So while we wait for saviors from abroad and rejoice at what is supposedly an exposé of Turkey’s hypocrisy, someone should explain to the local residents on what legal basis they can invoke their rights
Speaking from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly, the President of the Republic denounced the double standards of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. In his speech, President Christodoulides sought to highlight the hypocrisy of the Turkish President, who on the one hand invokes the United Nations Charter regarding Palestine, and on the other hand violates it in Cyprus.
Although the statement is correct, the President’s move to highlight this hypocrisy essentially exposes him as well, revealing the flawed strategy he himself is pursuing. The President’s reasoning is based on the need to respect international law. For Cyprus’s very survival depends on the survival of international law. Our demands for liberation from the occupation and the occupying forces depend not only on the United Nations itself but also on the compliance of states with the organization’s principles. How, then, does this align with our stance toward the Israeli government today?
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
How can we invoke humanitarian law when Cyprus itself has been found to be blocking efforts within the European Union to suspend the Association Agreement with Israel, on the grounds of the need to comply with human rights principles? While other countries allied with Israel are moving forward—albeit slowly—with sanctions regarding the occupation and settlement activity in the West Bank, how can Cyprus remain silent under the pretext of its alliance?
What credibility do we have when we not only remain silent but also support a government that is currently brutally settling the West Bank, has brought utter devastation to Gaza, and systematically violates international and humanitarian law? And while we proclaim that our aim is to inform the international community about our own “justice,” on what basis can we possibly do so anymore? What basis can we invoke when we ourselves do not apply the very principles we demand others apply toward us? And at the end of the day, if international law is degraded to the point where we’ve regressed to the law of the strong, what hope do we have of surviving in the face of NATO’s second-largest power?
The entire course of action of the President of the Republic and all political forces that agree with it is based on this strategic fallacy. A strategic fallacy based on a myopic approach that leads us to believe we are shielding ourselves, when in fact we are eroding the very foundation upon which our own claims rest. That is why our commitment to international law serves the strategic interests of the Republic of Cyprus, and is not merely the obsession of a few “romantics.”
At this point, we must acknowledge that there is a lingering sense that Israel might come to Cyprus’s aid in the event of an invasion by Turkey. We’ve had similar false hopes in the past, though, and that’s more or less how we ended up where we are today. And yet even today, we are swept away by the empty statements of a man wanted by the International Criminal Court—a court that is trying to catch him wherever it can—now targeting Erdogan. Israel, however, under the same leader a few years ago—and while the occupation of Cyprus was already in place—maintained very close ties with Turkey. And in the same way, it may try to reestablish those ties if it ever deems it to be in its interest. The truth is that investing in the rivalry between Israel and Turkey the only thing it could lead to, under the current circumstances, would be the extension of their conflict onto Cypriot soil.
So while some are essentially telling us to continue investing in an arms race and constant militarization, even as international law is constantly being undermined, in Cyprus we are constantly faced with the dead ends brought about by the absence of a solution to the Cyprus problem. As long as we look the other way, thinking we have time until the geopolitical balances shift, the situation on the ground is changing, and now the battle over the buffer zone is intensifying, with Deneia being the most recent example. The occupation continues, the alienation between the two communities is deepening; the language of peace is absent from our rhetoric, and we do not seem to realize that we are simply letting the facts on the ground dictate our course. This is also evident in the lack of any vigilance regarding the resumption of negotiations.
So while we wait for saviors from abroad and rejoice at the supposed exposure of Turkey’s hypocrisy, let someone explain to the people of this land on what legal basis they can invoke their own rights. Because in the end, our course reveals our own hypocrisy, while the impasse is already before us.
