The dilemma 20 years after crossing point openings

By Ioanna Achilleos Zavitsanaki

Over the years, society has become increasingly demotivated in talking about the Cyprus problem. Reasons include the length of time that has passed without progress, the perceived insolvability of the problem, the lack of coherent information surrounding negotiations and the insufficient inclusion of society in peacemaking efforts. There is also the seemingly stable status quo, which allows us to go about our everyday lives. Everyday lives lived on just one side of our island.

The Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities have for decades remained divided by the ‘Green Line’, a name rather inaptly detached from the reality of the purpose it serves. But is it inapt? It depends on how you look at it. If you look at it as a temporary peace-keeping device designed for the avoidance of conflict, a name derived simply from the colour of the pencil that drew, it might seem appropriate enough. But what if you consider it a line that continues to keep us Cypriots apart, living in separate realities, divided by barbed wire and buffer zones and Unficyp and armed forces on guard on either side?

While the status quo maintained by the existence of the Green Line should not and cannot be interpreted as representing meaningful peace, it has however come to represent the absence of conflict – at least violent conflict. This absence is what allows us Cypriots to navigate our lives in a normalised version of an abnormal situation. And so over the years, a perception has taken root among many that the status quo is something less risky and less uncertain than change, which has in turn led to a limited sense of urgency and little pressure to move beyond this long-standing and deepening stalemate.

But for how much longer can we remain in this surreal and unacceptable state of separation? For how much longer can we afford to remain passive to the change that is in fact taking place in the occupied areas, including continuous demographic changes, increasing dependency of Turkish Cypriots on Turkey, unilateral actions in Varosha, mass construction projects and foreign investments?

In pondering over the meaning of “peace” and the meaning of “conflict” and how they relate to the Cyprus problem, let us also consider the idea of “engagement without recognition”, an idea that emerged to encourage activity (both diplomatic and societal) between parties in situations involving unrecognised states or entities.

From a societal perspective, the idea is based on the premise that recognising the existence of the people living on the other side does not mean allowing their political recognition as a state. Bicommunal and other groups working on social and technical issues related to the Cyprus problem understand and work with this concept in mind.

But for many Cypriots, it remains a rather confusing and difficult idea to accept. Firstly, it is due to the controversy surrounding the practice, leaders themselves visibly struggle with it and this discomfort inevitably filters through to society. But it’s more than that. It is also because of our decades-long exposure to patronising political messages (echoed by society itself) concerning the role of society. On the one hand society has been made to feel that it is not in any position to either understand or positively influence the situation, while on the other it has been handed a sense of responsibility to not make things worse. In short, society has been assigned and has largely adopted the role of just sitting back and waiting, without any critical reflection on the risks of this wait-and-see attitude.

And so, twenty years after crossing points were opened, many Greek Cypriots remain firmly on their side of the fence, both literally and metaphorically. We continue to generalise all crossings as either irresponsible or opportunistic. We are adverse to interacting with the other community and we are reluctant to participate in remotely profound conversations about the issue, even with our own community.

I believe that our ever-present fear of the situation becoming worse, and of doing something personally to make it worse, has manifested itself into what could be described as a kind of “recognition phobia”. A phobia of inadvertently endorsing an unacceptable and illegal situation. The problem is that like with any other phobia, it incapacitates us from doing anything at all.

Difficult as the concept of engagement without recognition may be, what indeed is the alternative? Inaction or insufficient action can surely no longer be seen as an option. Which is not to say, of course, that we should not be cautious. And so, on the one hand the responsibility lies with leadership to help society come to terms with this phobia and to find conducive ways of including and really utilising society in efforts to work towards sustainable peace. On the other hand, society needs to stop waiting for politicians to include it but instead put pressure on them to do so.

How can society exert such pressure? By becoming more informed about what is going on throughout the whole island, by thinking about the future, by having a realistic understanding of potential risks and opportunities, by being prepared to engage and work with people with different perspectives, whether from its own or the other community, by joining forces with like-minded people with well-placed intentions. For as long as engagement is practised not by way of ignoring but actively addressing the problem, then something fruitful may yet come out of it.

To find out how a diverse group of 36 Cypriots from across the island engaged with each other using a transformational approach oriented towards the future, and to consider how you yourself could become involved, visit https://www.cyprusfutures.org/