ENHANCING CIVIL SOCIETY'S ROLE IN CONFLICT PREVENTION AND PEACE-BUILDING IN CYPRUS
 Home Objectives Round Tables Main Issues and Findings Publications  Links Latest News Contact Us  


  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

 

  1. 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

 

  1. 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

 

  1. 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

 

  1. 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)

 

  1. 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.




Recommendations

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.

 

c.       More publication of successful cases of cooperation: There is also a need to make known all the successful cases of cooperation and the impact they have had. This would have an even bigger impact if the EU along with the local elite praised the actors involved, the actual activities and their outcomes and emphasized their importance and the need for their perpetuation and enhancement

 

d.       De-linking of politics with civil society activities: That the negotiations developments influence the business and social relationships between the two sides is perhaps unavoidable. What could be done, however, is reduce the degree of influence. This could be done primarily through elite interventions (EU and local) to emphasize that politics and social activities should not be linked. They could use examples of how individuals within the same community continue to cooperate despite their political disagreements (e.g. political party preference).

  

e.       More student / young activities: The younger generation has not experienced the violent past. Their biases and fears exist because of the education (official, social and family education) they receive. As we have seen, however, they could break free from them if they have the correct opportunities. As a result, more emphasis should be given to projects and activities that involve the younger generation as they are more likely to change their minds than the older generation that may have experienced violence. Examples of such activities could include camping, sports (e.g. diving, rock climbing, soccer matches, etc) or even academic projects related to the environment, technology, etc.

 

f.        Better use of technology: Electronic socialization (e.g. facebook) is unquestionably the important, especially for the younger generation. Technology could be used to bring the two societies closer as it enhances communication and the flow of information regarding developments or activities. The EU could promote electronic communication between the two sides. The development of a “virtual Cyprus” similar to the well-known “second life” (www.secondlife.com).

 

g.       Creation of bi-communal cultural center: One recommendation was the creation of a bi-communal cultural center (near the Green Line), which could offer classes and other activities (e.g. summer school, theater performances, etc). This could lead to a wider participation.

 

h.      Careful phrasing: As mentioned above, the term bi-communal sometimes creates problems. As a result one recommendation would be the term bi-communal should not be necessary to acquire EU funding.

 

i.         Sensitivity lessons:  It would help if there were projects or funding that would help increase the knowledge about basic things regarding the ‘other’s’ culture. This could include religious issues, diet limitations (e.g. pork), etc. Just like there are Jean Monnet sponsored Modules that aim at improving knowledge regarding European Integration, there could be funding for cultural learning. These “sensitivity lessons” could help towards the understanding of the ‘other’, which would subsequently lead to more tolerance.

 

j.         Translation: There could be funding for translation services. More specifically, translation is one of the major problems as translators are non-existent in Cyprus. As a result, one recommendation would be projects with funding specifically for translation training (from Greek to Turkish and visa versa) and they could be hired for events or for publication translations. More specifically there could be a network of translators.

 

k.       Bi-communal library: There is no direct access to books/articles published by Greek Cypriot presses for the Turkish Cypriots and vise versa. They need to go to the respective libraries, which makes research harder. This is due to the fact that libraries are unwilling to hold books from the ‘other’ side. As a result, one recommendation would be for the EU offices on both sides to create a small library that would hold only publications from local publishing houses from the ‘other side’. For example, the “EU House” in Nicosia (southern part) could hold the books published by Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot publishing houses.




Copyright © Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs 2010