Turning enmity into an unmatched friendship: France and Germany

Today marks 56 years since the signing of the Élysée Treaty between France and Germany. The ambassadors of two countries talk to the Cyprus Mail about what it meant for Europe

By Esra Aygin

“MY HEART is overflowing, and my soul is grateful,” said French President Charles de Gaulle in fluent German after he and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the Élysée Treaty exactly 56 years ago today.

The revolutionary document of 22 January 1963 marked the beginning of peace and reconciliation between hereditary enemies France and Germany. It also changed the future of Europe, by laying the foundations of the European Union.

“We were able to overcome the pain of the past by looking at the future,” say René Troccaz, the Ambassador of France and Franz Josef Kremp, the Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany to Cyprus in a joint interview to mark the anniversary of the signing of the Élysée Treaty,

Almost every family both in France and Germany has lost at least one member to the centuries-old bloodshed between the two countries. How is it then, with so much pain and sorrow on both sides, that the two countries have been so successful in turning enmity into friendship and cooperation, and build a joint future?

Ambassadors Troccaz and Kremp explain that it was a process that required not only leadership but also a strong sense of ownership and involvement by the societies.

“The will of leaders was of course important,” says Ambassador Troccaz of France. “Complementary to that, both leaders were able to address their public. They explained saying ‘we need to jump this step and to reconcile. There is no way we can keep on the memories the remembrances of the war.’”

Of course, as every reconciliation process, the reconciliation between France and Germany took time.

“It was a process that started with the Élysée Treaty but it’s a long lasting process over many decades that involves the whole society,” explains Ambassador Kremp. “The pain has to heal and you have to grow closer to each other. And the idea of the Élysée was to bring people together, to overcome stereotypes and prejudice and to see the real person on the other side.”

With the Élysée Treaty, France and Germany committed themselves to discussing all important policy matters, including those related to foreign affairs and defense, and pledged to “arriving insofar as possible at a similar position” on all the important economic, political and cultural issues.

There was a special focus on youth and education, as de Gaulle and Adenauer knew very well that it is not possible to change the future without changing the way the youth are brought up.

“It’s a question of in what spirit you educate young people,” remarks Ambassador Kremp. “It takes a different approach, a different spirit to create change. This is why there was a focus on youth.”

There was a need to create joint policies, practices and messages to the youth, Ambassador Troccaz adds. “France and Germany tried to address very concretely, how to encourage learning the language of the other country. They organized youth exchange programs, cultural encounters, school twinnings and joint university programmes. A Franco – German university was established. We have dozens of fields of cooperation addressing the youth. I will dare to say it’s a system. It’s an organized system.”

The Franco-German Youth Office was one of the first things that were established after the signing of the Élysée Treaty. To this day, it has enabled millions of young German and French to meet and take part in exchange programs.

Since the signing of the Élysée Treaty, tens of joint commissions of experts have looked at all the school material in an effort to find common ground on how to present the past, approach it in a way that is constructive for the future and to overcome the prejudices.

The world’s first joint history book co-written by French and German historians was published in both languages in 2006 and is used in high school history classes.

Cooperation between the two countries has not been limited to youth and education. It has developed into a natural thing that currently covers all segments of society and life. France and Germany have a common defence and security council, a financial and economic council, and councils devoted to culture and environment. There is a Franco-German Brigade, a joint army corps, joint sports clubs, exchange programs between French and German diplomats at both countries’ foreign ministries, a joint television channel – ARTE, and more than 2,000 twinnings between German and French towns and cities.

France and Germany have also changed the way they commemorate the past. Instead of focusing on who was victorious and who was defeated in past wars, they commemorate both the French and German victims through joint gestures and joint monuments.

On 11 November 2018, to mark the anniversary of the World War I Armistice for example, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel jointly visited the site where Germany signed the armistice in 1918, and then Hitler, in an act of revenge, forced France to accept defeat in 1940. As the French and German national anthems played, the two leaders laid a wreath and unveiled a plaque celebrating the reconciliation between their countries.

“You realise there was so much pain and sorrow on both sides that there is no room for triumph, says Ambassador Kremp, whose grandfather fought the French in the First World War and father in the Second World War. “You commemorate the victims – and not only soldiers, also civilians – on all sides.”

