EMU Cyprus Policy Center Director Evaluates Colombia Referendum

Head of EMU Cyprus Policy Center Evaluates Colomia Referendum

Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) Faculty of Business and Economy, Department of Political Science and International Relations academician and EMU Cyprus Policy Center head, Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen evaluated the Colombian referendum result, noting that a great opportunity was lost. Prof. Dr. Sözen stated that the ‘narrow margin’ between the yes and no votes (%49.78-yes, %50.21-no) during the Colombian referendum shows us that reaching peace isn’t easy and that from this result we have a lot to learn.

After a negotiation period of approximately 6 years (secret for 2 years and open to the public since 2012) supported by the Obama administration, the European Union and the Cuban government, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC) and the Colombian Government signed an agreement. On the 2nd of October 2016, Colombia went to referendum to accept or reject the agreement. However, the agreement wasn’t accepted and Colombia missed the opportunity to end Latin America’s oldest and most bloody civil war. During the conflict that has gone on for 52 years, 220 thousand people have lost their lives and more than 7 million people have lost their homes. Many of the ‘no’ votes appear to be as a result of anxiety regarding the privileges (especially political) to be given to FARC. However, because of the dignified behavior of the Colombian public during the referendum, the fact that neither side got involved in violence and stayed true to the ceasefire still keeps alive positive expectations regarding the peace process. In summary, the sides need to keep using democratic processes instead of violence to solve their problems.

Before the referendum took place, Prof. Dr. Sözen attended and gave a speech at a panel titled “The Colombian Referendum, Repercussions of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote: Experiences from Successful and Unsuccessful Referendums in Other Peace Processes” that took place at the Geneva Graduate Institute. The panel organized by the United Nations Geneva Permanent Mission, Extensive Peace and Change Initiative and the International Development and Geneva Graduate Institute aimed to obtain substantial data from the respectively successful and un successful referendums in Cyprus and Northern Island in order to guarantee public support in the Colombian referendum. In his speech, Prof. Dr. Sözen noted that the Annan Plan was presented to both communities and a simultaneous referendum took place on the 24th April 2004. The referendum didn’t aim to form two separate states but rather a common state run by the involvement of both communities. The sharing of state functions would result in self-determination. The referendum that aimed to form a Federal Cyprus failed as it did not make clear what would happen if the three outcomes other than a two ‘yes’ outcome was to materialise. The isolations on Turkish Cypriots were lessened as it was made clear that they were not the side that didn’t want a solution.

In his speech, Prof. Dr. Sözen noted that the Cyprus situation is now more difficult to solve because many people with the experience of living together have died and new equations been added to the problem. He concluded his words by noting that over the last 12 years the demographic structure has changed and constructions have continued in controversial areas.

Advertisements

Plebiscite in Colombia – Potential Consequences of YES or NO Vote

Full Speech of Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen:

 

“…I hope that my presentation on Cyprus contributes to other plebiscite in Colombia – even if there is slightest means, I would be very happy. I will start with a very short background information on the Cyprus issue and then I will talk about the campaign on both sides of the UN divided Cyprus as well as the consequences of the votes on two referendums in Cyprus.

 

The Cyprus conflict has first come to the UN agenda in mid 1950s when it was clear that the British colony would end. What’s going to happen in Cyprus, so it came as a debate on self-determination of Cyprus of rather the two communities living in Cyprus – the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriot’s.

 

In 1960 Cyprus got independence – or some politics say semi-independence from UK. The Republic of Cyprus was established by international treaties. There were three guarantor powers of this Republic of Cyprus: UK, as the former colonial master; Turkey and Greece, also known as the motherlands of respective communities. Some call this 1960 Republic of Cyprus a “Functional Federation”, some call it a “Consociational Democracy” whereas the functions of the state were shared between the two communities.

 

However, due Turkish Cypriots to various reasons, I am not getting into that, in 1963 there was a constitutional crisis and a subsequent eruption of ethnic violence in Cyprus. In 1964, the UN peacekeeping force came to Cyprus, stationed in Cyprus and they are still in Cyprus. So it is one of the oldest missions of the UN. In 1974, another important era, there was a Greek coup and a subsequent Turkish military intervention. The island got divided into two parts: North and South. And, since then the two sides have been trying to unify the country, to solve the Cyprus problem based on a federal state that would be bi-communal with regarding to the constitutional aspects and it would be bi-zonal with regarding to the territorial aspects.

