Our View: As long as there is UN involvement in Cyprus problem, parties are happy
The informal five plus one conference in New York, as everyone expected, came to nothing. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could not even get the two leaders to agree on the opening of a single crossing point, let alone the four openings that President Nikos Christodoulides was unrealistically demanding. All that was agreed was that the two leaders would meet Guterres again in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, and that there would be another five plus one gathering after October’s ‘presidential’ elections in the north.
Although nothing was agreed, apart from the holding of another gathering at an unspecified date towards the end of the year, Christodoulides saw things moving “towards the right direction.” He saw “small but significant progress, step by step, in the direction of the big objective,” which was the resumption of settlement talks. What type of settlement he did not say although there was not even a hint that the Turkish side had moved away from its pursuit of the two-state solution that was offered by Nicos Anastasiades in Crans Montana.
Most Greek Cypriot parties welcomed the “small but significant progress,” even the anti-settlement Diko welcomed “the securing of the continuation of the process… and the reconfirmation of the agreed basis, as defined by the UN Resolutions.” This statement clearly demonstrates how the party establishment views the Cyprus problem – as long as there is some kind of UN procedure, they are happy, particularly when it has zero prospect of success. Having a procedure going nowhere is an end, for most parties as well as for the president.
This also seems to suit Turkey, particularly now that it is pursuing closer ties with the EU. Participating in a procedure allows it to show the Cyprus problem progress necessary for its relations with the EU to move forward, and it seems to be working. On Friday, the EU ambassador to Ankara said the EU has eased rules for Turks to use its open-border Schengen area and called for the urgent revival of negotiations on visa-free travel for Turks. Turkey also wants to modernise the customs union. These matters were probably the main topic of discussion at the 50-minute meeting between Christodoulides and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan in New York on Wednesday.
It was certainly not the bicommunal, bizonal federation that the Turkish side has ruled out and which the Greek Cypriot side is not keen on either but insists on paying lip service to. This was why the director of the president’s press office told the CyBC on Saturday morning that at the New York meeting “a clear answer was given by the international community to the Turkish demand for change to the basis of a settlement.” Echoing Diko, he said the UNSG, the EU, Greece and Britain “reconfirmed their commitment to the resolutions of the Security Council about a BBF settlement.”
This could only be taken as a joke. Our politicians are still talking about the UN resolutions as if they have not realised, after half a century, that these are practically worthless. They have, however, become part of the Cyprus problem narrative because for 50 years our governments have created and maintained the expectation that the UN will solve the Cyprus problem based on the UN resolutions, as if resolutions can solve a political problem when the political will does not exist. And why are we pinning all our hopes on the UN which has a 50-year record of abysmal failure?
Today marks the 51st anniversary of the Turkish invasion and the dividing line drawn on August 16, 1974 remains unchanged. Worse still, with every year that passes the occupied part of Cyprus becomes more like a province of Turkey. Turkish nationals now outnumber the Turkish Cypriots, Turkish capital is investing there, Greek Cypriot land is being developed by foreign businessmen, and President Erdogan’s Islamic values are being imposed. And our politicians, who have allowed this to happen while pontificating about UN resolutions and international law, are now pleased because there is a meaningless UN procedure and the UNSG reconfirmed his commitment to the worthless UN resolutions.
Perhaps we need a procedure so that the politicians can maintain the pretence that they are trying to avert the partition that is already here, despite the UN resolutions.