The real question is what’s in it for the GC administration?
What would you sacrifice for a solution?
By Loucas Charalambous
FORMER DISY MEP and deputy, Panayiotis Demetriou wrote a wonderful article a few days ago. It was undoubtedly the best-argued article about the Cyprus problem I have read in the last few months.
Sticking to rational arguments, Demetriou identified certain truths about the prevailing political mentality, which, in my view, has not just appeared but had been evident for decades. The article argued that the anti-solution way of thinking had been systematically cultivated and that the Greek Cypriots could not swallow the idea of power-sharing with the Turkish Cypriots.
He also wrote about the illusion that there could be a settlement other than federation or partition and that we had become addicted to nice-sounding slogans and patriotic platitudes. Demetriou warned that if the occupation and influx of Turkish settlers was not halted through a compromise deal between the two sides, “the free part of Cyprus would have to live with the constant threat of being swallowed up by Turkey at the first opportunity that arises.”
I will disagree on just one point made by Demetriou. He wrote: “The ordinary citizen was not allowed to understand that the choice is solution or partition.” I believe the average Greek Cypriot knows perfectly well that these are his two choices. Even if we accept that in the first years after the invasion, because of the rampant demagoguery, he was under the illusion that we could secure the perfect solution, it is hard to believe that after the passing of almost four decades, he has still not come to terms with reality.
I cannot believe that there are many Greek Cypriots who have still not understood what Glafcos Clerides had said as far back as 1974: “The unproductive passing of time will cement the effects of the invasion and make the settlement increasingly more difficult to achieve.”
The problem is elsewhere. The overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots consciously favour partition as a settlement. This not because they are unaware of the dangers involved, but because they feel that it suits their personal interests. The result of the 2004 referendum was, to a large extent determined by this way of thinking. They voted against a settlement because they believed that it would threaten their pockets.
After all, successive governments have given financial incentives to people to oppose a settlement. For example, the state offered an allowance for the purchase of a home by young people classed as ‘refugees’ – the offspring of half the population of Cyprus. In 2004, the allowance was £11,000 and countless young people voted ‘no’ for fear of losing the state assistance they were entitled to if there was a settlement.
It is easy to estimate how many thousands of young people would vote ‘no’ in a new referendum now that the allowance has been tripled and is €50,000. Who will sacrifice €50,000 for a settlement?
Needless to say, the first people who allowed their personal interest to determine their stand on a settlement are the politicians. It is no accident that the big majority campaigned against the Annan plan. The president did not want to lose the presidency, the ministers their ministries, the deputies their seats and all of them, their salaries and tax-free allowances.
It is not that the smart Cypriots are unaware of the dilemma – ‘solution or partition’ – and of the danger that one day we could be swallowed up by Turkey. Of course they are aware of these things. However, for the sake of their pockets, they are happy to swallow 10 partitions.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
