By ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Taking the date I wrote this article (16 October) as a reference point, I consider it a pleasure to start this article by saying that there is hope for the Cyprus problem exactly 7 years, 3 months and 9 days or 2,658 days after [the Crans-Montana talks].
Of course, one is free to be pessimistic, optimistic, cautiously optimistic, or indifferent, but I am hopeful.
The trilateral summit that took place in New York the night before, which produced at least two tangible positive results, will perhaps go down in the history books as ‘the summit where the solution process of the Cyprus problem began’, who knows?
Too hopeful? That’s fine.
I also think like my dear friend Mehmet Harmancı, whose statement became my favourite amongst all the others made following the meeting: “For us, every door that is cracked open lets in a light of ‘hope’.”
This is exactly what it is!
What else could have kept me going for the past 2,658 days since that depressing day in July, when not only the last remaining hopes for a solution but also my own personal life was ruined, other than the hope that will be reborn one day?
I know this is a very personal article. Yet, I am not in a position to control my emotions at all, because when Ulaş Barış woke up yesterday morning, jumped out of bed, and rushed to work – a very rare event; it can even be considered as a sign!
Nevertheless, some of our readers may have read this far, and in a sceptical manner, said “but what happened, was there a solution?”.
And they are right. There is no solution yet. We are still far from it.
However, I would like to openly declare that I will fight against those who try to trivialize this dinner and the result that followed by reading it as, ‘it was not that great of a dinner’, or by making some sort of evaluations.
On the other hand, I would also like to say in advance that I will be a thorn in the flesh of all those who present this process as a ‘TRNC Presidential election process’ rather than a solution process.
So, what is this process?
I think the most accurate definition was made by Kudret Özersay: ‘A kind of process.’
In other words, ‘‘bir çeşit süreç.”
According to Kudret Özersay, who participated in my programme yesterday and made rather crucial remarks, even though the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey have phased into a state of ‘softening’ from the two-state solution policy, which they pursued in the last four years, there is no need for populism in this process. Özersay is right when he says that “no one has beaten up, or beaten the pants off anyone.”
Nevertheless, another name who participated in the same programme yesterday, former Chief Negotiator Özdil Nami, is also quite right in saying that the policy pursued by Ersin Tatar (and Turkey) has collapsed. There may be nuances between the two statements, but consequently, they both suggest that there has been a step back from the new policy put forward in Geneva in 2021.
On the other hand, statements made by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres after the meeting will also be of interest to those who support the two-state policy.
For example, Guterres’ statement that the term of Maria Holguin, who I believe played a key role in the initiation of this process, ended “unsuccessfully”, and his confirmation that there was no “common ground” whatsoever can be read by many as, “federation is dead and buried”.
But when we see the comments of the captains of no-solution, especially during the dinner, saying “Holguin is no more”, we can understand that there is a Holguin sacrificed to the gods.
Obviously, by sacrificing Holguin, the Secretary-General has offered a trump card to the opponents of a federal solution, but on the other hand, he has done a great job by persuading the two leaders to make a speech on opening new checkpoints in Nicosia and, in addition, by persuading all parties to hold an informal international conference at a time and place to be determined by him. In other words, he kept following his path!
This formula, which does not harm any of the UN Security Council’s criteria for a solution, which does not impose any burden on the mandate of the Secretary-General, which somehow relieves all parties—especially Turkey—and which is referred to as ‘face-saving’, does not mean that federation is not being discussed.
And, it does not mean that federation will not be discussed either.
But how do we answer the question, “Is it going to be a horse, or a camel?”
I think Guterres has begun by changing the question I asked. Because there is no breed from mixing a horse and camel.
But what if the question becomes: “Is it going to be a horse, or a donkey?”
Then there will be a result: The Mule!
Of course, I am speaking metaphorically. Of course, this has nothing to do with donkeys, horses or camels. However, since there is no common ground, then there is no choice but to change the perspective.
I can now find a little more logic in and understand better what Special Representative Güneş Onar, who made a balanced statement before the summit, said when he uttered the rather assertive words, “It is time to turn a new page in Cyprus.”
And I would like to think that the steps taken at the dinner last night are the initial steps of this new page. In the articles I wrote and posts I shared last week, I kept talking about a formula that would not be referred to as a federation, but in which the notions of a federal solution would absolutely be included. It would be impossible for the entire body of work of a solution, which has accumulated over the years, to go to waste anyway.
I can now also better interpret what journalist Yusuf Kanlı meant when he wrote in August that Cypriots have obsessions in ‘semantic’ terms.
Therefore, some kind of a loose, or decentralised model that hybridizes the traumatizing ‘federation’ on the Turkish Cypriot side with the traumatizing ‘two-state solution’ on the Greek Cypriot side seems to be the best way forward. Rather than getting hung up on words, we should focus on how those words can be matched with the words of the other side.
Without further ado, I would like to wish the best for the new era and the new process in Cyprus.
I can’t help but think that if we don’t get hung up on ridiculous obsessions, taboos, self-interests (and choices), and other kinds of stupidity this time, it is not impossible to reach a solution.
Otherwise, of course, the Cyprus problem is not an issue that can be solved only by us drinking zivania and eating köfter. It never was.
However, as Ümit İnatçı, who commented on my programme yesterday, said, we should pursue a policy of ‘pressure’, besiege the table and drag the process.
And we must never forget: we are the biggest losers in this equation of no-solution and time is working against us…
It’s time to turn this in our favour…
