Dr. Michalis S. Michael from La Trobe University Center of Dialogue was the first to begin to speak at the panel meeting. He said that he did not consider the conflicts between nations as irremediable issues. Michael indicated that since 2001, there were various changes and influential external and internal factors in Cyprus as the sources of problem. Finding the conditions in Turkey positive and the physical separation in the island as the factor that results in losing communication, Michael focused on possible scenarios for the solution of the problem. After making a short evaluation of to what extend the approaches of the federation and confederation in the island will be successful, Dr. Michael made some suggestions for the solution:A solution in a parallel with the EU can be developed. The idea of living together should be strengthened; cooperation mechanisms in favor of both nations should be supported; problems should be dealt with properly without a digression from democracy; the political parties should fulfill their duties in this direction; the sources should be distributed fairly; and both nations should be taken into consideration in the constitution.
Michalis S. Michael emphasized that it is also a multidimensional problem. “The internal powers can never put their plan into practice on their own. The concept of legitimacy is important for making plans and putting them into practice. With detailed analysis the issue should be handled realistically. For the solution of the problem, contact with the EU is significant”, said he.
After Michael, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Yılmaz Çolak- lecturer Eastern Mediterranean University- began to speak. He said that the Cyprus problem had been dominantly handled in terms of the international relations and the legal system until now; yet the issue had never been dealt with from the perspectives of the two nations. He also said that upon the AK (Justice and Development Party) Party came to power in 2002, a new period started in Cyprus; the Turkish side took the initiative for improvements in the process; Talat, known as political elite, came to power in 2004-2005 in the Turkish part of the island; and Talat tried to solve the problem at the risk of making concessions. After Christofias was elected as the president in 2008, Talat and Christofias have met for 70 times; but they have not produced a mutual document. Dr. Çolak also indicated why after the Annan Plan, the South said “no” whereas the North “yes”. In a parallel, he stated that the education program in the South clearly puts an emphasis on the feeling of “othering” while the youth in the North are in favor of a solution to the problem. He further reiterated that with the opening of the doors, the young people from the North have been considered as “the others” by the ones in the South and additionally nationalism has risen in the North upon some problems.
Furthermore, Çolak stated that under these circumstances, if the Annan Plan was put to a vote, most people from the North would also say “no”. Laying stress on the reasons of the closure of the political elite party and of the election of more nationalist the National Unity Party with the general elections of 2009 in Cyprus, Çolak listed the reasons in such a way: “The promises of the Annan Plan were not kept; Talat and Christofias disappointed people; and it was understood that it was the South that did not want the solution”.
On the other hand, Işılay Arkan -Chancellor Assistant at Near East University- pointed out that in order to solve the Cyprus problem thoroughly, people should know history and also make others know it. He said that the church had a great influence on the Greeks. If the problem is really wanted to be solved, the influence of the church should be reduced. He also focused on the fact that the Turkish people in Cyprus are unorganized whereas the Greeks are well organized. He summarized the truths that should be accepted for the solution of the problem: “There are two nations in Cyprus and their languages, religions, and races are different. The enosis idea of Etnik-i Eterya (Greek National Organization) has not been denied yet; but it should be. The church should abandon its ideological attitude. We should have equal legal rights. There can never be a solution in Cyprus with artificial ideas”.
What is more, Ambassador (R) Dr. Ahmet Zeki Bulunç- the Board Member of Center for Strategic Research- focused on the fact that the real causes of the Cyprus conflict should be analyzed thoroughly. The idea of “enosis” lies at the center of the Cyprus conflict whereas the external powers consider 20 July Peace Operation as the starting point of the conflict. Greece regards Turkey as the state destroying the status quo; yet Turkey is in favor of the status quo in the foreign policy. He stated that Cyprus was strategically very important and the concerned states prioritize their own interest instead of the interest of the people in the region. In order to fulfill their missions, the external powers try to diminish the number of the Turkish population in the region and to make them minority. Additionally, Bulunç ended his speech after mentioning some dates he considers as the milestone: 1995 the Customs Union, 1999 Helsinki Summit, 2004 Brussels Summit Decision, and 2005 Negotiation Frame Text.
After the presentations, the questions part started and the panel ended with a cocktail.
