110 Virginie Ladisch

6
TOWARD THE
REUNIFICATION OF CYPRUS:
DEFINING AND INTEGRATING
RECONCILIATION INTO THE
PEACE PROCESS
Virginie Ladisch

In the search for a solution to the “Cyprus problem,” the focus

of debate has been on power sharing agreements, land exchanges,
right of return, and economics. There has been little focus on
reconciliation. This research, conducted one year after the ref-
erendum in which Cypriots were given an historic opportunity
to vote on the reunification of the island, places the concept
of reconciliation at the center of the debate about the Cyprus
problem. Based on data gathered through forty interviews with
Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot politicians, businessmen,
activists, academics, organizational leaders, economists, and
members of civil society, this article presents Cypriots’ views
on reconciliation. Drawing from literature on reconciliation in
conflict-divided societies as a framework, this article also analyzes
the various perceptions Cypriots hold about reconciliation.
Finally, this article identifies initiatives that could be used to
promote reconciliation in Cyprus. The process needs to begin
immediately so that it can lay the groundwork for the open
dialogue, trust building, and understanding that are essential
to the successful settlement of the Cyprus problem.1

Virginie Ladisch is a Master in International Affairs candidate at the School of Inter-

national and Public Affairs, Columbia University (vl2121@columbia.edu).
7
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 111

INTRODUCTION
In the search for a solution to the “Cyprus problem,” the focus of debates
and discussions has been on power sharing agreements, land exchanges,
right of return, and economics, but there has been little to no focus on
reconciliation. One year after the referendum in which Cypriots were
given an historic opportunity to vote on the reunification of the island,
this research places the concept of reconciliation at the center of the debate
about the Cyprus problem. Based on data gathered through forty inter-
views with Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot politicians, businessmen,
activists, academics, organizational leaders, economists, and members of
civil society, this article will present Cypriots’ views on reconciliation.
Drawing from literature on reconciliation in conflict divided societies
as a framework, this article will analyze the various perceptions Cypriots
hold about the definition of reconciliation, the initiatives that can be used
to promote reconciliation in Cyprus, the obstacles on the path toward
reconciliation, and the sequencing of reconciliatory measures. Overall,
this article seeks to present an alternative to strict political engineering
projects that characterize the current debate about the Cyprus problem
by encouraging creative approaches to conflict resolution such as truth
commissions, revised history curriculums, and joint projects that foster
mutual understanding and shared commitment to peace.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Located at a strategic crossroads of trade routes in the Mediterranean,
the island of Cyprus has been plagued by a series of colonizers, occupiers,
and wars. Presently, conflicting views of history are used to entrench the
respective positions dividing Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The
Greek Cypriots point to a Hellenic cultural legacy that dates back to 1200
B.C. while the Turkish Cypriots locate their origins in 1571 when the Ot-
toman Turks conquered the island (Calotychos 1998). After an extended
period of Ottoman rule, Britain assumed control of Cyprus from 1870-
1914, later solidifying its rule in 1925 when Cyprus was declared a Crown
Colony. In 1955 the EOKA (National Organization of Cypriot Fighters),
a revolutionary group seeking enosis, reunification with Greece, took up
armed struggle against the British colonial authority. In an effort to quell
the rebellion the British authorized the use of the Turkish Cypriot police to
stifle the independence movement. The British tactic to counter-mobilize
Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to support its colonial rule against the
threat of enosis “set the scene for one of the most intractable conflicts of the
112 Virginie Ladisch

20th Century” (Tocci 2004, 43). In response to Greek Cypriots demands

for unification with Greece, Turkish Cypriots, fearing forced assimilation
under Greek rule, rallied for taksim, or partition of the island.
Cyprus was granted independence in 1960, not as a result of a struggle
for liberation on the part of the Cypriots, but rather as a way for Britain
to liberate itself of the escalating conflict that had erupted on the island
between competing claims from Greek Cypriots for enosis and Turkish
Cypriot demands for taksim (Joseph 1997, 19). Turkey, Greece, and Britain
designed the framework for the newly independent Republic of Cyprus
at two peace conferences in Zurich and London in 1959. Cypriot lead-
ers were indirectly involved in the decision making process only after the
agreement had been drafted. The Cyprus problem “was in fact settled on
a bilateral basis between Greece and Turkey under British directorship”
(Joseph 1997, 20).
Three treaties, the Treaty of Establishment, the Treaty of Alliance, and
the Treaty of Guarantee, set up the framework for the independence of
Cyprus. The power sharing arrangement established in the 1960 Consti-
tution did not meet the demands of both sides, but each accepted it as a
transitional step toward a more favorable solution. The Greek Cypriots
complained about Turkish privileges and overrepresentation, while Turk-
ish Cypriots felt that the regulations were necessary to protect their rights
against the majority. President Makarios had unwillingly approved the
Constitution with the hope to change it once implemented. In an attempt
to address some of its problems, President Makarios proposed thirteen
amendments to the Constitution that would have essentially turned the
Turkish Cypriots into a minority without the protections provided in
the original plan. The Turkish Cypriots and Turkey refused the thirteen
amendments and became even more suspicious of Greek Cypriots inten-
tions to regain majoritarian control. With tensions high and the political
system unworkable, intercommunal fighting broke out in 1963 placing
Cyprus back on the list of unresolved ethnic conflicts.
In the early 1970s, as plans for an intercommunal arrangement grant-
ing Turkish Cypriots’ autonomy were being discussed, hope for peace
emerged. In 1974, however, the fascist Greek military junta staged a coup
to overthrow President Makarios in an effort to gain control of the island
and reunite it with Greece. In order to protect Turkish Cypriots, Turkey
intervened militarily and gained control of 38 percent of the island. The
Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, drafted a constitution and declared
the birth of the Turkish Republic of Cyprus (TRNC) in 1983. However,
only Turkey recognizes the TRNC as a legitimate state. As a result of this
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 113

