Edition 13 Volume 2 - April 01, 2004
Lessons from Cyprus
• Two opposing communities -
byJoni Assi
The Greeks refused the mediation of the US because they suspected it was partial to the Turks.
• The European and UN factors -
byJoseph S. Joseph
In this context of globalization, Palestinians and Israelis cannot ignore new realities.
• The EU umbrella is the key -
byGhassan Khatib
The ethnic nation-state is a dinosaur.
• On the brink of peace? -
byErol Kaymak
The EU does not substitute for the political process.
• The relevancy of the Cyprus process -
byAri Shuali
The principles of the Annan plan are likely to be applied to Jerusalem and along the wall and lines separating the two peoples.
Two opposing communities
by Joni Assi Cyprus will be joining the European Union on May 1, 2004, when the fifth European Union enlargement goes into effect with the accession of ten new member states. The Mediterranean island, however, is still de facto divided and the Cyprus problem unresolved despite the many efforts made so far to reach a settlement. Intensive negotiations are going on at the time of writing, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive settlement before accession. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is presenting a plan for a solution of the Cyprus problem based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation that will reunite the island and allow all Cypriots (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) to join the EU and the European integration process. Later in April, both Cypriot communities will have the opportunity to vote for the settlement at separate simultaneous referenda. The outcome of the referenda will determine the future of the island and its people.
As Cyprus is stepping into the EU, more and more views are converging that the time has come for a long overdue settlement. Everybody wants a settlement and a solution by the time of accession, but the real question is: can it be found and be acceptable to all sides? In recent months, following the easing of restrictions on crossing the dividing line, the people of Cyprus with their massive and peaceful interaction have confirmed that they can live together in harmony. What they need now is an appropriate common political framework for their political life, i.e., a viable and functional common state that will enjoy the support of its citizens.
It seems that settlement and accession can go hand in hand and reinforce and supplement each other. A solution to the Cyprus problem, however, cannot be an abstract construction. Any settlement and its implementation should meet the basic needs and have the support of both communities. This will require a just, viable, functional and lasting solution. Such a solution, by definition, will have no room for the permanent stationing of foreign armies. And above all, it will have to be based on the legal order, principles and values of the European Union which Cyprus is joining in a few weeks. Given the realities of Cyprus--geography, economy, size, distribution of natural resources, demography, and the political failures of the past--a federal solution, coupled with EU accession, can be a pragmatic way out of the stalemate. With Cyprus's accession, the institutions, legal order, principles and policies of the EU (the acquis communautaire), can provide a conducive framework (and more) for transforming Cyprus into a place of peace, stability and prosperity.
This scenario by itself, however, cannot be a magic formula unless it has substantive and substantial support from all parties involved and concerned. The Cypriots themselves are realizing that a remedy to their problems should be sought through pacific means, evolutionary peaceful change, political and administrative adjustments, renovation of political thinking and the cultivation of conciliatory attitudes. Certainly, the entire population will be better off if the island ceases to be a place of arms and confrontation, and the present status quo is replaced by a meaningful political order that will allow the two communities to co-exist in peace under conditions of stability and security.
This is where Cyprus is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It offers a model for Palestinians and Israelis to rely more on the constructive feedback and support that they can get from the international sector, and particularly the EU and the UN, and from the principles and values upon which these institutions are based and function. We live in a shrinking world, characterized by increasing interdependence. Cyprus is joining the EU and has to make adjustments. In this context of globalization, Palestinians and Israelis cannot ignore new realities. Like Cypriots, they have to find ways to change the status quo. This should include peaceful evolutionary change, administrative and political adjustments, and attitude changes. Israelis and Palestinians can learn something from the Cypriots who--whether or not they succeed in this round of negotiations--have opted for a peaceful way of solving their problem.
