 5, 1991, A4; Aug. 26, 1992, A12; Time, Aug. 31, 1992, 51; Washington Report on Middle East Affairs 11 (Dec. 1992-Jan. 1993): 38.
10. India Today, Apr. 15, 1992, 28-9; May 31, 1992, 44-45; July 31, 1992, 22-26; and Economist, Nov. 21-27, 1992, 43-4; Dec. 5-11, 19925 32-33.
11. The talks--which were held with representatives of four Ulster political parties, two Protestant, one Catholic and one intercommunal--adjourned in November, 1992 after six months. No progress was made and no date for a second round has been announced. "Policy Statement by Sec. of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew," Dec. 4. 1992. British Information Services, New York.