Our goals are identical on Cyprus solution

But there is no agreement on how to get there: an open letter to President Anastasiades

I have carefully read your speech at the meeting of the Limassol Reserve Officers Association that was held on Friday, August 26. In your speech, you stressed the need to liberate Cyprus from the political interference of Turkey (and – no doubt – from the political interference of any third country, including Greece and the UK). What we are aiming at is a truly independent and sovereign state, not controlled by outsiders.

I fully agree with you, and this has been the stand I have consistently taken over the years, but it is also the position taken by most Greek and Turkish Cypriots. This is one of the cornerstones on which the Comprehensive Set of Ideas for Reaching an Agreement on the Resolution of the Cyprus Problem is founded. This proposal has been recently formulated by a 12-member team of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot citizens (myself being one of them). Our proposal is firmly based on the position that the successful reunification of Cyprus entails cutting the umbilical cord that currently connects northern Cyprus with Turkey. The total economic dependence of northern Cyprus on Turkey create situations that are incompatible with the political status of Cyprus as a member state of the European Union.

Of course, despite the friendly relations that exist between Cyprus and Greece, there is no economic dependence of Cyprus on Greece, nor is Greece in a position to dictate to Cyprus the policies that should be followed. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore 50 years ago, Greece was behind the coup that overthrew the legitimate government of Cyprus and provided the pretext for Turkey’s military intervention, which swiftly followed. These historical events clearly strengthen the argument in favour of abolishing the invasive rights of the three “guarantors” of Cyprus, which were granted without much thought by the then leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities, under the 1960 Constitution.

And, while I fully agree with you on the need to abolish these unilateral invasive “rights” and to secure the withdrawal of the troops (with the possible exception of a symbolic presence), please allow me to disagree with you that the “one positive vote” of each of the two constituent states, in formulating the laws which would govern the operation of the Federal Republic of Cyprus, constitutes a form of inequality. I would simply remind you of the veto right, which Cyprus enjoys within the framework of the European Union. The joint formulation of the federal legislation would undoubtedly be an important shield of protection for both the constituent states of the Federal Republic of Cyprus. After all, 70 per cent of our legislation is now effectively formulated at EU level, while 5-10 per cent, which concerns local government issues, could easily be delegated to the constituent states.

I also disagree that the conclusion of a strategic cooperation agreement with Israel can provide Cyprus with an adequate defensive shield. Of course, I do not underestimate the importance of such strategic agreements, but I think that in a world of ever-changing political equilibriums, such dependence would be particularly risky and could easily turn the whole of Cyprus into a field of military conflict, as, unfortunately, has happened in Ukraine. I am sure that neither you nor any other Cypriot leader would like to see Cyprus being turned into another Ukraine, or another Syria, or another Libya or another Iraq.

Your presidential term expires in a few months, and it is perfectly reasonable to take the view that you do not have the required political mandate to engage in a new attempt to resolve the Cyprus problem. However, as the leading institutional factor, you have the duty to urge your prospective successors to engage in a decent and honest public dialogue with civil society and to clearly lay out their views on how they intend to seek to solve the existential problem that threatens our country.

Your proclamation that “united we can fully utilise the diplomatic tools at our disposal to discharge the duty we owe to our ancestors”, puzzles me because this is exactly what we have been doing for 70 years and, not only have we not been able to achieve much, but in fact we have managed to partition Cyprus on the ground, and risk the rendering of such partition irreversible.

The overriding objective of all of us appears to be a common one, but it is obvious that there are substantial disagreements on how to attain this common goal of ours. Of course, the substantial differentiation of the political forces of the country on this issue, but also of the people, in general, is confirmation of the pluralistic and democratic nature of our country. However, in order to arrive at the right choices, it is necessary to brief the electorate in an honest, clear and comprehensive fashion, which unfortunately is not what has been happening.

On the contrary, we often see an unacceptable phenomenon of politicians first coming to their own conclusion as to what constitutes the best method of resolving the Cyprus problem and subsequently of employing various legitimate and illegitimate means to “guide” the electorate in the direction they themselves have chosen.

I do not agree with these practices. In contrast, I welcome the initiative of the 12-member group of Greek and Turkish Cypriots to promote an honest, frank and comprehensive pre-election dialogue, by drafting and publishing their set of ideas (https://www.eastmed-thinktank.com), where the reader can – with relative ease – study the various aspects of the Cyprus problem and the practical solutions proposed by non-partisan technocrats and to adopt or reject or differentiate them. You know the people comprising this 12-member intercommunal group and in the past you have praised their achievements.

In conclusion, I would ask you, Mr President, to urge the presidential candidates and all the political parties of Cyprus to study the aforementioned proposal for resolving the Cyprus problem, and to respond to the following three crucial questions. Their response will help voters make up their minds as to whom to back:

1. Which specific element of the proposal don’t you like?
2. Why don’t you like it?
3. What is your realistic, alternative suggestion?

Respectfully Yours,

Christos Panayiotides, a regular columnist for the Sunday Mail and Alithia