All these efforts have contributed to overcoming the hostility and reversing the public opinion in both countries. Opinion polls demonstrate that the French and the Germans, who viewed each other as the ‘enemy’ until 1960s, now regard each other as each others’ number one ally. And the two countries that have turned enmity into an unmatched friendship, now feel the shared responsibility to strengthen the European Union.

“It’s the whole. It’s the education, it’s the perspective and it’s the fact that people realise that in the world we are living in today, our future is European and our partner is Germany,” says Ambassador Troccaz. “When it all started in the 1960s, the subject was reconciliation and peace. Now the subject is Europe. It’s not only that we are neighbours and good friends. It’s that we have a project. That we built something together.”

“Now our focus is Europe,” agrees German Ambassador Kremp. “It is to help form Europe into something that can play a role in world stage on equal footing with other world powers.”

Fifty-six years on since the signing of the Élysée Treaty, today, Macron and Merkel will be signing the Treaty of Aachen to renew their commitment to each other and to pool their strengths for a strong and sovereign Europe that will safeguard the future for millions of Europeans.

“No progress is complete,” underlines Ambassador Kremp. “With every achievement, you have to fight to preserve it for the next generations. Many things are taken for granted today. My niece and nephew cross the border between Germany and France without showing a passport. They cannot imagine that what they have can be threatened and questioned again. We have to make sure achievements we make are passed to the next generation.”

https://cyprus-mail.com/2019/01/22/interview-turning-enmity-into-an-unmatched-friendship/

If France and Germany can reconcile, why can’t we?

By Esra Aygin

The way countries look at their past say a lot about how they envision their future.

Coming from a country where to view the past means selective and dishonest remembering, half-truths and lack of self-criticism are the norm, seeing the way France and Germany handle theirs is both amazing and enviable.

I was in Paris for the Peace Forum on Armistice Day last month. The events organised for the anniversary of the World War I armistice, not only marked 100 years since the end of the war, but brought forward powerful acts of reconciliation between France and Germany.

The two countries, which fought each other mercilessly in not only one, but two world wars, have been able to leave behind their bloody past and build a joint future.

On this year’s Armistice Day, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel jointly visited the site where Germany signed the armistice in 1918, and then Hitler, in an act of revenge, forced France to accept defeat in 1940. It was the first time since 1940 that leaders from France and Germany had met at this historic site. As the French and German national anthems played, the two leaders laid a wreath and unveiled a plaque celebrating the reconciliation between their countries.

Millions of deaths, years of bloodshed, indescribable suffering … yet Macron and Merkel were now hand in hand, commemorating both the French and German victims, condemning nationalism and praising unity.

Their every act, every sentence, every message were lessons in reconciliation, forgiveness and vision.

“I’ve seen where, jumbled together in mass graves, lie the bones of German and French soldiers who, one freezing winter, killed one another for a few metres of ground,” said Macron during his speech. “The lesson of the Great War cannot be that of resentment by one people against others… It’s a rootedness that forces us to think about the future and what is essential.”

On the same day, at the opening of the Paris Peace Forum, Merkel said the two world wars were “examples of the disastrous consequences a lack of compromise in politics and diplomacy can have”.

“It’s anything but self-evident” that Germany and France should have such friendship now, “especially after the suffering that Germans caused to their neighbour, to Europe and the world in two world wars,” she added.

There were no triumphant statements, no valour, no display of military might during the Armistice Day events. No fighter jets circling the skies, no glorification of war and killing, no nationalist slogans. There was no distinction between the victorious and defeated, but a lot of looking at the past, reflecting, reconciling, and moving on with a strong commitment to peace. And a deep respect – regardless of their nationality – for the people, who lost their lives in past wars.

Watching them, I couldn’t help but think: When will we, in Cyprus, ever be able to commemorate all the Turkish Cypriot, Greek Cypriot, Armenian, Maronite, Latin victims of our war? When will we ever be able to feel the same pain for each and every one who lost their lives, got wounded, displaced and suffered, regardless of their ethnic background? When will we finally see the human behind the ethnicity that has blinded us? When will we ever be able to look at the past and see our own mistakes too? When will we ever be able to remember all – not half of our history – and articulate what the past should mean for the future? When will we finally reconcile with our past and start looking forward? Say ‘never again’, instead of ‘I won’t forget.’ And when will we ever be able to condemn nationalism?

“Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,” Macron said in his speech on Armistice Day. “In saying ‘our interests first, and who cares about the rest’ you wipe out what’s most valuable about a nation: its moral values.”

Macron was talking about the same nationalism that we, in this country, take pride in, glorify and celebrate! The same nationalism that made brothers turn against each other and tore this country apart? The same nationalism that created Eoka B and TMT; that invited the coup d’etat and the invasion. The same nationalism that we systematically poison our school children with. The same nationalism that makes us hate people we don’t even know.

He was talking about the same nationalism that wants to close the crossing points and attacks Turkish Cypriot cars. The same nationalism that legitimises usurping other people’s properties and draw huge flags on mountains. The same nationalism that makes us believe to our cores that it is okay to close off entire towns and deny people their streets, memories, cemeteries.  The same nationalism that has taken away our sense of shame.

The same nationalism that makes us believe that only our suffering, pain and fear is legitimate. The same nationalism that has convinced us that the “other” is insignificant.

Macron was talking about the same nationalism that makes us want to fight rather than compromise, prefer the dangerous unknown to reconciliation, go for permanent partition rather than a united Cyprus.

He was talking about the same nationalism that we have praised or at least tolerated to the point of legitimising and mainstreaming the far-right, fascist ideologies in this country.  The far-right and fascist ideologies that have brought nothing but hell to the places they nestled.

When will we ever learn?

https://cyprus-mail.com/2018/12/02/if-france-and-germany-can-reconcile-why-cant-we/

Property claims: How Germany did it

September 18, 2016

By Esra Aygin

Following WWII, nearly 4.9 million Germans abandoned their properties in East Germany and fled to the West.

When Germany was united on August 31, 1990, a new Division for Open Property Questions was established under the Federal Ministry of Finance to settle the property disputes that had arisen in 40 years of division.

Dr Hermann-Josef Rodenbach, a specialist in the fields of constitutional, civil and commercial law, in particular as regards property rights, served as Head of Division for four years.

At the beginning of the process, there were thousands of workers in a decentralised system that had 220 offices in different federal states. Today, with nearly 99% of the property disputes solved, only a hundred people are employed.

“The remaining are mostly Jewish property because it is very difficult to find the heirs,” said Rodenbach.

At the beginning, the principle was for the restitution of properties, but this worked out differently in practice.

“In practice, there were many more cases of compensation than restitution. We had about 2.7 million claims for restitution – 2.2 million for real estate – and the restitution rate has been only 23%.”

As a result, around €6.4bn was paid in compensation. The main reason for low restitution rates was the principle of acquisition in good faith. 

“That means people who had acquired property after WWII in East Germany are protected against restitution. But it is necessary that it was in good faith, in a correct order, and that a normal East German price was paid,” he explained. Purchases deemed to be in good faith covered around 95% of cases.

As for the small percentage who acquired a property by force or by not paying for it, “they were not protected against restitution”.
Handling the opposition

There was, of course, opposition.

“The expectations of the older owners were very high, especially because West Germany, until the reunification talks, never formally accepted or formally recognised these expropriations.”

Politicians swore they would never recognise expropriations and the media objected to what it described as “victims compensate victims”.

Low compensation payments also created resentment. However, the desire for peace was paramount.

“We wanted to have peace in Germany and we didn’t want to have war between old owners and new owners. I think that was one price for the reunification. No new compulsions,” he said.

Many of the decisions taken by the Property Division were challenged in the courts. However, out of 64,000 procedures and 40,000 judgments, the state won in 35,000 cases.

“The decisions were found correct,” Rodenbach said.

Fixing compensation levels

Rodenbach said at the beginning they thought of paying a small amount of compensation based on east German prices and levying a property tax for those who received their properties back, with the logic that those being reinstated would benefit from the rapid increase in values. However, this was rejected by parliament.

“The final decision was to pay it on the basis of a so-called fictive market value of 1990 – the date of reunification. The second step was that all payments the old proprietors had already got – in Germany we had already paid compensations for the loss of property in East Germany – would be deducted.”

On the other hand, if a property was reinstated, the owner had to pay back any compensation received by the state before reinstatement.

“That also diminished compensations,” he said. On the other hand, in retrospect, he says: “Today I can say that the compensations should have been a little bit higher because it would have brought more peace and justice.”

Privatisation paid

Compensation funding came primarily through privatisation revenues and taxation.

“We said the Trust Company, which had the job to privatise these, had to pay 1.5 billion German marks [about €750m] to the compensation fund.”

