Turkey wants a solution

Turkey has the will to resume talks and reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem “very soon”, Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras said on Saturday, adding that he “fully appreciates” President Nicos Anastasiades’ decision to suspend his participation in the peace talks last October, after Turkey despatched its seismic vessel Barbaros into Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone, the Cyprus Mail reports.

He was speaking at a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, after the conclusion of the third annual Greek-Turkish high-level cooperation council.

Despite avoiding any mention of the reason for Anastasiades’ withdrawal from the talks, Davutoglu linked the “desired settlement of the Cyprus problem” with energy cooperation between Greece and Turkey.

“Turkey’s will is to resume peace talks as soon as possible so that a settlement of the Cyprus problem can coincide with a settlement of the energy issues,” Davutoglu said.

The Turkish Premier noted that during talks with the Greek government in Athens, it was “accepted that both communities in Cyprus have a right to its energy sources, and unilateral action is best avoided.”

The joint communiqué issued by the two prime ministers on Saturday made no mention of Cyprus or the Cyprus problem, but declared that “Greece and Turkey aim to further strengthen their bilateral and regional cooperation in the field of energy.”

But in his own address after the summit, Samaras spoke of Greece’s “significant disagreements with Turkey”, stressing those relating to the Cyprus problem.

He added that in resolving these disputes, there must be “full respect of international law”, with the self-evident “respect to countries’ sovereign rights”.

Samaras said he fully supports the Cyprus government’s efforts to promote a settlement “under these circumstances” and under the auspices of the United Nations.

On Friday, Davutoglu called on Greece to help “solve together” the Cyprus problem, thereby strengthening trade relations between the two countries and exploiting energy reserves in the Aegean and South-eastern Mediterranean.

Meanwhile, according to Turkish press reports, the Greek and Turkish premiers agreed on the need to work towards establishing a formula for the resumption of peace talks on the Cyprus problem.

Hurriyet reported on Saturday that the two agreed to delegate the task to their respective foreign ministers.

Sources cited by the Turkish daily said that the two sides will attempt to utilise the three-month hiatus in exploratory drilling in Cyprus waters after the current session is over – by December 25, at which time the Barbaros will return to Turkey – in order to agree on a plan to resume talks.

In another report, Sabah cited sources claiming that the Cyprus government will prepare a bill formalising the sharing of natural gas revenues between the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities.

Partition: suddenly on everyone’s lips and why solution is now a “must have” for the big powers

In the ten years since the 2004 referendum in Cyprus, writes Fiona Mullen, Director of Sapienta Economics, in an article in the Financial Mirror, she has often wondered why there has been no call from any official quarters for partition. But all of a sudden, she says, the word ‘partition’ is on everyone’s lips.

She cites recent articles in the Economist and the New York Times (see below) to this effect as well as UN envoy, Espen Barth Eide’s repeated recent warnings that he may be the last UN advisor on Cyprus.

“Perhaps more importantly, peacenik Greek Cypriots who have spent much of their lives working for a solution and being lambasted for it are now starting to say that partition is the answer,” she says, adding that “some even believe that their own government is planning for this.

She says one reason for this change of affairs is the rapidly changing world around us – the fallout between the West and Russia over Ukraine, Turkey’s apparent drift away from the NATO alliance, renewed cooperation between Israel and Egypt, the threat posed by ISIS and last, but not least, the discovery of gas in the eastern Mediterranean.

The impact of these developments on traditional alliances is already being felt, she says. Israel and Cyprus are planning to send gas by pipeline to Egypt, and on 20 November Israel suggested a long pipeline from Israel to Greece and Italy. “Such a long pipeline would essentially gobble up all of Isrrael’s spare gas and would thus push Turkey out of the regional gas picture,” she writes.

But Turkey, with the help of Russia (Cyprus’ traditional ally), has already fought back, she goes on. On 1 December, Russia pulled the plug on the South Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria and said it will send it to Turkey instead, with Putin saying that if the pipeline does continue on to Europe, it will go through Greece.

Mullen argues that, as this part of the world is beginning to realign itself, with Russia and Turkey (and China and perhaps Iran) to the north, and Egypt and Israel )and the US and EU) to the south, guess which country is in the middle?

“If this is indeed the new world order,” she writes, “then Cyprus could go two ways.”

In the worst-case scenario, she writes, Cyprus, starting with the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), becomes the place where the big powers fight it out, with damaging consequences for everyone involved. But in the best case scenario, Cyprus makes friends with all of its neighbours, including Turkey, and, like Switzerland, enjoys a lot of business in the process.