 

After long years of what we call inter-communal negotiations between the two communities, by the way it started when the rivals born back in 1968 in Beirut and then the negotiations were transferred to Nicosia. The idea was come to come up with a mutually agreed solution between the two communities. One of the latest, important turning point, was back in 2004 – when the two sides managed with the help of the UN. At the end   the UN played the role of filling up the remaining gaps between the two sides. Here in Burgenstock, in Switzerland, the two sides agreed on a comprehensive solution plan with the help of the UN. And, that solution plan was put to simultaneous separate referenda in Cyprus in 2004. Exactly, about one month after it was finalized herein Burgenstock. But, it was the fifth version of the plan because the previous versions of the plan came out about a year and half before. So, people had the chance to read the different versions of the plan.

 

Now, in 2004, in the campaign, while the plan was supported by the two thirds of the Turkish Cypriots (65% YES), it was rejected by a predominant three forth majority of the Greek Cypriots (76% NO). Hence, the peace plan became ‘null and void’…”

 

Daniela:

 

“Ahmet, just to understand this, for the non-Cyprus experts, we are talking actually about two different sought of referendums, in the two sides, plus two different YES or NO campaigns…”

 

Sözen:

 

“There was two separate simultaneous referenda’s, taking place at the same time, one at the northern part of the Cyprus and the one at the southern part of the Cyprus, for Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. During the campaign of both each community on both sides of the UN divide, was further divided by these YES or NO camps. There was a very strong and widespread NO camp and a weak YES camp in Greek Cypriot community – simply because the majority of main parties were supporting NO vote, only one major party called DISY which is a liberal conservative party, partly supported it. Although DISY openly supported it, some of its followers did not vote YES during the referenda. That’s why they had %24 because DISY is a party that has one third of the votes in the Greek Cypriot side. The leader of the Greek Cypriots, the President Tassos Papadopoulos himself was an element supporter of NO.

 

In the Turkish Cypriot community, there was a strong NO but at the same time a very strong YES campaign. Most of the left wing parties and progressive civil society organizations supported YES camp, supported the solution. While the right wing parties were voted against it. And this campaign, NO side, was also headed by the strong Turkish Cypriot Leader Mr. Rauf Denktash. So there was symmetry here, both leaders at that time were against the plan.  But I have to make a point here, there is a very significant difference in terms of the political structure of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots on the island. In the Greek Cypriot community, the political space is occupied predominantly by the political parties. So we do not have a strong civil society independent from the political parties. Even the unions are pretty much linked with the political parties.

 

Whereas, in the Turkish Cypriot’s community, there was a very vibrant civil society independent from the traditional political parties. For example, the teachers unions, both elementary schools and secondary schools teachers unions, and they are in thousands and very strong. They are completely independent from the political parties and they formed some of the most important elements of the YES campaign. In fact, in early 2000’s, there was a movement in Turkish Cypriots community called “This Country is Our’s” which was formed by several dozen NGO’s and political parties who were claiming that “we have to rule our land independent from being dominated by Greek Cypriot neighbors as well as being influenced by Turkey’s involvement. So, there was this very active platform for that.

 

When you look at, in terms of demographics of the voters, among the 65% Turkish Cypriots who voted YES, 80+% of them were young (below 45). So there was a very strong support from Turkish Cypriot young generation. Whereas, the picture just was the opposite in the Greek Cypriot community. Among those 24% who voted YES, majority was older people who had the experience of living together with the Turkish Cypriot’s in the past. Whereas, the majority of Greek Cypriot’s younger generation voted NO.

 

Now, it is also revealed in our island-wide polls show that I have been conducting with my Greek Cypriot research fellow since 2008-2009 that the more educated people are in the Turkish Cypriot’s community, the more they tend to vote YES. Again, the picture is opposite in the Greek Cypriot side, where the more time people spend in schools, the more they tend to vote NO. I think that this tells us a lot about the nature of the education (Very ethno-nationalistic education)…

 

During the campaign, the whole thing was presented by the Greek Cypriot leadership and Turkish Cypriot leadership, by Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos and Mr. Denktash were presented to the public in a give and take way –meaning that whatever we are going to is whatever we are going to lose, whatever they are going to lose is whatever we are going to win. It’s a classical Cold-war mentality. Whereas, in the YES camp (both in the Greek Cypriots and in the Turkish Cypriots) the peace plan which was called Annan Plan taking its name from the Kofi Annan was presented as a “win-win” situation – the case which both sides win.

