An article in Politis says that if nothing happens in the talks on the Cyprus problem by November, the international community is considering two alternatives.
The paper says that according to people closely connected with the talks, few now believe that substantial progress can be achieved by that time, which is when the UN S-G is due to present his report on Cyprus.
Specualation as to what he might say in that report focus on two possibilities – he will either declare the Cyprus problem unsolvable and put an end to this phase, or he will look for a new framework for discussion. The first is considered to be the ‘tough’ choice and least likely, while the second opens the doors to a multi-lateral conference and a massive give and take bargaining which would probably lead to a negotiated partition as opposed to an overall solution as sought today.
The key to the success or otherwise of the current phase, the UN believes, is the property issue and are waiting to see the outcome of the negotiations between the leaders on this issue. If Christofias and Eroglu manage to find the golden mean in the property issue (something that few believe they can), then the other aspects of the Cyprus problem will fall into place. The two leaders are committed to present new proposals on property in September, while Downer’s team has examined ideas that should bridge a a number of the existing differences. Progress here would favourably influence Ban Ki-Moon’s report, whereas failure would set in motion one of the two other scenarios.
The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop refers to the anniversary of the second Turkish offensive on August 14 which this year was inexplicably commemorated a week earlier. Anniversary-watchers and Cyprobologists were all wondering why the Famagusta municipality had broken with tradition. This was a bit like holding the rally to mark the anniversary of the coup on July 8. It just did not make sense. An explanation was provided on Friday by the Mayor of Famagusta, Alexis Galanos who revealed that the event was brought forward at the request of the comrade president who had informed the mayor that he had ‘urgent’ business on August 14 and would not be able to attend. It now transpires that the only urgent business the comrade had was his holiday at his Kellaki dacha which he obviously did not want to interrupt to speak at a boring anti-occupation event. Giving up a few precious hours of his holiday, for the sake of the annual Famagusta event was a sacrifice he was not prepared to make, and the anniversary date had to be changed.
The tension and bad vibes were palpable at the Derynia event when the angry comrade went to the podium to make his speech. The cause of the small trails of smoke coming out of his nose and ears were certain remarks made by Galanos in his address, about the need to pursue the return of Famagusta, which the comrade perceived as dig against his policies. He was so incensed that he did not read from his prepared text, allowing instead his wounded pride to do the talking.
His message was strong and clear and aimed at the doubting Galanos – nobody had done as much as him for Famagusta he explained.
“The president must speak responsibly, and what I say is very responsible and I want to stress again that for me, at least, Famagusta was never a slogan. Never. And I challenge anyone to say how much had been done by previous presidents and previous governments for Famagusta?“I say that all previous governments put together did not do as much as this government has done in these two-and-a-half years. ‘Famagusta’ is therefore not a slogan and does not aim to caress the ears of Famagustans. No.”
All this boasting, you’d think he’d arranged for the Turks to withdraw from the town and hand it over to the Greek Cypriots. In practical terms he has done just slightly more than the big zero all his predecessors achieved for Famagusta – he managed to change the anniversary date on which the town is remembered so it would not interfere with his holidays. And this is not a slogan, it is a practical step forward.
Columnist Loucas Charalambous who writes in the Sunday Mail and Politis, describes a recent visit to Famagusta with a childhood friend who lives in Athens. It was the first time he had seen Famagusta in 40 years. From the edge of the beach at Faliro we surveyed the coast with its abandoned hotels and other buildings.My friend was close to tears. “They were giving you back this whole town and you refused to take it?” he asked, not really expecting an answer. “We have Christofias to thank for this,” I said.“You are insane,” he concluded and I agreed with him. “If we were not insane we would not be in such a colossal mess,” I said.
Returning to Nicosia we heard about the president’s speech at the annual event held by Famagustans in Dherynia. He started his speech as follows: “Every year, for 36 years now, from this place we gaze at the silent and deserted town of Famagusta.” Further on he advertised to his audience his proposal for the return of part of the town, in exchange for the unhindered opening of chapters in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU and for the use of the town’s port by the Turkish Cypriots.
