Cyprus and the EU - What matters is the perception

I was 16 years old when first I heard about Cyprus, the divided island. The only thing I understood what that Turks had invaded it. “Ah, the Turks did it again!” That was the perception in my country, the Netherlands. There was no internet, no international television channels like the CNN or BBC World. We were solely dependent on printed media. There was no real-time coverage.

26 years later, when I made my first trip to Turkey in 2002, I immediately quarreled with the Turks I met over Cyprus: In my opinion Turks were simply wrong, and they were the ones to blame for the status quo in Cyprus. I was also annoyed that my Turkish friends referred to Cyprus as “baby land,” as if it were a colony of Turkey, i.e., their “motherland.” The vast majority of them had an favorable view of the “Operation Peace” in 1974; for them, that was the only solution to stop the violence over there. For some of them, the island simply belonged to Turkey. I became even more irritated when I learned that most of my Turkish friends never had visited the island. It was enough for them to be proud that they defended a piece of land that once belonged to the Ottomans.

These Turkish friends of mine didn't try to understand that I had grown up with a different perception, and believed in a different “solution”: the Turks had to leave, only then peace was possible. They had the right to interfere, but not to occupy. After all, that was the way the UN approached the matter.

In short, I found my Turkish friends highly opinionated about Cyprus. But who was I to criticize them? They were right: I was highly opinionated as well. We had totally different views on what went wrong on this small and divided island since 1974.

And today, more than 30 years later, the international media, especially the European one, are still referring to the Cyprus question as something that started with the invasion by the Turks in 1974, as if nothing had happened before that time. And the international press is powerful enough to create widespread opinions. That's one reason why the Cyprus conflict remains unsolved.

Seeing both sides:

Since my work requires me to spend time both in Turkey and Greece, I have the chance to see both sides of the dispute. To broaden my view, I speak to a lot of people on both sides, but I generally tend to avoid politicians. (I haven't met that many of them who can speak with their hearts and conscience.) But the conflict is so politicized that you don't hear anymore the voices of the common people who are still living there. Yes, we hear the MP's of the Greek Cypriots, who are proud members of the EU since 2004. But do we Europeans listen to the forgotten northern part of the island? Do we hear the messages of citizens with their unique dilemmas that are too often ignored and forgotten? Are we aware that they are not protected under international law.

As a consequence of my journey through Greeks, Turks and Cypriots on both sides, three things became clear to me. Religion plays an important role in both Greek and Greek Cypriot societies. And next to that, the Greek Orthodox are not well known about their tolerance to other religions. For example, a Muslim can marry a Christian, a Christian can marry a Jew, and a Jew can marry a Muslim. There are enough examples for that here in Istanbul. But when a good friend of mine, who is a born Muslim, wanted to marry her Greek boy friend she had to convert to the Greek Orthodox church. Even when a Catholic wants to marry a Greek Orthodox, he or she has to convert. Therefore it puzzles me why a Greek Orthodox clergyman, Archbishop Makarios III, was the first president of Cyprus while 20 percent of the population was not Christian Orthodox. This was asking for problems, especially with the Turks.

Second, Cyprus has a place in the political games of the British and others. Too many countries have a say on the island. And now the EU is involved. But the EU does not have the wisdom for managing the crisis Cyprus is in. This mainly due to the ineptitude and shortsightedness of most of its member states, who are simply in favor of the recognized southern part of the land. Again, what matters here is their perception about the island. 

Third, partitioning means creating two small states on a small island, and this will create more hostility. Both sides will be up in arms. And it will create a permanently “occupied” Cyprus on both sides. Besides, partitioning will set a precedent for all those nationalists around the world who dream of creating their mini states based on ethnic lines.

The story unknown:

Fifty years ago, the post-war generation of Europe came together to articulate a project conceived in hope and forged by necessity. The hope was for a peaceful and prosperous future, and the necessity was the economic mess and the political division. By signing the Treaty of Rome, they laid the foundations of the European Union. And when the Republic of Cyprus became a member of this club in 2004, and the EU inherited a problem — the nationalists among the Greek Cypriots. 

Cyprus is like a paradise with its climate, nature, food, history, archeology etc. But it became a lost paradise over the past 50 years for the people living in the north. Why the UN never started a thorough investigation of the dark years of Cyprus onwards from 1950 until 1974 is a mystery. The world really doesn't know what really happened in Cyprus and why Turks occupied it. A paradigm shift within the EU on how to perceive Cyprus is needed, and the only one who can do this are the Turks, who should tell their story more effectively. Perceptions do matter and you need to work hard to change them.

………

Hans A.H.C. de Wit is an international communication manager based in Istanbul, Amsterdam and Athens. (dewithco@consultant.com)