Government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said it was crucial to avoid mistakes of the past in a future settlement of Cyprus, noting that people need to be presented with a clear plan with no constructive ambiguities and no gaps that would jeopardize its implementation.
Addressing on Thursday an event in New York, at the invitation of the Foreign Policy Association, Christodoulides also underlined President Nicos Anastasiades` belief that a settlement in 2016 is possible, if all interested parties engage with seriousness, discussing and submitting constructive proposals on all pending issues.
There was also a need to refrain from actions that could jeopardise the good climate.
“Turkey’s contribution in tangible terms is crucially important”, he said, adding that Nicosia was counting on the United States’ influence.
Christodoulides said that Nicosia is well aware that Turkey will not to solve the problem because it will realize the illegality of its presence in Cyprus or the violation of basic human rights of Cypriots, but will rather decide to move decisively towards a solution because it will realize the benefits of such a development.
Referring to such benefits, Christodoulides noted that a solution will enable Ankara to be part of the strong regional cooperation that has unfolded in the region, in the field of energy and security and will boost EU-NATO and EU-Turkey relations.
According to Christodoulides, with the economy on the path of recovery, the government and Anastasiades are focusing their efforts on reaching a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, in line with EU law, values and principles.
He said that after the choice of Mustafa Akinci as leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, in May 2015, negotiations have unfolded in an overall improved, more positive climate.
The Government Spokesman noted that there has been reached common understanding on an important number of issues related to the chapters of Governance and Power-Sharing, Property, Economy, and the EU, but “that there are still outstanding differences in the aforementioned four Chapters” while at the same time “we still have not held any substantive discussions on two decisive chapters, namely, Territorial Readjustments and Security and Guarantees”.