Another €1 billion came from selling property of the former German Democratic Republic, including state forests.

A small amount came from people who left unbuilt land but were reinstated with land plus buildings (known as ‘significant improvement’ in Cyprus). In these cases the state took ‘equalisation pay’, although Rodenbach says there were few cases like these.

As unresolved property cases had a negative impact on the East German property market, the Property Division also prioritised purchases for investment.

If a prospective buyer promised investment or guaranteed employment they would get priority over the owner.

“The applicant for restitution is then excluded but gets the result of this purchase and even has to get at least the market value of the asset,” Rodenbach explained.

Advice for Cyprus

Asked for advice in the Cyprus case Rodenbach called for simplicity.
“Don’t make it too complicated. We had a very complex system in Germany, very difficult to read, especially in the field of restitution of enterprises,” he said.

“I think description of the facts in the law should be very clear. There should be only little room for interpretation because interpretation is always a cause of dispute … Then very short, fixed deadlines.”

He also advises against long formal procedures.

“Make it as simple for the people, to avoid people having to go to a lawyer and paying a lot of money for it.”

He also advises a “public law determined procedure”, for those who are dissatisfied.

“The office makes a decision and anybody, either the applicant or users, has a right to go to the court then.”

A fair and fast system is his main advice.

“I think the faster you give back the property, and if you have a just system, the more people will be content.”

http://in-cyprus.com/property-claims-how-germany-did-it/

After the wall comes down - Berlin (The Cyprus Weekly, 23 October 2015)

Esra Aygin

BERLIN - I tearfully stand before the weathered remains of what used to be the mighty Berlin Wall – a wall that ripped a city apart for decades, tyrannized a nation and caused indescribable suffering and pain. Three large red letters printed on the shabby wall strike me, and in an instant, summarize all my thoughts in one word – WHY

Twenty-five years into the reunification, Berlin has transformed from a divided city into a united, vibrant, cosmopolitan capital. The area that used to be the hollow, soulless no-mans land along the wall is now bustling with modern buildings, cafes and shops in utter demonstration of the senselessness and artificiality of all divisions. Two independent cities of Berlin - with the west a symbol of the fight against communism, and the east, a capital of the communist system - have come together to find a new common identity.

Earlier this month, millions of Germans, from east, west, south and north, celebrated the 25^th anniversary of the reunification of their country - widely defined as a ‘success story.’ A poll published by the newspaper Deutsche Welle, conducted among more than 1,000 Germans aged 18 and older about their attitude to unification, shows that west or east no longer shape people's identity in Germany and a feeling of unity prevails particular among the youth. Seventy-three per cent think the reunification of Germany has been an overall success. At the same time, 67 per cent believe it has not been completed yet.

Eberhard Diepgen - the man, who achieved what seemed to be impossible and literally reunited the city of Berlin as its governing mayor from 1991 till 2001, agrees with the results of the poll.

“Reunification is definitely a success story,” the veteran politician told a group of international journalists, who were in Germany to cover the 25^th anniversary celebrations. “The division has largely been overcome and Germany today is much more unified than Spain or Belgium. But is it ever possible to complete a process of reunification? Reunification is a mentality; it is a way of socialisation, of social organisation. And it continues.”

After Berlin’s first election as a whole in 1991, Diepgen, who hails from the centre-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), took office as mayor and was faced with the challenge of physically reuniting effectively two independent cities. Talking about his vast experience, he said that the biggest challenge in overcoming the division was not the physical work that needed to be done, but the reconciliation of the people.

“When I came to my office, I had the thought that ‘we are all Berliners’ and therefore everything would be smooth and easy. I had to learn that it was not so difficult to bring together infrastructure, the administration, or to build a new system, but it was much more difficult to bring together the mentalities, the people,” he told us. “The mentalities of people become very different after a division of 40 years.”

As a result of the difference between the people, who had been exposed to different experiences; values; education systems; political, social and administrative processes for decades, the smallest of financial decisions could escalate into contentious, emotional questions of division, Diepgen said, giving an advise: “Political considerations should take precedence over economic concerns to provide for social peace and calm. As long as you can dig into your pockets, do it and leave aside economic considerations. Make the spending if it is going make people feel more comfortable. Don’t stop projects. Because these are not considered as questions of economic rationale that they are, but they become a question of people’s feelings. You must keep a very fine a balance.”