In conclusion, it can be argued that a settlement of the Cyprus problem will benefit all parties involved. Greece and Turkey especially will benefit greatly from a settlement on Cyprus that will enable them to focus on their domestic and bilateral problems. Turkey, in particular, with the withdrawal of its army from the island will get rid of the stigma of the occupying power, improve its credibility and be in a better position to talk with and be understood by the Europeans. In this regard, the next enlargement of the EU can provide an opportunity for the parties involved in or concerned over Cyprus to have a fresh look at the problems plaguing the island and the region.
And perhaps a solution in Cyprus can benefit the Middle East as well.-Published 1/4/2004(c)bitterlemons-international.org
Joni Assi teaches history at Birzeit University, Palestine.
The European and UN factors
by Joseph S. JosephCyprus will be joining the European Union on May 1, 2004, when the fifth European Union enlargement goes into effect with the accession of ten new member states. The Mediterranean island, however, is still de facto divided and the Cyprus problem unresolved despite the many efforts made so far to reach a settlement. Intensive negotiations are going on at the time of writing, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive settlement before accession. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is presenting a plan for a solution of the Cyprus problem based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation that will reunite the island and allow all Cypriots (Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) to join the EU and the European integration process. Later in April, both Cypriot communities will have the opportunity to vote for the settlement at separate simultaneous referenda. The outcome of the referenda will determine the future of the island and its people.
As Cyprus is stepping into the EU, more and more views are converging that the time has come for a long overdue settlement. Everybody wants a settlement and a solution by the time of accession, but the real question is: can it be found and be acceptable to all sides? In recent months, following the easing of restrictions on crossing the dividing line, the people of Cyprus with their massive and peaceful interaction have confirmed that they can live together in harmony. What they need now is an appropriate common political framework for their political life, i.e., a viable and functional common state that will enjoy the support of its citizens.
It seems that settlement and accession can go hand in hand and reinforce and supplement each other. A solution to the Cyprus problem, however, cannot be an abstract construction. Any settlement and its implementation should meet the basic needs and have the support of both communities. This will require a just, viable, functional and lasting solution. Such a solution, by definition, will have no room for the permanent stationing of foreign armies. And above all, it will have to be based on the legal order, principles and values of the European Union which Cyprus is joining in a few weeks. Given the realities of Cyprus--geography, economy, size, distribution of natural resources, demography, and the political failures of the past--a federal solution, coupled with EU accession, can be a pragmatic way out of the stalemate. With Cyprus's accession, the institutions, legal order, principles and policies of the EU (the acquis communautaire), can provide a conducive framework (and more) for transforming Cyprus into a place of peace, stability and prosperity.
This scenario by itself, however, cannot be a magic formula unless it has substantive and substantial support from all parties involved and concerned. The Cypriots themselves are realizing that a remedy to their problems should be sought through pacific means, evolutionary peaceful change, political and administrative adjustments, renovation of political thinking and the cultivation of conciliatory attitudes. Certainly, the entire population will be better off if the island ceases to be a place of arms and confrontation, and the present status quo is replaced by a meaningful political order that will allow the two communities to co-exist in peace under conditions of stability and security.
This is where Cyprus is relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It offers a model for Palestinians and Israelis to rely more on the constructive feedback and support that they can get from the international sector, and particularly the EU and the UN, and from the principles and values upon which these institutions are based and function. We live in a shrinking world, characterized by increasing interdependence. Cyprus is joining the EU and has to make adjustments. In this context of globalization, Palestinians and Israelis cannot ignore new realities. Like Cypriots, they have to find ways to change the status quo. This should include peaceful evolutionary change, administrative and political adjustments, and attitude changes. Israelis and Palestinians can learn something from the Cypriots who--whether or not they succeed in this round of negotiations--have opted for a peaceful way of solving their problem.
