Close window  

Looking Back, Thinking Forward: Reflections on book presentation of Building Bridges Across the Green Line, by Benjamin Broome


‘I see a period with dark clouds ahead of us.’
‘I don’t see any enthusiasm for bringing people together.’
‘The hope that I once felt is no longer there.’

These less than optimistic words were offered by veteran peacebuilders during the book presentation of Building Bridges Across the Green Line, held on 29 June 2006 at the Fulbright Center in the buffer zone. The comments provided a poignant reminder of the disappointment and discouragement felt by many about the current situation on the island. Without visible signs of movement toward an agreement to end the political stalemate that divides the island, those who have struggled hard and long to promote better relations between the two communities of Cyprus are wondering if their sacrifices were worth the prices they paid. In the days following the book launch, as I talked with friends and colleagues, I found many asking questions such as: Why continue promoting communication and cooperation across the Green Line when the political situation is so discouraging? If the future of Cyprus is a divided one, what is the value in pushing for reconciliation? When so many forces are working against a united island, what purpose is served by working hard for peace?

As I listened to the hard reality described by my friends, my thoughts turned to the difficult times that occurred during earlier periods of political crisis – the Imia-Kardak confrontation in the Aegean in 1996 that nearly brought Turkey and Greece (and by extension Cyprus) into armed conflict; the aftermath of the buffer zone incidents that same year that poisoned the rhetoric of both sides and severed bi-communal contact for several months; the ‘shutdown’ of bi-communal activities in 1997, just when they had reached a point where a critical mass of ordinary citizens were involved in cross-community activities; the S-300 missile crisis in 1998 that heightened tensions at both the political and citizen levels. In each of these situations, the bi-communal activities came to a standstill, and for most of those involved in peacebuilding efforts, hope seemed lost. Yet in each situation the ‘bi-communalists’ found a way to rebound and ‘rally the forces’ to move forward. The ‘dark clouds’ brought not only dangerous winds but also nourishing rain that strengthened the peace movement.

The ability of these groups and individuals to overcome obstacles such as those mentioned above can be traced in part to their work in developing a collective vision for peacebuilding activities in Cyprus. In the mid-1990s a core group met for several months to struggle through the process of identifying, clarifying, and structuring a set of goals to guide peacebuilding efforts on the island. Their work was not easy, and at times it seemed as if it would not be possible to come to agreement on a broad vision, but through their commitment to dialogue and their willingness to take risks, they constructed one of the first truly bi-communal visions for the future of Cyprus. It served as a foundation for many of the inter-communal activities that were implemented in the years that followed.

At the base of their vision statement was the goal ‘To provide opportunities for interaction between the two communities.’ Over the next decade, this group spent thousands of hours, devoted untold personal resources, suffered various forms of public criticism and harassment, and endured frequent setbacks in order to promote this goal. As a result several thousand Cypriots had the opportunity to come together in a variety of forums across the impenetrable divide of the buffer zone. Numerous friendships were made, countless misconceptions were changed, a great deal of goodwill was generated, and many projects were carried out, most of them under very difficult conditions.

While this vision and its emphasis on promoting contact and communication played a decisive role in peacebuilding for over a decade, it is time to revisit it in light of today’s ‘reality.’ The situation is different for two reasons. First, bi-communal contact has been ‘normalised’ by the partial lifting of the restrictions on crossing the buffer zone. One of the important ‘draws’ to the bi-communal events of the 1990s was the opportunity to meet people from the other community. Indeed, these activities were one of the only ways to satisfy one’s ‘curiosity’ about neighbors on the other side of the Green Line. Today, anyone can cross to the other side without the need for organised activities, and there is no longer a ‘permission game’ to play in order to arrange meetings. Second, the results of the referenda on the Annan Plan seem to have reinforced the wall of separation, making reunification not only less likely but even less desirable for many in both communities. And as time passes, attitudes seem to be hardening, even among many of those who once fought long and hard for a future of peaceful co-existence.

While the incentives for involvement may have changed, and the previous forms for meeting together may no longer be relevant, I believe that many of today’s basic needs in Cyprus are not so different from those that drove the bi-communal movement ten years ago. One of the important goal statements in the vision developed by the core group of peacebuilders in 1995 read: ‘To minimise the effects of national chauvinism and promote the idea of a polyethnic inclusive federal society.’ Surely no one involved in the bi-communal work would claim that this goal has been met or that it’s less important today. If anything, it is even more central to the work of peacebuilders. The same is true of other goals, such as ‘To make known and acknowledge the basic needs, fears and aspirations of each community to the other community,' and ‘To accept and respect each others' identity as Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots and see this as a richness rather than an obstacle to peace building.’ These statements, all of which were constructed after weeks of intense discussion, still provide a strong raison d’être for reconciliation efforts in Cyprus.

It is uncertain what the immediate future will bring to Cyprus, but there is little doubt that eventually (probably sooner rather than later) the island’s society and economy will revolve around joint ventures and close cooperation on common interests and problems. Today’s interconnected, multi-cultural, globalised world means we all have to find a way to live and work together with our neighbors, and Cyprus is no exception. Especially after a political settlement is reached it will be critical to have a solid base of people with skills and experiences in working together productively. Otherwise, any agreement will quickly run into trouble. Does this base of experienced and skilled cross-community partners exist in Cyprus? Certainly the practical business interests of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots will lead them to many opportunities for working together when the time arises, but the best positioned will be those who have been involved in various types of bi-communal projects (such as those funded through UNDP-ACT). Their experience will serve them well as they deal with the inevitable ups and downs of working together in a new Cyprus.

However, simply bringing people together on a project team does not guarantee success, and in some cases relations might worsen. Years of separation, reinforced by negative images of the other derived from the education system, the media, and political propaganda, do not ‘let go’ effortlessly, and it is easy to blame the other when things fail. The progress made in the mid-1990s by the core group of bi-communalists came in large part because their cooperative projects took place in the context of a sustained process of structured dialogue. Through their interaction and joint exploration of tough issues, they remained committed to peace through very difficult periods.

In order to work together effectively, participants must create a ‘safe space’ in which learning about the other’s position becomes just as important as advocating one’s own views; a place where everyone listens with respect instead of repeating the rhetoric of their community’s political leaders, the media, and education systems; an environment that allows everyone to acknowledge responsibility for past mistakes in lieu of placing blame on the other side. Through such dialogue, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the concerns, needs, and aspirations of the other side; they can develop mutual respect for each other’s values and beliefs; they can realise that all sides suffered from past events; and they can discover ways to work through disagreements and conflicts. As Andrew Russell, Programme Manager, UNDP-ACT, described in the most recent edition of this newsletter, dialogue is like the open central courtyard traditionally found in Latin American homes, offering a place where individuals from diverse cultures and backgrounds can come together to build new relationships and to work together towards the achievement of common goals.

As any gardener or farmer will tell you, the process of nurturing trees, crops, or flowering plants requires a great deal of care and commitment, and they need the most nourishment and special attention during storms and periods of drought. At the recent 25th observance of the International Day of Peace, the UN’s Special Representative to the Secretary-General, Michael Møller, offered these words of wisdom: ‘If we are to achieve a culture of peace, each of us must nurture and build on the principles of diversity and dialogue.’ Perhaps these words of advice are especially relevant in the midst of today’s discouraging situation. If those with experience and insight can continue their heroic efforts to build this culture of peace, it might one day become a reality even on this fiercely resistant eastern Mediterranean island that proudly advertises itself as ‘the birthplace of Aphrodite, goddess of love and beauty.'

Benjamin Broome