I could not help but admire the boundless, political audacity of our president. The main party guilty of Famagusta remaining “silent and deserted” is Christofias and the rest of the AKEL leadership, who killed every opportunity for the return of the town to us.
There had been three such opportunities that were spurned by the AKEL top brass. On July 20, 1978 Rauf Denktash proposed the return of Famagusta and the return of 35,000 inhabitants, immediately after the start of peace talks. On the night of that day, speaking at Elftheria Square, the then president Spyros Kyprianou, with the then leader of AKEL Ezekias Papaioannou, who had elected him, by his side, turned down the proposal, dismissing it as a “Denktash soap-bubble”.
In November of the same year Kyprianou and the AKEL leadership spurned another opportunity when they rejected the American-British-Canadian plan which envisaged the return of Famagusta on the resumption of negotiations. AKEL rejected the plan on the instructions of Moscow, despite the strong pleas by the Greek government to accept it. In both cases, the town would have been returned to us regardless of the outcome of the subsequent peace talks.
In 2004, the AKEL leadership, with Christofias in charge, killed off the third opportunity to have Famagusta returned, by voting against the Annan plan. The plan envisaged not just the return of the fenced off part of the town but the entire Greek part.
Three times Christofias and the leadership of AKEL have committed the same crime, condemning Famagusta to remain in Turkish hands. And today he has the nerve to beg for the return of a part of the town, offering big concessions in exchange.
It should be noted that in 1978 only four years had elapsed since the invasion. Back then, Famagustans would have returned to the town, carried out a cleaning operation and within a few weeks the town would have been buzzing with life. Today, even if they do return they would return to a town that would have to be demolished and re-built.
So if today, 36 years later, Christofias “gazes at the silent and deserted town”, he should consider his party’s and his own responsibility for this tragedy. And instead of peddling heroic slogans and shedding crocodile tears to Famagustans he should be asking for their forgiveness.
Monday 16 August 2010
Thursday 5 August 2010
Serious differences on property
“There are serious differences and disagreements on the (property) issue”, President Christofias said yesterday after another session of talks with Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Dervis Eroglu in an effort to solve the Cyprus problem.
“We also had an open discussion on various other issues, which I believe is needed with Mr Eroglu. On the interpersonal level, the situation is not so bad”, he added.
The Special Respresentave of the UN Secretary-General in Cyprus, Lisa Buttenheim said the two leaders continued their discussions on the property issue “in a constructive atmosphere” and their representatives will meet today to continue the same discussions and advance them.
Asked if there has been any progress at all, Mrs Buttenheim said: "The fact that these meetings are taking place between the leaders and at the Representatives’ level so many times in August is a very positive sign".
Invited to comment on media reports that the UN may be considering pulling out its good offices mission by the end of the year, if a solution is not found, she said: "I haven’t seen these reports, but the important thing is to concentrate on the fact that the talks are taking place now and we are fully behind them".
The Turkish Cypriot leader said after the meeting yesterday that the two sides had submitted their views and positions on property.
Eroglu added that they will table more detailed positions during a meeting in the first week of September.
The leaders will meet again on 10 August.
The National Council convened on Tuesday with internal unity the main subject on its agenda, according to Government Spokesman, Stefanos Stefanou, who said it was in order “to strengthen the President of the Republic at the negotiations”.
Reports in the Greek Cypriot press said that the conclusion reached was that efforts to solve the Cyprus problem are not going well. What’s more unity wasn’t achieved either in that there was a contretemps between DISY leader Anastasiades and President Christofias and in that everyone except DIKO were against Christofias’ proposals.
These proposal tried to link discussion of property with that of territory and immigration. The Turkish Cypriots have rejected this, arguing that it ends up being a means of sabotaging the talks. Resolving the property issue is already complicated, so why insert other chapters into it, the Turkish Cypriots said preferring to deal with issues one by one and then trading off non-agreed subjects at the end of the process.
An article in the Guardian yesterday refers to recent attacks against foreigners on the island and says that the major source of such disregard for people outside one's own ethnic group is the Cyprus problem, and no solution currently on the table would address this.
