“Turkey’s position on guarantees isn’t convincing”
Monday 30th January 2017,“ALITHIA” daily newspaper
Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL, International Law expert and member of the Support Team to the President of the Republic at the ongoing negotiations.
“Turkey’s position on guarantees isn’t convincing”
– While everyone was talking about a milestone, as regards the outcome of the talks on the Cyprus problem, now there is talk of an “open-ended” Conference. What has happened and what does this development mean for the course of the solution of the Cyprus problem and more specifically with regards the aspect of security and guarantees?
– The Cyprus problem is not a question of setting artificial timetables. Whether the Cyprus problem will be solved or not primarily depends on the positions that are submitted at the negotiating table. This does not mean that we have the luxury of engaging in talks infinitely. At some point the pre-election campaign will commence and this will critically damage the current negotiation procedure, which has been ongoing since 2008. The Conference on the Cyprus problem is indeed “open-ended”, but everyone understands that if we dont achieve something in the immediate period ahead, serious complications may arise.
Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community for some years have doggedly been repeating that we must go into a final phase which they perceive as a discussion of the territorial issue immediately after the chapter on security and guarantees. They too raised as a precondition that to move forward the rest of the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem should previously have been solved or at least that we should be within range of an agreement. We are at a point where not all internal aspects have been resolved. There are core issues outstanding, but at the same time we are in the phase of the Conference.
The important thing is not to look if it was or not the appropriate procedure. We all have our opinions about this issue, but now we have to deal with reality. We now have maps that have been submitted on the table. We have Turkey before us for the discussion of the security issue. We must test Turkey to see whether or not it can solve the Cyprus problem.
One understands that some core issues are also included among the outstanding issues of the internal aspect. An effort must be made to see whether we can solve them because this will increase the chances of a successful outcome to the Conference itself. Internal issues cannot be discussed at the Conference. They should be discussed now or even in a process parallel to the conference because if we don’t do so, the chances of a successful outcome are reduced.
For sure, preparatory work on the Conference’s issues is necessary. But of course, in talking about preparation, we do not mean that the outcome must be predetermined. That is, we must not set as a precondition the acceptance of our position before we go to a conference. This would be a form of “protaxis”, that is the policy of putting preconditions that predetermine the very result of negotiations, which has been tried in the past and has only led to new adventures and faits accompli.
– How do you anticipate the two leaders Nicos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci will proceed in the talks without a conclusion on the chapter of security and guarantees?
– I understand that the leaders will discuss the next steps on the pending issues of the internal aspect, but also the continuation of the conference. I reiterate that we cannot transfer the issues concerning the internal aspect to the conference itself. It is therefore necessary to make an effort to resolve them.
– How does the announcing a referendum in Turkey this April on changes to the constitution, so that powers are transferred to the President of the state, affect, in your view, the whole procedure of the talks on the Cyprus problem?
– Developments in Turkey are likely to affect the procedure to solve the Cyprus problem. There is a widespread and well-founded belief that because Erdogan needs the support of the nationalists to ensure the approval of his position for a presidential system, he is not going to make any moves on the Cyprus problem before achieving his goal. However, there is another approach that says that Turkey has an objective interest and need to solve the Cyprus problem. To determine what Turkey’s real intentions are, we must bring it to the negotiating table on the issue of security.
– What are your basic observations on the Greek Cypriot and Greek side’s proposal on guarantees and security?
– There is indeed the well-known proposal put forward by the President of the Republic. It is a good proposal that addresses the well-intentioned concerns of both communities. We point out the fact that for the first time Turkey isn’t insisting on the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. On the one hand this is an important, but a half step. The proposal for Turkish guarantees of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state and for the right to intervene at the request of the latter, is quite rightly rejected by our side. What I can say is that Turkey does not normally open its cards before the last minute. Consequently, we can solve our questions only at the conference table.
It is likely, but not for sure, that Turkey will come with a changed proposal and we must be prepared to face all eventualities. We shouldn’t be thinking that Turkey will not cooperate because what could happen is what actually happened in 2004. That is, when the political leadership went to New York with this perception and was unpleasantly surprised. However, I have the feeling that Turkey will not open its cards on the issue of security – guarantees, if it does not previously see how specific issues of the internal aspect are resolved. This is an additional reason for us to try to deal with these issues, without of course in any way this meaning that we will adopt the Turkish positions.
I don’t give any particular significance to what is being stated right now, but rather to what will occur at the negotiating table. Turkey’s position on the issue of security and guarantees isn’t persuading the international community. This is an additional reason for us to try to steer the discussion on this issue.
It is important that the EU is present too, although with an observer status, and expresses an opinion on certain issues that concern it. We cannot agree to something with which the EU will not agree, because this will not lead us nowhere.
