Eide: economic zone is not sovereign territory

UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide, in an interview with the Cyprus News Agency yesterday, said a country’s economic zone (EEZ) is not sovereign territory, the Cyprus Mail reports.

“There is the legal argument that is very strong on the Republic of Cyprus side, which is that the Republic of Cyprus is a country like every country and it can declare its economic zone. After all, nobody has exploited it, by the way. It is a question of how much a violation has actually happened because many countries do not see seismic exploration as a violation as long as it doesn’t lead to exploitation. Because the economic zone is not sovereign territory, anybody can  basically do anything there but for taking out the resources. But that’s a very technical issue,” he said.

The other argument, he said, from the Turkish Cypriot side was that the hydrocarbons of Cyprus belonged to all Cypriots “and one side of Cyprus cannot just venture into making all decisions that will have a kind of an eternal effect on everyone without consulting with the other side.”

“So, there is a legal argument and a political argument. And this actually illustrates the deep problem of the Cyprus problem. It’s essentially contested what is the Cyprus problem. Is it a hijacked state, or is part of the country occupied? And we know that we will never get a full agreement on that. But you can get to full agreement on how you reunify. So the hydrocarbon crisis is in essence an illustration of the deep disagreements that lies behind the whole understanding of what the Cyprus problem is,” he added.

Asked if a gesture on the part of Turkey, for instance, the opening of ports/airports and other measures, to Cyprus that would be conducive in helping the process move forward, Eide said “the other side in the negotiations is the Turkish Cypriot side, not Turkey”.

“Of course Turkey has an interest in this for obvious reasons but the negotiations are between the two communities on the island.”


To a question by CNA that the problem was the actual division of the island which is maintained by Turkey, Eide said: “Again, this is part of the essential contest, that’s a dimension of it, another one, if you are a Turkish Cypriot is that back in the sixties a state that was supposed to be a state for Greeks and Turks was hijacked by one side and turned into more of a Hellenic state.”

Eide said he did not want to go further into the issue, saying for a long time  people had been living with “different readings” on why the Cyprus problem existed. He said he was more concerned with how it could be resolved.

Asked why he considered the current effort to see the talks resume as possibly a last opportunity, the Norwegian diplomat said:  “Of course, I am not saying that if we have some trouble in three months and a temporary suspension that that’s the end of the day. I am saying in the broad sense I think we have had a very serious crisis with the hydrocarbons, they illustrate that some of these problems, in the absence of a solution, and I sincerely think that it is important now to grasp this moment and try because if there is a will, there is a way. He added that it was not that there was no will “but I don`t think there was sufficient will”.

“I really trust [President] Anastasiades that he actually wants this to happen. Of course, he has a difficult political environment which we can all see and I also feel that there is a very strong urge now for a lot of people on the Turkish Cypriot side to get out of a very strange situation that they are now in.
”

Eide said the impatience of the international community on all sides, was becoming more and more evident. “that there is a feeling that this really cannot be allowed to go on any longer, we cannot have this unresolved, because it is fundamentally unresolved.”

“It’s not like neutral. It’s an open issue that has not landed and there is in principle only two ways to land which is reunification or separation.” 
Eide said he wanted to maintain the optimism that  the problem could be solved and this, he said, was based on a lot of conversations with a lot of people in Cyprus and elsewhere.

Regarding the introduction of confidence building measures, Eide said “they are good but my focus is not on that. My focus in the UN is the talks themselves on the substance, on the core issues, not fringe issues, because I know that if we solve all the core issues, then everything else will follow.”

For instance, he continued, “a unified Cyprus will be recognised by Turkey, of course, and then the ensuing state will have the same access to ports in Turkey as every other state, the hydrocarbon issue is not any longer a conflict issue but a cooperation issue because both sides already agreed that it’s a federal capacity in a new state. So, a lot of these issues are issues because of the division and will actually evaporate once a solution is found. Because they are expressions of the division.”

Asked if the core issues would be dealt with first, he said when the talks restart they would cover core issues, property, territory, governance and power sharing. “We are taking difficult issue by difficult issue and seeing how we move forward.”