unresolved conflict, Cyprus has been de facto divided since 1964 by what
is known as the Green Line. The 80 percent of Cypriots that are of Greek
descent live in the southern part of the island while the 18 percent of Cy-
priots that are of Turkish descent live in the northern part of the island.
Movement across this line was restricted until April 23, 2003 when the
Green Line was partially opened, allowing Cypriots to move across the
island on a daily basis.

PEACEBUILDING EFFORTS
Since 1964 the United Nations (UN) has been actively working to find
a solution to the Cyprus problem. Despite its numerous efforts at con-
vening talks and drafting proposals, it has been argued that “the UN has
achieved peacekeeping but not peacemaking” (Camp 1998, 136). In the
early 1990s, the European Union (EU) emerged as another actor in the
Cyprus conflict. In July 1990, when the Republic of Cyprus applied for
EU membership, it was hoped that in conjunction with continued UN
mediation, the EU accession process would “help bring the communi-
ties on the island closer together” (Commission 1993, paragraph 4). The
culmination of years of negotiation, in 2002 UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan presented the Annan Plan V for the reunification of Cyprus.
The Annan Plan called for the establishment of the United Republic
of Cyprus with a Greek Cypriot constituent state and Turkish Cypriot
constituent state linked by a federal government. In an effort to foster
peacebuilding, Article 11 of the Annan Plan called for an independent rec-
onciliation commission to “promote understanding, tolerance, and mutual
respect between Greek and Turkish Cypriots” but it did not specify how it
would be achieved, nor did the Constitution grant the Federal government
sufficient powers to implement a successful commission (Rotberg 2003). In
comparison to the articles of the Annan Plan relating to refugees, property,
and power sharing, Article 11 was very brief and received relatively little
attention from the media and politicians.
After several revisions and negotiations with both Turkish Cypriot and
Greek Cypriot leaders, on April 24, 2004 Cypriots were asked to vote on
the Annan Plan. With the pressure of EU accession looming, the 9,000
page settlement was presented on March 31, 2004 giving Cypriots three
weeks to decide and vote on a “plan that was to shape the lives of future
generations and amend the losses of the past” (Evriviades 2005). Cypriots
were brought into the process of approving the Annan Plan, but only at the
end and with very little time to make an informed decision. The Turkish
Cypriots endorsed the Annan Plan V by 67 percent whereas the Greek
114 Virginie Ladisch

Cypriots rejected it by 76 percent. From the Greek Cypriot perspective,

the plan satisfied almost all of the Turkish Cypriot demands but Greek
Cypriots viewed the plan as undemocratic, unworkable, and permanently
entrenching the division between Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Evriviades
2005). As a result of the lack of support for the Annan Plan from the
Greek Cypriot community, Cyprus entered the European Union on May
1, 2004 divided and without a solution to division of land and power on
the island.

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF RECONCILIATION

Both in the time leading up to the referendum and in the time that has
elapsed since then, there has been little to no dialogue or debate regard-
ing the concept of reconciliation in Cyprus. When asked about whether
the reconciliation commission suggested in Article 11 of the Annan Plan
figured prominently in the media debates leading up to the referendum,
one Turkish Cypriot responded “it was actually a joke to talk about the
reconciliation commission … reconciliation is not something people re-
ally talk about or that people have in their agendas as a priority” (Yucel
2005). With the failure of the Annan Plan, however, some Cypriots are
beginning to perceive reconciliation as something that should be given
greater priority.
Before looking at Cypriot perceptions of reconciliation it is helpful
to explore the theoretical debates around this concept and establish a
framework from which to analyze reconciliation in Cyprus, especially with
regard to the definition of reconciliation, the mechanisms of reconciliation,
and the sequencing of reconciliatory initiatives. Although ‘reconciliatory
measures’ such as truth commissions, reparations, and apologies have
been employed since the middle of the twentieth century, it is only in
recent years that academics from a wide range of disciplines have focused
on developing theories of reconciliation that can be applied to large-scale
internal or international conflicts. Previously a concept restricted to the
interpersonal sphere, academics now face the challenge of creating a body
of theory that can guide the implementation of reconciliation in the na-
tional and international sphere.
One of the main obstacles toward developing a body of theory on rec-
onciliation in post-conflict settings is the lack of clear definitions of the
terminology utilized. Within peace and conflict research, reconciliation
has been understood as “a process of relationship building across divisions,
as a transformation of existing relationships, as well as a creation of new
relationships after the horrors of war” (Ericson 2001, 27). Other scholars
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 115

