Cost
of no solution too high
After
the joint declaration of 11 February, the negotiations process began with high
hopes, high international support, statements of determination and commitment
from both sides. Now, it seems that we have come to a stalemate. The sides are
blaming each other and the process is not going as smoothly as we had hoped. How
do you see it from where you stand?
Kidd:
I think you are right. The process is not going as
smoothly as people hoped it would. But I think it’s too soon to talk of a
stalemate. I think what the two negotiators and the leaders are trying to do is
difficult and it’s demanding. They are trying to address the familiar problems
in some new ways. Looking back to February when the joint declaration was
agreed, we could know already at that point that the next step would be quite
challenging and potentially frustrating. Yes, they are finding it difficult,
yes they are not moving as smoothly as we could all hope, but I don’t think it
makes sense to talk in terms of hitting the buffers or stalemate.
When
you say new way of working, do you mean the fact that they will take up issues
interdependently as opposed to one after the other?
Kidd: Yes that’s part of it. That is one key process difference that is
the challenge they set themselves to get all the subjects on the table and
start looking at the ways that they can relate to each other. That is bound to
be difficult in itself. Another different angle is the way that they have
agreed to use the two levels of leaders and negotiators in a different way from
before. To try to use that, to create a sort of dynamic within the
negotiations. And that’s I think potentially a good thing, but working out how
to use it is not surprisingly so- it’s challenging to start with. On top of
which, you have one team which is new and one team which has been working on it
for some time – the Turkish Cypriot team is well established they have all been
working with each other and they know the issues and they know the negotiating
history of the last few years. The Greek Cypriot team is new, is also quite
complex the way that it is structured internally as well. So that too I think
takes some time to find its way through.
One
of the main disagreements between the two sides is whether to accept the convergences
reached between 2008-2012? What is your stance regarding the issue?
Kidd: To be honest, I think there is a risk of creating a problem, which
doesn’t need to be there. Any negotiation is going to need to be able to use
all the materials that is on the table. And so any negotiating process is going
to try to build on what is agreed or nearly agreed to try to tackle things that
aren’t yet at that stage. So I think that if you say to yourself ‘this bit is
cooked off the table, done, cant be touched,’ you are potentially creating a restriction
for yourself in terms of how you can construct the overall negotiation. And
that is the reason underlying the principle that nothing is agreed unless
everything is agreed - which features in that joint declaration.
But
isn’t that starting from scratch?
Kidd: No it is not. It’s using the thinking work that has been done
before to resolve some of the well-known problems. It is more taking the body
of work that has been done before, making sure that its still entirely
applicable now, making sure that both sides now are entirely comfortable with
it and then they can use it together as a sort of springboard for tackling
other areas as well. If you make it too black and white, too restrictive, then
I think you risk depriving yourself of opportunities in terms the negotiating
process.
What
do you think about a more active EU involvement in the negotiations? This is
another disagreement between the sides.
Kidd: We start from the shared assumption that a post-settlement Cyprus
will be an EU member, so inevitably, EU aspects will come into play in parts of
what settlement will look like. And some of the things that will need to be
resolved will relate directly to the responsibilities the EU member states
have. So one way or another, the negotiating process and the results that we
will reach will need to be designed in ways which will be EU compatible. There
are different ways of doing that. But I think it does make sense as the
negotiating process goes forward to find one way or another of ensuring that EU
test is conducted as you go along. I think its very helpful if they find a way
whatever way is comfortable for them to ensure that they have got the EU
knowledge that they need as well to help them to discuss the areas where
familiarity with the EU will be important.
Would
that be including the EU in the talks?
Kidd: That is one possible way of doing it, but certainly not the only
way of doing it. And if it’s a way of doing it but is not comfortable for one
side or the other, then that is not the way to do it. The key thing is to make
sure that the expertise is there one way or another so that the results don’t
come out in ways, which are going to create problems down the road for the new
Cyprus.
Is
the UK playing an active role right now in the efforts to reach a solution or
is it more behind the curtains?
Kidd: You can be active behind the
curtains. We are active and it is mostly behind the curtains. The kind of role
that supporters like us is partly in terms of reassurance…
For
the negotiators, or the sides or the people?
