MUCH as it was encouraging to see the joint statement issued by Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat condemning the Israeli onslaught on Gaza this week, so it was deeply depressing to hear the shrill criticism of the initiative from government partners DIKO and from the smaller Evroko.
It’s rare that Greek and Turkish leaders in Cyprus agree on anything, and rare that they look beyond the tips of their noses to anything beyond the narrow confines of the Cyprus problem. The statement condemning Israel’s “disproportionate use of force” and the “huge loss of life of innocent civilians” reflected the enormity of the humanitarian catastrophe on the island’s doorstep and the rare unanimity of views on the issue on both sides of the island and across the political spectrum.
Such a statement will hardly make any difference on the ground, but it was a highly symbolic expression of shared concern, and as such a welcome display of good will that has too often been absent from a sometimes acrimonious process. What’s more, for Cyprus, the content of the statement was hardly controversial with near universal sympathy for the sufferings of the Palestinian people – as confirmed by the unanimous resolution condemning Israel adopted by the House of Representatives on Thursday night.
Yet DIKO (echoed by Evroko) immediately reacted, saying President Christofias had no right to express the Republic’s foreign policy jointly with the Turkish Cypriot leader, that the talks should confine themselves to the matter at hand and not stray onto foreign territory, and that this was just handing political capital to the Turks who would exploit it as a sign of equal sovereignty.
Indeed, one could not have imagined the late President Tassos Papadopoulos making such a joint statement, and one can sense in DIKO the longing for those days of sterile non-negotiation, when disputes over procedure and semantics consigned the reunification process to stalemate.
If the talks have made any progress at all under Demetris Christofias, it is only because the new president has taken a much more open approach, willing to reach out in order to improve the climate. What DIKO’s attitude shows is a fundamental opposition to any effort to bring the two sides together, a desire to keep the Turkish Cypriots behind a wall, existing only for the political capital to be made out of their patriotic condemnation.
In the circumstances, and given the predominance of the Cyprus problem on the political landscape, one truly wonders what the party is doing supporting the president, with whom they clearly disagree on such a fundamental question. Or could it be that a slice of the government pie is actually more important than the high principles that they would have us believe guide their actions?
