Archbishop George III of Cyprus told ANF that under current conditions it is essential to have the capacity for defence and resistance and said: “Although we desire a peaceful solution, we should at least aim to establish a defence shield in Cyprus.”
What are your thoughts on the social and political impacts and negative consequences of the resulting division in respect to Turkey’s position in Cyprus, described as an “occupier”?
We see it in our daily lives every day: permanent and lawful residents have been displaced from the occupied areas and their lives have been radically altered. Settlers are being brought from Turkey. There is a process of colonization aimed at changing the region’s demographic structure. Turkish Cypriots have also departed; many have gone abroad, and thus the social cohesion in the occupied areas has been destroyed. In our culture, our churches have been demolished, our cemeteries desecrated, and all traces of our past have been erased. Yet Cyprus’s past spans 3,500 years, it has both a Hellenic history and a 2,000-year Christian heritage. All of this is a reversal in our social and cultural life caused by the Turkish invasion. It truly is an occupation, and there is not the slightest trace of mercy on their side.
How do you assess the strategic importance of Cyprus in light of the recent debates on the Eastern Mediterranean energy corridor?
Cyprus occupies a geographical position that has led to many conquests throughout history. Its location lies at the crossroads where Europe meets Asia and Africa, along significant trade routes. Now, with the formation of basins similar to the Nile Delta, we have once again become a sought-after region. However, this does not mean that everyone living in a country does not have the right to benefit from the resources offered by that country. Our favorable position benefits both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and we have no objection to peaceful relations, nor to Turkey being part of such peaceful relations. We harbor no ill feelings toward anyone.
How do you interpret the current deadlock in the EU–Cyprus–Turkey triangle? Many argue that Turkey follows a unilateral approach serving only its own interests. In your view, what are the main objectives behind Turkey’s insistence on maintaining this self-interested stance?
Turkey has never achieved its goals in Cyprus, and looking back at history, we see that in 1920 Mustafa Kemal, who would later take the name Atatürk, brought together those who were dissatisfied with the Sultan. They convened the Grand National Assembly in Ankara and took certain decisions. One of those decisions was to take back Cyprus, that is, to reclaim Cyprus, which had once been part of the Ottoman Empire. They had been forced to hand Cyprus over to Britain to protect themselves from Russia, but they set a goal to reclaim it. Since then, this has become their foreign policy. No matter how many times governments change in Turkey, their foreign policy continues to aim at conquering Cyprus. Even if they speak of other objectives, this goal remains the same. Turkey uses the European Union to obtain funds or to establish a special relationship, yet as we have seen, it does not make the slightest concession, neither on recognizing Cyprus as a member of the European Union nor on any other issue. Therefore, we must be aware of Turkey’s intentions and not be misled.
You are among the most qualified people to answer this: what is the alternative solution to the Cyprus issue, what proposal is on the agenda or, in fact, the most realistic solution for Cyprus?
We live in an era in which human rights must be respected by everyone. As Cyprus, we are part of the European Union (EU). So, what is so paradoxical about wanting the entire population of Cyprus, the legitimate population of Cyprus, to enjoy the same rights as all free people in a united Europe? In European countries, everyone has the right to free movement. Then why can we not move freely across the whole of Cyprus? They have the right of permanent residence, they can build homes and live wherever they wish. Then why can we not live in our own homes? We were driven from them. They have the right to acquire property anywhere. Then why are we deprived of our properties? What we ask for is what all other Europeans and free people possess: every person should be able to move freely, to own property, and to live wherever they wish. This will benefit both Turkish Cypriots and everyone else living in Europe.
The Cyprus issue has remained unresolved for half a century. In your view, what similarities exist between the Kurdish people’s search for peace and a solution, and the Cypriot people’s demand for a just settlement?
There are similarities, and there are differences. The similarity is this: we were expelled from our own lands, and Kurds are not allowed to remain in their own regions. They are bombed every day, driven out of those areas, intimidated and forced to leave. These are the similarities. But there is also a difference. We had a free, independent state. They intervened in that state, destroyed it, and took part of our land. In the Kurdish case, at least and I say this in quotation marks, there was no such state, and on the pretext that it was ‘their’ land, they presumed they had the right to intervene, even though it was neither legal nor moral. So there are similarities; both peoples suffer. That is why we must seek democratization in Turkey and everywhere else. We have no enmity toward the Turkish people. On the contrary, we want to live in peace, but we do not want to be a people perpetually subdued and deprived of rights.