Defining each other only as 'Turkish' or 'Greek' has left Cyprus with a victim complex, struggling to cope with rising immigration, the paper says.
Whether one chooses to date the situation to the invasion by Turkey in 1974, the coup by junta-supported Greek Cypriots the same year, the bombings by Turkey in 1964, the attempt by Greek Cypriots to tear up the constitution in 1963, or simply to the British colonial strategy of divide and rule, the fact is that Cypriots have been split along ethnic lines far beyond living memory. The sandbags and barbed wire of the Green Line that runs through the middle of Nicosia are only the most potent reminder of this.
Since 1974, the international conversation about Cyprus has been of "bi-communal solutions". Both sides have formally committed to separate administrations for Greek and Turkish Cypriots plus a central assembly where representatives of the two sides will meet in equal numbers. Another possible solution, talked of with increasing frequency, is of a permanent partition into two states. External parties – the UN, EU, UK, Greece and Turkey – allow no other possibilities to be discussed.
Allowing only two ethnicities into the national conversation encourages zero-sum thinking, where "we" can only win if "they" lose. Both sides try hard to portray themselves as the only victims of the conflict, often in toe-curlingly exaggerated language.
Like all victim complexes, the Cypriot version leaves little room for nuanced understanding of a newly multicultural country. Faced in the 1950s with the need to formally assign minorities to one of the two permitted groups, Cypriot authorities decided the question along religious lines, with the mostly Muslim Roma becoming "Turkish" and the Catholic Maronites "Greek". How might they deal with today's growing Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish populations? Why should their descendants be forced to become "Greek" or "Turkish"?
Without external pressure to admit that the biggest injustices on the island these days are practiced against non-indigenous populations, Cypriots will continue to assume a pose of self-righteous victimhood, the paper concludes.
“We also had an open discussion on various other issues, which I believe is needed with Mr Eroglu. On the interpersonal level, the situation is not so bad”, he added.
The Special Respresentave of the UN Secretary-General in Cyprus, Lisa Buttenheim said the two leaders continued their discussions on the property issue “in a constructive atmosphere” and their representatives will meet today to continue the same discussions and advance them.
Asked if there has been any progress at all, Mrs Buttenheim said: "The fact that these meetings are taking place between the leaders and at the Representatives’ level so many times in August is a very positive sign".
Invited to comment on media reports that the UN may be considering pulling out its good offices mission by the end of the year, if a solution is not found, she said: "I haven’t seen these reports, but the important thing is to concentrate on the fact that the talks are taking place now and we are fully behind them".
The Turkish Cypriot leader said after the meeting yesterday that the two sides had submitted their views and positions on property.
Eroglu added that they will table more detailed positions during a meeting in the first week of September.
The leaders will meet again on 10 August.
The National Council convened on Tuesday with internal unity the main subject on its agenda, according to Government Spokesman, Stefanos Stefanou, who said it was in order “to strengthen the President of the Republic at the negotiations”.
Reports in the Greek Cypriot press said that the conclusion reached was that efforts to solve the Cyprus problem are not going well. What’s more unity wasn’t achieved either in that there was a contretemps between DISY leader Anastasiades and President Christofias and in that everyone except DIKO were against Christofias’ proposals.
These proposal tried to link discussion of property with that of territory and immigration. The Turkish Cypriots have rejected this, arguing that it ends up being a means of sabotaging the talks. Resolving the property issue is already complicated, so why insert other chapters into it, the Turkish Cypriots said preferring to deal with issues one by one and then trading off non-agreed subjects at the end of the process.
An article in the Guardian yesterday refers to recent attacks against foreigners on the island and says that the major source of such disregard for people outside one's own ethnic group is the Cyprus problem, and no solution currently on the table would address this.
Defining each other only as 'Turkish' or 'Greek' has left Cyprus with a victim complex, struggling to cope with rising immigration, the paper says.
