There is no separate justice to a shared tragedy

Alkan Chaglar (archive article - Sunday, July 29, 2007)

IN A SPEECH made last week on July 20, Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat thanked the Turkish Army for its ‘peace operation’, urging Turkish Cypriots to fight for “Turkish Cypriot Human Rights” and to continue the “Turkish Cypriot struggle”.As if their struggle or fight for human rights was different to that of all Cypriots, Mr Talat erroneously elevated Turkish Cypriots as the sole victims of the Cyprus problem, insensitively and recklessly ignoring the enormous suffering and decades of pain brought about by the invasion for those Cypriots of Greek, Armenian and Maronite origin. What is sad is that Mr Talat’s speech was made just as the United Nations were still exhuming the bodies of Cypriot civilians taken from their families and murdered in 1974. Steering dangerously towards ethnocentric bias, Mr Talat exposed a familiar yet extremely contradictory and dangerous trend of thinking among the Turkish Cypriot community – Exceptionalism.As a Cypriot but above all a human being, I felt disturbed by Mr Talat’s rhetoric. Precisely what are “Turkish Cypriot Human Rights”? Does the term “human” not sufficiently cover Turkish Cypriots as far as Mr Talat is concerned? According to the preamble of the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, human rights is the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” And my perception is that Turkish Cypriots, like Greek, Maronite, Armenian and Latin Cypriots are an integral part of that human family. So why would anybody with any degree of good will attempt intentionally to set up their community above this universal rule?Perhaps while preaching selective human rights, Mr Talat was oblivious to the suffering of Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots? But if this is the case, should he not refrain from dismissing suffering he has not personally witnessed himself? To take you back in time, the invasion was no ‘peace operation’. Over 200,000 Cypriots (a third of the population) were displaced and had to seek shelter in makeshift tents, thousands of innocent civilians were killed, thousands more injured and nearly 2,000 are still missing even to this day, while those who perpetrated these killings – whether Greek or Turkish Cypriots – are still free today. Since then, Christian places of worship have been desecrated, cemeteries destroyed, homes looted, land stolen and built over, while the island remains heavily militarised. Is this the ‘peace operation’ Mr Talat is so grateful for? For a leader who led the Turkish Cypriots to vote for peace and reunification in 2003, and for a politician who prided himself on his dialogue with Greek Cypriot leaders, Mr Talat’s justification of the invasion is totally insensitive to the common suffering during this period and more importantly, a contradiction to the claim that he seeks dialogue and peace. Claiming that “the aims of the July 20, 1974 operation are completely in line with the peace oriented Settlement Plan of the United Nations”, and treating the past inter-communal conflict as a pretext to a brutal invasion and a collective punishment of Christian Cypriots, Mr Talat attempted in his speech to maximise the suffering of his community while dismissing and ignoring that of other Cypriots communities. But such a game of blame, politics is fruitless. Mr Talat should realise that for every Turkish Cypriot story of injustice, there is a Greek Cypriot one. So what purpose is served other than division and distortion by the singling out and attempt to create the impression that one group of people, sui generic, are the sole victims of the Cyprus problem? Unquestionably in my