By ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Political actors in Cyprus seem to be taking a very superficial approach to Guterres’ invitation to dinner in New York. The feeling is that nothing will happen as long as Tatar insists on his positions. Of course, they are saying “beware of traps”, so that they have an excuse if things turn out differently.
What is happening today is reminiscent of the long ago February 2004 when the entire political leadership, with President Tassos Papadopoulos as head, went to New York with the certainty that Denktaş would reject all the proposals of the then Secretary General. They returned satisfied from the first meeting when their estimations were confirmed. But there was a second meeting where Denktaş, with instructions from Ankara of course, turned the whole thing on its head and accepted a timeframe, arbitration and referendums even without a leaders’ agreement. Our political leadership didn’t know what hit them and the blow was so heavy that it clearly influenced their thinking on the next, crucial, stage of the Cyprus problem.
Antonio Guterres, after months of effort, succeeded in getting his invitation accepted by both sides. Do we get the impression that the Secretary General, who met with Christodoulides and Tatar a few days ago, was just looking for company to dine with on the evening of 15 October? It is obvious that this dinner will have a surprise dessert. And it is none other than Mr. Guterres’ own recommendations on how things can move forward. Recommendations that, apparently, are all included in the report that Maria Angela Holguin handed to him in July. Do we remember Ms. Holguin? It would be good to remember her because she will be back in the spotlight after months in the background.
What are Ms. Holguin’s ideas? To this day no one has been able to find out for sure, which makes the Guterres invitation all the more important. Let us at least remember what the Secretary General’s personal envoy told us in her open letter just before she moved to the background:
- “It is important to move away from solutions that in the past have created expectations that were not met and led to greater disagreements and frustrations.”
- “Now, we must think differently, remaining convinced that a common future would bring great opportunities to all Cypriots.”
- “When a painful past is repeatedly taught, it becomes impossible for people to be open to change and believe in a hopeful, alternative and better future.”
- “My commitment is not over, I will continue to think on alternative solutions for a lasting solution.”
All point to the fact that we are entering the era of “alternative solutions”. These have nothing to do with the form of the solution (that will probably be left to the future) but with the methodology. Are we, for example, ready to enter into a process of learning History differently? Are we ready to discuss collaborations at the level of Universities, Hospitals, Sport, the Police, the Fire Brigade and many other areas that Ms. Holguin has obviously identified? Or are we going to remain loyal to the politics of quotation marks (“”) and the fear of recognition of the pseudo-state?
And let’s not think that the Secretary General doesn’t have weapons in his arsenal against both sides. The “no’s” will be passed on to the Security Council. If they are two, the possibility that he will open the discussion on “other solutions” is not ruled out. If it is one, each will assume the burden of responsibility for their decisions.
Source: DINNER WITH DESSERT
