Read part A here and part B here
If the past 50 years since the Turkish invasion have shown anything, it is that capitalism cannot solve the Cyprus problem. Despite numerous attempts and discussions about a solution, countless UN resolutions, there is nothing on the horizon indicating a positive outcome.
In theory, this does not rule out the possibility of an agreement, between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides, at some point. Whether such an agreement will be a solution, however, is another matter. Agreements between ruling classes with competing interests are often unstable and temporary. They change the character of a problem, but do not solve it. One example of this is Ireland. With the Good Friday Agreement some 25 years ago (signed in 1998, implemented in 1999), it was thought that the problem had been solved. The truth is that it was not. The division remained and even worsened, and the conflicts returned. The domestic political scene is still dominated by the Catholic-Protestant conflict, and the future may hold greater instability if Catholics seek to impose union with Southern Ireland since they are the majority of the population in Northern Ireland already.
In the case of Cyprus, there are not only the conflicts within Cyprus, but also the confrontation between Greece and Turkey, which is far from diminishing over time. This means that though an “agreement” cannot be ruled out at some point, it will not be a real solution to the problem. The problem will continue to exist in one form or another, with the risk of new adventures and conflicts.
Conflict of Interests
The reasons preventing the two sides from reaching an agreement, stem from the real conflict of interests between the two ruling classes on the island, the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot ones, as well as the mainland Greek and Turkish ruling classes.
The Greek Cypriot ruling class is very strong compared to the Turkish Cypriot ruling class. The Greek Cypriot capital includes multinationals spread all over the world, with a significant presence in the Middle East, the Balkans, and even China. This capital would certainly like to see a solution to the Cyprus issue, i.e., an end to the division, unification of the island, and a single government to run it. But on one condition: that it controls the government so that it serves its interests, as is the case in all capitalist states.
This is the crux of the differences. If the Greek Cypriot ruling class cannot control the central government on the island in a possible future “solution”, why should it bother to seek for it? It would be forced to constantly make compromises and concessions to the Turkish Cypriot side without getting the necessary benefits, i.e., among other things, without being able to economically “invade” and essentially take over, economically, north Cyprus.
On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot ruling class is too small, weak, totally dependent on the Turkish state and unable to compete with the Greek Cypriot capitalists. Therefore, a reunification solution that would allow the free movement of capital, people, goods, etc., would enable Greek Cypriot capital to completely displace the Turkish Cypriot capitalists, thus diminishing their power in north Cyprus.
Therefore, it is not in the interest of the Turkish Cypriot ruling class to accept a solution that would completely unify the island. It could only accept a solution in which the northern part of the island is controlled by itself. But this is something the Greek Cypriot ruling class does not want and has no reason to accept.
This is the economic background to the political contradictions. Let’s complete the picture with the rising nationalism that has been growing on the Greek Cypriot side in the last 2-3 decades. It is important to remember that the Greek Cypriot parliament is building statues and museums for the despicable criminal Grivas, while in the last European elections of June 2024, the neo-fascist ELAM came third (after DISY and AKEL) with 11.2% of the vote. Let’s also consider the developments on the Turkish Cypriot side, as after the 2020 elections, the nationalist, pro-partition (two-state solution) Ersin Tatar won against the center-left Mustafa Akinci.
In this matrix, we must also include the interests of the Turkish and Greek ruling classes, which, as already mentioned, are in fierce competition with each other. Turkey did not occupy 40% of the island by war only to hand it over to the Greek and Greek Cypriot ruling classes.
For decades, the Greek and Greek Cypriot sides have hidden behind the so-called “Turkish intransigence” to mask the real conflict of interests that defines the nature of the Cyprus issue. They could constantly talk about the need for a solution, the implementation of UN resolutions, peace on the island, etc., knowing that the Turkish side would not accept any of these. This bluff was exposed in the Crans-Montana negotiations in 2017, when the deal finally stumbled on the refusal of the Greek side.
Illusions and Lies
Over the past two decades, the Greek Cypriot capitalists have cultivated a series of illusions about the potential for a solution to the problem. One of them was that if Cyprus joined the EU, it would put pressure on Turkey and the regime in north Cyprus to accept a settlement along the lines that the Greek and Greek Cypriot side wanted. This –as everyone now knows– never happened.
Another illusion was that the discovery and exploitation of natural gas in the area would force the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot side to recognize the supremacy of the Greek Cypriot side and accept a solution based on its interests. This did not happen either. In fact, the opposite occurred. When the exploration for gas reserves started, Turkey sent warships to chase away the exploration ships that were representing the interests of French and Italian energy companies, which were eventually forced to retreat in order to avoid a conflict. Turkey then sent its own ships to carry out its own surveys.
Can they not, or do they not want?
These kinds of illusions have collapsed, and today the Greek Cypriot ruling class seems to be moving in a different direction. It is no longer that they “cannot” solve the Cyprus issue, in the sense that they cannot find a solution that suits them, but there are enough indications that they do not actually want to solve it. They do not see a reason to seek a solution, and in this way they identify themselves with the positions of the nationalists.
The Greek Cypriot capitalists basically believe that they are powerful and rich enough and do not need north Cyprus. They seem to prefer to consolidate the island’s partition without saying so openly and certainly without recognizing the Turkish Cypriot state, which would grant it rights.
