A grand coalition is still possible

TWENTY-SIX months ago, I wrote an article exhorting DISY and AKEL – the two parties that have historically similar views on the question of Cyprus – to form a grand coalition at the next presidential elections with the basic objective of resolving in a pragmatic way the problem. I also wrote that it would prove much more awkward to achieve a solution as time goes by.

I do not know whether there is still any possibility left to reunite Cyprus. During the last four years, the texture of the Cyprus problem has been seriously impaired. All aspects are in shambles. Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied north have been built up and sold to foreigners. An influx of approximately 60,000 new settlers from Turkey has pushed the total to 200,000. The Turkish Cypriots have recently distanced themselves from the Greek Cypriots. The anticipation of an adjustment and return of territory (Famagusta, Morphou plus 50-odd villages) is now hovering in an air of dreamland. Who will ever manage to reverse this situation, how and when?

The US government does not accept to meet our high officials, even for a courtesy visit. In Europe, we are completely isolated on matters related to the Cyprus problem and the accession of Turkey to Europe. Our European partners try incessantly to upgrade the Turkish Cypriot community, through direct trade, through the “lifting of their isolation” and through other means. They try to enhance the separate entity of the other community. They do not trust us. They are fed up with us. When they hear the names of Papadopoulos and Lillikas, they immediately identify them with extremism and chauvinism.

Demetris Christofias and AKEL are responsible in a substantive way for the situation with which we are faced today. They have elevated to power those elements which they detested and fought during AKEL’S 80-year history. Those who represent extreme nationalism, blind fanaticism and severe anti-Turkish feelings. AKEL may have verbally differentiated its position from the stance of the President. It may have stated that had it not been for AKEL no dialogue with the Turkish Cypriots would have been possible (Andros Kyprianou, 2005).

Christofias may have underscored, in April 2004, that the Annan plan would reunite Cyprus, not divide it. He may have also said that AKEL does not share the assessments of President Papadopoulos on the plan. But what have they done in practical terms? Nothing else but share and enjoy power and act as obedient servants of the High Authority in the palaces and ministries of power rather than guide the people as to the correct national course.

We have now reached a critical juncture, a point of no return. The AKEL grass roots will have to decide whether they want Christofias or Papadopoulos to lead the country. Whether they want Cyprus to be reunited (provided Christofias adopts the traditional approach of AKEL on Cyprus) or follow the present course which leads to partition.

Whether they envision “rapprochement” or a wider divide between the two communities. Of course the sweet intoxication of power will be in the air while the party members and apparatchiks search and meditate about the subject. So they should do what Odysseus did: tie themselves to the mast of their boat so that they will avoid the lure and be unable to disembark on the island of the Sirens of Power.

If Christofias is eventually the chosen candidate, would a Grand Coalition be possible, if not from the very outset, as least in the run-off? AKEL says no.

However, in a world in which the new French President Sarkozy paid his first foreign visit to German Chancellor Merkel, overlooking the German atrocities and the 50 million victims of the Second World War for the sake of European unity… In a world where the South Africans live together in peace and in Northern Ireland – after years of clashes – Protestants and Catholics have agreed to rule jointly… In a world where Greeks and Turks have set aside their wars and conflicts of four centuries and are building up a new prosperous era in their relations … In a world in which, after 56 years, the first train has crossed the heavily guarded border of North and South Korea “carrying with it a dream of peace”… In a world where the Cold War is over and confrontation has been replaced by a ray of hope for a better life…

In such a world, should we Greek Cypriots remain glued to the differences which we carry with us for decades, as if these differences were more important than the death chambers and the Gestapo of Germany and more striking than the dozens of millions of victims of the international conflicts? Should we remain glued to the slogans and credos of the past: “The Rally party is as strong as an earthquake” on one side and “AKEL is there for ever and ever” on the other side? Should we be infatuated with figures and images, such as “Makarios”, “Grivas”, “patriots”, “resistance fighters”, “traitors”?

Unfortunately this is where we are. We live in the 1950s and 1960s. And we lose sight of the fact that through this attitude of ours we have gradually created a schism among the people, which will lead to partition, due to lack of co-operation among the Greek Cypriots themselves. Such a partition may end up in a future total occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. Because if in a few decades we have a population of 3 million Turks (settlers) in the north and of 1 million Greeks in the south of a divided Cyprus, it does not take a genius to figure out the predicament of this country. The former Syrian and now Turkish city of Iskenderun is a good example.

I firmly believe that a Grand Coalition between all those forces which aim at a historical settlement and at the reunification of Cyprus is neither a wish nor a target. It is a necessity. Whether Christofias or Kasoulides or somebody else is the new President, provided he believes in a realistic solution and in a united Cyprus (and that he will rid us of the political absurdities with which we are faced today) he is fit, as long as he commands the support of the majority of the people and he possesses the strength and the tenacity to work and achieve the solution.

Those who will dynamite this last glimmer of hope (if it still exists) for the sake of expediencies or power sharing will be responsible for the tragic denouement and for the catastrophe which will follow.