emphasize the spiritual dimension of forgiveness and affirm that “healing

and reconciliation in violent ethnic and religious conflicts depend on a
process of transactional contrition and forgiveness between aggressors
and victims which is indispensable to the establishment of a new relation-
ship based on mutual acceptance and reasonable trust” (Montville 1993,
112). Equating reconciliation with forgiveness, however, is a contested
area in the development of the theory on reconciliation. Another way to
conceive of reconciliation is as a process of acknowledgment of one’s own
suffering as well as that of the other and a willingness to reweave rela-
tions. In other words, “to reconcile does not mean to forget or even to
forgive, but it means to remember without deliberating pain, bitterness,
revenge, fear, or guilt and to co-exist and work for the peaceful handling
of continuing differences” (Du Plessis 2004, 197). In between vengeance
and forgiveness, reconciliation opens a space for the acknowledgment of
past wrongs and the mutual agreement to move toward a more positive
future (Minow 1998).
These various definitions of reconciliation implicitly refer to it either
as a process or a goal. In describing reconciliation as an outcome, Bar-Tal
and Bennink advance a notion of a reconciled society as one in which
there is “mutual recognition and acceptance, invested interests and goals
in developing peaceful relations, mutual trust, positive attitudes as well
as sensitivity and consideration for the other party’s needs and interests”
(2004, 16). This definition presents an ideal society, which arguably does
not exist. Reconciliation as a goal is an ideal state. Especially in large-scale
conflicts “full reconciliation in all its aspects is improbable” (Kriesberg
1999, 10). In this sense it is helpful to understand reconciliation as a
process that moves toward a goal that will never fully be achieved, but
a goal that serves as a model of perfect harmony. While it is possible to
distinguish between more or less reconciled societies based on factors such
as intergroup relations, openness of debate in the pubic sphere, legitimacy
of the state, and general civic activity, the “processes of reconciliation are
complex and unending … changes in the reconciliation achieved between
peoples occurs years, decades, or even centuries after an inter-communal
accommodation has been reached” (Kriesberg 1999, 1). There are steps
that can be taken to advance reconciliation while being mindful that the
outcome of a truly reconciled society is an ideal goal. In the case of Cyprus,
where divisions have been deeply entrenched over the past thirty years,
it is important to emphasize reconciliation as a process so that people
develop realistic expectations and have patience when reconciliation is
not immediately achieved.
116 Virginie Ladisch

The types of actions that can be used to promote reconciliation are

as complex and varied as the definition of the word itself. Examples of
some initiatives include: truth commissions, reports, trials, writing com-
mon history, reparations (such as the building of monuments or financial
compensation for the victims), public ceremonies, exhumations, reburials,
workshops, and support groups. While the action itself is important, the
context in which that action is carried out and who initiates it are even
more important. Therefore, if Cypriots decide to undertake some form of
truth commission, it is important to acknowledge that “language, how-
ever eloquent, alone cannot provide [reconciliation]. The words must be
received, officially acknowledged, and incorporated into the history of
the renewed state” (Phelps 2004, 103). Thus it is essential for those in
power to acknowledge the abuses of the past and to support the process
of reconciliation in order for it to take root on the national level.
Timing is another question raised by the various definitions of reconcili-
ation. Several scholars define reconciliation as a process that begins after
the cessation of violence. Among them Whittaker describes reconciliation
as “a process that takes place after conflict resolution and often takes lon-
ger than bringing the conflict to an end” (Brown 2005, viii). Requiring
the cessation of hostilities as a pre-requisite for reconciliation limits the
scope of possible reconciliatory initiatives. Kreisberg, a critic of this view,
argues that, “actions that foster reconciliation need not await the ending
of a conflict” (1999, 9). In some cases, it may be impossible to achieve a
formal settlement of the conflict without some form of rapprochement
or reconciliation. The process of reconciliation can thus be understood as
containing various phases, which can be divided into pre-settlement and
post-settlement. In the pre-settlement phase, “reconciliation begins with the
transformation of an enemy into a future neighbor by helping the parties
imagine that coexistence is possible” (Ross 2004, 200). The core of the
reconciliation process will take place after the formal end of the conflict,
but reconciliatory initiatives have an important role to play in creating a
space in which a settlement of the conflict can be negotiated.
The growing belief that in order “to cement peaceful relations between
rival sides to an intractable conflict, reconciliation is necessary,” raises
the question of what role reconciliation can play in the Cyprus peace
process (Bar-Tal and Bennink 2004, 36). Debates about the definition of
reconciliation, the tools that can be used to promote reconciliation, and
the timing of reconciliatory measures, surfaced throughout the course of
interviews conducted in Cyprus this past summer. Closer analysis reveals
that a clarification and honest reckoning with past abuses and violence is
essential to promoting reconciliation in Cyprus.
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 117

METHODOLOGY
Over the course of two months, June through August 2005, Cypriots from
different social sectors and from both the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cy-
priot communities were interviewed about their views on reconciliation.
Dr. Maria Hadjipavlou, the facilitator of this research project, a professor
at the University of Cyprus, and a long time scholar and activist in the field
of conflict resolution in Cyprus, identified a list of key people to interview.
The guiding principle in the selection of interviewees was to identify an
equal number of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who could speak
about their views on reconciliation. The sample of forty Cypriots that
were interviewed is not representative of the average Cypriot but rather
is focused on Cypriots who have been participants in bi-communal ac-
tivities and who are in positions to influence change within Cyprus. The
interviewees included politicians, academics, leaders of non-governmental
organizations, economists, and members of civil society. The interviews
were conducted in English and most of those interviewed were influential
members of their communities either locally or nationally. Their political
views covered the spectrum from supporters to opponents of the Annan
Plan. Each person was asked a set of open-ended questions about reconcili-
ation, possible tools to promote reconciliation, the timing of reconciliation,
and the challenges to pursuing it in Cyprus. Based on forty interviews, this
research aims to provide a glimpse into the perceptions of reconciliation in
Cyprus. Overall, this study intends to serve as a starting point for greater
discussion on theories of reconciliation and how they can be incorporated
into peacebuilding efforts in Cyprus.

CYPRIOTS SPEAK: INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

Based on an analysis of the interviews conducted with forty Cypriots,
this section highlights the main trends and debates discussed by those
interviewed as they relate to the definition of reconciliation, tools or
mechanisms to be used to promote reconciliation, and the sequencing of
reconciliatory initiatives.

The Cyprus Problem

This research is based on the premise that there is a conflict in Cyprus.
Although latent and nonviolent, it is a conflict nonetheless. In other words,
there is a division that needs to be reconciled or resolved. This conflict is
often referred to as the Cyprus problem. While this term is widely used,
there are a variety of conflicting perceptions that emerged in the inter-
118 Virginie Ladisch

views about what the Cyprus problem actually involves. For some Greek
Cypriots, the Cyprus problem begins in 1974 with the Turkish invasion
of Cyprus. For many Turkish Cypriots, the Cyprus problem stems from
the first struggles for enosis led by the Greek Cypriots in the early 1950s.
For those Greek Cypriots that view the problem as a result of the Turkish
invasion, they believe that once the Turkish military pulls out of Cyprus,
the conflict will be resolved. This view, however, angers many Turkish
Cypriots who have memories of intercommunal fighting in the 1960s
and fears of domination by the Greek Cypriot majority. Reconciliation,
as described in the following sections, has a role to play in clarifying the
origins of the Cyprus problem and working toward its resolution.

Definitions of Reconciliation
While there is disagreement over the origin of the Cyprus problem, there
was a significant level of consensus in the interviews about the term ‘rec-
onciliation’. Overall, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot definitions
of reconciliation were very similar, focusing primarily on understanding,
dialogue, and acknowledgement. While a few interviewees included some
element of forgiveness in their definition of reconciliation, most definitions
presented by Cypriots from both the Greek and Turkish communities were
similar to the definition put forward by Martha Minow and Willemien
Du Plessis emphasizing a mutual acknowledgement of past wrongs and
willingness to work toward the peaceful handling of differences. In this
sense reconciliation, according to those interviewed, is understood in social
and political terms rather than in spiritual terms. The focus was on creating
dialogue and mutual understanding about the past, acknowledging the
harm done on both sides, and moving forward. Whereas in some countries
reconciliation is perceived negatively—it is seen as an evasion of justice—on
the whole Cypriots viewed reconciliation as something positive.
In some contexts, reconciliation is closely linked with justice involving
trials and punishment for perpetrators. In Cyprus, however, retributive
justice is not one of the pressing concerns that surfaces in people’s reflec-
tions on reconciliation. The definitions of reconciliation echoed three
main themes: the need to understand the past, an acknowledgement of
mutual suffering, and a commitment to forward looking approaches based
on cooperation and mutual respect.
Almost everyone interviewed touched on the need to understand the
past in order to move toward reconciliation. According to Katie Clerides,
a Greek Cypriot member of parliament, reconciliation involves “under-
standing the roots of conflict” (2005). This sentiment was echoed by a
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 119

representative of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce who defined

reconciliation as a state of being that calls upon one “to be able to under-
stand what happened in the past. To be able to understand the past from
the other point of view as well and to put this together to understand it,
accept it, acknowledge it and to move on” (Beyatli 2005). Therefore, one
of the first steps in the process of reconciliation involves a reexamination
of the past.
Once there is a common understanding of each community’s views
about the past, according to those interviewed, reconciliation involves
an acknowledgement of the other’s humanity and suffering. Another
representative of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce explained
that “reconciliation means that first of all you have to understand what are
the needs and interests and what are the perceptions of the other side. Once
you analyze that properly, you should strive towards empathy” (Damdelen
2005). The need for acknowledgement was echoed in the interviews by a
Greek Cypriot social anthropologist who explained that, “reconciliation
means coming to terms with the injustices and pain that you may have
caused the other, accepting and respecting the others, and of course ask-
ing them to also acknowledge their own violence against you” (Papadakis
2005). While this acknowledgment is important, Nicos Anastasiou, a
Greek Cypriot leader of a bi-communal youth organization realizes that
this process will be difficult and requires a significant amount of courage.
In his view, “reconciliation may mean being existentially brave enough to
understand and acknowledge that our side, whatever it might be, has also
done terrible things” (Anastasiou 2005). Thus, once the past is understood,
both sides need to be open to acknowledge the suffering of the other and
in this way break out of a pattern of self-victimization.
The third element of reconciliation expressed in the interviews with
Greek and Turkish Cypriots emphasizes the need for future cooperation
and forward looking measures. Focusing on the future, a Greek Cypriot
political science professor at the University of Cyprus believes that “recon-
ciliation means both can live together, interact, and look at each other as
citizens of the same country without placing too much emphasis on what
divides them, but rather what unites them” (Joseph 2005). From a similar
perspective, a Turkish Cypriot politician emphasized that “reconciliation
means accepting to come to terms with each other, accepting to restrain
some of your demands in exchange for peaceful harmonious coexistence.
To reconcile we have to forgive a lot of things and focus on the benefits
that the future can bring” (Nami 2005). Summing up the focus on past,
present, and future, a Turkish Cypriot businessman explains that “recon-
120 Virginie Ladisch