Whether one chooses to date the situation to the invasion by Turkey in 1974, the coup by junta-supported Greek Cypriots the same year, the bombings by Turkey in 1964, the attempt by Greek Cypriots to tear up the constitution in 1963, or simply to the British colonial strategy of divide and rule, the fact is that Cypriots have been split along ethnic lines far beyond living memory. The sandbags and barbed wire of the Green Line that runs through the middle of Nicosia are only the most potent reminder of this.
Since 1974, the international conversation about Cyprus has been of "bi-communal solutions". Both sides have formally committed to separate administrations for Greek and Turkish Cypriots plus a central assembly where representatives of the two sides will meet in equal numbers. Another possible solution, talked of with increasing frequency, is of a permanent partition into two states. External parties – the UN, EU, UK, Greece and Turkey – allow no other possibilities to be discussed.
Allowing only two ethnicities into the national conversation encourages zero-sum thinking, where "we" can only win if "they" lose. Both sides try hard to portray themselves as the only victims of the conflict, often in toe-curlingly exaggerated language.
Like all victim complexes, the Cypriot version leaves little room for nuanced understanding of a newly multicultural country. Faced in the 1950s with the need to formally assign minorities to one of the two permitted groups, Cypriot authorities decided the question along religious lines, with the mostly Muslim Roma becoming "Turkish" and the Catholic Maronites "Greek". How might they deal with today's growing Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish populations? Why should their descendants be forced to become "Greek" or "Turkish"?
Without external pressure to admit that the biggest injustices on the island these days are practiced against non-indigenous populations, Cypriots will continue to assume a pose of self-righteous victimhood, the paper concludes.
Monday 2 August 2010
Crunch time for Cyprob - federation or partition - property issue is key
The UN has a number of scenarios in order to ensure the talks get somewhere by December with or without an agreement, writes Makarios Droushiotis in Politis, and both leaders are fully aware of the UN’s determination to conclude the talks in the very near future.
He says, according to a well-informed source, the UN sees only two options – either an agreed solution, or withdrawal of the UN Secretary-General’s good offices mission.
The UN bases its strategy on the following analysis.
The Cyprus problem has three possible outcomes
- a federal solution based on UN parameters
- the ultimate partition of Cyprus
- the continuation of the status quo
The international community (UN, EU), prefers the first option as one which will solve all problems. However, the biggest obstacle to such an outcome is the ‘stability’ of the status quo, while the passage of time creates the preconditions for partition. Thus their aim is to remove the element of ‘stability’ of the status quo from the equation in order to make the two communities, their leaders and the foreign countries interested in a solution choose between federation or partition.
“Partition is not an easy solution either for the Greek Cypriots or the Turkish Cypriots, nor does it serve the interests of either Turkey or Greece more than a federal solution would so that with the maturity of time Cypriots can truly decide what they want to do with their country”, a well-informed diplomatic source told the paper.
The UN truly believes that an agreement is possible because partition is not any of the participants’ first choice. However, if no common understanding is reached, then it will become “the second best choice”.
If after 36 years of efforts, after all possible political combinations have been tried, this problem still hasn’t been solved, then it cannot be solved and there is no need to waste any more energy and resources on it”, the same source said.
If the two sides cannot agree, then the inevitable outcome will be separation. The belief that if these talks collapse then there will always be another effort to find a federal solution is totally unrealistic.
The UN may not actually set any deadlines, it nevertheless believes that time is not endless. Their plan aims at making the best possible use of the time available up until the end of the year when the UN Secretary-General submits his report.
The last time Alexander Downer was in Turkey, the Turkish Foreign Minister assured him that his country would be amenable to a solution within the UN parameters up until December, as in 2011 Turkey enters a pre-electoral period during which it would be difficult to take any decisions. Britain has also adopted this timeline and has included it in the cooperation strategy that Erdogan signed with Cameron last week.
The most important issue that is still pending in the talks is the property issue. If they agree on this, they could agree on everything. It is a test for the talks themselves.
The leaders’ representatives have agreed to a new formula to discuss the property issue by category. The proposal came from the Turkish side and the Greek Cypriots accepted it. The UN believes progress will come at this level as the issue is more technical than political. They will let the two sides exhaust their efforts and will then make their own proposals.
