On August 16, 1974 the second stage of Turkey’s invasion was completed drawing the divided line that still exists unchanged, 51 years later. There have been massive changes on both sides of the dividing line as a result of the continuing occupation, but one thing has remained constant – the Greek Cypriot belief that any pragmatic approach to the problem is, at best, unpatriotic and, at worst, treacherous.

This attitude dates back to the years immediately after the invasion, when the late Glafcos Clerides had spoken about a federal settlement and advocated a “realist” approach on the Cyprus problem and was vilified by the Makarios camp, which included Akel, Diko and Edek. This camp, which had made Makarios’ slogan – “unyielding struggle for vindication” – its rallying cry, used the label “realist” as a synonym for traitor or foreign agent.

A visit to the occupied north conclusively shows that the “the school of realism” was correct. Over these 51 years, Kyrenia, a small seaside town of a few thousand people, has become a sprawling urban area, the east part of Famagusta has become an expanding university town and the same is happening to Morphou. Since the Annan plan referendum, large expanses of Greek Cypriot land have been developed and the villas bought by Britons, Russians, Israelis and other nationalities. The arrest of a developer and a couple of estate agents by our authorities is unlikely to stop the exploitation of ‘cheap’ land.

Another negative consequence of the “unyielding struggle”, which is combined with the successful policy of cutting off the north from the rest of the world, has been the very big influx of Turkish nationals, who have set up businesses and made the occupied area their home. The “demographic change” that our governments have been protesting about for years has been taking place at a worrying pace. Press reports claiming that more than 100,000 Turkish settlers have been brought to the north is a very modest estimate. In 2004 the Annan plan stipulated that fewer than 60,000 Turkish nationals would stay on, but today estimates suggest there are four times as many.

Despite these facts, the Greek Cypriot leadership persists with the policy of big words and patriotic posturing that have put us in this situation. President Christodoulides’ message to mark the black anniversary of the second Turkish offensive was perfectly in line with this tradition. “Fifty-one years later, the termination of the consequences of the invasion and occupation is a non-negotiable target,” he said, adding that “liberation, reunification of the country and its people and return are what guide our actions.”

This is not really the case, considering the conditions he has been setting for a resumption of the talks. His message said he “remains committed to the only path that serves legality and international law, the lifting of the deadlock and the resumption of talks from the point they stopped, on the basis of UN resolutions, the principles and values of the EU and what had been agreed in the previous negotiating process.”

These are the sort of platitudes we have been hearing since the time of Spyros Kyprianou, who also shunned the “realist school of the Cyprus problem”. He also spoke about international law, UN resolutions and the return of all refugees to their homes. Christodoulides, like some of his predecessors, has also been hiding behind the rhetoric of principles and patriotic slogans when the only real requirement is the pragmatic approach.

Like Kyprianou, who had the hardline Rauf Denktash opposite him and could exclusively blame him for nothing happening, Christodoulides has been fortunate to have the equally inflexible Ersin Tatar to deal with. All his theatrical initiatives, which are invariably thwarted by Turkey’s intransigence and demand for two states, create the optics that he is interested in a resumption of talks – so long as all his conditions are satisfied.

It is a return to the past, which we never really left. After 51 years we are still playing the tactical games of the 1970s and 80s, toying with process and never substance while refusing to see the reality of what is happening in the north. Only a realist approach can still salvage the situation veering out of control. Some type of settlement that will reunify the country and make the north EU territory must be the sole objective; joining Schengen would offer protection. The alternative, of the north being part of Turkey is a terrifying prospect, at least for realists.