ciliation is perhaps acknowledging that two parties have hurt each other
in the past, it is a decision to acknowledge this and at the same time to
show sincere willingness to put differences aside and start to work together
again for a common good” (Besimler 2005).
Overall, what is striking about the definitions of reconciliation pre-
sented by both Greek and Turkish Cypriots is the similarity and relative
consensus about what reconciliation entails. While each person empha-
sized slightly different angles of reconciliation, in general they tended to
focus on knowledge about the past, understanding and acknowledging
each others’ suffering, and overcoming past differences for the benefit of
future cooperation.

Mechanisms for Promoting Reconciliation

Based on the provision for a reconciliation commission envisioned in Ar-
ticle 11 of the Annan Plan, Cypriots were asked to comment during the
interviews on their perceptions of such a commission and on what other
tools or mechanisms could be used to promote reconciliation in Cyprus.
While there were different views about whether or not a reconciliation
commission, as envisioned in Article 11 of the Annan Plan, would be use-
ful or necessary in Cyprus, there was a general consensus that education
would be key in working toward reconciliation in Cyprus. In addition
to a commission and educational reforms, seminars in the workplace
and economic cooperation were put forward as other tools to promote
reconciliation.
There was no clear consensus over whether or not a reconciliation com-
mission as suggested in Article 11 of the Annan Plan would be the most
effective tool for promoting reconciliation in Cyprus. Responses ranged
from a priori endorsement as stated by a Greek Cypriot cable television
news editor, “I think a reconciliation commission would be good for
both sides” (Kotzamani 2005), to questionable support as expressed by a
Turkish Cypriot Ph.D. candidate, who said, “of course [a reconciliation
commission] would be useful, but I don’t think it is extremely necessary,
but I guess that could be useful to have a true account of history, because
everybody has their own version” (Latif 2005). Others, such as a Greek
Cypriot involved in bi-communal work who requested to remain anony-
mous, doubted whether a commission was the best method of promoting
reconciliation at all: “there is definitely a need for reconciliation. I do not
how know effective reconciliation commission is; I don’t know” (2005).
Echoing this ambivalence over the value of a commission, a Turkish Cypriot
intellectual commented that “some kind of reconciliation committee has
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 121

to be established; but as I say, without the committee a lot of reconcilia-

tion can be done” (Hatay 2005).
If there were to be a reconciliation commission in Cyprus, several of
those interviewed emphasized the need for political support. As a Turkish
Cypriot businessman explained, “[a reconciliation commission] is needed,
it is a must,” adding with a note of caution, “of course for this you need
commitment from the state level” (Atai 2005). Not only would such a
commission not be effective without political support, many warned that
it may prove counterproductive. According to a Greek Cypriot member
of parliament:
For such a commission to really produce results it needs to be
backed by the political will of both sides to find an agreement.
If it is used only as an excuse for divisionary tactics in other
fields, then I can’t see how it would serve. If it is an expression
of a general will and it is backed politically then it can work.
Otherwise, every step it takes without political backing could
create more tension and more conflict (Mavrou 2005).
While political support is seen as essential, some of those interviewed
expressed ambivalence over political involvement. In their view, a com-
mission would need to be supported by the state but remain independent
from it. A Turkish Cypriot professor expressed that, “I think it is a very
useful tool, but it depends on what sort of a committee could be built. If
the members of this committee are going to be appointed by Mr. Papa-
dopoulos (President of Republic of Cyprus) or by Mr. Talat (President of
the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus), that will do more harm than
good” (Azgin 2005).
Very few Cypriots expressed clear recommendations for the specific
mandate of a possible reconciliation commission. The few that did, however,
did not advocate for naming of perpetrators or for retributive punishment.
According to Katie Clerides, since Cyprus is such a small insular island,
punishment for past crimes is not necessary and could even be harmful.
The truth telling aspect of a commission would be important, but she
says, “I don’t think it would be good to try to say that people should be
punished after all these years, but I think the story telling aspect could
be important.” In terms of naming names, she answered that “I am not
sure how helpful that is in a small society. But it is important for Greek
Cypriots to know that Turkish Cypriots were rounded up and slaughtered
by Greek Cypriots and vice versa” (Clerides 2005).
Beyond a specific reconciliation commission as described in the Annan
Plan, several Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots suggested other tools
122 Virginie Ladisch