One of the first things Diepgen did after taking office, for example, was to move the municipality building from former west to the centre of the city, to ‘symbolise that Berlin is not governed by the west or from the west, but from the centre.’

Quarter of a century into reunification, besides the economic, social and political transformation, Berlin today is also going through a huge change architecturally. The city resembles a huge construction site with cranes operating on hundreds of new buildings, renovations and restorations.

Diepgen rightfully takes pride in the incredible transformation of Berlin, which involved difficult and, at times, controversial decisions.

“I was criticised for keeping some of the members of the system in the former east Germany in state positions,” the former mayor said. “Police for example. Police was a part of the Communist Party. What do you do? Do you fire all? Or teachers… Maybe not all were members of the Communist Party, but all were close to the system. Do you fire all? If all leading positions were occupied by west Germans, this would be a complete takeover, not unification. It isn’t possible to push aside a system, which has been around for more than 40 years.”

The now 74-year-old Diepgen, who lived in west Berlin all his life and always “dreamt of a city without borders, walls or checkpoints” before reunification, is living his dream. The Berlin wall is no longer the overpowering scene of the city, but has been reduced to small sections kept as a collective memorial, a symbolic line on the side of an asphalt road, or pieces of concrete sold as souvenirs. And Checkpoint Charlie - the famous Berlin Wall crossing point that had come to symbolize the Cold War, now merely exists as an attraction for millions of tourists each year, who form queues to take pictures with the young man dressed as an American soldier guarding the border.

http://in-cyprus.com/after-the-wall-comes-down/

Interview with Germany's Ambassador to Nicosia, Nikolai von Schoepff (12 July 2015)

Esra Aygin 

How do you read the results of the elections for the Turkish Cypriot leader held in April? What does the overwhelming support for Mr. Mustafa Akinci mean?

Schoepff: It shows that the Turkish Cypriots were frustrated about the developments they were faced with. Mr. Mustafa Akinci’s election is a clear ‘yes’ for a devoted, strong leader who would work for solution. I have met Mr. Akinci and you can immediately feel his vast experience, solution-oriented approach and determination. His election has created new hope and new enthusiasm on both sides of the green line. President Anastasiades has personally told me that the real change came with Akinci. And I think that way too. For this, everyone has to thank him. And of course, I also congratulate the voters in northern Cyprus for having demonstrated a clear preference for a settlement and becoming an inseparable part of Europe.

Is Akinci’s presence enough to render this process different from the previous ones that all failed?

Schoepff: There is a big difference in the process now. By electing Akinci, Turkish Cypriots clearly said ‘we want a different Cyprus.’ And I think the feeling in the south is similar. There is a growing sentiment among both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots that they want a ‘Cyprus nation’ instead of being subordinates of Greece and Turkey. The ‘Cypriot’ identity has come to the forefront. The conditions have never been better and will never be better again. I believe the two Leaders are aware of this fact. I like both leaders very much. They are both very practical and both have the same vision for building a united Cyprus in Europe. They belong to the same generation, they are both from Limassol, they understand each other and who have both proven in the past that they pursue the same goal. My impression is that there is a big harmony between them. A united federal Cyprus would be a trade and business gateway between Europe and the Middle East and serve as a hub of stability in the whole Middle East and Arab region, which is inflicted by instability and challenges. The leaders see this. Cyprus is on the right path.

Do you think you will be the Ambassador who witnesses solution in Cyprus?

Schoepff: I am extremely hopeful that I will be. The process is moving forward very well and the situation has completely changed within months. We are hearing and seeing things that would be unimaginable two months ago.

What is Germany’s stance regarding and role in the negotiations process?

Schoepff: Germany is following the negotiations closely. Chancellor Merkel is in close contact with Anastasiades. Important German politicians including Foreign Minister Steinmeier will soon be visiting Cyprus and meeting with both leaders. Germany welcomes the resumption of the negotiations wholeheartedly and we wish the two Leaders the courage and wisdom necessary to maintain the current momentum and to conclude them soon. Since the new Cyprus will be a full member of the European Union it goes without saying that the settlement needs to be in line with the European Acquis. The EU and Germany stand ready to support the process if required. But the process is up to the two communities. A just and viable settlement can only be achieved by the two community Leaders.