The last failed attempt to solve the Cyprus issue was in 2016-17, which ended in a fiasco at the meeting in Crans-Montana (Switzerland) in 2017. It was the first time that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres indirectly blamed the Greek side and not Turkey for the failure of the talks. AKEL (also indirectly) did the same.
It was also the first time that a large percentage of Cypriot public opinion (which cannot accurately be measured objectively) blamed the Greek Cypriots and the Greek side for the failure of the negotiations and not “Turkish intransigence.”
Who Can Solve the Problem?
Since the ruling classes cannot solve the problem within the framework of the capitalist system, the question is, “who can?”. Despite the fact that the ruling classes are in conflict, the working-class people and the oppressed, objectively, have nothing to divide, they have no reason to fight each other.
The conditions for a solution to the Cyprus issue can only be created by the working classes on both sides of the divide, through initiatives from below, with mobilization of the working class and the poor, with grassroots committees, with joint committees of the inhabitants of different towns and villages, with joint actions, rallies and demonstrations.
But mobilizations and actions from below cannot impose a solution if the ruling classes do not want it. At best, they can impose a temporary agreement that will be unstable and will collapse in the future, through new conflicts that will emerge. This is why it is necessary to link those initiatives with the struggle to create new Left forces that go beyond the traditional one — militant, radical, revolutionary mass left formations, that will claim power from the ruling class.
In this way, the foundations can be laid for a socialist federation on the island, allowing the two communities to live in peace and isolating the nationalists on both sides who will surely try to provoke new bloodsheds.
Lessons from 2004
One of the most important lessons from the recent history of Cyprus is the power of the mass movement as revealed during the Turkish Cypriot uprising in 2004. In an unprecedented social explosion, Turkish Cypriots took to the streets, en masse, demanding a solution to the Cyprus problem, based on the proposals made at the time by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. A solution to the problem was never arrived at – the Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos was the one to refuse Annan’s proposals this time.
Nevertheless, the revolt of the Turkish Cypriots forced both the Greek and Turkish rulers to open the previously closed and impenetrable border that divided the two sides of the island.
Since then, there has been the possibility of contact, communication, and joint actions between progressive, left-wing forces and movements from both communities, which are trying to lay the foundations for a future solution to the problem of separation.
Political Equality Between the Two Communities
The working classes can find a way out of the labyrinth of the Cyprus issue, because they do not have conflicting interests. Of course, there is mistrust due to the decades of separation and conflict, and therefore it is necessary to recognize the right of self-determination for the minority, i.e., the Turkish Cypriots.
This means that it would be a mistake to insist (as many in the Left do) on a “one-state” solution. Such a move would, in practice, transform the Turkish Cypriots into a minority within the common state—essentially a return to the past that created the conditions for the current separation. It would be wrong to expect the Turkish Cypriots to accept this.
Therefore, a future workers state for the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot working classes and youth, should be federal, in the sense that the Turkish Cypriots would not have to answer to a government in which the Greek Cypriots would have the upper hand. This is the concept of political equality of the two communities, regardless of the size of one or the other, that the Left must hold high on its banner, if it really wants to overcome suspicions and have peace on a stable and permanent basis in Cyprus.
Once this is solved, i.e., the question of “power”, which prevents the representatives of the capitalists from finding a solution, the rest (territorial issues, the right of refugees to return, property rights, etc.) are practical matters that can be resolved with the necessary patience and relevant work.
Socialist Federation
A federation as a solution is therefore possible, provided that the representatives of the capitalists are out of the way and power has been transferred to the working class. For this to happen, of course, mass workers’ and left parties must be built.
Today, a solution of a “socialist federation” for Cyprus (and for Greece and Turkey) may seem very far away and unrealistic, but this has not always been the case. In the 70s, 80s, and part of the 90s, it was a proposal adopted by large sections of the population. For significant parts of society, it was a common belief that only the Left could solve the Cyprus problem.
Since then, a lot of water has run under the bridges: the retreat of socialist ideas, particularly enhanced by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990; the emergence of new left parties like SYRIZA, which capitulated and implemented policies demanded by international and local capital; and the rise to governmental power of the Left in Cyprus, both AKEL in the south and CTP (Republican Turkish Party) in the north, without it managing to take a single step towards a solution. All of these had a significant impact on consciousness.
Today, the traditional Left is very much discredited in the eyes of the people, and it is not possible for anyone to believe that it can solve the Cyprus issue. This is one of the reasons why we see ELAM at 11.2%.
Opportunities for the Anti-Capitalist Left
The nationalist governments on both sides of the divide are constantly trying to impose difficulties on the contact between the two communities despite the opening of the border between south and north Cyprus. However, the potential for communication and coordination between the progressive forces is much greater now that the borders have been opened than before.
Joint rallies and marches of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, joint events, solidarity actions, and joint committees in various cases are a frequent phenomenon, although they do not yet have the necessary numbers.
These activities create a positive basis. However, they cannot gain real momentum because there is no mass left forces to provide for it, by setting the goal of anti-capitalist subversion and socialist transformation.
The image of the mass left on the island, AKEL in southern Cyprus and CTP in northern Cyprus, is a complete dead end, and there is a huge vacuum on the left of the political spectrum. It is in this vacuum, that the forces of the serious anti-capitalist left on both sides must intervene with a clear, unambiguous aim: to rebuild the Left in both the south and the north on a truly left-wing, revolutionary foundation.