mind, the main issue ought to be not how we best present ourselves as victim and convince the world of it to seek their pity, but how can we now come to terms with what has happened and reconcile with the aim of a lasting peace. Regrettably, Mr Talat is not alone in this exceptionalist way of thinking. Many Turkish Cypriots, among them self-styled human rights defenders, unashamedly and illegitimately assert the historical necessity the 1974 invasion and war crimes in the wake of attacks against Turkish Cypriots. Contradicting their own struggle for human rights, they subscribe to the extra-judicial view that one crime can be cancelled out by another, and thus they direct their compassion selectively. With more interest in blaming the Greek Cypriots, while desperately turning the tables around in a bid to reassure themselves of their righteousness, they snap: “What about our suffering!” “Why don’t you write about our atrocities committed by the Greeks?” But Turkish Cypriot refugees like my family know only too well their own suffering at the hands of a few Greek Cypriot militiamen, they do not need to be reminded of it, nor do they need to reconfirm it. No amount of repetition by Turkish Cypriots will address any of the injustices, but we can learn from our own errors and hope that Greek Cypriots will learn from theirs by openly and frankly admitting and talking about them. And yes, these include crimes committed by our ‘saviours’ and by our own irregulars against those we blame. As a community, we talk of “embargoes” on our community, but how about our embargoes on Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots from returning to their homes? In the Republic, the custodian of Turkish Cypriot properties pending a solution protects Turkish Cypriot properties, yet our ethnocentric bias has led us to sell Greek Cypriot properties to tourists. While mosques are generally kept in good condition in the Republic, we desecrate churches, remove and sell their crosses and artifacts and use them as barns. Still there are Turkish Cypriot human rights activists who will argue, ‘but Turkish Cypriots were refugees in 1964!’ So was this crime justification for another crime? Can they try and explain this extra-judicial way of thinking to the entire world?Mr Talat demands the lifting of ‘embargoes against the right of Turkish Cypriots to trade and fly directly into Ercan’, but refuses to return Varosha to its 30,000 owners. Is the right to sell items such as potatoes in his view more important or more urgent than lifting the embargo we impose on Greek, Armenian and Maronite Cypriots from the right to return to their homes, the right to a school for the enclaved Maronites in their language, the right for information on the missing? Mr Talat obviously believes these issues can wait another 33 years. It is great to see where his priorities lie in terms of human rights.Echoing a distorted history of events, fighting for selective human rights together with an unashamed ethnocentric bias to one’s own community amounts to moral corruption and is not a solution to the Cyprus problem, nor is it a road map to peace. Above all, it demonstrates our inability to acknowledge the suffering of others caused by our own ‘saviours’ or irregulars, and exposes just how much Cypriots under-value the suffering of those with whom they seek dialogue for peace. Turkish Cypriot human rights and their struggle for justice is no different from those of other Cypriot communities. Calls for restoring these rights are just, but must be achieved within a wider solution that will benefit all Cypriots. Seeking a separate justice to a shared tragedy by focusing solely on Turkish Cypriot human rights is highly contradictory and will only entrench division.

