By ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
I try, but I find some things hard to grasp. Either political diplomacy has become much more complex or, in getting older, my acumen has waned – perhaps even my interest. I am, however, following with great attention the effort – the campaign, I would say – by President Nikos Christodoulides to resume Cyprus problem talks, with the aim of achieving a “more active involvement”, to the maximum extent possible, of the European Union and of internationally renowned personalities who can play a catalytic role.
In the past few days, there has been a lot of talk about Angela Merkel, whose name the president mentioned as an example, in response to a relevant question from a journalist. I confess that I don’t know whether the president’s mention was in passing (my view is that presidents shouldn’t say anything in passing) or whether it was based on or aimed at something more substantial than playing the role of an “example” in a response. Nor am I in a position to know whether anything specific was said during the meeting with Olaf Scholz or whether the meeting that Nicos Anastasiades had with the former Chancellor just before she retired played a role behind-the-scenes. Those surrounding the president and those a little further afield appear confident that all of this is well founded, connected and correlated.
Some, on the other hand, think that the very fact that we are putting names of this magnitude on the table is a very positive thing. “It shows confidence…”! What can I say? From their mouths and into God’s ear? I wish! I wouldn’t say that my confidence, not in this particular effort, but in the Cyprus chapter in general, is at a high level – far from it. But it is not my confidence that matters, it is that of the President – if indeed it exists. May it be so!
After all, as he often reiterates, the aim is to “break the deadlock” and “resume negotiations from where we left off in Crans-Montana”. So where exactly am I getting confused and what is it that I am struggling to understand? First of all, I am not at all sure that we know the point that we left from in Crans-Montana. Unless – I have written this many times – we mean the hotel where we stayed. Even if we assume that we know the point from which we left in Crans-Montana – and here we do not mean the hotel where we stayed – I do not have the slightest convincing indication that we want to go back there.
I would like to briefly recall the following: Guterres had said that, “By the end of the conference, the sides HAD PRACTICALLY REACHED FULL AGREEMENT on federal executive power and effective participation”! Christodoulides, as Foreign Minister, had stated many times that we had come within a hair’s breadth of a solution. Kotzias too, said that “On Thursday night we went to dinner satisfied, as we thought we had got everything we wanted”. This included the abolition of guarantees and rights of intervention, which Mevlut [Cavusoglu] backtracked on, which is why we were led to a collapse. And remember now, Anastasiades’ statements after the shipwreck, after he first, in a state of derision, drowned his sorrows at his daughter’s Cuban birthday party, with cigars, Poulies and Avgerinous. [Translator’s note: Author refers to a traditional Greek fairytale, implying that Anastasiades was among the stars]
With what vehemence and vigour he demonised all the parameters of the solution and the convergences, all those things on which “they had reached a full agreement” and that, if Cavusoglu had not backtracked, would have been all hunky dory. Then he started sending out feelers to everyone, including Turkey, about “two states”, while simultaneously submitting proposals with confederal content. Besides, long before Nikos Christodoulides announced his predictable candidacy, we had pointed out the fact that, all (or almost all) of the ‘rejectionist front’ was lined up behind him. In their vocabulary, the term ‘liberation’ does not also refer to a BBF [bi-zonal bi-communal federation].
Add in the doublespeak about the [Guterres] Framework and other verbal acrobatics to keep the balance among the hodgepodge supporting the president. So let’s say the efforts succeed – or to put it differently, borrowing the figure of speech that the president regularly uses – “if we really want” the efforts to succeed and get negotiations going, where do you think they can lead? Somewhere other than a BBF? And so? “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but can you fool all of the people all of the time?”
Source: FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT
