[https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/02/20/the-future-of-cyprus](https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/02/20/the-future-of-cyprus/) This commentary is truely remarkable for a former member of the ROC government. She says that “education has unfortunately not played a reconciliatory role \[..\], on either side of the divide, with history books rife with propaganda”, admitting education policy of the government she was member of was totally wrong. She speaks of a negotiation process that should also have a scenario for failure included – division of the island into two states. Something I have only heard from the Turkish and TC side so far.

4 comments

  2. Seems like a puff piece to try and keep her relevance. The whole piece is a mishmash of like random thoughts. Some of them are like high school level shit (if women were in charge there would be a solution…). Others are just dumb – like not having a 1000 page solution, but having both a solution and a contingency at the same time (lol). Maybe there’s some cushy job on a UN/EU/bicommunal committee coming up she wants in on.

  4. A very poorly written, simplistic, populist and naive approach to the Cyprus Dispute that leads to a plethora of wrong conclusions.

    ​

    >This is our foreign minister Ioannis Kasoulides in Washington last month, promoting confidence-building measures which would see the administration of both the abandoned ghost town of Famagusta as well as Tymbou (Ercan) airport transferred over to the United Nations. Us striving for **yet another concession to our sovereignty.**

    ​

    >We must however, also provide for failure, we must have a pre-nup as it were, which guarantees our statehood. This should specify that if despite all efforts in good will, at the end of the pre-determined period, we fail to reach peace, Famagusta be returned to the Greek Cypriots and **the island be partitioned into two states**.

    So the confidence-building measures are a concession to our sovereignty, but partitioning the island into two states is not? Makes sense.

    ​

    >… We women are hardwired, by bearing children and giving birth, to appreciate the gift of life and the futility of war…

    There is sexism throughout the article in an effort to advocate that women are better leaders than men. Should one be part of the decision-making process on the basis of their gender then? Also, while we are talking about leaders going into war, should she be reminded of Margaret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi? Also, it took me a single Google search to find the below, from a rather credible source that she probably read when she was in the UK, that disputes Yiolitis’ claims:

    [https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens](https://www.economist.com/europe/2017/06/01/who-gets-into-more-wars-kings-or-queens)

Leave a Reply