Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
My research interests are concerned with the field of education and mostly that of "peace education". Particularly I am concerned with the field of "culture curriculum change",-
i.e. with how educational systems, specifically educational systems in state of war zones, can promote peaceful cohabitation among citizens.
Cyprus is a case study which I am studying in depth, and I am finding it very interesting to receive information for analogous in-depth studies in relation to similar educational
programs running in other countries faced with problems analogous to ours, such as Israel, Palestine, Northern Ireland, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina and other.
Peace education, is a multidimensional sector and above all, based on all the examples I've researched, is an area which is very much influenced by the political will, which appears in
every society that is trying to implement such a program. Now in relation to how it is applied, there are several peace educational curriculums which are grounded in various theories.
One of them worth mentioning is "contact theory". That is, in many of these countries where they face such problems, the young people who go to such schools, the students,
have no contact with this "other", with this population group which is viewed as a "collective other", and there is no contact with them.
In many countries, this has a social character. We see cases where racism or xenophobia, where this system prevails.
But in Cyprus at least until 2003, before the opening of the barricades which enabled people to have a contact on a daily basis, even a trivial one such as seeing someone speaking
Turkish thus concluding that he is probably a Turkish-Cypriot or seeing a car with two-digit licence plate thus inferring that it must be owned by a Turkish-Cypriot.
This wasn't the case before 2003. We didn't have the slightest impression of what that other was. If they are humans or if they are the enemy.
If one could ever assume someone to be an enemy without having met them without ever contacting them in any way
Through these programs, peace education aims to bring together people, teenagers, children from both communities so as to give them an opportunity to talk, know each other, and
see that they are people who may have the same interests with you, probably share similar concerns to your own, or may have a possibly different but interesting view about something
which you have never heard or been taught, causing you to yield to these views, which may either be historical views, or concerned with a social point of view, or generally concerned
with anything we have never heard of, because they are truths which we have heard, but there are also some truths that we have never heard.
There are many academics who have analysed this system, such as Yiannis Papadakis who talked about collective amnesia, that is an amnesia which we voluntarily impose on us and on things we choose to forget.
Other Turkish-Cypriots have reported such self-imposed traumas and triumphs, such as the Turkish Cypriot academic Vanil Volcan.
Indeed though, it is a difficult area, while in relation to the necessary political will to which I referred earlier, this necessity extends to the implementation of educational curricula
to defining the contents of our history books and to how history is taught, to how we face those sensitive things that each of the two Cypriot communities would rather forget.
This is also the case in other countries characterised by such conflicts. One may see the Turkish invading Cyprus in 1974 while the other will see the "happy peace day operation", the peaceful operation of 1974.
In similar sense, the "Nakba day" is perceived in one way by an Israelite and in another by a Palestinian.
In general, the point is that in such cases the same historical event is perceived in a completely different way by the two sides.
In addition, reaching the end of my response, I want to refer to two more important issues.
One is that, these conflicts are characterised by a number of levels related to how difficult it is to educate peace to people.
One of these levels concerns communication obviously related with the spoken language. How else would we be able to communicate?
So, in the case of Cyprus, I believe that it is really essential that we develop a common communication ground,
and this is not something we should strive for after a possible solution takes place, but should be something we should be aiming for now so as to prepare ourselves to
accept and support a possible solution, though building a coherent society composed by both Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots.
Thus acquiring a rudimentary knowledge of the language spoken by the other community is fundamental. Not at a level that would allow one to write a thesis, but at one that would
allow for a more productive social interaction between all members of our society, and which would allow the functioning of economy and the formation of social links.
In other countries, such as the countries I have previously mentioned, e.g. Northern Ireland, which was one of the countries where this academic study originated,
and where the notion of peace education was investigated somewhat more, examples of such countries are Israel, and Palestine, where many academics have spent much of their
time investigating various problems, anticipating that such situations cannot be maintained in perpetuity, being supported by people preferring lethe, regenerating vendettas,
rather than moving forward through forming new bases for supporting a coherent social structure.
Other such countries are encountered in the Balkans, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina and others, which have their own peculiarities.
Obviously, any country that has a problem of this nature has its own peculiarities. That is why peace education cannot be perceived as a general package of measures, which can be
implemented applied in the same way everywhere. It is impossible to expect to have the same results if you apply the same program without changing your perspective.
You just can't. The specificity of Cyprus in contrast to these other countries is something that has been mentioned and concerns the generations born after 1974, who have never
known, or seen anyone from the other side. In contrast with people from these other countries that I have mentioned, who at least had some contact with people from the other
side, and which could at least form an impression of who these people were, how the live etc.
In the case of Cyprus there was an utter ignorance with respect to the people of the other side and this is one of the major specificities of Cyprus.
Another specificity that characterises us, which became more evident since 2003 when the roadblocks were removed the two communities were finally able to actively communicate
while no serious conflict incident was reported. It is true that in the first days we became aware through the media of some incidents, a fight, or causing damages to properties,
cars mostly, which did take place. We had no bombings though, as one would expect based on examples of other countries that deal with such severe conflict issues.
Live conflict is not the case in Cyprus, and in my opinion I think that this is because the memories of our co-existance have not yet perished.
They are maintained by our parents, and because of those memories, which also include the war, I think that we were raised in a certain way and with values that diminish
the possibility of another war, which is something our parents wouldn't want for us. In contrast with them, we have no actual impression of the war.
We moved out of the war and into the after-war period with a very fast pace, much faster than other countries did, and I think this is another one of our peculiarities.
This is a very good question. In Cyprus and I am referring again to the post-war generation, we were all raised with the "I do not forget" slogan, a slogan often found in
classrooms, books, or curriculums. In general our education in Cyprus orients around this slogan.
