The status quo is firmly entrenched in the minds of our leaders; that is why they are unable to conceive of or promote initiatives aimed at the overarching goal of resolving the problem
Not only is there no progress whatsoever on the Cyprus issue, but every meeting between the two leaders also holds a surprise. The latest came via a United Nations communiqué informing the public in Cyprus that the two leaders ‘agreed to proceed with initiatives relating to the environment and the exchange of cultural artefacts’. What this concerns in terms of the environment, we have not been told. And to be honest, I did not even understand what these ‘artefacts’ are that we are to exchange. I was relieved, however, when I heard our President announce that these brilliant ideas are included in the 19 points he submitted to the Turkish Cypriot leader and which – supposedly – would drive the process forward.
Is it really possible, at this critical juncture of the whole process, for the proposals to be at this level? An exchange of artefacts! I was under the impression that the infamous 19 points – which were not provided in writing but merely dictated to Erhürman, who was taking notes – would concern some substantive ideas which – if nothing else – would convince the international community that the Greek Cypriot side is doing everything possible to break the deadlock.
But it is not just that. Behind the ‘innocent’ proposal for an exchange lies the way in which one perceives the Cyprus problem and its solution. An exchange means ‘give us what is ours, and we will give you what is yours’. Whatever that may be. Today ‘cultural artefacts’, tomorrow property (although this is already happening). It is the same logic whereby the opening of roadblocks is measured not by how many gaps you create in the line of division, but by which ones and how much they suit each side.
I don’t know if I’m the odd one out in this whole Cyprus problem affair. It is, however, my firm belief that the status quo has become firmly entrenched in the minds of our leaders, which is why they are unable to conceive of or promote initiatives aimed at the overarching goal of resolving the problem. We therefore confine ourselves to peripheral ideas within the framework of ‘reciprocity’ that we have discovered in the tacit manoeuvring of the policy for the ‘second-best solution’.
If there are such ‘artefacts’ that express the identity and history of each community, someone who has in mind the prospect of peaceful coexistence and cooperation gathers them all in one place and highlights – through them – the common elements and the shared journey. For I am certain that this is precisely what the cultural artefacts in mind by President Christodoulides—who proposed this idea—would demonstrate. However, instead of these artefacts coexisting somewhere – just as we supposedly want the two communities to coexist one day – we are exchanging them so that each side can ‘clear’ its own space of the other’s traces. Even if the artefacts reveal cultural differences, these too are part of Cypriot reality that we ought to be aware of.
Am I getting bogged down in details? Perhaps. Yet it is precisely through such details that the deeper thoughts of those dealing with the Cyprus issue become apparent. They refer to ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, to ‘our space’ and ‘their space’. And they fail to realise that even these objects (whatever they may be) are vessels of memory that ought to seek common points of reference.
Be that as it may, this particular idea is nothing more than a reproduction of a similar one from the past. It is as if someone had asked artificial intelligence for ideas and it had referred them to historical examples. Such as the one in 2019, when the Turkish Cypriots returned 219 paintings by Greek Cypriot artists and the Greek Cypriots handed over 76 audiovisual archive items relating to the history of the community.
Even this proposal concerning Famagusta was nothing more than a rehash of an earlier one that had been rejected. It seems that when courage, political imagination and vision are lacking, one resorts to copying… from those next door (their predecessors).
Source: THE ‘ARTEFACTS’ OF DIVISION
