The title of my last article was ‘Now, or (perhaps) never!’.
The gist of the article was to set the scene ahead of Maria Holguin’s meetings, following her return to the island after six months.
The subject of this current article, however, is the ‘promising’ contacts Holguin made with the parties at the start of the week.
Why promising?
Because exactly 3,263 days have passed since the Crans Montana summit, the most recent substantive and official meeting where the Cyprus issue was discussed!
3,263 days without a solution!
This is why the significance of remarks made by Holguin following her meetings with both leaders on Monday—“we are working towards an expanded 5+1 summit… This summit will take place, though the date has not yet been set”—is immense in this context!
Note that the summit has not been described as ‘informal’!
This means the following: The UN has once again—and officially—placed a federal solution, based on political equality and comprising two regions and two communities, as defined in Security Council resolutions, on the agenda for discussion!
And the primary reason for the prospect of this summit taking place is nothing other than the international community, led by Turkey, giving the green light to this!
You see, as I have emphasised many times before, the Cyprus problem is, ultimately, an international issue. For this problem to be resolved, it is not enough for us oddball Cypriots to simply say, “Hey, we’ve reached an agreement.”
On the other hand, just as that is not enough, saying, “We’ll reach an agreement, so leave us be” is not enough either!
Indeed, the 1959 Zurich and London Agreements are prime examples of this. I doubt I need to explain that those who brokered and presented that agreement to us are today’s so-called ‘guarantors’.
To cut a long story short, the Cyprus issue is not sustainable within the current world order.
This makes an ‘adjustment’ absolutely necessary.
The reason for this is that the new multipolar model, which is being balanced out specifically in the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean, and generally along the EU-US-China and Russia axes, must not be left in the hands of a ‘grenade ready to explode’ like Cyprus.
For a weapon set to explode in Cyprus carries not only the risk of triggering a Turkish-Greek war but, due to the intensified Cyprus-Israel cooperation in recent times, also a significant potential to escalate into a Turkish-Israeli war.
None of what I have written here constitutes new observations; these are matters that have been reiterated for quite some time.
On the other hand, amidst all this commotion, yesterday I attended the ‘200th Day’ meeting organised by President Tufan Erhürman in person.
I think it was the first time in my life that I attended a press conference without asking a question; instead, I chose to observe the speaker closely.
As is well known, Erhürman does not state his views very clearly; he weaves them into the subtext.
However, on this occasion, he spoke directly—and used a phrase that excited me greatly: “We are far beyond the point where we started on the Cyprus issue.”
Since taking office, the Erhürman has held a series of meetings with the Greek Cypriot leader that have yielded little tangible result. In fact, I know first-hand that some of these were rather tense.
Therefore, if we were to assess the process through the lens of these fruitless meetings, one might conclude that Erhürman’s statement above holds little meaning.
However, considering Erhürman’s character—someone who chooses his words carefully and from whom it is almost impossible to extract a word—we understand quite clearly that this statement was not made in vain.
Consequently, what I understand is this: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres plans to launch a very serious initiative towards a comprehensive solution. In this context, it would be no exaggeration to say that his Colombian messenger, Maria Holguin, has arrived with a very clear roadmap, presented it to the parties, and is awaiting a response.
At this point, the fact that the Secretary-General’s term of office is due to end in five months’ time seems to suggest a natural timeline. This is a correct observation, and Erhürman has also expressed this.
A solution—provided there is the will and determination—could be achieved within weeks. However, the opposite outcome is also possible.
Guterres clearly intends to leave a meaningful legacy for the Secretary-General who will succeed him, even if a solution may not be reached; at the very least, this must be acknowledged. The roadmap presented is, in this respect, an extremely critical and bold step.
Of course, the Turkish Cypriot side, represented by Erhürman, is not the only party that will review and assess this roadmap.
Holguin’s visits to Athens, Ankara and Brussels next week will be of vital importance in terms of the responses to the roadmap that has been put forward.
Indeed, once all parties have conveyed their respective positions on the matter, it is highly likely that the date for the 5+1 meeting will be announced. We should expect this date to be around 20 June.
I would also like to note that the date to be announced is likely to fall in the second half of July.
For there are two major hurdles ahead that must be overcome. The first of these is the NATO summit to be held in Ankara on 7–8 July.
It would not be wrong to assume that this summit, which is closely linked to the ‘security and guarantees’ aspect of the Cyprus issue, is likely to yield some news.
The issue of a ‘NATO-backed solution’ in Cyprus—which has flared up and died down over the past year, only to resurface again in recent weeks—is, if such a formula is indeed being discussed, a matter that the Ankara summit is undoubtedly the most appropriate venue to address, in my view.
The second date, as is well known, is 20 July and the cycle of jingoism it triggers on the island.
It is plausible to think that this day, described as a ‘black day’ in the south and a ‘celebration’ in the north, is more open to provocation than in previous years.
The reason for this is the significant increase in rumours of a solution, which is causing unease among those opposed to a solution on both sides of the island.
As I have written many times before, the greatest ‘source of sustenance’ for these camps is each other. These provocations, which have been systematically continuing for decades, are renewed every summer.
To this must be added Erdoğan’s visit on 20 July, announced just the other day, and the potential messages he may convey.
Given the internal political tensions in Turkey that have escalated significantly in recent months, and considering the utility of a national cause such as Cyprus as a ‘unifying force’, or ‘glue’, I am writing here in bold letters that we must never overlook the potential for a possible solution process in Cyprus to be easily sacrificed to Turkish domestic politics.
To cut a long story short, we can clearly see that the Cyprus issue is rapidly heading towards a new and critical crossroads.
Of course, to think of this as “the arrival of a solution is coming, hurray!” would be wishful thinking.
Moreover, the Turkish Cypriot people are weary of hoping; this is certain.
However, simply because they are weary, to turn up one’s nose at or attempt to devalue what is now gathering pace and is quite clearly the best opportunity of the last 10 years would, in my view, be a very wrong approach.
Those who follow this column know full well that I have a bone to pick with certain old-fashioned phrases.
The most famous of these is the phrase ‘cautious optimism’.
Antonio Guterres, as emphasized frequently during Tufan Erhürman’s press conference yesterday, is pursuing “something very different this time”.
‘Cautious optimism’ is a term from the old era; to me, it feels like some kind of ‘learned helplessness’.
What we need here, first and foremost, is courage and determination.
There may be some benefit in being cautious, but being overly cautious often gives way to ‘hesitation’.
The Cyprus issue is riddled with taboos, and the surest way to break them is through courage—to confront them without fear.
I say “may it be for the best” regarding this new process, and I hope that the budding hopes will grow and turn into a forest.
In this respect, I have shifted my mindset to a mode of “courageous optimism”, or “a more assertive optimism”.
I recommend it to you too...
Source: COURAGEOUS OPTIMISM
