The shortest road to our security and prosperity is solving our problems with Turkey
By Makarios Drousiotis
THE AMBASSADOR of the Russian Federation Stanislav Osadchiy, in yet another interview with Phileleftheros recently, expressed his country’s concern over the escalating tension in the eastern Mediterranean and urged “restraint, rationality, political wisdom and resolution of the disputes that arise through dialogue and the achievement of mutually acceptable decisions”.
This position is pretty sensible, but by the standards of the Cypriot political system it is deemed outrageous. If it were not Osadchiy saying these things, but the US ambassador or the British High Commissioner, the patriotic politicians and commentators would have gone into assault mode, decrying the “provocative statements”, the “keeping of equal distances” and the “equating of the lawful rights of the Cyprus Republic with Turkey’s raid on our EEZ”. Foreign Minister Nicos Christodoulides, meanwhile, would have seized the opportunity for some diplomatic theatre featuring diplomatic protests and demarches.
Last Wednesday, Christodoulides arranged to speak on the phone with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. According to an announcement by Russia’s foreign ministry, there was an “in-depth discussion of the problems in the eastern Mediterranean”, with the emphasis on Libya and the deadlocked peace process between Israelis and Palestinians! The ministry did not even mention the Cyprus problem, so it was not going to condemn Turkey for its illegal drilling in the Cypriot EEZ. The reality is that Russia has no issue with the actions of Turkey in Cyprus, nor did it ever have. On the contrary, the situation suits Moscow because it perpetuates the division in Nato, distances Turkey from the EU and maintains its energy and economic dependence on Russia.
Now that the “alliance” with Russia has lost its sheen, we have rekindled our flirting with France. A few days ago, Christodoulides participated in a five-party teleconference with his counterparts of France, Greece, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. In contrast to his conversations with Lavrov, the five-party conference took a clear stand against Turkey’s provocations in the eastern Mediterranean in what Christodoulides described as a “very clear”, “very specific” way.
The interest of France, on whose initiative the teleconference was held, are the developments in Libya and that also explains the UAE’s participation. Although France, officially recognises the constitutional government of Libya, behind the scenes it is backing Field Marshal Haftar’s rebels. The interests at stake are French influence in north and central Africa, the energy sources of Libya, the sale of arms and trade. Haftar is backed with modern weaponry and money by the UAE and Egypt, while Qatar and Turkey have been backing Libya’s Government of National Accord. Apart from the quest of geopolitical influence linked to economic reasons, there is also a rivalry among Islamic countries for religious influence.
Turkey responded to the joint declaration of the ‘five’ – a significant part of which referred to developments in Libya – and dismissed the alliance as “an axis of evil” that aimed to exclude Turkey from the eastern Mediterranean. I am not examining whether Turkey is right or wrong. Turkey has no business being involved in Libya but neither does the UAE, which is not even a Mediterranean state. The question is how does Cyprus fit into this rivalry between Muslim states and what does it stand to gain participating in this alliance under France? The idea that we would align ourselves to a big power and create an anti-Turkey axis is a utopia. Third countries remember the occupation and Turkey’s aggressive behaviour in the Eastern Mediterranean, whenever they want to use us for their own interests, but when there is a crisis they go missing.
Cyprus, a small, weak country that lives in the shadow of Turkey, seizes such transient circumstances and cultivates illusions that it is forging powerful alliances which are a shield against the Turkish peril. For whole decades it was Russia, more recently Israel, finally Egypt, while France was always in our good books. Yet, history and geography teach, and economic rationality dictates, that the shortest road to our security and prosperity is solving our problems with Turkey. Conditions in this period are more favourable than ever before. Behind Turkey’s aggressive policy hides the need for cooperation. Smart diplomacy would turn the situation round and transform crises into opportunities.
Responding to Turkey’s reaction, sources at the Cyprus foreign ministry stressed the point that “Ankara was showing it was upset about the expected, coordinated initiatives undertaken by countries of the region.” What have we gained as a country from Ankara being upset and how will we actually benefit from these “coordinated initiatives”? Will a single Turkish soldier leave Cyprus? Will an occupied village be returned? Will we feel more secure?
The art of diplomacy primarily deals with the improvement of relations between countries, especially between foes. If diplomacy did not exist countries would be constantly at war. In Cyprus, however, diplomacy is an industry of fear, negativity and prejudice, aimed at perpetuating rather than solving problems. In its announcement, the Turkish foreign ministry invited Greece, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to a dialogue so that some form of cooperation could be found. Cyprus could have taken the bait and made steps towards a dialogue.
The case of the plane carrying medical equipment to Cyprus from China, which Turkey prevented from entering its airspace is indicative of our vulnerable position, especially in this critical period for the economy. Cyprus, because of its size and geography, cannot last in a confrontation with Turkey. If Turkey thinks that through our tripartite and five-party alliances we are trying to exclude her from the eastern Mediterranean and takes counter-measures, the consequences will be disastrous for Cyprus. Neither France nor Russia, nor Egypt nor the UAE would be in a position to offer us anything other than declarations of support.
It is the responsibility of a state’s diplomatic service to identify possible dangers and avert them, instead of engaging in protests and condemnations after the event. The incident involving the plane was a wake-up call. Times are difficult and unpredictable and do not allow for any complacency.
