Reunification’s death ‘by a thousand cuts’
IF THE reunification of Cyprus is not achieved in our lifetimes, it will not be because there was one hammer blow to the cause which closed it off forever, but because of a slow and painful death by a thousand cuts.
There has been no one single moment that the people of this island and the world can pin as the point at which reunification became an impossibility forever, but we will be able to look back at a series of unfortunate events which, out of context, mean very little, but when combined with one another, add up to create a situation in which reunification appears increasingly unlikely.
President Ersin Tatar, of course, has long since given up on reunification in his mind. He was elected to his current office promising to put the idea in the bin, and has showed little sign of turning away from that state of mind. Personally, I have been willing to be more charitable to the idea and open to it as a possibility, while being conscious of the fact that the window of opportunity for such an eventuality is most definitely closing.
Hope for reunification has been dwindling in recent years, particularly since the failure of the Crans Montana talks in 2017.
One could class this, as well as the failure of the 2004 Annan Plan referendum, as the most significant of the thousand cuts, but there have been smaller but nonetheless important moments to have occurred in the last 20 years.
For example, as I have mentioned in this column before, the decision of Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades to unilaterally close the Lokmacı border crossing point in February 2020 on account of his “fear of the coronavirus” sent a clear message to the Turkish Cypriots of “you’re on your own” when crisis hits.
Other moments in time include the lack of a solution found when Akel’s Dimitris Christofias was Greek Cypriot leader, given that he had announced that a solution would be the “top priority” of his government and that Akel seemingly had good relations with the Republican Turkish Party (CTP), who, through Mehmet Ali Talat, held the Presidency of North Cyprus for half of Christofias’s tenure.
President Talat and Mr Christofias famously fell out just months after Christofias was elected, and I doubt that this was Mr Talat’s fault.
Elaborating on that point, I have always had my doubts, to say the least, as to whether
Akel is really the Turkish Cypriot-friendly party that they say they are.
They talk a good game, having a Turkish-language Facebook page, a Turkish Cypriot MEP, and hold events together with Turkish Cypriot groups.
However, aside from the MEP, Akel’s support of the Turkish Cypriot community is largely superficial.
I have been criticised in the past for suggesting that all Greek Cypriot political parties are the same when it comes to the Cyprus Problem, largely because of Akel’s seeming willingness to reach out to the Turkish Cypriot community in a way that no other Greek Cypriot political party does.
This outreach is, of course, commendable, but when it is not backed up by political action, it is completely worthless.
No amount of bicommunal marches will ever wash away the stain of Akel’s decision to reject the Annan Plan in 2004, when their endorsement of it would in all probability have led to its acceptance by enough Greek Cypriots to see the referendum succeed.
No amount of social media posts involving the phrase “Kıbrıs’ta Barış Engellenemez” (Peace in Cyprus Cannot be Prevented) will be able to turn the clock back either to that golden opportunity to solve the Cyprus Problem once and for all, nor to the five years in which Akel held the Greek Cypriot leadership and could have solved the Cyprus Problem at any time if it
wished.
This brings us to today, and the run-up to next year’s Greek Cypriot leadership elections. For whatever reason, they have a long run-up time, with candidates declaring as early as January. Incumbent Nicos Anastasiades is going to be 76 years old in September, and while age is just a number, he has decided that after 10 years in the job, he will not seek reelection.
His party, Disy, has decided to endorse its parliamentary leader Averof Neofytou. Mr Neofytou is 61 years old, and began his career as the mayor of Polis Chrysochous, the village in which TRNC Prime Minister Faiz Sucuoğlu was born.
Former Greek Cypriot foreign minister Nikos Christodoulides, 48, has also declared his candidacy. While official declarations have not yet been made, it is also likely that Nikolas Papadopoulos, 49 — the son of Tassos, who was Greek Cypriot leader between 2003 and 2008 and famously cried on television while urging his people to reject the Annan Plan — and Elam leader Christos Christou, 41, will also run.
All but one of the above listed potential leaders all have a largely similar point of view to the Cyprus Problem, which is to be nominally in favour of a bizonal, bicommunal federal solution, but to do very little about it, and to expect a withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island as a potential red line in negotiations.
This expectation is incompatible with the fears of many Turkish Cypriots, and therefore would not lead very far in negotiations, as we have seen for the last half a century.
The exception, of course, is Mr Christou, who is a supporter of Enosis, the union of Cyprus with Greece.
This left Akel as the only
major Greek Cypriot party without an obvious leadership candidate, and as the one and only party which could potentially nominate a “gamechanger”.
Since 2020, I have said that the only way that Cypriot reunification can be brought back into the realm of possibility is if the Greek Cypriots elect a “Greek Cypriot Akıncı” in 2023.
By that, I mean they must elect a leader who is willing to openly and outwardly express their dedication to solving the Cyprus Problem and their love for the Turkish Cypriots, and to be prepared to compromise in order to find a solution.
Akel could have nominated such a “game-changer”, someone who would effectively make offers to the Turkish Cypriots that they could not refuse, in
the same way that President Akıncı did to the Greek Cypriots in 2016 and 2017.
However, they instead chose to inflict the latest of Cypriot reunification’s thousand cuts by nominating 66-year-old diplomat Andreas Mavroyiannis last Sunday afternoon.
Mr Mavroyiannis is, alas, not a Greek Cypriot Akıncı. He voted “No” to the Annan Plan in 2004, and served as the Greek Cypriot side’s chief negotiator in talks to solve the Cyprus Problem between 2013 and three weeks ago.
This means that he was party to Mr Anastasiades’s plan to collapse the Crans Montana negotiations just as a solution was on the cusp of being reached, in order that he win the 2018 Greek Cypriot leadership election, and did nothing about it.
It also means that he did nothing for the five years following that incident as Mr Anastasiades postured and puffed, and did nothing remotely useful for anyone after being re-elected in 2018. His resignation three weeks ago, citing the “absence of any developments on the negotiation front” was shallow and a clear ploy to attempt to seem principled before seeking election.
If he had any principles, he would have resigned five years ago when his boss collapsed the negotiations, rather than wait for five years while being paid handsomely to do nothing until he thought he had a chance at a better job.
Akel’s decision to nominate Mr Mavroyiannis is a headscratcher, but, in the context of their relationship with the Turkish Cypriots, it is not particularly surprising.
Akel may continue to talk a good game, hold more bicommunal marches, and continue posting in Turkish on social media, but its nomination of Mr Mavroyiannis is proof once more that their relationship with the Turkish Cypriots is entirely superficial, and that when the time comes to set real policy, they are no different to any of the other parties.
Mr Mavroyiannis is not going to solve the Cyprus Problem, and that is a problem, because Mr Neofytou probably will not either, and nor will Mr Christodoulides, Mr Papadopoulos, or Mr Christou.
Cypriot reunification cannot happen if none of the candidates for the Greek Cypriot leadership are too fussed by the idea, and if those are the candidates, then it simply cannot happen. Unless there is a bolt from the blue and some outside candidate comes in to win the Greek Cypriot leadership and genuinely negotiate in good faith for reunification, it will be at least 2028 before there is a reasonable Greek Cypriot leader at the table, and it would not be unreasonable to say that the Turkish Cypriots simply cannot wait that long.
The question of “if not reunification, then what?” largely remains unanswered despite a multitude of suggestions, but it appears after the nomination of candidates for the Greek Cypriot leadership elections inflicted the latest in reunification’s death by a thousand cuts that we may be a step closer to finding out.