untitled

PREFACE

A GUIDE TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN CYPRUS

Benjamin J Broome

Cyprus Fulbright Scholar

THE GREEN LINE

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS

PREFACE

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE Benjamin J Broome

"Building Bridges Across the Green Line draws from many years of contact and cooperation between

Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, who often came together under difficult conditions and

overcame many obstacles to their work. The book summarizes the wisdom of the pioneers in bi-

communal activities, and it will be a valuable guide for those who take the simple human step of

communicating with their neighbors on 'the other side' of the buffer zone. It is gratifying to note that

the author used as part of the title of his book the phrase: "Building Bridges" because back in 1978,

when we started our co-operation, we were on record saying in a UNDP publication, that we are

"building bridges" and that "it may take us half way along the path". We've come to know Benjamin

Broome through a number of ground-breaking workshops he facilitated over the past decade, and

this book reflects both his keen understanding of the two communities in Cyprus and his commitment

to building links between people separated by conflict."

Lellos Demitriades and Mustafa Akinci

Former Mayors of Nicosia

green COVER-ENG 03-04-06 14:50 Page 1

In this guidebook, Benjamin Broome explores the dynamics of intercultural

communication in unofficial contacts across the Green Line in Cyprus. The book

begins with an overview of efforts over the past three decades to promote

cooperation across the buffer zone, with an examination of the obstacles

confronted by those involved in these projects. Drawing from bi-communal

workshops he has facilitated during the past decade, the author describes the

images, both positive and negative, that each side holds of the other, helping the

reader recognize the differences that divide the communities, while appreciating

the commonalities that bind Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots together. He

provides a revealing look at issues of identity, showing how they are intricately tied

to the conflict that divides the communities. Practical suggestions are made for

establishing trust, engaging in dialogue, and working together on joint projects.

Finally, he discusses the social and psychological impact of cross-community

contact and its importance in preparing for life after a settlement. Designed for

anyone who wishes to understand the challenges and the promises of

communication across the Green Line, it will be useful for novices and veterans

alike, outside third-parties working in Cyprus, and the serious traveler who seeks to

comprehend the complexity of bi-communal relations on this conflict-divided

eastern Mediterranean island.

Benjamin Broome is a professor of communication at Arizona State University in the

USA. During the last decade he has facilitated workshops, training programs, and

seminars with community groups, NGOs, and project teams in Cyprus, focusing on

intercultural communication, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution.

green COVER-ENG 03-04-06 14:50 Page 2

MAKING CONTACT

A GUIDE TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION IN CYPRUS

Benjamin J Broome

Arizona State University

Fulbright Scholar in Cyprus

THE GREEN LINE

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS

2005

by the United Nations Development Programme

UNPA, P.O.Box 21642, 1590 Nicosia, Cyprus

Book design and production by Action Global Communications

Cover illustration and design by Action Global Communications,

representing the Venetian Walls of Nicosia,

with the Green line dividing the city.

stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means,

electronic, mechanical, photocopying,

recording or otherwise, without prior permission.

Printed in the Republic of Cyprus.

ISBN: 9963-627-01-3

With support from the

Bi-communal Development Programme

funded by USAID and UNDP

and executed by UNOPS

The publication of this guidebook was made possible with a grant

from the Bi-communal Development Programme (BDP), which is

funded by the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

and is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services

(UNOPS). I would like to express my appreciation to the former

Programme Manager of the BDP in Cyprus, Mr. Miran Rechter, for

his leadership and endorsement of this project. I am especially

grateful to Mr. Thore Hansen, Former Deputy Programme Manager

and Ms. Ece Akcaoglu, Programme Analyst of the Bi-communal

Development Programme, who guided the proposal process to a

successful result. In addition, I would like to express my thanks to

USAID, especially Ms. Elizabeth Kassinis and Ms. Kim Foukaris,

whose support was critical to the success of this venture. Special credit

is due to Clark Price, whose initial encouragement is responsible for

my pursuit of the project. I am indebted to the former U.S.

Ambassador to Cyprus, Donald Bandler, for his confidence in my

ability to produce a useful product.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With support from the BDP during the summer of 2001, and

with invaluable assistance from the Hellenic Foundation for

European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP) in Athens and Sabanci

University in Istanbul, I had the opportunity to organise and facilitate

a series of seminars that were held in Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey,

culminating in a workshop in Bruges, Belgium, that brought together

over thirty Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Turks, and Greeks for

discussions about rapprochement activities in the region. Many of the

ideas generated in those meetings are included in this book, and I am

grateful to the participants for their willingness to share their

experiences and insights. The full report of the seminar, with a list of

participants and members of the facilitation team, is available upon

request from the UNDP/UNOPS office in Nicosia, Cyprus.

Most of all, I want to thank my Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-

Cypriot friends and colleagues who participated in the bi-communal

workshops that took place during my stay in Cyprus from 1994-1996

and who have provided leadership for the bi-communal activities

over the last decade. It was from them that I learned the difficulties

and rewards of building bridges across the Green Line. If others find

this guidebook useful, the credit goes to these courageous and

committed individuals, who are the true ‘pioneers' in building the

future of Cyprus.

Benjamin Broome

Tempe, Arizona, USA

The information, content and language in this publication are the authors’ own and

do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the BDP, its funders, or its

executing agency.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Acknowledgements i

Table of Contents iii

Preface v

1. Introduction 1

2. Entering Unfamiliar Territory 5

3. Making Contact 10

Historical Overview of Bi-communal Contacts 13

Political Contacts 15

Business and Professional Meetings 18

Citizen Gatherings & Exchanges 20

Conflict Resolution Activities 22

Pioneering Bi-communal Groups 28

Special Projects 32

4. Confronting Obstacles 38

Use of Bi-communal Events as a Political Tool 41

Negative Portrayals in the Media 44

Concern about 'Recognition' 45

Personal Criticism 49

Dealing with Frustration 50

CONTENTS

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

5 Encountering Images 51

How do Turkish Cypriots see Greek Cypriots? 53

How do Greek Cypriots see Turkish Cypriots? 56

Appreciating Differences 58

Recognizing Variety 60

Discovering Commonalities 61

6. Examining Identity 63

Connection to Motherland 66

Attachment to Cyprus 70

Burden of the Cyprus Conflict 72

Relation to the Other Community 73

Cultural Characteristics 74

Connection to International Community 76

Identity and Interdependence in the Cyprus Conflict 77

7. Taking Steps toward Success 81

Establishing Trust 82

Constructing a Safe Environment for Dialogue 87

Working Together Productively 92

8. Shaping the Future 96

Social and Psychological Impact 97

Preparing for Life After a Settlement 101

Some Words of Advice from the Veterans 104

Conclusion 106

References 108

Resources on the Web 113

Regional Peace Building 113

Conflict Resolution 114

Intercultural Communication 114

About the Author 116

Index 119

For more than a decade there have been sustained attempts by

Cypriots from both communities to promote contact and cooperation

across the Buffer Zone (referred to as the ‘Green Line') that has

divided Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots from one another for

over three decades. Commonly known as ‘bi-communal activities,’

these efforts have ranged from intensive conflict resolution workshops

to academic seminars, panel discussions, cultural events,

environmental projects, summer camps and other youth gatherings,

and receptions to commemorate special holidays of various

diplomatic entities. The bi-communal activities have been locally

driven, but in many cases they required the logistical assistance of

third-parties, and in some cases they were facilitated by outside

trainers and other technical experts. For the most part, these events

provided the only way for Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots to

meet one another in Cyprus.

In recent months, however, major developments have taken

place in Cyprus that significantly affect contacts between the

PREFACE

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

communities and the role of bi-communal activities in promoting

these links. The first of these developments occurred in April 2003,

when the restrictions that had long prevented communication and

contact across the Buffer Zone were partially lifted, allowing for the

first time in nearly thirty years ordinary Greek Cypriots and Turkish

Cypriots to visit one another in their homes, sit together in coffee

shops and restaurants, shop in one another's stores, and work

together on a limited basis

A second major development occurred in December 2003,

when elections in the north brought to power a pro-rapprochement

party that views inter-communal contacts favourably. A long-held

stance by Turkish-Cypriot officials against inter-communal contacts

was removed, and for the first time the Turkish-Cypriot authorities

voiced their support for cooperation with the other side. Many of the

individuals who played a leading role in the rise of pro-solution

parties in the north have participated actively in the bi-communal

activities over the years, and several have indicated that the co-

existence stance they advocate was developed as a result of the

opportunities they had to engage in intense discussions and dialogues

with Greek Cypriots about the core issues of the Cyprus problem.

Their ascent to positions of influence has drastically lowered (but

probably not eliminated entirely) the social pressure and media

criticisms that ‘bi-communalists' have long experienced in the north.

The most recent development, and perhaps the one with the

most serious long-term consequences, occurred on 24 April 2004.

United Nations-sponsored negotiations were restarted in January

2004, with agreement from leaders of the two communities that a

version of the ‘Annan Plan,' which had originally been the focus of

negotiations in 2003, would be submitted to separate referenda in

each community. Upon acceptance by voters in both communities,

the plan would take effect on 1 May 2004, the day that Cyprus was

scheduled to become a full member state of the European Union

(EU), allowing Cyprus to enter the EU as a unified state. While the

PREFACE

vii

Turkish Cypriots voted heavily in favour of the Annan Plan, the

Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected the plan, thus preventing it

from taking effect. This negative vote on the part of the Greek

Cypriots not only made it less likely that a political agreement would

be reached in the near future, but it led to a great deal of

discouragement among those involved in the peace process, including

both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who had worked so hard

and for so many years in the interests of rapprochement. Hopes for

large-scale cooperation between communities were dashed, and the

individuals and groups working for reconciliation had to re-group

and re-think their strategy.

At the time of this writing, it is difficult to know what will happen

next, either with the prospects for a political agreement or with the

future of bi-communal efforts on the island. However, one thing is

clear – the dynamics of inter-communal relations have been changed

irrevocably by the recent developments. Even without a political

settlement, it is unlikely that the Green Line will ever again function as

an impenetrable wall between the two communities. Thousands of

individuals will continue to cross the line on a daily basis, some to work

or seek services, others to shop, eat, visit friends, or take excursions.

With or without a solution, it is likely that joint projects dealing with

infrastructure, environment, education, and health will go forward,

and joint business ventures will become more common.

Face-to-face communication with members of the other

community is now an unavoidable reality for many in Cyprus, from

the shopkeepers on Ledra Street, to the doctors and nurses at Nicosia

General hospital, the waiters in Kyrenia and Bellapais, the taxi drivers

in both communities, and the Cypriot general public. Individuals who

might never have considered taking part in third-party organized bi-

communal activities are confronted with the need to interact with ‘the

other.' Economic and practical incentives for cooperation drive cross-

community contacts, and many opportunities are developing for joint

projects across a wide spectrum of society.

On the surface, it may appear to outsiders, or even to ordinary

Cypriots, that there is no ‘communication problem' between Turkish

Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. After all, when people get together,

they get along well, often enjoying each other's company. And since

the checkpoints were opened, there have been no serious incidents of

violence or other problems to indicate that the two communities are

unable to get along. However, for the vast majority of Cypriots

crossing the Green Line or meeting visitors from the other side, the

conversation has never moved beyond a surface level. Cypriots of

both communities tend to exhibit a politeness toward strangers, and

their cordiality can go a long way toward smooth relations – as long as

interaction stays within ‘safe' topics. Yet the burden of the Cyprus

conflict remains over everyone's head, and sitting in a coffee shop on

the other side enjoying a leisurely Sunday afternoon does little to

remove the weight of living in a divided country. And carrying on a

casual conversation is very different from working together on a daily

basis, struggling with disagreements and managing conflicts

productively.

Unfortunately, few people understand well (if at all) the views

of the other community, and many people hold misleading images

about the other side. It is inevitable that people will experience

difficulties, and without adequate knowledge, such incidents can

easily spiral into negative consequences. In order for interaction to be

effective and for joint projects to work smoothly, it is important for

those involved to understand more about the dynamics of

intercultural communication, to learn more about the ‘reality' of the

other community, and to be able to ‘process' their experiences within

a framework that helps them work through the confusion and

uncertainty that inevitably accompanies such contact.

There is no ‘secret formula' that guarantees successful

encounters across the Green Line, but there is much wisdom that can

be gained from the experiences of those who have been involved in

such encounters for the past decade. In addition, there is a large body

of literature about intercultural communication, and although every

viii

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

situation is different, there are some basic guiding principles that govern

fruitful cross-cultural interaction. This guidebook is designed to share

the wisdom of those who have already travelled along the bi-communal

road and to suggest ways to maximize the inter-communal experience.

It should be useful to anyone involved in cross-community contacts,

from experienced bi-communalists to those new to inter-communal

relations. I also hope it will be helpful for the third parties and other

members of the international community working with Cypriots,

outsiders living in Cyprus, and to Greek and Turkish organizations

that have relations with Cypriot NGOs, businesses, and other groups.

A Turkish-Cypriot official recently stated: ‘The days of

intercultural conflict are giving way to an era of intercultural

cooperation.'

For much too long Cypriots have been concerned

primarily with the conflict. Now it is time to shift the focus toward

learning more about cooperation and consensus building. Cyprus

and its people cannot afford to remain stuck in a painful and

dysfunctional past. It is time to move toward the future and join the

multicultural world of which all Cypriots are members.

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

The easing of restrictions on crossing the Green Line was noteworthy for several

reasons. First, the decision to allow contact on such a grand scale took nearly everyone by

surprise. The relaxation of restrictions seemed to go against a decades-old policy by the

Turkish-Cypriot leadership, which had restricted most forms of contact between the two

communities, and which for several years had enforced what amounted to a 'ban' on meetings

by bi-communal groups. Neither the diplomatic community nor the Greek-Cypriot authorities

had anticipated a move to ease the restrictions, and the citizen peace groups in both

communities were not optimistic about severe limitations on contact being removed before a

solution. Second, the response of the people in Cyprus to the new 'freedoms' was more

positive than expected. The procedures included a requirement (now lifted) for Greek Cypriots

to show their passport when crossing to the north, and it was assumed by most people that

the majority of Greek Cypriots would refuse to 'recognize' the Turkish-Cypriot regime by

presenting this document at the checkpoint. Yet, the rush to cross the Green Line started

almost the moment the new rules went into effect, and traffic has been steady since, with

more than half the population of the island going to the other side at least once, many on a

regular basis. Third, the long-held fear that inter-communal hostilities would start again once

people could travel freely was dispelled. Fortunately, there have been no extreme acts of

violence, and while relations are far from normalized, the contacts have gone smoothly,

particularly in light of the propaganda within each community over the years that promoted

negative images of the other side.

Dr. Hasan Alicik, head of the Turkish-Cypriot Educational Planning and Programme

Development department, as quoted in the Cyprus Mail, Thursday, July 15, 2004.

In May 1994, I travelled to Cyprus for the first time, entering a world

that for me was simultaneously both familiar and strange. Fourteen

years earlier I had spent a year teaching at the American College of

Greece, and in the meantime I had returned to Greece and the

Aegean numerous times. So stepping off the plane and seeing signs

written in the Greek script, catching a glimpse of the shimmering

Mediterranean sea, and feeling the hot sun blazing down from a deep

blue sky made me feel right at home. However, it was soon apparent

that I was no longer in Greece. Just outside the airport stood a

strikingly beautiful mosque, situated on the shores of the Larnaca salt

lake. Driving to Nicosia, we passed a military guard post sitting high

on a hill overlooking a village, and as we neared the city the image of

the Turkish flag jumped out at me from the side of the Pentadactylos

Mountains. And when I opened the curtains to my hotel room, I

looked down on the barbed wire and bullet-pocked buildings of the

Buffer Zone that divides the city and the island. Completing my

initiation, I crossed the next day to the north, passing through the

checkpoints on both sides of the time warp of the Buffer Zone. The

1. INTRODUCTION

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Green Line was no longer just a dotted mark on my map of Cyprus.

None of these signs of division were a surprise to me, as the

Cyprus conflict had been part of my intellectual world since 1980,

when my Greek and Greek-Cypriot students at the American College

in Athens had impressed upon me their version of events. Later, my

Turkish students in the United States helped me see the other side of

the situation, and my own research helped me put it all in a larger

perspective. Nevertheless, the impact of encountering the conditions

in person was overwhelming. Now I was seeing and hearing myself

the signs, symbols, and rhetoric to which I had been exposed

previously only through the eyes and ears of others.

From the beginning of my stay in Cyprus I felt the weight of

the conflict. I was in Cyprus not as a tourist but as a third-party

facilitator, and the enormity of the task before me was evident not just

in the outward signs of separation but particularly in the discussions I

had with people around me. It seemed impossible to have a

conversation with anyone – from the taxi driver to the shop owner to

my neighbours to officials – without the Cyprus conflict entering the

discussion. The intensity with which it was discussed, the polarization

of the issues, the uncompromising attitudes, and the despondency

conveyed by almost everyone combined to leave me less than hopeful

about the possibility of serving in a useful role during my time in

Cyprus.

It was not long, however, before a more positive force entered

the picture, and it provided a much-needed lift in my spirits. I started

meeting the individuals who were involved in the bi-communal

activities. At that time, there were only a few, but their courage and

commitment were impressive to me, and it takes only the dimmest of

lights to help one navigate in a dark cave. Gradually, I overcame my

initial shock and discouragement, and I took on what the diplomats

often state as ‘cautious optimism.'

Over the years, as the bi-communal movement grew, I gained

great respect for these early pioneers in Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-

Cypriot rapprochement. I saw them struggle through many difficulties,

most of which would have turned back the average person. I also

witnessed them make mistakes, which temporarily set back their work,

but from which they recovered and continued. Later I saw people drop

out of different bi-communal groups because of various frustrations,

and I watched the people in these new bi-communal groups make the

same mistakes as others before. It was then I began to realize that those

who became involved at later stages of the bi-communal work, bringing

with them a tremendous amount of energy and new ideas, could

benefit greatly from the wisdom of those who had gone before. Thus

grew the idea for this guide.

Since returning to my academic position in the States in 1996,

I have had several opportunities to make public presentations, take

part in academic panels at conferences, and write articles for academic

journals and chapters for edited books. In this guide, I have borrowed

much from these earlier writings. These previous publications (see

references) have been reviewed by colleagues in Cyprus, as well as

subjected to the normal academic review process, so they have been

scrutinized carefully. Nevertheless, some of my remarks are likely to

generate disagreement. If there are mistakes in my observations, I

take full responsibility. At the same time, I realize that it would be

difficult to write anything meaningful that would be completely non-

controversial. I hope that those who disagree with the ideas I present

in this book will share their comments with me. I know that my own

knowledge will continue to grow over time, as ideas are tested in the

complex world of cross-cultural interaction.

Cypriots who enter into working relationships across the Green

Line face a unique set of circumstances and need knowledge of the

specific situation they will face as much as they need general principles

and guidelines. Thus, in this book I have tried to present a balance of

situation-specific information with well-tested principles about

forming intercultural relationships, developing empathy, resolving

interpersonal conflict, and working together productively.

Anytime a third party offers advice and guidance to those with

whom he or she is working, a great deal of care is needed. Although

INTRODUCTION

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

the people of Cyprus are my family and friends, and the shape of their

future matters a great deal to me, I am constantly aware that I am an

outsider to the Cyprus conflict. I did not live through the experiences

that divided the island, and it is unlikely that I will suffer the direct

consequences of failure to reach a satisfactory settlement. My status as

an ‘insider-outsider' allows me to play a special role in the conflict, but

it does not give me a special lock on the ‘truth.' Rather, it places me in

a position to see the truth in the perspectives of both parties. If it

serves no other purpose, I hope that this book helps its readers reach

a similar place in their journey across the Green Line.

The Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots lived together in peace before the

Turkish invasion in 1974. We were neighbours, and we got along well,

attending each other’s weddings and other celebrations. Unfortunately,

Turkey found an excuse to exercise its intentions about Cyprus, and when they

used force to separate us, they destroyed the peace on our beautiful island.

Greek-Cypriot shop owner

Before the Peace Operation in 1974, the Greek Cypriots always treated us as

second-class citizens. They controlled everything and they made our life

miserable. It was not safe to travel, and we couldn’t go to our fields and other

places of work. We faced massacres and a systematic attempt to force us from

the island. Fortunately, Turkey came to our rescue when things went too far

(with the Greek coup), and now for the first time we have the opportunity to

live in peace.

Turkish-Cypriot business leader

The two primary communities in Cyprus have been physically

divided for forty years, since the outbreak of inter-communal

hostilities in December 1963, which resulted in the creation of the

Green Line running through Nicosia and the formation of Turkish-

Cypriot enclaves throughout Cyprus. The 1974 war, which divided

2. ENTERING

UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

the island into two ethnically distinct geographical areas, cut off nearly

all contact and communication between the two communities. Without

the opportunity to work together, socialize, or know each other as

neighbours, a wide chasm was formed between Greek Cypriots and

Turkish Cypriots, generating misunderstandings, misconceptions, and

mistrust. As time passed, unfavourable images of the other became

more solidified and more difficult to change. People who once knew

each other as neighbours lost touch with one another, and the new

generation, with no direct experience of the other community, was left

with nothing but the negative views passed on to them by parents,

teachers, and the media. In today’s world, where most societies are

characterized by ethnic and cultural diversity, Cyprus became an

anomaly, seemingly left behind by the winds of global change.

Until recently, the only mechanism for contact between the

two communities was a small but steadily growing set of bi-communal

activities, some organized through local efforts and others by the

international community. Workshops, seminars, training programs,

cultural events, social gatherings, and numerous joint projects

brought people from the two communities together for a variety of

opportunities to learn about each other. These activities have served

as a positive force to help bridge the widening gap between Greek

Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. They have helped change some of

the inaccurate images each community holds of the other, and they

have led to many friendships and working relationships. The bi-

communal events have served as a crucial link between the two sides

of the Buffer Zone, holding open a small channel of communication

and keeping alive the possibility of a shared future.

Today the island finds itself in a place that would have been

hard to imagine only a few years ago. For the first time in decades,

travel is permitted back and forth across the Green Line, allowing

ordinary people the opportunity, and for many the necessity, for

contact across community lines

The potential for mutual learning offered by cross-community

contact is not realized easily, however, and the prospect of

disappointment, discouragement, and disillusionment is always

present. For many people who have ‘given a try' to bi-communal

groups, the experience has not been a satisfying one, often leading to

frustration and painful feelings. For some individuals, meeting with

the other side has served only to reinforce their previously held

negative images.

There are numerous obstacles to successful experiences across

the Green Line, and unless one is properly prepared for them, the

possibility of failure is high. Just as importantly, a satisfying

encounter requires appropriate attitudes and actions to be exhibited

by both parties. Awareness of what it takes to promote positive bi-

communal relations can go a long way toward ensuring that the

encounter will be productive and satisfying.

In these few pages, I hope to offer some guidance for those

who interact with individuals across community lines in Cyprus.

First, I will provide a historical perspective on bi-communal contacts

between the two communities, reviewing some of the many types of

groups that have been formed during the past decade. Next, I will

discuss the potential barriers to successful encounters across the

Green Line, presenting some of the headaches and difficulties that

could face those who enter into contacts with members of the other

community. Then, I will examine the differences and commonalities

in perceptions that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots hold of one

another. This will be followed by an examination of identity issues in

Cyprus, particularly as they influence the Cyprus conflict.

Subsequently, I will propose a number of actions that individuals and

groups can take to promote positive, satisfying relationships across

community lines. Finally, I will take a look at the potential contri-

butions that bi-communal contacts can make to the future of Cyprus,

and I will offer a few thoughts about preparing for life after a

settlement. At the end of the book, I will suggest a list of resources

available on the web for those who want to learn more about

rapprochement in the region, and about intercultural communi-

cation and conflict resolution in general.

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

The ideas presented in this book are based on the experiences

of hundreds of individuals in Cyprus who have taken part in bi-

communal activities during the past decade. I’ve been fortunate to

participate in several of the bi-communal groups that operated

during this period, as well as a number of ‘four-party' seminars held

outside Cyprus. The discussions that we had in these groups and the

difficulties that we worked through provided a wealth of information

that can benefit others. I’ve observed the struggles that most groups

experienced as they sought ways to reconcile differences. I’ve

witnessed the changes many individuals went through as they came

to terms with views that conflicted with what they had been taught

about the other. I’ve talked with people as they tried to process all the

new and often confusing information they gained from discussions

involving the other community. And I’ve had the privilege of

facilitating dialogue in a bi-communal setting on many difficult topics

that form the core of the Cyprus conflict. In these pages, my aim is

to present some of the collective wisdom generated in the meetings,

seminars, workshops, and trainings in which I have participated,

placing it in a form that can be useful to others.

