Life histories Interviews with Turkish Cypriots

1. Life historiesInterviews with Turkish Cypriots

2. Whose life histories? The sample includes 30 life history interviews with persons now resident in Morphou/Güzelyurt, Kyrenia/Girne, and Yialousa/Yenierenköy. These places were chosen both because of the populations currently resident there and also because they would probably be differently affected by a property solution. By showing the complicated and often contradictory ways in which persons think about their displacement and property, life histories give us different insights into potential solutions than surveys. In the photo: Refugee from Alevga/Alevkaya now living ınYialousa/Yenierenköy.

3. General observations There are significant generational differences between those whose childhoods were spent in the south and their parents, who were adults when they were displaced. Persons in middle age were often nostalgic about the places of their childhood. Their parents have a more complicated perspective on the places from which they fled. The younger generation of persons under 30 only knows the north and shows little interest in the south. In the photo: Ramadan Gilanlıoğlu and his parents. While Ramadan was emotional when talking about a childhood friend rediscovered after the opening of the checkpoints, his father was emotional in describing the way that “Greek Cypriots tormented us.” At the same time, his father takes every opportunity to visit Koilani/Gilan. Ramadan says his children show little interest in visiting the village.

4. General observations • An often confused dissatisfaction about the distribution of Greek Cypriot property after 1974 and the changes in property values north and south since that time. • No one said that they would return to their villages, with the exception of some persons from Kokkina/Erenköy, who said that they would return if it were part of a TC constituent state. • Some said that they would want to claim their property in the south while rejecting the idea of returning to it. • Everyone said that they would only accept a plan with a Turkish Cypriot constituent state that would be their own zone. • Importantly, all 17 interviewees from Morphou said that they believed it was better for Morphou to stay in a Turkish Cypriot constituent state and that any other plan would probably not pass a referendum.

5. “Even more than whether it should be given back or not, discomfort is really the issue. We were displaced three times, in 1957, 1960, and 1974. This area has always been discussed as one that might be given back, for instance in the Annan Plan it would have been. Even more than whether it should be given back, the reason issue is people constantly being torn up and forced to go somewhere else. Can you imagine, all your investments, your home, your work are here, and they uproot you and take you somewhere uncertain. 70% of the people here voted yes to the Annan Plan just so that this uncertainty would be resolved, but when the other side said no, of course it created disappointment, anger, and fear. People aren’t thinking anymore the way they were thinking then in the Annan Plan period. They can’t say so easily that it should be given back, because they can’t see what’s in front of them. A person when he’s leaving a place wants to go someplace better, he wouldn’t want to go to be in a worse situation.” --male, 60 years old, member of CTP, on the question of whether or not Morphou should become part of a Greek Cypriot constituent state

6. Analytical observations The opening of the checkpoints resulted in noticeable changes in approaches to displacement: For some, a ‘re-refugizing’, or nostalgia for former villages that was not expressed before 2003. --This was often in response to GC institutional nostalgia. --Sometimes expressed a desire to show that ‘we are also refugees’ and ‘we also lost our property and suffered.’ For others, there was disappointment that their houses and properties were in ruin. --This was often expressed in comparison to their own care for the houses in which they lived. --Often resulted in a refusal to visit the village a second time.

7. Analytical observations • The difference in property values north and south today plays a significant role in the ways that TCs are thinking about possible political solutions. • Attention to generational differences shows us that TC approaches to the places that they left behind are more complex than ‘forgetting’ or ‘remembering.’ While the now middle-aged generation is often nostalgic for a place they hardly remember, their parents ‘remember in order to forget.’ Youth today show none of the ‘postmemory’ prevalent amongst children of GC IDPs. • Although party affiliation plays an important role in perceptions of the past and future, even those leftists who tend to have more regular contact with Greek Cypriots today express concern that Turkish Cypriots should not be displaced again in the event of a solution.