In this rapidly changing world order, she goes on, an unresolved Cyprus conflict along the new north-south fault line is suddenly a security threat to the big powers.

“So a Cyprus solution – any Cyprus solution – becomes a “must have” rather than a “nice to have” for those with big interests in the region,” she says.

“If my hunches are right, then the ‘Cypriot-owned’ solution probably has only a few months left to run,” she says. “After that, if the Cypriots can’t decide to live together, then to remove a potential battleground between north and south, the big powers will force them to live apart. And I doubt there is anything the EU will be able to do about it.”

Mullen then goes on to compare the benefits of partition to reunification, saying why she believes it would be costlier and worse for the economy in general.

A solution, she says, would cut the compensation bill by 80% as reunification would involve a mixture of territorial adjustments, exchange and reinstatement. Without it, the compensation bill would be considerably bigger than the all-island GDP.

With a velvet divorce there would be fewer incentives for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to work together to do business with Turkey and there would be fewer opportunities for foreign investors.

Partition, she says, would make it less likely that the two sides would work together to improve economies of scale, especially as both sides suffer from competitiveness problems. She cites electricity costs as an example where having two separate providers keeps costs high.

Finally, she says, there would be no “feelgood factor” boost, whereby a reunified Cyprus can market itself as the peace centre of the region.

Concluding, she says that, while all solutions carry economic risk, partition is a costly exercise with few of the spin-off effects that come from reunifying the island.

Is the Cyprus issue insoluble?

Is the Cyprus issue insoluble, asks  the New York Times in an article written by Nikos Konstandaras, a columnist for the newspaper Kathimerini, on 1 December.

In the powder keg of the Middle East’s religious and ethnic conflicts, the 40-year-long division of Cyprus between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots shouldn’t rank high on the list of dangers to defuse. This does not make the issue less relevant — nor less dangerous, the paper says.

Turkey, it says, has now raised the stakes in the eastern Mediterranean demanding that Cyprus stop exploring for gas and oil in the island’s offshore economic zone. When Ankara sent an exploratory vessel - accompanied by a warship - into the same waters, it prompted the Greek-Cypriot president to walk out of United Nations-mediated efforts to reunify the island.

Turkey is also angry that Cyprus and Greece plan to exploit the region’s energy resources in cooperation with Israel and Egypt. (Both were once close allies of Turkey but are now estranged as Ankara’s pro-Islamic rhetoric has become more strident.) As tensions rise between Greece and Turkey, the two nations’ warships have increasingly shadowed each other. Things could get worse before they improve.

Perhaps potential danger will concentrate minds, the paper says. The Greek and Turkish prime ministers are to meet in Athens this Friday and Saturday. They must ask themselves whether Turkey, Greece and Cyprus will cooperate, or focus only on their differences and risk being sucked into the region’s morass of self-justifying conflicts.

Cyprus problem: insoluble or intractable?

An article in the Economist on 29 November says that hopes of settling the Cyprus problem are starting to look unrealistic.

Bitter experience recommends scepticism about talks on Cyprus, yet two newer developments ought to spur the negotiators on. One is the economic woes that last year made Cyprus the fifth euro-zone member to need a bail-out, making the gains from a settlement appealing, another is rising optimism about offshore gas reserves in the east Mediterranean.

Yet the gas has now become just another obstacle, the paper goes on, as Mr Anastasiades says it is making a deal harder to reach. A Turkish exploration vessel, Barbaros, has intruded into Cypriot waters, ostensibly to help secure the interests of Turkish-Cypriots. In response, Mr Anastasiades has suspended the bilateral talks. Mr Eide, who calls himself a realistic optimist, says he can restart them. But Cypriot plans to exploit the gas without a pipeline to Turkey will still seem provocative. Unhelpfully, Turkey’s own EU membership talks are in the doldrums.

Many observers doubt if a federal solution would ever work. Ergun Olgen, the chief negotiator for the Turkish-Cypriot president, Dervis Eroglu, calls federations extremely tricky, especially when the components are unbalanced (Greek-Cypriots make up some 80% of the population). The system at independence in 1960 fell apart three years later. Mr Eide talks of a slippery slope of mutual recrimination, adding that, although he finds lots of agreement on the future, there is none on the present.

Is there an alternative, the paper asks? It is striking how many Cyprus-watchers are looking for one. A report by the International Crisis Group in March touted the option of two separate states within the EU, while a new book by James Ker-Lindsay, Resolving Cyprus: New Approaches to Conflict Resolution, is sceptical about a settlement, making suggestions for a far looser federation or even partition.

