Our view:The status quo seems to suit the politicians
Published on July 20,2010,Cyprus Mail Editorial
Related content
Ledra meetings have become a jokeOur View:Time for ‘refugee’ status to endNot much to celebrate on April 24Politicians are best advised to leave gold where it isTopic tags
1974,Cyprus Problem,OpinionsFollow the mail on Twitter.
TODAY we mark the 36th anniversary of the Turkish invasion. North of the Green Line there will be celebrations and triumphal speeches while south of it there will be a sombre mood featuring a totally different type of speech. We have seen and heard it all before and seem condemned to do so this time next year again,because,despite the rhetoric,the maintenance of the status quo appears to suit the political leadership of both sides,not to mention Turkey for which the continuation of the occupation no longer has a cost.
This is why it is very difficult to entertain much hope of the latest peace talks yielding an agreement. Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu believes in a two-state solution,even though he has been instructed by Ankara to adopt a softer line at the talks and has done so. President Christofias,believes in a re-unification but has shown time and again that he is not willing to take any big risk to achieve his objective. He is content for the talks to continue at a slow pace – no asphyxiating time frames – without ever reaching a conclusion. It is the one issue on which he sees eye to eye with Eroglu.
To a large extent,both are in tune with the wishes of the people they represent. Majorities on both sides are opposed to re-unification,for very different reasons. This is understandable considering the innate conservatism and aversion to risk which characterize both communities. An agreement involving power-sharing,territorial re-adjustments,property compensations and movement of people is a big risk which few people on either side are prepared to take for the obvious reason – they are content with the way things are.
Why support an agreement that would give rise to an uncertain future? The fact that the benefits of an agreement have never been sold to the Greek Cypriots has not helped things. In 2004,the Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the Annan plan because the benefits of the deal had been very well marketed on their side,whereas the Greek Cypriots rejected it because it was presented in a totally negative way by the political leadership and the media. Other factors were also at play but there is little doubt that the majority of Greek Cypriots did not need much convincing.
Six years have passed since the referendum and the majority of people on both sides appear to have come to terms with the idea that the status quo will,by default,become the solution of the Cyprus problem. This is the easy option for everyone,including the politicians,as it is perceived as the no-risk path. Of course,nobody ever mentions the fact that maintenance of the status quo would be a big victory for Turkey,which would hold on to everything it seized by force 36 years ago. We might realize this when we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Turkish invasion.
Loading ...
“..maintenance of the status quo would be a big victory for Turkey..”
That is,provided it does not ever want to enter into the EU. If Turkey does want to join the EU at some stage,it will first need to put forward a proposal that will be acceptable to a majority of GCs at referendum. I dare say that the status quo will not meet this requirement.
The XXXXX XXXX,the XXXXX XXXX,the XXXXX XXXX…
I also dare say that the XXXXX XXXX,or something similar,will not meet the requirements that would make it acceptable to 50%+1 of GCs (as the 2004 referendum outcome demonstrates)..
The question of Turkey entering the EU won’t be decided on the Cyprus Question.
‘To a large extent,both are in tune with the wishes of the people they represent. Majorities on both sides are opposed to re-unification,for very different reasons. This is understandable considering the innate conservatism and aversion to risk which characterize both communities.’
CORRECT-CONSERVATISM IS THE UNITING CYPRIOT IDEOLOGY!
‘Why support an agreement that would give rise to an uncertain future? The fact that the benefits of an agreement have never been sold to the Greek Cypriots has not helped things. In 2004,the Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the Annan plan because the benefits of the deal had been very well marketed on their side,whereas the Greek Cypriots rejected it because it was presented in a totally negative way by the political leadership and the media.’
CORRECT-THE MEDIA ARE POISONING EVERYTHING
Six years have passed since the referendum and the majority of people on both sides appear to have come to terms with the idea that the status quo will,by default,become the solution of the Cyprus problem. This is the easy option for everyone,including the politicians,as it is perceived as the no-risk path. Of course,nobody ever mentions the fact that maintenance of the status quo would be a big victory for Turkey,which would hold on to everything it seized by force 36 years ago. We might realize this when we are marking the 50th anniversary of the Turkish invasion.
CORRECT-STATUS QUO IS THE ‘SOLUTION’
P.S.1 NATIONALISM IS BEHIND ALL THESE
P.S.2 DO NOT EXPECT THE POLITICIANS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LIFE-LONG GAME PLAY.
ONLY A UNITED BI-COMMUNAL LIBERATION AND UNIFICATION CITIZENS’MOVEMENT WOULD SHOW TURKEY’S TRUE COLOURS. BUT COULD THAT EVER HAPPEN? I DON’T THINK SO!
‘Το πολιτικό κλίμα στο νότο δεν εμπνέει εμπιστοσύνη στους Τ/Κ. Δεν αναφέρομαι μόνο στις ρατσιστικές ομάδες. Ούτε η πολιτική ηγεσία εμπνέει εμπιστοσύνη. Δεν υπάρχει σημαντική εμφανής διαφορά ανάμεσα στις περιόδους πριν και μετά το 1974.’
