Inter-Communal Contacts Help Build Links for The Future in Cyprus

By Benjamin J. Broome

During the period 1994-96, I resided in Cyprus as a Senior Fulbright Scholar, offering workshops, training, and seminars in communication, intergroup relations, and conflict resolution. During my two-and-one-half-year stay in Cyprus, I facilitated or took part in over 200 meetings where Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots came together in a bi-communal setting.

I had the opportunity to work with educators, students, entrepreneurs, civil servants, politicians and various public figures, journalists, social workers, lawyers and other professionals. Many of our discussions focused on the core issues of the “Cyprus problem,” such as identity issues, security concerns, displaced families, property rights, and the presence of external military forces on the island.

Bi-communal groups produced analyses of the current situation, created collective vision statements about the future of Cyprus, and developed collaborative action agendas to promote better relations between the two communities. Working with these groups was a unique learning experience and gave me the honor of participating in the development of a peace movement that will play a crucial role in the future of Cyprus.

In my meetings with the bi-communal groups, I watched them go through many trying moments, struggling with difficult issues that often threatened to push them further apart. At the same time, I witnessed the development of many close friendships across community lines and the formation of numerous working partnerships that will provide a model for future relations between the two communities. I observed individuals grapple with challenges to their preconceptions and stereotypes about the other community—challenges that often led to a transformation in their perspectives and their orientation toward the conflict.

The commonalities that unite Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots became apparent to me, as did the differences that help to keep them apart. Through all of the frustrations and joys, moments of distress and periods of optimism, feelings of exasperation and times of exhilaration, I remained confident that my colleagues were creating something special in Cyprus. As the bi-communal groups grew in number and influence, reaching across all sectors of Cypriot society, I developed a quiet conviction that their work would play a crucial role in bringing peace to this strife-torn island.

In the more than two years since I returned to the United States, many events have called into question the reasonableness of my optimism. Negotiations sponsored by the United Nations in June and August of 1997 broke down without making any progress, and have not been restarted.

The Dec. 12, 1997 decision of the European Union to begin entry negotiations with the Greek Cypriot-controlled Republic of Cyprus, while simultaneously closing the door to hopes for Turkey’s accession (at least for the foreseeable future), led the Turkish Cypriot leadership to declare they would not enter into any future negotiations with the Greek Cypriots until the “Turkish Cypriot Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) was recognized as a legitimate sovereign entity, an act that has almost no chance of happening.

Early in 1998, the Greek Cypriot decision to bring S-300 missiles to Cyprus heightened tensions and focused the energy of the international diplomatic community on finding a way to avert an escalation of the military buildup on the island, already one of the most militarized pieces of real estate in the world.

The capture in the early part of this year of Turkey’s most wanted fugitive, Abdullah Ocalan, who had taken refuge in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi, created tension between Greece and Turkey, which was reflected also in Cyprus. And the war in Kosovo has further divided public opinion in Cyprus, with the two communities holding very different views about the conflict. During all these events, the Turkish-Cypriot leadership has been forging closer ties with Turkey, reinforcing the de facto partition that exists between the two communities.

As depressing as these events were in and of themselves, the straw that nearly broke the back of my optimism came at the end of December 1997, when the Turkish Cypriot administration literally “shut the gate” on all bi-communal activities on the island. This put a stop to all the workshops, training, seminars and projects that had been steadily growing and quietly gaining a legitimacy and influence that would soon be hard for either politicians or the general public to ignore.

The “ban” on bi-communal contacts, something that had taken place on numerous occasions for short periods of time during my residency in Cyprus, has continued until this day, in spite of significant protests from the international community and pressure on many fronts to lift the restrictions. As time passes, the lack of contacts is starting to have a negative effect on the bi-communal movement toward peace that was developing at a rapid pace before the cut-off.

Some projects have gone forward, such as the impressive bi-communal magazine Hade that came to fruition in spite of the ban, thanks to the determination and hard work of a few dedicated individuals. With the increasing availability of electronic communication, many individuals stay in touch through e-mail and Internet Web sites.

In addition, contacts between individuals from the two communities have continued outside Cyprus, with meetings taking place in Europe, the Middle East, and the United States. However, it is very expensive to hold gatherings in these locations, and finding funds to sponsor them has been difficult.

Even Internet communication is not easy, with access being more limited and expensive for the Turkish Cypriots, not to mention the barriers related to the need to use English as the common language. In addition, the strong oral tradition and the socially-oriented culture that prevails in Cyprus are inhibitors to regular use of electronic communication—to “talk” through a keyboard and screen cannot replace regular face-to-face meetings on the island.

