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.
No comments:
Post a Comment