I believe it is important to be realistic in describing the

difficulties and differences one might face. Thus, some of the

discussion might come across as quite direct or my warnings might

seem harsh at times. My intention is not to discourage anyone from

cross-community contact, but I believe it is important to enter such

territory with full awareness of the potential pitfalls as well as

promises. What seem to be smooth surfaces can turn out to be

quicksand that swiftly traps unsuspecting journeyers.

My hope is that the information in this guidebook will enhance

the quality of the experience for those who find themselves in

conversation, group discussions, and working partnerships in a bi-

communal setting in Cyprus or abroad. There is nothing that can

guarantee success or smooth sailing, and sometimes things don’t

work out, no matter how hard one tries or which principles one puts

into practice. At the same time, many people have fully satisfying

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

experiences without conscious awareness of the information

discussed in the following sections. However, when we find ourselves

in unfamiliar territory, it is always a good idea to consult a map of the

area and to prepare for what might lie ahead. This can help prevent

many wrong turns and dead ends, and it can help us stay out of

quicksand and other difficult situations.

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

It is estimated that over 50% of Cypriots have crossed the Buffer Zone at least once

since the partial lifting of restrictions. According to a report by the Justice Ministry of the

Republic of Cyprus, there were 795,740 Greek-Cypriot visits to the north between June and

August 2003, while the number of Turkish-Cypriot visits to the south was 664,564 (from the

September 17, 2003 edition of the Cyprus Mail, www.cyprus-mail.com). Although traffic is

busy on most days across the checkpoints, it is especially heavy on holidays. For example,

according to a Greek-Cypriot police report (see the December 28, 2003 edition of the Cyprus

Mail, www.cyprus-mail.com) more than 5,000 Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots crossed the

Green Line on Christmas Day 2003, with nearly equal numbers from the two communities

(2,667 Turkish Cypriots and 2,683 Greek Cypriots).

I resisted going to Ledra Palace for a long time. My uncle is still missing from

1974, and my entire family was angry with me for meeting with the Turkish

Cypriots. Personally, I thought that as soon as I saw a Turkish Cypriot I

would feel nothing but hatred and resentment, after all that has happened.

But something compelled me to go -- perhaps it was a moment of weakness.

Now I spend more time with Turkish Cypriots than with my own family!

Greek-Cypriot civil servant

At first my friend had to twist my arm very hard to get me to meet with the

Greek Cypriots. I had my doubts about their sincerity, and I couldn’t see how

any good could come of such meetings. Now I know they feel pain just like I

do, and I realize that until we work together to ease it, everybody in Cyprus

will continue suffering.

Turkish-Cypriot mother

When examined from a purely objective point of view, there

should be little enthusiasm within either community to communicate

and develop relationships across the Green Line. The negative

portrayals of each other in the press, the bias in the educational

system, and the rhetoric of politicians, combined with the difficulties

surrounding any form of communication or contact, do little to

3. MAKING CONTACT

promote interest in bi-communal encounters. Fortunately, we have

found that the wall of separation, even though it has existed for more

than a generation, has not destroyed the desire of people to know

their neighbours. Many people are eager to come together, and it is

not only because of curiosity about ‘life on the other side.' Many

people have indicated to me that they feel a part of themselves

missing because they are separated from their neighbours in the

other community. There is a spirit of kinship that exists between the

two communities, and although it is not publicly recognized, most

people probably are eager for the ‘family feud' to end so they can

develop more normal relations with their ‘cousins.'

Fifteen years ago, there were only a handful of people

involved in regular bi-communal contacts. As more activities were

organized, it became clear that there existed a large unspoken desire

to meet people from the other community. This was particularly

evident during 1994-1997, a period when hundreds of individuals

participated in conflict resolution workshops and thousands of others

attended various bi-communal events. The growth in these activities

was slowed, but not stopped, by a decision of the Turkish-Cypriot

authorities in December 1997 to stop granting permissions for

Turkish Cypriots to cross the Buffer Zone to meet with their Greek-

Cypriot counterparts. The number of people involved in bi-

communal groups continued to grow despite many difficulties. This

increase in contacts did not eliminate the overall mistrust that is

present on both sides toward the other community, but it

demonstrated the existence of a willingness to meet together to work

on improving relations and building a basis for a common future.

After returning to my academic position in the USA in 1997, I

was often asked to make presentations about the bi-communal work in

Cyprus. Generally people were surprised to learn of the wide variety

of groups that had been meeting and the large number of people

involved in contacts with the other side. This surprise was shared by

Cypriots, Greeks, Turks, American academics, local community

members, and others who might have been in attendance. For most

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

of them, the only news they had received of Cyprus was about the

negative actions that one side had taken toward the other. Even now,

after more than a year of relatively open contact, few people are

aware that there has been such a sustained effort over the years by

citizen groups in Cyprus to build bridges across the Green Line.

In this chapter I will provide a brief historical overview of bi-

communal contacts in Cyprus. Although it is not meant to be

exhaustive, and it primarily covers the period until 2000, it will

illustrate the many ways in which forward-thinking individuals

helped keep alive the possibility of a joint future in Cyprus, and I

hope it will help portray the larger context of which any bi-

communal working relationship is a part. Having the bigger picture

in mind can help us pass through difficult times and deal with the

many frustrations that will inevitably occur (these are discussed in

more detail in another chapter). Anyone who finds themselves on a

bi-communal journey will find that many have gone before, and

there will be a lot of company along the way.

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF BI-COMMUNAL CONTACTS

Although contacts between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots

have been limited since the start of inter-communal violence in

1963, and were almost completely shut off between the forced

division in 1974 and the 2003 ‘opening' of the checkpoint, there

has never been a total cessation of contacts. Communities that

identify themselves as Greek-Cypriot remained in the areas under

Turkish-Cypriot administration (Maronite communities in the

Kormokiti area and a shrinking pocket of mostly older Greek

Cypriots in the Karpas), and people with families in these

communities were allowed limited visits across the Buffer Zone.

Approximately 200 Turkish Cypriots live south of the Buffer Zone,

and during certain periods after 1974, a number of Turkish

Cypriots were crossing the checkpoint in Famagusta to work in

Agia Napa, Larnaca, and other towns in the southeast corner of the

island

. There has also been significant contact among Cypriots

MAKING CONTACT

living outside Cyprus. For example, there are large communities of

both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots living in cities such as

London, and individuals socialize and work together. In addition,

students from both communities often study at the same university

in Europe and the United States, sometimes with meaningful contact.

In Cyprus, however, the restrictions placed on freedom of

movement meant that special arrangements were necessary in order

for most citizens to have contact with individuals on the other side of the

Buffer Zone. Until the ‘closing' of the checkpoint in December 1997, it

was primarily through the assistance of international diplomatic mis-

sions that bi-communal meetings were held. Even with such assistance,

it was always difficult and often impossible to arrange bi-communal

activities. There were very few bi-communal meetings during the 1970s

and 1980s, but for a short period of time, between 1994 and the end

of 1997, bi-communal groups met regularly. However, in December

1997 political difficulties meant that Turkish Cypriots could no longer

cross the checkpoint at Ledra Palace to meet with Greek Cypriots

Until this ‘interruption' of bi-communal activities, there was

a trend of increasing contact and communication, reaching a point

in late 1997 when at least one bi-communal group was meeting

almost every day of the week, bringing together over 2000

individuals across the dividing line. After permissions were

stopped, most regular meetings of bi-communal groups in Cyprus

ceased, but numerous contacts took place at the mixed village of

Pyla, located in the Buffer Zone next to the British sovereign area.

Between 1998 and 2003 it was one of the only places to which both

Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots had access. Occasionally,

there were large gatherings allowed in the Buffer Zone, usually

sponsored by the United Nations, political parties, or trade unions.

In addition, meetings took place outside Cyprus, and hundreds of

individuals maintained contact through the UN-operated

telephone lines and with electronic mail.

Activities aimed at bringing together Greek Cypriots and

Turkish Cypriots have spanned a wide range of issues. Some projects

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

have focused on practical matters, such as keeping the sewage system

operating properly in the divided city of Nicosia. Others have

focused on the political level, bringing together party leaders. A

number of bi-communal concerts, art exhibitions, and dance

performances have taken place. Professional gatherings of lawyers,

architects, and trade unionists have been held. Workshops and

seminars dealing with conflict resolution have been offered to various

groups. Several ongoing groups have met together on a regular basis

to discuss the core issues of the Cyprus problem. Special projects

utilizing the Internet have been sponsored, and a number of

electronic discussion groups were operating.

In general, bi-communal activities can be organized under six

broad categories: Political Contacts; Business and Professional

Meetings/Projects; Citizen Gatherings and Exchanges; Conflict

Resolution Activities; Ongoing Bi-communal Groups; and, Special

Projects (see Figure 1). The remainder of this section will describe

each of these categories in more detail.

POLITICAL CONTACTS

The one place where contacts are most essential in any conflict is at

the political level. Without negotiation, discussion, and dialogue

among the political leaders, military confrontation becomes more

likely. Fortunately, Cyprus has avoided the latter since 1974, in part

because the community leaders have maintained an ongoing series of

negotiations, usually with U.N. sponsorship. Even though the

negotiations often broke down without making much headway, and

there were times when one side or the other refused to participate in

talks, at least the dialogue has not broken off altogether.

In addition to the negotiations that have taken place between

the political leaders of the two communities, there were other

meetings involving political contacts. For a number of years, the

Slovak Embassy sponsored regular gatherings of the leaders of the

political parties in both communities. These meetings usually took

place in Ledra Palace and were established as a way of helping the

MAKING CONTACT

political leaders stay in touch with one another and exchange views.

At times these meetings were held on a regular basis, and at other

times there were long gaps between contacts, but over the years, the

meetings have continued to take place.

There also have been occasional visits by political party leaders

to the other community, where they have made presentations to a

particular group or taped an interview that was broadcast on

television. Pioneering these efforts, in May 1995, George Vassiliou,

former President of the Republic of Cyprus, gave a presentation on

the European Union to a large gathering sponsored by the Turkish-

Cypriot Young Businessmen’s Association in Nicosia. In October

1997, Mustafa Akinci, leader of the Turkish-Cypriot TKP party,

travelled to the Greek-Cypriot SIGMA TV station to appear on a

televised panel dealing with political issues. Following these

examples, other lectures and interviews took place in later years.

Today, with the easing of restrictions on travel across the Buffer

Zone, meetings between political party members and leaders are

easier to arrange and more frequently held.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Political Contacts

Special Projects

Citizen Gatherings

& Exchanges

Business and

Professional

Meetings/Projects

Ongoing

Bi-communal

Groups

Conflict Resolution

Workshops, Training,

& Seminars

CONTACT &

COMMUNICATION ACROSS

THE GREEN LINE

FIGURE 1: BI-COMMUNAL CONTACTS IN CYPRUS

In addition, there were a number of contacts involving the

youth wings of the political parties. For several years there were

contacts between the youth organisations on the political left,

organised primarily by EDON, the youth wing of AKEL. In 1996,

a series of bi-communal workshops were organised for youth

organisations across the political spectrum, culminating in a

weeklong visit to Brussels sponsored by the European Commission.

This group continued to meet together on a regular basis over the

following year, and most of the youth organisations maintained

contacts across the Buffer Zone that continued even after the 1997

restrictions. In September 2000, the youth organisations helped

their parent parties organise a ‘Festival of Mutual Understanding’,

held at Ledra Palace in the Buffer Zone. This event brought

together over 7,000 Cypriots from both communities. Greek-

Cypriot parties organising the event were DISY, AKEL, KISOS and

the United Democrats; the Turkish Cypriot parties were the

Patriotic Unity Movement, Republican Turkish Party and the

Communal Liberation Party. The event included a bi-communal

cultural programme with music, dance and poetry.

Several workshops have been conducted outside Cyprus for

policy leader groups, including both elected officials and other

community leaders. For example, ten Turkish Cypriots and ten

Greek Cypriots attended a workshop in July 1994 at Coolfont

resort in West Virginia in the United States. This group continued

to meet together after returning to Cyprus. In a similar manner,

many of the elected leaders and appointed political advisors in

Cyprus participated in various workshops and seminars held

outside Cyprus during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although

such encounters were not for the purpose of negotiating specific

points of a settlement, they served to bring influential individuals

from each community into contact with one another, preventing a

total breakdown of communications.

MAKING CONTACT

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS

In many ways, the most ‘natural’ place for bi-communal contacts is in

business and professional settings. Some argue that economic and

collegial ties are the key to overcoming differences and building a

stable basis for future cooperation. Unfortunately, it is precisely these

contacts that are most difficult to initiate and sustain, particularly when

both sides refuse to engage in activities they believe might grant

legitimacy to the other’s political institutions. In spite of the barriers,

there were several groups that took initiatives to meet together

during the past decade, well before restrictions were relaxed in 2003.

Starting in 1978, the visionary mayors of the divided city of

Nicosia, Lellos Demitriades and Mustafa Akinci, formed a team of experts

to spur the completion of a joint sewage system for Nicosia, the con-

struction of which was interrupted by the hostilities in 1974. The success

of this effort led them to the creation of a joint force that would develop

a Nicosia Master Plan, a development blueprint dealing with all aspects

of life in a city that both men hoped would soon be reunited under a

single government comprised of separate ethnic zones. Architects, city

planners, sociologists, and economists met regularly during the 1980s

and into the 1990s in order to develop a scheme for developing

business districts, housing areas, parks, and even traffic patterns.

In March 1997, representatives of more than sixteen trade

unions in both communities held two historic meetings, one on each

side of the Buffer Zone. The event, sponsored by the European Union,

was the culmination of months of planning and meetings between

steering committee members. The unionists discussed many issues,

holding an open debate on such topics as the merits of Cyprus’ entry

into the EU. In September of that same year, on the occasion of

International Peace Day, Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot trade

unions submitted to the United Nations office in Cyprus a joint

declaration, urging the international community and the island’s

leadership to ‘hear the voice of the majority of the people and work

towards a fair solution which will bring peace to the island.’ Such

meetings have continued through the present.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Two different but complementary efforts were undertaken

to bring business leaders together. Both efforts were sponsored by

the U.S. Mission in Cyprus. A group of senior business leaders was

first brought together at Ledra Palace in 1995 by the U.S.

Ambassador. Eventually, Richard Holbrooke, appointed by

President Clinton as special envoy to Cyprus, brought this group

together with their Greek and Turkish counterparts for a series of

meetings outside Greece. Around the same time, the Cyprus

Fulbright Commission started a group of young business leaders,

and this group continued meeting on a regular basis through 1997.

Both groups explored opportunities for cooperative business

ventures that could be initiated prior to a settlement and under a

future federated Cyprus.

The Cyprus Fulbright Commission sponsored a series of

management training courses for mid-level and senior-level managers,

involving more than 250 Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. A

total of seven courses, each lasting for two to three weeks, were

offered between 1994 and 1997, five of them for mid-level managers

and two for senior-level managers. Topics covered in the workshops

included investment appraisal, management methods, and marketing.

All the seminars were conducted by the International Management

Development Institute (IMDI) of the University of Pittsburgh. The

managers who took part in these courses continued their contact

with one another, eventually forming an ongoing bi-communal

group and organising exchange visits to each side of the buffer zone.

Finally, a number of professional groups met in a bi-communal

setting, including lawyers, educators, journalists, accountants,

environmentalists, medical professionals, mental health care

workers, social work professionals and others. In some cases,

professional groups met outside Cyprus for workshops or special

training. For example, a group of educators met in Boston in 1996,

and a group of senior-level newspaper editors attended journalistic

training together in Washington, D.C. in 1996. In most cases,

however, the professional groups focused on special projects in

MAKING CONTACT

Cyprus related to their areas of interest. For example, a group of

lawyers from the two communities started meeting in 1995,

continuing their meetings until the end of 1997. Their main task was

to review the changes in law that had taken place in the two commu-

nities since 1974, when the legal system had been a unitary one, so

that integration of the now separated systems could be accomplished

more easily after a political settlement is reached. Another example

is provided by a group of educators who worked over a period of one

year to identify ways in which the other community is portrayed in

history books and literature taught to children in the school systems,

proposing ways to eliminate the ‘enemy image’ from such materials.

It is difficult to judge the overall impact these projects have had on

the larger society, but the outcomes have been very important in

changing perceptions among those involved.

CITIZEN GATHERINGS & EXCHANGES

Without contact between citizens from all sectors of society, it is

unlikely that any agreement signed by political leaders will succeed.

Yet, in Cyprus it is the ordinary citizens who were prevented from

any kind of normal contact for twenty-nine years. Thus, it became

even more important to find ways to organize citizen gatherings and

exchanges. Although there were many barriers to such contact, there

were numerous attempts to bring together people from all walks of

life across the dividing line.

Perhaps the largest bi-communal gatherings were special

receptions sponsored by various diplomatic missions. The United

Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), for example,

holds an annual open house on 24 October (U.N. Day), at which

special activities are planned by the U.N. staff. These events have

often attracted large numbers of individuals from both communities,

sometimes totalling more than two thousand. There were also several

receptions and programmes sponsored by individual embassies,

often on the occasion of a particular country’s important holiday, or

in honour of a special guest to the island.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

In addition to receptions and informal gatherings, the United

Nations, often working with other diplomatic missions, organised

several music concerts in recent years. A U.N.-sponsored pop concert

featuring mainland Greek and Turkish singers was the first of its

kind in Cyprus and brought together thousands of young Greek

Cypriot and Turkish Cypriots in June 1997. The event was marred

by protests in each community, but participants joined hands, gave

each other flowers, and sang together ‘Give Peace a Chance.’ Several

concerts at Ledra Palace over the years have featured local groups,

and in every case the individuals in attendance mixed easily, dancing

and singing together. In addition to these one-time musical events, a

bi-communal choir was established and has been meeting together

for several years to learn and practice songs that derive from each

community’s tradition

Special exhibitions were also held featuring art, photography,

and other works by individuals in both communities. For example, in

1996 there was an exhibition sponsored by the European Union of

political cartoons by both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The

American Center sponsored an exhibition of photographs taken on

both sides of the Buffer Zone. The Peace Centre in the Greek-Cypriot

community organised a recitation of Turkish-Cypriot poetry. These

exhibitions did not bring together large numbers of people, but they

served as important symbols of peaceful co-existence.

Finally, several pilgrimages were organised in which Greek

Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots were able to visit holy sites on the

‘other side’ of the Buffer Zone. Greek Cypriots were allowed on

several occasions to visit one of the most important Orthodox sites on

the island, Apostolos Andreas monastery in the Karpas. As many as

1,300 pilgrims travelled in buses from Nicosia to the remote church,

usually on the saint's feast day. In a corresponding gesture of good

will, programs were organized to bring Turkish-Cypriot pilgrims to

Hala Sultan Tekke in Larnaca, one of Islam’s most venerable shrines.

In none of these visits was there much, if any, contact of the pilgrims

with the local population. Nevertheless, the pilgrimages served to

MAKING CONTACT

reconnect those who made the visits with the important places on the

island, helping to ease the pain brought about by lack of access.

The various gatherings and exchanges involving citizens

groups in Cyprus cannot, by themselves, bring about significant

social change. Receptions, concerts, exhibitions, and visits to religious

sites do not offer opportunities for more than casual exchanges, and

in many cases people may meet only a single time without seeing

each other again. Symbolically, however, they were very important in

promoting a better future for Cyprus. They allowed people to meet

face-to-face, and they helped to dispel some of the myths that are

perpetuated about the other community through the education and

media systems. It is more difficult, following a pleasant conversation

with a fellow Cypriot, to continue spreading hatred. However, for

genuine change to occur, the opportunity for deeper and more

sustained dialogue must be possible. This was the role of the various

bi-communal activities described in the next section

CONFLICT RESOLUTION ACTIVITIES

The most sustained and intense efforts to promote bi-communal

contacts during the past decade came in the form of workshops,

training programs, and seminars dealing with the growing field of

conflict resolution. These took the form of problem-solving

workshops, introductory and advanced conflict-resolution skills-

training, interactive design processes, mediation training, and special

seminars and study groups dealing with issues such as identity,

property concerns, federation, and European Union issues. In a

society where conflict permeates the system, these activities played a

crucial role in providing a way to deal more effectively with

differences. They helped many individuals in each community gain

a better understanding of the issues as perceived by the other side,

and they introduced new skills into the repertoire of each

community. Significantly, they provided a ‘safe space’ in which

healing and reconciliation could take place, thus relieving some of

the immense psychological burden that plagues the whole of Cyprus.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Finally, they resulted in many bi-communal friendships and working

relationships that could not have existed otherwise.

The problem-solving workshops in Cyprus had their

beginnings in 1966, when John Burton and his colleagues in London

offered a five-day workshop in ‘controlled communication’ that

brought together high-level representatives from the two

communities

. Some years later, in 1973, an informal seminar

involving political leaders of the two communities was held in Rome

Attempting to build on the success of this event, Lawrence Doob

made plans to offer a workshop in Cyprus in July 1974, but the

events of that period precluded such an activity

. A locally organised

workshop involving intellectuals, called ‘Operation Locksmith,’ was

held with Doob’s participation in 1985. In 1979 and again in 1984

problem-solving workshops were conducted for community leaders

by Herbert Kelman and his colleagues at Harvard University

. Ron

Fisher held a series of four workshops over a five-year period, with

the two primary workshops focusing on the educational system in the

two communities

. A local initiative of inter-communal contacts that

grew out of this work started in September 1989, leading to a joint

social action group under the name ‘The Greek-Cypriot and

Turkish-Cypriot Citizens’ Movement for Democracy and Federation

in Cyprus

.’

Taken together, the problem-solving workshops started a new

type of dialogue in Cyprus, one that was based on attempts to

understand and build trust rather than on accusatory rhetoric and

condemnation of the other. These workshops served an important

purpose by exposing a core group of Cypriots to the growing

academic field of conflict resolution. This allowed a local initiative to

develop with a goal of unofficial diplomacy at the citizens’ level. Calls

arose for more assistance from third-party facilitators and trainers,

which set the stage for a sustained effort to offer conflict resolution

skills training on a broad basis across society.

The conflict resolution skills training began in July 1991, when

Louise Diamond, a conflict resolution specialist from the Institute for

MAKING CONTACT

Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) in the United States, visited Cyprus

at the invitation of members of the newly formed Peace Centre in the

Greek-Cypriot community and began offering mini-workshops on

conflict resolution. In October 1992, she conducted a one-day

workshop in each community, sponsored by the Peace Centre in

Nicosia

, and a joint steering committee was formed for purposes of

promoting conflict resolution efforts in Cyprus

. This led to a

workshop that took place in July 1993, when a group of ten Greek

Cypriots and ten Turkish Cypriots went to Oxford, England, for a

ten-day period

. Partly as a result of the success of this program, a

number of conflict resolution workshops were held in the summer of

1994 organised by the Cyprus Fulbright Commission (CFC) and

conducted by the Cyprus Consortium, a group that consists of IMTD,

the Conflict Management Group (CMG) of Harvard University, and

National Training Laboratory (NTL) based in Virginia. The team

leaders for this effort were Louise Diamond and her colleague Diana

Chigas (from CMG). Funded by the U.S. Agency for International

Development and administered by CFC, several weeklong workshops

were offered, including two that covered basic conflict resolution

principles and skills and one that offered training for those interested

in conducting local conflict resolution workshops. During the period

1995-1997, more workshops conducted by the Cyprus Consortium

were held in both Cyprus and in the United States, including an

advanced ‘training of trainers' workshop, which allowed local Cypriots

to offer introductory conflict resolution skills workshops to their fellow

citizens, both in bi-communal and mono-communal settings.

An ongoing series of workshops were held for student

recipients of a grant from the Cyprus American Scholarship Program

(CASP) to study in the United States. CASP workshops have been

held in the United States nearly every year since 1993. These

workshops each last approximately one week, with anywhere from

twenty-five to fifty students taking part. These are geared toward

undergraduate seniors and graduate students who are finishing their

studies in the United States and returning to Cyprus. Other conflict

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

resolution skills training has been targeted toward the younger

generation, ages sixteen to eighteen. This training took the form of

youth camps held in the United States, with several at the School for

International Training in Vermont and several in Maine, conducted

by Seeds of Peace. In all cases, after returning to Cyprus, these young

people continued their contacts and in many ways assumed the

leadership role in promoting bi-communal activities.

