It is generally agreed that a united and stable Cyprus could contribute to stability in the Eastern Mediterranean. The status quo on the island is not favourable to any of the parties, mainly because the potential danger of confrontation between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots, between Turkey and Greece, and now, with the forthcoming admittance of Greek South Cyprus to the EU, between Turkey and the EU, is looming in the background.

There is no doubt that the economic and other benefits of a reunited Cyprus within the EU would be tremendous. Of course, it would have been more acceptable, and legal, had the EU allowed both peoples on the island more time to thrash out their differences before taking the ill-advised stop, under duress, to admit a divided island to its ranks. Many researchers and publicists, including German academics, have criticised the EU for going ahead with a rather reckless policy of admitting a divided island as a member, and thus risking the alienation of Turkey and of many well-informed Turkish Cypriots.

The EU has gone to considerable lenghts to explain to the Turkish Cypriots the benefits of EU membership, while rejecting, out of hand, the arguments of many eminent international jurists that the membership application by Greek South Cyprus, in the name of all Cyprus, is invalid, and that the EU, which poses as the champion of legality, justice and fairness, has completely forgotten these principles as regards the legal and constitutional status of the island, and in particular, of the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey, under the 1959-60 international Cyprus Treaties.

The EU has also completely ignored the fears of Turkish Cypriots, about their security and the danger of losing their hard-gained freedom from oppression and discrimination. While the economic benefits of EU membership may be attractive to many Turkish Cypriots, who suffer privations and unemployment owing to the embargo unfairly imposed on them by the EU, well-informed Turkish Cypriots are wary about their future, thinking that they may be swamped by the Greeks in the absence of solid and long-lasting EU derogations that may enable them to preserve Northern Cyprus permanently as a Turkish Cypriot homeland. However, if Turkey is also admitted as a member, such problems will hardly arise.

Many attempts have been made by international organisations, mainly by the UN, to find an equitable, acceptable and lasting solution to the Cyprus imbroglio; but these were not successful, because the experts of these organisations failed to understand the internal conditions of the island and the needs of the two main populations. Even the drafters of the Kofi Annan plan have failed to grasp and address such needs. In fact, the Annan report created more problems in solving some of the old ones.

My personal opinion, for what it may be worth, is that, the Turkish and Greek Cypriots should themselves try to solve their differences, without external intervention. They know very well what these problems are and could work out a modus vivendi that would enable them to co-exist without rancour, and hopefully in peace and prosperity. In their attempt to find such a solution the EU can help tremendously, not by favouring one community over the other, but by advancing concrete proposals that would go a long way to satisfy the needs, and address the real fears, of both communities. The EU has the moral and legal onus to do so, for it is mainly responsible for the present impasse on the island.

While this process of negotiation continues, the EU should also consider the needs of Turkey, a candidate member, who has made tremendous sacrifices in terms of finance and manpower, in securing a safe haven for the Turkish Cypriots in Northern Cyprus. This can best be done by giving concrete assurances to Turkey that she would be treated as an EU member in her relations with Cyprus, and that her Treaty rights under the 1959-60 international Cyprus Treaties will be guaranteed, until Turkey also becomes a member of the EU.