������

After a challenging marriage of four years from 1960, 2024 marks the 60th anniversary of the separation and the 50th anniversary of the divorce between the two communities of Cyprus. Isn't it time for the United Nations and Cypriots to consider giving the two-state solution option a chance?

There is no question about international support, in principle, for a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, yet this has been an elusive objective to achieve.

At the heart of this failure is the fact that illegal Israeli settlement in occupied Palestinian territories has meant that there are no longer any pre-existing distinct and contiguous areas of settlement upon which the two separate states could be negotiated and built.��

But this doesn't extend to the two main communities of Cyprus.

They were separated physically, geographically, politically and socially when Turkish Cypriots, outnumbered 4:1 by Greek Cypriots, were driven out of their homes in 103 villages at gunpoint during 1963-64, giving rise to 25,000 Turkish Cypriot refugees.

They withdrew into many small enclaves and the UN Peacekeeping Force was installed to keep the peace between the two sides in March 1964. If we regard the relationship between the two communities as a marriage in 1960 when the Republic of Cyprus was established, this split represented their separation after just��four��years of togetherness.��

So for the last 60 years, negotiations between the two communities have been based on what has been termed a “bi-zonal, bi-communal federation”. These have all failed, earning Cyprus the title of being the .

Following this separation, the two communities’ divorce came 10 years later in 1974.

The Turkish Cypriots have lived in northern Cyprus, and Greek Cypriots in the south for the past 50 years following an attempt by the Colonels Regime of Athens to annex Cyprus to Greece through military force on 15 July 1974.

This was followed by the military response from the Turkish mainland aimed at protecting the Turks of Cyprus from further ethnic attacks on 20 July 1974.��

So, unlike in Palestine, having a clear area for each population in Cyprus presents a much easier starting point for the implementation of a two-state solution.

Such a solution offers many advantages to both sides and could break years of impasse in reaching any agreement based on the bi-zonal, bi-communal federation model which necessitates power-sharing — a very tough call.

In Cyprus, the resolution of land and property is key

The biggest grievance for Greek Cypriots is land and property.

Currently, each side occupies some land which legally belongs to people on the “other side”.

This places restrictions and uncertainty over what can be done with this land. As part of a mutually agreed package between the two communities, land belonging to owners “on the other side” could be exchanged��en masse, thereby immediately making legal the use of such land.

The issue about any outstanding “balance” of land due to Greek Cypriots, based on title deeds ownership could be dealt with through the reassignment of the bordering land, or through compensation. ��

Such a package would have the added benefit of releasing the 346 square kilometre UN buffer zone, and 38 square kilometres of prime coastal land — Varosha — for use, providing new resources for the economic regeneration of both sides.����

After the inter-communal fighting of 1963-64, the United Nations Security Council made a shocking error of judgement.

The Council would have been clear that the Turkish and Greek communities were two equal founder members of the Republic, and that the Turkish Cypriots were by far the main victims of the conflict.

It unfortunately agreed to resolution 186 which gave legitimacy to a Greek Cypriot-only government as the representative of all the land and people of Cyprus and in doing so made a nonsense of the constitution agreed by the two Cypriot communities, Turkey, Greece and Britain.��

Sadly, the consequence of this has been that for the past 60 years, 10 years earlier than the events of 1974, the Turkish Cypriots have been internationally invisible - socially, economically and culturally while the Greek Cypriot side��thrived on��all the benefits of statehood.

So Turkish Cypriots will have much to gain from the recognition that a two-state solution would bring, and bring to an end all the embargoes placed on them.

It is also clear that a two-state solution would overcome one of the deepest fault lines in the shotgun marriage of 1960 where two very different communities and historic rivals were forcefully thrown together.��

As Glafcos Clerides, the late veteran Greek Cypriot politician put it “Cyprus was born and remained without a national anthem and with a flag, required by its constitution to be of neutral colour and design – a flag which neither the Greeks nor the Turks considered to be their national flag and for the glory of which no one wanted to die”.

He went on to confirm his vision, opposed to the spirit of an independent and multi-cultural Cyprus by confessing that “I want candidly to admit at the outset that I shared the frustration of my Greek Cypriot compatriots at our failure to achieve our national aspiration to unite Cyprus with Greece”.��

Greek Cypriots are passionate believers in Hellenism. Turkish Cypriots always look up to their “motherland” Turkey for support.

A two-state solution would give each community the freedom to chart their own proud, distinct religious and cultural future, while, at the same time allowing them to trade, socialise, work and live together on the same island.

We know they will do these things because there are already millions of crossings each year across the “Green Line” and both communities take holidays, visit restaurants, buy goods and socialise with each other, but do so within the security of their own borders.

A two-state solution would be an extension of this but based on a fairer sharing of resources and unconstrained political freedom for each community.

Fahri Zihni is a former chair of the Council of Turkish Cypriot Associations (UK), a former policy advisor at the UK’s Cabinet Office and a former president of the Society of IT Management, UK.��

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of ������, its editorial board or staff.