Guest post by Fiona Mullen: Why the status quo is far more dangerous than a settlement

“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer”

by Fiona Mullen, Director of Sapienta Economics

I have spent most of the past 15 years writing about the positive reasons for solving the Cyprus problem. About how it will be good for the tourism, professional services and construction, about how it could breathe new life into Famagusta, and about how it will increase this small country’s diplomatic weight in the world. You can find links to four co-authored reports published by PRIO on my company website. 

However, recent developments in the region have underlined a negative but very urgent reason why Greek Cypriots should want to solve the Cyprus problem, namely the island’s security. 

For 44 years Greek Cypriots were more or less isolated from what was going on around them. The US had leverage over Turkey, a NATO ally. So did the UK. Both could use their influence to temper Turkey’s responses. I do not know for sure, but I would be extremely surprised if the US did not do a lot of background work to ensure that Turkey’s response to the first offshore drilling that took place in 2011 was confined to a seismic ship. Back then, it helped that there was also still an “EU prospect” for Turkey, even if EU membership was always a long way away.

All of that has now changed. While still nominally in NATO, Turkey’s leadership talks as though the US is public enemy number one. No one even pretends any more that Turkey will join the EU. While the UK’s relations with Turkey are a little better, the country is deeply distracted by Brexit, which limits what it can do, especially in the absence of the US. 

Add to this the character of the US president, Donald Trump, and it is clear that US engagement in Cyprus, let alone its support, can no longer be taken for granted. 

This makes Cyprus, a “soft target”, extremely vulnerable. I do not need to remind Greek Cypriots what happened in 1974 the last time the UK was in mid-crisis and the US did not appear to have a strong view on what Turkey did in Cyprus. 

The situation leaves Greek Cypriots with two choices. 

• Pretend nothing has changed and believe that poor relations between the US and Turkey will leave them untouched.

• Get back to the negotiating table and work together with Turkish Cypriots and Turkey on a settlement in which a united Cyprus and Turkey are economically interdependent.

Natural gas could be a key incentive. One idea put to me was that Turkey pays to build a gas pipeline from Aphrodite to the Turkish coast, and a federal Cyprus pays back the investment in gas supply. This gives Turkey a good incentive to keep up good relations with the island. 

A bilateral investment treaty allowing Turkish companies to use Cyprus as a launchpad to invest in the EU would also bolster incentives across the island, as most of this business is conducted out of Limassol. 

A Famagusta centre for maritime cooperation, with Israel, Russia, Turkey, Greece and others, all working together, would add a regional incentive to keep us all safe. 

Tax breaks for joint ventures between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots could allay concerns of distributors and franchisees. 

Greek Cypriots often tell me that it cannot be done. They can never trust Turkey. But remember that France and Germany spilt each others’ blood for hundreds of years before they started making peace through trade. Hitler’s Nazi Germany exterminated 6 million Jews. But today Germany is Israel’s third largest trading partner. 

You do not have to like a country to do trade with it. All you need is a market. Trade alone will create enough interdependence between the two countries to make it too costly for anyone to think of starting trouble. 

Other Europeans have done it. Now it is Cyprus’ turn.

Rusya'nın Lefkoşa Büyükelçisi Osadchy: Federal Kıbrıs'ta NATO garantörlüğünü kabul etmeyiz (15 Eylül 2015)

Esra AYGIN

Rusya’nın Kıbrıs’ta yürütülmekte olan müzakerelerle ilgili  düşüncesi nedir? İki lider arasında olduğu söylenen “kimya” ve çözüm kararlılığına siz şahit oldunuz mu?

Osadchy: Ülkemiz Rusya Federasyonu, iki toplum arasındaki görüşmelerin yeniden başlamasını memnuniyetle karşılamıştır. Her iki toplumun liderleri ile sürekli temas halindeyiz. Temmuz başında Sayın Mustafa Akıncı ve Kıbrıs Türk müzakere heyetinin başındaki kişi olan Özdil Nami ile görüştüm. Umuyoruz ki, adadaki iki toplum, liderleri Nikos Anastasiadis ve Mustafa Akıncı önderliğinde yaşayabilir bir anlaşmaya ulaşmak için ellerinden gelen her şeyi yaparlar. Görebildiğim kadarıyla müzakere masasında önemli ilerlemeler var. Her iki lider de mümkün olan en kısa zamanda kapsamlı bir çözüme varmak için irade gösteriyor. İki lider arasında kişisel düzeyde çok olumlu bir hava oluşmuş durumda; ki bu, sizin de doğru şekilde belirttiğiniz gibi, sıklıkla "kimya” olarak adlandırılıyor. Şahit olduğumuz bu olumlu ilişki veya kimya, sürece çok büyük ölçüde katkı sağlıyor. Ancak tabii ki, daha fazla ilerleme sağlayabilmek için her iki tarafın da bazı tavizler vererek belli uzlaşmalara varmak zorunda olduğu açıktır.

Spesifik olarak hangi konulardan bahsediyorsunuz ve bu sürecin gerçekten geçmiş süreçlerden daha umut verici olduğuna inanıyor musunuz?

