Talks won’t necessarily end in March

The UN is having second and wiser thoughts on whether to convene a multinational conference on Cyprus, believes Toumazos Tsielepis, one of President Christofias’ main advisors and a member of the Greek Cypriot side’s negotiating team.

In an interview in Politis today, Mr Tsielepis says that, in view of the fact that the positions of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot sides in Cyprus are getting further apart rather than closer together, progress looks exceedingly unlikely and the UN know very well what the reason is, namely the attitude of the Turkish Cypriot leadership.

He admitted that there has been a tendency on both sides to play the blame game, but stressed that the important thing was to find a way to make the process more substantial in order to reach a solution.

“If this proves to be impossible, then of course it is important that the reasons why we have reached a deadlock are put down in writing”, he added.

He said it was important that the UN evaluates the situation objectively. “We want the UN to call a spade a spade. And I believe the UN know exactly how things are”.

However, he added that such an evaluation would only occur at the end of the procedure. As long as the UN believed that the process could continue, he didn’t think they would allocate any blame.

He said that personally he didn’t believe the process would end in March. It might be interrupted for the presidential elections, but as there was no other way to solve the Cyprus problem other than through negotiations, all options should be exhausted.

Asked if there was tangible proof that the Turkish Cypriot side does not want a solution, he said unfortunately their whole attitude at the negotiating table especially as regards the property issue shows this to be so.

“What they are aiming for is an overall exchange of property”, he said. “From the data they have submitted, it seems that very few properties will be up for restitution”, he added.

He stressed that the UN have always played a role of offering their good services and have never tried to act as arbitrators or intermediaries. Occasionally their experts might put forward some ideas and each side is free to adopt them or reject them as they see fit. Their position, he stressed, is that they will not be arbiters. That process was tried and failed. It would not be wise to repeat it.

Mr Tsielepis admitted that significant convergences had occurred while Talat was negotiatingon behalf of the Turkish Cypriots, particularly in the huge and complicated chapter of governance, as well as that of the economy and the EU. However, he said, Talat would not be drawn into discussing the issue of territory. “While the issues of security and guarantees might have been rised at the negotiating table but would only have been agreed at a conference, then we could say that we had achieved considerable progress with Talat”.

“The problem is that the new Turkish Cypriot leadership has undermined all previous convergences with which it disagreed. This is the problem we are facing today. For example, while we had almost finished with the question of governance, I myself no longer know where we stand”.

Asked why agreement couldn’t be reached under Talat, Mr Tsielepis stressed: “We were making progress, but very slowly”.

He gave as an example that in the chapter on governance the only sticking point was that of foreign policy, where the Turkish Cypriot side’s position was in conflict with the principles of federation.

As regards why the convergences that had been reached weren’t announced and written down, Mr Tsielepis said this was because most of the members of the National Council felt that doing so would have been tantamount to reaching an interim agreement.

“Personally I don’t agree with that position, but that was the majority view”. However, he added, it was agreed that either side was free to announce what had been achieved so far, something that Mr Talat proceeded to do in great detail and quite objectively at a press conference.

Asked to explain information about a leaked document whereby Turkish settlers would be limited to a 4:1 ratio, Mr Tsielepis said that the aim of the Greek Cypriot negotiating team was first to safeguard the three freedoms of movement, settlement and acquisition of property, and second to limit the flow of Turks into the island after a possible entry of Turkey into the EU, a possibility that cannot be discounted. He said the Turkish Cypriot side said we could not have full freedom of settlement because that goes against the principle of bizonality as stated in the Makarios-Denktash agreement. Secondly they wanted to ensure that Turkish citizens have equal treatment as would Greek citizens, which they claimed was granted under the 1960 constitution.

“Under the circumstances”, he went on, “we had to choose between what was desirable and what was feasible. If we went with what was desirable and didn’t reach a final agreement, this would ultimately work against us because, in the event that Turkey joined the EU, something that cannot be ruled out, then we wouldn’t be able to set any limits at all”.

Therefore any limitations would have to be set with the solution, he said, or it would never be set. So the Greek Cypriot side suggested that there should be no restrictions to the freedom of settlement whatsoever, but that instead there should be a restriction as to where citizens would exercise their right to vote.

“We proposed that from a certain point onwards these rights should not be exercised on the basis of territory so that Greek Cypriots would not be able to take control of the Turkish Cypriot area. This way they should not deny us the freedom of settlement”.

As regards the equal treatment of Turkish citizens, he said, we could either have said no and then when Turkey joined the EU they would have got these rights anyway, or we could propose a limitation from now so that it remains in the future as well.

“We chose to go with the latter and set this limitation at 4:1”, he said. “This can be seen as a concession on our part at the time of a solution, but with Turkey’s entry into the EU it would become a concession for them”.

He added that this ratio hasn’t been written down anywhere because the Turkish side didn’t accept it. Instead the Greek Cypriot side proposed alternative ideas, such as that there should be prior agreement as to the number of settlers remaining in order not to change the demographic proportion or the future influx.

“Eroglu’s position is that ‘whatever you, Greek Cypriots get with the convergence document, you have it in your pockets, whereas whatever we get is all hypothetical’. That is the reality”, Mr Tsielepis concluded.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban-Ki-moon is going to submit his report on his mission of good offices in Cyprus to the Security Council at the end of the coming week, the Cyprus Mail reports.

According to UN sources, Ban will submit his report following the meeting his Special Advisor on Cyprus, Alexander Downer, will hold with the two leaders in Cyprus in the framework of direct talks scheduled to take place on March 8.

However, Downer will not be present during the discussion at the Security Council, as was initially planned. Such a discussion will probably take place in April.

A diplomatic source at the Security Council told the Cyprus News Agency that the Cyprus problem will not be discussed by the Council in March mainly because of the lack of progress in the direct talks.

The same source noted that because of the stagnant situation, Downer would not want to reply to questions by the members of the Security Council as regards his intentions regarding a multilateral conference on the Cyprus issue.
Other sources have said that the UNSG would call such a conference only if substantial convergences were reached, and that “he would not jeopardise his prestige with another failure”.