In his Christmas message, apart from explaining the importance of the birth of Jesus Christ, Archbishop Georgios also issued directives on how the government should deal with the Cyprus issue, based on his emotional analysis. “We have not fully realised the seriousness of the danger threatening us, which is why we do not face the situation in the proper way,” he said, sounding like a prophet of doom.

“Despite the show of goodwill and the concessions, beyond the limits of security, by our side, the occupation force insists on realising its aim which is the conquest and Turkification of the whole of Cyprus…. Our side has trapped itself in the pursuit of a settlement that is based on the logic that Greek of Cyprus do not have the right of existence within the framework of a modern state under conditions of freedom and respect for human rights.”

The Archbishop did not offer a plausible, pragmatic proposal for facing the situation in the proper way, opting instead to liberate Cyprus through platitudes. “It is an imperative, with responsibility towards history and our ancestors to confront the situation and plan the future,” he said, adding that this planning should have a “long-term perspective” and have as its objective the liberation of Cyprus.” And the first step towards achieving this objective is “altogether, in a coordinated way, repositioning our problem as an issue of invasion and occupation, and in this light seek a settlement,” advised Archbishop Georgios.

We have been hearing about the need to reposition the Cyprus problem as an issue of invasion and occupation for 50 years without ever being told how prospective success in this pursuit would bring us closer to the liberation of the country. How would repositioning strengthen the Greek Cypriot position and ensure a more beneficial settlement? Are we under the impression the UN Security Council will change the resolutions about the solution and the UN Secretary-General come up with new settlement ideas, if the problem is defined as one of invasion and occupation?

Related Articles

This repositioning slogan has been used to death by Edek and other rejectionists over the years without anyone taking the least bit of notice because, ultimately, it would change nothing. The UN and the rest of the world, perhaps wrongly, have been treating the Cyprus problem as an intercommunal dispute for more than 50 years, which is why peace negotiations have always been held between the two so-called communities. As for planning the future and the “long-term perspective”, what did the archbishop exactly have in mind? For the struggle to be planned over the next 50, 100 or 200 years, continuing the ‘unyielding struggle’ prescribed by Makarios before his death?

The only snag is that there is no guarantee that after 50 or a hundred years the Cyprus Republic will be in a better position than it is now and in line to achieve the liberation the archbishop yearns. In fact, 50 years after the invasion, the occupied area, apart from being developed beyond recognition, is becoming more like a tiny part of Turkey. The long-term perspective is that it could formally annexed by Turkey, even if we succeed in repositioning the Cyprus problem as an issue of invasion and occupation.