Kidd: Any or all of those. In terms of the role we can play specifically
with the negotiators, both teams know that we talk to them and that we also
talk to the others and so there can be a helpful role that we can play in terms
of helping refine understanding, helping build confidence, helping in some
cases explaining potential misunderstandings. Sometimes there are cases where
one team gets an idea about what the other side is thinking or wants to achieve
which is actually not correct and people like us then can help sort of reassure
and calm an soothe and explain and get over an obstacle. The other thing, which
I think we can do which is sort of permanently useful is in terms of public
opinion. It’s easy for people, who hear what comes out in the media about the
process and feel the frustration and feel the months going by and results not
being seen it is easy to lose confidence that it’s a worthwile process, that’s
going anywhere. And so people like us, who are reasonably closely in touch with
what’s going on can have a role in saying “hold on something is happening
efforts are being made we need to keep patient we need to keep at it we need
not frustrated” and that I think can be a helpful role. I’m quite struck in the
contacts that I have in my daily life by the frequency with which people do
come up and ask questions about ‘what’s going on’ ‘do you think something’s
going on?’ As though they do think that people like us can offer a worthwhile
view on the realities behind what they are told by the parties themselves.
And
let me ask you do you think something’s going on?
Kidd: Yes something is happening and it is frustrating and it is
difficult.
So I
should ask, is anything positive happening?
Kidd: I think the answer is that the two
sides they are finding ways - not easily as we would hope - to work out with
each other how they can do the business solve the problems see the linkages
make the negotiation work and come to a result.
Do
you see commitment on both sides?
Kidd: I do see commitment, yes. Not surprisingly, each side is more
concerned to get results in particular parts of the negotiation that matter
most to them so there is not symmetrical commitment but I think there is
commitment on the sides, yes.
Do
you have hope that this process may lead to a settlement or referenda at least?
Kidd: Yes I’m always hopeful. I am not hopeful that it will do so in the
next six weeks while I’m still here, but I am hopeful yes.
Do
you have a prediction about the timeframe – a wild guess?
Kidd: I don’t think there is sort of an inherent way of calculating how
long it will take. Some of the things that still need to be addressed are quite
technically complex, like property for example. So there will be a length of
time that will be needed to get into the details of how to make that work. Some
of the other areas I think are much closer to being pretty well defined and
then there are one or two areas that they have not really started to get into
the detail at all. But negotiations can move at different speeds depending on
apart from anything else what results you are looking for. If what you are
looking for, for instance is from the beginning a completely developed results
with all the details in place completely drafted constitution and so on. If
what you are looking for is a sort of headline document, which agrees how you
are going to resolve but for instance leaves the details of the constitution to
be worked out later that can happen much more quickly.
There
is talk about a framework agreement now. Do you think it’s a good idea?
Kidd: People are talking about it sure. I think that there is one
particular reason which would make it beneficial and that is looking back to
the experience of 2004. A document like that sort of framework document, would
be much easier for voters to come to grips with to understand and the
implications of, to look at the main points of than the sort of fully worked up
text that they had to grapple with last time. So I think that’s one reason why
it makes sense. The time issue is another reason why it makes sense. It’s not
for us to say what the right outcome for this phase ought to be, but I think
there are objective reasons of why a framework document could be an attractive
approach. I hope that one of the things they are discussing is what they want
the end result to look like but I don’t know how far they are able to do that
or how far they’ve shared ideas on it.
What
do you expect will happen if we fail to reach a settlement this time again? Is
there always another time?
Kidd: Its never a very attractive hypothetical question to try to answer.
It seems to me honestly that the costs of not having a solution are so
considerable for all involved that it doesn’t make sense to indulge oneself
with the thought of ‘if we can’t do it what could we do instead?’ It will be a
loss, it will be a failure if we can’t seize the opportunity.
Do
you think sides realise the cost of not having a solution?
Kidd: I think some people more strongly than others. What I think there
is and perhaps that’s something also which is a bit different from a few years
ago, or previously, I think there is more recognition than there used to be
that a solution gets harder to reach the more time goes by. So its not going to
get easier, its not going to get better the chances are not going to get more
promising and I think that sort of mentality the view of it which is quite an
important difference from before.
What do you think about Varosha as a confidence
building measure?
Kidd: The starting point
is that confidence building is an important thing to accompany the process. It
will both help the process to work and it will help public opinion on both
sides to feel increasing confidence in the possibility of results. There are
lots of different ways in which you can build confidence… We have always known
that from the Greek Cypriot point of view, return of Varosha is the biggest
possible confidence building measure there could be and that’s not surprising.
I think it’s also right and sensible of them to recognise that, in practice, it
would only happen step by step. I mean you can’t 40 years later suddenly say to
people ‘ok you can go back now.’ It wouldn’t be like that. Which is why it has
made sense to think in terms of starting with some sort of survey looking at
infrastructure needs, looking at planning needs looking at all those things
step by step. So I think it make sense to look at the confidence building
potential of Varosha, but in the context of all the other things which are
happening as well which can all help in the same way to build peoples
confidence.
