Nami: We can get over the deadlock

Under the headline “Talks deadlocked”, Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper reports that Turkish Cypriot foreign minister, Ozdil Nami, has said that the negotiating process is deadlocked and that this is unacceptable. He added that the main reason of this deadlock is the fact that the Greek Cypriot side refuses to respect the convergences achieved in the past. He said deadlocks had occurred in the past but that the Turkish Cypriot negotiating team had managed to overcome them. “We believe this can be done again and this difficulty which is derived from the Greek Cypriot side, can be overcome with a very much more active policy by the Turkish side”, he said.

He said that the negotiations have not brought about anything concrete, contrary to the expectations of the people, something that saddens him. He reiterated the readiness of his government and ministry to contribute towards overcoming these difficulties, and that he was waiting for a positive answer to their call for cooperation with Eroglu.

Nami revealed that Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu had admitted to him that President Anastasiades had not stormed out of the talks, as the Turkish Cypriot press had reported on Friday, but that he left because he had a meeting with the Troika.

Later on, Eroglu reacted to Nami’s statements, criticising him of behaving like a “defender of Anastasiades”.

Moreover, Turkish Cypriot daily Yeni Duzen reports that Kutlay Erk, general secretary of the Republican Turkish Party – United Forces (CTP-BG), criticized Eroglu’s stance at the talks. In a statement issued on Saturday, Erk said that the CTP feels the need to once again warn that Eroglu’s approach “which hopes for help from the deadlock in the negotiations is a product of a strategy which does not coincide with the Turkish Cypriot people’s interests and will cause results against us”. He said the information that appeared that the Greek Cypriots had abandoned the table and that the negotiations had collapsed, was a “deliberate propaganda”. Erk noted that Eroglu should explain to the Turkish Cypriot community what kind of future he promises them, in the event that the negotiations do not end with a federal solution.

The so-called realists

Thanasis Fotiou writing in Phileleftheros says the word ‘realist’ is being completely misinterpreted in Cyprus. Some people argue, how come despite the fact that ‘realists’ have been in government for at least half the time since independence, the Cyprus problem still hasn’t been solved, what with five years of Vasiliou, five of Clerides, five Christofias and now Anastasiades?

The writer says, on the contrary, it’s doubtful if in Cyprus we have any ‘realists’ at all. We may have had some politicians who were briefly realists but none who were consistently so. That’s the bitter truth. In fact most of our leaders have been non-realists, if not outright rejectionists, with whom anyone who may have started out as a ‘realist’ has gradually aligned themselves.

In what way can Akel and Disy be considered realists? How can they be parties who want a solution and are working for it, when  Akel put Tassos Papadopoulos forward as president, a man whose positions were diametrically opposed to theirs? When the party decided overnight to say ‘no’ in order to cement the ‘yes’, was that realist? Or is it being realist now that it finds common ground with Nikolas Papadopoulos? Or when Clerides demonised Vasiliou’s Ghali Ideas? Or when Disy thought of putting Omirou forward as president? Or when Akel again cooperated with Spyros Kyprianou, was that realism? Or when Clerides and Christofias were voted by the rejectionists?

Asking how come the Cyprus problem hasn’t been solved with all these realists, is like asking how come we haven’t won Constantinople back with all these patriots? After 40 years of ‘realism’ on the one hand, and ardent patriotism on the other, the only thing that’s real is the existence of the clearly Greek state on 63% of the island. At least if we had the guts to tell it like it is, instead of trying to sell false dreams to the people that only serve their own interests of political survival.

And by the way, the writer concludes, the fuss around the lesson on federation in schools is futile. The bird has flown and we’re arguing over whether we should clean up the cage. As if it matters any longer.