By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
On 15 October 2024, 97 days after the dinner in New York with the participation of Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Ersin Tatar and Nikos Christodoulides, the leadership of the two sides came together the other day and exchanged views on the check-points.
This meeting, which was based on the first of the two topics put forward at the 15 October dinner, has not yielded much of what was expected so far, but despite this, I am on the side that prefers to look at the issue with the mindset of ‘1 is greater than 0’.
Therefore, I am not going to build my article on the idea that ‘it ended in disaster’, or ‘there is great hope’ like some others.
In my opinion, solid proposals came from both sides during the meeting. Ersin Tatar, in a way that was not expected from him, proposed a check-point for Lourijina—which has been living a life of captivity for years, not only because of the border with the south, but also because it is subjected to arbitrary practices since it is accessed through a military zone—in connection with the village of Lympia, which is a stone’s throw away.
In my opinion, this proposal is positive and would fulfil the purpose of the Pryoi checkpoint that the Greek Cypriot side requests.
This proposal, if realised, would be a major development for the Lourijinians who live in some sort of an ‘enclave’. The village, which has suffered isolation within Cyprus and has lost almost 70 per cent of its population over the years, would be relieved of this unfortunate situation by a checkpoint as such.
On the other hand, it is a step that will be extremely beneficial for the other Greek Cypriot villages in the area, which are experiencing various difficulties due to the fact that Lourijina is like a pocket bulging into the south.
In response to Tatar’s insistence on the Mia-Milia crossing, Greek Cypriot leader Nikos Christodoulides put forward an 8-point proposal package, 4 of which related to the checkpoints.
Apart from the Pyroi and Kokkina routes, which were not accepted by Tatar or the Turkish military, the Mia-Milia checkpoint and the Lourijina crossing are the Greek Cypriot leader’s proposals. The Greek Cypriot leader also included in his proposal the provision of a crossing for the villagers of Lourijina. What is novel about Tatar’s proposal is that he included the village of Limya to the package through a request for a checkpoint.
In addition to this, the Pyla-Arsos road construction, which was agreed to almost two years ago but was destroyed thanks to the indomitable struggle of Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu, is also included in the proposal. In my opinion, these proposals of the Greek Cypriot leader are quite logical and in the best interest of the whole region, but also of the Turkish Cypriot side itself. However, Tatar is not authorised on these issues, even if he intends to tell a success story during the election campaign.
This is precisely why Christodoulides said, following the meeting, that, “Tatar was not ready to make a decision, otherwise we would have agreed on all these issues and announced them.”
However, make no mistake, I am not claiming that Tatar is not authorised whereas the previous presidents were authorized and they did as they wished.
What the 2nd President Mehmet Ali Talat experienced at the Ledra Street checkpoint is still remembered although it has been a long time. Mustafa Akıncı‘s struggle of 3.5 years regarding the guard post at the Deryneia checkpoint is still remembered. It is also known what the 3rd President, Derviş Eroğlu, one of the most important leaders of the Turkish Cypriot right-wing politics, went through at the Limnitis gate.
For this reason, I do not want to judge Tatar unfairly and say, “you could not even open a checkpoint”, because we all know that the Provisional Article 10 is in effect in the northern part of Cyprus, and that it means that the civil administration holds no power to rule the borders. Of course, the Greek Cypriot side is also aware of this situation.
Monday’s meeting—which was planned as a positive climate and a confidence-building step prior to the multilateral Cyprus conference to be held in March—was not only aimed at opening checkpoints.
In this very context, the Greek Cypriot leader put other extremely important proposals on the table. As he emphasised in his post-meeting statement, the most important of these proposals—also discussed at the 15 October dinner and accepted by Guterres—is the establishment of a Truth Commission, which could be the cornerstone for transforming the political agreement into a lasting peace.
This issue, which has been pushed forward for many years—especially by Greek Cypriot lawyer Ahileas Dimitriadis—was also on the agenda during the period of Kudret Özersay-Andreras Mavroyanis, who had been negotiators in the past, and study trips were made to places such as South Africa where highly successful commissions were established.
In an environment where the whereabouts of hundreds of missing persons on both sides of Cyprus remains unclear, the establishment of such a commission is extremely important.
The Technical Committee on Youth, which was also proposed by the Greek Cypriot leader, is critical for the relations between our children, who have been raised as enemies of each other, and for the elimination of the distortions put forward by the established order about each other.
I also find the proposal for an Advisory Committee including civil society important.
In short, I would like to state that I am on the side of Secretary-General Guterres who believes that the trust to be created between the two sides will get stronger, not only through checkpoints or crossings, but essentially through the above-mentioned committee proposals.
However, unfortunately, in the Turkish Cypriot public opinion, the issue has been reduced only to the border issue and in this context, other issues have not been studied much.
I have not written the previous sentence to criticise anyone, or to disrespect the efforts made.
I hope that these suggestions will be responded to, or new and creative proposals will be put on the table during the new round of talks, which are announced to take place next week.
Look, throughout my life I have fought for the solution of the Cyprus problem in my own way.
In this context, I have supported and will continue to support the steps taken in the direction of a solution, regardless of elections, votes, sides, factions and who is making the effort.
Just as I supported Derviş Eroğlu’s willingness to sign the document of 11th February even more than him, I consider it my duty to support the positive steps to be taken here as well.
I am on the side that believes that the static situation in the Cyprus problem does not serve anything other than the benefits of certain interest groups both in the north and the south.
In fact, I think that the parties who suffer the most from this situation are the Turkish Cypriots and the people of Turkey, respectively.
In my opinion, I think that being constructive and creative at the point we have reached and taking progressive steps should be the aim of those who are most harmed by this situation.
I hope that the number of people who think like me will grow until the meeting in March and we will have the opportunity to go to that meeting with a formula that will be a win-win for all parties.
Otherwise, under a ceasefire regime, and without a political agreement, we will continue to live a troubled life, and in the end, we will remain as a small community mentioned in the dusty pages of history. We must put an end to this bad scenario.
In this context, like the first post I shared after the meeting, a step has been taken for a solution, albeit it might look like ‘baby steps’.
The wish is for these steps to multiply and earn strength, and the island of Cyprus to run towards a bright future…
This article was originally published on 22.01.2025
