Cyprus is at a crossroads once again. Peace negotiations that have been carried out between the representatives of two communities since 1968 have reached a turning point. So what is happening in negotiations? What will this process lead to at the end? A federal settlement? A perpetuation of the division of the island?
The final round of negotiations began on May 15, 2015, after Mustafa Akıncı was elected the president of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Akıncı and the Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades, as well as their negotiators Özdil Nami and Andreas Mavroyannis engaged in extensive negotiations since then. There are six main topics discussed at the negotiation table: "Governance and Power Sharing", "Property", "European Union", "Economy", "Territory" and "Security and Guarantees".
Significant progress was made on the first four issues from May 15, 2015 to November 2016. Akıncı and Anastasiades and their teams met at the Mont Pèlerin summit at Switzerland on 7 November to discuss the remaining issues. Akıncı came up with a proposal on the territory issue and declared that the Turkish Cypriot community that now controls about the 37 percent of the territory of the island is ready to cut down this figure to 29.2 percent (of the territory). Akıncı’s proposal created a lot of optimism and excitement on the part of pro-settlement observers. In response to Akıncı’s proposal, Anastasiades asked for a one week break to return to the island and discuss this proposal with the representatives of the political parties in South Cyprus.
Negotiations in Mont Pèlerin resumed on November 19th. However, the hopeful atmosphere that prevailed in the first round was beginning to change. Following his meeting with Anastasiades, the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras asserted: “this matter can be settled at a multilateral framework only on the basis of an agreement to abolish the anachronistic system of guarantees and the full withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island”. The fact that Tsipras declared the eradication of the guarantees as a prerequisite for Greece taking part in the multilateral conference led to Akıncı’s statement criticizing the declaration of Tsipras. Akıncı said that he found it unacceptable to put forward such a prerequisite to attend the conference. Later on, this part was removed from Tsipras's statements as a result of the initiatives of the Turkish Cypriot side and the United Nations. Nevertheless, this issue continued being a problem and dominated the first few days of the Mont Pelerin summit as Greece did not confirm its attendance to the multilaral conference. The crisis was eventually overcome by the initiatives of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General on Cyprus, Mr. Espen Barth Eide and Greece sent a reluctant “yes” response.
Once this crisis was averted, the summit focused on the issue of territory. Territory criteria consists of three main elements; percentages of territory of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot constituent states; the number of Greek Cypriot immigrants who will return to places subject to territorial adjustment and the total area of the coastline of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state. Territory issue created an impasse in the negotiations and became the most important factor leading to the failure of Mont Pelerin negotiations. The parties essentially disagreed on the number of Greek Cypriot displaced people who would return to places subject to territorial control. The Greek Cypriot side suggested that this number be at least 78,000 and at most 92,000, while the Turkish Cypriot side insisted that this number should be at least 55,000 and at most 65,000.
This issue became such a problem because an increase in the number of displaced Greek Cypriot people that will return means more locations in the North will have to be given to the Greek Cypriots. If this figure will be around 70,000 as it is demanded by the Greek Cypriots this would strengthen the possibility that the Güzelyurt region in the west of Cyprus will be returned to the Greek Cypriots. This was already the case under the UN Unification Plan (Annan Plan) that was put to a referendum in 2004 and despite this a significant majority of the Güzelyurt people had said yes to the Annan Plan. After 2004, the Turkish side changed its position on Güzelyurt, at least discursively. Erdoğan had demanded that "Güzelyurt should not be given to the Greeks" in his 2008 visit to the island, as well as in his February 2016 statement.
According to some observers, this is simply a tactical maneuvre because territory is the only thing that can be offered by the Turkish Cypriot side in return for political equality and being part of the international law. Therefore, the issue is not a question of returning land back to the Greek Cypriots, but a matter of timing. This brings us to one of the most important problems that led to the collapse of the Mont Pèlerin negotiations; the method of negotiations. Greek Cypriot side wanted to hold an international conference only after reaching a consensus on the five topics apart from guarantees. Hence the point of the international conference would be discussing the issue of guarantees only. However, Turkish Cypriot side opposes this as it demands that all issues including territory and guarantees should be discussed in connection with each other.
The different positions of the parties are not limited to these issues. Until now, Greek Cypriots have yet to accept the two main elements of political equality of the Turkish Cypriots: the rotating presidency and the effective participation of the Turkish Cypriot representatives in decisions. On the other hand, the Greek Cypriot side underlined that the Turkish Cypriots achieved many gains in the name of political equality under the “Governance and Power Sharing” title and that all TRNC citizens would become federal Cypriot citizens, yet there are so far no concrete gains on “Property” and “Territory” achieved that can be presented to the Greek Cypriot public.
What will happen next? Negotiations will continue in Nicosia and Geneva thanks to the intervention by the UN. The representatives of the two communities will meet in Geneva on January 9 and then an international conference will be held on January 12 with the participation of guarantor countries with an aim to resolve the remaining issues at the end of a give and take process.
What kind of a position the two guarantor countries Greece and Turkey will adopt is crucial at this stage. Will they act in an intransigent way? Will they be open to giving concessions for the sake of a settlement? Unfortunately, Syriza's foreign policy seems to resemble the foreign policy of right-wing parties as populism and extreme right is on the rise in a Greece hit by an economic crisis. On the other hand, many observers are questioning the ability of the conservative and nationalist Justice and Democracy Party government in Turkey reaching a compromise.
Cyprus is going through a significant turning point once again. Will the negotiations in January succeed or end in failure? Will they eventually bring a settlement or continue the division of the island? Cypriots are holding their breath...
By Umut Bozkurt
