The three schools of thought on the Cyprus problem

 

Article by Christos Christofides, member of the Political Bureau

5th September 2015

 

After 1974 three basic schools of thought on the Cyprus problem developed among the Greek Cypriot community. These schools of thought had as their initial starting point historical and ideological approaches. However in the course of events they evolved – those that that did evolve – on the basis of new analyses, interests, political and party balances. We regret to note they also evolved based on the notorious “realities” which the passage of time brings.

The first school of thought could be summed up as “No to everything”. The exponents of this school of thought panic whenever there is mobility on the Cyprus problem. In reality this school of thought does not want the solution of the Cyprus problem and finds pretexts on secondary aspects to justify their rejection. This school of thought does not accept the agreed strategic goal of the Greek Cypriot side since 1977 for a solution of the Cyprus problem based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Others openly reject federation itself, others indirectly.

The second school of thought could be summed up in the position “Yes to everything”. This school of thought follows the logic of subordination and submission. It believes that as the weak side we must accept anything resulting from the negotiations to supposedly avoid the worst: “Any solution and regardless of the content”, whether this solution is a loose federation or even a covert confederation. It is usually expressed by an economistic cosmopolitanism and obedient to the wishes of foreign powers and Western decision-making centres.

Both the “No to everything” and “Yes to everything” school of thoughts on the Cyprus problem lead to the same result: to some form of partition of Cyprus, whether through the continuous perpetuation of the status quo, either through a bad and unacceptable “solution”.

Both the school of thought of “No to everything” and “Yes to everything” feed off and complement each other. One invokes the bad example of the other in order to substantiate its position. You therefore often hear those deniers of the idea of ​​the solution of the Cyprus problem invoking positions or opinions of those who support “Any kind of a solution and regardless of the content” in order to prove the correctness of their own rejection. At the same time, those forces and circles who are ready to accept everything and anything invoke the constant negativity of the enemies of the solution to argue that their own submission is the answer to the dead-end negativity.

Fortunately with regards the Cyprus problem, immediately after 1974, a third school of thought also developed based on historical experiences and acts, within the framework of a dialectical analysis of the given situation and developments. This third school of thought remains firmly committed to the solution of the Cyprus problem; firmly committed to the objective goal – the goal supported by all the Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus up till now, the resolutions of the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by the entire international community. That is to say, the goal of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. This school of thought is staunchly committed to the common future of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in our common homeland, unwaveringly dedicated to the rapprochement of the two communities. It is simultaneously struggling against the catastrophic nationalism-chauvinism and against the foreign imperialist interventions and machinations.

The third school of thought on the Cyprus problem which is based on certain principles – one state with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality; the real unity of the territory, the people, institutions and economy; the safeguarding of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriot citizens; Cyprus’ liberation from the occupation and the reunification of our country and people without guarantees and rights of intervention, without Cyprus being transformed into a protectorate.

This third school of thought is expressed timelessly mainly by AKEL.

AKEL always pursues with zeal and passion the solution of the Cyprus problem as described above. It had and has however the strength to reject “solutions” that could not have led to a better future for our country and people. AKEL cooperates with good will and assertiveness for the solution by adhering to principles.

Today AKEL is being vindicated with regards numerous positions, which from time to time it had to defend on its own, coming under the full weight of mass and all-out attacks and that were based on petty expediencies, expediencies that caused terrible damage to Cyprus’ cause.

The policy of rapprochement and the struggle of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot are now clearly the only alternative and way out of the deadlocks. The rapprochement of the two communities cannot by itself solve the Cyprus problem, an international problem, but without rapprochement a viable solution cannot be achieved.

The significance of the all that has been agreed at the talks so far and the convergences recorded are now understood by the overwhelming majority of our people. These agreements and convergences, after 2004, represent in their totality a substantive improvement on the Annan Plan.

We are going to the talks with good will because there is no other way for the solution of the Cyprus problem. However, we are going to the talks in an assertive manner and we are defending inviolable principles.

In this course a multifaceted and not a one-dimensional foreign policy is demanded,

Particularly today AKEL is a guarantee for the solution of the Cyprus problem; for a solution based on principles. This is the historic and patriotic role AKEL is today assuming…in a responsible and serious manner.