I remember once my teacher in fourth grade which considered that our education, should be to memorise all the occupied villages of Cyprus, and all the occupied churches.
As a poem, to be learnt by heart. But what is this? This slogan, what does it mean to "not forget"? What is not forgotten? The photographs? Photographs from another time found
on our notebooks and in classroom walls? How do these consist memories? How are those pictures familiar? How did these places look like 4 decades ago?
They are no longer the same. This way we generate confusion. Pictures accompanying the slogan were taken before 1974. Today students visit these places, like Kyrinia to find out
that they are nothing like the pictures they had in their minds. And I really think that this confuses our children and the generation to come.
Another important example that needs to be mentioned is that Cyprus is not the only country which promotes such slogans.
For example in Argentina, the Maldives Islands, to which the English refer as Falkland islands, a similar slogan is also promoted "sinorvido".
Children are taught not to forget their occupied lands while at the same time they are led to believe that they have to fight to get them back
This feeling is enormously cultivated in Maldives. I should also refer to the post-2001 era in America where children that were not aware of the events of 9/11,
and this is a very good example to look into, a new educational section was created so that the generations that follow after the 9/11 will become aware and will never forget
the terrorist attack on the twin towers and the pentagon. I have really seen a children's drawing book in which children must draw the short story beginning with the
terrorist attack going on up to the point were an American soldier heroically kills Bin Laden. Really, these things, in my opinion, cannot be perceived as
wise progressive educational approaches. Yes, we should "know", but it is important to know "how to know". And what does it mean to "claim"?
Should it mean to claim ones human rights that protects one? or should it be related to the resurgence or the preservation of a vendetta . Which of the two seems better?
In a similar sense, what does "I do not forget, and I claim", means?
Wouldn't it be better to say I know another view of history, not to forget, but honour those who did what they did during a different era and based on some different
mindset, believing different things and notions that may seemed reasonable then, and through this perspective understand their actions as well as that today we have overcome them.
So what should we "claim"? Who is claiming what along with whom? Am I claiming a solution to the Cyprus problem along with all other Greek- and Turkish-Cypriots?
Or, am I claiming something else as a Greek-Cypriot along with the rest of the Greek- Cypriots, disregarding again the people of the other community which are citizens of the Republic.
I am an idealist. I am an idealist and I want to believe that a solution to the Cyprus dispute is possible.
It is incredible to think that an island such as Cyprus, is divided because of events that refer to a passed era, during which people thought this to be an ideal solution.
A wall, a line separates people, without even thinking about the possibility these people can live together, as one, since they have done so already in the past and for so many centuries.
I think the the Cyprus problem is solvable. I believe that education and the preparation of the people of Cyprus for a solution is the most important factor,
because even if politicians come to an agreement and propose a solution to the people, for this solution to be functional our mindset needs to be aligned with the notion of co-existance
foreseeing to better future for everyone. Now, whether we will reach a solution now due to the economic recession which brings new perspectives for the solution
of the Cyprus dispute, this I don't know we do not know. Surely, it seems like it, and if you recall in 2003 when the barricades were first opened, you could have a coffee
on Makarios avenue for 2.50 pounds while at the same time in the occupied section of Nicosia a coffee would cost just 30 cents.
From a financial point of view this could be contributing to a solution, as given that people will be leaving together, such differences in prices cannot be maintained for too long in a free market.
I think that 2003 was a very good start and I really believe that it has contributed to a preparation which lasts 10 years now, allowing us to somehow climb
to a level where a solution seems more possible. And I really see that in all countries that face similar problems, the economy plays a very important role, serving as a catalyst
for various problems, and conflicts. Now in relation to our mindset, whether we will change it, whether we will accept that we can actually live together...
Look, it is terrible to think that we hear people saying things like "we cannot live together because we don't share the same religion", while at the same time
this person may have a housekeeper in his house that follows another religion and has no problem with this. Or similarly that
"we cannot live together because they speak another language" and not realising that Cyprus has changed a lot!
We have people living in Cyprus that are members of the two large communities of the island, but we also have a large portion of people that are not part of those communities
but which are economically active in Cyprus and really do not cause any problems. So, in my opinion, in Cyprus, there exists a socio-economic racism as well as a historic one.
The first concerns people coming from countries with a lower economic, and social status while the latter concerns Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot people mostly due to ignorance.
Well, I should start with saying that the sentence "we aim towards a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem within a bi-zonal bi-communal federation" is known by
most of us like a poem. Unfortunately though, I'm positive that if you ask people what it really means not many are going to be able to provide you with an adequate response.
I do not know how many people will actually know, that since 1977 Makarios agreed, and I do not like to refer to these historical facts but this is important,
Makarios agreed that we would work for a solution in the context of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.
27 years had to pass so that most of Cypriots would become aware of this agreement, due to the Anan plan. An issue debated for almost 30 years while not being thoroughly understood
While mostly, as you put it in your previous question, now that we have reached an intersection, which we though possible for so many years, the balances have changed.
Both sides want different things now and thus the solution mutates, it changes and passes us by.
An ideal solution, for some, which was possible yesterday is no longer possible today.
What should a solution contain though? It must contain a basis for mutual respect and it should be able to guarantee that no one will be discriminated in any way.
That I will have the same rights as you. You could ask "Is it not a superpower to have more rights than me?" It possibly is. But what is the reason that minorities,
not only in Cyprus and based on our first constitution, but in other countries as well, have counter-proportional rights, more rights than what their numbers suggest?
Because they are not respected the same. It is because, without those additional rights, these minorities would not be equally respected.
If we could live in a country as a one, were no citizen would feel that he is being discriminated in any way, such an unbalance with respect to the additional rights that
the minorities get, would be avoided thus avoiding at the same time the danger of promoting conflict and destruction of the system.