To a question as to whether there was a timeframe or deadline, Eide said “2015 is the border framework we are operating inside. I don’t want to say a particular date because the date will become a point in itself but the sooner the better. And this is also what the leaders say, they want to solve this the sooner the better.” 
He said Cyprus could be “a stable, wealthy, interesting, positive place, an example to the world for overcoming past difficulties through peaceful negotiations.”

It would also attract a lot of investments as an ideal location for people who want to be engaged in the Middle East but do not want to actually be based in the Middle East.” 
The island would eventually, he hoped “be able to capitalise on its natural resources and so on, and have an economy that is not driven by political decisions but by rational economic choice.”

“And I think that`s a great future but you can only find it by working with other Cypriots,” he concluded.

Furore

Eide’s interview to CAN created a furore on the Greek Cypriot side particularly his statement that the exclusive economic zones (EEZ) were not sovereign, and his comment as to what defines the Cyprus problem.

Government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said in a written statement that the Republic had already made “very strict demarches,” which he deemed “unacceptable”.

UN clarifies

The UN issued a written statement on behalf of Eide clarifying two points.

“ The SASG [Special Adviser of the Secretary-General] has never intended to make any kind of judgment about the competing narratives about the roots of the Cyprus problem. He was merely referring to the well-known fact that there is more than one perception about what the core of the issue is, and that while Cypriots may continue to disagree about the past, they should look ahead and aim at agreeing about the future,” the statement said.

On the issue of the EEZ, the statement said : “The SASG has repeatedly underlined that the Republic of Cyprus has exactly the same right to declare an Exclusive Economic Zone as any other sovereign state, and that its rights in this regard should be fully respected by other states. A passage in the interview could leave the impression that he relativizes this basic right, established in the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, which is obviously not the case and which was never his intention.”

Straight talking is all very well if your audience is ready to listen

                       

UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide was doing so well, says an editorial in the Cyprus Mail. He announced on Tuesday that Cyprus talks would be resuming after the elections in the north, which will be held on April 19.

A day later he found himself in the doghouse, not only with the usual suspects – the rejectionist parties – but with the government after an interview he gave to the Cyprus News Agency.

Two comments he made raised hackles. In one, he tried to play down Turkey’s forays into the island’s EEZ effectively saying it was no big deal.

His second ‘offence’ was when he tried to define the Cyprus problem, saying: “It`s essentially contested what is the Cyprus problem. Is it a hijack state, or part of the country is occupied?”

The government immediately made strong demarches, and the political parties trotted out the usual song and dance they perform when a foreign official doesn’t follow the Greek Cypriot party line.

At the time of writing yesterday afternoon we had lauded Eide for his sensible straight talking, saying that it was refreshing to see a UN interlocutor not afraid to be scrutinised over what he said in the hard-core Greek Cypriot media, which routinely eats UN envoys for breakfast.

The UN had not issued any ‘clarifications’ or statements that Eide had been ‘misunderstood’ or tried to smooth things over for the good of the negotiations, which indicated that he was ready to stand by what he said and not be cowed.

This viewpoint was short-lived. Late last night Eide issued a statement saying he had been ‘misrepresented’. Interestingly he did not say he had been misquoted but merely tried to clarify that he had not intended to make any kind of judgment about the competing narratives on the Cyprus issue, and also that Cyprus’ EEZ should be respected by other states.

With all the past experiences of his predecessors it is hard to believe Eide did not know that everything he said would be nitpicked to death, even though he did not say anything that was terribly shocking.

Straight talking is all very well if your audience is ready to listen and understand what you are trying to do. But in Cyprus, neither side wants to hear the other’s point of view. That’s why the Cyprus issue has not been resolved.

In their own ways, the sides in Cyprus ‘can’t handle the truth’ and anyone who speaks it is labeled ‘an ambassador for Turkey’ by the Greek Cypriot side or ‘pro-Greek by the Turkish side.

The unfortunate reality is that for the sake of the negotiations it is sometimes best not to give more ammunition to the political parties who are just looking for an excuse to pressure President Nicos Anastasiades into not returning to the talks.