The UN has already worked out a formula based on ownership of problem properties. According to their study, problematic Greek Cypriot properties cover about 1.5 million donums (skales). They estimate that about half a million will be returned to the Greek Cypriots as a result of territorial adjustments. Turkish Cypriot properties in the south are also about half a million skales, and these have been taken over by the Turkish Cypriot state and exchanged for Greek Cypriot land. This land in the south can be given to Greek Cypriots in exchange, leaving about 700,000 skales out of which half will be retuned and the rest compensated.
In short, from the moment that political decisions are taken, the issue is technical and there are many formulas that can be implemented. If the property deadlock is broken, the UN believe that a solution would be very near, especially since as regards government Christofias and Talat had practically agreed to everything and Eroglu would find it difficult to go back and overturn things.
The property issue cannot differ much from Anan 5 as it is not realistic that the Turkish Cypriots who voted yes in 2004 to be asked to vote on a worse map. It would be equally unrealistic that the Greek Cypriots who voted no in 2004 would vote yes to a plan that did not include Morphou.
Security and guarantees are issues that would be decided at a future international conference, once the property issue is resolved. Britain is willing to give up its interventionist rights, while the Turkish State Minister Bagis recently spoke of the possibility of a complete withdrawal of troops.
Overall the UN has been encouraged by the rapid improvement in the atmosphere around the talks over the last few weeks. The leaders have agreed to continue the talks in August. The leaders’ representatives have agreed to a new procedure for discussing the property issue that could bear fruit faster. The dinners between the leaders (Christofias will be inviting Eroglu) were a “pleasant surprise”. The last meeting between the leaders was the most productive of all.
This contrasts with the undoubtedly negative climate that had been created both through Christofias’ public statements as well as the extremely pessimistic appraisals he gave at recent interviews.
The crucial question is whether or not the leaders have understood that time is running out and have decided to make the most of it, or whether, in the light of Ban Ki-Moon’s forthcoming report, they are trying to avoid or limit their responsibilities and are therefore trying to be more positive.
Nevertheless, whether because of political decisiveness or because of tactical moves, there is a certain mobility in the Cyprus problem, which is bringing some results. Whatever the case, the UN has worked out a number of different scenarios and proposals to expose their true intentions in the very near future.
They are convinced that the opportunity is ripe and agreement can be reached, provided that the political will and determination exists. This will be revealed in early autumn when the UN Secretary-General is expected to intervene with proposals to conclude the procedure. The degree to which the two sides will respond will set the tone for his report in November.
This report will primarily concern the procedure rather than the essence. It will be the result of the ‘crash test’ of the future of the talks and the S-G’s role. It may not make definitive conclusions, but it will prepare the ground for only two possible outcomes:
- that this is the final straight for a solution of the Cyprus problem
- that the problem is unsolvable and he will resign his good offices mission before the Security Council
Even if Russia blocks the report as it did Kofi Anan’s report in 2004, and it doesn’t get approved, it doesn’t cease being a UN document. A permanent member may veto the report, but cannot on its own force the UN S-G to try again, especially if he himself concludes that there is no prospect for a solution.
The UN believes that Christofias’ proposal for Famagusta is the most dangerous bait for partition. If the Cyprus problem is declared unsolvable by the end of the year then this proposal could be a tool in Turkey’s hands. The return of Famagasta in return for removal of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and removing all blocks to the chapters in Turkey’s EU entry negotiations, would solve all her problems, except that of Cyprus.
The European solution that all those who are against federation are calling for will come at a future stage with recognition of the TRNC in return for the buffer zone being given back to the Republic of Cyprus and the entry of the north into the EU as a separate state.
We would get an agreed and mild form of partition, a functional and viable solution, without the Republic of Cyprus being dissolved, without rotational presidency and without intercommunal administrative organs.
This scenario is gaining more and more ground, not just in Europe, but also within the Greek Cypriot community itself, amongst leaders of the “patriotic front” expressing themselves more and more openly in favour of an agreed partition as the only realistic solution.