that could perhaps be more effective in promoting reconciliation. Some of

the suggestions included an official apology from representatives of both
sides, training seminars in the workplace to prepare people to eventually
work together in the federal government, informative media campaigns,
and economic cooperation across the Green Line. However, the most fre-
quently cited tool for promoting reconciliation was education, and more
specifically history education. According to a Greek Cypriot who spoke
on condition of anonymity:
Education is the most powerful tool on earth. If education did
that much damage to this island, then it must be education
which will correct it. [We need to] rewrite the history books
in such a way that they would recognize the problems but also
give reasons for the problems in a rational way to give people
a perspective that is more rational (2005).
A Turkish Cypriot intellectual agreed that the educational system of
both sides of the island has been more destructive than constructive. As
a result, one of the first steps in a process of reconciliation needs to be to
provide correct information. In his view, “getting rid of myths on both
sides is very important in order to achieve a healthy relationship between
the two communities. All this victimization and demonization has to be
stopped” (Hatay 2005).
In order to overcome these myths and victimization, the majority of
people interviewed focused on the role of schools and teachers. According
to a Greek Cypriot professor of social anthropology, Cypriots need to “de-
velop a different approach to history; a more multi-perspective approach
where history is not just one truth that the students have to learn, but
that they have to do their own research and have a critical understand-
ing of the notion of history” (Papadakis 2005). He expressed a need to
reform the way in which history is taught, but also to adjust the way in
which certain dates and anniversaries are celebrated. As they are celebrated
today, national commemorations work to further entrench divisions. For
example, July 20th, the day that marks the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in
1974, is celebrated with fireworks on the Turkish Cypriot side and solemn
reflection on the Greek Cypriot side.
In addition to history lessons, a Turkish Cypriot professor stressed the
importance of the language in the process of reconciliation. In his view it
is essential to have Greek language lessons in Turkish schools, and Turk-
ish language lessons in Greek schools because “knowledge of language
can help to understand the culture and the way of thinking of the ‘other’
side, thus enabling individuals to the feel empathy towards the other”
(Azgin 2005).
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 123

Two members of the media, one Greek Cypriot and the other Turkish
Cypriot, both advocated for using the media as a means to overcome the
misinformation people have about the past and about the other commu-
nity. “We should start through the media, giving the right information,
not propaganda, and information so that you can understand the other
side … we need to open the communication channels between both
sides,” argues Hüseyin Gürsan, the director of BRT, a Turkish Cypriot
state owned television station (Gürsan 2005). A Greek Cypriot member
of parliament and director of a radio station agreed that “the owners of
media have a large role to play in this process because of the influence they
yield” (Hadtzi Georgiou 2005).
While Cypriots had various suggestions for tools to promote reconcili-
ation, especially education, very few people had a clear understanding of
what role a reconciliation commission could or should play. Some envi-
sion it as a type of court to resolve disputes. Others, including a Greek
Cypriot professor of political science, saw it as a technical committee,
saying that “a technical committee, for example, would give advice and
coordinate how schools of the two sides could share some activities, coor-
dinate and facilitate some educational activities; in that sense it could be
good” (Joseph 2005). But on the whole, those interviewed were not very
familiar with other truth commissions and how such a truth commission
could work in the context of Cyprus. Most people thought it would be a
positive step toward reconciliation, but were not very clear in its mandate
or specific activities. This reveals either a lack of knowledge about truth
commissions or, and most likely, it reveals a lack of preparedness or need
for a reconciliation commission at this time. In this context, alternative
measures should be explored and implemented where possible.
If there is another referendum in Cyprus or another proposed plan for
its reunification, most Cypriots agreed that more work needs to be done
to build trust and a platform for common dialogue between Greek and
Turkish Cypriots. The various mechanisms suggested by those interviewed
could be used to promote greater reconciliation, but what was highlighted
as crucial for any such reconciliation to take root was the idea that future
efforts be undertaken on a wider and more public dimension. As one Turk-
ish Cypriot businessman involved in bi-communal activities commented,
“the number of people who went through the conflict resolution workshops
prior to the opening of the gates does not exceed the hundreds, maybe
one thousand” (Besimler 2005). Now that the borders are open, efforts
at reconciliation need to extend beyond select individuals and should be
more public. In the past, due to restrictions created by the closed border,
124 Virginie Ladisch

many bi-communal workshops were conducted with a select few and

in secret. “The fact that a lot of this work was done quietly with not a
lot of publicity proved to its disadvantage because there was an attempt
to present it as something being done in secret involving only a chosen
few,” explained a Greek Cypriot member of parliament (Mavrou 2005).
With the benefit of open borders and lifted restrictions there should be
greater emphasis on common projects, direct communication between
the two sides, and clear information about any future proposals. It will
be crucial to dispel myths and equip people with knowledge about plans
for reunification so that they can make an informed decision about the
future of Cyprus.

Sequencing of Reconciliation Initiatives

Based on the variety of tools suggested, Cypriots reflected on the relative
timing of such mechanisms. According to theories of reconciliation put
forward by Louis Kriesberg, reconciliatory tools can be used before a conflict
has ended. With the failure of the Annan Plan, one could argue that in
Cyprus, a settlement will not be reached until the process of reconcilia-
tion has started to take hold among key members of society. Overall, the
Cypriots interviewed expressed a variety of views about the sequencing
of reconciliation.
There were those who agreed with Whittaker’s theory that reconciliation
takes place after the conflict has ended. In the words of a Greek Cypriot
news editor, “I don’t think there can be a reconciliation commission if
there is no solution. I think the results of the committee would be ques-
tioned by both sides if there is no solution.” Furthermore, in her view,
“reconciliation will come if we resolve the problems relating to economics,
safety, and property” (Kotzamani 2005). A professor at the University of
Cyprus agrees that after there is a settlement, reconciliation can begin.
He stated that:
Of course a reconciliation commission is a good idea, but it
is the tenth step of the 100th step. We have to do many things
before that. We have to have a political will for reconciliation.
Our leadership should tell us and give us the green light to go
on and do something. Everybody is expecting some agreement.
As soon as this agreement is there many things will happen, one
of which is the reconciliation committee (Georgiou 2005).
Departing from a strict definition of the sequencing of reconciliatory
measures, there were several Greek and Turkish Cypriots who believed
work toward a settlement and toward reconciliation can be undertaken
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 125

