The informal Five-Party Conference, which concluded yesterday in Geneva, managed to maintain momentum on the Cyprus issue.
Steps were taken, the first since 2017, as noted by the UN Secretary-General. These steps relate to Confidence Building Measures, with the hope that their implementation will lead to the resumption of talks.
This resumption of negotiations remains a difficult undertaking as the Turkish side has not changed its position regarding its demand for upfront recognition of the breakaway entity.
The Secretary-General convened the informal meeting by setting out a roadmap with specific steps. The CBMs are not those that the occupying side wanted to promote, which would have referred to “cooperation between two states”.
There is, of course, always the risk that we will be left with just the measures and the effort will not progress further. Moreover, it is obvious that the appointment of an envoy is linked to the implementation of the steps that have been set.
What was agreed obviously creates momentum on the Cyprus issue, which has been absent for years. Perhaps for the first time, the Secretary-General was clear regarding UN resolutions and decisions. He mentioned them to everyone, addressing the Turkish side.
The developments leave everyone satisfied. Nicosia wanted this momentum. First, because it creates conditions to break the deadlock.
Second, because momentum serves, to some degree, as a deterrent against the imposition of new facts on the ground by the occupying side. The Republic of Cyprus is the one that is eager for a solution. Not just any solution, of course, as some domestically demand.
The occupying side, without deviating from its longstanding pursuits, agreed to enter into discussions concerning CBMs. It has done so in the past without result.
Ankara benefits from this momentum as, without making commitments, it appears to third parties to be cooperating on the Cyprus issue and Greek-Turkish relations (a meeting between Erdogan and Mitsotakis is expected on April 8 in Ankara).
These developments possibly, based on the occupying side’s plans, provide it with an alibi to continue discussions with the EU.
Mainly regarding its interest in participating in the Union’s new security architecture. This, however, cannot hold true forever. It may apply until the next Conference, which is scheduled for next July, perhaps a bit later. After that, it will need to show its true intentions.
The Cyprus problem is obviously not an issue of lack of trust, but a matter of invasion and continuing occupation. This dimension can obviously be raised when and if negotiations begin, but should also be emphasised now. So we don’t get lost in CBMs alone.
In any case, the European intervention should be included in the equation of what transpired in Geneva. An intervention-message from the Union’s institutions.
The letter from the European Union institutions to the UN Secretary-General confirms the obvious. The intervention comes at a juncture for the Cyprus issue, on the occasion of the Five-Party Conference.
Beyond expressing support for the United Nations, Brussels notes that the Cyprus issue is a European problem (“we express once again our gratitude for the significant work by the United Nations”).
At the same time, it also defines the content of an agreement. It refers to “alignment with the principles, values and legislation of the European Union”.
There is, of course, mention of the Bizonal Bicommunal Federation, as this has consistently been the repeated position over time.
However, it should be explained how a model, as it has become through years of discussions/concessions, with distorting undemocratic provisions, will harmonise with the acquis communautaire.
Squaring the circle belongs to another realm, not politics, and ultimately concerns the viability of the model.
Geneva provides an opening for the continuation, which will be difficult and will require patience.
