The beginning of a solution or the beginning of the end for the Cyprus problem?
By Averof Neophytou
The war in Ukraine has already taken a back seat as international attention is now focused on the war in Gaza. Both – unprecedented – sources of tension present opportunities, but also dangers, for our national issue.
Let us look at the opportunities:
First, the West, and certainly America, has a serious interest in controlling both conflicts for reasons of international security and geostrategic planning. Consequently, our “window of opportunity” is to play the Cyprus solution card boldly – both in terms of international security and with a decisive role for the West. Already the Antonio Guterres framework recognises that the 1960s security system is outdated and cannot continue. I believe that, under certain conditions, the opportunity is created for a courageous, well-thought-out initiative by the Greek Cypriot leadership to link the security issues of the Cyprus problem to the security system of Europe and the West.
Second, the crisis in Ukraine has a serious negative impact on the energy map of Europe. Sooner or later, the Middle East will add more problems to the energy sector. This creates the right conditions for linking the solution of the Cyprus problem with the creation of energy channels both on our island and in our neighbourhood and, at long last, the exploitation of our reserves.
Third, in both major crises, Recep Tayyip Erdogan-led Turkey has shown a defiantly anti-Western and anti-American stance. It is an opportunity for Cyprus and for Greece to show our Western and European partners that it is in their interest to solve the national issue.
There are also risks.
First, a Cyprus solution is not at the top of the priorities of the international geopolitical agenda.
Second, for the Ukrainian crisis the solution promoted by international diplomacy is acceptance by Kyiv of Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territories it occupies; in the case of the crisis in Israel, a two-state solution. Unitary state entities with populations of different ethnic origins and different religions or opposing churches are not considered credible options by the international community.
Bearing in mind the opportunities and risks, we must now focus on the critical issues at the heart of our national – I would even say existential – question, considering it has been in hibernation, the longest period since the problem emerged. Since July 2017 when talks collapsed in Crans-Montana, not even a Special Advisor to the UN secretary-general has been appointed. A pragmatic assessment is that this is a matter of low expectations for the UNSG himself. Who could blame him for his caution, given his experiences in Geneva and Crans-Montana in 2017 and subsequently in Berlin in 2020 and Geneva in 2021?
But it seems something is moving, perhaps for the last time: the appointment of a UN envoy, with the consent of both communities and Turkey, should be considered almost certain. Furthermore, at next month’s EU summit, EU-Turkey relations will be on the agenda.
Will the appointment of the UN envoy lead to a new initiative, or will it be the prospective, definitive tombstone for the Cyprus problem? I believe the envoy will for the first time have a timeframe for action; the mandate will not be open-ended and will not exceed six months. This is not idle speculation, but my conclusion after recent diplomatic contacts. It will be extremely difficult for the envoy to find common ground to resume talks within six months, given the positions of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community. The gap seems unbridgeable. We, as the Greek Cypriot community, call for a resumption of talks within the agreed framework of a bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality. While the Crans-Montana collapse was related to security issues, our side has since focused on the non-functionality of the governance framework. As a result, questions were raised in the international community regarding our acceptance of political equality.
Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots, through Ersin Tatar, set ‘separate sovereignty’ as a condition for the resumption of talks. For us, this is a red line and I fully agree. Unfortunately, however, the prevailing impression abroad is that the ‘two states’ have entered the discussions – if informally – considering our side’s behaviour. They even invoke some misguided moves and tactics on our domestic front – I describe them misguided to avoid using stronger language. And I hope I am not forced to use it.
The appointment of an envoy will prove pointless if the context in which he/she will operate is not clarified in time and, in particular, if we do not convince the other side of our commitment to political equality, as outlined in UN resolutions, versus partitionist separate sovereignty. If we remain inactive, then Turkey, instead of being pressured at the European summit, will also come out a winner, taking credit for accepting the appointment of an envoy. As for us, we will be left with yet another ‘resolution’ – European this time – featuring wishful thinking.
Now is the time for bold initiatives. If we are not to be led after six months to a new deadlock, we need a practical show of real political will by the leaders of both communities. President Nikos Christodoulides must dispel any suggestion that the Greek Cypriot side is supposedly challenging political equality and abandon his well-known vacillations on the Guterres Framework. What is needed now is leadership and resolve, which cannot coexist with the vogue for pleasing everyone. At the same time, Tatar must also abandon the idea of separate sovereignty, as we will have made it crystal clear that our acceptance of political equality is without asterisks or footnotes. Tatar must also accept the clear position of the UN secretary-general, reflected in the Guterres Framework, that the 1960s security system cannot continue.
If the above conditions are not met, the envoy will declare an impasse, with the scenario of the secretary-general surrendering his mandate to the Security Council. And then, instead of a new beginning for a solution, we will witness the beginning of the end of the Cyprus problem.
In the wake of such a development, the UN and the EU, instead of efforts to solve the issue, will restrict their efforts to ending the alleged economic isolation of Turkish Cypriots. Let us not forget that the EU never withdrew the directive on direct trade with the pseudo-state, but only suspended it.
Perhaps this impasse suits Ankara, part of the Turkish Cypriot community and some supporters of a supposedly velvet divorce on our side. The so-called acknowledgement of the regime in the occupied area (I don’t believe they will ever achieve recognition) will be the beginning of a national catastrophe. Because, quite simply, Turkey will not be satisfied with what it holds in the north, but, through the demographic alteration of occupied and free areas, Greek Cypriots will be at most a small minority in our own homeland.
Beginning of the end means a border with Turkey along the entire dividing line, from Pyrgos in Tylliria, to the end of Ledra Street and all the way to Dherynia. Cypriot Hellenism will be in real danger with indeterminate consequences in the future because we will have a fragile border, which will be a constant source of conflict. Gradually, the Greek Cypriots will become a minority in our land and the Turkish Cypriots will become extinct.
President Nikos Christodoulides, I comprehend your position. On the one hand, you have an opportunity – probably small, I recognise it – for one last effort to be the president of a solution. On the other hand, you face the extremely big danger of having the sad privilege of being the president of the cursed partition. The status quo, as we have experienced it for decades now, leads to a desperate end. If you exhibit leadership and political courage, with real intent for the salvation of the country, you will find us by your side.
Averof Neophytou, MP, is the former leader of Disy