The NO camp on both sides tried to appeal to the “FEARS” of the people, focusing mostly on the PAST and presenting the past as a troubled dis-functional period (full of constitutional crisis and ethnic violence etc.)!

 

Whereas in the YES camp on both sides, the campaigners tried to appeal to the HOPES of people, and it was more future oriented. They were saying “we are not denying past, we have to learn from our mistakes in the past but we have to look forward to future”.

 

But of course, what was missing that we now debate nowadays in the negotiations is this “joint communication strategy” between the two sides. This never took place. In fact the leaders who were negotiated later became the champions of the NO campaign.

 

When we look at the consequences, we need to understand that the referenda in Cyprus were not for democratic principles. The referendum in Cyprus was designed by the UN in order to bypass the intransigent Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. Because the UN had that belief at that time that he was the only obstacle in front of the plan that the Turkish Cypriots were more progressive and the only way to bypass him was to install a referendum into the process. ın fact it was proved at the end that he was not the only one; but the Greek Cypriot leader was the other element against the plan.

 

But what happened was that the principle of separate simultaneous referenda remained as we speak today. That is now a principle that when the two leaders who are negotiating will come up with the plan it will be putted to simultaneous referenda – meaning that the Greek and the Turkish Cypriots have to approve it.

 

The referenda in 2004, in my opinion, meant separate exercise of the right of self-determination – not in the classical sense of “right to statehood”, but the right to participate into the governance of the future common state by each respective community.

 

So, what were the consequences of the voting in the referenda in Cyprus? For some people, the Annan plan’s weakness was that it failed to indicate the consequences for the three scenarios of 4 possible scenarios of the referenda. What are the possible scenarios of this plan was YES-YES, YES-NO, NO-YES and NO-NO. So, we know that if there is YES- YES, what would happen, the establishment of a federal Cyprus which would be a EU member. But what about in cases of YES-NO or, NO-YES, or NO-NO?

 

Well, the plan itself stated that in case the plan was not supported by both sides, then it would be “Null and void” … What does that mean? I usually describe this in a sarcastic way by likening this to the case in the Movie “Mission Impossible” – remember, after the agent reads the original message, the message “destroys itself” -, so, the Annan Plan “destroyed itself” by becoming “null and void”… but, of course, the result of the vote had some political consequences…

 

But, of course there are some of the political consequences.

What happen was the Turkish Cypriot received some sympathy in the international community and hence, some of the restrictions and isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community were a bit lifted. What I called – Turkish Cypriot side was a bit more Taiwanized. The clear rejection of the peace plan by the Greek Cypriot’s led to the fall of the image in the international community that it was the Turkish Cypriot side which was intransigent. Greek Cypriot side was initially lost some respect and credit in the international community, which they slowly restored back etc… But, you know what happened, since then we lost twelve years plus. The real consequence of the rejection of the UN plan was to lose at least 12 years and counting. (During 2004-2008 there were almost no meaningful negotiations between the two sides!)

 

And, you know what happens: you think that the status-quo remains but it does not. During this 12 plus years past, life has not stopped on both sides of the UN divide in Cyprus. New realities, such as people building on the disputed properties, changing demographics of the island, dying away of a generation who had the experience of living together, and so forth. Hence, new layers (of problems and potential clashes) have been added on the Cyprus conflict – just like a snow ball rolling down and getting bigger in an avalanche… Hence, solving the Cyprus problem became much more difficult… Whereas, the solution of it could have benefited both sides immensely…”

 

Daniela:

 

“What would like to give Colombia on its way?”