The conflict resolution skills training played a crucial role in

the overall development of bi-communal activities in Cyprus. Not

only did it introduce a new set of skills into Cypriot society, but it

provided an almost ‘therapeutic’ setting in which individuals could

come to terms with some of the pain and suffering brought about by

the communal separation. Such training also fostered new

relationships and more accurate perceptions of the other. Perhaps

most importantly, the conflict resolution activities brought together

the primary players who would soon form a stronger citizens-based

peace movement, which began to take shape with the start of the

interactive design workshops that focused on developing a strategy

for peace-building in Cyprus

This series of interactive design workshops started in the fall of

1994, with the initial group involving participants from the summer

1994 conflict resolution workshops. During the nine months from

October 1994 through to June 1995, a process referred to as

Interactive Management (IM) was used to help a bi-communal group

of fifteen Greek Cypriots and fifteen Turkish Cypriots develop a

strategy for their peace-building efforts in Cyprus

. During these

sessions, the group progressed through three stages of planning and

design: (1) analysis of the current situation; (2) goal setting for the

future; and (3) development of a collaborative action agenda. The

group met in the evenings on a weekly basis, and occasionally on

weekends. In the beginning months, the Greek-Cypriot and

Turkish-Cypriot groups worked separately, because the political

situation did not permit bi-communal meetings. These became

possible in February 1995, after which the participants met together

MAKING CONTACT

in the Buffer Zone. This group produced a systems analysis of the

obstacles to peace-building efforts in Cyprus, created a ‘collective

vision statement’ for the future of peace-building activities in

Cyprus, and developed a plan of activities that would guide their

work over the following two to three years. The latter consisted of

fifteen projects, including workshops, presentations, training

programs, and other events. After the staging of an ‘agora/bazar,’ to

which individuals were invited to sign up for these projects,

approximately 300 individuals became involved in twelve bi-

communal projects

As part of the set of fifteen projects, additional design and

problem-solving workshops were conducted during 1995 and 1996

with groups of young business leaders, youth leaders, and women’s

groups. These groups initially met in separate communal workshops

for the analysis phase, and then they came together for purposes of

identifying and structuring goals for the future of their work. All

three of these groups met together for approximately one year, and

each of the groups was able to spend a full week together in Brussels,

at a seminar sponsored by the European Commission. During 1997,

IM workshops also were conducted with student groups and citizen

groups. Unfortunately, these workshops were interrupted by the ban

on bi-communal activities at the end of 1997 and were not able to

progress through all the phases of the design process. A training

program was conducted in December 1997, in which eighteen Greek

Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots received instruction in Interactive

Management, preparing them to offer IM workshops to other

groups in Cyprus. In addition, a new effort was carried out in August

1997, bringing together Cypriot peace-builders with their

counterparts in Greece and Turkey for a weeklong IM workshop in

Les Diablerets, Switzerland.

In general, the IM workshops helped carry the bi-communal

movement into an ‘action stage,’ in which participants in previous

problem-solving and conflict resolution workshops began to take

leadership roles in designing and implementing projects that

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

involved members of both communities. This was a crucial stage for

the bi-communal work, because it marked the transition from a

primarily training activity to greater activism and local initiative. The

third-party role shifted from instructor, trainer, or facilitator to that

of consultant, advisor, and equal partner in strategy development.

The former roles have continued to be important, but the primary

responsibility for much of the training and development of new

initiatives began to fall on the shoulders of those who had participated

in earlier workshops, trainings, and problem-solving sessions.

Complementing the previous skills training in conflict

resolution, a series of mediation training programs was offered by

Fulbright Scholar Marco Turk, starting in the fall of 1997 and

continuing through the spring of 1999. Turk was assisted in some of

this training during the 1997-1998 academic year by Fulbright

Scholar John Ungerleider. These workshops were offered to both bi-

communal and mono-communal groups and consisted of programs

ranging from fifteen to forty hours of instruction, exercises, role-

playing, and discussion about applications in participants’ work,

home, or community settings. Some groups received advanced

training totalling over one hundred hours of instruction, qualifying

them to offer training to others in Cyprus. In total, approximately

500 participants received over 600 hours of training in conflict

management and mediation. Workshops were offered to bi-

communal citizens groups, teachers, psychiatric nurses, a Turkish-

Cypriot women’s group, mental health care professionals, the

Domestic Violence Crisis Centre, the Cyprus Police Academy, both

Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot citizens groups, youth groups,

American International School teachers, United Nations

Humanitarian troops, and others. After bi-communal activities were

interrupted in December 1997, Turk took several bi-communal

groups outside Cyprus for training in mediation and negotiation.

Later, a mediation centre was established in each community which

has been organizing and administering training programs as well as

the mediation of actual disputes. Taken together, these workshops

MAKING CONTACT

introduced new sets of skills to Cypriots in both communities, and

they provided many opportunities for bi-communal contact

The workshops, training, design sessions, and other activities

often brought up subjects that are at the core of the Cyprus problem.

In order to discuss some of these topics in more depth, special study

groups and seminars were organized on topics such as identity issues,

property concerns, the meaning of ‘federalism,’ and the nature of the

European Union. For example, in 1996, a six-week seminar

examined the topic of ‘identity.’ Participants discussed what it means

to be a ‘Greek Cypriot’ or ‘Turkish Cypriot,’ dealing with themes

such as degree of inheritance from the ‘Motherlands’ of Greece and

Turkey, ways in which both identities have been shaped by the

Cyprus problem, and commonalities and uniqueness in song, dance,

and other aspects of Cypriot culture. It was an enlightening

experience for all participants, helping them understand better their

own and the others’ perceptions. In addition to the seminars, other

special study groups were formed. For example, the Cyprus

Consortium set up an ‘intractability study,’ examining the factors that

have led to the current situation in Cyprus. The World Peace

Foundation sponsored a one-time seminar, held in Boston, bringing

together Cypriot academics with international experts to find ways to

move the peace process forward in Cyprus. Fulbright Scholar Philip

Snyder created a group to study environmental issues. Other special

groups of this type have been formed, all of them oriented primarily

toward understanding specific issues in greater depth.

PIONEERING BI-COMMUNAL GROUPS

The problem-solving workshops, conflict resolution skills training,

interactive design workshops, and the mediation training led to the

formation of numerous bi-communal groups that met regularly,

many of them on a weekly basis. Most of these groups adopted a

special focus, oriented toward a professional area (e.g. education), a

particular sector of society (e.g. women), or a special task (e.g.

developing links among peace-builders in the eastern

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Mediterranean). Some of the groups have been mentioned above;

for example, the group of young political leaders and the group of

young business leaders were formed in conjunction with the

interactive design workshops and later each developed into an

ongoing bi-communal group. The number of groups established in

this manner is too numerous to list in this paper, but a short

description of some of these groups will illustrate their activities

The bi-communal ‘Trainers’ group was formed following the

conflict resolution skills workshops held during the summer of 1994.

After their experience in these workshops, several participants

expressed a desire to work together in training others in conflict reso-

lution skills, and they were joined by individuals who wanted to promote

other types of peace-building activities. This group initially worked

together over a nine-month period in a series of interactive design

sessions (see previous section), creating a collective vision statement

and a collaborative action agenda for peace-building activities. The

‘agora/bazar’ described earlier led to the formation of several ongoing

groups and several special projects. They continued working together

after their initial project was finished, forming a ‘coordinating group’

for the various bi-communal activities in which they were involved,

and meeting together for support and further training. After 1995,

they expanded their group to include others trained in problem

solving approaches, conflict resolution skills, interactive design

methodologies, and mediation skills. This ongoing bi-communal

group forms the core around which the majority of bi-communal

activities in Cyprus took place during the period 1994-1997, and it is

their ‘offspring’ who continued to organize many of the bi-communal

activities that developed after 1997. They endured many difficulties

together and formed a very strong group identity. They have also

been a primary resource for nearly all third-party facilitators and

trainers who have worked in Cyprus, and they are regularly called

upon to give advice to various international diplomatic personnel.

The bi-communal educators group was formed during a

three-day conflict resolution workshop in October 1995, which was

MAKING CONTACT

followed by a second workshop for educators in May 1996. Many of

the members of this group were originally involved in a series of

problem-solving workshops held in the early 1990s. After a seven-

day workshop for higher-level educators that took place in Boston in

August 1996, many of the participants from the various workshops

came together to form a core group of individuals concerned

primarily with issues inherent to those who teach in public and

private schools and universities in Cyprus. This group took on a

number of projects, including an in-depth study of the educational

systems as they operate in Cyprus and their impact on people’s

perceptions of the conflict. They were also responsible for starting

the Youth Encounters for Peace (YEP) described below. Overall, this

group of educators is dealing with one of the most important topics

that must be addressed before sustained peace is possible in Cyprus.

As long as the school systems continue to present a one-sided view of

the conflict and negative perceptions about the other community, the

conflict will carry itself over into future generations indefinitely.

The bi-communal women’s group started with an interactive

design workshop in May 1996, focused on factors that create pain

and suffering in Cyprus, as seen through the eyes of women. This

workshop, which continued over the course of several months, led to

other groups dealing with women’s issues. Efforts were made to write

a ‘women’s history’ of Cyprus, to examine why there are so few women

in decision-making bodies in Cyprus, and to create a ‘Cyprus Link’

based on the successful ‘Jerusalem Link’ that has been in existence

for many years. A group of Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot women

travelled together and participated in the Beijing U.N. Women’s

Conference in 1995, and with the initiative of the European Union,

a group of women visited Brussels in 1997. Although various projects

have involved a wide range of women, the core group that began

meeting in 1996 has continued to convene and lead the way in many

of these endeavours. Their work offers a perspective on the Cyprus

conflict that can be provided only by such a group, and they are

addressing issues that have long been ignored in Cyprus. Perhaps

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

most importantly, this group is giving voice to a segment of the

population that is usually the victim of the military confrontations

and other violence created by men.

The bi-communal student group, consisting of students

studying at public and private universities, started in October 1996.

Most of these students had never met anyone from the other

community, and in spite of some anxiety, they established excellent

rapport in their first meeting. After several meetings, in which they

explored many common interests, they met with each of the two

community leaders, Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Later they went

together for a one-week seminar in Budapest, and upon returning

they began to enlarge their group. Eventually, another group of

university students was formed, and the members of the first group

organised a conflict resolution workshop for this new group. Just

before the interruption of bi-communal activities in December 1997,

the students were meeting as a single group and planning many

projects. During 1998 the students continued meeting in separate

community groups, waiting eagerly for the time when they could

continue their work together. The success of the student group was

surprising, given the high level of extremist rhetoric that is generally

found among students. However, the ability of these students to

work together across community lines is a testament to the possibility

for rapprochement among those who are too young to have directly

experienced the events of 1974

In August 1997 a regional peace-building group met together

for the first time in the Swiss village of Les Diablerets. The six-day

workshop, sponsored by Fondation Suisse de Bons Offices (FOSBO),

brought together leading members of the peace-building community

from Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey to explore ways of developing links

between individuals and groups that are involved in rapprochement

activities in the eastern Mediterranean. After a very successful meeting,

in which several ‘four-way’ projects were developed involving individuals

from Turkey, Greece, and the two communities of Cyprus, the group

maintained communication during the remainder of 1997, meeting

MAKING CONTACT

in December at Ledra Palace in Nicosia (Turkish Cypriots and Greek

Cypriots) and in January 1998 in Istanbul (Turks and Greeks). Plans

were made for the development of an institute under the umbrella of

which funding could be sought for various events. The interruption

of bi-communal activities just after their meetings in December made

it difficult to continue the group's work as planned, but communications

continued among the group members, and several of them participated

in four-way seminars held later, including a seminar held in Sigtuna,

Sweden, in 1999. Organized by the Department of Peace and Conflict

Research at Uppsala University, this meeting provided an opportunity

for some members of the Les Diablerets group to meet again face-to-

face and to begin making plans for future efforts. The same group

met again on the Greek island of Chios in 2000 (again organized by

Uppsala University), and in 2001 a four-way meeting (involving

participants from Greece and Turkey as well as the two communities

of Cyprus) was held in Bruges, Belgium (this time supported with a

grant from the Bi-communal Development Programme (BDP),

which is funded by USAID and UNDP and is executed by UNOPS).

Although the Bruges group met for the first time not long before the

restrictions were put in place at the end of 1997, it helped take the

peace-building work in Cyprus to a new level, by connecting

participants directly with their counterparts in Greece and Turkey

SPECIAL PROJECTS

The conflict resolution workshops and the ‘agora/bazar’ that resulted

from the initial interactive design workshops in 1995 led to a number

of special projects. These became the forerunners of dozens of

initiatives that exist today, many supported by the BDP

. It is beyond

the scope of this paper to describe all of the projects currently going

on, but several of the early initiatives can be offered as examples.

One of the more inspiring projects is an initiative called Youth

Encounters for Peace (YEP), which has brought together numerous

groups of young people, ages sixteen to nineteen. Until this program

started, most of the youth in Cyprus had never met anyone from the

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

other community. This project provides the younger generation with

an opportunity to get to know the people with whom they will share

the island of Cyprus in the future. The encounters organised by YEP

started in July 1997 with a two-day gathering that brought together

thirty Greek Cypriots and thirty Turkish Cypriots. A second group

was formed in October 1997, and a third group in December of the

same year. Between 1998 and 2002, more than eight additional

groups were formed. They sponsored several events, including

musical concerts, festivals, dances, tree-plantings, and workshops.

One of the most innovative and inspiring events was the co-villagers'

meetings, which brought together Cypriots who had lived in the

same village before 1974. The first such event, held in July 1999,

focused on the town of Paphos, while later events were organised for

other villagers. At these events, individuals who had not seen each

other for twenty-five to thirty-five years were re-united at emotional

gatherings that included the exchange of food, drink, photos and

in some cases treasured personal items that had been left behind in

1974 and saved by neighbours.

The YEP project helped inspire another youth-oriented

program called Youth Promoting Peace (Y2P), which was established

in 2000. The members of this project sought to promote close

cooperation between the young people in the two communities,

creating bridges of communication between the Greek-Cypriot and

Turkish-Cypriot youth. They organized a number of conferences

dealing with topics such as education in Cyprus and the potential

socio-economic impact of the European Union, and they conducted

several workshops on topics such as negotiation skills, prospects and

expectation of the Annan Plan, and conflict resolution. Additionally,

they organized music festivals and other activities, such as ‘Fly a Kite

for Peace' day in 2003 and a tree planting in Pyla in 2000. These

youth groups helped initiate and organize in 2000 the ‘Cyprus Day

of Peace,’ now celebrated on 30 September each year

An innovative BDP-sponsored project called Technology for

Peace (TFP) utilized the Internet to bring people together across the

MAKING CONTACT

Buffer Zone. In addition to introducing those involved in the bi-

communal work to the use of the Internet, it sought to build an

infrastructure for all bi-communal groups to better coordinate their

activities, by posting announcements and information about

meetings, storing records of products produced during meetings,

and providing space for electronic discussion groups. It also aimed

to document the history of various groups’ activities and to help

people locate funding possibilities, obtain information on the issues

they were discussing, and develop links with other groups around

the world. The project idea was initially developed as part of the

interactive design group’s 1995 ‘agora/bazar,’ and its first Internet

workshop was held in 1996. Three workshops were held in August

1997, facilitated by a U.S. team of experts from the Institute of World

Affairs in Washington D.C. Two of the workshops were mono-

communal training in each community, and the third was a ‘virtual’

workshop held using special software that allowed participants to

take part in a cross-communal negotiation simulation. This led to

other training workshops in the summer of 1998, and continued use

of the TFP infrastructure by various groups to exchange messages

and information. A website was developed that provided space to bi-

communal groups to post information about their activities and to

use it as a means of communication among members and with

outside groups. With the ban on bi-communal contacts, the project

become even more important, because it promoted more organised

and continuous communication, and it opened a new dimension in

bi-communal rapprochement by allowing means of collaboration

that did not necessarily require face-to-face contact

Another special project, again emanating from the interactive

design group’s ‘agora/bazar’ in 1995, resulted in several issues of

Hade bi-communal magazine. The initial issues of this publication

were produced by a dedicated group of writers working under very

difficult circumstances. Its title, Hade, is a word that means basically

‘Let’s go’ to both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, and it features

articles written by members of both communities. In the first issue,

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

which used English for most of the articles, authors discussed many

topics related to peace-building efforts in Cyprus. There are stories

about bi-communal groups, about specific bi-communal events, and

about the experiences of individuals who visited places on ‘the other

side’ for the first time. The edition also included poetry and book

reviews. It was a success in both communities, and a second edition

was published, this one with articles in Greek and Turkish.

Unfortunately, internal conflict and difficulties related to working

across the Green Line led to a halt to publication, and so far, there

have been no new editions.

As the bi-communal groups attracted more funding,

particularly from the BDP, some of them became more

institutionalized. The mediation groups that had been meeting

under the guidance of Fulbright Scholar Marco Turk created a

Mediation Centre in both communities. A Management Centre was

set up in the north, with a full-time staff, offering specialized training

to individuals and groups in the Turkish Cypriot community. An

NGO Resource Centre was established in the south, providing a

meeting space and resource library for a wide range of organizations

in the Greek Cypriot community. The establishment of these

institutions gave the bi-communal groups more legitimacy within the

larger society, and they make it possible to serve a larger number of

people in Cyprus, offering services that help strengthen civil society.

Portions of this chapter are based on material I prepared for a manuscript to be

published in a new book by Anastasios Tamis and Michalis Michael (Eds.), Cyprus in the

Modern World.

In most cases, the individuals who live “on the other side” face discrimination,

prejudice, lack of language services, and other difficulties.

In December 1997, after the decision of the European Union to delay a decision

granting Turkey candidate status, the Turkish-Cypriot authorities stopped giving permissions

for Turkish Cypriots to cross into the Buffer Zone for meetings with Greek Cypriots. Later, the

Turkish-Cypriot authorities instituted rules that allowed ‘officially recognized’ organizations

to meet together in the Buffer Zone. However, the only organizations meeting this

designation were certain trade unions and political parties.

The bi-communal choir faced difficulties from the beginning in obtaining

permission to meet together. After the interruption of bi-communal activities in 1997, they

continued to meet on a regular basis in mono-communal groups, separately rehearsing

MAKING CONTACT

traditional Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot songs as well as songs of the Turkish composer

Livanelli and the Greek composer Theodorakis. They have performed together outside Cyprus,

including a historic concert in Istanbul, as well as at the few bi-communal events that have

been held since 1997 in the Buffer Zone.

In February 2002, a new project was started under the name ‘Citizens’ Movement

for Reunification and Coexistence.’ The overall aim was to create a visible citizens' peace-

building movement operating within the Greek-Cypriot community.

See Broome (1998) for a description of conflict resolution activities in Cyprus.

Diamond and Fisher (1995) examines the important work of the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy.

Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis (1993) provides an inside look at track two diplomacy in Cyprus.

See Burton, 1969; Mitchell, 1981.

See Talbot, 1977.

See Doob, 1987.

See Stoddard, 1986.

See Fisher 1992 & 1997.

See Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1993.

Although this centre operated primarily in the Greek-Cypriot community, its stated

purpose was bi-communal in nature, with the intention of involving both Greek Cypriots and

Turkish Cypriots in the operation and activities of the centre. Due to the political constraints,

it was unable to operate as a true bi-communal organization, but it helped organize a number

of conflict resolution workshops and public presentations in the Greek-Cypriot community

with a focus on bi-communal issues.

This group later became known as the ‘Bi-communal Steering Committee.’ It served

in the capacity of advisor for development of further conflict resolution activities, and it

eventually obtained a room in Ledra Palace for its office and meetings. It has been recognized

in at least one U.N. report for the valuable role it plays in promoting better relations between

the two communities.

See Diamond & Fisher, 1995.

The Senior Fulbright Scholars in Cyprus have played important roles in the conflict

resolution skills training, among other activities. Individuals who contributed in significant

ways to the conflict resolution efforts include John Ungerleider, School for International

Training in Vermont, Senior Fulbright Scholar during the 1997-1998 academic year; Eric

Neisser, Rutgers University Law School, Senior Fulbright Scholar during the 1995-1996

academic year; Marco Turk, University of California at Irvine, Senior Fulbright Scholar from

the fall of 1997 through to the spring of 1999 (see section on mediation training); and Philip

Snyder, Cornell University, Senior Fulbright Scholar from January 1997 through to June 1998.

In addition to his involvement in the conflict resolution skills training, Snyder played a

particularly important role in facilitating the rapid expansion of bi-communal activities that

took place during 1997. Other Fulbright Scholars in recent years include: Emil and Marion

Angelica, St. Louis University (1998-1999 academic year); David Johnson, University of

Tennessee (1998-1999 academic year), John Tirman (Aug-Dec, 1999), David Churchman,

California State University (Jan-June, 2000), and Hermann Peine, University of Utah (2000-

2001 academic year). Tirman developed a website, located at http://www.cyprus-conflict.net,

that provides information related to the bi-communal activities in Cyprus.

Interactive Management is an approach to group design developed specifically to

deal with complex problem situations (see Broome & Keever, 1989; Warfield, 1994).

A full report of these workshop activities is available from the author. See also

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Broome, 1997 and Broome, 1998 for a more complete description of the IM workshops with

the core group.

In addition to the numerous workshops offered by Turk, Pete Swanson, a trainer

with the Federal Mediation Service in Washington, offered a weeklong training program for a

bi-communal group in the fall of 1997.

Many of the groups described in this section are no longer meeting regularly. The

withdrawal of permissions for bi-communal meetings in December 1997 made it practically

impossible for these groups to continue meeting on a consistent basis. However, during the

time period when they were able to meet, they established friendships and working

partnerships that continued throughout the ban, and they found other ways to maintain

contact and work together.

During most of 1996 and 1997, there existed anywhere from ten to fifteen

ongoing bi-communal groups. In addition to the groups described in this section, the young

business leaders, youth leaders, citizen’s group, lawyers, journalists, policy leaders, and a

number of others were meeting every month, and sometimes more often. Of these, the group

that called itself the "Citizens Group" is of particular importance. It kept its meetings open to

anyone who wanted to attend, and for some time it remained more active than the others

after the interruption of bi-communal activities in 1997. In addition, many of the project

groups (see following section) were also meeting regularly.

See Broome (1999) for a description of the university student group.

The seminars held abroad led to the creation of several island-based think-tank

and action groups. The most recent is called the Cyprus Forum, set up in July 2002. Its

founding members include influential public figures, academics, and business persons who are

dedicated to developing creative ways to address the Cyprus conflict.

The Bi-communal Development Programme (BDP), which is funded by the United

States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP) and is executed by the United Nations Office of Project Services (UNOPS),

funds bi-communal projects. The BDP aims at promoting the peace-building process in Cyprus

by encouraging the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to work together in the

preparation and implementation of projects in areas of common interest. Proposals (projects)

for funding under the Programme can be submitted either by public agencies or independent

entities such as professional groups and NGOs. The Programme gives priority to activities in

environment, public infrastructure, public and animal health, governance and civil society,

education and culture, and information and communication technology.. A description of BDP

activities can be found at the website: http://www.unopspmu.org

Many of the youth activities grew out of the very successful summer camps held

in the United States. Cypriot youth attended for several years both the well-known Seeds of

Peace camp in Maine (see http://www.seedsofpeace.org/) and summer camps organized by

John Ungerleider at the School for International Training in Vermont (see http://www.sit.edu/).

Between 1997 and 2003, over 1000 young people attended these camps. For the students who

attended, it was the first time they had met anyone from the other community, and most of

them went back to Cyprus with a strong desire to continue seeing each other and a

determination to work for peace.

Another website was established in June 2000 with aims to increase awareness

about ongoing peace-building efforts, increase participation in them, and provide a forum

and tools for the organization of new peace-building projects. Located at http://www.peace-

cyprus.org/, this internet site includes announcements of special events, reports of activities

that take place, news about developments, petition campaigns, editorials, papers, and

presentations about Cyprus. It also hosts artistic projects suitable for the web, including

poetry, short stories, photography, painting, architecture, film and video, music or multimedia

projects related with Cyprus and peace.