In conclusion, it can be argued that a settlement of the Cyprus problem will benefit all parties involved. Greece and Turkey especially will benefit greatly from a settlement on Cyprus that will enable them to focus on their domestic and bilateral problems. Turkey, in particular, with the withdrawal of its army from the island will get rid of the stigma of the occupying power, improve its credibility and be in a better position to talk with and be understood by the Europeans. In this regard, the next enlargement of the EU can provide an opportunity for the parties involved in or concerned over Cyprus to have a fresh look at the problems plaguing the island and the region.
And perhaps a solution in Cyprus can benefit the Middle East as well.-Published 1/4/2004(c)bitterlemons-international.org
Joseph S. Joseph is associate professor of international relations and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair in European Foreign and Security Policy at the University of Cyprus in Nicosia.
The EU umbrella is the key
by Ghassan KhatibWhat are the lessons of Cyprus for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?
There are many similarities: two communities with different religions on one land, separated by a wall and grappling with a refugee problem. The Cypriot conflict has been going for some 30 years, and it is only now, with a massive investment of effort from the international community, that there appears to be a glimmer of hope that a solution may be reached.
There are also many differences. The poorer and smaller Turkish-Cypriot side is backed by Turkey, creating a military symmetry that does not exist in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The refugee problem lies mainly with the richer, larger Greek-Cypriot side. More significantly, perhaps, while there may be two religious communities, all are Cypriots.
It is this latter factor that influences the direction of the proposed solution; two federated states ultimately to be united under the umbrella of the EU. The EU umbrella is the key to the solution, providing both a carrot and a stick for both sides. The economic incentives are enormous, as is the promise that as members of the EU, refugees, in one way or another, will eventually be allowed the choice of whether or not to return to their places of origin.
In this context, the UN proposal that both communities will vote on in a referendum later this month, amounts to an interim agreement. It seeks to address Turkish-Cypriot fears that a re-unification will see the poorer north swamped by the Greek-Cypriot refugees by proposing a land swap that would see the northern territory diminished to make room for some refugees, while limiting the number of Greek-Cypriots allowed back until such a time as economic parity between the two communities is achieved. It is interim in that in the long run, once ascension to the EU has been secured for a united Cyprus, the EU's legal framework will provide the backbone of a permanent understanding and method for conflict resolution between the two sides.
While such a model is attractive as a solution, there is little chance it can be applied to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in the short term for one main reason. Unlike in Cyprus, where one community may be much poorer than the other but where each community is able to carry on its affairs without interference from the other, Palestinians are in every single aspect of their lives at the mercy of Israel and the Israeli army.
This ability to carry on without too many direct points of friction has meant that Cyprus, while an unresolved conflict, has been free of actual confrontation for quite a while now. Such breathing space will be impossible in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for as long as the occupation of the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and East Jerusalem continues. The breathing space is vital to cool tempers and allow for meaningful conciliation and substantial negotiations to take place.
In the long run, however, the Cypriot example provides a model not just for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but trouble spots everywhere. The ethnic nation-state is a dinosaur. The sooner we, and everyone else, come to terms with this, the sooner we can resolve not just issues such as refugees and border disputes, but problems of economic inequality, through the free movement of goods and people in all directions.
Ghassan Khatib is coeditor of the bitterlemons family of internet publications and director of the Government Media Center. This article represents his personal views.
On the brink of peace?
by Erol KaymakNo doubt a settlement to the longstanding Cyprus problem raises hopes that Cyprus, and by extension the European Union, could serve as a spring board in quelling the violence in the Middle East and facilitate a process of reconciliation along similar lines. The current Annan Plan, so dubbed after the presiding United Nations Secretary General, is a basis for a comprehensive resolution to all outstanding issues, and allows the island of Cyprus to join the European Union as a whole.
Lessons are premature. As I write this, critical negotiations are underway in Switzerland under UN auspices to finalize the latest and final version of the Annan Plan that the sides have agreed will be put to separate and simultaneous referenda. If both communities approve the plan, Cyprus will join the EU as a federal state (i.e. the United Republic of Cyprus). If not, it would be null and void.
