I propose two ideas for establishing a common history. The first is to set up a joint history commission of primarily Greek and Turkish Cypriot scholars and have them write what would become a definitive political history of Cyprus. They could be helped by a team of U.N. and outside experts. The commission might do well to include mainland Greek and Turkish, and perhaps British scholars as well, although the Cypriots would remain in charge. The U.N. and outside experts would be most useful at the start in setting up the agenda and figuring out exactly what topics should be covered in which order. The first goal would be to establish as detailed an outline as possible for the study. The next step would be for each side to go off and write its own history, hewing tightly to the outline.

Then, when the resulting tomes were compared, it would reveal the specific differences between the two sides' versions of history and where more research needed to be done. At this point, the hard work of ironing out the differences would really begin. Here again the U.N. and outside experts could be of assistance, but only up to a point. The project would lose some of its legitimacy and its purpose would be vitiated if the Cypriots were forced by outsiders to accept one interpretation over another. That said, the outside experts could help separate fact from assertion, help conduct more research, help establish what the facts really were, and reduce the extent to which interpretations were necessary.

The second idea would be to set up an outside history commission of primarily outside experts to write the history. This would have the advantage of overcoming what could well be gridlock if the project were left in the hands of Cypriots. However, if the conditions are there for gridlock between the Cypriots in the first place, then it is also likely that the results of the outside history commission's study would be disputed. Perhaps the joint history commission and the outside history commission could operate simultaneously. They could submit their works together and begin the ironing out process described above. My hunch is that the outside history commission is a distant second best idea.

Of course there are several possible objections to the common history project. Perhaps it would just crystallize differences. Perhaps the cooperation needed to resolve differences in interpretation is of such magnitude that the project (especially the joint history commission) could only be completed if the Cyprus problem was close to being resolved in the first place.

A senior U.N./UNFICYP official's objections to a truth commission concerning the missing persons are relevant. He said "what is truth anyway? ... 1500 Greek Cypriots and 500 Turkish Cypriots are dead, and most of the 1500 were soldiers ... Nothing can really be justified. How do you solve this thing? By dragging out the past? You shouldn't divide the fault 60:40 or 70:30. Instead, the two sides should cry together."⁴⁹

I agree that the two sides should cry together. They have caused each other much pain. However, how do you get each side to accept that fact? At present, both sides are too filled with one-sided, biased history to do so. The blame for the pain is divided 100:0 and 0:100. The prospect of joint crying seems further away than the prospect of ironing out differences in historical interpretation. Cyprus is a tragic island and there is a lot to cry about. I believe that establishing a common history would help exorcize the tragedy and promote peace.

The common history project may sound like the optimistic musings of a distant academic. But it is at least as realistic as achieving a peaceful solution. Two sides which vilify each other so much they can't even start this sort of project aren't likely to be ready for peace. On a more positive note, two sides which can complete this project are more likely to be ready for peace and the process of working on the project may in itself help bring the sides closer.