The aim is to achieve important progress by the end of October or beginning of November and then to have a multilateral meeting with the participation of guarantors for thornier issues such as guarantees. Do you think this is a realistic expectation?

Schoepff: This all depends first and foremost on the progress made until then. As long as the two Leaders feel the sense of urgency – which they do at the moment – there is no need for timelines. My understanding is that both sides have agreed that guarantees will be the last issue to be discussed after all other aspects of a solution have been dealt with and all internal issues have been tackled. I believe that this is a practical approach. At the end of the day, this will be up the united Cyprus but I don’t think a united federal Cyprus would need guarantees. Cyprus, after a solution, should be like any other normal full-fledged EU member state.

What do you think about the first CBMs?

Schoepff: CBMs are important because they convey a strong message to the public and contribute to the building of the concept of co-existence and a joint nation. They make progress visible and tangible for the citizens of Cyprus and make their daily lives easier. In this way CBMs help to create a positive atmosphere, bring people together and to prepare the public for a solution.

Drawing on your experience from German reunification, what kinds of CBMs should the two sides focus on to bring the two communities together?

Schoepff: In Germany we strongly believe in the power of the private sector. I believe a greater interconnection between the two economies, more joint business projects and joint business promotion will bring people even closer together. It also helps to place Cyprus on the map of international investors. My recent trip to Germany with the two Presidents of the Chambers of Commerce was a big success in this respect. And this was the first time we promoted in Germany the whole of Cyprus. We had very good meetings in Hannover, Munich and Berlin. I believe that it is very important to develop business and economy sectors.

You have close relations with the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce. How are your relations with Turkish Cypriots other than that? How active are you in the north?

Schoepff: Actually, the more I am here, the more I like the north. I have two aims here in Cyprus that I will tell you now. One is to set up a bilateral German-Cyprus chamber of commerce. And the Cyprus leg of it will of course be bi-communal and include Turkish Cypriots. We are already working with the Chambers of Commerce on both sides for this. The second is, I want to strengthen our office in the north, have a stronger presence and to be more active there.

What do you expect the biggest challenge to be in terms of the reconciliation of people again drawing from experience?

Schoepff: Germany knows about what division means. Reunification is a process. To be successful, it needs time. Decades after the fall of the Berlin wall, we still feel the difficulties of reunification as well as enjoying its benefits. The biggest challenge is to create an atmosphere of equality and mutual respect where nobody feels left behind. People who have reason to believe that their lives work is not recognized by the new state they live in will soon start to disengage and refuse to contribute to building a new society. Also, I am very much in favour of a joint political process in the united Cyprus. Politicians after a solution should appeal to both communities. Politics should serve as an instrument of unification rather than separation.

Do you have any indicators as to what the financial effects/benefits of a settlement in Cyprus would be?

Schoepff: All economic studies I have seen suggest unanimously that the economic benefits of a settlement will be enormous. There are three simple reasons for this: First, while the “frozen conflict situation” may seem relatively stable it still constitutes a political risk for international investors. Only if Cyprus succeeds in abolishing this risk factor will she be able to develop her full potential as a trading and business hub between Europe and the Near and Middle East. Second, the very small market size of Cyprus would be increased considerably and the hinterland for European exporters could be vastly expanded, reaching from Turkey to Egypt. Third, the settlement itself would directly trigger a number of public investment projects in infrastructure and administrative capacities. While these general effects of a settlement are widely known it still remains difficult to quantify the expected benefits more precisely. Although some reports have been prepared by academicians or researchers, no real professionals have ever looked at this issue.  In my view, the IMF is the most suitable institution to provide a macroeconomic framework analysis for the north and for the south. Such an analysis would greatly help to give us a clearer picture of the compatibility and the growth potential of the two economies. IMF could make an economic impact analysis, which would provide us with reliable data on the real benefits and financial needs of the unification of Cyprus. I believe this is crucially important at the moment. I believe it would make a great confidence building measure to commission the IMF with such a study.

Lastly, what can you say about the developments in Greece?

Schoepff: I don’t want to comment much about this issue but I can say that Europe will never let Greece go. Cyprus, on the other hand, has been very results-oriented in managing its financial crisis and has created a very positive perception. By going ahead with the necessary reforms Cyprus and with a solid financial policy, now has very solid financial figures and the economy has gone back to growth.

http://www.havadiskibris.com/Haberler/roportaj/kibris-dogru-yolda/60840