Why Turkish Cypriots have no reason to celebrate 1974

Alkan Chaglar (archive article - Sunday, July 22, 2007)

THIRTY-three years ago this week following a coup d’?tat that overthrew what remained of the Cypriot government, Turkey launched an invasion that has partitioned Cyprus along ethnic lines since. Described as a “tragedy all round”, the anniversary of the July 15-20 period is a time of mourning and grief for most Cypriots, but also a time of celebration for some Turkish Cypriots and an opportunity to incite xenophobia by some Greek Cypriots. This year is no exception to this trend, even when in recent weeks the bodies of those missing from this dark period are in the process of being exhumed. Following the coup d’?tat of July 15, 1974, Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit launched a “Peace Operation” on July 20 to protect the Turkish Cypriot community. Despite Mr Ecevit’s guarantee the operation would benefit all Cypriots by restoring order, Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots were collectively punished under the assumption that they were all, every single one of them, guilty for recent crimes committed against Turkish Cypriots by EOKA B. Clearly for some paramilitary irregulars, the event was equally an opportunity for vengeance. While there is no doubt that atrocities were committed against the Turkish Cypriots during 1964-1974, within days of the ‘peace operation’, 162,000 Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots fled their homes, while 55,000 Turkish Cypriots fled north. Some 1,900 persons, including many civilians, are still listed as missing persons. Cyprus was facing a crisis on all fronts; for the first time the conservative pastoral society with its mostly rural population was forced to legalise abortion to cope with the sheer numbers of cases of rape against Cypriot women by the invading army. Amid the debris caused by extensive bombing, the human cost was phenomenally high; 6,000 were killed, one third of all Cypriots lived dependent as refugees with no certainty about their future, thousands left the country like my family, while thousands remained enclaved away from their families. Recently Cypriot filmmaker Antonis Angastiniotis directed a historical documentary Voice of Blood portraying the mass killing of Turkish Cypriot civilians in the villages of Attilar, Muratag and Sandallar in 1974, and as a result countless Greek Cypriots accused him of treachery. Meanwhile, Turkish nationalists have repeatedly exploited his valuable work for peace to make a cheap point, failing to grasp that Angastiniotis also reports the massacre of Greek Cypriot civilians or POW by Turkish Cypriot irregulars. But despite the fact that many Turkish Cypriots celebrate this invasion, while many Greek Cypriots hijack the time of mourning to incite ethnic hatred of Turks and Turkish Cypriots, the fact remains that the human costs of the coup and invasion can be found on all sides. In my own community here in London and in Cyprus, leaders from both left and right lead annual celebrations involving the recital of heroic poems by children and a floral ceremony to thank those who struck the ‘enemy’ a final blow and tore the island country into two. Subscribing to the logical fallacy that “Two wrongs make a right,” for many Turkish Cypriot leaders the action was deemed necessary to halt a civil war, but in effect has proved to have imprisoned those they have ‘saved’, while committing the murder of Greek Cypriots, the looting of their homes, desecration of their religious buildings, while depriving the entire island of its human rights. Who are they fooling? Since when, can such acts be considered a peace operation?The son of a family of refugees myself, I am ordered to express my appreciation to those who ‘saved us’. Lest I am ungrateful, I am reminded that my family’s ancestral villages were both attacked by Greek Cypriot militia, and that my father’s cousin was among those massacred in Tochni. But as the child of the survivors of Cyprus’ civil war and as a British Cypriot living in London, where I have grown up with British Greek Cypriot refugee families, I am fed up with hate. I cannot thank a ‘saviour’ who at the same time expelled those with whom my community had coexisted for half a millennia. The indiscriminate expulsion of Christian Cypriots does not ease the suffering on my refugee family or indeed on other Turkish Cypriot refugee families, but only adds to Cyprus’ tragedy. From the many positive memories of our grandparents that have been almost erased by a focus on the negatives, we know that not all Greek Cypriots are murderers. So how can I feel gratitude to those causing 33 years of pain and suffering to the neighbours with whom we have co-existed peacefully like brothers for centuries?Yet for many people in my community, it is justifiable to punish those who personally had no part to play in the civil unrest of 1964-1974. Based on sheer generalisations and stereotypes of what the ‘other’ side must be like and what they think of us, many of us must develop from such paranoia, contempt, where we actually believe the Greek Cypriots deserved to be treated in this way. Learning no lessons from our own suffering and crimes committed against us, many Turkish Cypriots, including our own self-styled human rights activists, demonstrate no feeling or understanding when others are in the same position of suffering that they were previously in. Through celebrating this collective punishment, Turkish Cypriots are condemning until their dying day people who happen to be of Greek, Maronite or Armenian descent from the right of return.Certain community leaders and hardliners claiming to be leading victims will tell you that the Greek Cypriots deserved it, but how can one victim justify the slaying of another victim? Regardless of what these honourable ‘patriots’ will tell you, in the eyes of humanity and under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments constitute a war crime. Article 33 of the Fourth Convention clearly states: "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed," and "collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” The Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Part III: Article 33 also prohibits “any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State.” Yet there are those who use the excuse of our own suffering to justify these war crimes and at the same time to seek recognition of their entity to legally sell off the remaining land of those refugees. The widespread suffering and injustice brought about by the coup and invasion clearly transcends ethno-religious lines in Cyprus; in fact it is fair to say that all Cypriots have suffered from the events of 1974. Yet rather than learn lessons from joint suffering and say enough is enough, some Cypriots celebrate the events of 1974 to gloat of victory, while others exploit feeling to incite ethnic hatred for political reasons. In my view, Cypriots whatever their language or religion should resist such exploitation of tragedy and instead make the 33 year anniversary of the coup and invasion a day for the mourning of the dead, a time of reflection and reconciliation. The anniversary should equally be a time for personal space for families who want to grieve. At this time, when Cypriots seek to locate their missing loved ones so they can move on with their lives, such celebrations of these war crimes are inappropriate.

Why Cyprus cannot afford to exclude Turkish settlers

By Alkan Chaglar (archive article - Sunday, April 15, 2007)

