Many generations have grown up with the Cyprus problem. Now 52 years after the invasion and subsequent occupation of our country’s territory by Turkey, time is clearly working against an agreement. As the realities of the occupation entrench themselves, it becomes clear that this was the occupying power’s objective from the very beginning. Through time and the systematic imposition of faits accomplis, the goal remains to create conditions for a permanent presence on the island, driven primarily by geostrategic interests rather than the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots.
But why does the Cyprus issue remain unresolved? Some are quick to shift the blame for the lack of a solution onto the victim, namely the Greek Cypriots. They accuse them of “maximalism” because they refuse to accept just any solution, or claim they “do not know what they want” because they reject the ideology of accommodation.
To be sure, responsibilities do lie with the Cypriot side. These are chiefly linked to the fact that, from the day after the invasion, a trend developed towards adapting to the “new realities.” Furthermore, the Greek Cypriot side bears responsibility for adopting a tactic of concessions from day one, hoping that Turkey would cooperate. This hope has never been vindicated.
Even though a small number of our compatriots do not accept this view, it is manifest that the occupying power, which created and maintains the problem, bears the primary responsibility. The failure to reach an agreement is directly linked to Ankara’s pursuit of its maximum objectives on the island. This approach persists because Turkey faces no cost for its continuing occupation of Cypriot territory—a failure that also weighs on our own side.
It is clear that the Cyprus issue cannot be solved unless the occupation is lifted, the continuation of which rests solely on the occupying power.
International players intervening in the Cyprus problem also bear responsibility. This is not in the sense of the absolute and familiar refrain that “others are to blame for everything,” but because the Cyprus issue has not been treated in its correct dimension as a problem of invasion and ongoing occupation. Instead, since 1974, it has been viewed as a bi-communal dispute and a problem of a lack of trust.
How then can the Cyprus issue be solved so that an agreement serves the permanent residents of the island rather than the interests of third countries? The answer lies in the full application of core fundamental freedoms, specifically those applied across the European Union. If the freedoms of movement, settlement, and the acquisition of property and goods are guaranteed, many of the issues traditionally debated in negotiations would be resolved automatically. Property issues would settle themselves, as everyone would have a right to their property without caveats or deviations, and even territorial issues would be resolved once the right to free settlement is secured.
For an agreement to survive, it must not possess divisive or discriminatory characteristics. It must be democratic. Federation, as a constitutional system, works in many countries and relies on democracy. Is this the form of federation being discussed in the Cyprus negotiations? Is there democratic legitimacy in the talks, or is the goal merely to legalise the results of the invasion and ongoing occupation? A system will either be democratic or it will fail to survive.
Rights cannot be split into two tiers; citizens must have the same rights. In a democratic and free country, citizens are not defined by ethnic origin. Such an approach leads to the logic of ethnic segregation, the perpetuation of nationalism, and conflict.
At this stage, as developments on the Cyprus issue resume, there is a clear effort to utilise the European card. For this to carry meaning, the EU acquis communautaire must be integrated into the agreement without derogations, footnotes, or ambiguous interpretations. Ultimately, the objective is a true solution, not the perpetuation of conflict.