OUR POLITICIANS have always based their rhetoric on high ideals and lofty principles. It is particularly so in the case of the Cyprus problem, which has allowed them to place themselves on the moral high ground and give lessons in political ethics to the rest of the world, while advertising their own uncompromising commitment to international justice and respect of human rights.
We witness this claim to moral superiority on a regular basis. High principles are the theme of President Christofias’ speeches at the UN and, he assures, were always raised at his meetings with the UN Secretary-General. He even feels he has the moral authority to pass judgment on other countries – the US, Britain and other Western countries put their interests above principles whereas the Russian Federation bases its foreign policy on high principles, he has often proclaimed.
House president Marios Garoyian has made a habit of giving sermons about justice to all the foreign dignitaries that visit him, while our MEPs have no qualms about sending self-righteous letters to European Commissioners and Euro-Parliament officials, accusing them of shabby decisions, not based on EU principles. These same people have been calling for the replacement of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative in Cyprus because he does not live up to the ethical demands they expect from an official in charge of peace talks.
This rhetoric would have been nothing more than a source of mild amusement if it were not so harmful to efforts to reach a peace deal with the other side. Ever since the invasion, this hollow rhetoric has shaped our side’s position at negotiations leading it to reject any proposal that did not meet its conditions, based on universal respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and principles international justice. The commitment to this idealism has meant that, 36 years after the invasion, the status quo remains unchanged.
When a few weeks ago, the two sides submitted their proposals on the property issue we saw tour de force of the trademark naive arrogance. Everyone rejected the Turkish proposals before they had read them, while the majority also attacked those submitted by Christofias, because they did not cater for the return of all refugees to their homes. Anything less than respect of the right of all refugees to return to their homes, was unacceptable to the demagogues posing as principled idealists. Either all refugees return or no deal is their position.
They conveniently ignore the European Court of Human Rights decision in the Demopoulos case, which recognises rights to users of Greek Cypriot properties, accepted the legality of the Immovable Properties Commission, declared that restitution was not the sole remedy of property disputes and opined that the property issue should be solved politically. The decision was lambasted by our principled politicians and ECHR judges were accused of taking a decision based on politics rather than law.
This decision was of particular significance, considering that one of the arguments used against the Annan plan in 2004, by the then president and opponents of a settlement, was that when Cyprus joined the EU we would be able to secure a much better settlement base on European principles and values. This proved a big illusion and it was put to rest by the ECHR decision, yet the idealistic demagogues still cling to their ‘all or nothing’ approach which under the circumstances means nothing.
Nothing is what the principled politicians of DIKO, EDEK and EUROKO together with the Archbishop are offering refugees. Refugees are being asked to give up all claims to their properties (they are also urged not to apply to the IPC) so that the demagogues can continue to pose as uncompromising idealists and patriots, at zero personal cost. The ‘unacceptable’ property proposals of the two sides, in contrast, offer refugees compensation, restitution or exchange of their properties, which is a hell of a lot more than what men of high principle are offering them.
It is high time the refugees organised themselves and started campaigning for their interests, instead of listening to the professional rejectionists who would have us believe that it is preferable for no refugees to return to their homes than for 70,000 to do so; and that it is better for refugees to give their properties to the Turkish users for nothing. It is quite a neat little arrangement – refugees write off their properties and our politicians carry playing the patriotic champions of high principle in perpetuity.
