The world’s most complicated island has just got even trickier. The European Union could do something to help

As someone that lives in North Cyprus and who has despaired at the uneven treatment that the Turkish Cypriots has received at the hands of the world's politicians, it made a pleasant change to read an article that was well balanced.

The Turkish Cypriots have been seen as the 'villains' and the Greek Cypriots as the 'good guys'. Anyone who has studied the real history of this conflict is well aware that the Greek Cypriots practised ethnic cleansing and the Turkish Army came in to stop the genocide. ( Shades of Bosnia)

A negotiation is not wanting to turn back the clock and to have things as they were 40 years ago, but that is the Greek Cypriot position. We have to accept the situation as it is today and the best way forward is to have two communities, similar to the Kosova Model.

At last the rest of the world and the EU in particular now recognise the Greek Cypriot intransigence and their inability to compromise. They also recognise the strategic importance of Turkey and that one cannot allow 700,000 Greek islanders to continually twist the arm of a major power. Please EU, lift the isolation and the peace process can continue without any 'sword of damocles' on both sides.

This article did not reference certain issues that would have to be discussed in a Cyprus peace plan.

1.Will there be a "right of return" for all Greek Cypriots who fled north Cyprus in 1974?

2. There are about 40,000 Turkish settlers who have moved to north Cyprus since 1974. Are they all going to be forced to leave north Cyprus in the event of a peace agreement?

3.What about Greek Cypriot property that was taken by the Turks?

4. There is a 187 km separation barrier that was built by Turkey in 1974 to separate the north from the south. Should Turkey be forced to tear it down as a good will gesture to the Greek Cypriots in order to jump start peace talks?

My overall question is that the Turkish/Cyprus conflict is very similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Why is Israel condemned of ethnic cleansing regarding the Palestinian refugees, apartheid over the security barrier in the West Bank, and accused of illegal settlements while Turkey does the same thing and the world community does not treat Turkey the same as Israel?

Lastly, I noticed in this article that the Greek Cypriots should make some concessions even though they have been subject to a separation wall and have watched their lands from which they fled being taken by Turkish settlers. If so, why does the world not demand concessions of the Palestinians?

The so called "elections" do not matter one bit. You can elect anyone you want, Talat, Eroglu, Denktash but it does not matter.

The truth is that Turkey is running the show.

Turkey is the one bank rolling the North with millions ($600m as the article correctly point out), has 40,000 troops on the island and controls everything.

So, you and I and everyone can waste time talking about the "election" but the fact is that if Turkey wants to do something they will do it regardless of who is the "president" in the north.

Also, "A regulation to allow direct EU trade with northern Cyprus has been blocked by the Cypriot government ever since 2004"

This is complete rubbish.

Turkey the real reason is because Turkey refuses to recognise (or even trade with) the legitimate Republic of Cyprus, an EU member.

It's as simple as that.

I can not refrain from commenting that the article seems very biased towards the Turkish positions. As for the comment on Greek Cypriots making more concessions, it is ridiculous at best, as Greek Cypriots have already agreed to a Turkish Cypriot state (where before the Turkish invasion the country was one with no separate states), and power sharing in the central federal government (note that Turkish Cypriots are a 20% minority in Cyprus but they will have their own state and veto power on the federal government). What more can they want, for us to move off the island and leave it to them?

Maybe the Economist, who knows so much and can pass its absolute judgment in historical conflict, tell us why the British are still entitled to keep a sizeable portion of the island as sovereign base areas and why any solution proposed over the past 35 years always includes super rights for them?

I'm a novice on this issue, so I defer to the experts. But, growing up in England during the fifties, I recall the (doubtless racist) newsmongering. But so far as I could decipher (as a child), the Greeks were sticking it to the Turks. Eoka etc. And, yes, if we can't solve Cyprus, what price Palestine? And why do the Brits still enjoy their bases?

I'm a novice on this issue, so I defer to the experts. But, growing up in England during the fifties, I recall the (doubtless racist) newsmongering. But so far as I could decipher (as a child), the Greeks were sticking it to the Turks. Eoka etc. And, yes, if we can't solve Cyprus, what price Palestine? And why do the Brits still enjoy their bases?

