From the viewpoint of the Cypriot diaspora, the ensuing grievances of an illegal invasion and partition of Cyprus by Turkey and the struggle for resolution of reunification had as their ultimate aim the strengthening of intra-community cohesion, the prevention or the softening of ideological differences. Therefore, the prosperity and the noteworthy contribution of the Cypriots of the Diaspora was not a creation out of nothing, but was owed to the great zeal of many years of intensive efforts and sacrifices of Cypriot migrants.
With reference to the organised Cypriot Hellenism and its collective organs in Australia, the struggle for the reunification of the island began in two courses of mobilisation. The first was the path of constant vigilance, with unceasing communication of its leadership with the global international fora, so that the leaderships of the latter would be persistently pressured for a solution to the problem, denouncing Turkish intransigence and guilt for the invasion and occupation.
The other sequence sought dialogue and understanding with their Turkish Cypriot compatriots, not only in Australia but also internationally, so that the issue of reunification of Cyprus would be a common decision of all Cypriots.
For example, Christos Violaris, one of the longest-serving and most consistent Cypriot migrant leaders, addressed numerous letters and reports to British, Australian and global leaders, depicting with a vivid and concrete narration, but without excessive deference, his appeal for justice for Cyprus.
For example, on 28 November 2005, he wrote to British Prime Minister Tony Blair protesting against the “British indifference” to the resolution of the protracted Cypriot crisis. In reply, Sean Norsworthy, attaché of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, reiterated that the United Kingdom maintains and will continue to maintain its “long-standing policy of non-recognition of the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ set up by the recognised leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr Talat” and insisted that “the bi-zonal, bi-communal federation remains the only realistic basis on which a comprehensive settlement can be achieved.” However, the high-ranking British authority did not fail to remind Ch. Violaris that “it was a matter of deep regret that the negotiations for a comprehensive settlement ended in failure in 2004, with the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots.”
How to increase communication and improve relations with the Turkish Cypriots in Melbourne was also another burning question for the Cypriot leaders of Australia and their administration. For this purpose, they cooperated with the President of the Federation of Cypriot Communities of Australia (FECCA), Panikos Minas, and held several meetings with Turkish Cypriot delegations at the facilities of the Cypriot Community Club of Melbourne and Victoria (CCMV). After several meetings in which the Federation of Turkish Cypriots participated with their counterparts, the Federation of Cypriot Communities of Australia (FECCA), it was agreed to hold their joint Festival on 20 February 2005.
It was during the decade of the 2000s when Cypriots (Turks and Greeks) living in the Diaspora once again showed keen interest in issues concerning their community rapprochement. In a systematic effort to reinvent their mutual intercommunal interests in a reunited Cyprus, they gave the proper thought and action to building an environment of dialogue. Those involved were all practical people who had to deal with the concrete facts of the prevailing situation. They were for the most part original minds who found the opportunity to answer questions that demanded solutions with increasing persistence. Naturally, they faced many problems when they tried to develop a workable and mutually acceptable method of contact.
The cultivation of Greek Cypriot relations and the pursuit of exceptional forms of communication found every form of expression in political, social, athletic, sporting and intellectual life. The concept of rapprochement of the two Cypriot communities entered the agenda of their organisations, beginning systematically especially during the first decade of the 21st century. In countless ways they contributed to the transformation of deeply rooted ideals and concepts of genuine goodwill and mutual trust.
Firstly, there was the role of the Trade Union Movement, with the participation of progressive, radical and perceptive leaders both from the Cypriot communities and from their counterparts in Australia. In late 2001, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, members of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Australian Trade Union Movement undertook the mission to convene a forum in Victoria to discuss the patterns and parameters of a possible rapprochement of the two communities.
A group of determined leaders, including Tümer Mimi, Ali Genc (President, Turkish Cypriot Federation, Victoria), Erdil Nami, Panikos Minas (President, FECCA), Michalis Michail and George Zangalis, reached an agreement to invite from Cyprus Babis Kyritsis, the President of the Cyprus Workers’ Confederation (PEO) and his Turkish Cypriot counterpart, Ali Kule, to an assembly with delegates from the most dynamic industrial and commercial unions of Australia, including those of Ford and General Motors.
Kyritsis, Kule, Minas and Genc, after constructive consultations, found common ground in the most important sectors, including a reunited Cyprus, equality for all and a single citizenship. The Cypriots Kule and Kyritsis then appeared on Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot radio programmes and expressed their cooperation and agreement.
These initiatives based on the trade union movement were strengthened during the following years with the participation of academic researchers, peace activists, trade unionists and intellectuals, encouraging tolerance and transparency. They also included more frequent visits of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot unionists to Australia, including those of Kostis Toiranidis and Ali Yiaman to Melbourne and Sydney, which left “impeccable impressions on all, even on those who were more suspicious.”
Australia’s role was also of decisive importance. Despite having been elevated to a large extent in its role as a UN peacekeeping force since 1964, its direct involvement first with Senator Jim Short as its permanent envoy on the Cyprus issue and later, additionally, with Alexander Downer with his mission to the UN, Australia pressed indiscriminately for a fair solution through its High Commissioners who served in Cyprus.
Sternness very often characterised their role and the Greek Cypriots of Australia often complained about the imbalance of the share of justice accorded to Turkish grievances in Cyprus. Nevertheless, the correspondence exchanged clearly certifies that in many cases, Greek Cypriot leaders were obliged to lodge a report and to criticise the diplomatic credentials or the decisions made both by Short and by Downer.
