Why does the government refuse to protect Cypriot Maronite Arabic?

By Costas M. Constantinou (archive article - Sunday, February 3, 2008)

THE OFFICE of the Law Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus submitted on January 17, 2008 its Second Periodic Report to the Council of Europe concerning the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which Cyprus ratified in 2002 and incorporated into domestic law. In its Initial Report (2004), the Republic declared Armenian as a minority language within the meaning of the Charter, but not Cypriot Maronite Arabic (CMA), which it excluded and designated as only a dialect and thus in no need of protection. This position was not accepted by the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe, which visited the island and investigated the presence and condition of minority languages. The Committee unequivocally stated that CMA has traditionally been spoken in Cyprus for centuries, yet is currently “a seriously endangered language and it is consequently all the more necessary for the Cypriot authorities to recognise Cypriot Maronite Arabic as a language and moreover one that is in urgent and immediate need of protection”.It should have been obvious to anyone acting in good faith that even if CMA were only a dialect (and some of the foremost experts like Alexander Borg argue that it is not only a distinct but a unique language - a mixture of Arabic and Aramaic) it would be a dialect of a language that is not one of the official languages of the Republic and thus by definition a minority language within the meaning of the Charter. The attempt to exclude a language that has been included in the UNESCO Red Book of Endangered Languages was bound to fail and it did. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe endorsed the Report of its Committee of Experts and made specific recommendations to the Republic for the implementation of the Charter, most notably in relation to CMA: (1) to protect CMA “as a regional or minority language in Cyprus within the meaning of the Charter” and apply the provisions of Part II of the Charter to it, (2) to “strengthen in particular the teaching of [CMA] at primary school level” and (3) to adopt a “structured policy” for its promotion and protection.The Second Periodic Report was supposed to give details of the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the Council of Europe. Unfortunately, it is not convincing that effective measures have been in place and indeed that the recommendations have been implemented. This may not be the fault, or entirely the fault, of the Law Commissioner who drafts the Report on the basis of information given to her from different government departments. For a start, there is no explicit and unequivocal declaration – like the one done with the Armenian language - that the Republic now recognises CMA as a minority language. For such recognition to take place a political decision has to be taken by the government and then an official notification of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe is required, as specified under Article 3(2) of the Charter. To this date this has not been done. There is only a passing and almost grudging reference in the Commissioner’s Report to the views of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts, which “however…” (i.e. contrary to the initial assessment of the Republic that CMA was an unimportant dialect spoken by few people), “was of the opinion that… it must be considered as a regional or minority language within the meaning of the Charter”. Does the Republic agree with this opinion? If yes, why does it not say so explicitly and officially as required by the Charter? If it does not agree, why not? Why is this done with one language – Armenian – and not with CMA? This indeterminate approach to the status of CMA is unlikely to satisfy the Council of Europe. Indeterminacy instead of clear and resolute position can be interpreted as a sign that the state retains serious reservations and wishes not to be legally bound, when legal obligation is exactly what is required at this stage. More importantly, this indeterminacy is demoralising for the Maronite community and undermines their own efforts (and indeed their responsibilities!) to promote the language and ensure its non-extinction.The Law Commissioner’s Report is uncritical and unenlightening about the way forward. The uncritical side may be the result of being assigned by the Council of Ministers to report on behalf of the government. If so, she should not have been asked to. There is a conflict of interest with the Law Commissioner’s function as an independent monitor of the implementation of human rights instruments in Cyprus. The Law Commissioner is there to advise and where necessary to warn and embarrass the government for its failures (and has done so successfully in the past), not to act as its advocate. The unenlightening side of the Report may be the result of lack of ideas about what to do with a language of indeterminate status.The Report makes spurious claims based on incorrect information that will simply collapse when the Committee of Experts visits Cyprus later this year. Take, for example, the claim that “Cypriot Maronite Arabic is only spoken by elderly Maronites, who live in the village of Kormakitis”. Is the government really claiming that it is spoken only by this small group of people and only there? This is factually wrong and can be refuted by a simple visit to St Maron’s School in Anthoupoli or the Kormakitis Association at Paphos Gate, Nicosia, where middle age and younger Maronites use it as primary means of communication. In fact, the Report later points out that according to official estimates the speakers do not exceed 1,300 (the Maronite community’s claim is of 2,500 speakers). But are all these in Kormakitis? According to the Commissioner, the only-elderly-speakers-in-Kormakitis-claim is “acknowledged in the Report of the Committee of Experts” of the Council of Europe. Wrong! This is bound to raise eyebrows. Significantly, the Report of the Committee of Experts stated that CMA, though deriving in recent history from Kormakitis, is currently not limited to the village, and thus “the situation of the language today corresponds to the definition of a non-territorial language”.One may wonder why this desperate attempt to limit the number of speakers and the place where the language is spoken by a government that is supposed to provide urgent and immediate measures for its protection? The Council of Europe will find it difficult not to view this as indicative of a government that wishes to deny or minimise its Charter obligations, using the pretext that Kormakitis is beyond its control. Note that there is a history of highly problematic statements concerning CMA. In the Initial Periodic Report it was amazingly claimed that “this dialect is nowadays confined to family and religious purposes”, thus wrongly implying that it has no public communication utility for the Maronites whatsoever.Rather than explain how the teaching of CMA at primary school level has been strengthened by the government, as recommended by the Council of Europe, the Law Commissioner embarks in explanations of why this has been difficult or unnecessary to do. It casually claims that there is “very limited” interest among students at primary school level without looking at the facts on the ground. The fact is not mentioned that the Ministry of Education does not allow the language to be taught in morning classes, even