During my trips back to Cyprus, and in my meetings with Cypriots abroad, I am starting to see the impact that prolonged lack of contact is having on even the most committed individuals. Many participants in the bi-communal activities are beginning to wonder if all their hard work was in vain. A feeling seems to be developing that progress is slipping away, and we all wonder if the previous enthusiasm, drive, and commitment can ever exist again.

I was greatly encouraged, then, when I received recently an e-mail message, sent by one of my good friends and a close colleague in Cyprus, in which he said: “Though the situation [in Cyprus] is generally very gloomy, I see, here and there and from time to time, some bright signs, like small flowers in the winter or strawberries in the snow.” In one of the examples he offered of these “delayed fruits,” he described how the youth organizations, which are essentially the youth wings of the various political parties, were in the process of creating a network for peace, working through the Youth Institute in Israel.

Only a few years ago, the creation of such a network would have been difficult to imagine, since the youth organizations in Cyprus rarely cooperated with one another within the same community, much less across the dividing line. With the exception of the left-leaning groups, few youth organizations had contact with their counterparts in the other community.

How did this change?

In Spring 1996, during the last year of my Fulbright fellowship, my Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot colleagues organized two retreats for youth organizations. One was held with the Greek Cypriots in a picturesque village in the Troodos mountains. The other was conducted with the Turkish Cypriots in an enchanting seaside hotel near Salamis bay on the east side of the island.

In each retreat, we brought together representatives from the full range of political parties in the respective communities. We explored the topic: “What are problems facing the youth in Cyprus?”

Participants discussed a wide variety of issues, including political, economic, cultural, educational, environmental and identity concerns. The opportunity to discuss these issues with their colleagues (and sometimes rivals) was a most enlightening experience for the young people taking part in these sessions, helping them become aware of commonalities they shared across political parties and seeing more clearly the differences within their own community.

Both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots were eager to meet with their counterparts in the other community to exchange results from the mono-communal retreats and to explore the possibility for continuing the dialogue of these issues in a bi-communal setting.

With the kick-start provided by the retreats, we brought the two groups together for a lively weekend workshop at the Ledra Palace, a former luxury hotel located in the buffer zone and used after 1974 as the barracks for the United Nations troops stationed on the island. (Needless to say, it was no longer a “luxury” facility!) For the first time, participants encountered the “other” face-to-face, instead of through the mediated images projected by their televisions, newspapers, and history books.

Greek Cypriots found themselves needing to adjust how they talked about the “invasion and occupation” of “their island,” about the loss of homes and property, and about the presence of the Turkish army on the island.

Turkish Cypriots had to find a way to communicate about how members of their community were treated by the Greek Cypriot-dominated society prior to 1974, about how they would resist any attempts to “turn back the clock” to a period when they were treated as an unwanted minority, and about their demand for recognition of the “TRNC.” Both sides learned much about the perspective of the other community on the core issues that divide them, as well as about how their actions were viewed in the other community.

Stimulated by these discussions, the bi-communal group continued meeting through the summer and fall, even obtaining permission to host each other in exchange visits to each community, giving them the opportunity to visit, most of them for the first time in their lives, the towns and villages on the other side. Some of them even returned to their childhood homes, or the homes of their parents, a very emotional experience that had a great impact on their perceptions about lost property.

Their work reached its peak when they were able to take a week-long trip, sponsored by the European Commission, to Brussels, where they were able to be together in a residential setting. For the first time they did not have to head in opposite directions at the end of a meeting and pass through barbed wire and guard posts on their way to homes separated by the buffer zone.

Contrary to my earlier fears, I have learned that relationships do not dissolve so easily and their impact does not disappear so quickly. The youth leaders, along with dozens of other groups that were meeting on a regular basis prior to December 1997, have found ways to maintain contact.

Some of the 2,000 people in Cyprus who were taking part in bi-communal groups during 1996 and 1997 may have lost their faith or their hope in the 18 months since such activities were stopped, but the ties that were formed cannot easily be broken. Many have found ways to maintain contact, and even those who are no longer in touch with their colleagues and friends on the other side have been forever changed by their experiences in the bi-communal workshops and seminars.

Benjamin J. Broome is a professor of human communication at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. His recent book, Exploring the Greek Mosaic, received the Distinguished Scholarship Award from the National Communication Association, and he currently is working on a book about citizen peace-building activities in Cyprus.