The political climate in the south does not inspire confidence to the T/Cs. I refer not only to racist groups. Neither the political leadership inspires confidence. There is no apparent significant difference between the periods before and after 1974
‘Όλοι αντιλαμβάνονται ότι δεν θεωρούνται άξιοι για να τους δοθούν δικαιώματα πέραν των μειονοτικών δικαιωμάτων. Όλα θα ήταν τελείως διαφορετικά αν άλλαζε η οπτική γωνιά από την οποία βλέπει τους Τ/Κ η ε/κ κοινότητα. Δεν έχει αλλάξει όμως.’
Everyone understands that they are considered worthy to be given rights beyond minority rights. Everything would be totally different if the angle changed from which G/Cs see the T/C community. This has not changed though.
‘Η Τουρκία πρέπει να ευχαριστεί νυχθημερόν τον ε/κ εθνικισμό. Αν καταφέρνει ακόμα να κρατάει υπό την κατοχή της τους Τ/Κ,το κάνει χάρη στον εθνικισμό αυτό. Αλλιώς,αν η ε/κ ηγεσία μπορούσε να εμπνεύσει εμπιστοσύνη στους Τ/Κ εδώ και τόσα χρόνια,θα ήταν πολύ δύσκολο το έργο της Τουρκίας εδώ.’
Turkey must thank day and night the G/Cypriot nationalism. If still manages to keep occupied the Turkish Cypriots,does it through nationalism. Otherwise,if the G/Cypriot leadership could inspire confidence to the T/Cs for so many years,it would a very hard work for Turkey here.
These are some parts of an article written by the turkishcypriot journalist Sener Levend published by POLITIS today
http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb?-A=963178&-V=columns
“The question of Turkey entering the EU won’t be decided on the Cyprus Question.”
If Turkey eventually fails to enter the EU,it will be because of many different reasons,the Cyprus issue being a relatively minor part thereof.
If the other obstacles are somehow removed (i.e. the objections of Germany,France etc),then the Cyprus issue will become important.
Since Cyprus’s EU entry,a solution that is acceptable at referendum to both parties in Cyprus is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Turkey’s EU entry.
This is the ONLY reason for which Turkey (who for the previous 30 years stated that the solution was found in 74) accepted the Annan plan in 2004 i.e. tried to “settle”on the cheap because it knows that IF it ever becomes necessary AND sufficient (i.e. other obstacles are removed),the price she will be pay will be much higher.
Conte Cristo asks if it is true that Turkey is willing to solve the problem. Unfortunately the answer is negative. There is not a single evidence,except “talking” of a solution and being one step forward!
Turkey has been a tool of the NATO in implementing the partitionist policies of the Anglo-American imperialists (some do not like this word,O.K.,instead I can say,those who have strategic interests on our island) since the 1950’s. Greece and the local collaborators in both communities helped this aim with their nationalist activities. Since they have succeeded to divide the island,why do they want now to re-unite it? There are a lot commentaries in the media of both communities that everyone is satisfied with the status quo.
The outside powers do not see any strong bi-communal movement that aims the re-unification. The two strong left-wing Cypriot parties were tamed with the fruits of being in power. These parties turned into non-dangerous parties,which implement the neo-liberal policies. The CTP has lost its progressive character since 1990’s and the AKEL insists not to cooperate with the DYSY for a wide-front of the pro-solution forces.
What else,there is no bi-communal or pan-cyprian political party,which fights against the partitionist policies of the NATO and against the installations in the British Sovereign Base Areas.
Since Turkey wants to keep its army and settlers in the colonized part of Cyprus,there will be no federal proposals on the table,but proposals which will cement the division further. I do not have big hopes that an international conference will be successful in supporting the principles of the international law and the human rights in Cyprus,since the EU and the USA represent the interests of the NATO and not the interests of the Cypriots.
Therefore we,as Cypriots,who are not satisfied with the status quo,have to organize ourselves for achieving our aims. Otherwise there are a lot of space on the internet to write our frustrations!..
@ conte cristoi. Ahmet comments to your PS’s:
>P.S.1 NATIONALISM IS BEHIND ALL THESE
*** Correct. How can we fight against nationalism? If the “strongest”communist party of the world,the AKEL,insists not to open its Turkish Branch,how can we wage an internationalist struggle against all kinds of
discrimination,let alone nationalism? The AKEL is the most conservative organisation of the G/C community and if the AKEL behaves like this,who will be the pioneer in this struggle?
>
>P.S.2 DO NOT EXPECT THE POLITICIANS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS THEIR LIFE-LONG GAME PLAY.
>ONLY A UNITED BI-COMMUNAL LIBERATION AND UNIFICATION CITIZENS’MOVEMENT WOULD SHOW TURKEY’S TRUE COLOURS. BUT COULD THAT EVER HAPPEN? I DON’T THINK SO!
*** Correct. But without trying to realize it,you cannot say that such a citizens’movement cannot show the true colours of all the exploiters. I was the T/C coordinator of the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus,which was formed in September 1989,the first bi-communal political movement
since the brutal murders of the T/C progressives by the TMT in 1958. But we were blocked by the T/C leadership,that’s why I had to go to the ECHR on my own for my freedom of organization. But now that the gates are opened with the help of this case,unfortunately I do not see any opportunity to organize myself with my compatriots. That is another tragedy of Cyprus!