Cyprus: A Greek wrecker

Date: 17/04/04

The European Union should tell the Greek-Cypriots their president is wrong

ONLY a few months ago, an historic reconciliation between Greeks and Turks - NATO “allies” who had come quite close to fighting one another on a couple of occasions in the 1990s - seemed well on track, thanks to some courageous efforts on both sides to overcome the legacy of history. Despite their deep-seated antagonism, the two nations had started to remember how much they had in common, and how much they had to gain from co-operating.

The process was exhilarating but fragile: it was disturbing to many people in the region who had a stake in keeping ancient feuds alive. But in recent days there has been good news for anyone who wants to keep the embers of conflict glowing. In an act of cynicism, the Greek-Cypriot president, Tassos Papadopoulos, has suddenly thumped the patriotic drum and urged his people to deliver a resounding “no” to a UN peace plan that he helped to negotiate. If - as seems likely - the Greek-Cypriot voters follow this advice, their president will be a deeply unpopular participant at next month's Dublin summit of old and new European Union leaders.

Indeed, many will wish he were not there at all. When the Union agreed that the Greek-Cypriots could join its ranks, if necessary without a resolution of the island's conflict, this was an act of faith - intended to put pressure on Turkish-Cypriot diehards without giving carte blanche to the Greeks. Such faith seemed justified when the leadership of the Greeks - in both Athens and Nicosia - was in relatively moderate and responsible hands. But the behaviour of Mr Papadopoulos, elected as president last year, has vindicated the sceptics who said a truncated Cyprus had no place in the EU.

If Mr Papadopoulos deserves to be ostracised, it is not for the mere fact of saying no to the proposed peace plan. Like any historic settlement of a long and bitter conflict, the UN plan to stitch together Cyprus in a way that gives huge autonomy to each half has risks and rewards. From a Greek (or indeed a Turkish) viewpoint, it is quite possible to make a “rejectionist” case - as long as the stakes are honestly spelled out.

A dishonest case

An honest Greek rejectionist would say that the status quo, which has allowed the Greek-Cypriots to live in safety and rising prosperity since 1974, is preferable to any likely alternative; so they should forget about recovering the homes and land they lost, and settle for a permanent partition. But Mr Papadopoulos is not making an honest case for rejection. He has told his people they can cheerfully turn down the UN blueprint, with no significant cost and every expectation that a better deal will be offered in the near future. That is utter nonsense.

What the Greek-Cypriots are about to pass up may very well be their last, best chance for at least half of those displaced in 1974 to recover their homes; to bring about a massive reduction in the size of the island's Turkish garrison; and to benefit from the goodwill and assistance which a settlement would attract.

If, as now seems likely, the UN plan is accepted on April 24th by most Turkish-Cypriots and rejected by the Greek-Cypriots, one almost automatic result will be that the northern, Turkish-controlled part of Cyprus will start to reap rewards, both diplomatic and economic. Some countries may accord northern Cyprus full diplomatic recognition, and there will be no limit to the number of people from Turkey who can settle there. For all these reasons, the costs of a “no” will be very high from a Greek point of view, even though Mr Papadopoulos pretends otherwise.

Leaders of the EU (including the government of Greece) should spell out these realities - in loud, clear and simple language - to ordinary Greek-Cypriots. It may well be too late to avoid a “no” vote - but the extent of the diplomatic damage may be determined by the margin. If the “no” vote is massive, then the 30-year charade of trying to solve the Cyprus conflict by reuniting the island will be over for good.

Editorial argues that the EU should tell the Greek Cypriots their president is wrong.