When Mr Talat was elected in the occupied areas in the previous elections those of us that hoped for a solution (GreekCypriots, TurkishCypriots and those of the other minorities) saw a glimpse of hope, as Mr Talat portrayed himself as pro solution along the lines of a federation. When Mr Christofias was elected as president of the Republic of Cyprus many believed that a solution would be agreed as both Mr Christofias and Mr Talat were from left wing parties with long ties between each other, and both had in the past expressed the same or similar opinions on a solution. Unfortunately this did not happen. Those that sympathise with Mr Talat say that he was not able to do so because Turkey, which controls the occupied areas, did not let him. Those who do not sympathise with him accuse him of not daring to ignore Turkey and negotiate a solution to the benefit of all Cypriots. If Mr Talat had dared to do so he would have been the father of the new Cypriot state, and a hero not only to TurkishCypriots but to many GreekCypriots also. To our loss and his, he did not dare, or was not able, to negotiate a solution. A great opportunity has been lost...

Another lazy article on Cyprus. There is a simple solution to the ‘Cyprus problem’ and that is for Turkey, its army and its colonist to go back to Turkey.
A short history lesson: 1878 Ottoman Turkey leases Cyprus to the British; 1914 Britain annexes Cyprus from Turkey after the latter sided with Germany in WWI; 10/8/1920 Treaty of Sevres and 24/7/23 Treaty of Lausanne Turkey surrendered all its interest in Cyprus to Britain; 1939 British promise Cyprus ENOSIS (union with Greece) in return of their assistance in WWII; 12/04/1940 The Cyprus Regiment formed, which saw action from the outset of WWII, including Dunkirk; 1945 Britain reneged on promise for ENOSIS and the Cyprus Regiment was disbanded; 1955 Cypriots start armed struggle for ENOSIS and Britain bully Turkey into restoring its interest in the island; 1960 Britain force Cyprus into independence under threat of partition; 16/08/1960 UK, Turkey and Greece agree by the Treaty of Guarantee to support and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus; December 1963 the Turks through its forces in Cyprus and Turkish Cypriot volunteers start insurrection aimed at partitioning the island in violation of the Treaty of Guarantee, which failed and left half the Turkish Cypriots isolated in enclaves they created for themselves; 1967 Turkey makes a further attempt to split the island, which also fails but not until Greek Cypriot villages are napalmed and strafed by Turkey using NATO aircraft; 1973 the Turkish policy in Cyprus failing with pro-Turkish leader, Mr. Rauf Denktash placing his opponents under house arrest with the help of the Turkish Army; 16/07/1974 in breach of the Treaty of Guarantee the Greek Junta instigated a coup to oust Cyprus Government; 20/07/1974 Turkish troop invade and establish beach head in the north of Cyprus, the Greek led coup collapses; 14/08/1974 Turkey breaches UN ceasefire and move on and occupy 37% of Cyprus in violation of further violation of the Treaty; 15/11/1983 Rauf Denktash aided by the Turkish Army, in a soft coup, forces a midnight vote on Turkish Cypriot politicians and declaring the occupied area an independent state. UN declare declaration illegal and issues resolution calling upon all states not to recognise it, which is honoured by the UN members; 2004 a UN proposed settlement originally supported by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, although not Rauf Denktash is radically amended by the UN under pressure from UK and US at the eleventh hour in favour of Turkey and more particularly its general’s is rejected by the Greek Cypriots in a referendum; 2004 Cyprus joins EU, with the occupied area excluded from its main provisions (although treated as part of the whole of Cyprus) until effective control can be established by the Government: 2005 onwards little progress made with Turkey unwilling to make any concessions in its occupation of Cyprus.
It was and remains immaterial who the Turkish Cypriot leader is. Mr. Rauf Denktash was known for his refusal to agree anything and was an enthusiastic supporter and servant of the Turkish military. No doubt Mr. Talat wanted to settle but was prevented from doing so by Turkish military who did not like him due to his left-leaning tendencies and links with President Christofias. Mr. Eroglu is a throwback to Mr. Denktash’s style of policies with good connections to the Turkish Military. Turkey with 40,000 occupying troops and Turkish colonist substantially outnumbering the Turkish Cypriots have total control over the island, a state of affairs excepted by all the International Courts and UN. It is in Turkey’s hand as it has always been and both the Greek and the few Turkish Cypriots that are left are little more than bystanders.
Cyprus cannot be partitioned without the consent of its people because there are no natural borders between the free and occupied area. Continuation of the status quo will continue to require a large occupying army. No one benefits from a divided Cyprus other than the Turkish old guard and its army who prize the island as a victorious gain against the old Greek enemy and dream of a Greater Turkey. There is no incentive on the Greek Cypriots to agree anything unless there are real concessions by Turkey in reducing the size of the occupied area, permitting the return of refugees to their homes and allowing true Cypriot administrative control over the occupied area. As for the Turkish Cypriots the numbers dwindle as they continue to emigrate from the occupied area and Turkish colonisation remains unabated. They have been reduced less than 5% of the population of Cyprus from a previous high of 18%. A further prolonged delay will see the disappearance of any recognisable group that can be called Turkish Cypriots.