THE NEW ‘demonised other’, Turkish settlers in northern Cyprus, represent to some past crimes against Cyprus, but over 33 years can they still be called settlers? While Greek and Turkish Cypriots join hands in bi-communal activities that will facilitate a future reunification, the settlers and their offspring remain excluded. But how can a sustainable peace be grasped and how can Cyprus really be free of outside meddling if one excludes a major political and economic force on the island?Long the butt of jokes, many ordinary Turkish settlers and their children are held responsible by native Turkish Cypriots for increasing levels of crime, moral corruption and pollution in northern Cyprus. Treated with scorn by some Turkish Cypriots for whom they are a reminder of the chauvinism of Ankara, settlers are blamed for every ill in northern Cyprus’ society, from forest fires to petty crime and drug-related shootings. A Turkish Cypriot Famagustan suffering from a superiority complex once admitted to me over dinner that he avoided certain areas of his town that was “Karasakal” territory as he didn’t trust those mainlanders. A highly derogatory and insulting term, “Karasakal” or even the newer term “Ficca” meaning seaweed are no different to terms like “Paki” or “Nigger” used by British racists, yet they are far too commonly used by Turkish Cypriots. In the absence of Greek Cypriots in the North, it appears that it is the settlers who have become the new demonised other. In the Republic of Cyprus, similar insults and stereotypes are made about the 30,000 Pontian Greeks living there. Occasionally united in their disdain for non-Cypriots, Greek and Turkish Cypriots see it as acceptable to hate their immigrants or settlers; some have forgotten that a similar hostility towards each other is the raison d'?tre, why they remain divided today. As a Londrali Kibrisli or Charlie, I cannot help but draw parallels with such views with those of British racists who hold asylum seekers, refugees and other immigrant communities responsible for all that may be wrong with modern-day Britain. For a troubled island country for which the Americans and international community are spending millions on a "peace process", very little is being done to reverse deep sentiments of xenophobia prevalent in both main communities. The failed Annan plan did not even mention it or have a strategy for dealing with it, even though it is at the root of the current division of the island. But do politicians really want to tackle xenophobia? For those who genuinely believe the day will come for them to deport a family of four back to Anatolia, unrelenting Turcophobia acts as fuel to maintain their pursuit of idealistic goals. After all, Greek Cypriot politicians keen to hold on to their votes need to keep dreams alive. Forced to deceive their own voters by promising to repatriate settlers from Turkey even after 33 years of living there, they recognise only too well how swiftly they would lose votes if they said otherwise. But with the rhetoric of a smaller number of politicians it is apparent to me that they are not interested in restoring the human rights of their own community, but more in a form of revenge or punishment of their invaders. In their eyes it seems is as if human rights violated can be suddenly cured if one violates the rights of others.Nobody can deny that the arrival of settlers was marked by the illegal looting and theft of Greek Cypriot owned properties. It transpired after a harrowing civil war, the memories of which are still fresh and the consequences devastating. I do not propose that true property owners remain dispossessed; in fact, every effort should be made to restore their rights where possible, but feeding the masses improbable notions of restoring a past pre-1974 Cyprus and offering false hopes of repatriating 30-year settlers is deceptive and without purpose. Whether some Cypriots can stomach it or not, Turkish settlers are at this moment an important ingredient in this character of the island and very few if any will be repatriated even if it is agreed on paper. A Republic of Cyprus diplomat once told me “they [the settlers] are Turkey's responsibility as citizens of that country, they are illegal.”Without justifying Turkey’s action, I ask how can a human being be illegal? Perhaps the settlers may still be citizens of Turkey, but is it accurate to assume Ankara represents their voice? Surely, the settler community has over 33 years of living in Cyprus developed its own list of issues. Furthermore, if the issue of contention is the interference of Ankara, then surely the exclusion of this community is giving impetus to Ankara to defend ‘its citizens’ in Cyprus? Is this also not contrary to forming a Cyprus that is no longer a playing field for Ankara and Athens? Sooner or later, Greek and Turkish Cypriots have to realise that the island in the 21st century is now home to many other communities. Before even considering the settlers, tens of thousands of Thai, Sri Lankans, Filipinos, and Indians workers, and Iranian and Lebanese refugees have made the island their new home. In the north, stowaway Syrians, ex-student Pakistanis and Bulgarians Turks are all adding to this mixture. Yet still the official face of Cyprus depicted by the policy and attitudes of the government of the Republic of Cyprus and the northern authorities still paint the picture of a Greco-Turkish Cypriot island. Is it not time the government and northern authorities recognised the true face of Cyprus as it is? When are official policies and attitudes going to reflect a more accurate multi-cultural Cyprus? When are non-Greek and Turkish Cypriots going to be invited to play a part in the future of the island? If Cypriots are genuine about reaching a solution, they cannot afford to leave out in the cold a large proportion of their population who do not happen to be Greek or Turkish Cypriots.Marginalisation of settlers is not an option, as the group is an important political and economic force, and one of the fastest growing communities on the island. The reasons for their arrival may be painful and marred by injustice, but they are now after nearly half a century an ingredient in the mixture that is Cyprus. Their exclusion from North-South dialogue is both dangerous for long-term inter-community relations and an invitation or door wide open for Turkey to interfere in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

