At first sight, the Cyprus issue ought not be too much of a headache for the EU. The country in question is one of the smallest in the Union, and won't have any serious economic problems to face, apart from shortfalls on the Turkish side, affecting just a couple of tens of thousands of people, compared to the millions concerned in EU regional policy. But this impression is wrong. In reality, the situation in Cyprus raises general issues, with a weight that far exceeds the size of the island.
Part of the Union is under military occupation. The first issue is political in its nature, and I referred to it in this column of 28 April. Legally, the whole island entered the Union last Saturday, although the application of the Member State statute has been suspended for the Turkish part. How can the EU allow part of its territory to be occupied by the army of a third country, itself an accession candidate? This is a conundrum to which the Ankara government suggested a simple solution: by recognising the self-styled Turkish Republic of Cyprus. This Republic would negotiate its own accession to the EU, and the presence of the Turkish army would take on the supporting role requested by the local authorities as part of an alliance. But this is not, or is not yet, the position of either the EU or the Cypriot authorities. This first issue thus remains unsolved, and this is a problem for the Union.
Greeks or Turks first? In the island-sharing hypothesis (which becomes possible to the point of plausibility now that three-quarters of Greek Cypriots have rejected the Annan plan), the nature of the problem would be different, but would remain just as much of a headache. On of the many journalists sent to Cyprus to follow the referendum said: 'the citizens of both communities of the island see themselves first and foremost as either Greek or Turkish, not as Cypriots". If this is true, the Union's institutional infrastructure will be in trouble, because Greece and then Turkey will, in practice, have two Commissioners each, double representation in the Council and extra MEPs (due to the minimum number of MEPs each Member State is allowed by right). Worse: Turkey would be represented in the institutions of the Union before it's even joined! Could it be that the journalist in question was mistaken? Maybe. But he wasn't expressing an isolated opinion, far from it, and the behaviour of Greek and Turkish politicians occasionally backs up this impression. Last week, the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed the situation in Cyprus, and the Greek MEP Konstantinos Alyssandrakis (not an extreme-right nationalist, but a member of the United Left) i) claimed that the only way to manage EU aid to the northern part of the island (home to the Turkish Cypriots) is via the Greek-Cypriot government; ii) asked by what right a politician from the north, Mehmet Ali Talat, had been invited to the debate. The Committee President, Elmar Brok, replied that the EP is not held by diplomatic conventions and that Mr Talat had been invited because "we want to hear all parties, the better to understand the situation". Mr Brok was quite right, and Mr Alyssandrakis' attitude is worrying.
One Commissioner per country, obsolete formula. The hypothesis of the separation of Cyprus would also support the argument against including the "one Commissioner per Member State" formula in the Constitution. We need to go down this road in the initial stage of the enlarged Europe; it would be dangerous to make the solution definitive and immutable. If you just need to split a country into two to have two Commissioners, how tempting, and how easy, for Montenegro, Kosovo and others! In a European Commission with four Commissioners to represent countries accounting for over half of the total population, and most of its wealth and economic activity, whilst former Yugoslavia, chopped up into pieces, could have ten Commissioners, what legitimacy would there be for taking important decisions by simple majority? And what authority?
The Cypriots haven't understood. Generally speaking, the Cypriots haven't really understood what European integration means. Economic progress, trade freedom, aid to the less well-off are important, but not what it's all about: from the outset, the goal was to put an end to conflict and enmity. Franco-German reconciliation was the main priority. Sacrifices accepted in terms of territory and populations remaining on the other side of borders were in some cases enormous, on the part of Germany for example (Kaliningrad, which is today Russian, used to be Königsberg, the home town of Immanuel Kant), and Hungary. The Greek Cypriots have been overwhelmed by misleading propaganda on the Annan plan. Joining the Union without reconciliation should not be permitted.
(F.R.)