Osadchy: Müzakere süreci ile ilgili, başta BM Genel Sekreteri’nin Kıbrıs Özel Danışmanı Espen Barth Eide’den olmak üzere, çok iyimser öngörüler alıyoruz. Ancak, tarafların, mülkiyet ve toprak düzenlemeleri gibi önemli konulardaki pozisyonlarını uyumlaştırabilmeleri için daha fazla çalışmaları gerekiyor. ‘Garantiler’ konusu ve ‘Yönetim ve Güç Paylaşımı’nın bazı yönleri henüz ele alınmış değil. Özellikle de dönüşümlü başkanlık konusu hala açık – bu konuda bir anlaşma yok. Kıbrıs’ın, dış güçlerin vesayeti altında olmayan çağdaş, bağımsız bir devlet olmasına imkan verecek çözümü Kıbrıslıların kendilerinin bulmaları çok önemli.

Bir süre önce yaptığınız bir açıklamada, federal Kıbrıs’ta herhangi bir garanti sisteminin olmaması gerektiğini söylemiştiniz. Bu, herhangi bir garanti sistemine sahip olması durumunda Rusya’nın, BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nde Kıbrıs’ta federal çözümü desteklemeyeceği anlamına mı geliyor?

Osadchy: Hayır, kesinlikle bu anlama gelmiyor. Rusya, her iki toplum tarafından ayrı ayrı referandumlarda onay alan herhangi bir çözümü kabul edecek ve destekleyecek. Garantiler sisteminin devam mı edeceği yoksa sona mı ereceği sorusu Kıbrıs sorununun dış boyutudur ve dolayısıyla, bu konuya doğrudan müdahil ülkelerin katılımı ile çözülecektir. Her halükarda, Kıbrıs’taki toplumlar tarafından varılmış herhangi bir nihai anlaşmaya saygı gösterilmesi gerektiğini düşünüyoruz.

Peki, örneğin NATO’nun garantörlüğünü kabul eder misiniz? Osadchy: Osadchy: Rusya’ya karşı olan saldırgan ve düşmanca tutumundan dolayı NATO’nun garantörlüğünü kabul etmemiz mümkün değil.

Dışişleri Bakanı Emine Çolak bir süre önce Rusya’ya Kıbrıs’taki barış sürecinde daha aktif bir rol oynama çağrısında bulunmuştu. Sizce bu süreçte ülkenizin rolü nedir?

Osadchy: Rusya’nın Kıbrıs’ta çözüm ile ilgili istikrarlı bir tutumu vardır. BM Güvenlik Konseyi’nin daimi üyelerinden biri olarak, iki toplumun Kıbrıs sorununu  BM Güvenlik Konseyi kararları ve 1977-1979 Doruk Anlaşmaları temelinde, adil ve kalıcı bir şekilde çözebilmesi için olumlu ve müsait dış koşullar yaratmayı ana görevlerimizden biri olarak görüyoruz. Bu konuda, BM Güvenlik Konseyi’ndeki diğer daimi üyeler başta olmak üzere, tüm partnerlerimizle yakın bir işbirliği yapabilmeyi umuyoruz.

Rolümüz, tarafların, ortak geleceklerine yönelik kabul edilebilir bir çözüm bulmalarına yardımcı olmak. Sürece müdahale edilmemesini ve çözümün ilgili BM kararları ile uyumlu olmasını sağlamaya çalışıyoruz. Müzakerelerdeki her iki topluma eşit mesafede duruyoruz. Tüm diğer taraflara da, toplumlardan birine veya diğerine, herhangi bir koşul empoze etmemeleri çağrısında bulunuyoruz.

Çözümün Kıbrıslılar tarafından bulunması gerektiği ve hiçbir dış etkenin sürece karışmaması konusunda çok hassassınız. Şu anki müzakere sürecinin gerçek anlamda “Kıbrıslı” bir süreç olduğunu düşünüyor musunuz?

Osadchy: Şimdilik bundan şüphe duymamız için hiçbir neden yok. Mayıs ayında yeniden başlamış olan müzakere süreci, hem güneydeki hem de kuzeydeki çoğu Kıbrıslı tarafından destekleniyor. Her halükarda, tarafların, müzakereler sonucunda varacağı anlaşma, Kıbrıslılar – Kıbrıslı Rumlar ve Kıbrıslı Türkler - tarafından değerlendirilecek.

http://www.havadiskibris.com/Haberler/roportaj/nato-varsa-rusya-yok/66330

Ambassador Osadchy: Russia will not accept NATO's guarantee in a Federal Cyprus (15 September 2015)

Interview with Russia's Ambassador to Nicosia, Stanislav Osadchy 

by Esra Aygin 

How does Russia view the current negotiations process aimed at reunifying Cyprus? Are you witnessing the “chemistry” said to exist between the two leaders and their determination?

