The end of the line for Cyprus?

Some weeks ago I promised reflections on the failure of reunification in Cyprus. Accordingly, here is my column on the subject for the 7 June issue of Christian Courier:

Cyprus is now a member of the European Union, as of the beginning of last month. Unfortunately it is still very much a divided island, with Turkish Cypriots concentrated in the north and Greek Cypriots in the south. When it was declared late last year that 10 new members would be admitted to the EU, officials made clear their preference to admit a united Cyprus. Early in 2003 UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had launched an effort to reunite the island. Unfortunately this came to naught, as the Turkish-Cypriot President Rauf Denktash would not budge from his support for the status quo.

However, with the EU announcement last December efforts were redoubled to negotiate reunion. The Annan Plan was revived, and a new pro-unification government was given a slender majority in north Cyprus, seemingly paving the way for renewed negotiations. However, once representatives of the two ethnic communities were brought together, they proved unable to agree on much beyond the date of the popular referendums on a plan that looked unlikely to come about. After representatives of Athens and Ankara entered the picture, it was hoped that some progress could be made, given that the Turkish prime minister was known to favour a resolution of the issue. Once again, however, there was no real breakthrough.

Thus, by the time of the referendums on 24 April, the largely unaltered Annan Plan was all the two sides had to vote on. This plan called for a loose Swiss-style federal union of the two sides, with a presidential council, a bicameral parliament and a supreme court, all of which were to contain fixed numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots. However, just prior to the vote, Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos unexpectedly repudiated the plan. Greek Cypriots thus voted against it by a wide margin, while Turkish Cypriots voted in its favour.

Greek Cypriots objected that the plan would allow Ankara a continued military presence on the island while imposing restrictions on Greek Cypriots wishing to return to their properties in the north. Many objected that, if the plan had been approved, they would be able to move to and buy property anywhere in the EU – but not in north Cyprus.

As I followed the news reports surrounding the Annan Plan and its rejection, I couldn’t help thinking back to Canada’s own failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords more than a decade ago. Wholesale constitutional reform is difficult to sell to voters in the best of circumstances, at least partly because they believe they are being asked to render a verdict on the merits and flaws of a document. In fact, they are usually being asked simply to ratify the fact that their leaders have reached agreement, period.

In the case of Cyprus, it might have been better if Greek Cypriots had voted to remove the barbed wire and adopt a not altogether equitable political arrangement, while working for intercommunal reconciliation and an eventual softening of its harsh edges. Too often in the past Greek Cypriots have made nonnegotiable demands and have wound up with worse. Their leaders have been less than adept at understanding politics as the art of compromise.

An agreement to end the island’s division could still come about. But both UN and EU officials are disinclined to put further effort into something with so little payoff. In the meantime, Cypriots themselves must seize every opportunity to cultivate better relations between the two communities on the ground, while hoping for a better day.