June 11th, 2016 → 9:38 am @ Aris Aristidou
A press interview by the High Commissioner of India to Cyprus on the very good prospects that exist for further expansion of economic relations between Cyprus and India and an article by Dr George Theocharides on his experience with the technological uprising of South Korea reminded me of the great efforts that were exerted after the invasion to expand the economic boundaries of Cyprus and upgrade its technological standards. The starting point was in 1975 with the signing of an Economic and Technical Cooperation Agreement between Cyprus and the Soviet Union followed by similar agreements with all the Countries of Eastern Europe. Those Agreements have resulted today to our excellent economic relations with Russia and other Eastern European Countries in many respects.
Neighboring Syria, with its potentially great market and other advantages, could become a natural venue for the expansion of Cyprus’s economic boundaries. Thus we proceeded in 1975 with the signing of a similar Economic/Technical Cooperation Agreement between Cyprus and Syria. During the meetings of the Mixed Committee established, the existing great potentials were pinpointed and the framework of action was laid down. Many Cypriot industries which could not prosper here (lack of enough labor hands at that time, high cost of production etc) were eventually activated in Syria (and later others in Jordan etc), tourist enterprises tried to expand their activities across the sea to the opposite seashore of Syria, efforts were made to expand international tourist tours to both countries, whereas large Syrian businesses (Nahas Enterprises) showed interest in including Cyprus in their activities in the other Arabic markets up to the Gulf Countries. The prospects for the success of these endeavors were enhanced when the E.U. proceeded to adopting a kind of Customs Union with all other Mediterranean countries that were not eligible for accession, where Cyprus could play an important intermediary role.
Even as a Minister of Labor later I continued to work towards this direction. When I was informed by the Syrian Minister of Tourism that they were facing a problem of lack of trained hotel personnel, we undertook the training of Syrian students at the Institute for Hotel Studies in Nicosia without any cost to them. With their rewards during their practical training at hotels, part of their training, the students financed their whole studies. It should be noted that a similar program was applied later in the case of students from Cuba. That was also part of our efforts to establishing Cyprus as a place for training of foreign students and thus expanding our economic boundaries.
The same interest with Syria was displayed in the case of other neighboring countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel and other Arabic Countries. I could mention in this respect the very good cooperation we had with Kuwait, which in fact provided finance for development projects in Cyprus, the expansion of Cypriot contracting firms from Iraq to Libya under a program of Government guarantee for political risks as well as the very large increase of Cypriot exports to all these Countries. Unfortunately, on the one hand the political instability that appeared later in the Region and on the other hand the lack of due professionalism and commitment on behalf of the Cypriot businessmen led this grandiose experiment to a standstill. There were complaints that customers received shirts with one short and one long sleeve and pairs of shoes of the same kind.
But we did not limit ourselves to the neighboring countries only. In addition to the protracted and very hard negotiations for the completion of the Customs Union with the European Economic Community, which was concluded in 1987, the prospects for turning Cyprus into a regional economic and trade center let us to seek cooperation with far away Countries especially in areas where they displayed technological and other advantages. In this respect we sought cooperation with China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.
In 1984 an Economic/Technical Cooperation Agreement was signed between Cyprus and China and the first meeting of the Mixed Committee took place in Nicosia a little while later. In addition to increasing bilateral trade relations, we agreed that Cyprus was suitable for joint action towards third countries as well. Unfortunately ever since and for many years there were no official meetings of the Committee until 2006. After the liberalization of economies internationally in the 1990’s, China proceeded to making other arrangements in other countries in the wider European and Middle East area including Greece (ports). I believe that we missed a good opportunity for Cyprus to be part of these arrangements. However there are still such opportunities.
As a result of our strong complaints to Japan because of the imbalances in our trading accounts, I was invited to Tokyo in 1987 to discuss our economic relations. With the kind assistance from UNDP I visited also S. Korea and Singapore for the same purpose. Japan was the country that benefited more after the liberalization of trade following Cyprus Independence from the British rule in 1960. Its exports to Cyprus were now the second after those of Britain, whereas exports from Cyprus to Japan were minimal. With the active support of R. Horiuchi, a former technical manager of Hellenic-Hitachi Technical Enterprises in Cyprus and later Honorary Consul of Cyprus in Japan, we had very useful discussions on exports to Japan (e.g. agricultural products), the use o Cyprus airports and ports by Japan Airlines and Japanese ships for intermediate stops during their flights and sailing to Europe and the Middle East, the inclusion of Cyprus in the Japanese tourist routes, the production of Japanese industrial products in Cyprus together with local industries etc. Of course we were not expecting spectacular results immediately. Unfortunately, there was no follow up in this case either especially with the creation of the preconditions, the necessary infrastructure including working arrangements. One Japanese firm that was convinced to establish itself in the Free Industrial Zone of Larnaca left Cyprus soon after, as did happen with Hitachi, when Hellenic-Hitachi was taken over by the Hellenic Mining Company.
The same thinking led our efforts towards the improvement of economic relations between Cyprus and India. India, a developing country with great emphasis on technology, especially electronics and a huge importance in many respects, in addition to the excellent political relations, could become a very close economic partner to Cyprus. In our efforts through the diplomatic channels to conclude an Economic/Technical Cooperation Agreement we faced various difficulties, which prevented its finalization. At a meeting of President G. Vassiliou with the Indian Prime Minister R. Gandhi, during his visit to New Delhi in 1989, the discussion turned to the cooperation in the economic field and the best way to promote it. At that time I drew from my brief case a draft of the Agreement we had been working on and kindly asked them to give instructions so as to be finalized and signed before the departure of the Mission for Cyprus. What we did not achieve in several years was done in a couple of days! After our return from a short visit to Taj Mahal, the Agreement was ready for signature.
There were a number of meetings within the framework of the Mixed Committee ever since. Special mention should be made to the decision of the Indian company Tata, a huge business concern, to expand itself in Cyprus, after I talked to them during the above visit in India. Tata was exactly interested to use Cyprus as a basis for its activities in the wider area. When I met them a few years later, as a private citizen now, they kept a very small office somewhere in Nicosia, which they were about to close and leave the Country. ‘Unfortunately, everywhere we applied there was no positive response’, it was their complaint. Neither the visit of President Papadopoulos to India nor the visit of the Indian President Mrs. Pr. Patil to Cyprus had apparently helped towards changing the situation judging from the above interview. However, the prospects are there. The same applies to all the other above-mentioned countries. Who is going to initiate and coordinate appropriate action?