Mr Eide says that, although a federation is the best outcome, no solution at all is the worst, meaning that something else may have to be tried. Partition would reopen the border, return more property and land (including the ghost resort of Varosha, next to Famagusta) to the Greek-Cypriots and stop the Turkish-Cypriots’ international isolation. If the latest talks fail, its time may yet come.

Anastasiades won’t discuss the natural gas before solution

The Republic of Cyprus will not discuss the issue of natural gas before a solution of the Cyprus problem, President Anastasiades has said in an interview with Kathimerini.

He said, moreover, that he will not return to the negotiating table unless Turkey gives reassurances that it has no designs on Cyprus’ EEZ and that if Turkey wants to secure the rights of the Turkish Cypriots on the natural gas then it must work towards achieving a solution.

Meanwhile, President Anastasiades has flown to New York for heart surgery.

Eide: the comfort of the non-solution

Cyprus’ hydrocarbons future could end up being less lucrative without a political settlement, UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide warned yesterday in an interview with the Sunday Mail.

After a week of contacts on the island, the Norwegian diplomat, who comes from a country known for its well-managed oil wealth, said he had looked deeply into the reality of the island’s gas prospects with and without a Cyprus settlement.

“There are not enormous quantities. It is significant but it is quite expensive to get hold of because it’s very deep so it requires expensive technology and you have to build many places because it’s compartmentalised, which means production and exploration costs are high,” he said. 
“It will be a relatively expensive gas to produce.”

Eide said there was already a lot of natural gas on the global market and current prices were quite low since the advent of fracking meaning margins aren’t very high. An international company looking at Cyprus would see political conflict and expensive gas ‘and not very much gas’ either. “I am not convinced they would say ‘let’s go for Cyprus’,” he said.

Statistically, any country that discovers hydrocarbons can go one of two ways – the road to mismanagement and/or political conflict, or they can do it right, he said. Successful oil-rich countries were successful because they established clear rules and regulations and avoided political conflict, he said.

“And Cyprus is now exactly at the point where you have to choose between these two destinies. There is no middle ground. It will either take you into much more trouble and a little bit of income, or it will take you to a balanced politically viable solution or any other agreed solution, and more wealth,” he said.

“I would think about how smart it is to perpetuate the conflict just as you’re moving into an oil and gas economy… it sounds harsh but I’m saying this thing will either get better soon or significantly worse because that’s what history tells us.”

Eide has found his initial efforts to facilitate a Cyprus solution stymied by the Greek Cypriot side’s withdrawal from the negotiations in October in response to incursions by the Turkish seismic vessel Barbaros into Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone. President Nicos Anastasiades has said he would not even discuss going back to the table while the Barbaros remains, while Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side want hydrocarbons on the table before halting their explorations. Both sides rejected Eide’s proposal, which he said he thought was quite good but was misunderstood. It involved creating a panel of talking heads to discuss the future of hydrocarbons ahead of a settlement but did not involve negotiations or co-decisions.

“It was taking the starting point that the Greek Cypriots do not want in any way to negotiate my proposal was totally consistent withhydrocarbons before a solution, so  that,” he said.

The panel’s ideas would not be part of a settlement but an inspiration for the post-settlement management of resources “because this has to happen anyway”, and both sides were well aware of it.

“My sense is that it was probably too much for the Greek Cypriot side. I was not suggesting they stop now. That was explicit,” he said. The Turkish Cypriots didn’t like it because they wanted something “much more” to be part of the current decision-making.

“So I don’t really understand… since the proposal was closer to the Greek Cypriot side than the Turkish Cypriot side, I was less surprised by the rejection in the north than here,” he said.

“But what I told both leaders now, and I also warned them… for a time I am not coming up with another plan. Now it’s up to them. They know how to propose to me what do to.”

The paper says that many Greek Cypriots feel it is unfair that the breakaway state in the north should now claim a share of the wealth clearly located off the southern coast, and believe that if the situation were reversed the Turkish Cypriots would not even consider sharing.

Eide was diplomatic, saying a lot of bad things had happened in Cyprus in the past. Grave mistakes were made on both sides “not necessarily in equal proportion” which had created a lot of unnecessary suffering, he said, but dwelling on it would not take Cyprus forward.

Of all the differences involved in the Cyprus issue, hydrocarbons has not been one of them, and everything to do with the topic rested with the future federal state as already agreed by the sides.

