1. Round Table 1: Other (Artists)

Main Topics Covered

®     Frequency of interaction prior to 2003 (opening of crossing points)

®     Frequency of interaction in the post 2003 period

Issues hinder cooperation:

®     Social pressure prior to 2003 (for those who chose to interact with the “other”)

®     Social pressure in the post 2003 period (for those who chose to interact with the “other”)

®     Hostility and skepticism (distinct from social pressure)

®     Venues of activities (i.e. where they cooperated)

®     The role of the media in their efforts

®     The issue of having the same participants and audiences at the events

®     Financial obstacles to cooperation

®     Insufficient promotion of their activities

®     Lack of involvement of the wider population

®     Sensitivity issues among organizers

®     Recommendations

2. Round Table 2: NGOs

Main Topics Covered

®     Frequency of interaction prior to 2003 (opening of crossing points)

®     Frequency of interaction in the post 2003 period

Issues hinder cooperation:

®     Social pressure prior to 2003 (for those who chose to interact with the “other”)

®     Social pressure in the post 2003 period (for those who chose to interact with the “other”)

·         Pressure on participants

·         Pressure on organizers

®     The use of the “other” as a “Token”

®     Duration of meetings

®     Transportation issues

®     Venues of activities (i.e. where they cooperated)

®     The role of the media in their efforts

®     Sensitivity issues and more understanding of the “other’s” culture

®     Recommendations

3. Round Table 3: Educational Institutions and Research Organizations (Academics)

Main Topics Covered

®     The very limited interaction prior to 2003 period

·         Places of venues for activities (in Cyprus)

·         Interaction abroad

·         Intervening organizations

®     Frequency of interaction in the post 2003 period

Issues hinder cooperation:

®     Personal pressure

®     Social pressure

®     Legal pressure

®     Implicit pressure

®     Peer pressure

®     Politics and Academia

®     Mutual academic work

®     The role of the media in their efforts

®     Academic obstacles

®     Recommendations

4. Round Table 4: Students

Main Topics Covered

®     Dominant social projection of the “other” especially in the educational environment

®     The early steps of communal detachment and the impact of primary school teachers

®     The alienation among communities especially for people of younger ages

®     The impact of history courses on the perceptions of the “other”

®     Realization of the (very few) differences between Greek and Turkish Cypriots after they started living with each other

®     Political developments (deeply opinionated for their age)

®     Communication difficulties

®     Location of bi-communal activities

®     Use of technology

®     Peer pressure

®     Family pressure

®     Growing trust

5. Round Table 5: Professionals

Main Topics Covered

®     Pre-2003 economic cooperation

®     Post-2003 cooperation

®     Obstacles to cooperation

®     Relations with the “other” side

®     Role of media

®     Role of EU

®     Official and unofficial pressure

®     Other funding opportunities

®     Issues of trust (lack of trust)

6. Round Table 6: Local Authorities

Main Topics Covered

®     Natural Disasters (earthquakes, fires, etc) and plans for cooperation

®     Criminal related issues and cooperation

®     Issues of recognition and the obstacles created in further cooperation

®     The role of the EU in facilitating cooperation and eliminating the obstacles

®     The role of the UN

®     Role of media

®     Public pressure

Target Groups and Final Beneficiaries

The target groups are, first of all, from both communities and are separated into the ‘round table targets’ (i.e. those who will participate) and the ‘society targets’. As will be discussed further down the participants will be chosen carefully so as to cover the broadest possible spectrum of representatives. The non-participant target groups is comprised of representatives of various areas of society, namely political and business elite, academics (but not just social scientists), sociologists, journalists, NGO officials, artists, members of youth organizations, trade union representatives, and school teachers. The aim is to increase understanding and communication, develop trust and if possible cooperation on a wide range of society on both sides of the divide, so as to increase the possibility for complete reconciliation, and more importantly, prevent future conflicts. The final beneficiaries, besides the aforementioned target groups, are the international community that deals with the Cyprus problem, the authorities on both sides and, in general, active parties such as the UK and the US. Interested parties will receive regular reports of the round table findings as well as update reports from the advisory unit, allowing them thus to make more educated decisions regarding the reconciliation and peace building processes. Moreover, they will be on the receiving end for information deriving from the early warning mechanisms, which could potentially help officials act pre-emptively to deescalate potential crises that could lead to the intensification of conflict.

There are a number of recommendations that emerged from the roundtables and the interviews, the most important of which are:

a.       Funding for actual bi-communal projects (“forced” cooperation): While understanding the problems behind the distrust in conflict areas such as Cyprus is indeed important and essential, it is still just the first step and cannot, without any follow-up activities to utilize this knowledge, have a real effect on the conflict. What is necessary therefore is the funding for projects that will promote actual activities that will “force” people from the two sides to engage in long-term activities and not just one-time events (e.g. participation in a roundtable). Such projects could involve areas where the zero sum mentality would not prevail; an indicative example would be projects revolving around the environment, pollution, etc. A cleaner and greener Cyprus would benefit both sides (especially now that tourists can and do cross the Buffer Zone to visit both sides. Such projects will not just enhance cooperation but they will also build friendships and relationships that could have spillover effects to other areas (families, peers, or even officials (elite)).

b.      Reduction of social pressure: It is of utmost importance that there is a significant reduction in the social pressure for the organizations and individuals that organize or participate in bi-communal events. This was perhaps the most important factor that was common in all roundtables. As a result there is a need to find mechanisms that would reduce this pressure. These mechanisms could and should involve the elite as well as the international community (primarily the EU). One recommendation is that there could be “pressure” from the EU on the local elite to endorse bi-communal activities in attempt to reduce the civil society’s concerns and divisions (i.e. patriots versus nationalists). It is understandable that the elite are concerned with the political cost that such endorsements may entail, but the EU could be used as a referent point (or an excuse) to justify their actions. Diez et al (2006) call this method of “reference points” the enabling impact, as it enables elite to use the EU as an excuse to justify actions that would have otherwise seemed unpatriotic or unacceptable.

Similarly, there could be mechanisms where elite could lead by example. For example funding for bi-communal projects on a low-level elite level (e.g. municipalities) would show to the public that the official authorities are not against bi-communal activities. Such acts would certainly reduce the social pressure on other civil society actors, which means that they would automatically be empowered and their role would become much more important.