The Annan Plan itself remains divisive, and the EU acquis has proven to be a sticking point in the current round of negotiations. For the Greek Cypriot side, the various derogations envisioned in the Annan Plan violate human rights and are at odds with the acquis. The Turkish Cypriot side has maintained that the derogations are not only vital but should be incorporated as part of the primary law of the EU. The EU must find a middle ground that satisfies the conflicting views.
In retrospect, the EU has played a catalyzing role in bringing Cyprus to the brink of a settlement. Without the EU factor a settlement under UN auspices would not have the same degree of urgency. But, in fact, it has not been clear sailing on the political front. It was not until the offer of candidate status to Turkey at the 1999 Helsinki summit that the improving political climate allowed for the current UN good offices mission. At a societal level, conventional wisdom has it that the Turkish Cypriots are lured by the promise of wealth and opportunity in the EU, but a closer analysis of the dynamics involved reveals that the EU is also a means to the end of fuller democratization denied by years of securitization of the community.
If there is a settlement, the EU might play a more significant role. When the various programs and funds available to the Turkish Cypriots are provided they will provide a significant dynamic, building institutions and civil society, and thus contributing to inter-communal cooperation.
Lessons we might draw from these developments must necessarily remain tentative and contingent for the Middle East.
First, the EU does not substitute for the political process. Rather, it augments and supplements it. Why? Simply put, the EU currently does not have a coherent foreign policy. It also lacks military muscle to back up diplomacy. It relies on a "soft power" that may or may not penetrate hearts and minds in the Middle East. It may yet, however, if Turkey, a Muslim nation, joins the EU. That would be the catalyst (not Cyprus).
In the short run, should the Annan Plan be implemented, the prestige (hence, "soft power") of the EU and UN will be enhanced. For instance, in redressing the perceived imbalance between the sides, the EU could help assuage Palestinian concerns that any peace process would tend to favor the Israeli side.
Second, the question of the EU's identity and goals could be a decisive factor. Does the EU envision a larger Europe that incorporates states from the Middle East, such as Israel and Syria? In other words, what are the "natural" borders of the EU? The EU is limited by its domestic agenda of distribution that is at odds with integrating a poor and large Muslim country like Turkey that may also complicate the EU's cultural project.
Should the EU take the path of incorporating Turkey, the regional dynamic might change with Turkey playing a constructive role, diplomatically and economically in the Middle East. In other words, one must think of Cyprus not in terms of analogies to the Middle East, but in concrete terms as to how the world order is to be shaped in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, incorporation of the Middle East or some states therein into the EU is no panacea. Unless the norms of the EU overcome the security dilemma and the material--if not ideational--interests of the parties, the process could prove divisive. In Cyprus the security dilemma is less acute and stable, despite the intercommunal strife of the past, yet even here the question of settlement and property loom large, hence spurring division over the application of the acquis.
Finally, and crucially, the EU does not provide a common identity. In Cyprus this may prove less problematic, as the social structure of either society is more similar than not. Hopefully, this will be sufficient grounds for promoting a culture of tolerance and mutual respect on the island. Unfortunately I am skeptical that a significant transformation in this regard is in the offing in the Middle East, given the cycle of violence that prevails and which reinforces an ontology of mutual exclusion.-Published 1/4/2004(c)bitterlemons-international.org
Erol Kaymak is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Eastern Mediterranean University in Famagusta.
The relevancy of the Cyprus process
by Ari ShualiThe wall that divides Cyprus between a northern part ruled by Cypriots of Turkish descent and a southern section led by Greek Cypriots, was built at the close of fighting that took place upon the invasion of the island by the Turkish Army around 30 years ago. The purpose of the wall was military security--preventing incursions, creating a defendable line of deployment, and limiting possibilities of flat-trajectory fire. Yet at the same time it served political goals, primarily of the Turkish side: it redefined the border between the two ethnic groups with the objective of creating the infrastructure for two independent states, in accordance with the vision of the venerable leader of the Turkish part, Rauf Denktash.