simultaneously. A representative of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Com-

merce expressed this view in saying, “I think they have to be together.
We have to work on reconciliation as well. Now if there is a settlement, I
don’t think it would work very well unless there is a very good process of
reconciliation” (Beyatli 2005). Implicit in this comment is a belief that
reconciliation may in fact help lay the groundwork for a solution to the
Cyprus problem.
From the perspective that efforts toward reconciliation are helpful at any
stage of the conflict, several Cypriots advocated that work should begin
as soon as possible. Asked when a reconciliation commission should be
established, a Turkish Cypriot businessman responded, “Now! Yesterday!
Now if there is a political will” (Atai 2005). The sense that now is even too
late was echoed by a Turkish Cypriot member of parliament who explained
that, “I think it would be a very good idea to establish such a commission
or committee, today or even yesterday. And maybe this could help us to
have some kind of dialogue” (Nami 2005). Emphasizing the importance
of beginning the process of reconciliation, a Greek Cypriot professor of
social anthropology stressed the fact that while a commission might not
be possible at the moment, many other mechanisms are available. “I think
it would be important for it to start early, but it doesn’t have to be a com-
mission, it could also be different, like the project I am working on about
history education” (Papadakis 2005). Most of the Cypriots interviewed
identified a need to pursue reconciliation, but there was no clear consensus
on the relationship between reconciliation and peacebuilding. The question
of sequencing applies particularly to a large scale endeavor such as a
reconciliation commission. With regard to other tools, such as workshops
and information campaigns, Cypriots generally agreed that these could be
undertaken at any point in the peacebuilding process.
The timing of reconciliatory initiatives emerged as a key uncertainty
among the Cypriots interviewed. This uncertainty calls for greater research
in order to identify greater consensus, but it also opens up the space for
creativity and flexibility. While there was no consensus on particular se-
quencing, there was a relative degree of openness to a variety of options. In
this way, with the proper framing and presentation, it seems that efforts at
reconciliation can be undertaken at various points along the path toward
the reunification of Cyprus.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Through a series of interviews, Cypriots from both the Greek and Turkish
communities expressed the view that reconciliation requires an examination
126 Virginie Ladisch

of the past, acknowledgement of harm done on both sides, and a willing-

ness to work toward a common future. Eleni Mavrou, a Greek Cypriot
member of parliament captures these three elements in saying:
Reconciliation means facing our past. It involves accepting the
mistakes done by the other side and accepting that both sides have
suffered in one way or another and through this process facing
the future. It means understanding that we cannot continue
living in the past so we should concentrate on the possibility,
the capability of creating something together for the future. In
the political realm, it means a dialogue that should lead to an
agreement on the future constitutional, territorial, settlement
of the Cyprus problem (Mavrou 2005).
Judging from the responses given by Cypriots of both sides, breaking
down historical myths and reforming the education system should be the
focus of reconciliatory initiatives. Rather than a South African-style Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, Cyprus needs a historical clarification
committee that would give voice to the various versions of the past, ex-
pose distortions of the common history and make recommendations for
educational reform. Considering the lack of political will identified by most
people interviewed, an official reconciliation commission is not possible
at the moment. However, these Cypriots suggested several other viable
initiatives to serve as tools for promoting reconciliation. These initiatives
can serve as essential steps in setting the stage for the eventual resolution
of the Cyprus problem.
National and international organizations and governments interested
in promoting peace in Cyprus should follow these recommendations that
emerged from interviews conducted this past summer:
1) Encourage greater discussion about reconciliation between Greek Cypriots
and Turkish Cypriots and the creation of initiatives that can help foster
reconciliation;

2) Define reconciliation as an ongoing process in order to avoid unrealistic

expectations;

3) Establish a committee to clarify and present various perspectives on the

“Cyprus Problem” with the goal of promoting understanding and mutual
acknowledgement;

4) Lobby for an official apology for past human rights violations to be given
by officials on both sides of the conflict;
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 127

5) Focus on education, reforming the history curriculum and promoting his-

tory education that encourages critical thinking and honest exploration of
the past from a variety of perspectives;

6) Teach Turkish and Greek language in schools of each respective commu-

nity;

7) Initiate a media campaign promoting information about reconciliation and

different perspectives on the Cyprus problem.

8) Develop and implement training seminars in the workplace, especially at

the governmental level, to prepare people to work together if the island is
reunified;

9) Promote economic cooperation across the Green Line and encourage joint
business ventures between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

Overall, the Cypriots interviewed believe that a reconciliation

commission as discussed in the Annan Plan could be useful, but many
people stressed the fact that beyond a commission there were many other
mechanisms that could be used to begin the process of reconciliation.
While it is debatable which measures Cypriots see as most favorable,
there was a general consensus on the need for reconciliation. A Turkish
Cypriot professor of political science highlights the need for reconciliatory
mechanisms saying that, “such activities are needed in Cyprus because
there are particular groups which are promoting hostility between the two
communities. A counter-activity at the eve of peace is necessary in order
to create appropriate conditions for peacebuilding” (Vural 2005). It is
unrealistic to wait until political negotiations resume to initiate reconcilia-
tory measures. The process of reconciliation needs to begin immediately
so that it can lay the groundwork for open dialogue, trust building, and
understanding which are all essential to the success of any settlement of
the Cyprus problem.