All this article is about is the necessity to help Turkey enter the EU. Unimportant is the occupation of a small country by one of the strongest NATO members and warrantor (together with Britain and Greece) of the victim' s integrity, the unpresedented in recent times cruel ethnic cleansing and massive destrain of 40% of the properties in a whole country. Finally not the remarkable effort by Christofias and Talat to come to an acceptable solution of the issue, gone astray by the votes of the Anatolian settlers, presented with the "Turkish Cyptiot Nationality" by the same elected Mr Eroglu. A last word: the truth is that the Greek Cypriots (although until 1974 made up 82% of the island' population) including the late ex President Papadopoulos, at first unanimously accepted the original Annan plan (No 3) as a basis of the solution, but not its trasformation, Annan 5, which was resulted after massive, multilayer intervention by Turkey and her allies on the UN referees. As to the acceptance of the Republic of Cyprus in the EU, this is something Europe can rightly be proud about. Obviously some neo-colonialistic british media have never heard and do not want to know a thing about ethics, human rights and the obligation to support historical world and european values..

Even a close look at the comments here would suggest that how far a solution is. A lot of Greek propaganda here, which seems to forget that the Turkish Cypriots did approve the UN plan, whereas the Greek Cypriots rejected. So claiming that the elections are not legitimate or this is a matter of occupation is simply being ridiculous. As the article suggests, the Greek Cypriots should be pressured for the good of Cyprus and warned that they shouldn't use their EU membership against the Turkish Cypriots if they are genuinely after peace.

It is nice finally to see a sensible proposal for a solution. Remove the blokade from North Cyprus. Turks were the victims since Christmas 1963, when EOKA tugs of the Greek Cypriots attacked them. Turkey should immediately respond opening ports and airports to the Greek Administration. Then leave it to the Greeks of the island to see whether they want to negotiate a deal just for both communities.So far they did all they can to get a deal with the objective to subdue the Turks of the island. That is why they could not get a deal even with Talat

You've been banging on about ''standards'' and the like of late, Scepsis.
I think the Economist is spot on with this one:
''Cyprus’s dismal standards''.
Don't you?

"A regulation to allow direct EU trade with northern Cyprus has been blocked by the Cypriot government ever since 2004"

This is complete rubbish and the real reason is because Turkey refuses to recognise (or even trade with) the legitimate Republic of Cyprus, an EU member.

"Eight of Turkey’s 35 negotiating chapters have been frozen since 2006 because of the government’s refusal to open its ports and airports to the Greek-Cypriots."

See here:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15954444

The government of the Republic of Cyprus has proposed to proceed with opening the Turkish Cypriot port in Famagusta for international trade, if at the same time the Famagusta ghost town is returned to its legal inhabitants.

