“The Cyprus problem in view of the substantive negotiations” by Stavri Kalopsidiotou, Lawyer, Expert in International Law, member of the Cyprus problem Office of AKEL and of the C.C. of AKEL

 

 6th October 2014

 

It’s true that the issues relating to the economy have for some time taken the lion’s share of the public debate, of the political parties’ positions and people’s day-to-day concerns. However, developments surrounding our national issue simultaneously underway are also of equal crucial importance.

If there is one additional reflection after the meetings held in New York it is regarding the role third parties, such as the US, intend to play on the Cyprus problem, as well as whether the content and non-deviation from the logic of a solution under Cypriot ownership will be safeguarded. Of course, this reflection must not be interpreted as a negative attitude towards any contribution to a solution in the correct direction that would be very welcome within the framework of the on-going negotiations.

To avoid a parallel procedure which isn’t certain at all would result in a positive outcome, it is particularly important in the current substantive phase of the negotiations to ensure a different handling of the Cyprus problem than up to now – both with regards the substance of the Cyprus problem and the issue of tactics. The possibility of avoiding a new deadlock and the possible exertion of undue pressure for a solution outside the agreed framework – a development that would favour Eroglu – is still before us, under however certain given preconditions.

The key precondition is the withdrawal of President Anastasiades’ unproductive position for the abandonment of the Christofias-Talat convergences and for negotiations from scratch/zero. This position has already cost the Greek Cypriot side the drawing up of an inferior joint communique, allowing Eroglu on the one hand to accuse our side of stalling and evasion and on the other, to submit fruitless proposals that deviate from the agreed framework, given that the responsibility for the rejection of the convergences is not being attributed to him.

On the contrary, even if the previously agreed convergences are now to be projected as a final attempt to lead the negotiations to a successful outcome, there are two possible results: either time and substance will be gained, seeking where possible the improvement of the convergences and the drawing up of new ones on pending issues, either the Turkish Cypriot side’s tactical games will be unsuccessful, given that the responsibility for any impasse will subsequently be attributed to him exclusively.

Another important precondition for the solution is the constructive assessment of the international conditions, as they are evolving. For example, the Republic of Cyprus locking itself by fully aligning with the United States, NATO and the policies that are being proposed by the European Union against the Russian Federation do not only have economic consequences, but also evidently create problems in our relations with a traditionally friendly country. This anything but serves the cause of the solution, which involves all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

In making these observations, we are not attempting to predict another collapse in the talks, but to stress all that the President must consider when handling the Cyprus problem. In addition, there is also a warning bearing in mind that all that is registered in the negotiations and the policies based on obsessions that are guiding the government’s foreign policy are leading to paths which worry us.

In conclusion, an appeal. One wonders – who can be persuaded that all the convergences arduously agreed with Talat can be improved with Eroglu by waging negotiations from zero/scratch? It is obvious that the continuation of the substantive talks from where they had left off can both render a dynamic, as well as exposing Turkish propaganda. In doing so the goal of the solution of the Cyprus problem would simultaneously be served, extinguishing Turkey’s plans in a blame game and of course reducing the danger of an attempt to impose a solution by external third forces and powers.

At this very critical time for our national problem, the President of the Republic and his government should seriously think about the current cost of their pre-election slogans during the presidential campaign. They should abandon any machinations aiming to serve communication expediencies for their survival and should turn their attention to serving the well-intentioned interests of the country and people. Besides, this is precisely what the true survival of everyone depends on.