For Turkey, the history of the Cyprus issue started at the end of the 19th century. It is said that England supported the Ottoman Empire against Russia for a long time but then it renounced this policy because of the Ottomans' defeat in 1878 by Russia.
England then understood that the Ottoman Empire was not strong enough to prevent Russia's expansion toward the eastern Mediterranean. Thus England decided to assume the mission of hindering Russia and occupying Cyprus. This historiography demonstrates how the Cyprus issue is externalized in Turkey. This tendency can also be observed in the stories about the post-1960 period. In other words, it has become impossible to talk about the Cyprus issue without speaking about Turkey, Greece, the UK, the US or Russia. Moreover, since the 1990s and the European perspective on Cyprus, European countries also have become a part of this equation.
This situation demonstrates that the "Cyprus problem" is something much more important than the Cypriots' own problems. Every great power who has looked at a map considers Cyprus an attractive springboard. On the other hand, political leaders of the Cypriot peoples have existed in their positions within these balances of power. As a result, the Cyprus question has always been commented on through states and leaders' perspectives while local societies' demands were ignored. However, it is not possible to resolve issues without taking social demands into consideration; and to do so, each society must first of all pronounce its demands through democratic methods and choose to abandon its fears.
During the presidential campaign in the south, AKEL leader Dimitris Christofias had promised to establish dialogue in order to find a resolution to this conflict. After the elections, he demonstrated his intention to keep his word. Mehmet Ali Talat's reconciliation policy is not new, which means that the leaders of both parties are fully aware of social demands and that they have the legitimacy to explain their steps to their own populations. Furthermore, they have mature plans regarding the establishment of a two-unit state and its essential structure, which was thoroughly explained in the Annan plan. They also share a common respect for international law.
The start of reunification talks is a very positive development. Moreover, during their recent meeting, the two leaders didn't only discuss the island's political future but also concrete local issues concerning their societies, like the opening of the Lokmacı gate. This could be a sign of the beginning of a new era. Of course, nothing is certain, as mutual distrust is still present and there are also some people who would benefit from the continuance of this conflict. In brief, the non-resolution of the Cyprus issue is still a possibility.
Any failure will make the opponents of the Annan plan stronger in both societies of Cyprus. If current negotiations are labeled "the last chance," in the event of failure the Turkish side can start talking about the Kosovo model. Those in Turkey who oppose joining the EU can benefit from this impasse in Turkish domestic political life. Those in Europe who oppose Turkey's membership will also become stronger. Cyprus will continue to be a problem for the EU, and relations between Turkey and Greece will deteriorate. In brief, those who defend autarkic structures in the EU, Turkey and Cyprus will be served. Cyprus is in the EU; the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) is on the island of Cyprus but not in the EU; Greece and Turkey are parts of this problem, but the latter is not an EU member. Maybe this situation pleases some players. Maybe Turkey's historiography is not that wrong.
TODAYSZAMAN
