Cyprus: An EU Presidency occupied by Candidate Turkey

Imagine Germany or France assuming the Presidency of the European Union (EU) while a third of their country is occupied by a powerful neighbour. That is exactly what happened on Sunday, July 1, on a smaller scale when the Republic of Cyprus took over the Presidency of the EU, while Turkey – an EU Candidate country - is occupying a third of the island!

The whole of Cyprus has been a member of the European Union for the past 8 years, since May 1, 2004, so the EU had plenty of time to anticipate what was going to happen when it would be the time for Cyprus to assume the Presidency.

Yet the EU has done practically nothing to avoid such an embarrassing situation, apart from a half-hearted European Parliament Resolution adopted on March 29, this year.

The present situation might be a reflection of three possible scenarios, among others. Either the EU in spite of all its glorified status and clout is hopelessly powerless when faced by the intransigency of a candidate country; or the EU rotating Presidency has become just a formality after the introduction of a long term Presidency; or the EU could not care less about the security of its own smaller members; or all of the above.

Cyprus had all the credentials to join the EU in 2004, and it should not have been penalized simply because Turkey invaded and continued to occupy the north of the island for the past 38 years.

The challenge for the EU should have been to persuade Turkey to withdraw its troops from EU territory.

All the members of the EU are also members of the United Nations (UN) and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), among others. So in fact, these EU members have practically done nothing not for 8 years – since 2004, but for 38 years – since July 1974!

The European Union has come a long way since the European Coal and Steel Community, but it is evident that the current group of political leaders are completely different from the statesmen and visionaries of 62 years ago, such as Robert Schuman and others.

One of the main purposes of pooling the resources and industries of coal and steel was to move away from war and towards peaceful coexistence.

How can invasion and occupation be compatible with the acquis communautaire of the EU.

Negotiations towards accession should not have even started with Turkey before it withdrew its foreign troops from EU soil. This is not a question of EU Chapters, but the very essence of the EU and its peaceful political existence.

UNSC 353(1974)

Turkey completely ignored UN Security Council Resolution 353 (1974) of 20 July 1974, which demanded “an immediate end to foreign military intervention” and requested “the withdrawal without delay of foreign military personnel” 38 years ago.

Turkey has similarly shown no interest in abiding by section 43 of the EP resolution of a few weeks ago “to begin to withdrawing its forces from Cyprus …”.

There is another very important consideration, which is rarely ever raised. Turkey is not just any other third country. It is an EU Candidate country, and a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

According to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, an attack against one member shall be considered an attack against them all. What are the implications when a NATO member is the aggressor against a third country? Does NATO carry any responsibility? Can it be said that NATO as a whole has invaded and occupied Cyprus? Is Article 51 of the UN Charter being used in a perverse way?

It is a disgrace for NATO to allow one of its members to continue to occupy a vulnerable small island for 38 years with impunity. After the end of the Cold War, NATO has tried to project an image of a “Partnership for Peace”. In reality, NATO continues to be a Partnership for War, as was evident last year.

The European Union has a major problem. It is not a question of widening or deepening, or speaking with one voice. The problem is that it is made up of member countries with double standards and a dual personality.

They have all joined the EU in support of common values and in pursuit of peace, but at the same time the most powerful members have no difficulty in engaging in wars when they put on NATO military uniforms!

The UN has taken 40 years to set up a Peacebuilding Commission, and has so far failed to find a solution to the Cyprus Question. The OSCE has only just started to discuss “reconciliation” after 40 years! Neither the global nor the regional organization have made the slightest impact on Turkey, or persuade it to withdraw its troops from Cyprus.

The Republic of Cyprus has taken pains to leave its own domestic problems and challenges out of the EU agenda for these six months. In theory this is laudable, but in practice it does not make sense.

As far as it is known, no EU Presidency has addressed the Cyprus challenge since May 2004.

Greece – Cyprus’ closest ally - does not appear to have done anything during its Presidency to resolve the Cyprus conflict. If Cyprus does not take care of its own interests when it is performing the role of the Presidency, no one else is going to do that or look after the island’s own interests.

The EU has shown no solidarity with Cyprus in substance during the past 8 years, and Cyprus is likely to be completely forgotten for the next 13 years or more once the Presidency is over.

The EU is showing that behind a façade of Summit meetings and photo opportunities for domestic consumption, in essence, it is still mainly just a common market and a huge bureaucracy.

If any small countries have considered joining the EU for security purposes, they might as well think again, because the EU has not been capable of delivering when it comes to security, at least until now.

This week marks the 38th anniversary of the invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkey after a short-lived coup by the Greek military junta. The EU continues to act as if nothing had happened and is continuing to happen to its Presidency. How insensitive or irrelevant could the EU be?

--------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The author is a retired diplomat from Malta, who served at the Permanent Mission of Malta to the UN in New York, the Delegation of Malta to the OSCE in Vienna, and the Embassy of Malta in Washington DC, as the Deputy Chief of Mission. He is conducting research on peacebuilding in Cyprus for a Ph.D. in conflict analysis and resolution at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University. The opinions expressed are his own and do not reflect those of the authorities in Malta or the University.