“Normally I would say that if you agree on the future but not on the present, then let’s move forward, because then we get to the future. But that’s clearly not what’s happening here,” he said.

But he believes the two sides will find their way back to the table within a reasonable period though he could not say when, other than “this winter”. The leaders wanted to meet but did not know how because a circumstance had been created which needed to be changed.

Eide said the arguments both sides use were exactly the same “with an alternative cast”. 
“My answer to both sides is if you really want to know if the other side is ready to play the game and deliver something, you have to see that at the table,” said Eide. “You will not find out by shouting with a megaphone over the Green Line.”

The only way back now was if both sides were willing to do something “where of course the presence of the Barbaros is one of the things”.

If that happens, Eide said it could easily be a matter of months rather than years to reach a solution. There were no advantages to postponing. His approach would be systematic, starting with the “soft differences” and working their way to the hard-core ones, which could only be in the form of trade-offs.

“The process of getting there will hopefully create trust because you see that you’re ticking off things,” he said.

As to whether or not he would be willing to ‘bang heads’ – to use a phrase from a couple of his predecessors – Eide said he could be both mild and tough when necessary.

In the meantime, with little negotiating to do, he has spent his week encouraging ordinary Cypriots not to leave everything to the political class.

“In a sense the non-solution of the Cyprus problem is such an integral part of political life that it’s almost defining leaders,” he said. Political figures on both sides might not be able to untangle themselves from their long-held positions without input from broader Cypriot society. Ordinary Cypriots needed to ask themselves what they wanted – to live with each other or divorce – “which I would clearly not want, but of course it’s possible”.

Having said that, Eide was clear his mandate was to help find a unified solution and the phrase that dare not speak its name ‘a two-state solution’ was not part of that. He was not here to find just “any solution”, though if any country decided peacefully to part, the international community would likely not prevent it, he said.

Eide believes he could very well be the last negotiator for Cyprus one way or the other but is in it for the duration.

“I have not given myself a time limit. I am personally not in a hurry,” he said. “I dare to say and it’s a very dangerous statement, which I know will be used against me if I am wrong, but I am saying humbly and hoping not to be misunderstood, but I think I will be the last negotiator.”

He hopes that meant a solution but the alternative was that the UN and Cypriots themselves would give up.

“Sometimes certain things get better by waiting but while a lot of people seem to think you’re in the middle of a big drama… I’ve seen bigger dramas. No one is dying which… means things can be repaired.” It was all very civilised compared to other conflicts in that the two sides in Cyprus may disagree “but they agree to disagree”.

As a challenge for a seasoned diplomat on a scale of one to ten, Eide didn’t even blink before saying Cyprus was a 6.5. “I would give it a three on complexity but maybe an eight on the factor which is… the comfort in the non-solution.”

A prisoner of his own rhetoric

We have found a new argument to justify our preference for partition, writes Loucas Charalambous in the Cyprus Mail. “We will not return to the talks if Turkey does not stop its intervention in our EEZ,” we hear on a daily basis delivered in a triumphal tone by the foreign minister and the government spokesman.

One wonders whether these people understand what they are doing. Do they actually believe they are punishing Turkey by cementing partition?

“Our decision for returning to the negotiating table cannot be taken while the violation of the sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic is continuing and for as long as Turkey does not practically recognise the sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic,” government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides told journalists recently.

So we will not return to negotiations until Turkey “practically recognises” the sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic. This means that we have decided never to solve the Cyprus problem; we are abandoning the policy we had been following for close to 50 years.

It is more likely for the sun to rise in the west than for Turkey to “practically recognise” the sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic, he goes on to say. This was what the Cyprus problem was all about – that Turkey does not recognise our state.

If Turkey does as the spokesman has been demanding, the writer says, then there would be no need for any talks, because in such a case there would be no problem. Talks have beein going on for 46 years now precisely for this reason - so that a new agreement can be reached between the two communities (new after that of 1959) for a new common state, in which the Turkish Cypriots would participate. Only then would Turkey recognise the Cyprus State as sovereign. I am referring to a State that would replace today’s which has been not common for half a century now, because we demolished it, he says.

He wonders how is it possible to ask for recognition first and then to negotiate, when for so many years we have been negotiating when Turkey neither recognised us nor respected our sovereign rights.

Everyone knows this, which is why it is so difficult to understand why we abandoned the talks.

In effect, President Anastasiades has become a prisoner of his own rhetoric. And he has unintentionally achieved the very thing he said he would not accept – having the hydrocarbons on the negotiating table. By leaving the talks, he has brought them to the table.

