By ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
What will happen at the Trilateral and why did the UN Secretary General decide to call the meeting now? The three scenarios and the possible developments in the Cyprus problem…
Much is being said about the imminent trilateral meeting between Nikos Christodoulides, Ersin Tatar and Antonio Guterres, which may ‘hide’ more surprises or developments than anticipated.
Below we will analyse why the ‘scenario’ that the UN Secretary General called the Trilateral Meeting ‘just for fun’, i.e. that they go to the Trilateral, each say their piece and nothing happens and the process continues in the same pattern as today (a little frozen, a little ‘thawed’ with maybe contacts with envoys anew, efforts etc.) is one of the three scenarios, but it is the one with the least chances of coming to pass.
The Trilateral meeting was set following the UN Secretary General’s contacts with all the stakeholders. Meetings with Tayyip Erdogan, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Nikos Christodoulides and Ersin Tatar.
And it was set after the statements of Tayyip Erdogan from the podium of the UN General Assembly that the Federation-type solution is outdated and now the solution should be based on Sovereign Equality and equal international status of the two sides in Cyprus, even calling on the International Community to recognise the ‘TRNC’.
And the question is this: Has something changed? Has anything changed since Summer? Because even then there was talk of a Trilateral Meeting, but with the Turkish side setting Sovereign Equality as a precondition, a Trilateral Meeting was not set in the end and ‘remained at the sounding out stage’. Later, a Trilateral Meeting was attempted again, but again the Turkish side responded negatively saying that as long as Sovereign Equality is not on the table there is no reason for a meeting. And we remained at the sounding out stage again.
Now? What happened? What changed? And, in fact, the Trilateral Meeting is decided just a few days after the Turkish President’s official statements from the UN podium? Statements, which left / leave no trace of optimism (or maybe not?)
Therefore what arises is ‘why has the UN Secretary General decided to call a Trilateral now?’ And to this question there are three possibilities/scenarios.
First. One could say that the UN Secretary General called the Trilateral because he “had to”, because there was some movement in the last year, because he appointed Maria Holguín Cuéllar as his personal envoy, because she also drafted a Report, and because all this should formally lead to a Trilateral Meeting, the UN Secretary General decided to call it. So sort of for fun? If you know beforehand that a meeting will not produce the desired outcome (which is the resumption of Talks or at least a process leading to talks), then you call a Meeting? As UN Secretary General, you will spend time (even 2-3 hours) on an issue, which you had even previously been burnt by as UN Secretary General, just ‘because a Meeting had to be held’? One could say ‘maybe’. And indeed ‘maybe’. Hence it is one of the three possibilities. However, political logic says that this possibility makes no ‘political sense’ and has the least chances of being valid, if the meeting is ‘taking place just for the sake of it taking place’ without any further development. That is, if the meeting takes place and the outcome is that the same pattern will continue, a little frozen, a little thawed, with perhaps some contact with personal envoys anew or through UN representatives in Cyprus, etc. etc.
Second. The second scenario is that the UN Secretary General knows in advance that this Meeting will not work (i.e. the resumption of talks or the path towards the resumption of dialogue) and he himself is determined ‘not to remain with his hands tied’. And here too there are two ‘sub-scenarios’. A. To listen to the two sides and since they will not agree, to deliver a concrete proposal on how to resume negotiations (e.g. of the Holguín Report type) telling each side what steps to take so that in a month or two or anyway within a timeframe, they are back at the talks table. ‘You, Mr Tatar, will do one, two, three things and you, Mr Christodoulides, will do these one, two, three things’. B. Listen to the two sides and, since they will not agree, the UN Secretary General will announce that he will end the process and declare a stalemate, laying the blame on either one or the other side or both sides, now going to the Security Council for what follows.
The above scenario, either with (a) or (b), makes political sense. And most importantly, it will be a serious development in the Cyprus problem. Either with specific instructions to the two leaders and them meeting again at some point, or the declaration of a stalemate, it will be (whichever of the two happens) a very, very serious development in the Cyprus problem.
Third. The third possibility is that the UN Secretary General has assurances from the Turkish side (both T. Erdogan and E. Tatar) that they will accept the resumption of talks. Although this is not consistent with the Turkish side’s public rhetoric, it is a possibility because it may well be that the Turkish side has a history of usually doing what it says in public, but let’s not forget that when it comes to the Cyprus problem it has the ‘bluff’ of arbitration documented on its record, where under Tassos Papadopoulos and Rauf Denktaş, while everyone expected the Turkish side to reject arbitration, in the end it accepted it, leaving the Greek Cypriot side with no room for a different response.
Evidently, both this scenario (as well as the second one), if it comes to pass, will be a huge development in the Cyprus problem.
So, laying out the facts, it is clear that the chances for developments in the Cyprus problem are greater than ‘nothing coming out’ of the imminent Trilateral Meeting in New York. That is, the chances of the UN Secretary General either giving specific instructions to the two leaders leading to the resumption of talks or declaring a stalemate or even the Turkish side accepting the resumption of Talks are much higher than the chances of the Trilateral meeting taking place and the UN Secretary General simply repeating that ‘there is distance between the two sides and we are continuing the effort’. Broadly and vaguely so.
Unless Guterres really did invite them for fun…
Source: GUTERRES INVITED THEM FOR FUN?