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

Sometimes it’s very discouraging. We face a lot of difficulties in going to

Ledra Palace every week. We believe we are doing a great service for Turkish

Cypriots – it’s the only way to help the other side understand our point of view

– yet it seems that within our own society the forces against us are growing

everyday. I often wonder if it’s worth all the sacrifices.

Turkish-Cypriot social worker

I feel as if all the hard work we’ve done has gone down the drain. After the

Buffer Zone events last week [August 1996], the only voice left is that of the

hard liners. We thought we had taken a few small steps forward, but now we

have taken a giant leap backwards. I don’t know if there is any reason to

continue.

Greek-Cypriot schoolteacher

A decade ago individuals involved in contacts across the Buffer

Zone were routinely criticized in both communities for their

meetings with the other side. At best they were viewed as idealistic,

naïve, and dreamers. Worse, they were accused as traitors to the

national cause, as friends of the enemy, as paid agents of the

international community. The media either ignored them or were

vicious in their attacks, claiming they were ‘betraying their country'

4. CONFRONTING

OBSTACLES

or ‘selling out' to the other side. The authorities at times quietly

tolerated bi-communal activities and at times were openly critical of

them. It was not easy for these early pioneers to go against the

prevailing mood in their own societies and exercise their basic

human right to meet and discuss issues with fellow human beings.

In some ways, things have not changed a great deal from these

early days of bi-communal meetings. Many people (perhaps the

majority) are still sceptical about the benefits of promoting cross-

community contact, and most people are hesitant to participate in bi-

communal activities and events. The type of resistance varies over

time, with different age groups, and between communities, but even

with the increase in numbers of people involved, and even after the

April 2003 lifting of checkpoint restrictions there is still not

widespread support for activities that promote cross-community

contact. In some cases, even today, those who are involved in such

activities are criticized and occasionally harassed.

Although each person’s experience will differ, and conditions

will change over time, there are a number of obstacles that those

engaged in joint efforts across the Green Line will likely face. Many

of these difficulties emanate from the social and political reality of

Cyprus. In a society where there are many interest groups with a

stake in maintaining the status quo of the conflict, resistance to

reconciliation efforts is unavoidable. And in a social system where the

existence of the conflict has become part of everyday existence, the

meeting of individuals across the dividing line can be perceived as a

serious threat to the comfortable (if undesirable) status quo. Finally,

for those who suffered from the loss of loved ones, property, and a

way of life, any attempt to understand the point of view of the other

may be considered inappropriate and even insensitive.

No longer ‘banned' from meeting or needing ‘permissions' to

meet at Ledra Palace, it has been possible since April 2003 for

individuals and groups to meet nearly anywhere in Cyprus. Even

though many of the old restrictions are gone, cross-community contacts

continue to be plagued by various political events. And even though

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

the authorities on each side no longer condemn the work of peace

builders, there are still many in each community who oppose any

activities that bring people together across the Green Line. In this

chapter, I will discuss some of the obstacles that have made bi-communal

contact difficult in the past, and which are still present in the new

situation, perhaps at a more subtle level. For some people, the

frustrations associated with these difficulties are overbearing, while

others accept them as unavoidable burdens that one has to bear. In any

case, it is best to have them in mind during one’s bi-communal journey

USE OF BI-COMMUNAL EVENTS AS A POLITICAL TOOL

In December 1997, when authorities in the north stopped granting

permissions for Turkish Cypriots to cross the checkpoint to attend

meetings in the Buffer Zone, the event made few newspaper headlines.

However, the change in policy marked a crucial turning point in the

growth of bi-communal activities, and perhaps in the Cyprus conflict

itself. In many ways this ‘ban’ on bi-communal activities was as

disappointing as the breakdown in political negotiations that had

taken place earlier that same year. It meant that dozens of groups,

involving perhaps as many as 2,000 individuals, could no longer

continue their regular meetings, and the projects in which they were

engaged became much more difficulty to realize.

The Turkish-Cypriot authorities withdrew permissions for

bi-communal meetings just after the European Union decisions to

(a) exclude Turkey in the group of countries for which it would

consider membership, while (b) simultaneously agreeing to start direct

accession negotiations with the Greek-Cypriot controlled Republic of

Cyprus. The Turkish-Cypriot leadership decided that all contact

with Greek Cypriots, at the official and unofficial levels, would stop

until they were accepted as an equal and recognized partner in these

negotiations and until Turkey was placed on the list of candidates for

European Union membership. The bi-communal activities became a

victim of political events, and for the first time they were used as a

political tool in the complex world of international politics.

CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

This use of the bi-communal activities as a political tool was

partly a result of their success during the 1990s. By December 1997 they

had grown to the point where they could no longer be dismissed as

simply an irritant to authorities. Indeed, with so many people taking

part in regular events that brought people together across the dividing

line, and with several high-profile professional groups involved,

these activities were starting to have a subtle influence on the political

process itself. In addition, most of the international diplomatic

community was solidly behind the bi-communal activities, and more

and more diplomatic missions were becoming involved in supporting

them. Thus, bi-communal activities were seen by the Turkish-

Cypriot authorities as the ideal political tool to gain leverage with the

international community, while simultaneously shutting down some

of the growing pressure from the opposition groups that supported

these activities. Ironically, the growing strength of the bi-communal

activities created a situation that made their continuation very difficult.

While this ban brought a temporary halt to the momentum

that had built up among those involved in bi-communal activities, it

was not the first time such a limitation had been placed on contacts.

Throughout the 1990s permissions were often difficult to obtain, and

sometimes even when they were given, it was only at the last minute that

participants were notified that their application had been approved.

Often, just before a meeting was to take place, permissions that had

been granted previously were withdrawn. Frequently some names

that had been submitted were left off the list provided to the guards

at the checkpoint, meaning these individuals could not pass into the

Buffer Zone and join their colleagues in the meeting

. There were long

periods during which no bi-communal activities could take place

because permissions were routinely denied for the Turkish Cypriot

participants to pass the checkpoint. The primary difference with the

situation from December 1997 to April 2003 was the semi-permanent

nature of the permission ban during that period. At the time, there

seemed to be no end to it in sight, and even the full weight of the

diplomatic community had not been able to reverse the closure.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Although the Turkish-Cypriot authorities received most of the

criticism for preventing their own people from meeting with

individuals in the other community, the Greek Cypriots also placed

many obstacles in the way of bi-communal contacts. In part, the

willingness of the Turkish-Cypriot authorities to defy the

international community’s call for resumption of bi-communal

activities was due to the Greek Cypriots’ use of the events for their

own political purposes. It has long been a theme of the Greek

Cypriots to state that ‘the two communities have always lived

together in peace until the Turkish invasion,’ and they have

consistently put forth the view that ‘if the Turkish army left Cyprus,

the two communities would manage their own affairs without

problems.’ For the Greek Cypriots, the existence of productive bi-

communal contacts seemed to prove their point that Greek Cypriots

and Turkish Cypriots have no trouble getting along. The Turkish

Cypriots, on the other hand, advocated exactly the opposite point of

view, pushing the theme that ‘Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots

have never lived together peacefully and never will.’ The rapid

growth of the bi-communal activities crept into the Greek-Cypriot

political rhetoric and in the media, and even the extreme nationalists

were beginning to state, often with a disdainful tone, that ‘the ease

with which the two communities mix at bi-communal events prove

that the Cyprus problem is not an inter-communal affair; rather, it is

only the Turkish invasion that keeps us apart.’ Needless to say, this

rhetoric on the part of Greek Cypriots did not sit well with the

Turkish Cypriots, and the EU decision on Turkey’s future

membership possibilities provided a convenient way to remove the

source of this ‘thorn’ in their side.

NEGATIVE PORTRAYALS IN THE MEDIA

Especially during the early days of bi-communal efforts, the various

media in Cyprus tended to portray the activities and those who

participated in them in a negative manner. Newspapers, magazines,

and radio and TV commentators attacked the individuals involved in

CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

such endeavours, often misrepresenting their intentions and

defaming their character. When the citizens’ initiative was launched

in 1989, there were severe attacks from newspaper journalists in both

communities against those who participated. The participants who

returned from the ten-day conflict resolution workshop in Oxford,

England, in 1993 suffered a similar fate, especially in the Greek-

Cypriot press. The Turkish-Cypriot media strongly condemned

participants in the 1994 conflict resolution seminars. During the

1996 period of sustained growth in bi-communal activities, several

prominent Greek-Cypriot magazines published articles ridiculing

many of those taking part in cross-community workshops, distorting

the nature of the activities and painting an inaccurate and sinister

picture of those involved.

As portrayed in the Greek-Cypriot media at the time, contacts

with the other side served mainly to give credence to those who

wanted to classify the situation as an ‘inter-communal conflict,’ taking

the emphasis away from the international dimension of the situation

(i.e., it should be viewed strictly as a problem of ‘invasion, occupation,

and violation of human rights’). Articles in the Turkish-Cypriot press

claimed that meetings between citizens from the two communities

sent the wrong message about the need for the two communities to

live apart, and they pointed to the ‘danger’ that the Turkish-Cypriot

participants would be ‘charmed’ by the Greek Cypriots and would

forget the crimes committed against them in the past. The people

who participated were often called ‘traitors,’ accused of being

‘unpatriotic’ to the national cause, or ridiculed as ‘friends of the

enemy.’ The press in the two communities took turns at accusing

participants of being ‘pawns in the American game,’ or ‘trained by

the CIA’ to distort the minds of unsuspecting people. At one point,

the Turkish-Cypriot press accused participants of being part of a

group that had organised a series of ‘communist cells’ to overthrow the

government. Greek Cypriots often claimed that the Turkish-Cypriot

participants in these activities were sent by their authorities to present

the official view, and Turkish Cypriots claimed that the Greek Cypriots

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

were using the meetings to make a political statement about inter-

communal harmony. At best, participants were portrayed as naïve and

unrealistic, unable to see the dangers of cavorting with those whose

true intentions are to dominate them or drive them from the island.

Fortunately, even though there are still negative press reports

that distort the overall picture of rapprochement efforts, media

coverage of cross-community activities has improved recently,

particularly since the openings in April 2003. However, the media in

general has not lived up to its potential as a strong tool for peace.

Hopefully, things will continue to improve, but those involved in

inter-communal activities are not likely to find much encouragement

for their efforts from the newspapers they read, the radio programs

to which they listen, or the TV programs which they watch. This will

not only make it difficult for the general population to voluntarily

participate in bi-communal activities, but it will encourage the

continuation of an overall critical stance toward such efforts and

toward those involved in them.

CONCERN ABOUT ‘RECOGNITION'

The bi-communal activities in Cyprus have been able to progress

further than anyone a decade ago imagined possible, especially in

light of the extremely difficult political situation on the island.

Nevertheless, the projects that were successfully implemented by bi-

communal teams were limited in scope and focused primarily on

cultural and educational activities. They were prevented from

reaching a level where sustained working partnerships between

businesses and institutions, which are the essence of a future unitary

state in Cyprus, could be formed. A major barrier that prevented bi-

communal activities from entering this important stage of

development was the concern, especially by Greek Cypriots, about

‘recognition’ of the other community. The Greek Cypriots did not

want to allow any activities, such as business partnerships, that might

have a chance of being interpreted as legitimising what they termed

‘the invasion and illegal occupation’ of Cyprus.

CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

On one level, this concern is easy to understand, especially

from a strategic point of view. Both Greek-Cypriot officials and

international analysts are quick to point out that the international

recognition of the Republic of Cyprus, and the corresponding lack of

recognition of the ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,’ or

‘TRNC,’ is the primary advantage enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots in

their attempt to negotiate with the Turkish Cypriots. The Greek-

Cypriot National Guard forces are no match for the Turkish troops

deployed across the Buffer Zone, and any military confrontation

would quickly end in disaster for the Greek Cypriots. Their success

in obtaining resolutions from the United Nations condemning the

Turkish intervention in 1974 and calling for withdrawal of foreign

troops from Cypriot soil has counted as perhaps the only ‘victory’ for

the Greek Cypriots in thirty years of stalled negotiations. They have

gradually accepted the inevitability of a federal bi-zonal solution, but

demands for recognition of the ‘TRNC’ prior to further negotiations

is probably more than the Greek-Cypriot population will ever accept.

The ‘recognition card’ is one they intend to hold onto until the end,

probably for good reason, according to political analysts.

Unfortunately, Greek Cypriots’ concerns about recognition tend

to go far beyond the level of recognising a Turkish-Cypriot state. They

extend into every level of society, including business exchanges and

institutional relations. The Greek Cypriots are afraid of a ‘domino’

effect that might result from giving even a hint of recognition to any

level of Turkish-Cypriot society. For example, when the Turkish-

Cypriot branch of the Rotary Club applied for membership with the

international office of that organisation, the Greek Cypriots blocked

such an association. Even in cases where a similar organisation did

not exist in the Greek-Cypriot community, they used their status as

the internationally recognised political entity to block the Turkish

Cypriots from joining their branch of the organisation with the

international office. In one case, after learning of a Turkish-Cypriot

request to become part of the international association of a world-

wide business-oriented group, the Greek Cypriots formed their own

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

branch of that organisation and applied for membership in the name

of Cyprus, fearful that the Turkish-Cypriot branch might be given

membership because it was the only one on the island.

This concern about recognition extends to sports teams,

community organisations, business ventures, and even to academic

institutions. Several academic seminars dealing with regional issues

were held in the late 1990s at a leading private college in Nicosia,

involving Greek-Cypriot and Greek academicians, speakers from

abroad (including Turkey), and even Turkish Cypriots teaching in

London or the United States. Turkish-Cypriot academics teaching at

institutions of higher learning in the north of Cyprus, however, were

not invited, even during periods when permissions for cross-visits

were allowed

A similar obstacle blocked progress in several bi-communal

groups dealing with business concerns. The group of young business

leaders described earlier eventually stopped meeting regularly, even

during the period when bi-communal contacts were growing

elsewhere, because their attempts to establish joint business projects

could not go forward. They had met for nearly two years, engaging

in numerous productive discussions about core issues, but without an

opportunity to work together doing what they did best, which is

practicing business, they did not have sufficient motivation to carry

on. A similar difficulty prevented a group of senior business leaders

from engaging in joint projects.

The concern about recognition affected even the details of bi-

communal meetings, especially those held outside Cyprus, to which

professionals from each community were often invited. In this case,

it became difficult to use many professional and institutional titles,

which as a normal practice at such professional gatherings are usually

placed on address lists, invitations, nametags, etc. The concern of the

Greek Cypriots was that using a person’s title, such as ‘mayor,’

might imply recognition, or listing someone’s institution, such as

‘Eastern Mediterranean University,’ might help legitimise an

institution that received funding from ‘illegal sources.’ Since most

CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

funding organisations are not familiar with such sensitivities, the

titles and institutional affiliations were often included in lists of

participants, on nameplates at the conference table, or as part of

introductions, and this often resulted in protests from Greek

Cypriots. In some cases, the entire Greek-Cypriot delegation

walked away from such meetings, to the great embarrassment of

their hosts. This did not help create a good impression abroad

about the maturity of Cypriots.

Although this discussion of recognition has focused on the

Greek Cypriots’ concern about granting legitimacy to the division, the

Turkish Cypriots also stopped many potential activities out of fear

about actions that might indicate their recognition of the Republic of

Cyprus as their representative to the international community. One

such case concerned the European Union funds made available for bi-

communal activities under the ‘Fourth Protocol.’ For a number of

years, the European Commission attempted to find a way to

implement procedures for distributing these funds, but to be utilised

the project needed to be bi-communal in nature and approved by the

planning bureau of the Republic of Cyprus. Because of the latter

requirement, Turkish Cypriots would not accept any of the funds.

Many of the bi-communal groups developed projects that could have

utilised money from the Fourth Protocol, but their concern about

participating in a project that must be officially sanctioned by the

Greek-Cypriot government prevented them from taking part. And,

without Turkish-Cypriot participation in a project, it was very difficult

to claim it as a bi-communal effort. This difficulty prevented many

viable projects dealing with environmental, educational, health, and

cultural issues from going forward

Taken together, the political uses of bi-communal contacts, the

negative images promoted by the media, and the fear of recognition

severely affected bi-communal activities in Cyprus. Often

participants became too frustrated to continue. Some international

sponsors decided that funding bi-communal activities in Cyprus was

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

not worth such an effort. Both Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot

attitudes hardened when confronted with these obstacles. Greek

Cypriots interpreted the ‘ban’ on bi-communal activities as evidence

of intransigence by the Turkish Cypriots, and Turkish Cypriots saw

the Greek Cypriots’ refusal to allow their sports teams, business

organisations, educational groups, and NGOs access to full

participation in international affairs as a true sign of their disinterest

in a genuine partnership.

Unfortunately, many of these obstacles have not disappeared,

even with the partial opening of the checkpoints to travel across the

Buffer Zone. Hopefully, they will be less of a barrier once a political

settlement is reached, but the concerns that lie behind these obstacles

could affect the successful implementation of that settlement.

PERSONAL CRITICISM

In addition to the societal factors that have always stood in the way of

bi-communal activities, participants have also faced barriers on a

more personal level. This was particularly evident in the earlier days

of bi-communal gatherings, when after returning to their homes

after meeting in Ledra Palace, they often heard people state things

about the other side that went against what they were learning from

their own experience with the other. When they would try to help

their friends understand that what they were saying might not be

true, inevitably they would have to deal repeatedly with people

making statements like: ‘you’re just being naïve,' or ‘most of them are

not like the ones you met,' or ‘you were in an artificial setting.' Even

worse, their friends might make fun of them or accuse them of

collaborating with the enemy.

It has never been easy for those involved in bi-communal

activities to explain their thoughts to those who have not had the

experience of meeting with the other side. However, the alternative,

to keep silent, is usually not an option in a society where talk is so

highly valued, and where there is little anonymity.

CONFRONTING OBSTACLES

DEALING WITH FRUSTRATION

Taken together, the political uses of bi-communal contacts, the

concern about recognition, the negative images promoted by the

media, and criticism from family and friends, severely affected bi-

communal activities in Cyprus. Often participants became too

frustrated to continue. Some international sponsors decided it was

not worth the effort. Both Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot

attitudes hardened when confronted with these obstacles but Greek

Cypriots interpreted the ‘ban' on bi-communal activities as evidence

of intransigence by the Turkish Cypriots, and Turkish Cypriots saw

the Greek Cypriots refusal to allow their sports teams, business

organizations, educational groups, and NGOs access to full

participation in international affairs as a sign of their disinterest in a

genuine partnership.

Unfortunately, it is unlikely that these obstacles will disappear

any time soon. By reaching across the Green Line for contact with

the other community, it is inevitable that you will face these and

similar difficulties. It will be easy to become discouraged, and at times

you will be tempted to ‘give up.' It is best to keep in mind that

hundreds of other people continued their involvement over the

years in spite of the frustrations and dangers. Perhaps it is helpful to

remember that all the broad, level roads along which we travel today

were once footpaths, full of stumbling blocks. Over time, as more

people take the bi-communal path, it will become wider, smoother,

and less cluttered with obstacles.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Portions of this chapter are based on material I prepared for a manuscript to be

published in a new book by Anastasios Tamis and Michalis Michael (Eds.), Cyprus in the

Modern World.

See Broome (1999b) for a description of difficulties obtaining permissions for bi-

communal events.

On one occasion, when I was speaking at such a seminar, a group of Turkish Cypriots

traveling together in the south on a bi-communal excursion came to hear my talk, providing

an ironic contrast to the recognition concerns displayed even by academic institutions!

In 2003 a program was finally put in place to utilize these funds. For information

see: http://www.delcyp.cec.eu.int/en/index.html

I’ve never met anyone from the other side, but my parents and my teachers

have told me all my life about how the Greek Cypriots used to treat us as

second-class citizens, causing us to fear for our safety, and driving us into

enclaves. I would like to meet and talk with Greek Cypriots, to learn for myself

what they are like.

Turkish-Cypriot student

Meet with Turkish Cypriots? I wouldn’t mind, really, but with all the

propaganda they’ve been given about Greek Cypriots, they probably think we

have little horns growing on our heads and EOKA tattoos painted on our

arms. I hope I can show them that we’re not so bad!

Greek-Cypriot student

Our lives revolve around images. Since we are limited in how

much we can experience ourselves, most of what we know is

dependent on information we receive from teachers, textbooks,

parents, relatives, friends, the media, etc. While some sources are less

distorted than others, all information is biased in one way or another.

And we have no choice but to use this data, however inaccurate or

5. ENCOUNTERING

IMAGES

limited it may be, in forming impressions, making decisions, and

taking action. Images serve as our guide to reality.

Until recently, very few people in Cyprus had direct

experience with individuals in the other community. Members of the

older generation could remember what the other was like 30 or 40

years ago, but memory is very selective and changes over the years

made these memories unreliable as a guide to today’s situation.

Faced with this situation, young and old alike had to rely on

information that was distorted, often deliberately. The education

system, the media, the politicians, and even family members painted

incomplete and misleading pictures of people and life on the other

side of the Green Line. For most Cypriots, there was no alternative

but to accept these depictions as authentic, since as long as contact

was limited there was little chance for it to be disputed.

The situation is different today, with contact across the Green

Line possible for anyone and likely for many. However, this increase

in contact means that the images of the past are even more likely to

be encountered, and sometimes they will not be flattering. Greek

Cypriots will find that Turkish Cypriots believe certain things about

them that seem incredulous. Turkish Cypriots will find Greek

Cypriots unbelievably naïve about certain aspects of life in the north.

Some of these images can be humorous, while others can be

insulting. Misunderstandings and hurt feelings are likely.

Although it will not take care of the problem by itself, it is

important to be prepared for how each side sees the other. This

section will describe some of the images that exist on each side about

the other, in the hope that this information might help the reader

interpret better what is heard in discussions. It also might help one

question some of the views he/she holds of the other side.

The observations in the following sections are based on results

from a series of mono-communal seminars that were focused on

images of self and other in Cyprus. In these separately held

meetings, participants generated ideas in response to several

questions, including the following: ‘What perceptions exist within

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

our society (Turkish-Cypriot or Greek-Cypriot) about the other

community (Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots) – in the media,

education system, government statements and documents,

diplomatic circles, family gatherings, coffeehouses, and other places?'

After generating responses to these questions, discussion centred on

which of these were most widely held among the general population.

The following sections focus on the images likely to be

encountered in meeting with people from the other side. Some of the

images are probably well known, while others might come as a

surprise. In either case, it is important to bear in mind that although

these images might be widespread within the overall population, a

particular individual could hold very different views. We are all

exposed to different information, and we all process it in a multitude

of ways because of our previous experiences and belief systems. Even

so, it is a good idea to be aware of the existence of these images and

to realize that they are ‘out there' waiting to enter any discussion

HOW DO TURKISH CYPRIOTS SEE GREEK CYPRIOTS?

Many of the images in Turkish-Cypriot society about the other side

were formed during the period from 1963-1974, when they

experienced discrimination, harassment, and persecution as a

minority in Cyprus. Greek Cypriots had fought during the British

period for ‘enosis', or union with Greece, and many saw as a

disappointment the independence that resulted from their struggle.

The constitution was viewed as unworkable and included too many

privileges for the Turkish Cypriots. There was resentment by the

Greek Cypriots about what was perceived as unfair advantages, as

well as frustration from the inability to pass legislation. When the

Turkish Cypriots withdrew into enclaves scattered throughout the

island, they became invisible to most Greek Cypriots, and extremist

groups were able to act with impunity. The suffering of the Turkish

Cypriots during this period, which went unnoticed by the majority of

the Greek-Cypriot population, is firmly embedded in the minds and

hearts of Turkish Cypriots. Fortunately, Turkish Cypriots hold a few

ENCOUNTERING IMAGES

positive images of Greek Cypriots, but it is the negative characteristics

that receive constant reinforcement from the authorities, the

educational system, and the media.

In general, some of the more commonly held beliefs about the

Greek Cypriots include the following:

■ ‘Greek Cypriots think Cyprus belongs to them. They believe that

Cyprus is a Greek island, that they are the rightful owners. They

have not been able to abandon the Megali Idea that points toward

enosis with Greece. Greek Cypriots don’t believe we have a right to

be in Cyprus. They don’t respect us or even recognize our communal

identity. They think we are under full control of Turkey, without a

will of our own.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots ignore their responsibilities for past mistakes. They

think the conflict started in 1974. They always concentrate on the

Turkish military actions, but they fail to see what happened before

that, how they created the conditions for the Turkish intervention.

