Yiannis Ioannou
The Cyprus-Greece electrical interconnection, known as the Great Sea Interconnector, has highlighted the challenges of publicly discussing such a significant project. The issues extend beyond the differences between Greece and Cyprus, the costs, geopolitical risks, and the interests at play in both countries. They also involve the president's abrupt exit from last Tuesday's debate and the flood of Greek trolls on X platform. Most critically, the discussion lacks transparency regarding the financial and technical aspects of the cable, trust-building between Athens and Nicosia, and how to best serve the interests of Cypriot consumers.
In recent weeks, we've seen inconsistent viewpoints on the Great Sea Interconnector from both Athens and Nicosia. The President's procrastination, DISY's internal contradictions—including Mr. Neophytou's role as a geopolitical risk analyst for Turkey—and an army of trolls spewing insults have all contributed to the confusion.
There is also a significant lack of understanding among the public about the economic, technical, and geopolitical parameters of the project. Many citizens are unaware of what exactly Athens and Nicosia are negotiating. This debate underscores a recurring issue in Cyprus and Greece: when discussing major projects, there is uncertainty about completion timelines, potential misuse of public and European funds, and the implications for taxpayers if a project fails. If the Great Sea Interconnector faces the same fate as the EastMed pipeline, the Vasilikos terminal, or the Chevron-C.D. negotiations for Block "12," it could represent a significant setback for Cyprus’s energy strategy.
What needs to happen? First, we must determine the total cost and ensure funding for the project's completion. We need clarity on the construction timeline and the impact on Cyprus's electricity market, which currently relies heavily on polluting fuels. We must also know who will back the Cypriot investment if the project fails, and address the geopolitical risks.
Geopolitical risk analysis often delves into petty politics. Some argue that Turkish forces might sabotage a European project of common interest (PCI), yet the same Turks, if the Cyprus issue is resolved, could support every energy project involving Cyprus in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Finally, a historical perspective is essential. Cyprus and Greece, while maintaining fraternal ties, are two distinct independent states with different aspirations. It is crucial to avoid using historical events from 1960-1974 to advance contemporary narratives. Such interference is not only misguided but also detrimental to constructive public debate. It’s time to understand and address these issues with a clear perspective.
[This article was translated from its Greek original]
