The recent positions the Greek Cypriot side has been employing in international platforms have led to suspicion in terms of the negotiation process that is being carried out in accordance with the agreement reached with President Mehmet Ali Talat on 21 March 2008.
The Greek Cypriot side has been initiating various attempts to unilaterally weaken the stability reached by the 21 March and 23 May agreements. Unfortunately, these attempts of theirs have been met with attention and support of the international circles.
The objective of the new process launched by the agreement of the two leaders on 21 March 2008 has been determined as establishing a bi-zonal, bi-communal new partnership state based on the political equality and the equal status of two constituent states. “The common language” the two leaders agreed on 23 May represents this objective.
However, the contacts the Greek Cypriot side has been carrying out in the international arena, as a result of the advantage of being recognized as the representative of the Republic of Cyprus, aim at eroding the agreement reached before the ink is dry. The aim is to weaken the stability reached by the 21 March and 23 May agreements via these efforts.
If a settlement is to be reached for the Cyprus problem, commitment and respect to the issues the two sides have agreed on is principal. Eliminating the progress reached in this process means eliminating the stones we plan to step on in order to move forward.
We have made a prior statement concerning our position regarding the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Greek Cypriot side and the UK.
There is no doubt that the said agreement has led to a serious blow for the efforts of finding a solution for the Cyprus problem.
The UK is not an ordinary state. It is one of the three guarantor powers of Cyprus. The UK is the one who is responsible for preparing the draft resolutions prepared on Cyprus problem under the umbrella of the UN. The position of the UK has great influence over the Cyprus problem.
It was a generally accepted idea that the basic reason of the change of leaders and the partial change in the position employed after February 2008 in the Greek Cypriot side was the fact that the Greek Cypriot side has slowly been isolated from the international arena. It was another generally accepted idea that the declaration of independence of Kosovo, which coincided with or were deliberately arranged to coincide with the elections in South Cyprus, has had a significant role in this change.
It can clearly be observed that the primary problem before the settlement process is the fact that the Greek Cypriot side needs motivation regarding the settlement of the Cyprus problem and that they were rewarded by being allowed in the EU despite their negative position in the referendum held on 24 April 2004.
Given the recent developments, the fact that efforts are being spent to reward the Greek Cypriot side again, before any concrete steps are taken to the end of a settlement, will only strengthen their tendency to solve the Cyprus problem at their own discretion which will lead to failure of the settlement process just like it did on 24 April 2004.
Cyprus problem is the result of the maximalist desires of the Greek Cypriot side which deem Cyprus as an island belonging to them only. The leading countries of the world have contributed to deepen the Cyprus problem to the extent they supported these desires.
As an example to this, the role of Archbishop Makarios - before the Republic of Cyprus collapsed in 1963 as a result of the proposal for 13 amendments in the constitution - in the Movement of the Non-Aligned which had a significant role in the world balances of the day and the support of the UK, who were aiming to limit its relations with the Soviet Union, for these proposals for amendments should be reminded. The support of the UK has encouraged the Greek Cypriot leadership guided by Archbishop Makarios, have strengthened their belief that they could turn the Republic of Cyprus into “Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus” and caused blood to be shed on the island.
It is necessary that primarily the UK and the other prominent states of the world have good relations with the Greek Cypriot side for the settlement of the Cyprus problem. However, these relations should not give the impression that they could completely own the island or that they could control the Turkish Cypriot people. This is where the breaking point is. When it is gone beyond this point, various problems arise.
Signing of this Memorandum of Understanding has gone beyond this limit. Therefore, we cannot expect this development to have positive effects over the Cyprus problem. On the contrary, unless the consequences of this development are mended, we will be faced with them as important problems in the settlement of the Cyprus problem as we are now. Taking into consideration that the Greek Cypriot leader Mr. Demetris Christofias in his statements last week which have intensified to the end of defining himself as the President of the Republic of Cyprus and President Mr. Talat as “the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community”, it could be much easier to understand how this process will work.
No comments:
Post a Comment