Furthermore they have different views of history. For the Turks, their victimization starts with the dissolution of the common state in 1963. For the Greeks it is 1974, when the Turkish army came to the rescue of the threatened Turks following a Greek-backed military takeover to annex the island to mainland Greece. These two tracks of history have never been recognized by the other side.As a result, despite three decades of efforts to secure a negotiated settlement, the island still remains psychologically, demographically and politically divided. The 2004 Annan plan referendum is a lost opportunity that could have ended the division. However, despite the fact that the island’s Turks endorsed the plan to build a common state once again, the Greek Cypriots refused to go along after they ensured that their membership in the European Union was guaranteed whether they endorsed the UN plan or not.
The continuing intractability of the conflict emanates from the fact that the two sides remain too far apart on the fundamentals for any mediating strategy and workable fundamentals for peace. Now, in the post-Annan period, a new push for a negotiated settlement is under way. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently visited the island to encourage the bi-communal talks carried on by their leaders over the past 16 months.
After meeting with Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot President Dimitris Christofias, the secretary-general said he was encouraged by their “shared commitment for a comprehensive solution as early as possible.” Talat said: “We achieved progress on some issues, but we also have differences. … But in general I can say that from the point we started we are now closer to an agreement.” In response, Christofias added, “In order to reach a common understanding, both sides have to agree to a solution taking into account the legitimate interests of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots.”
These are nice words, but the peace talks that were launched in September 2008 have not made much progress thus far. However, both community leaders’ statements and Mr. Ban’s optimism that “a solution is within reach” raise hope for the near future. Could the urgency in Mr. Talat’s rhetoric and increased positive tone from Mr. Christofias be due to the impending presidential election in the Turkish part of the island, the outcome of which is most likely to produce a nationalist president who would stand for the continuation of the Turkish state rather than union with the Greeks, who have been so obstinate so far?
The internationally recognized (Greek) Republic of Cyprus joined the EU on May 1, 2004, giving every Greek Cypriot the right to carry an EU passport and the status of a European citizen. These rights do not apply to the north, although the Turkish Cypriots voted for the reunification of the island and the Greek Cypriots did not. This outcome led to a great sense of disappointment and injustice on the island and among mainland Turks, weakening their desire to join the EU.
However, many EU countries hid behind this injustice and the negative feelings it incurred, which led to the disheartening of Turks vis-à-vis membership. The majority of Turks support their government’s refusal to recognize the Republic of Cyprus before the correction of this injustice done to Turkish Cypriots. The situation is further aggravated because Turkey prohibits Greek Cypriot ships and planes from using Turkish seaports and airports. This fact is duly exploited by some European countries that do not want Turkey in the EU. So a breakthrough in Turkish-Greek communal negotiations has little prospect for a positive conclusion, unless the issue is treated as a humanitarian issue rather than a power play.
