The doctrine “Cyprus decides and Greece supports” is for Greek politicians the compass of policy regarding the Cyprus issue. In essence, it is an acting position and mainly pontifical.
Everyone remembers the great “suffering” of Konstantinos Karamanlis, when he signed the Zurich-London agreements, in February 1959. In fact, the Cyprus issue marked his political life. Makarios, although fully aware and in agreement, skillfully with various unacceptable tactics managed to bring to the consciousness of the Greek Cypriots that the agreements were imposed by the Greek Prime Minister. Characteristic is the big complaint of Karamanlis, who said that, “while we signed the same agreements, Makarios came out of the Lancaster House ethnarch, while I was the bidder”.
Perhaps this is why Karamanlis the Younger, Costas Karamanlis, in Burgenstock, during the Annan Plan conference, remained a passive spectator and behaved more as a “tourist” than as the leader of Hellenism.
Especially after the Turkish invasion, the Cyprus issue became a “nightmare” for Greek politicians. After 1974, the view prevailed that because the junta was responsible for the Cypriot tragedy, then the current Greek leadership would have to agree with the corresponding Cypriot one, regardless of whether it disagreed, and worst of all, regardless of the make-up and jigsaw puzzles of every Cypriot. politicians harmed the wider Hellenism.
In the process, there were cases where the dogma was reversed. A classic example is the involvement of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs of Greece Nikos Kotzias, in Switzerland, in 2017. In this case, Nikos Kotzias “decided” and the President of the Republic of Cyprus, although at first he disagreed with the positions of the Greek Minister , finally agreed, resulting in the tragic shipwreck in Crans Montana, in July 2017. Proof that Kotzia's positions, called Kotzia's doctrines, were positions of pre-eminence, was his “proclamation” as an “ethnosavior” by its rejecting front. Of Cyprus.
Only Konstantinos Mitsotakis dared to put the Greek-Cypriot relations in their proper dimension.
“” Cyprus decides and Greece supports “is not right either. This thing is about shadow only. In essence, we both decide. Greece also has a say and Cyprus needs Greece, but we can not go against the will of the Cypriot people. Nothing separates us, we are a people. It does not mean that there are disagreements between Greece and Cyprus. The fact that Cyprus was sacrificed in order for democracy to return to Greece was brought about by reality. “It was not a deliberate move by anyone,” he said in an interview with RIK in April 2014.
The Cyprus issue and Greek-Turkish relations are communicating vessels. Tension in Cyprus means tension between Greece and Turkey. That is why the Athens-Nicosia relations cannot be governed by dogmas.
Mitsotaki's position proves wise from history itself. Only when there was good and sincere cooperation were there positive results for Cyprus and for Hellenism. Glafkos Clerides and Costas Simitis gave lessons on how the Greek and Greek Cypriot leaders should behave. Although their ideological backgrounds were different, they collaborated sincerely, resulting in the greatest victory of Hellenism in modern history, which is nothing more than the accession of Cyprus to a united Europe. With this development, Cyprus was shielded virtually without big words, hollow slogans, foustaneles and other crooked and incoherent policies of zero sum and multilateral cooperation, which today govern our foreign policy.
But there is another dimension, which makes the doctrine “Cyprus decides and Greece supports” ridiculous. How is it possible that the current Greek government and the Greek political leadership in general do not have a say in an issue, which is considered for Hellenism the highest national issue? How is it possible for Hellenism to become a hostage and hostage of any kind of Cypriot politician, whose policies are sometimes dangerous for Hellenism?
The current Prime Minister, Mitsotakis the Younger, has shown from the first moment that he respects the Cypriot leadership but is not a prisoner of the various micropolitics and whims of Cypriot politicians. Sample writing, the appointment of Christos Stylianidis to the key post of Minister of Climate Crisis and Civil Protection. Although it is a common secret that the President's relations with the former European Commissioner are bad, he proceeded with the appointment of Stylianidis, without asking for any consent, except, for ethical reasons, he informed Nikos Anastasiadis about his decision.
In a year, the Cypriot Hellenism will be called to choose the leader who will handle the fate of the next generations in this place. If there is even a glimmer of hope for a solution to the Cyprus problem, it will depend on the new President. Consequently, however, Greek-Turkish relations will also be judged. Whether we will have one of the same, that is, free magic, regressions, dependencies and regressions, will depend on who will be the winner of the elections.
Certainly, the Greek Prime Minister can not interfere in the Cypriot elections. On the other hand, the policies of the new Cypriot leadership will directly affect Greece. Continuation of political “acrobatics” could turn out to be extremely dangerous. The big dilemma for the Greek leader: He remains apathetic and waits to see who will be the next Cypriot politician who will bring Hellenism to an end, or will ensure that he will not continue to be forced to support or even get involved in political inconsistencies decided by every Cypriot politician, satisfying his own selfish interests and expediencies?