Turkey’s military presence in both the Kurdistan regions and Cyprus is described by the public as an “occupation.” How do you assess the impact of this presence on peace in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean? We see problems everywhere Turkish troops are present, how would you explain its effect on peace?
We see this clearly. We see that Turkey is currently trying to impose itself on the entire region and to display its power. It is presenting itself as a rising regional force. Beyond part of Cyprus, it is also occupying Syria; it has troops as far as Africa and bases everywhere, and thus it seeks to assert its superiority everywhere. Through agreements with Libya, even if these are unlawful and irregular, it seeks to demonstrate this power. This must be understood, and the free world must press Turkey on this: this is not the way to assert oneself in the twenty-first century. The weak also have a right to live in this world, and we are claiming our human rights. Every person can live freely in their own homeland, and if a neighbor is stronger, let that neighbor live by its own strength in its own homeland; it should not interfere in the lives of others.
How can the Kurdish freedom struggle and the Cypriot people’s desire for a just peace reinforce one another amid ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and the unresolved Kurdish question? In other words, if problems in the Middle East were resolved, would this reflect positively on Cyprus or if peace were achieved in Cyprus, would it have a positive impact on the Middle East?
I believe that a solution establishing a just structure for the Kurds in the Middle East would contribute to the region’s stability. First of all, hostilities would end. Sabotage would cease. The needless shedding of human blood would stop. This would of course have a positive effect on all other surrounding conflicts as well, but it does not mean that solving one problem will automatically solve the other. There will be some positive effects, yet as humanity we must stop recognizing the law of the strong and affirm that we live in a world where justice prevails. Everyone has their own strength and their own rights.
What is your view on the role of religious leaders in efforts toward a solution? We do not fully know the situation among Turkish Cypriots, yet in Turkey there are many prominent Muslim scholars and religious leaders who support peace initiatives, along with Alevi elders who take the same stance. In the context of the Cyprus question, what can you say about the possibility of religious leaders taking on greater responsibility? As a religious leader, addressing both Turkey and Cyprus do you have concrete proposals or a message you wish to convey?
Religious leaders possess a moral code derived from our belief in God. Despite differences in individual beliefs, this moral code contains many similarities and can show respect to every person and to their freedom. The problem in Cyprus and in Turkey is that religious leaders are becoming instruments of the political regime and therefore cannot express themselves freely. They are unable to fulfill the aspirations that arise from their faith. They follow certain orders on this matter and, although we previously held some meetings here between representatives of Muslims in Cyprus and the archbishop, as well as other denominations living here, this dialogue has not progressed and in recent years has come to a halt, due to the intervention of the occupying forces. I believe the world would be at peace if religious leaders were allowed to express their beliefs freely without interference, but unfortunately, they are not allowed to do so.
We have just two final questions. First, what is your message to Abdullah Öcalan?
I appreciate the value of his struggle for his people over many years, and I wish him greater patience so that these difficulties may be overcome and so that one day all his efforts will be recognised by the world.
In your view, what should the future of Cyprus be like, what kind of country do you wish Cyprus to become for the children who will grow up here?
I have said this before. Like all other Europeans, the people of Cyprus must also enjoy certain freedoms. These are European freedoms, individual freedoms. When everyone has their rights, whether they are Greek, Armenian or Turkish, but when they have these rights as the permanent lawful residents of Cyprus, they will not fear one another and will live as free people. This is our vision for Cyprus. Cyprus must be a free country with all democratic processes that exist elsewhere and with all the rights that all other Europeans possess.
Thank you. If there is anything I have not asked, or if there is anything else you would like to add within the scope of our interview, please feel free to do so…
Although we live in the twenty-first century, I believe the law of the strong still prevails. If we are to survive in such a place, we must prepare ourselves and have adequate defenses and the means to resist. We do not live in an ideal world. The values and principles we discussed earlier will remain valid. That is why, even though we desire a peaceful solution, we should at least aim to establish a defence shield in Cyprus so that the occupying forces understand they will face resistance and hardship, and that remaining or withdrawing will be costly for them.