Papadopoulos' talk of defending Hellenism is alienating Turkish Cypriots

Alkan CHAGLAR (archive article - Sunday, April 22, 2007)

AS PRESIDENT of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos should be doing all he can to promote the Cypriot nation and the unifying ideology of Pan-Cypriotism as the path to social reunification. Regrettably, drunk on the idea of Hellenism the Cypriot President is far too busy metamorphasising Alexander the Great, while sending out contradictory messages to the rest of the world and alienating thousands of Turkish Cypriots.In traditional democracies, the role of the President is above partisan politics, beyond inter-community disputes; the President is a representative figure who strives to represent all his citizens, from every political affiliation and religious-linguistic group. But clearly the mind of the President of the Republic of Cyprus was elsewhere on July 14, 2006, while visiting Greece. In his speech to the Greek head of state, President Papadopoulos stated loyally: “We [Cyprus] do not want, nor do we seek to transfer the weight of our problems to the shoulders of Greece. But, we do want our Greek brothers to realise that we in Cyprus, as we resist Turkish expansionism and fight for the national and physical survival of Greek Hellenism, are forward defenders of Hellenism in its widest meaning and dimension.''Like thousands of Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Latins and Armenian Cypriots, as well as thousands of Greek Cypriots who believe themselves to be Cypriot above all, I could hardly believe my ears. Greek brothers? Fighting for the survival of Hellenism? Does the Cypriot President who claims legal and moral justification for this very title abroad forget which country he is the head of state of? Did he not imagine how his irresponsible message could be interpreted by Cyprus’ Turkish Cypriots and other religious-linguistic groups?But it was not the first of such ill-chosen terminology. President Papadopoulos later asked a crowd of Greek Cypriots in Nicosia to “judge” if they were helping the “Hellenism of Cyprus”. Helping Hellenism seems to be a priority in his presidency, where simultaneously he tries to convince Turkish Cypriots that the days of his involvement with the Akritas Plan are over. Perhaps President Papadopoulos needs to be informed that the Republic of Cyprus is not a carbon copy of Greece. It is a Cypriot state co-founded by Turkish Cypriots, where Turkish is one of its official languages and where no less than 26 per cent of the population of Cyprus are Turkish Cypriots. It is a country that has historic ties not only with Greece and Turkey but with the entire Near East. It is a land where Christianity and Islam are the two main religions, and where its flag under which his cries for Hellenism are echoed was designed by a Muslim Turkish Cypriot.To those who proudly claim to have voted ‘OXI’ under the false notion that they were preventing Cyprus from becoming a Greco-Turkish country, it is time to wake up and smell the coffee; Cyprus is and will always be the home of Turkish Cypriots, and Cypriot culture will always have a generous Turkish ingredient among many others, whether they can stomach it or not. As a proud citizen of this state, I ask President Papadopoulos who on earth has given him the right to pronounce himself the defender of Hellenism while using the title President of Cyprus? Where in the 1960 constitution is this right afforded to the head of state?I ask President Papadopoulos, is he representing an electorate of an Athenian suburb or bi-lingual Cyprus? For me as a citizen of the Republic, it is completely unacceptable and scandalous that my head of state carries on presenting himself to the world as Cypriot President while manipulating this title to lend support to the nationalism of another country! It is equally unacceptable to try to justify this action by pointing the finger across the Wall of Shame and measuring one’s own actions by those of others. As a Cypriot President, Mr Papadopoulos does not have the luxury of Mr Talat to define himself as solely the leader of one community.Alienating Turkish Cypriots and no doubt thousands of Maronites, Armenians and Latin Cypriots with his Greek nationalist rhetoric, the President is actually helping to preserve the status quo and pouring the cement that will finalise irreversible partition. Despite tears shed for Hellenism, the President faces a huge responsibility on his shoulders as a Cypriot head of state. Every time he forgets his role, Turkish Cypriots who are pitting themselves against their own hardened nationalists, some risking their lives, receive a big slap in the face. Their timely and commendable efforts to build a better future for all Cypriots are shattered by a President who cannot separate himself from Greek nationalism. Inevitably, this leads many Turkish Cypriots out of frustration and humiliation to give up their struggle. The President of Cyprus should pay greater attention to avoid alienating Turkish Cypriots. His hand of friendship should not be as that of a negotiator trying to get Turkish Cypriots to a table, where he will try to bargain with them, but as a President reaching out to his citizens, and inviting them to rejoin other Cypriots in the Republic and its institutions, regardless of when a political settlement will take place. After all, are Turkish Cypriot rights as citizens of the Republic of Cyprus held hostage to a political settlement?Whether there is a political settlement at present or not, there is no justification for President Papadopoulos to manipulate powers entrusted to him. As President, if Mr Papadopoulos genuinely believes in reconciliation, peace and reunification, he must be prepared to manifest his sincerity by being more representative of his people, otherwise his presidential legacy will be remembered for entrenching partition and his messages of defending Hellenism will be construed by the entire world to mean that the Republic of Cyprus is nothing more than a Greek Republic of Cyprus. A presidential balancing act between being a Greek Cypriot leader and “President of all Cypriots” is a dangerous game, particularly if one tries to defend Hellenism while promoting Cypriot unity. Naturally, when Hellenism is promoted in Cyprus, Pan-Turkism and a new Turkish Cypriot nationalism are quickly formed to counter it. As President of Cyprus, Mr Papadopoulos has to embrace the full diversity of Cyprus, even while standing in front of the Greek head of state. And if the President still feels the needs to be patriotic, then he should opt for Cypriotism, a more inclusive ideology which captures all the communities of Cyprus.