Osadchy: Our country, the Russian Federation, has welcomed the resumption of inter-communal talks. We are in constant contact with representatives of both communities. In early July, I met with Mr. Mustafa Akinci and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot negotiating team Ozdil Nami. We hope that the two communities of the island under the leadership of their leaders Nicos Anastasiades and Mustafa Akinci will try to do everything possible to achieve a sustainable agreement. As far as we can see, there is a significant progress at the negotiation table while both leaders demonstrate the will to achieve a comprehensive settlement as soon as possible.  A positive atmosphere which has developed on a personal level between leaders which sometimes called, as you correctly noted, - "chemistry”, - contributes to that process in a large degree. Still it is obvious that both sides need willingness to compromise in order to achieve further development.

Which issues are you specifically talking about? And do you think the current process in fact gives more hope than the previous processes?

Osadchy: We hear very optimistic projections about the negotiation process, in particular from the UN Secretary General's Special Adviser on Cyprus 

E.-B.Eide. However, the parties will have to do more work to harmonize positions on important issues such as property and territorial adjustment. The issue of “Guarantees” and some aspects of the “Governance and Power Sharing” are also to be examined yet. In particular, the idea of rotational presidency is still an open question. In this aspect as far as we can understand the position of parties diverges. It is very important that the Cypriots themselves could find a solution that would allow Cyprus to become a modern independent state not being under foreign tutelage.

You have recently stated that a future federal Cyprus should be without specific guarantees? Does this mean that Russia would not support the solution in Cyprus at the UN Security Council if the solution includes some kind of a guarantee system?

Osadchy: This is absolutely not true. Russia will agree to any solution that will be approved by the two communities of the island on separate referendums. This particular question of continuation or cancellation of the guarantee system is related to the external aspects of the Cyprus problem and therefore shall be solved with the participation of countries directly involved in this issue. Anyway, in our view, any eventual agreements which will be worked out by the Cypriot communities during negotiations should be respected.

Would Russia accept NATO’s guarantees in Cyprus?

Osadchy: It is impossible to accept NATO’s guarantee due to the aggressive and hostile nature of its approach towards our country. 

The new Turkish Cypriot 'foreign minister' Emine Colak has recently called on Russia to play an active role in the Cyprus peace process. What do you think Russia's role is in this process?

Osadchy: Russia's position on the Cyprus settlement is consistent. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council we see one of our main tasks to ensure favorable external conditions for communities to achieve a just and lasting solution to the problem of the island on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions on Cyprus and inter-Cypriot High-Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979. We hope to closely cooperate on this issue with our partners, especially in the "five" of the UN Security Council.

Our role is to help the parties to find an acceptable solution for their common future; we try to ensure that the principle of non-intervention into the process and the conformity of the settlement to the relevant resolutions of the United Nations are respected. We hold a neutral position with respect to both communities in the negotiations and call on other parties to refrain from attempts to impose to one or another side any conditions from outside.

You always underline that the solution should be found at the negotiation table by the Cypriots themselves. Do you think that the current process is a Cypriot-led process?

Osadchy: For now we have no reason to doubt it. The current round of negotiations, which began in May, is supported by most Cypriots in the south and in the north of the island. In any case, these are the Cypriots themselves – Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots – who will give their assessment of the proposals that will be developed by the parties during the negotiations on a referendum.

http://www.havadiskibris.com/Haberler/roportaj/nato-varsa-rusya-yok/66330

Article - Turkey's interest lies in a Cyprus solution (Published in Greek in 24h newspaper, March 2014)

Turkey’s interest lies in a Cyprus solution

Most Greek Cypriots don’t believe that Turkey genuinely wants a solution in Cyprus. It is commonly viewed as ill-intentioned, insincere, dishonest in this respect. And believe me, most Turkish Cypriots have trust issues with Turkey too. However, all these perceptions are wrong. Not because Turkey is well-intentioned, sincere or honest; but because intentions, sincerity or honesty are irrelevant. These are not the criteria that any country acts on. Countries act on interests.

Turkey pursued a policy of division in Cyprus for decades arguing that non-solution is the solution itself, because it believed that the status-quo was in its interest. The Justice and Development Party government, when it came to power in 2003, totally altered Turkey’s Cyprus policy because it realized that a solution in Cyprus would be in its interest: it would bring the county closer to the EU and improve its relations with the Western world. And today, Turkey, which aspires to become a big regional power in Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East, is well aware that a solution in Cyprus would greatly increase its strategic importance, now more so, due to the discovery of hydrocarbons in the region.

Europe needs the Eastern Mediterranean gas to diversify its resources and maintain energy security. And the easiest, cheapest and most profitable way of exporting this gas to Europe is to transfer it with a pipeline through Turkey. This would not only benefit Turkey economically through cheaper supply of natural gas, but also turn Turkey into a critical transit point for natural gas to Europe. This would present Turkey with the opportunity to play a major role in the European energy policy and become a country of increased strategic importance in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Not to mention that Turkey will have solved one of the biggest problems that continuously hampers its relations with the international community, clear the way for a NATO-EU cooperation, shake off a huge economic burden that it has on its shoulders both because it constantly has to inject money into a unsustainable economy and because it pays millions of Euros in compensation every year as a result of cases before the European Court of Human Rights.

Turkey needs to get rid of the Cyprus problem if it is to meet its aspirations. Not because it loves Cypriots or is sincere, or because it wants to correct a mistake; but because a solution in Cyprus is in its interest.