 

 

Sözen:

 

“Don’t lose time! That’s number one. I will start with an anecdote back in 1992 when something 24 years ago, I was very young person. I was part of this expert group that the UN was trying to implement confidence building measures in Cyprus. Something like opening a joint airport between the two sides of Cyprus, opening up a free zone… I saw how that exercise was politicized by both sides and flash down to the toilet. And, I could not help to think that if we could manage to do those things at that time we would be talking in a different Cyprus today. But, even if we manage to establish, come up with a comprehensive solution plan, that’s the beginning of the big journey… because the peace comes later. It’s the people who make peace. The leaders make the deal but it’s the people where we should start from… the education and socialization to establish the seeds of peace.

 

I once wrote in one of the academic articles that if we manage to establish the federation in Cyprus, I called it ‘Belgianization’ of Cyprus. And, a lot of people said “of professor, you got it wrong, Belgian is not a good federation model”. And, I said to them “don’t insult with my interpretation whether being Belgian or not; but remember in Belgian, several years ago there was elections and more than 400 days they couldn’t establish the government. And, I asked the question what happened to Belgian. I think the answer is very tilly: Nothing! And, isn’t this great? Because, the alternative what we got through in the past was due to our differences we killed one another and we hurt one another. So, the extreme alternative of ‘Belgianization’ is what I again invented the term ‘Syrianization’. And, I prefer ‘Belgianization’ to ‘Syrianization’. At least we know that it would be difficult to run a federation. But nonetheless whenever we have difficulty, we will accept our difficulties and move on. So, don’t lose time and start implementing as soon as possible…”

Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen Professor of International Relations – Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) EMU Cyprus Policy Center Director  “Plebiscite in Columbia: Consequences of a YES or NO vote: Lessons Learned from successful and failed referendums in other peace processes” 27 September 2016 (Grad. Inst. of International & Development Studies @Geneva)

kibrisin-referandum-tecrubesi-kolombiya-referandumuna-isik-tutuyor

Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) Faculty of Business and Economy, Department of Political Science and International Relations academician and EMU Cyprus Policy Center Director, Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen evaluated the Colombian referendum result, noting that a great opportunity was lost. Prof. Dr. Sözen stated that the ‘narrow margin’ between the yes and no votes (%49.78-yes, %50.21-no) during the Colombian referendum shows us that reaching peace isn’t easy and that from this result we have a lot to learn.

After a negotiation period of approximately 6 years (secret for 2 years and open to the public since 2012) supported by the Obama administration, the European Union and the Cuban government, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC) and the Colombian Government signed an agreement. On the 2nd of October 2016, Colombia went to referendum to accept or reject the agreement. However, the agreement wasn’t accepted and Colombia missed the opportunity to end Latin America’s oldest and most bloody civil war. During the conflict that has gone on for 52 years, 220 thousand people have lost their lives and more than 7 million people have lost their homes. Many of the ‘no’ votes appear to be as a result of anxiety regarding the privileges (especially political) to be given to FARC. However, because of the dignified behavior of the Colombian public during the referendum, the fact that neither side got involved in violence and stayed true to the ceasefire still keeps alive positive expectations regarding the peace process. In summary, the sides need to keep using democratic processes instead of violence to solve their problems.

Before the referendum took place, Prof. Dr. Sözen attended and gave a speech at a panel titled “The Colombian Referendum, Repercussions of a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ vote: Experiences from Successful and Unsuccessful Referendums in Other Peace Processes” that took place at the Geneva Graduate Institute. The panel organized by the United Nations Geneva Permanent Mission, Extensive Peace and Change Initiative and the International Development and Geneva Graduate Institute aimed to obtain substantial data from the respectively successful and un successful referendums in Cyprus and Northern Island in order to guarantee public support in the Colombian referendum. In his speech, Prof. Dr. Sözen noted that the Annan Plan was presented to both communities and a simultaneous referendum took place on the 24th April 2004. The referendum didn’t aim to form two separate states but rather a common state run by the involvement of both communities. The sharing of state functions would result in self-determination. The referendum that aimed to form a Federal Cyprus failed as it did not make clear what would happen if the three outcomes other than a two ‘yes’ outcome was to materialise. The isolations on Turkish Cypriots were lessened as it was made clear that they were not the side that didn’t want a solution.

In his speech, Prof. Dr. Sözen noted that the Cyprus situation is now more difficult to solve because many people with the experience of living together have died and new equations been added to the problem. He concluded his words by noting that over the last 12 years the demographic structure has changed and constructions have continued in controversial areas.