The most important thing is there is an agreement that the anachronistic system of guarantees will be abolished and that the Turkish troops will withdraw. We are under no illusion that all of the occupation troops will withdraw on the day after the solution. We are however talking about the withdrawal of a significant part of the troops from the first moment, while the rest of the troops will have to leave according to a fixed and predetermined timeframe and certainly not in the long run. The whole troop withdrawal procedure must be supervised by the United Nations Security Council in order to ensure the implementation of the solution. Regarding the Treaty of Alliance of 1960, it is unbalanced and of dubious international legality, but it is there. Our position is that it must be abolished.
– What can you tell us about the maps submitted by both sides, but also about the procedure to be followed on the Chapter of the territory issue?
– With regards the territorial issue the expected occurred. It had been agreed that the percentage of land of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state for us will be 28.2% and the Turkish Cypriot side – 29.2%. Indeed, the maps submitted meet this commitment. You realize that there is a range of convergence at least on the issue of the percentage. As expected, each side, based on the percentages mentioned above, submitted the best map for its side. The important thing is that this time there are maps on the table and a concrete negotiation will take place. I believe that the final position of the Turkish Cypriot side on the subject of the map is related to how other outstanding core issues will proceed.
– With regards the Chapter on governance, what are the main convergences and divergences and how can the differences be bridged?
– The most important is the issue of executive power. There is also the issue of effective participation in the bodies and decisions of the federal government. These issues must be settled outside the conference. It is not productive, nor rational to take such issues to the conference. If we take such issues there, the other side will also raise issues and so it becomes a vicious circle.
– An equally key issue in the talks is the chapter on property. How has the whole situation evolved?
– There are two or three outstanding issues. We agree that the properties belong to the lawful owners. We agree that there are remedies and some sub – remedies. We disagree on who chooses first. We say that the owner must have the first say; they insist that the user should have the first say. There is also a difference on what a significant property improvement means, but also on the properties that have changed hands several times. My impression is that if the territorial issue is resolved the solution of these issues will also be facilitated.
– The fluidness in the talks creates a numbness among the people in both communities. Can people still hope for a positive result out of the talks on the reunification of our country?
– No one can answer this question for the simple reason that we are at a stage that is dominated by the issue of security, where indeed Turkey, and more specifically Erdogan himself holds the key. If you solve the issue of security, then things will subsequently become much easier. We must arrive at the substantive discussion of the matter in order to put Turkey before its responsibilities.
On the issue of a rotating Presidency
– What is your position on the subject of the rotating presidency, which the Turkish Cypriot side presents as a precondition for the solution of the Cyprus problem?
– Our own position on this specific issue is clear and it will not change regardless of the cost it may have. The rotating presidency has been on the negotiating table since 1993 and it had been included in all the five Annan plans. Back then very harsh criticism had been exercised about the Annan plan, but definitely not on the issue of the rotating presidency.
This suddenly became a matter during the period of the Christofias presidency, unfairly so because we knew very well that there was a result of the referendum, which without any question whatsoever had to be respected. However at the same time you also cannot ruin the sensitive balances. The highpoint of this delicate balance is the question of the rotating Presidency, and you cannot remove it from the negotiating table. We did what was feasible, that is we made improvements. We transferred it from a presidential council system to a presidential system. We did so because the presidential system is a more familiar system to us which in addition has the comparative advantage of being stable. In this system there are no upheavals, nor is there the principle of declared confidence of parliament. That is the government can’t dissolve parliament, nor can parliament topple the government.
With great difficulty we managed to pass it because the Turkish Cypriot side has a different system of “governance” that tends towards a parliamentary system.
The second major improvement we achieved, with even greater difficulty, is that the President will be elected directly by the people and not by the Senate, with a crossover vote. That is everyone will vote together and not separately, something that is happening for the first time in the history of the Cyprus problem. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have never voted together before. Eroglu rejected this, saying that this means the elimination of the Turkish Cypriot position that there are “two peoples” in Cyprus and he argued that cross-voting means that there will be one people. He added that parties of his own type will never get in power because they will not get a share from the percentage of 20% of the other community.
We also agreed that the decisions will not be taken by the President, but by the Ministerial Council, in which we the Greek Cypriots will have approximately double representation. While we will have a Turkish Cypriot president with half a term than that of the Greek Cypriot, the Ministerial Council will again be taking the decisions.
The scaremongering and alarm being generated that supposedly the Turkish Cypriot rotating President can invite Turkey to invade is groundless. This is what has been demonized and now there is a difficulty. The endeavor to take the issue of a rotating presidency to the end, leads to the other side eventually also taking the territorial issue to the end. This is what we experienced in Mont Peleran too. If something better is achieved, we too would certainly welcome it. What we are saying though is that the issue must be addressed. The time has come to take decisions on the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem. With this possibility, our work in the conference will also be made easier.