optionally, but only as an option in the afternoon. Inevitably this makes it very difficult for some of the students who have athletic or other interests, to sacrifice these for a not-so-‘useful’ language course. By the way, public awareness as to the importance of a minority or endangered language is also the responsibility of a State Party to the Charter and does not stop with the pronouncement of a lack of interest.Nonetheless, there is a solid number of 20 students who attend the language course (out of 73 students but note that in the case of 32 students their parents are not from Kormakitis and therefore not native CMA speakers and not expected to show an interest for a language their parents do not speak). So 20 out of 41 (that is 49 per cent) attend the language course under the circumstances described, which hardly amounts to “only few students” or “very limited” interest. Why indeed are no numbers given, when details have been explicitly requested by the Council of Europe? And when numbers and percentages are conveniently provided when it comes to government financial support for various cultural events or television and radio hours for minorities in CyBC?Furthermore, that “the majority of the Maronite school population is not enrolled at the Saint Maronas Primary School” may not be indicative of a lack of interest as implied by the Commissioner’s Report but a good reason to have more than one Maronite school (in the whole of Cyprus!) in order to strengthen the teaching of the language, or alternatively the availability of CMA in other Schools where Maronite children go. Why indeed are these not suggested, or their feasibility explored? And why has the interest expressed by Maronite adults in learning or improving their knowledge of CMA, which necessitated the introduction of evening classes by the cultural team Kermia Ztite last year, not mentioned as indicative of ‘interest’?All these omissions are disappointing. As, I’m afraid is also the case with the ‘structured policy’ – or lack of – for the promotion and protection of the CMA. Rather than present an ‘Action Plan’ with specific objectives, necessary input, cost and target dates, the Report contains vacuous statements about the recognition of minority cultures and the greatness of Cypriot pedagogies in promoting democracy, non-discrimination and cultural diversity. There has been some light in the form of a scientific symposium organised by the Ministry of Education, and the government is currently awaiting the results of its own Committee of Specialists for the codification of CMA. This symposium has indeed been useful and the specialists’ work will be helpful, but many in the Maronite community feel that is being used as a smokescreen and a delaying tactic for not engaging in urgent and immediate measures as recommended by the Committee of Experts of the Council of Europe. Codification for an oral language is necessary, but work in this regard has already started by the interested party – the Cypriot Maronite community itself – something that is not mentioned in the Report. Last December, in the presence of a representative from the Ministry of Education, the CMA alphabet (devised by linguist Professor Alexander Borg – a product of his long research in CMA) has been presented to the public and the translation of small texts began. How is the government supporting this effort? Does the government have a clear plan for the protection, promotion and revival of CMA? The Report throws the ball back to the Maronite community and speakers to suggest the way forward. This is disingenuous. The Office of the Maronite Representative and the NGO ‘Hki Fi Sanna’ (‘Speak Our Language’) say that they have already submitted a specific ‘Action Plan’ to the Ministry of Interior as invited to do last November, and copied in the Law Commissioner. Yet this ‘Action Plan’ is not mentioned in the Report! In effect, none of their proposals have been taken up by the government, which seems to be bureaucratising and delaying the issue. Again, the Council of Europe Committee of Experts is unlikely to be satisfied with the general support, financial or otherwise, for it specified in its findings that “this support is not especially targeted towards” the CMA and cannot be considered a substitute for the very specific issue of endangered language promotion and protection.This brings us to the issue of the status of the Maronites and the other ‘religious groups’ under the Cyprus Constitution. The reluctance of the Cypriot government to promote and protect CMA stems from a wider concern that it has in recognising Maronites as an ‘ethnic’ and not merely ‘religious’ community. I personally do not accept the pretext of the ‘Cyprus problem’ and the political sensitiveness that this somehow entails, for the government to continue to deny the different ethnicity of certain minority groups in Cyprus. This is contrary to the spirit of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which the Republic signed and ratified, a legal instrument that again has specific provisions for the protection of minority languages. The moral alibi behind which consecutive Cypriot governments have hidden is the ‘received constitution’ of the Republic, which we have been told, cannot be changed. Similarly in this latest Report, the Law Commissioner makes reference to the unchangeable bicommunal structure of the Republic, which is based on Basic Articles of the Constitution and quotes the infamous Article182, which specifies that these Basic Articles “cannot, in any way, be amended, whether by way of variation, addition, or repeal”. But is this the real issue? Note that the Maronites (and Armenians, and perhaps the Latins) do not ask for the bicommunal structure of the Republic to be changed but only their own designation from a ‘religious group’ to ‘ethnic group’, something that will make Cypriot governments legally bound to protect their language and culture, not just their civil and religious rights. Crucially, this problematic designation is enshrined in Article 2 of the Cyprus Constitution, which is not a Basic Article under the meaning of Article 182 and can indeed be amended. There is no doubt in my mind that the designation ‘religious group’ in Article 2 of the Cyprus Constitution can be amended to ‘ethnic’ or ‘ethno-religious’ or ‘ethno-cultural’ group, and can be extended to the Roma, without affecting the bicommunal structure of the Republic. (I will leave aside the extent to which the post-1963 ‘laws of necessity’ have already suspended Basic Articles of the Constitution, like the Communal Chamber where the Representatives of the ‘religious groups’ had the right to vote, unlike the current nominal, non-voting status they have in the House of Representatives). This has not been picked up by the Council of Europe, and should be brought to their attention by interested parties and all those concerned with the promotion and protection of minority rights in Cyprus.It is important that the Law Commissioner – an independent officer of the Republic with responsibility to monitor the implementation of international human rights instruments and with power to publicise inaction and suggest reforms – lives up to the expectations of such high office. We have the right to demand that she remains a legal guardian and critic, and not become an apologist of government policy. * Costas M. Constantinou is Professor of International Relations at Keele University and Project Leader at PRIO Cyprus Centre.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008