In September 2017, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres included findings such as these in his report: “By the end of the Conference, the sides had reached practically full agreement on the federal executive and effective participation”; “With regard to equivalent treatment, although some differences remained, they were limited in scope principally to the issue of free movement of persons”; and “By the time the Conference closed, the sides had essentially solved the key issue of effective participation”.
What is anyone with a shred of common sense supposed to make of that? That the Turkish demands on both executive power and effective participation had been met. Those are core issues for the Turkish Cypriot side. Add to that something everybody knows: the Greek Cypriot side, or at least its leaders, have also accepted a rotating presidency. Demetris Christofias did. Nicos Anastasiades did. And before them Glafcos Clerides, ensnared by Hannay and de Soto (a whole other saga!). So it is not something the Greek Cypriot side rules out.
So what is the point of Tufan Erhurman now making it a precondition? And a precondition not for the start of substantive negotiations, mind you, but merely for the five-party conference that might lead to negotiations.
He said it again on Sunday, telling Politis that “the Greek Cypriot side has not yet responded to any of the points of my methodology”. “The issue of the rotating presidency,” he said, “is one of its main pillars. So far I have not heard the Greek Cypriot leader say: ‘I accept, in principle, the rotating presidency.’” He wants it, he says, “accepted at this point in time”. Accept it as a matter of principle now, and then they will negotiate the arrangements that would apply under a rotating presidency.
Fine. Let’s say the rotating presidency is a matter of principle, not substance. But isn’t the withdrawal of Turkish troops a matter of principle too? Nikos Christodoulides ought to answer in kind and ask Erhurman to accept troop withdrawal as a matter of principle, then negotiate the substance: the arrangements and timetables for the pull-out. And what about scrapping the guarantees? Implementing the UN resolutions on handing Varosha over to UN administration? The departure of the settlers? The return of the occupied territory? If Christodoulides demanded that Erhurman accept these as matters of principle before talks begin, that would at least make some sense. Because back in 2017, the UN Secretary-General himself found that the two sides had practically reached full agreement on exactly what the Turkish side wants on executive power and effective participation. So what is left? The withdrawal of the troops and the liberation of Cyprus.
When Erhurman and the Turkish Cypriot hardliners declare, time and again, that the Turkish guarantees, the right of unilateral intervention and the presence of the Turkish army are red lines, and that they will not even allow them onto the negotiating table, what are the Greek Cypriots meant to do? Forget all that, and accept the rotating presidency as a matter of principle, up front, no less?
If Christodoulides tells him he accepts the rotating presidency in principle, can Erhurman say that he, too, accepts in principle that Turkish troops will leave and the guarantees will go? Because suppose Christodoulides hands Erhurman what he wants without so much as a negotiation, only for us to be told at the end, just as we were at Crans-Montana, that Turkey’s withdrawal and the creation of a proper state are a midsummer night’s dream. Then what on earth are we going to negotiate?