Do you think you, the US, or other international
players should be more active, more encouraging in the process? It seems not
much is happening when it is all left to Cypriots.
Kidd: I wouldn’t put it
quite like that but I do think there is a difference in public attitudes
towards the kind of engagement that we or the Americans or others could bring
from 2004 and immediately afterwards. That experience led a lot of people to
feel very resistant to outside involvement. And I think what I have seen in the
last years is that attitude gradually shifting to a more comfortable
recognition that the sort of contribution that people like us can make can be
helpful can be positive. And I think that the Biden visit and the reactions to
that was one example. As far as I could see people were broadly comfortable
with the idea that he was coming to try to help he wasn’t imposing he was
supporting. And I think that we feel that the contribution that we try to make
is seen in the same sort of way its recognised as being intended positively
supportively not as trying to make some accept something that is not
necessarily acceptable. We need to be careful not to overstep it not to go so
far that that attitude changes again. I think we need to be sensitive to the
kind of reactions that there may be to engagement that we are trying to have
and make sure that the support we want to give is helpful not
counterproductive.
Do
you think that the Turkish government, with all the internal and external
problems it is facing can much to help process in Cyprus?
Kidd: I am not an expert on Turkey but from the people that I have asked
that very same question too, my impression is that its not the Turkish
governments current top priority. And it’s not surprising that it isn’t. They
have some real challenges to address as you said. But Turkey has made it clear
that they want to see a settlement here and they see an advantage to themselves
in a settlement being reached here. I think it’s a question the thinking is
that the lack of a settlement in Cyprus is an obstacle to the political and
economic ambitions that Turkey has. And maybe in the past, that cost seemed to
be worth paying because of how they saw their interest here. But my impression
is that now they would say that there is much more scope for them to see a
settlement here which is compatible with their interests, but can at the same
time not get in the way of their ambitions in terms of moving towards Europe,
in terms of economic growth, in terms of regional position in the Middle Eeast
and so on. So I think that that is the way that their calculation works now and
if that’s so, I don’t think there’s any reason to worry that the other problems
that they are currently having to grapple with get in the way of that. I think
the line on Cyprus will remain the same even while they worry about and try to
deal with Syria and Iraq and internal challenges and so on. It seems to be
compatible with the sort of way that they’ve been behaving.
Replying
to a question of a student at the University of Nicosia last year whether the
hydrocarbon reserves in the EEZ of Cyprus could lead to a war with Turkey, you
replied this was possible. Was this a warning?
Kidd: It’s another of those hypotheses that one doesn’t want to entertain
really isn’t it? The certainty is that
it will take a number of years yet before anybody gets and revenue from the gas
reserves in the Mediterranean. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done
before anybody gets any benefit. So we all hope that in parallel with the
developments, there’s a number of years available for achieving a settlement. I
hope that the fact of this gas to come can work as a positive incentive to
reach a settlement. There’s enough time to pursue both in parallel. The point
that I was trying to address in that question session you mentioned was the
need for caution and cool headedness during that period when the various steps
are being taken towards exploration and development of the reserves and - we
hope at the same time - work towards a settlement. It doesn’t help when people start
talking about in terms of war in itself. That’s kind of a dangerous sort of language
to use. I hope all sides, all governments concerned are perfectly well aware of
the need for cool headedness and caution -and they are. They are doing all they
can to avoid it blowing up in any kind of way.
Turkey
is sending warships to the region. That is not exactly cool headed is it?
Kidd: Yes absolutely. I guess the answer to that is that in this
situation, both parties feel they have strong national interests to protect and
so what they feel they need to do is to find ways of putting those interests on
the table so that they are not ignored. I hope at the same time they looking
behind the scenes for ways of reconciling their different interests in a
constructive way, which will be good for regional prosperity and stability. I
hope they are calculating carefully and calmly what they need to do without
doing it in a way, which makes it harder to pursue a sensible solution. And
that’s the right way to encourage them to go.
Is
there anything you would like to add or a message you would like to give?
Kidd: Be patient. What is being attempted is difficult. But also, there
are things that every individual can do in terms of the way that they think
about the benefits of a solution, the costs of not having a solution, and
perhaps most important of all, the way they think about each other. A lot of
people, who have had very little contact with each other for 2 generations will
have to learn to trust each other and share space with each other and resolve
arguments with each other. And that will involve lots of personal tolerance as
well as state tolerance. And I think it will be important to start that process
of getting used to that, getting used to the idea of it even, well ahead so
that people are not taken by surprise by the demands that it may come with.
No comments:
Post a Comment