This, warn UN sources, would be the result of a failure in the talks.
The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop writes that Big Al (UN Representative in Cyprus, Downer) appears to have caught the Kyproulla bug of reading Cyprob significance into every event that takes place. When he uttered his heart-warming message, on leaving the dinner given at chez Eroglu, calling on us to “take some heart from the positive atmosphere”, we all assumed that he may have had a drop too much to drink.
But we were wrong, because the next day, he was still waxing lyrical about the “truly Cypriot occasion” and expressing his admiration for the way the two leaders, their wives, their representatives were “talking about Cyprus in ways that only Cypriots can talk about their own island and sharing such a passion and love of their own island.”
That was not all. “I came away from the dinner thinking that these people can work together, they can solve the Cyprus problem.”
They can also dress up like women and attend a transvestites’ disco, but I doubt they ever will.
He says, according to a well-informed source, the UN sees only two options – either an agreed solution, or withdrawal of the UN Secretary-General’s good offices mission.
The UN bases its strategy on the following analysis.
The Cyprus problem has three possible outcomes
- a federal solution based on UN parameters
- the ultimate partition of Cyprus
- the continuation of the status quo
The international community (UN, EU), prefers the first option as one which will solve all problems. However, the biggest obstacle to such an outcome is the ‘stability’ of the status quo, while the passage of time creates the preconditions for partition. Thus their aim is to remove the element of ‘stability’ of the status quo from the equation in order to make the two communities, their leaders and the foreign countries interested in a solution choose between federation or partition.
“Partition is not an easy solution either for the Greek Cypriots or the Turkish Cypriots, nor does it serve the interests of either Turkey or Greece more than a federal solution would so that with the maturity of time Cypriots can truly decide what they want to do with their country”, a well-informed diplomatic source told the paper.
The UN truly believes that an agreement is possible because partition is not any of the participants’ first choice. However, if no common understanding is reached, then it will become “the second best choice”.
If after 36 years of efforts, after all possible political combinations have been tried, this problem still hasn’t been solved, then it cannot be solved and there is no need to waste any more energy and resources on it”, the same source said.
If the two sides cannot agree, then the inevitable outcome will be separation. The belief that if these talks collapse then there will always be another effort to find a federal solution is totally unrealistic.
The UN may not actually set any deadlines, it nevertheless believes that time is not endless. Their plan aims at making the best possible use of the time available up until the end of the year when the UN Secretary-General submits his report.
The last time Alexander Downer was in Turkey, the Turkish Foreign Minister assured him that his country would be amenable to a solution within the UN parameters up until December, as in 2011 Turkey enters a pre-electoral period during which it would be difficult to take any decisions. Britain has also adopted this timeline and has included it in the cooperation strategy that Erdogan signed with Cameron last week.
The most important issue that is still pending in the talks is the property issue. If they agree on this, they could agree on everything. It is a test for the talks themselves.
The leaders’ representatives have agreed to a new formula to discuss the property issue by category. The proposal came from the Turkish side and the Greek Cypriots accepted it. The UN believes progress will come at this level as the issue is more technical than political. They will let the two sides exhaust their efforts and will then make their own proposals.
The UN has already worked out a formula based on ownership of problem properties. According to their study, problematic Greek Cypriot properties cover about 1.5 million donums (skales). They estimate that about half a million will be returned to the Greek Cypriots as a result of territorial adjustments. Turkish Cypriot properties in the south are also about half a million skales, and these have been taken over by the Turkish Cypriot state and exchanged for Greek Cypriot land. This land in the south can be given to Greek Cypriots in exchange, leaving about 700,000 skales out of which half will be retuned and the rest compensated.
In short, from the moment that political decisions are taken, the issue is technical and there are many formulas that can be implemented. If the property deadlock is broken, the UN believe that a solution would be very near, especially since as regards government Christofias and Talat had practically agreed to everything and Eroglu would find it difficult to go back and overturn things.