NOTES
1
I thank Dr. Maria Hadjipavlou of the University of Cyprus for her guidance in
developing the project and the questionnaire, and for her help in identifying
candidates for interviews in Cyprus in 2005. This project was undertaken as
part of the Applied Workshop in Conflict Resolution taught by Zachary Metz
at SIPA, Columbia University; I also thank Professor Metz for his help in the
planning stages of the project.
128 Virginie Ladisch

REFERENCES
Bar-Tal, Daniel, and Gemma Bennink. 2004. The Nature of Reconciliation as
an Outcome and as a Process. In From Conflict Resolution to Reconciliation, ed.
Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. 11-39. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Broome, Benjamin. 2004. “Reaching Across the Dividing Line: Building a Col-
lective Vision for Peace in Cyprus.” Journal of Peace Research 39.5 (March):
581-596.
Brown, Amy and Karen Poremski, eds. 2005. Roads to Reconciliation: Conflict and
Dialogue in the Twenty-First Century. Armonk: M.E. Sharp.
Camp, Glen D. 1998. Island Impasse: Peacemaking on Cyprus, 1980-1994. In Cyprus
and Its People: Nation, Identity, and Experience in an Unimaginable Community,
1955-1997, ed. Vangelis Calotychos, 135-156. Boulder: Westview Press.
Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Opinion on the Application for
Membership from Cyprus, COM (93) 313, EC Bulletin 6-1993, Brussels.
Dodd, Clement. 2001. Storm Clouds Over Cyprus: A Briefing. Huntingdon: Eo-
then Press.
Du Plessis, Willemien. 2004. The South African Truth and Reconciliation Com-
mission. In Healing the Wounds: Essays on the Reconstruction of Societies after
War, ed. Marie-Claire Foblets and Trutz von Trotha, 169-200. Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
Ericson, Maria. 2001. Reconciliation And The Search For Shared Moral Landscape:
An Exploration Based Upon A Study Of Northern Ireland And South Africa. New
York: P. Lang.
Evriviades, Euripides. 2005. Cyprus in the European Union: Current Status and
Future Prospects for Reunification. Paper read 24 April, at Columbia University,
New York, New York.
Joseph, Joseph. 1997. Cyprus: Ethnic Conflict and International Politics. London:
Macmillan Press.
Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, Maria and Lenos Trigeorgis. 1993. “Cyprus: An Evolu-
tionary Approach to Conflict Resolution.” The Journal of Conflict Resolution
37(2): 340-360. June.
Kriesberg, Louis. 1999. Sequencing Aspects of Reconciliation. Paper read at Inter-
national Studies Association Meeting, 16-20 February, Washington D.C.
Minow, Martha. 1998 Between Vengeance and Forgiveness. Boston: Beacon Press.
Montville, Joseph. 1993. The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution.
In Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, eds.
D.J.D. Sandole and H. van der Merve, 112-127. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Phelps, Teresa Godwin. 2004. Shattered Voices: Language, Violence, and the Work of
Toward the Reunification of Cyprus:
Defining and Integrating Reconciliation into the Peace Process 129

Truth Commissions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Ross, Mark Howard. Ritual and the Politics of Reconciliation. In From Conflict
Resolution to Reconciliation, ed. Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Rotberg, Robert I. 2003. Cyprus after Annan: Next Steps Toward a Solution. Cam-
bridge: World Peace Foundation.
Tocci, Nathalie. 2004. EU Accession Dynamics and Conflict resolution: Catalyz-
ingPeace or Consolidating Partition in Cyprus? Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing
Limited.

Personal Interviews Conducted in Cyprus, Summer 2005:

Anastasiou, Nicos. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 14 June.

Atai, Serdar. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 10 August.
Azgin, Bekir. 2005. Interview by author. Famagusta, Cyprus, 10 August.
Beyatli, Derya. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 5 August.
Besimler, Dervis. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 11 August.
Clerides, Katie. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 3 August.
Damdelen, Mustafa. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 5 August.
Georgiou, Stelios. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 28 June.
Gürsan, Hüseyin. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 4 August.
Hatzi Georgiou, Takis. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 24 June.
Hatay, Mete. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 10 August.
Joseph, Joseph. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 4 July.
Kaymak, Erol. 2005. Interview by author. Famagusta, Cyprus, 2 August.
Kotzamani, Elli. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 6 July.
Latif, Dilek. 2005. Interview by author. Famagusta, Cyprus, 2 August.
Mavrou, Eleni. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 30 June.
Nami, Özdil. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 5 August.
Panayides, Andreas. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 29 June.
Papadakis, Yiannis. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 23 June.
Papadopoulou, Antigoni. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 1 July.
Pophaides, Zenon. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 22 June.
Vural, Yücel. 2005. Interview by author. Famagusta, Cyprus, 11 August.
Yücel, Mine. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 8 August.
Zeki, Selhan. 2005. Interview by author. Nicosia, Cyprus, 2 August.
(Interviewees who wished to remain anonymous have not been listed here)