Speech by Andros Kyprianou, General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, at the presentation of the Greek version of the book of Dr. Kemal Bolayir “My name is Cyprus”
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 28th June 2016, Nicosia
I warmly congratulate Dr. Kemal Bolagir on the publication of his book.
This is a book that recounts history through the memories of those who lived the events. But it doesn’t end there. It expands on experiences and turns them into questions. This is a book in which the testimonies and primary sources raise political and historical questions that should make everyone reflect. Have the British colonialists managed to divide our people to control them? Was the idea of “liberating lost lands” in fact the path we should have pursued till the very end? Was the enemy within, but also outside Cyprus?
Our country was blessed with a wish and burdened with a curse. It was fortunate enough to have a significant geographical position and to be a country-crossroads between different peoples and cultures. As a consequence Cyprus transformed into a bridge of communication and activities. For precisely the same reasons, Cyprus can also be considered as cursed. The mighty at each given historical period have always tried to get Cyprus under their influence or occupation in order to be able to control the wider region.
Unfortunately, however the young Republic of Cyprus was not fortunate enough to live days of peace. Nationalism in the Greek Cypriot community considered independence as a stepping stone for achieving Enosis (union with Greece), while the Turkish Cypriot community considered it as a step towards partition. This is also the reason why they didn’t stop undermining and subverting little by little Cyprus’ domestic front. Confrontations reached a climax; hatred grew stronger. It was only a matter of time before intercommunal clashes broke out, before we were to arrive at the disaster of 1974.
Didn’t we know it? Were we not warned? We knew very well that the Americans and British never abandoned the goal of subjugating Cyprus to their interests. In 1964, ten years before the double crime committed in the summer of 1974, top US official Acheson, the initiator of the notorious plan to partition Cyprus, stated “the best solution to the problem of Cyprus is partition. And I tell you that if I had at my disposal the US Sixth fleet I could have solved the problem even tomorrow.” This was the best solution for the powerful foreign interests. The tragic irony is that today, voices are being heard, supposedly patriotic, who are either promoting with their positions, or suggesting that the ideal solution is precisely the one which the enemies of Cyprus were seeking to impose since then.
Did we perhaps fell victims to the machinations and conspiracies certain forces and circles had planned and executed for us, but without us? Did we perhaps join forces and struggled for their devilish plans not to be fulfilled? Unfortunately this is anything but the case. As a result of the given situation created after 1963, Archbishop Makarios had the courage to proclaim the policy of the feasible. He had the courage to say boldly that reality itself did not permit any deviations towards an “ideal” solution and that Cyprus would remain truly independent only if we pursued a non-aligned policy. But the nationalists and chauvinists refused to accept this reality. They did everything they could to exclude any possibility of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living in peace in Cyprus.
When Cyprus, thanks to the actions of nationalism was driven to the tragedy of our people being uprooted, turned into refugees and facing the occupation, AKEL again found the courage to talk about the need for an honourable and painful compromise, namely of a bicommunal, bizonal federation. We found the strength to build together with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots on the ruins of the occupation the fraternity of rapprochement. Since then we insist that our first and unwavering goal is the solution of the Cyprus problem and reunification of our country with a bizonal, bicommunal federal solution with political equality, as described in the UN texts.
We are especially proud because during the Christofias administration the goal of reunification took practical form in political terms as a result of the proposals that were submitted at the negotiating table; proposals to abolish ethnic confrontation, tear down barriers that wanted us to live side by side and talk about the future Cyprus where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will be living together; realistic, workable and integrative proposals that have in their heart the belief that a reunited Cyprus is and must remain the common homeland of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Despite the attacks and the war that we faced, as AKEL we bore the brunt of political cost. We withstood all the political cost because we know that these proposals in their entirety are realistic, functional and integrative.
In our view, federation is not a podium for exerting Greek Cypriot power, but an arena of creative cooperation between equal partners and compatriots within the framework of a reunified state with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality, which will ensure that the two communities shall live together and cooperate in a united and independent homeland. This certainly does not mean that the historical relations between the two communities with Greece and Turkey will be erased. But it does mean that our people, all Cypriots, can succeed without any guardians; that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will have by now been emancipated and are able to work together for their common future.
The constructive stand of Turkey in the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem on the basis of what has been agreed is a golden opportunity for it to fulfill its goal in substance and not for the sake of creating any impressions. That is to say, to contribute towards making Cyprus a reunified state will represent a beacon and an example for the whole world. Cyprus will be a modern model of peaceful coexistence of two communities with a different ethnicity, language and religion that will be co-managing their common state. It will be a country that will have managed to throw out the armies and channel all its power and resources towards social investment and economic growth, without cost and to the benefit of the region as a whole.
We are doubly proud because we had and we have the strength to tell truths. I am referring to issues that were discussed in the open for the first time during the Christofias administration, such as the informative material distributed on what federation means and how it works, the changes in education and much more. I am referring to the boldness of AKEL to talk about the crimes committed by Greek Cypriot nationalism against Turkish Cypriots and the courage AKEL had to defend this truth, regardless of the ferocity of the attacks launched against it. I am also referring to AKEL’s courage in pointing out that in a reunified Cyprus confrontation will be political and class based, rather than on ethnic lines. The attacks against these positions were waged against AKEL by all the political forces. However, today a large section of society recognizes their value and historical significance.
We must however admit that all these issues are not cleared up once and for all. Every truth that we must acknowledge today is rooted in the deep wounds of the past. But the time has come to be bold. We should tell the people of Cyprus in no uncertain terms that we do not expect anyone else to save us; that what we are seeking is an honorable compromise with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, not with the occupation, not with powerful interests. We need to talk openly about the crimes committed by chauvinism against both communities and to renounce nationalism and fanaticism. We need to stop simultaneously pursuing two contradictory polices whenever one or the other serves petty party and political interests at any given time. For example, you can’t on the one hand be laying wreaths, honoring and paying tribute to those who brought destruction to our people and on the other to declare that you, the government, want to foster and cultivate a culture of reunification. The monster of neo-fascism must stop being tolerated and appeased because it will not be tamed. On the contrary, at the critical moment we will be confronting it. We should be projecting a vision to the new generation, talking about historical facts, not about unhistorical myths. We should be doing whatever is possible to write the epilogue of the drama that is unfolding every day in the halls where the remains of our missing persons are being identified.
The last line of the book expresses the anguish of the writer who poses the question: “What will the future bring to Cyprus”?
We will not stop struggling so that the future generations can live in a peaceful Cyprus – a Cyprus that will have rid itself of the barbed wires of division, the refugee settlements and until the tears shed for those lost have stopped. Our wish is that we should all rise to the occasion, first and above all the leaders of the two communities who must show consistency, determination and commitment to our strategic goal.
Once again, I congratulate Dr. Kemal Bolayir on the publication of his book.