‘We’ll go to the Vatican for justice’

By Jacqueline Theodoulou (archive article - Thursday, January 26, 2006)
A LARGE number of Maronite properties in occupied Ayia Marina of Skilloura have been illegally transferred to Turkish Cypriots, with Maronite representative to the House Antonis Hadjiroussos saying he will go as far as the Vatican to find justice.As Hadjiroussos explained, when ‘foreign minister’ Serdar Denktash recently announced that refugee Maronites were now entitled to use their properties, the refugees went to rent them out, only to be greeted by Turkish Cypriots claiming to be rightful owners of them. Producing ‘title deeds’ signed over by Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat’s ‘government’; Maronites were told that the properties no longer belonged to them.“When I was notified about the problem, I investigated further in order to determine the exact dimensions of the problem. I found that, especially in Ayia Marina, many properties had been illegally signed over to Turkish Cypriots.”Community members are exasperated and are now considering legal action. Hadjiroussos said that he will reach the highest levels, in cooperation with the government, to resolve the situation. “We will address ambassadors in Nicosia as well as Europe and we will even reach the Vatican and ask for the Pope’s intervention,” he warned. Affected Maronites gathered at Hadjiroussos’ office on Tuesday and heard information given by a Turkish Cypriot lawyer, who confirmed that a large number of Maronite properties had been handed over to Turkish Cypriots. It also emerged that the embezzlement had began in the years 1999-2001 and continued until recently.

Forget expensive UN plans Cypriots need lessons in philosophy

Alkan CHAGLAR

Forget expensive UN plans! Cypriots need lessons in philosophyA deal signed and sealed on paper is not enough to sustain peace on Cyprus, Cypriots require a fresh new way of thinking.

CHANGE OF ATTITUDES
Complicated United Nation (UN) plans ranging from the Galo Plaza plan to the Boutros Ghali set of ideas to the more recent 9000 page Annan Plan have all placed to much emphasis on a political deal without formulating a strategy to change the psychology of the Cypriot people so that their plan for peace will actually stand a chance of success. At the same time blind to the root of the Cyprus problem, few if any of these international plans, however good the intention have ever sought to curb the highly divisive Greek and Turkish nationalisms that are responsible for the current division of the two main communities today. In spite of the importance of politics, psychology is equally vital to both the pursuit and longevity of peace on the island.
Despite the clear good will of these proposals, seldom have they formed a strategy for confronting Greek and Turkish nationalism, which is the root cause of dangerous and divisive attitudes today in both communities. Instead of promoting a sense of unity, peace plan after peace plan has tried to make a solution work around Greek and Turkish nationalism.
Peace-seeking Cypriots themselves have also acted against a solution at times when it suits them. In the North of Cyprus and even in the Republic of Cyprus, which is the internationally recognised government of Cyprus, few lawmakers act as Cypriots, but act instead in the interests of Hellenism or Turkism. Hardly inspiring confidence, elected leaders who talk of reunification, often make reference to “Greekness or Turkishness” sending contradictory messages to the population who are left wondering how sincere their leaders are. Indeed if these elected leaders are serious about grasping a sustainable peace, surely they need to adhere to a less offensive philosophy, one that compliments the peace process and does not alienate other Cypriots.