 

Related Press Releases:

Sözen, Kolombiya referandum sonucu hakkında değerlendirmelerde bulundu. Ortam syf. 14

https://www.facebook.com/dautanitimofisi/

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/sozen-baris-kolay-gelmiyor

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/kibris-politikalar-merkezi-kibrisin-referendum-tecrubesi-kol

DAÜ – KPM Başkanı Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen, Kolombiya Referandum Sonucu Hakkında Değerlendirmelerde Bulundu. Güneş 10

DAÜ – KPM Başkanı Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen, Kolombiya Referandum Sonucu Hakkında Değerlendirmelerde Bulundu. Vatan 18

DAÜ – KPM Başkanı Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen, Kolombiya Referandum sonucu hakkında değerlendirmelerde bulundu. Detay 13

“Barışın kolay elde edilmediğini gösterdi” Star Kıbrıs 15

Devrim Şahin, Cyprus Policy Center Research Fellow, “Politics of International Relations” from 23 to 25 June 2016 (CEE-ISA 2016 @the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)

13584796_10208024891913438_7904572604502970943_o

Cyprus Policy Center Research Fellow Devrim Şahin participated to the ISA Conference on Politics of International Relations taken place from 23 to 25 June 2016 at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Şahin served as a chair for the panel “Turkey and the Arab Spring” and made presentations during the panels “Transformation and Democratization” and “Responsibility to Protect”. As during the conference proceedings, the results of the British referendum on withdrawal from the European Union were announced in the morning of 24 June, the Conference participants and organizers promptly responded by conducting a round table on Britain’s Brexit vote.

Şahin explained his concerns that the Brexit vote of Britain would dampen the transformative power of the EU and offer a model of withdrawal from the EU – triggering her collapse. Considering the influence of Britain on Turkey’s EU accession process and Cyprus balance, Britain’s withdrawal would harden the EU’s potential to extent her internal peace beyond her borders. Şahin called for the need of a multi-faced education based on common values of European society to tackle rising economic and cultural nationalism within the EU member states.

The conference was hosted by the Centre of International Relations (CIR) and co-organised Central and East European International Studies Association (CEEISA) and International Studies Association (ISA). The conference brought together over 450 participants, scholars, researchers and PhD students from 52 countries from all around the world. There were 109 panels that enrolled during the three conference days and special attention was given to junior scholars by organizing several Graduate Students’ panels.

Dr. George Kyris, Department of Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham “The Europeanisation of Contested Statehood: The EU in northern Cyprus” 13 April 2016 (2.30pm @BEA5)

kyris

Dr. George Kyris delivered a seminar at EMU Business and Economics Faculty, Political Science and International Relations Department as the guest speaker of Eastern Mediterranean University Cyprus Policy Center. Currently working as an academic staff member at Birmingham University Political Science and International Studies Department, Dr. Kyris carries out research on unrecognised countries and conflicts.

 

During the seminar, Dr. Kyris presented information on his book titled ‘The Europeanisation of Contested States’ and gave Northern Cyprus, Palestine, South Ossetia, Abhasia, Kosovo, Transnistria, Lugansk, Nagorno Karabakh, West Sahara, Somali and Taiwan as examples. Kyris put forth that states as such have common characteristics such as lack of international recognition, international isolations, the influence of a patron state, the lack of effective state structures, the lack of effective regional controls and conflict situations involving EU supporters and non-supporters.

 

At the end of the seminar, Kyris answered questions coming from the audience.

 

A full copy of the seminar video is available on the webpage of EMU Cyprus Policy Center (http://cpc.emu.edu.tr) for those who wish to obtain further information about the seminar.

