×
Sell-out in Cyprus
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
Since Sunday morning, obsessed nationalists in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as well as in Turkey have been up in arms. If there were a bourse for accusation trading, many people would have gone bankrupt because of surplus of production. Some have started talking about a "gross sell-out" in Cyprus, some have launched a smearing campaign against the Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat claiming that he has said he would give away Cyprus to the Greek Cypriots. Obviously, the statement of Talat during a talk with some village people over the weekend that Turkish Cypriots must be prepared for territorial concessions within the framework of a comprehensive settlement to the almost 45-year-old problem of power sharing between the two peoples of the eastern Mediterranean island was not well timed. Indeed, there might be people who would qualify such a statement as product of crassness.
Yet, Talat did not say anything new. Since the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1999 there has been an understanding between the two sides on the island that in a bi-zonal and bi-communal federal new partnership arrangement the Turkish side would have to hand over some portion of its present territory to the Greek Cypriot side while Greek Cypriots would have to agree to sharing power on the basis of political equality with Turkish Cypriots.
Nothing new
Indeed, during the Boutros-Boutros Ghali "Set of Ideas" discussions in the early 1990s, it was the then Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktaş who agreed to take down "in principle" and "pending to an overall settlement agreement" the Turkish Cypriot administered territory in a new federation to 29 plus percent of the island from the current 34 percent. That was the first time any Turkish Cypriot had suggested the limit of territorial concessions that can be made to Greek Cypriots in an agreement. No one had accused Denktaş of a sell-out to Greek Cypriots, though some people complained that he went too far, that he was too generous. There was a territorial adjustment in the failed Kofi Annan Plan for a resolution of the Cyprus problem as well. The Ghali Set of Ideas, like the Annan Plan, was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side while Denktaş had agreed to 97 paragraphs of the 100-paragraph plan and demanded renegotiation of three points, including the map attached to it.
Since then the Turkish Cypriot bottom limit in debates over the territorial aspects of the Cyprus problem has been 29 plus percent, while Greek Cypriots have been demanding far bigger territorial concessions from the Turkish Cypriot side. That is why in Cyprus talks territorial discussions have always been among the toughest subjects together with power sharing arrangements. Now, Talat is saying that since the Turkish Cypriot side agreed to go down to 29 plus percent before this latest round of talks started, it was obvious that in a settlement some bitter territorial concessions would have to be undertaken. Technically, by saying so Talat has done nothing further than re-emphasize what’s already obvious for anyone with some insight of the negotiations process on the island. Accusing the Turkish Cypriot leader of "selling out" in Cyprus would be a gross injustice.
Yet, is it the time to talk of territorial concessions now? Is there any reason for Talat to panic the Turkish Cypriots living in areas that might be handed over to Greek Cypriots? Talat might be attempting to portray an image of a leader who can discuss with his people frankly even the most contentious and irritating aspects of the current negotiations.
Obviously, at a time when a conviction is spreading among not only Turkish Cypriots but also among the Greek Cypriots that the current process is not progressing well, and according to latest opinion polls, on both sides there is around 65 percent opposition to the deal the two leaders have been trying to forge, and with only ten months left to the presidential elections in north, Talat may be trying to convince his people that only a frank leader like him who can talk about bitter things can deliver a settlement. Perhaps, this will be his strategy during the re-election campaign. Then, is he not required to reveal as well how badly his administration performed in the Orams case? Or, is he not required to reveal to Turkish Cypriot people the deadlock in talks with his Greek Cypriot counterpart over power sharing issues, an area so far no tangible progress could be achieved?
Power sharing is the heart of a settlement and all other issues including territory irrespective of how difficult it might be to negotiate them are just secondary issues. If there is deal in power sharing, there is a Cyprus deal. So simple.
Nothing new
Indeed, during the Boutros-Boutros Ghali "Set of Ideas" discussions in the early 1990s, it was the then Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktaş who agreed to take down "in principle" and "pending to an overall settlement agreement" the Turkish Cypriot administered territory in a new federation to 29 plus percent of the island from the current 34 percent. That was the first time any Turkish Cypriot had suggested the limit of territorial concessions that can be made to Greek Cypriots in an agreement. No one had accused Denktaş of a sell-out to Greek Cypriots, though some people complained that he went too far, that he was too generous. There was a territorial adjustment in the failed Kofi Annan Plan for a resolution of the Cyprus problem as well. The Ghali Set of Ideas, like the Annan Plan, was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side while Denktaş had agreed to 97 paragraphs of the 100-paragraph plan and demanded renegotiation of three points, including the map attached to it.
Since then the Turkish Cypriot bottom limit in debates over the territorial aspects of the Cyprus problem has been 29 plus percent, while Greek Cypriots have been demanding far bigger territorial concessions from the Turkish Cypriot side. That is why in Cyprus talks territorial discussions have always been among the toughest subjects together with power sharing arrangements. Now, Talat is saying that since the Turkish Cypriot side agreed to go down to 29 plus percent before this latest round of talks started, it was obvious that in a settlement some bitter territorial concessions would have to be undertaken. Technically, by saying so Talat has done nothing further than re-emphasize what’s already obvious for anyone with some insight of the negotiations process on the island. Accusing the Turkish Cypriot leader of "selling out" in Cyprus would be a gross injustice.
Yet, is it the time to talk of territorial concessions now? Is there any reason for Talat to panic the Turkish Cypriots living in areas that might be handed over to Greek Cypriots? Talat might be attempting to portray an image of a leader who can discuss with his people frankly even the most contentious and irritating aspects of the current negotiations.
Obviously, at a time when a conviction is spreading among not only Turkish Cypriots but also among the Greek Cypriots that the current process is not progressing well, and according to latest opinion polls, on both sides there is around 65 percent opposition to the deal the two leaders have been trying to forge, and with only ten months left to the presidential elections in north, Talat may be trying to convince his people that only a frank leader like him who can talk about bitter things can deliver a settlement. Perhaps, this will be his strategy during the re-election campaign. Then, is he not required to reveal as well how badly his administration performed in the Orams case? Or, is he not required to reveal to Turkish Cypriot people the deadlock in talks with his Greek Cypriot counterpart over power sharing issues, an area so far no tangible progress could be achieved?
Power sharing is the heart of a settlement and all other issues including territory irrespective of how difficult it might be to negotiate them are just secondary issues. If there is deal in power sharing, there is a Cyprus deal. So simple.
Paylaş
LinkedinFlipboardLinki KopyalaYazı Tipi