Until recently, our side was able to repel every attempt by Dervis Eroglu to put the issue on the talks’ agenda, by referring him to the fact that it had been agreed since 1979 that the exploitation of natural resources would be under the authority of the central government after a settlement.

By quitting the talks over the EEZ violations, Anastasiades has allowed the Turks to argue that, as there are no talks there can be no settlement, therefore the two sides need to discuss how they will share Cyprus’ natural gas.

The result of Anastasiades’ impetuous behaviour is that today all efforts to resume the talks, including those by the United Nations, suggest putting the natural gas on the negotiating table in exchange for the Turkish seismic ship leaving the Cypriot EEZ.

The president has nobody to blame but himself for the issue being tabled, and God knows if he will be able to have it removed now, either on his own or with the help of his spokesman.

Eide: Cypriots need to decide what they want

UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide in an interview with CyBC said that Cypriots need to make a choice soon on where we want to go. “If you want reunification, it is perfectly possible,” he said and expressed the added that, while he didn’t know when or how, he believed the two sides would eventually get back to the negotiation table.

“I think we are approaching a moment of truth where some real choices have to be made between either moving towards a unified future – a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation - or that we have to think through the alternative. I think both communities need to realize that.”

He said that, with full respect to the Greek Cypriot position that hydrocarbons should not be negotiated now, as well as understanding of the Turkish Cypriot position that they did not want to be completely left out of major decisions that are taken now which will have implications for the next 40 years, he had proposed that a reflection group could be established where experienced people from both sides would think together, not decide, not negotiate, but to think about the decisions that a future united Cyprus will have to make – not only on sharing of revenues but also on how to organize the hydrocarbons industry.

He said his proposal did not include joint management of the natural gas. “My idea was that people could start thinking about that now to prepare for that future,” he said. “But I also recognize that this idea did not create much enthusiasm so now I am asking to two sides what they think we can do to go back to the talks.”

He insisted there was nothing in what he proposed that would give anybody a veto on the issue because his formula was based on the existing premise, already agreed by the two sides, that oil and gas will be a federal issue and that in the future when Cyprus is unified the decisions would be made together. However, a lot of people have misunderstood that point, he said.

He pointed out the paradox in that there is full agreement on how to handle the hydrocarbons in the future, namely in a federal capacity, but not in the present. “The problem is that we will not get to the future as long as we quarrel about the present. So there is deep disagreement about current affairs but also a deep agreement, unity on future affairs. So I was thinking that if we agree about the future we can move to the future but I recognize that it is more difficult than I originally thought.”

“I really don’t mind that my ideas were not accepted, because it is really up to the two sides whether they want to talk,” he said.  

He said both sides are now locked into a game where it is difficult to see exactly the way out. However, he emphasised that at the end of the day both communities needed to understand that the status quo may not be as stable in the future as it was in the past and that, while paradoxically Cyprus has been at peace and that there is a sense that this non-solution can go on forever, he doesn’t think it would do so.

“I will tell you that having gone through all the positions, from both sides – current and past – there is nothing that cannot be bridged. There are many difficult issues but there is no issue that cannot be overcome if you want to. So if there is some will and some trust, we will solve all these issues. If there is no will, any issue can be too big to solve. So it is a question whether the two communities and not only the leaders – the broader society want this to move on. If they do, we at the UN are ready to assist. But it is a Cypriot problem, it’s not the UN’s problem. We are here to help.”

Eide went on to say that Cypriots should understand that there are two political realities. On the one hand many Turkish Cypriots feel that the Greek Cypriots through the state are now making decisions about their own future without consulting them and they would like to have a way at least to know about and preferably influence these major decisions and look at them together. On the other hand, many Greek Cypriots take a legal point of view which is also right, he went on, whereby the Republic, as an internationally recognized state, has rights with other states over its own economic exclusive zone.

“So one side bases its argument on a kind of a vision of the future, and a political idea, and the other one on a static idea of its legal position, and hence the two do not meet.”

“I think if both sides tried to understand what the other side says, that does not mean agree or change sides, it just means that there may be an argument on the other side, that could be very helpful because after all this is not a violent conflict – it is a conflict that is perfectly manageable if there is the will to manage it. No blood has been shed. There is no recent blood, there’s no violence taking place right now. It is important to try to de-escalate while there is still time and I think both sides have to do something to de-escalate.”

He said he was confident that the two sides would return to the table and that once they did, it would be a speedy process. “We have a plan. The plan is there and ready, the UN is ready and I keep in touch with the leaders, with the negotiators, and with the broader political landscape and with the other parts of the two communities, in order to prepare for not only the talks but even discussions for the implementation of a future agreement. I think we are close to a last chance.”