 

Press Releases:

http://ww1.emu.edu.tr/tr/haberler/haberler/birmingham-universitesinden-dr-george-kyris-daude-seminer-verdi/1206?posts_pid=1512

http://www.gundemkibris.com/kibris-politikalar-merkezi-abnin-kuzey-kibristaki-etkisi-uzerine-konferans-duzenledi-172565h.htm

http://www.gundemkibris.com/kuzey-kibrista-avrupalilasma-ile-ilgili-seminer-171602h.htm

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/index.php/cat/35/news/187616/PageName/KIBRIS_HABERLERI

http://www.gundemkibris.com/dr-george-kyris-daude-seminer-verdi-171836h.htm

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/popup.php/cat/35/news/188698/PageName/KIBRIS_HABERLERI

http://www.kibrispostasi.com/index.php/cat/91/news/188784/PageName/EGITIM

http://www.adabasini.com/haber/kyris-taninmamislik-ve-turkiyeye-bagimlilik-abnin-etkisini-daraltiyor-328796.html

Dr. Charles Ellinas, CEO of Cyprus Hydrocarbons National Company (CHNC), “The Hydrocarbons Issue and the Resumed Negotiations” 9 March 2016 (2.30pm @BEA5)

 

ellinas

Cyprus National Hydrocarbons Company CEO Dr. Charles Ellinas delivered a seminar in EMU upon the invitation of Cyprus Policy Center Executive Director and EMU Vice Rector for Academic Affairs Prof. Dr. Ahmet Sözen. During his speech, Dr. Ellinas stated that there is a huge decrease in natural gas prices in 2015 but better results are expected in 2016. Dr. Ellinas also added that the market has gone worse due to America’s current exporter position for the first time in history and the lift of embargoes on Iran. Additionally the current situation of Egypt as a country, which currently exports natural gas, instead of importing it in the past, and the ever increasing terrorist attacks have all posed a negative effect on the market.

Parallel to these developments encountered at the global natural gas market, Cyprus gas is losing its profitability due to the low productivity of Cyprus’s Aphrodite gas. According to Dr. Ellinas, energy companies make their investments to gain more profit, not for political reasons. Stating that the interest paid to Cyprus gas by international companies has been quite high, Dr. Ellinas added that short term profits are essential for the continuation of the investments.

Turkey’s current conflict with Russia has naturally elevated the importance of Cyprus gas, which can cater for half of Turkey’s annual demand. Israel’s Leviathan gas is also another alternative for Turkey. However, in order for the Israel’s Leviathan gas to be sold to Turkey, it still has to go through Cyprus. The biggest priority here is the need for a solution to Cyprus conflict. Dr. Ellinas also stated that the replacement of gas from Russia with Iran gas is almost impossible due to its high price.

Press Releases:

http://ww1.emu.edu.tr/tr/haberler/haberler/dau-kpmden-onemli-seminer/1206?posts_pid=1413

http://www.kibris365.com/haber/27070/dr-charles-ellinas-kibris-politikalar-merkezi-icin-seminer-veriyor.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVE6CmqOdcw

http://www.palo.com.tr/a/da%C3%BC-kpm-den-%C3%B6nemli-semimer-1251691

http://www.gundemkibris.com/dr-charles-ellinas-kibris-politikalar-merkezi-icin-seminer-veriyor-167121h.htm

http://www.gundemkibris.com/dau-kpmden-onemli-semimer-168215h.htm

http://arsiv.kibrisgazetesi.com/?p=776369

European Citizenship Training Course in Glasgow

10570427_1428504780777078_8223986987307823305_n

Cyprus Policy Center was represented in the training course “European Citizenship in Youth Participation” in Glasgow, Scotland from 8-14 March 2015. The course was developed under Youth in Action Programme of the European Commission and coordinated and monitored by the SALTO Training and Co-operation Resource Centre. The objective of this training course was to encourage the development of critical and democratic European Citizenship and support project managers and youth workers in the development and implementation of youth projects with a European Citizenship dimension.

In its overall goal the training course contributed to the implementation and quality of the “Concepts and Practices of Citizenship Education in Erasmus+: Youth in Action” Programme of the European Union. Special feature of the programme was the opportunity of the visits to the local reality and the informal moments to experience how art and sports are used as non-formal education tools to train young people in Glasgow.

During the training there has been a strong emphasis on the need for universal values and a common European history book based on no single but rather multi-faced stories to promote European Citizenship. The promotion of European Citizenship has been a long-standing priority of the European Union. Violations of human rights and the increasing change of patterns of political participation all over Europe are only two of many developments that have brought the European institutions to work on European Citizenship.

The participation of Cyprus Policy Center has been appropriate to its approach of becoming informed about the latest global developments as well as informing the global community about the internal development in Cyprus. Further reading about the European Citizenship concept is available at the webpage: http://www.european-citizenship.org