Greek Cypriots distort the facts about the period 1963-1974, the

missing persons, the stolen icons, and other issues, making it seem as

if everything was fine until Turkey intervened.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots fail to understand the reality in the north. They don’t

see the growing disparity between the two sides, and they

misunderstand our wish to have our autonomy and equality. They

don’t see how the embargos they implement hurt them in the long

run, giving us Turkey as our only window to the rest of the world.

They have a naïve view of the situation with Anatolian Turks coming

to Cyprus, and they don’t see that it is their own actions that are

bringing more of them. The conditions are driving us away from

Cyprus, and soon they will find themselves sharing the island with

Turkish peasants rather than with Turkish Cypriots.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots think of us as inferior. They don’t understand that

we have our own political institutions, that we have a democratically

elected government, that we have rules and regulations under which

we administrate our society. They don’t realize the creativity and

ingenuity it takes just to keep things working, and how our business

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

skills have enabled us to survive in the face of many difficulties. They

still think of us as ‘good enough for making shamishi. If there is ever

the possibility for them to do so, they will try to make us their

workers again.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots are preoccupied with their own victimization. They

fail to see that they have victimized others. We know they have some

genuine and serious concerns about their security, but they are not

at all concerned about our security. Greek Cypriots have a

superiority complex, not only toward us but towards others as well.

They want everything for themselves. They take all the advantages

and benefits of being recognized, and they do not share it with us.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots are not serious about resolving the conflict. They

would like to see things return to the pre-1974 status, when they

were in control of the whole island, but they don’t want a solution

based on true partnership. In fact, they fail to understand what

partnership means; they don’t see the importance of equal political

status. They lack understanding of the issue of parity, both politically

and economically. Greek Cypriots do not have strong enough pain to

need change from the present status, and they have no incentive for

compromise. Their desire to join the European Union was driven by

political motives, and they don’t see how the final result will be the

permanent division of Cyprus. Perhaps this is what they want, so they

don’t have to deal with us any more.'

■ ‘Greek Cypriots are not realistic about the future. They think that if

the Turkish army leaves, everything will be okay. They don’t

understand that unrestricted freedom of movement will allow the

extremists on both sides to create trouble. They forget to mention

that since 1974 there have been very few civilian deaths in Cyprus at

the hands of the other community. No one would want to see EOKA

and TMT operating again. Greek Cypriots also have false hopes of

returning to their former homes. They seem to be living in a dream

world, thinking they can just turn back the hands of time and make

things like they used to be. Finally, Greek Cypriots forget that

entering the European Union will mean that Europeans will be able

ENCOUNTERING IMAGES

to settle more easily in Cyprus. They don’t understand the changes

that will take place when they have to follow European rules.'

■ ‘Individually, the Greek Cypriots are good people. They are very

serious, and they have been very successful in building a strong

economy and persuasive in influencing international opinion. They

are diplomatic, polite, and can be quite charming. In social

situations, they are fun to be with – good singers and dancers, and

plenty of really funny jokes! Unfortunately, they are more religious

than us, and they are controlled too much by the church. We are also

worried that Russian interest groups and the Russian mafia are

gaining too much influence over some politicians.'

HOW DO GREEK CYPRIOTS SEE TURKISH CYPRIOTS?

Unlike the Turkish Cypriots, the Greek-Cypriot community does not

have a history of oppression by the other side. They don’t talk about

a time when life was bad with the Turkish Cypriots, and they don’t

feel relieved that the past is behind them. Most of the images that

Greek Cypriots hold of the other side are based on the 1974 events.

And even then the negative feelings are directed primarily toward

Turkey rather than toward the Turkish Cypriots. For the most part,

the Greek Cypriots remember the time before 1974 as a period of

peaceful harmony, with the two communities living together in

mixed villages, attending each other’s weddings, and working

together in the fields. Of course, the reality was different, and as

described earlier, the Turkish-Cypriot memory of this period is poles

apart from the Greek-Cypriot version. Nevertheless, there are a

variety of images prevalent within Greek-Cypriot society about the

Turkish Cypriots.

Some of the more commonly held beliefs about the Turkish

Cypriots include the following:

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots are pawns of Turkey. They have no say about

Cyprus - they are powerless about developments on the island. They

are used by Turkey, which does not really care about them except for

its own strategic interests. Even though they are ‘protected’ by the

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Turkish army, they are also oppressed by them, having no voice of

their own. They are passive, afraid to speak up, even though we

know the Turks do not care about them.'

■ ‘The agenda of the Turkish Cypriots is to divide the island. They do

not really want a solution. They already have what they were seeking,

and in the negotiations they simply stall for time, always finding a

way to block progress. Their intransigence makes it impossible for us

to hope for a settlement.'

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots’ demands are disproportionate to their size. At less

than 20% of the population (and decreasing every day as they leave

and are replaced by Turkish settlers), they want 50% of the power.

And they are interested in sharing power only in the south – in the

north they want to be masters. They have nearly 40% of our land,

and they don’t want to give any of it back. They have our houses, our

hotels, our beaches, our farmland, our orchards, and they don’t

know how to manage or take care of any of it. And to make matters

worse they have the most beautiful part of Cyprus, including our

jewel, Kyrenia, our lovely mountains, the Pentedactylos, and the

wonderful beaches of Famagusta. Panayia mou!'

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots do not respect international law. No nation has the

right to invade and occupy another sovereign country. The United

Nations, the United States, and the European Union, along with the

entire world community has condemned the Turkish invasion and

called for the removal of Turkish troops. Resolution after resolution

in the U.N. has been ignored by the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey.

They complain that we imposed an embargo on them, but it is the

international community that refuses to trade with them. The only

reason they can get by with their blatant disregard for the law is the

military strength of Turkey standing behind them.'

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots are favoured by the international community.

Despite their intransigence, their illegal status, their violation of

international law, their refusal to negotiate seriously, the Turkish

Cypriots have not been pressured by the international community to

make concessions. We are asked to give and give, and we never see

ENCOUNTERING IMAGES

anything in return. It is because the West supports Turkey. They

think they need her as an ally, but they don’t realize how

untrustworthy she is.'

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots are not economically and culturally advanced.

Their economy is so depressed that they have to rely completely on

Turkey for their survival. In the case of a solution, they will pose an

economic burden for Greek Cypriots. And they have not contributed

much to our civilization – no beautiful art, great literature,

architectural masterpieces, or democratic ideals. In Cyprus we have

a rich legacy of over 8000 years, and the Turkish Cypriots have been

here only a short while. All they’ve been able to do is take our

churches and add minarets.'

■ ‘Turkish Cypriots have a place in Cyprus. We never had any

trouble getting along with the Turkish Cypriots, before the Turks set

their sights on Cyprus. We have a lot in common with them, certainly

more than with the Turks anyway, and we have many shared

interests related to the European Union. They will be our enemies as

long as they occupy our properties, but we used to be neighbours.

We are not sure we can live together again, after all that has

happened. We’re sure that if Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots

were left alone they would find their way forward.'

APPRECIATING DIFFERENCES

One of the potential benefits of bi-communal contact is

change in the negative and distorted images that each side holds of

the other, hopefully replacing them with a more sophisticated view.

In order for Cyprus to experience genuine peace at some point, the

parties have to work through differences in perceptions and

develop an understanding and appreciation of each other's point of

view. Furthermore, they must work to form a shared vision of the

island's future, so that in spite of the differences in their

interpretations of the past, they can move beyond these opposing

views to create a place where both communities can live in peace

and work toward common goals.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

In my discussions with those who have taken part in

workshops and seminars, nearly everyone talks about how much

their picture of the other side has been altered. They also give

emphasis to the importance of being able to present to the other side

a different perspective about life in their own community. It is clear

that the exchange is both ways, and it is a learning experience for

everyone.

The end result, however, is never present at the beginning of

one’s journey, and along the way, the going can be rough at times.

When we hear someone make statements about our community that

we believe are clearly mistaken, our natural reaction is to

immediately ‘correct' that person. Usually, we try to do this even

before they finish their statement! No one wants to hear negative

information, especially if we know it is not true. And most of the time

we take it personally. When Greek Cypriots hear about how they

used to carry out massacres in Turkish-Cypriot villages, they feel as

if they are being accused of having carried out these deeds

themselves, which they clearly have not done. When Turkish

Cypriots hear that they have stolen Greek-Cypriot property, they feel

accused of being a criminal, and the hurt feelings associated with this

indictment are not easy to keep inside.

Unfortunately, our attempts to correct or refute others’

statements, as well as our vigorous defense against perceived

accusations, simply make matters worse. Most of the time they

reinforce in the other’s mind (and in our own) the accuracy of the

image. Such argumentative debate is almost always a waste of time,

and even worse, it contributes to the perpetuation of the conflict. In

some ways, it might be better never to have met, because now the two

sides can say with confidence that they have ‘seen for themselves' the

other side, and sadly it seems that what they heard is true after all.

It is important to keep in mind that the individuals making the

negative statements did not create them, and probably they never

decided consciously to use them. Like all of us, they simply are

relying on the information that is available to them, and they are

ENCOUNTERING IMAGES

repeating things they have heard all their life. As with all stereotypes,

there is probably some truth in what they are saying. At a minimum,

the statements are based on events that once happened in some

form, even if they no longer take place or if they were exaggerated.

It is best to frame the situation as a two-way educational opportunity.

We might say to ourselves: ‘Here in front of me, is someone from

whom I can learn something new. He/she has a perspective on my

community that I will never have the opportunity to hear at home.

And if they get to know me, some of their perceptions might change

-- perhaps I can contribute also to their learning.'

Unfortunately, changes in perceptions are not likely to occur

after a single encounter. When I meet with the other person, I might

be able to show him/her something different from what he/she was

told all his/her life, but I am just one person, and there are always

exceptions to the rule. In any case, after the other’s encounter with

me, he/she will go back (as I will) to the same environment that

created and nurtured these perceptions in the first place, and it will

not be easy for him/her to hold tightly to what he/she saw and heard

during their discussions with me. In order for real change to occur,

and in order for each party to develop genuine empathy for the

other’s point of view, there will need to be numerous conversations,

over time, in different environments, and with a variety of people.

And the exchange will have to be more than social ‘chit-chat.' Serious

discussions about central issues form the basis for real change in

perceptions.

RECOGNIZING VARIETY

There is a tendency to view the other community as homogeneous

and to portray them in strictly negative terms. Yet the other is never

an undifferentiated entity, and neither is everyone on one’s own side

all of the same opinion. It is important to recognize the variety that

exists among the ‘enemy' or within one’s own community. Most of

the bi-communal groups that have formed are composed of

individuals from various political persuasions, with quite different

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

views about what must be done to improve the situation in Cyprus.

It is misleading to state that this is the ‘Greek-Cypriot position' or

the ‘Turkish-Cypriot position.' Indeed, we have found that there is

sometimes more similarity across community lines than there is

within each community. It is often the case that Greek Cypriots will

form closer ties with other Turkish Cypriots than they will with

many of their compatriots. Of course, there is an ‘official' position

on each side and in the beginning stages of group work it is these

views that often dominate. However, as the group develops a more

open climate of sharing, individual differences are brought out into

the open and form the basis for discussion. From the more than

200 bi-communal meetings and workshops in which I have

participated, I have rarely seen discussion about issues which fall

along strictly community lines. This richness of intra-communal

differences may make it more difficult for the extremists in either

side to promote separation of the two communities, and it is a

factor that promises greater possibility for inter-communal

cooperation in the future.

DISCOVERING COMMONALITIES

While it is crucial to recognize, confront, and appreciate differences,

it is important to realize that Cypriots also share common interests,

common aspirations, and even a common culture. After all, Turkish

Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have lived on the island together for

400 years! For most of their shared history they have confronted

similar problems and lived under similar conditions. As a friend

reminded me once while we were watching the sunset in Paphos, the

same sun rises and sets on both the north and south of the island.

And despite differences in language, religion, and ethnic origin,

Cypriots are fellow human beings, struggling to survive and prosper,

providing a better life for their families and trying to ensure a proper

future for their children. Commonalities are not always as easy to

spot as differences, especially in conflict situations, but they form the

basis for any meaningful relationship.

ENCOUNTERING IMAGES

Unfortunately, the subject of commonalities among Cypriots

has been politicized (like most issues in Cyprus!). In their attempts to

stress the need for communal separation, Turkish-Cypriot rhetoric

tends to overemphasize the differences between the communities,

while in their attempt to stress the need for a unified island, Greek-

Cypriot rhetoric tends to overestimate the similarities. This is a case

in which the views of both sides are essentially correct on one level

and dangerously wrong on another level. By giving primary

emphasis to the commonalities between the two communities, the

Greek Cypriots are failing to take into account fundamental areas of

disagreement that prevent the two sides from coming together. By

focusing on the differences, the Turkish Cypriots are helping to

create a situation where people may not be able to live together again

when a solution becomes a reality.

I have seen almost every group with which I have worked in

Cyprus go through a stage in which the Greek Cypriots are shocked

by the disparity between their views and those of their colleagues in

the other community, and I’ve seen Turkish Cypriots constantly

struggle with (and sometimes resist) the realization that there is much

more commonality between the two sides than they expected.

Individuals and groups need to develop a more balanced picture

that is closer to the reality of Cyprus, putting them in a better

position for working together in a true partnership characterized by

trust, empathy, and respect.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

It is important to keep in mind that the contacts that have taken place since April

2003 have affected these images in ways that are not yet known. It would be useful to

conduct again a series of workshops in which questions about images of the other could be

explored. A recent Master's thesis by Zenon Severis, The Effects Of The Opening Of The Green

Line On Young Greek Cypriots And Their Perception Of Identity is one of the first research

projects to address this question. Perhaps as you read this section, you can think about ways

in which the images reported here, which were characteristic of the larger population before

the recent 'openings,' have changed or are changing, hopefully in ways that lessen their

negative impact.

I don’t feel complete with my country divided. Part of me is missing. I yearn

for Kyrenia, for Karpas, and most of all for my mother’s village, Lapithos.

But I also ache because the Turkish Cypriots are no longer in my life.

Greek-Cypriot journalist

I’m grateful for our freedom, that we can live without fear of the Greeks. But

my soul is troubled. I carry a heavy burden with me always. It’s called the

Cyprus problem, and it’s a part of who I am.

Turkish-Cypriot peace activist

Conflicts often arise and sustain themselves because of political

aspirations, thirst for military dominance, struggle for economic

advantage, quest for control of resources, and geopolitical

manoeuvring by the big powers. But is there also something deeper,

more human, lurking behind the scenes?

Although we must recognize the immediate and direct impacts

of the more ‘visible' factors such as those listed above, I believe that

the hidden element in many conflicts, especially those involving

different ethnic groups, is perceptions of self and other. How do the

different groups see themselves? What images do they hold of the

6. EXAMINING IDENTITY

other? How do these differences in self-perceptions and views of the

other clash? How do they help create different views about the

future? How is each group’s view of themselves threatened by the

other? Can the conflict itself become essential to how groups see

themselves? I believe these and other identity-related questions are

critical in promoting more effective ties across the Green Line in

Cyprus.

Identity issues impact conflict situations in several ways. The

conflict itself is likely to revolve around differences in how each party

perceives itself, especially vis-à-vis the other. These differences in

perceptions may have led to the conflict in the first place, and they

usually exacerbate the separation and make reconciliation nearly

impossible. Trust is shattered, accusations fly, wounds fester, hope is

lost. If they have lived in close proximity in the past, each party’s

definition of itself includes the relationship they had together.

Separation tears apart this collective identity and requires a re-

definition of one’s self. In order for suitable agreements to be

reached between the conflicting parties, these identity issues must be

addressed

In some ways, identity issues in Cyprus appear to be relatively

straightforward. There are two well-defined geographical zones,

each populated and administered primarily by a single ethnic group.

Each community uses a consistent label for itself – Turkish Cypriots

in the north and Greek Cypriots in the south. Turkish Cypriots are

Turkish-speaking, think of themselves as secular Muslims, take pride

in their Ottoman heritage, and consider themselves European in

outlook and orientation. Greek Cypriots are Greek-speaking, belong

to the Orthodox Christian church, take pride in being part of the

Hellenic world, and orient themselves toward Europe and the West.

To an outsider, it may be easy to see the Turkish Cypriots simply as

part of Turkey and the Greek Cypriots as an extension of Greece –

merely two ‘outposts' of their respective motherlands.

The reality in Cyprus, however, is much more complicated.

The multi-faceted nature of Cypriot identities and their influence on

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

the conflict emerged during the workshops that I facilitated with

citizen peace groups during the past decade. In most of these

workshops, discussion was guided by two questions, one posed for

the purpose of generating and clarifying ideas and the other for

exploring the relationship among the ideas. In each group we were

trying to create an influence structure that represented the system of

issues surrounding the topic of our discussion. In the core group

with which I first worked, we initially explored the obstacles to peace-

building efforts in Cyprus, followed by goals for the group’s peace-

building activities. In other groups we examined issues facing the

youth of Cyprus, barriers to increased cooperation among young

business leaders, factors that lead to pain and suffering in Cyprus,

obstacles to cooperation among citizen peace groups in the region,

and other topics. In none of these workshops was identity the

primary topic, but in every case there were identity issues that

became a major part of our discussions.

In addition to these workshops, I also facilitated several

seminars that posed specific questions about identity. For example,

we often addressed questions related to perceptions of the ‘other,'

perceptions of self, and perceptions of how the other sees you. In one

of these workshops, we spent nearly six weeks exploring how

participants see themselves, within their own society, and vis-à-vis

one another. The main purpose of this seminar was to explore how

identity issues affect the Cyprus conflict. In the initial stages of their

discussion, the participants in this group generated responses to the

question: ‘What feelings and beliefs are associated with my identity as

a Turkish Cypriot or Greek Cypriot?' As part of our discussion, we

explored the major themes that ran through these statements,

categorizing the responses under six headings (see Table 1).

In the following section I will explore each of these themes in

greater detail, basing most of my observations on information taken

from the identity seminars. It is augmented by discussions from the

other workshops, as well as from the series of seminars held during

July 2001 that were concerned with rapprochement in the region

EXAMINING IDENTITY

Before continuing, it is imperative to point out that there is a

great deal of variety within each community, and although these

intra-group differences are often overshadowed by their allegiance to

the ‘national cause,' it is important to recognize that neither group

can be treated as a monolithic whole. This diversity was also evident

in our workshops. Sometimes the most contentious discussions took

place between members of the same community rather than across

ethnic lines. Thus, the descriptions I present below must be

understood as general patterns that emerged from the discussions

during our seminars. It is inappropriate and misleading to see

individual Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots as embodying all or

even most of the characteristics presented in the following sections.

Nevertheless, within each group there was a consensus that the

beliefs and feelings we discussed are representative of the general

population and are reliable guides to how people see themselves.

It is helpful to keep in mind when reading the following

sections that they report perceptions that emerged from workshops

and seminars held in a bi-communal setting. The results are not a

product of social-scientific research about identity issues in Cyprus.

Thus, one could argue that the ideas outlined below reflect primarily

the views of those individuals drawn to bi-communal groups, rather

than of the population as a whole. Nevertheless, the individuals in

the bi-communal groups represented a broad cross-section of

Cypriots, and they were asked to present what they believed to be

opinions commonly found in the larger society (and not just their

own personal views). Therefore, it is likely that the discussion

presented below can be understood as broadly representative of the

society in general. In any case, the ideas should provide a stimulus

for discussion and debate, both in mono-communal and bi-

communal settings.

CONNECTION TO MOTHERLAND

The category that emerged in the workshops as the dominant theme

for both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots was the connection

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

Turkish Cypriots Greek Cypriots

■ Carrier of Hellenic civilization,

member of Greek community, part

of Orthodox religion, pride in con-

tributions to Western civilization

■ Confusion about relation between

Greek and Cypriot heritage, distrust

of Greek intentions toward Cyprus

■ Pride associated with Ottoman

heritage, Turkish language,

Muslim religion

■ Increasing uneasiness about the

degree of influence exerted by

Turkey over internal affairs

■ Connection with whole of island,

attachment to place of birth, pride

in Cypriot history, Cypriot dialect

■ Distinction from people of Greece

■ Suffering through many troubles,

difficult to survive as a Turkish

Cypriot, suppressed economic

potential

■ Sandwiched between Turkey and

Greek Cypriots, helpless, victims

of situation

■ Sense of incompleteness, lack of

freedom to move in my island,

bitter about past

■ Always compromising, victims of

international forces, weak position,

strength to survive

■ Treated as minority, separated

by language & religion, sense of

insecurity

■ Desire for dialogue, willingness

to make peace

■ Fractured by separation

■ Search for similarities, desire for

unification

■ Close family ties, strong sense

of neighbourhood, emphasis

on social events

■ Passivity in dealing with difficult

situations, tolerant of others

■ Close family ties, strong sense of

neighbourhood, emphasis on

social events

■ Peace-loving, compassionate,

sentimental, hard working

■ Identification with Europe,

cosmopolitan, insufficiently aware

of international issues

■ Misunderstood by international

community

■ Identification with Europe,

emphasis on international law and

rights, self-assured on world stage

■ Suspicious of other cultures,

blame international community

for problems

TABLE 1: COMPARING IDENTITY ISSUES IN CYPRUS

CONNECTION TO MOTHERLAND

ATTACHMENT TO CYPRUS

BURDEN OF CYPRUS CONFLICT

RELATION TO OTHER COMMUNITY

CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

CONNECTION TO INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

■ Connection to the soil, pride

in richness of culture, Cypriot

dialect

■ Distinction from people of Turkey

they felt to what they describe as their motherlands, Turkey and

Greece. For the Turkish Cypriots, this connection was relatively

straightforward. They saw themselves as part of a larger Turkish

population that lived not only in Turkey but also in many other

countries of the region. The Turkish language was an important part

of their self-definition, and they found great meaning in the poetry

and literature that the Turkish language made possible. They took

pride in being descendents from the Ottomans, an empire they

perceived as the most tolerant and multicultural in the world’s

history, providing some of the progressive ideas that are found in

many modern nations, especially those that incorporate many

cultures within their borders. Turkish Cypriots considered

themselves secular Muslims, celebrating the Islamic holy days and

attending to the primary rituals, such as marriage and death

ceremonies, but not participating actively in worship services or

following the more conservative practices related to clothing, daily

prayer, attending the services of the mosque, etc. For the most part,

they felt strongly aligned with the institutions and cultural life of

Turkey, and they took comfort from being so close to the people

from whom they descended and the land from which their

forefathers immigrated nearly 400 years earlier. As will be made

clearer in later sections, Turkish Cypriots also differentiated

themselves from the mainlanders, especially from the religiously

conservative Anatolian settlers who have come to Cyprus more

recently, but their own strong connection to Turkey was undisputed.

For the Greek Cypriots, the connection they felt to their

motherland was more complicated. Clearly, they saw themselves as

part of Greek culture, as belonging to the larger Greek community,

and as part of Greek history. They felt power in the expressiveness

of the Greek language, the richness of its vocabulary, and the many

poets and writers who used the language with skill and beauty to

create works recognized by the world community. They took great

pride in the accomplishments and contributions of the Hellenes, who

are considered as providing the basis of western democracy,

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

philosophy, science, medicine, psychology, literature, and arts. The

Orthodox Christian religion was an important aspect of their

identity, providing celebrations, feast days, rituals of birth, marriage,

and death, but no one described themselves as religious and few

believed the Church held much influence over their daily lives.

Unlike the Turkish Cypriots, however, they did not feel close to the

daily life and institutions of their Greek kin, and to some extent they

even felt a dislike of the Greeks, discussing how they often felt treated

by them as second-class citizens. Even though they took some

comfort from the promises of the Greek government to provide

protection from outside threats, they did not believe the Greeks

could (or would) deliver when the need arose. On the one hand, they

felt a need for support and security arrangements with Greece. At

the same time they were suspicious about the intentions and goodwill

of Greece toward Cyprus, viewing them as directly responsible for

much of the pain and frustration of the island. Finally, they

expressed uncertainty about how much of their heritage was Greek

and how much was due to the numerous influences from other

rulers of Cyprus. Overall, despite several misgivings and confusions,

the Greek Cypriots recognized their ties to the mainland and felt

pride in their Greek heritage.

The difference in the Greek-Cypriot feelings toward Greece,

compared to the Turkish-Cypriot feelings toward Turkey, can be

explained partially by the different historical circumstances each face.

