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 25th
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment