Taking advantage of its “recognition” by the world body as the legitimate government
of the whole of Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot government applied for admission to the European
Union (EU) without taking the consent of the Turkish Cypriot community, a mandatory
condition in accordance with the original agreements between the two communities as
guaranteed by Britain, Turkey, and Greece. Thus, legally speaking, this request for l
membership of EU was invalid and, therefore, should not have been entertained by the EU
in the first instance. By accepting it, the EU demonstrated its unwarranted bias against the
Turkis Cypriot community. Nonetheless, negotiations between the two communities for a
solution for the Cyprus problem continued all along, mostly under the aegis of the UN, but
without any success. As this thorny problem had remained on the UN agenda as an
unresolved item since long, the UN Secretary General very wisely took the opportunity
offered by the planned admission of Cyprus along with nine other countries to the
membership of the EU on 1 May 2004. He offered both parties to the dispute a
comprehensive plan for the unification of the island, so that it could be admitted to the EU as
one country, rather than leaving the TRNC isolated forever. The plan was to be approved by
the people of the two sides through a referendum conducted independently on each side on 24 April.
The results of the referendum showed that while the people of the TRNC -
overwhelmingly agreed to the Kofi Annan plan, 76% of the Greek Cypriots rejected t. This
was a very significant development that highlighted a number of important facts. The Greek Cypriots rejected the plan primarily because of their inherent enmity against the Turkish
Cypriot community. In fact, this had been the main reason for the failure of decades-long
negotiations between the two sides for the solution of the Cyprus problem but their rejection
of the reunion plan very clearly proved this fact. The negative attitude of the Greek Cypriots
was also due to the tacit assurances that their government had been receiving from many
members of the EU that, irrespective of the results of the referendum, they would be
accepted as members. Also, the Greek Cypriot leaders and political parties had been openly
exhorting their people to reject the UN plan for reunification. It seems these leaders had
been motivated by the belief that if the Cyprus problem continued to remain unsolved, it will
prove a major hindrance in the way of Turkey’s admission to the EU.
As for the people of the TRNC, by accepting the plan with a thumping majority, they
demonstrated their sincerity towards the solution of a problem that had been a serious threat
to peace in this important region of the world and a source of extreme bitterness in relations between
Turkey and Greece. Their acceptance of the UN plan meant great sacrifices on
their part. Since the plan envisaged the relocation of population between the two sides, it
meant the dislocation of a very large number of well-settled Turkish Cypriots who would be
obliged to move to the South and, as before, live in scattered pockets throughout the island.
It also meant the move of a large number of Greek Cypriots to the North, where they would
pose a serious threat to the political, as well as economic interests of the Turkish Cypriot
population. The current majority of the latter would have been considerably thinned after
the arrival of the Greek Cypriots to the North, and that would have reduced their electoral
strength in all future democratic head counts.
Meanwhile, Turkish government had ordered opening of borders in April 2003
enabling people from both sides to cross over and meet one another. The step has
significantly contributed to bringing both the peoples closer. This is, of course, an
encouraging development, since it may, in the longer run, set basis for an amicable solution.
Now, one can see that people-to-people contacts are growing gradually, doing away with the
rancor and bad blood, created due to 1974 events. Turkey, therefore, has successfully been
able to tell the world in general and the people of Greek Cyprus in particular that the
government of Northern Cyprus sincerely wants a solution.
By accepting Cyprus, with only its Greek Cypriot population, into its fold, despite the
latter’s stubborn resistance to the reunification of the island, the EU has made the Turkish
Cypriot community the butt of a cruel joke. It has totally ignored the ardent desire of the
Turkish Cypriot community to forget all the injustices done to them during the last four
decades by the UN and the Greek Cypriot community, and to join the EU as a part of unified
Cyprus. The results of the referendum and the subsequent entry of the Greek Cypriots
into the EU have finally proved that the differences between the Greek and Turkish communities
inhabiting the island are irreconcilable, and therefore, the world community as a whole
should revise its policy towards the Cyprus issue.
As a very first step, TRNC should be recognized as an independent country and
given its due place in the comity of nations. Secondly, the embargo placed against this tiny
state should be lifted by the UN without any further delay, to end its decades-long isolation
and to prevent its economy from collapsing. Thirdly, the world community should join hands
to render all possible assistance to rehabilitate the economy of TRNC that has suffered
incalculable losses, since the placing of a rigidly implemented embargo against it.
Simultaneously, measures should be adopted to ensure that the Greek Cypriot community
does not exploit its membership of the EU to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriot community
or the TRNC. The UN Secretary General, the Organization of Islamic Conference, and the
Economic Cooperation Organization can play a significant role in the implementation
of these recommendations. The main concern of all these agencies should be to ensure that no
further injustices are done to the Turkish Cypriot community, and that this community is duly compensated for all the injustices that have been done to them in the past.
Conclusion
Because of the need to preserve differences and describe one group’s members from another, it is more effective to make borders flexible, accessible and negotiable than to remove them. The late president Anwar Sadat saw the psychological barrier between Egyptians and Israelis a problem that needed to be removed. Although the barrier certainly was an obstacle on the path to peace, removing it entirely would have caused further complications because a sense of shared identity without a border induces aggression, as each group tries to recover t individual identity.
There are contemporary concerns, but it is clear that the past chosen traumas live on powerfully in the Cyprus conflict. The Greek Cypriots are outraged by the “invasion” of 1974 and the losses it caused them. Many of them regard the island as historically theirs. The Turks believe, on the other hand, that they have as much right to be there as the Greek Cypriots. For them, Cyprus never becomes part of the Hellenic world. The Greeks traditionally dislike and fear the Turks. They have also believed that being in a large majority in the island gives them to right to rule. The Turkish Cypriots also re-live history to some extent. They were not long ago the rulers in Cyprus and are outraged at attempts to treat them as a mere minority. History has left them with a deep distrust of mediators, like the UN. Although the political, strategic, and military issues play an important role in the conflict psychological and historical barriers are real issues to need to address by the conflict resolution practitioners.