The Greek influence in Cyprus goes back over 3000 years, to the

time of the first Greek settlers who came to Cyprus after the Trojan

wars described by Homer, while the Turkish presence in Cyprus

started over 400 years ago with the Ottoman conquest of the island.

While the period of Turkish influence has been relatively

uninterrupted, except for the British colonial period, the Greek

impact on Cyprus lies within several other layers of conquest,

including Phoenician, Assyrian, Egyptian, Roman, Byzantine,

Lusignian, Venetian, Ottoman, and British. Although the language

and mythology remained predominately Greek, these periods have

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

left their mark as well. Many Greek Cypriots will point to the

‘unbroken chain of Greek heritage,' but it is not always a very

convincing argument, even to the Greek Cypriots themselves. In

addition, the distance to the motherland is greater for the Greek

Cypriots than for the Turkish Cypriots (it is 500 miles to Athens,

while it is only 40 miles to the Turkish coast), and besides the

practical difficulties of maintaining a close relationship with a far

away neighbour, such physical distance also creates psychological

distance. Another factor is the ratio of Turkish Cypriots (less than

120,000 total population) to mainland Turks (65 million inhabitants)

compared to the Greek Cypriots’ (650,000) relation to the inhabitants

of Greece (10 million). The Greek Cypriots do not feel overwhelmed

by the size of the Greek population, so it is not difficult for them to

feel and act independently of Greece, while the Turkish Cypriots

may feel more constrained in the face of the large population of

Turkey. Finally, the Greek role in the 1974 coup that led to the

Turkish intervention is openly acknowledged, and Greek Cypriots

quickly condemn both this intervention in their internal affairs and

the lack of Greek help in their attempt to defend themselves against

the Turkish forces. By contrast, the Turkish Cypriots express

gratitude to Turkey for their intervention in 1974, viewing this an act

of ‘salvation' for their community.

ATTACHMENT TO CYPRUS

In addition to the strong ties both communities feel toward their

mother countries, both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots also

expressed deep attachment to the island of Cyprus. The Turkish

Cypriots emphasized their love for the island, their roots in the soil,

their emotional attachment to the landscape and its smells, colours,

sounds, and cooling winds of summer evenings. They discussed the

uniqueness of their Cypriot dialect, cuisine, and many cultural

traditions. They also took pride in having a separate identity from

their Turkish kin, speaking about their secularism and dislike for

anything too religious.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Similarly, the Greek Cypriots discussed at length their feelings

of belonging to the land of the island, the human and natural aspects

of the Cypriot landscape, and the emotional ties they feel to the

mountains and the sea, the smell and colours of the sun and the air.

They also emphasized the Cypriot dialect, in their case tracing it back

to the times of Homeric Greek, emphasizing, as did the Turkish

Cypriots, ways in which their culture is unique from that of the

mainland Greeks. Unlike the Turkish Cypriots, they pointed to the

8000-year history of human settlement on Cyprus, recognizing that

monuments were built by their ancestors prior to Greek influence.

They also emphasized the international recognition given to their

government and the fact that Cyprus was an independent state,

allowing Cyprus to play a role on the world stage. Also, unlike the

Turkish Cypriots, they talked about their unwillingness to leave the

island, even when conditions are bad and the future grim. Finally,

the Greek Cypriots stressed their connection with the whole of the

island, and they gave special importance to the place (village and

setting) of their birth.

Beyond these differences, both Greek Cypriots and Turkish

Cypriots expressed very similar feelings of affection for their

homeland. For both, it reflects the meaning they give to the Cypriot

part of their hyphenated name. However, the differences that

emerged between the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot views are

not insignificant. The latter’s attention to the 8000-year history of the

island is no accident – they have been taught in their history that they

are the original inhabitants of the island and that the Turkish Cypriots

are relative newcomers. The attention to international recognition is

another part of the political nature of Greek-Cypriot identity – they

derive part of their legitimacy from this legal status as the official

representatives of Cyprus, and an important part of the way they see

themselves has to do with this status. Finally, the emphasis Greek

Cypriots gave to their connection with the whole of the island is quite

different from the Turkish-Cypriot views. The Greek-Cypriot official

position is that every Cypriot must have free access to the whole of

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

the island, and this political message has been hammered into the

consciousness of every Greek Cypriot from birth. For many of them,

the village of their birth (or the village of their parents) lies in

Turkish-Cypriot controlled territory, and giving attention to a

specific location is a way to keeping alive the political hope that one

day they will have access to these places. For the Turkish Cypriots,

although they may miss the place of their birth (if their home was

formerly in the south), and nearly all of them want to visit places in

the south that used to be important to them, few Turkish Cypriots

expressed a desire to live again in those places. These differences

between the two communities are major driving forces in the conflict,

and they represent issues that are very difficult to resolve.

BURDEN OF THE CYPRUS CONFLICT

Very few Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots have known a period

without the Cyprus conflict. It has been at the forefront of their lives

since the 1950s, and today it is a pervasive force that overlays much

of their existence. Both groups have suffered physically and both

now suffer psychologically. Although the Cyprus conflict impacts

strongly on the identity of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish

Cypriots, it does so in different ways. For the Turkish Cypriots, an

important part of their identity is the struggle to survive as a

community. They see themselves as having endured a great deal of

suffering over the years at the hands the Greek Cypriots, and they

are constantly reminded of the events that caused this suffering.

They hold within themselves a feeling that they are victims of grave

injustice, that they have been persecuted by many forces. For the

Turkish Cypriots, they believe strongly that their community

deserves better, both in term of recognition as a community and in

economic opportunities.

For the Greek Cypriots, identity is also tied to struggle, but

their fight is for justice that will address the wrongs committed

against them in the past. They see themselves as suffering, but the

cause of their troubles is primarily Turkey and the international

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

community, not the Turkish Cypriots. They feel divided, incomplete,

and without freedom (to move freely and settle within Cyprus). There

is a lot of bitterness about the past and uncertainty about the future.

They see themselves as constantly compromising in the interest of

peace, putting themselves in a weak position at the bargaining table.

Despite the similarities at one level, the differences in Greek-

Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot views of themselves vis-à-vis the Cyprus

conflict is one of the primary forces that keeps the conflict alive. The

Turkish Cypriots’ struggle to survive as a community is pitted against

the Greek Cypriots’ struggle to exercise their individual rights. The

Turkish Cypriots’ feelings toward the Greek Cypriots for the

suffering they caused is ignored by the Greek Cypriots in their

emphasis on outside forces (primarily Turkey) as the cause of

suffering in Cyprus. The constraints that the Turkish Cypriots feel

because of their international isolation are incompatible with the

Greek-Cypriot belief that they (the Greek Cypriots) have to be

constantly alert to the danger of the world community accepting the

status quo as the starting point for a solution, leaving them in an even

weaker position. In the meantime, there is a general ‘heaviness,'

caused by the existence of the unresolved conflict, which pervades

the psychological and social well-being of all Cypriots and their views

of themselves.

RELATION TO THE OTHER COMMUNITY

The Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have lived together on

the same small island for over 400 years, and the ties they have with

one another form a crucial backbone of their identity. For the

Turkish Cypriots, there is a clear awareness of the ways in which

language and religion separate them from the Greek Cypriots.

There was some discussion about the existence of an inferiority

complex, brought about by so many years of being dominated

economically, politically, and culturally. Turkish Cypriots

expressed a feeling of insecurity toward Greek Cypriots, feeling

threatened by this larger community, and they saw a need to

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

protect themselves from the prejudice and abuse that used to

happen regularly. There was a strong dislike for being treated

today as a minority by the Greek Cypriots. At the same time, there

was a strong desire to have more dialogue, to directly communicate

and engage in trade, and to find ways to live peacefully side by side.

The Greek Cypriots emphasized their similarities with

Turkish Cypriots, along with an explicit recognition that they

seldom thought about differences. They expressed a desire to co-

exist with the Turkish Cypriots, to live together with their

neighbours in peace. There was a strong dislike for any form of

artificial separation between the two communities, and they saw

themselves as constantly fighting for individual rights, both their

own and their neighbours’.

It was clear that neither of the communities feels ‘complete'

without the other, but this seemed truer for the Greek Cypriots

than for the Turkish Cypriots. Because of their minority status

(numerically, economically, and politically), the Turkish Cypriots

had always been aware of their differences from the Greek

Cypriots, and they had long taken these dissimilarities as a matter

of fact. For the Greek Cypriots, however, who were the ruling

majority for much of the twentieth century, the differences between

themselves and the Turkish Cypriots have been more or less

overlooked and/or ignored. In many ways, the basic difference in

how each group sees themselves vis-à-vis the other fuels the

conflict, leading to incompatible positions about how the two

communities should relate to one another. The Greek Cypriots’

insistence on ‘living together' on the island is in direct opposition to

the Turkish Cypriot assertion that the only future for Cyprus is an

arrangement with appropriate safeguards that allows the two

neighbours to live securely and peacefully ‘side by side.'

CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS

In spite of speaking a different language, following a different

religion, and holding such different views of history and the current

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

situation, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share many common

cultural characteristics. In each community, individuals define

themselves within the context of family ties, and personal identity is

closely linked to parents, siblings, and relatives. Neighbourhood is

also important, and the character and history of the place where

individuals reside helps determine how they see themselves.

Emphasis is given in both communities to helping neighbours and

others in need. At the same time, people are curious about the affairs

of their neighbours, and both sides said there is a tendency to talk

about others ‘behind their back.' For both groups, much of life

revolves around social activities, and food is a central feature of social

gatherings. Although there are a few differences in the cuisine of

each community, for the most part the diet is the same, and everyone

will point quickly to their favorite Cypriot foods such as halloumi and

‘souvla'. In each community, people see themselves as friendly to

others, hospitable to guests, and eager to learn about others.

Music, dance, and art are integral parts of social life among

both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and they tend to have the

same or similar dance costumes, instruments, melodies, and forms of

artistic expression. Each group pointed to their love of ‘tsifteteli,' a

popular dance and music that has origins in the Middle East. Both

groups discussed their tendency to treat time in a somewhat casual

manner, especially their habits of being late for events and doing

things ‘at the last minute.' There are many common nonverbal

expressions, quite a few shared words and phrases, and numerous

communication habits that are identical – both groups pointed out

that several people are usually talking together at the same time in

social conversations (and other settings) and that most social visits

end with a long conversation at the gate, even if it is already very late

at night (something I experienced myself many times!). Finally,

Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots both value humour, placing

emphasis on telling jokes, and they consider themselves to have a

good sense of humour toward events and toward other people.

The primary cultural characteristics that separate the two

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

communities relate to activity orientation and emotional expression.

The Turkish Cypriots saw themselves as somewhat passive in

responding to external events, and they considered themselves as

having a relaxed approach to life. They talked about their ability to

‘forgive and forget' wrongdoings against them. While they

considered themselves emotional, they are careful about publicly

displaying their emotions too strongly. The Greek Cypriots, on the

other hand, saw themselves as taking a more proactive approach to

situations, as impatient, and as future-oriented. They see themselves

as sentimental, quick-tempered, and emotionally expressive. They

have trouble letting go of past wrongs that others have done against

them, and they feel bitter about the way they have been treated by

the outside world. These differences in approach to action and in

expression of emotion have created many misunderstandings when

Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots attempt to work together.

CONNECTION TO INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

Although neither Turkish Cypriots nor Greek Cypriots generated

many individual items about how they see themselves in relation to

the rest of the world, the similarities and differences in their views are

central aspects of the Cyprus conflict. One consistent component of

both groups’ view of self is their European orientation. Despite the

location of Cyprus in the eastern Mediterranean, in close proximity

to countries such as Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt and other Middle

Eastern countries, the Cypriots clearly position themselves as part of

the Western world. There is actually a physical connection to the

West – two large British sovereign military bases are located in

Greek-Cypriot controlled territory. In addition, Greek Cypriots

receive over two million tourists every year, most of them British and

northern Europeans. Even the Turkish Cypriots, who are Muslim by

religion, turn away from the Arab world and towards Europe. While

there is some acknowledgement of Middle Eastern influences on

their culture, Cypriots are vigorous in defending their Western

lifestyle and ways of thinking, as well as their political connections to

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Europe, Britain, and the United States. This probably comes from

several factors -- the many years they were a British colony, the large

number of Cypriots currently living in Europe (especially London)

and the United States, the fact that many students have studied

abroad, and their recent entry into the European Union.

Beyond the similarities, however, the type of connection each

community holds to the Western world is quite different. The

Turkish Cypriots feel frustrated by their inability to make the rest of

the world understand their situation. They don’t easily trust the West

to deal with them fairly, since it has a history of prejudice toward

Islam. They can’t understand why the international community

refuses to recognize their political legitimacy and fails to

acknowledge the reality of the division of Cyprus. The Greek

Cypriots, although their standard of living is not very different from

those found in most European and U.S. cities, have tended to

maintain a non-aligned position toward the West. While they rely on

the U.S. and Europe for political support and economic trade, they

are suspicious of the intentions of the West, particularly those of the

United States, which they perceive as favouring Turkey.

IDENTITY AND INTERDEPENDENCE IN THE CYPRUS CONFLICT

While one must be careful in drawing analogies between vastly

different situations, the Cyprus conflict has many characteristics of a

married couple seeking legal divorce. When such separation occurs

between married couples in contemporary Western societies, it is

usually difficult and almost always painful, but it can allow each

person to go her or his own way, finding new opportunities and

building a new life. It is not so easy, however, to just walk away from

a marriage and begin anew, because the divorce situation is

complicated by the interdependence that exists between the

marriage partners. Frequently, children are involved and both

parents want custody, or the couple lives in a small town and neither

can move away easily, or both work for the same organization and

cannot change jobs effortlessly. Additionally, they may own joint

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

property, such as the house they built together, or they may have

established an estate that cannot be easily broken into separate pieces

and divided between the two sides. Quite often, one of the parties is

in a stronger position economically (e.g., one spouse may have a full-

time salary while the other has never had a full-time job outside the

home, leaving this person with few opportunities for gainful

employment). It is not unusual for the separation to be initiated by

one of the parties against the wishes of the other, with the aggrieved

party denying the difficulties that led to the break-up and at the same

time harbouring illusions of bringing the marriage back together

‘like it was before.' The situation is sometimes exacerbated by the

parents of the couple, especially if these different sets of parents don’t

get along with each other. In most situations, friends or colleagues of

the couple are drawn into the conflict, and although these friends

previously may have had a good relationship with the couple as a

unit, they are now pressured to ‘choose sides' and lend their support

to one or the other. The list of complicating factors could continue,

but it is easy to see that such situations can involve a host of variables

that are not easy to sort out or resolve.

In the case of Cyprus, the situation is complicated by many

factors similar to the ones listed above. After a short partnership in

governing the island, disagreements and difficulties led to fighting,

and an initial cease-fire has turned into a de facto separation. Inter-

communal violence has ceased, but no agreement has been reached

on matters that divide the parties – who will control which territory

on the island, how the parties will share power and responsibility in

matters that concern everyone, what guarantees will be put in place

for security, how the weaker party will be protected from economic

and cultural domination by the stronger side. The Greek Cypriots

want to turn back the clock to recreate the situation before the war,

when they were the dominant group, while the Turkish Cypriots

insist that the separation is final – at last they can build their own

institutions without the interference of the Greek Cypriots. The

motherlands of the two communities are traditional enemies, and

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

although they promise to ‘protect' the respective communities from

aggression by the other, Cyprus suffers continuously from their

interference in its internal affairs. External parties, such as the

United States, Britain, and the European Union, are trying to help

broker an agreement, but each side feels that the other is favoured

by the outside party.

Like the married couple seeking a legal divorce, the two

communities of Cyprus find themselves in a position of

interdependence. Identity issues divide them but also tie them to

each other. The conflict has become an integral part of both

individual and community identity. Because war and forced division,

rather than a natural process of relocation over time, created the

geographical zones in which the two communities of Cyprus live, the

conflict is an unsettled presence that permeates society. It is nearly

impossible to carry on a conversation for any length of time (on

almost any topic) with either a Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot

without the conflict entering the discussion.

The dominance of the conflict in the individual and collective

psyche affects the society in an interesting manner – it serves to

heighten or even strengthen individuals’ sense of self-importance.

The international community has devoted much attention to Cyprus,

and it is doubtful that this small island would have received such

interest from the world community if the conflict did not exist. It is

not uncommon to hear Cypriots (of both communities) say (only half-

jokingly) that Cyprus is the center of the world, but this perception

would be more difficult to maintain without the existence of a conflict

that receives constant notice from Europe and the United States. The

news media in Cyprus give daily headline coverage to even the most

insignificant statements by special envoys, ambassadors, politicians,

and almost any other outsider who mentions Cyprus in the text of

their remarks. It is ironic that outside Cyprus few people know

anything about the conflict (or even where Cyprus is located), while

in Cyprus one easily gets the impression that the world’s attention is

focused on the most recent developments about the Cyprus conflict.

ENTERING UNFAMILIAR TERRITORY

At the same time, the crucial role played by the Cyprus conflict

creates many problems in the everyday life of Cypriots in both

communities. The psychological burden is enormous, and most

people suffer emotionally from the unresolved feelings associated

with the 1974 events and from the fear that war will come again.

Uncertainty, anxiety, insecurity, and pessimism abound in Cyprus,

and these negative feelings affect family life, worker productivity,

and political decisions about economic, environmental, educational,

and almost all other issues. The attention given to the conflict also

allows Cypriots to avoid or ignore many of the social problems that

face their society. Domestic violence, mental depression, treatment of

foreign guest workers, environmental problems, and other concerns

can be easily shoved aside by politicians who use the ‘national cause'

as an excuse to focus on other issues.

Finally, identity concerns help keep the conflict alive in

Cyprus. Differences in how the two communities define themselves

make it very difficult for the conflict to be resolved. Like marital

separations, which seldom end harmoniously, each side in Cyprus

blames the other for the break-up, trust has disappeared from the

relationship, tension is high, and communication with one another

has broken off. Although many attempts have been made to re-

establish the relationship, there seems to be little hope for the

‘marriage' resuming, certainly not in its previous form. However,

there is hope that the two sides can work out an amicable agreement

that allows them to share the island without constant tension, fear,

and the psychological burden of a failed partnership.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

This chapter is based on a paper (Broome, 2004) that is part of a recent book on

identity (see references for full citation).

In the social sciences, identity has been an important construct since George

Herbert Mead’s Mind, Self, and Society (1934). In recent years, the study of identity has

assumed greater importance in intercultural communication. For a discussion of identity in

various cultural contexts, see Tanno and Gonzalez (1998). Collier (1998) provides a good

overview of various approaches to studying identity issues.

I am referring to the series of four-party seminars supported by the Bi-communal

Development Programme during summer 2001 (see acknowledgements for more detailed

description of these seminars).

It’s never easy to make things work smoothly in the bi-communal setting. We

all have good intentions, but in groups it doesn’t always work out the way you

think it should. However, I’ve learned that there are many things I can do to

make the process better. For me, learning to listen was the biggest task – we’re

not used to doing much of that in Cyprus!

Greek-Cypriot psychologist

I’ve been through dozens of training programs in conflict resolution,

mediation, consensus building, and inter-group communication, all of which

were extremely useful. Even so, I often manage to say things that create

difficulties in the group – old habits die hard! I’ve found there’s no guarantee

of success. But we have to learn from our mistakes.

Turkish-Cypriot teacher

Conflict can be managed productively only if both parties take

specific steps toward resolving the issues that separate them from one

another. The distortion of the past, the negative images of the other

community, the placement of blame on the other, the lack of trust

between the two sides, and the unwillingness to make concessions all

hamper efforts to work together productively. I believe the past must

7. TAKING STEPS

TOWARD SUCCESS

be confronted honestly, but the focus must turn to creating a viable

working relationship for the future. Many issues can make this shift

difficult, if not impossible. If people feel that their identity is under

siege, if they feel insecure, if they don’t feel acknowledged and

respected, if they feel wronged – they will become defensive,

accusatory, and provocative, preventing the very actions that are

necessary to look ahead. On the other hand, if threat can be

removed, if respect can be demonstrated, and if confidence can be

built, the relationship can be redefined and the two sides can learn to

work together cooperatively.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to lay out a series of simple

procedures that will ensure success in intercultural relationships.

There are too many forces beyond our control, and every encounter

is a unique combination of people and circumstances. And

occasionally there are people in a group whose main purpose is to

disrupt the communication or block progress in a project.

Nevertheless, based on experiences of those who have been involved

in joint projects during the past decade, as well as academic literature

on intercultural communication and conflict resolution, it is clear that

there are certain principles that underlie successful cross-community

relationships, and individuals can take steps that will increase the

likelihood of positive outcomes. With this in mind, the following

sections will offer a number of suggestions to facilitate communication

in the bi-communal setting. These will be organized around the

primary tasks facing all groups: establishing trust, creating a safe

environment for dialogue, and working together productively.

ESTABLISHING TRUST

No relationship can last long without the existence of mutual trust.

Lack of confidence in the intentions of the other leads to continuous

questioning of each other’s motives. Suspicions, misgivings, and

scepticism make it impossible to work together or live together

peacefully. Mistrust causes us to live behind protective shields, hiding

our true feelings, making it difficult for others to get to know us.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Trust, on the other hand, makes it possible to develop a

climate of openness and security, in which true sharing can take

place. It allows us to differentiate between the individual human

beings that make up the other community, separating them from the

official stances stated by authorities for public consumption. Of

course, increased trust in a few individuals does not eliminate the

overall distrust of the other’s authorities and their intentions vis-à-vis

one’s own community, but in the long run, it gives us a more

sophisticated understanding of the other community and makes it

easier for us to support ideas that move the peace process forward.

Although it may never be easy to reach a state of complete

confidence in the other, it is essential to recognize, acknowledge, and

respect each other’s view of self. If parties are able to deal with

identity matters in a positive way, they can start to tear down some of

the fences that have kept them apart. The following are actions that

can help build trust:

■ Promote a more balanced view of the past.

It would be misleading to suggest that anyone can be completely

objective about the past, but the deliberate distortion of history to

serve primarily political purposes creates unnecessary division and

presents a serious obstacle to reconciliation. Generally, both Greek

Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are very selective in their memory of

past events, and their description of these events is far from objective.

The past has been distorted beyond recognition by the educational

systems and political propaganda of both sides. Such one-sided

interpretations of historical events push the two communities further

apart and allow little room for healing processes.

Inter-communal contacts offer opportunities to hear other

sides to the story, to listen to a different interpretation of the past. We

can help each other understand the distortions and to correct the

misperceptions that are widespread in each community. We can

learn that the view of events we have come to accept as the ‘truth' is

biased and one-sided. By listening to another viewpoint, we can

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

begin to understand our own history better, and we might develop a

desire for correcting our own community’s interpretation and

presentation of the ‘facts.'

■ Acknowledge that both communities share mutual

responsibility for the Cyprus conflict.

If there has been one consistent characteristic of the Cyprus conflict

during the past forty years, it is the attempt of each side to place

blame on the other for ‘starting' the conflict, for instigating various

provocative events, for the breakdown of negotiations, etc. Each side

consistently and predictably accuses the other of acting in bad faith,

being untrustworthy, taking actions to harm the other, putting up

roadblocks in the way of progress, and spreading lies and

misinformation about the ‘true' situation. This kind of blaming

places each of the parties in a defensive position, causing each to

focus on attacking the other rather than acknowledging its own

responsibility for creating and maintaining the situation. Such

blaming actions quickly spiral into a mutually destructive exchange

of accusations, making it impossible for the two sides to consider con-

cessions to the other. It is interesting to note that in the political

negotiations, nearly every time that one side accepts something, the

other rejects it, even in cases where they might have already accepted

the same ideas in the past. And then each blames the other for the

breakdown!

It is rare that full responsibility for a problem can be attributed

solely to one party. In Cyprus the case can be made easily that both

parties share the blame equally (along with outside powers). In order

to make progress, this cycle of mutual blame and accusations must be

broken. At least one of the parties must be willing to make

unqualified offers to the other side, and the other side must receive

this offer as genuine. Until each party acknowledges the pain they

have brought to the other and the role they have played in escalating

the tension, it will be impossible to reach a satisfactory agreement to

resolve the conflict.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

If parties are able to publicly recognize their ‘mistakes' and

take responsibility for past actions, threat will be reduced to each

side’s identity, making it much easier to approach the conflict in a

positive manner. Such acknowledgement can help create an

atmosphere where all views can be heard and respected, making it

much easier for parties to work together in resolving issues. In an

atmosphere of trust, participants are able to understand the

complexity of the conflict, and they learn that simplistic ‘finger

pointing' is of no value in promoting realistic solutions to the conflict.

