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.