Return of the ghost town, also without waiting for a comprehensive settlement, was agreed already in 1979, but never implemented by Turkey.

Many crimes were committed in Cyprus in the 60s and 70s. However, still keeping civilians out of their homes in the ghost town is a crime committed now in 2010. It is kept empty only to cause pain - as a bargaining chip. A clear crime according the the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49 - a very short article easily found on Wikipedia.

Most crimes of the past will never be rectified. However, if Turkey and Mr. Erdogan at least stop committing these war crimes in 2010, and take up the proposal of Cyprus on direct trade for the Turkish Cypriot community, some very good momentum could be created.

It may be that we have turned full circle, with Denktash and his father (essentially) at the negociating table soon. Turkish Cypriot identity will be deeply wounded without success; remember that Denktash for thiry five years delayed many UN sponsered peace deals. Annan will be put in that light, similarly these ideas of the past rejected, as a whole, will be up for review.

It is Turkey which defined the word ethnic-cleansing for what followed in Bosnia and later in Serbia here, on this island. It is the Turkish Army which has changed the whole toponomy of the territory they occupy (illegaly by UN sanction), even forcing Turkish Cypriots to change their names. It is the Turkish government which changed the demographics of this population with the introduction of a large number of mainland settlers (illegal by the Geneva Convention). It is the Turkish authority which deceives foreign buyers by allowing its constituents to continue selling them land which is not theirs as property (ignoring EU judgements).

Lifting the embargo will not allow these elements of the issue to be solved. Pressure on Greek Cypriots will not solve the impasse per se unless the Basic Principals of an International Rule of Law and the Human Rights of all Cypriots as Cypriots are dismissed. Furthermore, if the EU has as a concern Turkish Cypriot interests, rather than Turkey's, the affect will be disastrous for these few, should Turkey's intransigence continue.

NATO may play a role, should their influence help, if Cyprus was a partner in European defence, but this as well needs Turkey's recognition. Cyprus is complicated because the vast majority (about 80% of the island's population is "Greek", not including the illegal colonisation) yet against 90 million "Turks" they are the ones that need all the help they can get.

Thirty years after the creation of the modern states of Greece and Turkey, the two nationalisms have entered into a struggle to succeed the British colonianism in Cyprus. In 1974, the most efficient one (the Turkish) succeeded to win-over the Greek one. British colonianism was very instrumental in using these nationalisms to remain on the island with 90 sqaure miles of 'sovereign' military bases.

It is about time that the World Community of Nations abandon the traditional policies of working for their own national interests alone, and look for ways to take the world affairs to the next step: that of creating 'People States' and not 'Nation States'.

The strong nation state in the Cyprus conflict (Turkey), is clearly not interested for the protection of the rights of the Turkish Cypriots. It clearly aims at bringing the whole of Cyprus under its Neo-Ottoman military and economic might. If that was not the case, she should have being working towards a Unified Multicultural State. This is absolutely in her hands, because the Greek nationalism has been humiliated in 1974.

If there is any hope for a better world, the EU and the leading states of the world have an increased responsibility to help immature nations grow beyond their nationalist irredentism and the arrogance of the winner. This will be in service of the Cypriot people, the region and whole world.

Equilibrium only seems to be interested in the rights and losses of GCs. What about TCs and their rights and their losses?

It also a typical GC idea that you "force" someone to make a "good will gesture". Quite how this would "jump start" the talks also escapes me.

Equilibrium, take some advice. Pick a more appropriate pen name.

Gianni,

not sure your post is even worth a reply.
Read the sentence again.

Cyprus is a small island in the eastern Mediterranean with a tiny population and about half its land occupied by the Turkish army.
Turkey is a large nation with over 70 million people, rich in resources, the largest army in NATO who aspires to be a regional power.
‘… an EU manoeuvre were to end the economic isolation of the Turkish-Cypriots, the pressure on the Greek-Cypriots to push harder for a settlement would rise—and the long saga of the Cyprus conflict might just reach a satisfactory ending after all’.

Could the authors of this Economist article advice whose satisfaction they have in mind?