The property issue cannot differ much from Anan 5 as it is not realistic that the Turkish Cypriots who voted yes in 2004 to be asked to vote on a worse map. It would be equally unrealistic that the Greek Cypriots who voted no in 2004 would vote yes to a plan that did not include Morphou.
Security and guarantees are issues that would be decided at a future international conference, once the property issue is resolved. Britain is willing to give up its interventionist rights, while the Turkish State Minister Bagis recently spoke of the possibility of a complete withdrawal of troops.
Overall the UN has been encouraged by the rapid improvement in the atmosphere around the talks over the last few weeks. The leaders have agreed to continue the talks in August. The leaders’ representatives have agreed to a new procedure for discussing the property issue that could bear fruit faster. The dinners between the leaders (Christofias will be inviting Eroglu) were a “pleasant surprise”. The last meeting between the leaders was the most productive of all.
This contrasts with the undoubtedly negative climate that had been created both through Christofias’ public statements as well as the extremely pessimistic appraisals he gave at recent interviews.
The crucial question is whether or not the leaders have understood that time is running out and have decided to make the most of it, or whether, in the light of Ban Ki-Moon’s forthcoming report, they are trying to avoid or limit their responsibilities and are therefore trying to be more positive.
Nevertheless, whether because of political decisiveness or because of tactical moves, there is a certain mobility in the Cyprus problem, which is bringing some results. Whatever the case, the UN has worked out a number of different scenarios and proposals to expose their true intentions in the very near future.
They are convinced that the opportunity is ripe and agreement can be reached, provided that the political will and determination exists. This will be revealed in early autumn when the UN Secretary-General is expected to intervene with proposals to conclude the procedure. The degree to which the two sides will respond will set the tone for his report in November.
This report will primarily concern the procedure rather than the essence. It will be the result of the ‘crash test’ of the future of the talks and the S-G’s role. It may not make definitive conclusions, but it will prepare the ground for only two possible outcomes:
- that this is the final straight for a solution of the Cyprus problem
- that the problem is unsolvable and he will resign his good offices mission before the Security Council
Even if Russia blocks the report as it did Kofi Anan’s report in 2004, and it doesn’t get approved, it doesn’t cease being a UN document. A permanent member may veto the report, but cannot on its own force the UN S-G to try again, especially if he himself concludes that there is no prospect for a solution.
The UN believes that Christofias’ proposal for Famagusta is the most dangerous bait for partition. If the Cyprus problem is declared unsolvable by the end of the year then this proposal could be a tool in Turkey’s hands. The return of Famagasta in return for removal of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and removing all blocks to the chapters in Turkey’s EU entry negotiations, would solve all her problems, except that of Cyprus.
The European solution that all those who are against federation are calling for will come at a future stage with recognition of the TRNC in return for the buffer zone being given back to the Republic of Cyprus and the entry of the north into the EU as a separate state.
We would get an agreed and mild form of partition, a functional and viable solution, without the Republic of Cyprus being dissolved, without rotational presidency and without intercommunal administrative organs.
This scenario is gaining more and more ground, not just in Europe, but also within the Greek Cypriot community itself, amongst leaders of the “patriotic front” expressing themselves more and more openly in favour of an agreed partition as the only realistic solution.
This, warn UN sources, would be the result of a failure in the talks.
The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop writes that Big Al (UN Representative in Cyprus, Downer) appears to have caught the Kyproulla bug of reading Cyprob significance into every event that takes place. When he uttered his heart-warming message, on leaving the dinner given at chez Eroglu, calling on us to “take some heart from the positive atmosphere”, we all assumed that he may have had a drop too much to drink.
But we were wrong, because the next day, he was still waxing lyrical about the “truly Cypriot occasion” and expressing his admiration for the way the two leaders, their wives, their representatives were “talking about Cyprus in ways that only Cypriots can talk about their own island and sharing such a passion and love of their own island.”
That was not all. “I came away from the dinner thinking that these people can work together, they can solve the Cyprus problem.”
They can also dress up like women and attend a transvestites’ disco, but I doubt they ever will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)