With the passage of time, this wall became a symbol for both sides: of achievement on the one hand, and oppression on the other. Nowadays, with the emergence of a solution to the conflict, the wall stands to be dismantled. It will not serve as a border, there will not be two independent states, and in any case it has not had any military relevancy for some time. The solution being formulated in accordance with the plan of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan is supposed to reflect a compromise that both sides can consider to constitute partial fulfillment of their goals.
The agreement will deal with territorial issues that will require the Turkish occupiers to withdraw from most of the areas they have held since the fighting and will confine them to the places where Turkish Cypriots dwelled prior to the war; with issues of compensation for those who lost their lands and homes; with the removal of Turkish settlers brought to the island with the aim of altering its demographic balance; and with the political and judicial structure of authority, with the goal of ensuring the rights of the Turkish minority as well as the capacity of the Greek majority to realize its priorities.
The agreement has been made possible at the current juncture in view of changes in regional political circumstances, and particularly an increase in both the opportunities enjoyed by each side as well as the danger that not reaching an agreement will demand an intolerable price. The leverage for an agreement is an external international dynamic--the enlargement of the European Union to include the Greek part of the island, on the one hand, and the somewhat equivocal conditioning of Turkish EU membership upon a solution in Cyprus, on the other. In the background is a considerable gap of some $12,000 in GNP per capita between the thriving Greek Cypriot economy and the backward economy of Turkish Cyprus--to a large extent the product of an international embargo--which will only increase if Greek Cyprus joins the EU without the Turkish north.
At first glance, many of the components of the Cyprus conflict can be found in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both feature a struggle between two peoples, cultures and religions that feed into gaps in values, frames of identity and attitudes. These find expression in nearly every context--political, economic and social. At the political level, in both conflicts there is a struggle over territory, borders, withdrawal from territories captured in war, compensation for victims, removal of settlements, and the status of the capital city. Economically there is a huge gap between a technologically developed economy and a largely agrarian economy which lags far behind.
On the other hand, there are significant differences and unique features that distinguish the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from that in Cyprus. Most centrally, while in Cyprus the solution lies in unifying the two parts of the island, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the future involves separating two sovereign states. Hence all the components of a solution that apply to the structure of a unified state and administration in Cyprus are not relevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Further, in recent years the conflict in Cyprus has not been violent, while the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has involved endless bloodshed, drained the assets of both sides both economically and psychologically, and effectively prevented formal dialogue between the two leaderships.
Then too, in Cyprus there exists a kind of symmetry and identity between the two opposing sides and their patrons in Greece and Turkey, with the EU enjoying a uniquely attractive status in the eyes of both parties and their patrons. There is no such symmetry in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While Israel is identified with the United States, the two in fact do not agree on the characteristics of a desired outcome, and disagreement between Israel and Europe regarding the future of the conflict goes far deeper. Palestine, for its part, relies on the Arab world, but suffers from inter-Arab disagreement and from conflicting Arab interests regarding a solution, while agreeing with the European view.
Nevertheless, and assuming no major geostrategic changes intervene, the principles formulated for Cyprus--particularly in those areas where the issues are similar--will ultimately confront whoever tries to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Whether that mediator is the UN, the US or some other actor, the outlines of a Cyprus solution will show the way regarding return of territory, compensation, removal of settlers, integration of economies and ethnic/religious/national separation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Assuming that the fuel feeding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict eventually burns itself out as it did in Cyprus and that the vicissitudes of history enable a third party to twist the arms of both sides while satisfying their vital needs and offering them a win-win formula--then the principles of the Annan plan are likely to be applied to Jerusalem and along the wall and lines separating the two peoples.-Published 1/4/2004(c)bitterlemons-international.org
Ari Shuali is a member of the Board of Directors of the Strategic Dialogue Center at Netanya College. He is a former official in the Israel Prime Minister's Office.
|
All Rights Reserved