Cyprus part II -- a Greek Cypriot view

This week I hosted George Iacovou, advisor to the Greek Cypriot leader. The title of Iacovou’s presentation, “By the Cypriots for the Cypriots: the only way forward for a solution,” reflected the desire of reaching a solution with as little external involvement as possible. External involvement has certainly never helped Cyprus over the years. Rather it is external powers that were at the root of the island’s problems in the first place.

Iacovou’s version of events leading up to the collapse of the current round of talks differed from Ertuğ’s, who placed the blame squarely at the door of the Greek Cypriots. Iacovou believed the talks started off positively; that those involved, from both communities, shared the same goals and were ready to make the necessary tough compromises to agree on a deal that would reunite Cyprus after more than four decades. This optimism was shared by the international community, which believed the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders, Mehmet Ali Talat and Dimitris Christofias, were singing from the same hymn sheet.

However, while a number of convergences were found, on tough issues there was little progress. Unfortunately when a breakthrough was found on the executive/governance portion of the proposed agreement, it was never signed off, principally because Christofias seemed worried over how it would affect his popularity. Rather it remained a verbal agreement. Therefore, when leadership elections took place in the North shortly afterwards, Talat had little to show for his efforts, which was compounded by a failure on the part of the EU to deliver the regulation for direct trade they had promised Turkish Cypriots in the aftermath of the 2004 failed Annan Plan, when Turkish Cypriots had voted yes while Greek Cypriots voted no. This brought Derviş Eroğlu to power.

The change of crew had a very negative impact on the talks because there was a substantially different approach, ideas, mentality and relations with Ankara. On certain issues it proved impossible to have brainstorming sessions because everything needed to be channeled through Ankara. In contrast to Turkey, Greece (which is also a guarantor state) has had little involvement in the process, particularly in recent times since Athens has been bogged down with its financial woes.

At the very first meeting with Eroğlu, the UN secretary-general sent a message which was read out by his special advisor, Alexander Downer, calling on both countries “to continue on the basis of the UN parameters, Security Council resolutions and the joint statements made on 23 May and 1 July 2008.” Christofias welcomed the statement and agreed with its content while Eroğlu kept silent.

Moreover, Eroğlu refused to reaffirm some prior convergences achieved with Talat, including on governance. He then demanded separate sovereignty for and separate treaty-making power of the federated units. However, the general feeling from the UN was that Eroğlu would “pipe down” and they should give him a chance. And I think it is fair to say Eroğlu did move away from some of his original tough lines.

While the Turkish Cypriots have been proactive in putting forward proposals, the Greek Cypriots view most of them as unrealistic. On the issue of property, which is particularly thorny, all prior UN proposals had been based on a 40 percent reinstatement of all Greek Cypriots’ property in the north, with the remaining 60 percent being made up by exchange or compensation. Eroğlu came proposing a 15 percent reinstatement (and of this, 13 percent was to be land, with the remaining 2 percent being homes or hotels).

On the Turkish settlers issue there is a great deal of dissatisfaction that the Turkish Cypriot leadership had failed to produce precise figures. While a census was carried out in the later part of last year, the Turkish Cypriot leadership apparently refused to allow a respected international body to conduct it. Rather they did it themselves with some assistance from the UN. According to Iacovou, the results have still not been made public.

When asked why the Greek Cypriots opposed the “international conference” which was due to be held in May, Iacovou listed three reasons: not enough progress on key issues; that Eroğlu had tried to push other issues onto the agenda such as governance and territory, which had nothing to do with security -- which was the main purpose of the conference; and that “we have a bad experience in international conferences. … You need to have a big chance for success before going.”

He also criticized Turkey for its behavior over the last nine months, including calls of annexation of the north and threatening rhetoric linked to gas exploration in Cyprus’ exclusive economic zone. He said the Greek Cypriots were expecting “more of the same” throughout the Greek presidency of the EU, which began yesterday.

So we may conclude the blame game is alive and kicking in Cyprus, with absolutely no convergence over what to do next. Meaning probably more of the same.