CYPRIOTISM
Cypriotism, Pan-Cyprianism or in plain English Cypriotness, a natural home grown opposition to the tremendous damage inflicted on Cyprus by foreign Greek and Turkish nationalisms over the past half a century may hold the key to facilitate efforts to seek a sustainable peace. Neither a Greek nor Turkish, neither an Armenian nor Maronite way of thinking, Cypriotism is not Cypriot nationalism, as it does not promote exclusion or aim to elevate Cypriots above other peoples, nor it is an ideology linked to the left or right, rather it is a positive and inclusive philosophy that focuses on what unites us and not what divides us.
Embracing the idea of our existing multi-cultural character, Cypriotism can play a pivotal role in paving the way to a sustainable peace, even before a political settlement is agreed. As much a part of the peace making process than as a result, Cypriotism, by forcing us to think as a whole and not as a part can help us grasp peace more easily and help sustain peace once it is within our reach. For those disillusioned with the current state of Cypriot politics, the philosophy, which ultimately aims at unity can act as a new alternative or third way.
Far from being a foreign ideology like Greek and Turkish nationalism, Cypriotism is through its openness to all the communities of Cyprus, settlers included, a true reflection of the hospitality of Cypriots and the love Greek, Turkish, Maronite and other Cypriots hold for their common island. A response to any attempt to distort the memory of our past coexistence, this philosophy destroys the flawed argument that justifies Apartheid in Cyprus, while giving hope that coexistence can work once again.
Unlike Greek and Turkish nationalism which has left Cyprus’ Maronite, Latin, Roma and Armenian communities feeling alienated, Cypriotism is not a nationalism, but a way to include and embrace all the aspects of our island culture and identity without selectively leaving anybody out. Cypriotism is when we as Cypriots feel comfortable enough to stand up against the injustices against our people as a whole and not just our own community. A philosophy, which focuses on Cypriots as one people, Cypriotism is better in tune with the universality of human rights, which all people desire and multi-culturalism, which is a truer reflection of Cyprus.

HOW CAN CYPRIOTISM BE ACHIEVED?
However, many sceptical people ask me, how is it possible that we can install in the minds of Cypriots at this late stage the idea of Cypriotism? My response is through the same channels through which Greek and Turkish nationalism has succeeded to turn Cypriots against each other, education. The education process is key to bringing people of diverse origins together and key to the peace process.
Promoting a love of our multi-cultural island and finding a way to celebrate what we have in common in education is necessary to reverse the tremendous psychological damage inflicted by both Greek and Turkish nationalism on the way we view each other. As illustrated in a study by Spyros Spyrou, regarding the perceptions of the “Turk” by Greek Cypriot school children, Cypriots through indoctrination are being pushed further and further apart. Almost an ancient Cypriot art that now belongs to a museum, subservience to whatever Empire (or regional power) holds sway in our region is being taught in our schools to the benefit of other countries but at the detriment of our unity.
A colleague who recently spoke about his school experiences recounted how virtually all children began their daily lessons by singing either the Greek or Turkish national anthem and were forced to recite heroic stories of how the ‘Great motherland’ defeated its enemies by pushing them into the sea. Tolerated by leaders who claim to seek peace, Cypriot pupils forty years on are still taught through schooling to view each other as enemies. Failing to realise the advantage that Cypriotism can have not only for goals of peace and reconciliation, but to our better understanding of each other, our concerns and our common history, elected leaders fail to succumb to the need to preach divisive Hellenism or Turkism.
But for those serious about achieving a peace, a solution that amounts to a mere cohabitation between Greek and Turkish nationalism, where there is a failure to address the need to tackle divisive ways of thinking imprinted in the psyche of people in both the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities is not a true peace. Considering that both communities have been the target of extensive Hellenisation and Turkicisation over a century, a union between Greek and Turkish Cypriots where it is hoped the two communities would simply iron out their differences once in a power sharing government is an illusion. Even the most expensive lawyers are not going to be enough to sustain a peace, Cypriot leaders need to act immediately to reverse a century of damage by conflicting Greek and Turkish nationalism by promoting where possible a psychological peace, through a new unifying philosophy of Cypriotism.

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