He pointed out that the UN has been here for 50 years and that there have been many negotiators. He said he was the 25^th and believes that he will be the last one. “I hope I am the last one for good reasons that we will end up with a solution and not the last one because we will all give up and something very different would happen.”

Eide repeated that he was confident that a way would be found to persuade Mr Anastasiades to come back to the table. However, he added, an even bigger question arises for when that happens. Will we be able to stay there consistently and with sufficiently frequent amount of meetings so that we will be able to reach an agreement within a reasonable amount of time that can be presented and put out to a referendum?

“That is where the real choice has to be made, a kind of final choice – do the communities in Cyprus really want to live together or don’t they? If the conclusion is yes, that is great news. And if not one has to face the consequences.”

He said he planned to do his very best to get to what he thinks is the wisest choice for everybody who lives on this beautiful island, adding that the position of the Security Council remains that the two sides should negotiate towards reaching a unified settlement in a structured way.

Meanwhile, he emphasised that Cypriots should be aware that the world out there is quite dramatic. “I have been Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defence and I have worked almost all my adult life in security and foreign affairs issues and I have never seen a year as dramatic as 2014. We have a total collapse of the Middle East, we have the rise of the Islamic State. We have a deep division between Russia and the West. We have major issues in East Asia. The world is really in a bad place right now.”

Nevertheless, he said, the good news is that, despite this very volatile world with a lot of division, there is still unity at the Security Council on Cyprus. He urges Cypriots not to waste this opportunity because the trend is towards more division and not unity in the world.

“This is a particularly bad moment to sit back and relax and think that status quo is fine and I can go on with my life as I have done,” he said. “We have seen places in the world that were stable and are not stable any longer and many bad things happen. And these places are not very far away.”

“If Cyprus gets its act together and if the leaders and the societies who support them actually move towards a real solution, Cyprus will become a symbol for the region that communities can live together and they can overcome past differences,” he said. “If you could look at what you could actually do together, it would be a much brighter future. The only thing you can change is the future anyway. There is not much to do about the past.”

Asked whether he considers Turkey’s violation of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea justified, Eide stressed that of course the UN’s position is that international law shall be respected. But it is also important to remember that it is all part of a bigger picture, the issue of a divided island, the promise to share the oil and gas resources in the future, the perception by one side of the island that that is not happening because the other side is taking decisions now with long term consequences. So the UN of course has to look at all of this and not isolate into one question, he said.

“Does the Republic of Cyprus have an EEZ? Yes. Does it have rights to that through international law? Of course, it has. But what I was trying to say is that there is more to this issue than only a question,” he said. “The issue is more complex because, while the state has its legal rights, it is also a political argument why the Greek Cypriots could reach out to listen to what the Turkish Cypriots are actually saying.”

“You the Cypriots need to make a choice soon on where you want to go. If you want reunification, it is perfectly possible.”

He went on to say he had seen much more difficult conflicts than this one, and has been involved in a number of disputes, some successfully and some less so around the world. “Here there is no fresh violence. There is agreement that negotiations in principle is a good idea. The two sides have come up with organized and logical positions and the positions are not completely mutually exclusive, so it’s perfectly doable. But it requires will. If there is will, we can solve every issue on the table and if there is no will, they will of course not be solved.”

“It is easy to say I am always right and he is always wrong. Everybody can do that. It is also very easy to say my group is always right and the other is always wrong. It is the easiest trick in the political handbook. It does not take a PhD to be able to say I am always right and get you all to agree with me. The question if you go beyond that, the more mature, advanced position is that I believe in my own arguments, but I recognize that there may be some other arguments as well, hence we’ll try to meet, and I’ll try to understand you, what you’re actually saying, maybe you’re not the incarnation of evil, but you’re actually somebody who also has grievances and aspirations and goals. And I think it is perfectly doable and it is a choice and I cannot make the choice, I can only help. It will be up to the societies, not only the leaders, and my strong appeal is to people to take this in your hands, make up your own mind whether you believe in this or not, and tell your leaders what you think.”

His message to the people on both sides, he said, was to encourage their leaders to find a way to talk and deal with their issues while there is still time. “Because as we are waiting things are getting worse. They are not static. They are getting worse. There is a lot of drama around in the region – I mentioned the collapse of the Middle East – basically the end of the state system that was introduced 100 years ago at the end of the WWI. That’s what we’re seeing, nothing less. It’s very very dramatic. And we are also seeing an extension of this into the sea because hydrocarbons are accessible.”