■ Help each other deal with the pain and suffering of the past.

The psychological burden carried by people in both communities is

one of the major barriers to reconciliation. War injures people, and

it leaves scars. Sometimes the wounds caused by conflicts never heal,

particularly when people are pulled apart against their will. The

injuries, the scars, and the open wounds become part of the identity

of the victims, and they result in bitterness toward the other that

cannot go away on its own. Often, only reconciliation can remove the

pain of the past.

The Turkish Cypriots do not easily forget their past treatment

as second-class citizens, particularly during the period 1963-1974,

when they were confined to small enclaves and feared for their safety

anytime they travelled outside these protected areas. Many have lost

relatives, including immediate family members, friends, and

neighbours, who ‘disappeared' or who were victims of raids on

villages. No one in the Turkish-Cypriot community wants to live

through such a time again. Many of the Turkish Cypriots who lived

prior to 1974 in the south of Cyprus did not want to leave their

homes, but they felt they had no choice. Since 1974, Turkish

Cypriots have faced other difficulties, resulting from non-recognition

and an economic embargo, that they continue to blame on the Greek

Cypriots. They live constantly in a state of uncertainty about what will

happen in the future and whether or not they will be forced once

again to move and start over. The pain that has resulted from these

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

bad memories and anxieties about the future weigh heavily in their

willingness to cooperate with Greek Cypriots.

Similarly, Greek Cypriots suffered a traumatic shock in 1974,

being pushed out of their homes and away from their land and

businesses, and witnessing the killings, rapes, and destruction that

accompanied the advance of the Turkish army. The agony from

having family members and relatives still unaccounted for, and the

deep desire to return to their homes and communities, haunts the

entire Greek-Cypriot community. The sense of injustice and the

feelings of helplessness follow them on a daily basis and bring anger,

resentment, and feelings of revenge. It is often expressed as

ultranationalist rhetoric that simply deepens the pain. For many, the

simple act of meeting with Turkish Cypriots is seen as a betrayal to

those who have suffered. For some, bi-communal meetings signify

‘giving in' to injustice and wrongdoing.

This pain, suffered by both communities and attributed to

each by the other, cannot be overcome by simply blaming it on the

other community, ‘punishing' the other community, or calling for a

return to previous conditions. Neither can the wrongs of the past be

‘righted' by simply changing or legitimizing the current situation.

The emotional trauma must be addressed by giving individuals the

opportunity to meet with members of the other community and

discuss their feelings together. These discussions cannot undo the

past wrongs, but they can help lift the burden that prevents creativity

and forward movement. Even those who remember the past

situation more favourably are weighted down by feelings of

inconsistency. They wonder how it was possible to destroy what they

believed was the previous harmony, and even though they blame

external forces, there is a nagging guilt associated with the possibility

that they contributed to this situation by their own well-intentioned

but thoughtless actions. As long as each community is mired in the

past, it will be impossible to make progress.

In order to construct a shared future, individuals in both

communities must be willing to share their own pain in a productive

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

manner, and they must be willing to listen to the feelings of the other.

There must be acknowledgment of responsibility for what happened

in the past, and the public discourse in both communities must

change so that the needs and concerns of both communities are

taken into account. Provocative actions that heighten tensions only

reinforce the pain for both sides, and all attempts to bring harm on

the other only speed up the spiral of self-inflicted suffering. If the

animosity toward the other can be purged from one’s identity, it is

likely that the damage from conflict can be repaired, providing an

opportunity to frame the other as a fellow human being who has also

suffered long enough.

CONSTRUCTING A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR DIALOGUE

When speaking about bi-communal activities with my Greek-Cypriot

friends who have not been involved in any of these events, one of the

most common statements that I have heard goes something like this:

‘If the Turkish troops left Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots and the

Greek Cypriots would have no trouble getting along with one

another.' Although this statement greatly masks the complexity of

the situation, our own experience in bi-communal activities has

shown that members of the two communities can speak easily with

one another and can readily form friendly relations in social

situations. Rarely do major disputes arise during either social

gatherings or in workshop settings. However, there is equal truth in

the contentions of some Turkish-Cypriot academics and politicians

that the real problem between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots

lies not at the individual level, where friendly relations are not

difficult, but at the community level, where the Turkish Cypriots have

been badly mistreated by the Greek Cypriots.

My own conclusion is somewhat different from either of these

positions. On the one hand, I have learned that polite conversation

and friendly relations are not the same as mutual understanding,

respect, and ability to work together. I’ve come to believe that the

initial friendliness of most bi-communal gatherings exists at only a

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

surface level and is made possible by the natural politeness of

Cypriots and the resistance, especially by Turkish Cypriots, to

confrontation in social gatherings. At the same time, I have learned

that productive dialogue is possible, both at the individual and the

community level, when the appropriate conditions exist. In order for

productive dialogue to take place, it is important to provide a ‘safe

space' in which people can share their views in an open yet

structured manner without fear of attack and free from the worry

about politicization of every issue. Mechanisms must be provided

that allow systematic movement from initial statements of concern

towards deeper exploration of difficult issues. Much work needs to be

done to help build trust and to create a sense of interpersonal ‘safety.'

I have seen time and again the relational damage that can be

done when people are simply placed in the same room and expected

to find ways to overcome decades of misinformation and lack of trust.

They often have no choice but to utilize the rhetoric of their own

side’s propaganda, without realizing the effects it has on the other

person and on relations between the communities. Of course,

progress is seldom possible without difficulties, and even with the

most carefully designed plan of activities, there are many delicate

moments when the whole process is on the verge of falling apart.

However, the more the groups have worked together to build

trusting relationships, the more difficult it is for a single incident to

unravel the group. In a situation such as that in Cyprus, where there

has been such a long period of separation, these trusting

relationships are not likely to happen without some assistance.

Members of both communities must work extremely hard to deal

with the burden of past traumas.

Groups often have difficulty engaging in productive

discussions because the atmosphere is full of anxiety and

apprehension. People feel insecure and the group climate becomes

tense. This is often caused by fear, which is one of the primary

driving forces behind defensiveness. If a group feels threatened, it

will retreat from the other and build protective walls. Whether the

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

threat comes from physical violence, political control, economic

domination, or loss of cultural traditions, the reaction is the same. In

order for a relationship to work productively, the fear of such

possibilities must be removed. The following steps can help create a

safe climate in which meaningful dialogue can take place.

■ Listen to learn.

Most of us are used to hearing people tell us: ‘You have to learn to

listen.' While all of us recognize that this admonition has some merit,

most of us don’t know how to accomplish the task. The study of

listening is widespread in the social sciences – there is even an

academic quarterly called The International Journal of Listening. As you

can imagine, the literature is full of suggestions for how to develop

better listening skills, and there are numerous training programs to

help people become better listeners. There is no assurance, however,

that even if one were to go through extensive training, she or he

would see the results desired, disappointing those who originally told

us to learn to listen!

Fortunately, there is a way to ‘learn to listen,' and unlike most

of the guidelines I have offered in this book, I believe this one is

relatively simple. The ‘secret' is to turn the phrase around and ‘listen

to learn,' especially when we disagree with someone or find ourselves

in conflict with another person. Most of the time, in such situations

we listen so that we can refute, correct, or challenge what someone

has said. Or we listen in order to better prove our point. In this case,

the goal of listening becomes one of changing the other’s opinion. In

these situations, it is likely that we will learn very little, and neither

will the other person. No one has gained much, except perhaps we

have the satisfaction of hearing ourselves talk!

If we listen to learn, on the other hand, we create the

possibility of transforming the situation so that everyone gains. We

will hear very different things from the other when we are in a

learning mode, both because our receptivity increases and because

the other’s willingness to share increases. When the other person is

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

not listening, we tend to get stuck in our opinions, stating them over

and over (and sometimes louder and louder!), hoping that they will

eventually get through. However, when we see an indication that the

other is learning, then we are willing to go further, explaining more

about our opinion. As the listener, we develop a more sophisticated

understanding of the other’s views, placing us in a better position to

create our own thoughts, and more importantly, building a climate

where more productive dialogue can take place.

■ Convey more positive images of the other community.

It is difficult to share a small geographical area with someone you

don’t like, respect, or consider as your equal, and it is especially

difficult if the other is considered your enemy. Both Greek Cypriots

and Turkish Cypriots tend to paint a negative image of each other.

The general Turkish-Cypriot description of Greek Cypriots is

especially harsh, often portraying the Greek Cypriots as suppressors

and murderers. Although there is acknowledgment of the ‘good

Greek Cypriots,' the all-too-common image is one of extremists

intent on exterminating the Turkish Cypriots.

At first glance it might seem that the Greek Cypriots are less

negative in their portrayals of the Turkish Cypriots, especially given

the often-heard references to the kindness of Turkish-Cypriot

neighbours and their affection for certain individuals. However, it

becomes clear upon closer examination that the Turkish Cypriots are

not viewed with respect or equality. Such images of the other do not

make it easy to enter into productive negotiations about issues that

divide communities.

Through participation in structured bi-communal discussion

groups, it is possible to encounter members of the other community

as fellow human beings rather than as objects of hatred or contempt.

Turkish Cypriots might learn that their neighbours on the other side

of the Buffer Zone are usually well-intentioned, even though they

make mistakes. Greek Cypriots might come to accept Turkish

Cypriots as equals – intellectually, socially, and culturally. Both sides

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

can do away with the extreme images that have been promoted in

their media and educational system, adopting a more realistic picture

of the other community. Hopefully, they will realize that a wide

variety of views and intentions exist in both communities, and that

the stereotypes and prejudices that have dominated thinking about

the other are both counterproductive and dangerous.

■ Create Shared Empathy.

Empathy, we are told, is something that helps us understand others.

We have been taught to ‘empathize with' the situation of friends

going through difficult times or who face a tough road ahead. We

learn that we should ‘put ourselves in his/her place' in order to

understand how the other feels. Certainly these are laudable actions,

and they can promote positive human relationships. However, in a

conflict such as the one in Cyprus, these acts rarely happen. One

might argue that empathy is impossible in this case. How do you

‘empathize' with people who have caused you so much pain and

suffering? How is it possible to ‘put yourself in the other’s place' if

you have no contact with them? Clearly, a situation such as Cyprus

demands more than our simplistic notions of empathy can provide.

But is it an irrelevant concept?

Fortunately, there is another way to view empathy

. Instead of

treating it as something one has for another or does to another, it can

be considered something that individuals create together. In this way,

the focus shifts from the individual to the relationship. The question

is no longer one of seeing the world through another’s eyes. Rather,

the task is one of creating mutual understanding, which is usually

something different than either party holds alone. In this way, my

own truth is not threatened, and although I might change the way I

see things, we make efforts to construct a truth that we both can

share. Such an outcome forms the basis for a solid working

relationship. There is no magic way to create shared empathy, but

steps like those outlined in the following sections can go a long way

toward this goal.

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

WORKING TOGETHER PRODUCTIVELY

The natural tendency in protracted conflict situations is to protect

one’s hard-earned rights, to keep the other away, to prevent encroach-

ment on one’s territory, or to push for access to what is ‘rightfully'

yours. Demands and denials rule the day, and tension remains high.

Although the two parties in a conflict may have ended their former

partnership, such behaviours are counterproductive, and they need

to find a way to deal with matters that concern the two of them. This

means establishing a new partnership, based on new principles.

Moving from prolonged conflict toward a workable

relationship is not easy, and it requires both sides to work together

on many tasks. It is necessary for everyone to start thinking

seriously about how they will coexist, how they will share what

cannot be divided, and how they will work together to take care of

tasks that must be co-administered. Many attempts will fail, but

there must be a continual effort to move forward. The following

suggestions won’t guarantee success, but they will facilitate the

process of working together:

■ Recognize the complexity of the situation.

Conflicts are never simple, yet they almost always get framed in

‘either-or,' ‘us-them,' or ‘right-wrong' terms. ‘Our side' is justified in

its actions and the other side is obstructing progress. The impulse is

to rally around a single cause and to portray the other as a uniform

evil. Under such conditions, common interests cannot be discovered,

and joint actions will never be taken. On the other hand, if each side

can begin to see the other in differentiated terms, and if both of them

can identify the multiplicity of factors that complicate the situation,

they will be able to confront the conflict in much more realistic and

practical terms.

■ Focus on the future.

In protracted conflicts, there is a tendency to become locked in the

past, blocking the ability of groups to envision a future they could

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

share. Entombed in a poisoned past, parties are unable to get beyond

a period that no longer exists. Although the past can never be

ignored, and even though it may be painful to discuss and difficult to

acknowledge, it is counterproductive to dwell exclusively on the past.

Life takes place in the future, and until the parties are willing to

discuss what lies ahead, they will never be able to go there creatively.

Once they direct their thinking toward how their relationship will

look when they are no longer in conflict, former opponents will be

able to redefine themselves and the way in which they will work

together under new arrangements.

In the bi-communal groups, individuals from both communities

have met together consistently over a period of several years, engaged

in productive dialogue on difficult issues, and produced analyses,

projects, and plans that have the backing of the full group. These

groups have experienced difficulties, at times falling into the trap of

mistrust that characterizes the larger society, but they’ve managed to

work through their differences and tear down some of the walls that

separated them across community lines. Their work clearly

demonstrates that, if the proper setting is created and if individuals

adopt a constructive attitude, it is possible to replace the cycle of blame

and accusation with one of mutual trust and understanding. Nothing

could be more critical for the future of Cyprus.

■ Show a willingness to make positive moves.

Often progress in conflicts is stalled not so much because of what one

party or the other says or does as it is by what they fail to say or do.

Although both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots sometimes use

the rhetoric of cooperation, neither has a habit of offering

suggestions that might help defuse the tension. Each side has been

afraid of taking the first step toward building confidence. However,

no deadlock can be broken until one side or the other makes the first

conciliatory gesture. Parties in conflict often remain in a stalemate

because each is waiting for the other to make the first positive move.

Sometimes both sides are afraid that if they take the first step, the

TAKING STEPS TOWARD SUCCESS

other will take advantage of them. If each side maintains a hard-line

stance, it offers no way for the other to take positive steps that might

relax the situation and lead to a positive climate for negotiation.

The future can never be certain, and the consequences of

one’s actions are never predetermined, but unless one or both parties

are able to take steps that offer something useful to the other, both

will remain mired in a quicksand that continues to pull them

downward. Taking risks can lead to unintended consequences, and

sometimes can even be dangerous, but if either or both sides are

willing to ‘step out on a limb,' they break the deadlock and encourage

other beneficial moves.

Once participants have lost some of their fear of the other, it

becomes much easier for them to promote actions that send positive

messages to the other community. Members of bi-communal groups

are in an excellent position to see the effects of their side’s hard-line

policies on the other community and how these play into the hands

of the extremists. It becomes clear how certain policies and actions

can be damaging for accomplishing the very goals they are intended

to advance. It is important to realize that strength comes from a

willingness to reach out towards the other as much as it does from

attempts to push the other away. When someone offers a move

toward peace, it opens a small window to the future, through which

the other might follow.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

See Broome (1993) for a description of what I refer to as “relational empathy,” a

concept that was developed for application in intercultural contexts and conflict situations.

This concept under girds most of the work in which I am engaged as third-party facilitator.

I’m afraid that all these groups that meet with Turkish Cypriots simply divert

attention from the real problem for our future, which is the Turkish

occupation of our country. What difference can bi-communal activities make

in the face of 40,000 Turkish troops?

Greek-Cypriot official

The only future for Cyprus is a divided one, and nothing positive can result

from these meetings with the Greeks. If we are not careful, we will lose all the

gains we have made in the past 25 years, and the sacrifices we have made

will be for nothing.

Turkish-Cypriot official

It is not likely that even the most dedicated and committed of

the original core group of bi-communal participants could have

articulated fully the potential benefits of their work. They simply

knew it was the ‘right thing to do,' or they felt strongly compelled to

do something in the face of continued stagnation at the political level.

By looking back, however, it is possible to see numerous ways in

which their actions have contributed positively to the situation in

Cyprus. Whether you are participating actively in organized bi-

8. SHAPING THE FUTURE

communal meetings, working on a technical committee that involved

members of both communities, or simply coming into casual contact

with the other side, it can help to have these contributions in mind.

Such awareness will allow you to go forward with the knowledge that

in addition to the personal learning that comes from working together

with the other side, you are helping to build the future of Cyprus.

The tangible results from bi-communal activities are difficult to

measure. Because of the constraints imposed by the political situation,

bi-communal activities have not led to large-scale joint business

ventures, integrated schools, island-wide projects, exchange programs

for professionals, or joint media stations, all of which are projects that

could help build a stronger future for a bi-communal partnership at

the state level. Nevertheless, there are three specific ways in which the

bi-communal activities have had a direct and visible impact.

First, until April 2003, they provided the only real corridor

through the physical barrier of the Buffer Zone. Without the bi-

communal activities, practically no contact would have occurred

across community lines over a thirty-year period. Second, the

existence of so many bi-communal groups and their unceasing

demand for more contact, along with international support for their

efforts, had an influence on the decision taken by the Turkish-

Cypriot authorities to partially lift restrictions to travel across the

Buffer Zone in 2003. Although there were many political factors that

led to this new policy, the growing presence of a strong opposition

(many of whom had been actively involved in bi-communal activities)

that favoured an increase in contacts undoubtedly played a role in

the thinking of the Turkish-Cypriot leadership. Third, a close

examination of the U.N.'s Annan Plan for negotiating a political

settlement shows that it includes several ideas initially developed in

the bi-communal seminars and workshops. Several of the U.N.

personnel who played a role in writing the Annan Plan had attended

one or more of these workshops, and they had read reports from

other bi-communal groups, so it is only natural that these ideas

would find their way into the Plan.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

Beyond their more visible impacts on the resolution of the

conflict, the bi-communal activities and cross-community contacts

have contributed, or have the potential to contribute, in ways that are

not so easily quantified. Some of these ‘hidden' impacts are personal

and psychological, others are social and cultural, and a few may not

be realized until well into the future. The remainder of this section

will list and describe these less tangible impacts of reaching across the

Green Line in Cyprus.

SOCIAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

■ Understanding the fears, hopes, and concerns of the other community.

By preventing contact between ordinary Cypriots, the physical

barrier of the Buffer Zone created an even more damaging

psychological barrier between the two sides. Relations between the

two communities have deteriorated since 1955, with the start of the

EOKA campaign for ‘enosis’ and the corresponding establishment of

TMT. There is no guarantee that relations would have improved

had the society remained integrated, but it is very clear that the two

communities have grown further apart since the dividing lines were

established in 1963 and 1974. Even during the worst of times prior

to 1974, there were a few people who maintained strong ties between

the two communities. As long as these examples of partnership

existed, there was hope that better overall relations could develop.

However, without any contact the fears, hopes, and concerns of each

community would have been completely lost to the other side. The

bi-communal activities provided a means to keep alive some under-

standing of the other community, opening for a small group of

people a window into the world of the other. Without this insight, it

is not possible to make informed choices about the future, even if that

future is living on a divided island.

■ Reducing the psychological burden from past events. Memories of

episodes that took place between 1955-1974 dominate the minds of

many people in Cyprus. Those who lost family members, had to

leave their homes and means of livelihood, witnessed massacres,

SHAPING THE FUTURE

bombings, rapes, and other acts of violence, or lived as refugees

cannot easily lay aside mental images of these horrors. Even the

younger generation, who did not directly experience such incidents,

are confronted with them on a daily basis through stories from their

parents, lessons in school, and constant renditions in the newspapers,

radio programs and television specials. The psychological burden

imposed by images of the past weighs heavily on the minds of all

Cypriots, creating a pathology that permeates society. The weight

does not lessen with time, although it may take a different form. The

separation in Cyprus magnifies the effects of this burden, and the bi-

communal activities provide one of the few means to find relief. The

pain cannot be erased, but it can be dealt with in a healthier manner

by meeting individuals from the other community as fellow human

beings and residents of the same island, by exchanging stories of the

past and hopes for the future, and by working together in building

that future.

■ Creating a forum in which difficult issues can be discussed

productively. There is no shortage of discussions about political topics

in Cyprus, but most of them tend to polarise the issues rather than

help to resolve them. When politicians, educators, journalists, church

leaders, and taxi-drivers present their views on the core issues, their

rhetoric is often positional posturing that elicits even stronger

statements from the other side. Issues such as identity concerns,

property matters, security, territory adjustment, and the like cannot

be discussed in a realistic manner outside a bi-communal setting.

Chances are small that any progress can be made in the general

public’s understanding of these issues unless people have the chance

to hear individuals from both sides, talking with each other, rather

than at each other. The bi-communal seminars that addressed these

issues have shown that productive dialogue can occur on these topics,

and these need to be conducted in even greater quantity now that

contacts are easier. Through these forums, it is possible that progress

can occur in identifying a set of options for dealing with most

concerns that drive the Cyprus problem.

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

■ Providing a moderating voice in response to provocative events. When

the Buffer Zone events at Dherynia took place in August 1996, in

which Greek-Cypriot motorcyclists entered the Buffer Zone

threatening to ‘ride to Kyrenia,’ and resulting in the death of two

Greek-Cypriot protestors, the outcry in both communities was intense.

Turkish Cypriots were incensed that Greek Cypriots had tried to cross

over into the area they control, and they used this incident to back up

their argument that unless the Turkish troops had stopped them, the

Greek Cypriots would have once again massacred Turkish Cypriots.

The Greek Cypriots were shocked at the beating of a Greek-Cypriot

protestor caught in the barbed wire and the killing of another who

tried to take down the Turkish flag, and they used these events to

reinforce their argument about the ‘barbaric’ nature of the Turks. The

rhetoric on both sides was extreme and uncompromising. No one

stopped to analyse what had led to these events, and neither side

shouldered any of the responsibility they held for bringing them

about. Perhaps the only setting where reasoned discussion occurred

about these provocative events was among those who had been

involved in the bi-communal activities. Within this community, there

were attempts to understand why the events had spiralled out of

control, how they might be perceived by the other community, how

the one-sided rhetoric was hurting the cause of each side as well as the

image of Cyprus to the outside world, and what might be done to

prevent such events in the future. These discussions could not take

place in a bi-communal setting at that time, but the individuals and

groups with bi-communal experience met together, and they provided

a moderating voice in response to an otherwise extreme and narrow

discussion of blame and accusations. Their voice was not one that

received major coverage in the press, but it helped in a small way to

pull Cyprus back from a deadly course toward possible war. It is likely

that other provocative episodes will occur in Cyprus, and the need for

people with bi-communal experience who can think and speak more

moderately in response to these events will be critical in order to

prevent a negative spiral of violence from developing.

SHAPING THE FUTURE

■ Presenting the general population with an alternative to fear of

another war. Confrontations in Cyprus such as those at Dherynia in

August 1996, and conflict between Greece and Turkey such as those

over the island of Imia earlier that same year, could have easily

escalated into full-scale military clashes that would have brought

disaster to the people of Cyprus. The possibility of another war is a

common topic of conversation for the people of Cyprus, and the

anxiety associated with such scenarios permeates everyday life.

People on both sides are concerned about how such a war will affect

their children and the future of Cyprus. At times, this concern

becomes pathological, disrupting many people’s lives and standing in

the way of progress. There may be no way to completely calm these

fears, especially in the absence of an implemented political solution,

but those involved in the bi-communal activities were able to obtain

a certain amount of relief from the overbearing anxiety through the

human connections they made with the ‘enemy.’ Although their fear

of war was not necessarily lessened, a certain balance was achieved

for many of the participants by seeing the very real possibility for

peaceful co-existence. In addition, the larger population of Cyprus

was presented with an alternative future to consider. The fact that

large numbers of people were meeting and working together across

community lines provided some hope that the coming years might

bring something other than another war.

