Ahead of the UN Secretary-General’s initiative—which has raised expectations regarding a solution to the Cyprus problem—every group taking a political stance on this issue must reassess its position. In Cyprus, certain groups—including Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot politicians who have made the lack of a solution their raison d’être—have adopted similar rhetoric. At the outset of every initiative, and whenever it concluded without yielding results, they would write and speak with an air of self-importance, stating: “The Cyprus problem has worn out many UN Secretaries-General; this one will be no different.”
For this very reason, every group that has taken a positive, or negative stance on all previous peace initiatives associated with UN Secretaries-General such as Pérez de Cuéllar, Boutros-Ghali and Kofi Annan must now reassess their position in light of Mr. Guterres’ new initiative. Those with a positive outlook: What did they fail to do in the past? Those adopting a negative stance must also assess whether the conditions of deadlock—in the world’s changing and troubled environment—act as a catalyst for bringing peace to our shared homeland of Cyprus, to Turkey and Greece, and to the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea and our region; or, whether they contribute to the escalation of troubles.
From the perspective of those in the South who say ‘no’, has the perceived threat to the social security they fear increased, or decreased? It is abundantly clear that it has not decreased. This is because they have concluded a series of military and strategic agreements with the United States, France, India and Israel. They have acquired missiles, artillery, rifles and aircraft. So, have these measures allayed their security concerns? No. Ultimately, they resorted to the measure of stationing Greek fighter jets in Cyprus. This, in turn, fuelled even greater fear because Turkish fighter jets were also stationed right on their doorstep, outnumbering them by just one, or two.
Had they, however, voted ‘yes’ to the Annan Plan, The Turkish and Greek armed forces to be stationed on the island would have been present in symbolic numbers. Moreover, it would have been clear exactly what weapons these forces would be carrying whilst on the island. Furthermore, no other foreign military forces would have been stationed in Cyprus. In other words, the island would have been partially demilitarised, with the exception of the British bases. Those who rejected the plan, deeming it inadequate due to narrow-minded nationalist views, or the mistaken assumption that “we will cement the solution tomorrow”—do they ever pause for a moment to consider what a mistake they made, now that United States, French, Indian and Israeli armed forces are stationed on our island? Or, those within the Turkish Cypriot community who voted ‘No’ to the Annan Plan, yet continue to declare to the world—even after the Turkish Cypriot people ultimately voted ‘Yes’—claiming, “We said “Yes” to this, but you did not support us”, and thus demanding justice from the world; will they now place UN Secretary-General Mr. Guterres’ initiative on their agenda, with the aim of finding common ground with the Turkish Cypriot Community—led by the President and those supporting a solution—and the peacekeeping forces?
Are those in the North who rejected the Annan Plan, under conditions of deadlock and unlike in the past, pleased that the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey are now military neighbours with the South of the island due to military agreements with Israel, the United States, France and India? They ought to consider why the late Bülent Ecevit supported the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus rather than the annexation of the island, or its division into two separate states. He had said that if either of those were to happen, “we would also become neighbours with Greece from the South”. How many neighbours do we have now? For this reason, at the very least now, after all these developments, please assess Mr. Guterres’ efforts towards a solution positively, even if only marginally so.
Source: AT LEAST NOW