He went on to say that history has shown that hydrocarbons are either a blessing or a curse and that if you get the politics right, if you agree on the broader picture, if you have strong lasting institutions, hydrocarbons will create wealth for many years into the future for the country.

“This country really needs that kind of source of income,” he said, adding that  if you do not have a political agreement, hydrocarbons can be a curse which can create much more trouble than wealth and it can even scare away investors who are concerned about political risk, something that can be seen now as there is a major international dispute around the hydrocarbons issue.

“So my sense is that because of hydrocarbons it is more important than ever before to come to a political solution,” he stressed. “So while it is seemingly more difficult right now it is also more important than it ever has been that both communities of Cyprus try to overcome some of the current disagreements and look jointly into the future.”

Davutoglu reveals cards in Turkey’s energy aspirations

An editorial in the Cyprus Mail says Anastasiades may have over-reacted in quitting the talks over the issuing of the Turkish NAVTEX and in the process trapped himself, but in so doing he may have inadvertently exposed Turkey’s real agenda. This was hinted at by Turkish prime minister Ahmet Davutoglu the other day when he said “the eastern Mediterranean is also our sea and no-one can close it to us.”

By way of threat, he said, “if necessary we can start drilling as well,” adding: “There will be no hesitation in using these rights.” It could be argued that he resorted to these threats in order to show Anastasiades that he had no choice but to return to the negotiating table. “Our call is clear: intense negotiations that will lead to a settlement and immediate peace,” said Davutoglu. His foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, to appear constructive, suggested the establishment of some consortium to handle Cyprus’ hydrocarbons until there was a settlement.

But if there was a settlement, would Turkey be content to sit back and allow the new federal state to exploit its hydrocarbons in any way it chose or would Ankara want to have a direct say over this? Would Turkey reach agreement with the new state, over its EEZ, or would she still be claiming the right to carry out explorations and drilling in waters that were much closer to Cyprus than her shores? Davutoglu’s statement that “the eastern Mediterranean is also our sea and no-one can close it to us,” would suggest the disputes over hydrocarbons might not end with a settlement.

Nobody has tried to ‘close’ the eastern Mediterranean to Turkey, unless of course Turkey has claims in the part of the sea that Cyprus considers part of its EEZ. Perhaps this is Ankara’s real interest and is merely using the rights of the Turkish Cypriots as a pretext to pursue its own designs. Anastasiades’ reaction to the arrival of the Barbaros in Cypriot EEZ has allowed Turkey to put the issue of the hydrocarbons on the agenda, arguing that it was protecting the interests of the Turkish Cypriots who had a legitimate claim on the revenue that would come from the island’s hydrocarbons.

Natural gas could become a second Cyprus problem, a separate issue on which the two sides are unable to reach agreement. The UN Secretary-General’s Special Advisor Espen Barth Eide’ idea of having a twin track process so that hydrocarbons would be discussed parallel to the talks, would have been a step in this direction. Neither side accepted it, but we doubt we have heard the end of it as it may be the only way for talks to resume.

Eide says it’s up to the two sides to find a way back to the table

UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide yesterday acknowledged that his proposal for a twin-track process to resolve the hydrocarbons dispute so that Cyprus talks could resume had not created “much enthusiasm” on either side, the Cyprus Mail reports.

President Nicos Anastasiades told Eide during their 90-minute meeting that there would be no returning to the negotiating table until Turkey ceased violating the island’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

He also explained to Eide why the Special Adviser’s proposal for a twin-track process through parallel discussions on hydrocarbons had been rejected by the Greek Cypriot side.

“I respect and understand that, so that was what I had to propose,” said Eide.

“So in a sense now it’s more the two sides that have to find a way to create the conditions that they can speak. What I am concentrating on is now what we do in order to make sure that the talks will be speedy and effective once we are back at the table. And I remain optimistic that we will get there but I am not able to say exactly when we will get there,” he added.

“I feel that the situation can either get better or it can get significantly worse,” he said.

He said he was encouraging both sides to think of ways where they could re-approach each other in such a way that the talks could continue.

But the government spokesman’s comments after the meeting were clear. “Our decision to return to the negotiating table cannot be secured while there is a continuing violation of the sovereignty of the Republic,” said Nicos Christodoulides.

“We developed our argument as to why the proposal of Mr Eide could not be accepted. There can be no dialogue under threats and intimidation.”

If Turkey changed its stance and demonstrated in practice that it respected the sovereignty of Cyprus a dialogue could be resumed.

“It is clear who is responsible for the situation we are in today so the party responsible should take those actions that will make it possible to resume the dialogue.”

Eide also met with Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu, Bayrak reported. Speaking at the end of the hour long meeting, Eide said that he had been listening to the views of both sides on how the negotiations could resume.

“I don’t know when the negotiations will resume but when the talks do resume we must move fast”, said Eide, pointing out that the Cyprus issue is reaching a point of truth.

He said that the Cyprus problem and the uncertainty that ensued has been going on for too long and that both sides are reaching a point where they have to make decisions.

Eide also said that both sides need to exert an effort to return to the negotiating table, expressing the hope that a comprehensive settlement will be reached in a reasonable time once the talks resume.

Eroglu on his part said that he had told the UN Special Envoy that the Turkish Cypriot side is still at the negotiating table and is ready to resume talks from where they left off.

“Since it was they who left the negotiating table we believe there will be a great benefit for Mr Anastasiades to return to the table without any preconditions. As I informed Mr Eide, my team and I are still sitting at the negotiating table. The important thing is for Mr Anastasiades to regain his health and return to the table”, he added.

Davutoglu says they will drill as well

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutogu has said that if necessary, Turkey would not only continue to explore within Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) but also carry out drilling.

“The eastern Mediterranean is also our sea. No one can close the Mediterranean to us. If necessary we can start drilling as well,” he said. 
”The natural resources around the island should be acknowledged as the catalyst for peace and that both communities in Cyprus had equal rights to the island’s whole EEZ.”

“There will be no hesitation in using these rights,” he added.

Davutoglu called for the resumption of settlement talks. “Our call is clear: intense negotiations that will lead to a solution, and immediate peace,” he said.
 He proposed the establishment of a joint committee to share out the island’s natural resources so as to promote peace on the island.

UK: hydrocarbons must be used for benefit of all Cypriots

Britain recognises the right of Cyprus to exploit its hydrocarbon reserves within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ), UK Minister for Europe, David Lidington, said repeating the UK’s position that they must be used for the benefit of all Cypriots, according to the Cyprus Mail.

Speaking after a meeting with President Anastasiades, Lidington said: “The policy of the British government is very clear that we recognise the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus and the right of the Republic of Cyprus and only the Republic of Cyprus to develop whatever hydrocarbons there may be within its waters.”

“We also have the consistent view that hydrocarbon resources are to be used for the benefit of all Cypriots… that after all is one of the great prizes to be won through a Cyprus settlement,” the British minister added.

‘Accept the division of Cyprus’

Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secretary has called on the international community to accept the division of Cyprus, according to the Cyprus Mail. 


In an interview with Turkish news agency Anadolu in London on Tuesday, he said the island’s division needed to be accepted as a reality.


“If it had been possible for there to be a happy, united island, well, that would be the best solution, with a bi-zonal, bi-communal constitution. But the majority of people living on the island in the Greek-Cypriot part don’t want to accept that,” Straw said.


“So my view is the international community should accept the reality that there is division and that you have partition,” he said. “And then these two rather small nations would be able to develop their own relationship and I think it would be a cleaner system.”

Hurriyet: Anastasiades is an alcoholic

The internet news site News.it reports that an article in Turkish daily Hurriyet refers to President Anastasiades’ health, his addiction to alcohol and the progress at the talks.

The article says that Anastasiades’ decision as to when to have a heart operation depends on how long it will take him to get rid of all the alcohol in his system.

The writer of the article claimed to have had numerous emails from Greek Cypriots who accuse him of ‘hitting below the belt’ by calling Anastasiades an alcoholic. “Is it though?” he wonders.

He said the ‘problem’ cannot be considered a personal matter for Anastasiades, as it has also affected the Cyprus talks, in view of the fact that in the last couple of months, a number of “unfortunate” incidents have taken place that stem directly from the president’s alcoholism. He added that his close friends and associates confirm that Anastasiades starts drinking around lunchtime and gets very angry if he cannot find his favourite whiskey. He wonders how come in July the president started railing against the Greek Cypriot negotiating team and throwing chairs around, especially since the Turkish side hadn’t proposed anything new that day that could have enraged Anastasiades to such a degree. The problem lies with his alcoholism, the writer continues, something that cannot remain in the private domain.

He concluded by saying that the Turkish side wishes him a speedy recovery so that he will return healthy to the negotiating table, even though it has begun to dawn on both communities that reunification isn’t going to happen.