■ Providing signs of hope to the international community. The lack of

progress in negotiations in Cyprus over the years left many members

of the international community disheartened and discouraged. As

dozens of special delegations, special envoys, fact-finding trips, ‘final

push’ efforts, shuttle talks, proximity talks, secluded negotiations,

and other attempts to bring the leaders of the two communities

toward a settlement proved fruitless, most third-party negotiators

and diplomatic personnel developed a sense of hopelessness about

the possibility of reaching a viable agreement. The bi-communal

activities provided for them a breath of fresh air amidst the

unchanging rhetoric of the officials and the lack of movement with

100

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

the negotiations. The events that took place at Ledra Palace

presented a different side of Cypriots, painting a picture of people

who can engage in reasoned dialogue about both the past and the

future and who can work together productively. A glimmer of hope

emerged that provided a reason for the diplomatic community to

continue their efforts. After all, diplomats are human beings as well,

and there are few people who can remain optimistic in the face of

continued deadlock. The participants in the bi-communal activities

have demonstrated over and over that in a properly designed setting,

the two communities can learn to trust one another and work

together for a common future.

■ Breaking the cycle of mutual blame and accusations. In order to

make progress, the cycle of mutual blame and accusations (see earlier

discussion) must be broken. Perhaps the only place where this cycle

has been broken is in the ongoing bi-communal groups. In this

setting, individuals from both communities have met together

consistently over a period of several years, engaged in productive

dialogue on difficult issues, and produced analyses, projects, and

plans that have the backing of the full group. These groups have

experienced difficulties, at times falling into the trap of mistrust that

characterises the larger society, but they’ve managed to work

through their differences to tear down some of the walls that

separated them across community lines. Their work demonstrates

that, if the proper setting is created and if individuals adopt a

constructive attitude, it is possible to replace the cycle of blame and

accusation with one of mutual trust and understanding. Nothing

could be more critical for the future of Cyprus.

PREPARING FOR LIFE AFTER A SETTLEMENT

Despite the way it often looks, to both Cypriots and outsiders, the day

will come when the two sides will reach a settlement of the conflict.

After so many years – literally generations – it will be not only a cause

to celebrate but also a reason for peace-builders to work harder. In

fact, the role of the bi-communal activities will be even more critical,

101

SHAPING THE FUTURE

because contact will be easier, joint projects will be common, and

cooperation will be required. In many ways, the inter-communal

contacts have not focused so much on bringing about a settlement as

they have been on preparing people for life after the settlement.

When and if a ‘solution' to the Cyprus problem arrives, those

with experience in cross-community contact will play a crucial role in

the following:

■ ‘Selling' a political agreement. Given the disparity in the positions

of each party in the Cyprus conflict, it is obvious that many

compromises will have to be made in order to reach a settlement.

Some of these compromises will have to come in areas that the

leadership has long promised are ‘non-negotiable.' The biggest fear

of many Cypriot and international strategists is that when the leaders

manage to work out an agreement, they will have great difficulty

‘selling' it to the people in their respective communities. The extreme

nationalists on both sides will call the deal a ‘sellout' to the other side

and accuse their leaders of ‘giving in' on fundamental issues. When

this time comes, there will need to be voices that can help assure

people of the need for compromise. The individuals in the bi-

communal activities are among the few people in Cyprus who have

experience in building consensus with the other side, and they may

be the only ones to understand the need for compromise and

accommodation. If the voice of the extremists is the only one heard

in response to a negotiated agreement, then the chances are slim that

it can receive the support of the people.

■ Forming partnerships. When an agreement between the two

communities is eventually signed and accepted by the people of

Cyprus, opportunities will exist finally for business and institutional

partnerships to be formed. The success of these partnerships will be

critical for the full implementation of the agreement. Some cooper-

ation in the business sector will be driven by perceived potential for

profit. However, most of the efforts to develop relationships across

community lines will require determined initiative by individuals

who understand their importance, who are aware of the potential

102

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

difficulties, and who are committed to their success. These initiatives

will be difficult for ordinary citizens to carry out. Some might want to

start a project with the other community but never carry through

with their ideas, because of doubts about the possibility for results,

fear of negative response from their colleagues, or uncertainty about

how to proceed. Some who start such cooperative ventures will give

up after encountering initial difficulties. A few will encounter

conflicts they will not know how to manage, and these conflicts could

escalate. The participants in the bi-communal activities, especially

those who are part of the ‘core' group with significant experience

over the years, are ideally situated to promote true partnerships on

the island. They have the necessary contacts with the other

community; they know the topics that need to be addressed through

such cooperative ventures; they already have in mind hundreds of

potential projects; they are motivated to start such projects; they are

sensitive to the concerns of the other community; they are aware of

what might cause conflict; they possess skills for dealing with conflict

and disagreement; they have the tools for problem-solving and

design; they see the potential for impact on the larger society; and,

perhaps most importantly, they are committed to making such

ventures work.

■ Promoting the identity of peace-builder. The people of Cyprus,

after decades of separation, are at a crossroads. The generation that

planted the seeds of discord has never managed to take the steps that

can lead toward positive redefinition of the relationship. As a result,

progress is frozen, and the future is on hold. During the past few

years, the citizen-level peace-building groups that have been formed

hold promise for the future. The large number of people in both

communities who have started reaching out to the other side in an

effort to develop trust can lead to true partnerships. In their

meetings, they have taken many of the steps outlined above, and for

these individuals and groups, a new identity of ‘peace-builder' is

emerging. This identity, which is more positive, more realistic about

the past, more forward-looking, and more aware of the

103

SHAPING THE FUTURE

interdependence between communities, is helping to build trust and

heal wounds. Still, the challenges are many, and time is running out.

Hopefully, it will be possible soon to describe the identity of ‘peace-

builder' in more specific terms, and if sufficient numbers in each

community can reconcile their differences and redefine their

collective relationship, the people of Cyprus will be on their way to

negotiating an agreement that will allow them to lead productive

lives, both separately and in cooperation with one another in those

areas where their interdependence binds them together.

SOME WORDS OF ADVICE FROM THE VETERANS

It is always helpful to learn from those who have gone before.

Sometimes, advice from ‘veterans' of bi-communal activities can

help us avoid mistakes that were made in the past, and words of

encouragement from those who have faced difficulties can help

maintain our own desire to continue our involvement, even when

times are rough. During the four-party seminar held in July 2001

in Bruges, Belgium, participants, representing some of the

‘pioneers' of rapprochement work in Greece, Turkey, and Cyprus,

were asked to give their advice to those currently involved in bi-

communal and bi-national activities. The following list summarizes,

in brief form, the recommendations offered by members of the

Bruges group:

■ Understand that there are fundamental changes taking place

in the region. Greece and Turkey can no longer afford to maintain

an antagonistic relationship. The accession of Cyprus to the

European Union, and the candidacy of Turkey for membership in

the EU, have established a trajectory toward peace within the

‘conflictual triangle.'

■ It is important to recognize that rapprochement is irreversible.

The leaders of Greece and Turkey are committed to better relations,

and even if the governments change, there is little chance that the

process will reverse.

104

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

■ Do everything you can to bring to the respective authorities

what we have been doing in our work. Remember that those in

elected offices work off the information that is available to them,

and currently they have many misunderstandings about the value

of bi-communal work in Cyprus. They need to be properly educated.

■ Intensify the coordination of civil initiatives with official

initiatives and help officials learn from our experience. Although the

‘real work' of peace must take place at the citizen level, it is the

authorities who will set the terms for peace and who will sign

agreements that we will all have to live by. Make contact with those

in power and nurture the relationship between citizen groups and

government officials.

■ Never forget that rapprochement is for civil society to sustain

(not for persons of power). Don’t personalize it by linking it with a

single personality in office. These individuals, no matter how

visionary they may be, cannot carry forward initiatives, and no

matter who holds positions of power, the push for better relations

must be centred on the citizens and citizen groups that are involved

in cross-community activities.

■ Try to get away from fixed ideas and make an effort to see the

other’s point of view. We are all steeped in our biased histories, but

until we listen to the other and find a way to really get behind their

thinking, we can’t make much progress.

■ Refrain from responding to points made that do not need or

deserve an answer. In our culture, we tend to speak against

everything we hear, and we feel a need to ‘correct' everyone who says

something we disagree with. This allows others to set the agenda. By

ignoring the person who says stupid things, we can move the

discussion toward more positive dialogue.

■ Find the wording that satisfies the need. Sometimes we limit

ourselves by using terms that cause a negative reaction with others. If

the term you want to use causes difficulties, then change it. Let your

efforts be defined by what you do rather than what you call things.

105

SHAPING THE FUTURE

■ Report facts and not doctrines. Too often we present the

propaganda we have heard as truths, when they are usually

distortions of what actually happened, designed to support a certain

point of view.

■ Remember that by engaging in activities related to

rapprochement you are performing the most patriotic moves that

you can make. Nothing takes more courage and bravery, and

nothing contributes more to the future of our country, than steps

toward building sustainable peace.

■ Remember that obtaining funding takes time and effort. No

one is going to seek you out and ask what you want. There are many

sources of funding for worthy efforts, and part of your time must be

devoted to making contacts with these individuals and organizations.

■ It is very useful to remember that life works in cycles:

rapprochement will go through its ups and downs. There will be

difficult times when it seems no progress is being made. There will

be setbacks. However, we must keep working even during difficult

times, and we must never lose our hope.

CONCLUSION

Until humans started building bridges to cross rivers, canyons, and

other obstacles provided by Mother Nature, travel was more

restricted and groups tended to keep within the territory that

defined their ‘homeland.' There was not as much exchange of goods

and services, in large part because it involved too much effort and

took too much time to make such ventures worthwhile. Bridges

literally changed the course of human history, because they opened

up channels of communication, allowing the free flow, not only of

material commodities and wares, but also of ideas and culture. They

also promoted the formation of alliances, so that small communities

could pool resources to enrich their lives and could band together to

protect themselves against invading armies.

Bridges are given great emphasis in times of war, when much

effort is devoted to destroying bridges used by the enemy, to stop the

106

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

advance of their armies. Consequently, after the war, bridges have to

be rebuilt in order for life to continue productively. Sometimes these

bridges are rebuilt hastily in order to start traffic moving as soon as

possible, but when the resources are available, there is no doubt that

it is better to replace the destroyed bridge with one that will stand

strong over time and that will serve its purposes well.

The events of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s destroyed the

bridges in Cyprus between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

These events also changed the social landscape. The Green Line

became the deep canyon without a way across. It is time to build new

bridges, and by becoming involved in constructive cross-community

contact, you become the architects, engineers, and labourers

engaged in this task. The design is not a simple one, and the

challenges confronting the builders are numerous. It will require a

lot of time and effort. But the result will establish new connections

between two communities that are interdependent and that need to

find ways to build empathy and work together productively.

107

SHAPING THE FUTURE

■ Anastasiou, H. (2000). Negotiating the solution to the Cyprus

problem: From impasse to post-Helsinki hope, The Cyprus Review,

12(1), 11-33.

■ Attalides, M. A. (1979). Cyprus: Nationalism and international

politics. Edinburgh, UK: Q Press.

■ Bolukbasi, Suha. (1998). The Cyprus dispute and the United

Nations: Peaceful non-settlement between 1954 and 1996,

International Journal of Middle East Studies, 30, 411-434.

■ Broome, B. J. (2004a). Reaching across the dividing line:

Building a collective vision for peace in Cyprus, International Journal

of Peace Research, 41(2), 191-209.

■ Broome, B. J. (2004b). Building a shared future across the

divide: Identity and conflict in Cyprus. In Rueyling Chuang and

Mary Fong (Eds), Communicating Ethnic and Cultural Identity (pp. 275-

294). Rowman and Littlefield, Publishers.

■ Broome, B. J. (2003). Responding to the challenges of third-

party facilitation: Reflections of a scholar-practitioner in the Cyprus

conflict, Journal of Intergroup Relations, 26 (4), 24-43.

REFERENCES

■ Broome, B. J. and Murray, J. S. (2002). Improving third-party

decisions at choice points: A Cyprus case study. Negotiation Journal,

18 (1), 75-98.

■ Broome, B. J. (2001). Participatory planning and design in a

protracted conflict situation: Applications with citizen peace-building

groups in Cyprus, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 18, 1-9.

■ Broome, B. J. (1999a). Greek and Turkish Cypriot university

students have more in common than expected, Washington Report on

Middle East Affairs, 18(6), 82-83.

■ Broome, B. J. (1999b). Inter-communal contacts help build

links for the future of Cyprus. Washington Report on Middle East

Affairs, 18(6), 69-71.

■ Broome, B. J. (1998). Overview of conflict resolution activities

in Cyprus: Their contribution to the peace process. The Cyprus

Review, 10(1), 47-66.

■ Broome, B. J. (1997). Designing a collective approach to

peace: Interactive design and problem-solving workshops with

Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities in Cyprus.

International Negotiation, 2(3), 381-407.

■ Broome, B. J. (1993). Managing differences in conflict

resolution. In D. J. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (Eds.), Conflict

Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application, pp. 95-111.

Manchester University Press.

■ Broome, B. J., & Chen, M. (1992). Guidelines for computer-

assisted group problem-solving: Meeting the challenges of complex

issues, Small Group Research, 23, 216-236.

■ Burch, O. (1990). The infidel sea: Travels in north Cyprus.

Southampton, England: Ashford, Buchan & Enright.

■ Burton, J. W. (1969). Conflict and communication: The use of

controlled communication in international relations. London: MacMillan.

■ Calotychos, V. (Ed.). (1998). Cyprus and its people: Nation,

identity, and experience in an unimaginable community, 1955-1997.

Westview Press.

110

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

■ Clerides, G. (1989). Cyprus: My deposition. Nicosia: Alithia

Publishing.

■ Collier, M. J. (1998). Researching cultural identity:

Reconciling interpretive and postcolonial perspectives. In D. V.

Tanno & A. Gonzalez (Eds.), Communication and identity across cultures

(pp. 122-147). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

■ Denktash, R.R. (1982). The Cyprus Triangle. London: Allen &

Unwin.

■ Diamond, L. & Fisher, R.J. (1995). Integrating conflict

resolution training and consultation: A Cyprus Example. Negotiation

Journal, 11, 287-301.

■ Doob, L.W. (1974). A Cyprus workshop: An exercise in

intervention methodology. Journal of Social Psychology, 94, 161-178.

■ Durrell, L. (1957). Bitter lemons of Cyprus. Boston: Faber &

Faber.

■ Fisher, R.J. (1997). Interactive conflict resolution. Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press.

■ Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, M., (1998). Different relationships to

the land: Personal narratives, political implications and future

possibilities, in Calotychos, Vangelis, ed. Cyprus and its People: Nation,

Identity and Experience in an Unimaginable Community, 1955-1997.

Boulder, CO: Westview. pp. 251-276.

■ Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, M. (1993). Unofficial inter-

communal contacts and their contribution to peace-building in

conflict societies: The case of Cyprus. Cyprus Review, 5(2), 68-87.

■ Hitchens, C. (1997). Hostage to history: Cyprus from the

Ottomans to Kissinger. New York: Verso Books.

■ Joseph, J.S. (1997). Cyprus: Ethnic conflict and international

politics. McMillian Press.

■ Koumoulides, J.T.A. (Ed.). (1986). Cyprus in transition: 1960-

1985. London: Trigraph.

■ Lasa´n, D. B. (1997). Case studies on a post-conflict peace building

strategy. Manilla, University Publishing House.

111

REFERENCES

■ Markides, K.C. (1977). The rise and fall of the Cyprus Republic.

New Haven: Yale University Press.

■ Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press.

■ Mirbagheri, F. (1998). Cyprus and international peacemaking.

London: Hurst & Company.

■ Mitchell, C.R. (1981). Peacemaking and the consultant’s role.

Westmead, UK: Gower.

■ O’Malley, B. and Craig, I. (1999). The Cyprus conspiracy:

America, espionage and the Turkish invasion. St. Martin’s Press.

■ Pierides, G.P. (1998). Tetralogy of the times: Stories of Cyprus,

Translated from the Greek by D. E. Martin and S. G. Stavrou. Nostos

Books.

■ Richmond, O. (1998). Mediating in Cyprus: The Cypriot

Communities and the U.N. Frank Cass Publishers.

■ Stearns, M. (1992). Entangled allies: U.S. policy toward Greece,

Turkey, and Cyprus. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.

■ Stoddard, P. H. (1986). An experiment in track two

diplomacy. In D.B. Bendahmane & J.W. McDonald (Eds),

Perspectives on negotiations (pp. 139-143). Washington, DC: Foreign

Service Institute, U.S. Department of State.

■ Talbot, P. (1977). The Cyprus seminar. In M.R. Berman and

J.E. Johnson (Eds.), Unofficial diplomats (pp. 159-167). New York:

Columbia University Press.

■ Tanno, D. V. and Gonzalez, A. (1998). Communication and

identity across cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

■ Theophanous, A. (1996). The political economy of a federal Cyprus.

Nicosia: Intercollege Press.

■ Thubron, C. (1975). Journey into Cyprus, Penguin Books.

112

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

REGIONAL PEACE BUILDING

Cyprus Fulbright Commission

http://www.fulbright.org.cy/

European Commission

http://www.ec-eu-delegation.com.cy/

Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy (ELIAMEP)

http://www.eliamep.gr

Peace-Cyprus Web Site

http://www.peace-cyprus.org/

Technology for Peace (TFP)

http://www.tech4peace.org/

Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TSEV)

http://www.tesev.org.tr

The Bi-communal Development Programme:

http://www.unopspmu.org/

U.S. Embassy

http://www.americanembassy.org.cy/bsp.htm

RESOURCES

ON THE WEB

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PEACE BUILDING

Accord: An International Review of Peace Initiatives

http://www.c-r.org/accord/index.shtml

Beyond Intractability: Online Knowledge Base

http://www.beyondintractability.org/iweb/index.htm

Carter Center

http://www.cartercenter.org

Conflict Management Group (CMG)

http://www.cmgroup.org/

Conflict Research Consortium

http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/

Conflict Resolution Catalysts Home Page

http://www.crcvt.org/

George Mason University Degree Program in Conflict Resolution

http://web.gmu.edu/departments/ICAR/

Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD)

http://www.imtd.org/

International Association for Conflict Management

http://www.iacm-conflict.org/

United States Institute of Peace

http://www.usip.org

Seeds of Peace

http://www.seedsofpeace.org

INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION

Intercultural Relations

http://www.interculturalrelations.com

This is a free online interdisciplinary resource designed for people

around the world who study, teach, train, or research in intercultural

communication, cross-cultural psychology, cultural anthropology,

multicultural education, race/ethnic relations (sociology), multicultural

114

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

literature, sociolinguistics, TESOL, international business and other

related disciplines.

Intercultural Communication Institute

http://www.intercultural.org

ICI offers resources, including a Master’s degree program, for cross-

cultural, multicultural, international, and diversity training and

education.

Intercultural Press Home Page

http://interculturalpress.com/shop/index.html

This is a source for books, videos, simulations and other publications

that are used in intercultural communication training.

Intercultural Communication Loop

http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=intercultural;list

This web ring is a linked list of sites related to the study of

intercultural communication, aimed at educating about diverse

cultures and promoting peace and tolerance of differences based on

race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religion, beliefs, or

abilities.

Teaching Tolerance

http://www.tolerance.org

Part of the Southern Poverty Law Center, this site includes ‘10 ways

to fight hate,' ‘explore your hidden biases,' ‘deconstruct biased

language,' and ‘explore hidden history' (including ‘quizzes' to

measure your awareness and unconscious biases).

115

REFERENCES

Benjamin J. Broome is professor at Arizona State University. He

teaches courses in intercultural communication, group

facilitation, and conflict resolution. He regularly gives

presentations at international conferences, and his publications

have appeared in leading academic journals. In his research and

application projects he has worked with groups in Mexico,

Greece, Turkey, Cyprus, several countries in Europe, and with a

number of Native American Tribes in the United States. From

1994-1996 he held a position as Senior Fulbright Scholar in

Cyprus, offering seminars, workshops, and training in commu-

nication, inter-group relations, and conflict resolution. Since

returning to his faculty position in the United States, he has

travelled to the eastern Mediterranean numerous times to

organize and facilitate workshops and seminars dealing with

Cyprus and Greek-Turkish rapprochement.

Professor Broome has devoted his academic career to the

development and application of culturally appropriate processes

for building consensus in complex problem situations. His goal is

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

REFERENCES

to assist groups in understanding and resolving difficult issues

that confront them. He believes that in diversity there is strength,

in conflict there is opportunity, and in constructive dialogue there

is hope for building a viable future for all human beings.

118

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

anxiety............................................................................31, 80, 88, 100

attitudes .................................................................2, 7, 49, 50, 93, 101

barriers ................................................7, 18, 20, 45, 49, 65, 85, 96, 97

Bi-communal Development Programme......................i, ii, 32, 35, 37

bi-communal

activities ...............ii, v, vi, vii, 2, 6, 8, 14, 15, 22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32,

35, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 50, 87, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,

101, 102, 103, 104

contacts .....................................7, 12, 13, 18, 22, 34, 41, 43, 47, 48, 50

events .......................................................................6, 12, 36, 41, 43, 50

groups ............ix, 3, 7, 8, 12, 14, 19, 27, 28, 34, 35, 37, 47, 48, 60, 66,

93, 94, 96, 101

meetings .....................................................14, 25, 37, 40, 41, 47, 61, 86

organizations...................................................................................35, 36

buffer zone..........................................................................................19

INDEX

climate..................................................................61, 83, 88, 89, 90, 94

communication ..................vi, vii, viii, 6, 7, 11, 14, 17, 23, 32, 33, 34,

37, 75, 80, 81, 82

complexity ..............................................................................85, 87, 92

conflict resolution ....................v, 7, 12, 15, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 44, 81, 82

contact ...................v, vi, vii, viii, ix, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 52, 58, 62, 83,

91, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107

cooperation............................v, vi, vii, ix, 18, 33, 61, 65, 93, 102, 104

culture/cultural........... v, 6, 17, 28, 37, 45, 48, 61, 67, 68, 70, 71, 75,

76, 78, 80, 89, 97, 105

Cyprus conflict................viii, 2, 4, 7, 8, 30, 37, 41, 65, 72, 73, 76, 77,

79, 80, 84, 102

dialogue............8, 15, 22, 23, 67, 74, 82, 88, 89, 90, 93, 98, 101, 105

diversity ..........................................................................................6, 66

division................v, viii, 2, 4, 5, 13, 15, 18, 48, 55, 63, 73, 77, 78, 79,

83, 95, 97

empathy .......................................................................3, 60, 62, 91, 94

European Union ............vi, 16, 18, 21, 22, 28, 30, 33, 35, 41, 43, 48,

55, 57, 58, 77, 79, 104

frustration..........................................................3, 7, 13, 41, 50, 53, 69

Fulbright Commission.....................................................19, 24, 27, 36

Fulbright Scholar ..................................................ii, 27, 28, 35, 36, 37

Green Line...............ii, v, vii, viii, ix, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 35,

40, 41, 50, 52, 62, 64, 97

120

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE

identity ..........7, 22, 28, 29, 54, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 79,

80, 82, 83, 85, 87, 98, 103, 104

interdependence..................................................................77, 79, 104

Ledra Palace.................11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, 32, 36, 39, 40, 49, 101

listen/listening..............................................45, 81, 83, 87, 89, 90, 105

media.............vi, 22, 39, 43, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 79, 91, 96

misunderstanding..................................................................6, 76, 105

obstacles.........................................7, 26, 40, 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, 65, 83

pain...........................11, 22, 25, 30, 55, 65, 69, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 98

partnership .......................................49, 50, 55, 62, 78, 80, 92, 96, 97

peace...............vii, ix, 5, 18, 25, 28, 30, 37, 41, 43, 45, 58, 63, 65, 67,

73, 74, 83, 94, 104, 105

peacebuilding .....................................................................................41

perceptions.................7, 20, 25, 28, 30, 52, 58, 60, 63, 64, 65, 66, 79

rapprochement .............................ii, vii, 2, 7, 31, 34, 45, 65, 104, 105

responsibility .............................................3, 27, 54, 78, 84, 85, 87, 99

suffering ......................................11, 25, 30, 53, 65, 72, 73, 85, 87, 91

threat....................................................................40, 69, 82, 85, 89, 99

training................6, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37,

81, 89

121

INDEX

trust.....................23, 62, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 88, 93, 101, 103, 104

mistrust...............................................................................6, 12, 93, 101

UNFICYP...........................................................................................20

United Nations ..................i, vi, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 27, 30, 36, 37, 46,

57, 96

UNOPS..................................................................................i, ii, 32, 37

variety.....................................................................6, 12, 56, 60, 66, 91

vision.......................................................................................26, 29, 58

youth..............................................v, 17, 25, 26, 27, 30, 32, 33, 37, 65

122

BUILDING BRIDGES ACROSS THE GREEN LINE