The meeting between the leaders and María Ángela Olguín on developments in the Cyprus issue is crucial to paving the way for the resumption of negotiations.
Speaking on the Alpha News program, Costas Paraskevas, Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Law at the University of Cyprus, emphasized the importance of the trilateral meeting, taking into account the recent statements by the United Nations Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, María Ángela Olguín, who warned that this is the last chance.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
“Today’s meeting is crucial, and let’s hope that a middle ground will finally be found between the two sides so that negotiations can resume—or at least the process can be saved—because let’s not forget that it has been nearly ten full years without any substantive negotiations—the longest period since 1974 without any negotiations at all.”
When asked to comment on the fact that confidence-building measures are being discussed, he states that these will not resolve the Cyprus problem but will provide momentum for the next step.
“These are measures which, together with the four roadblocks being promoted as confidence-building measures, The removal of 70,000 square meters of barbed wire is essentially the minimum that can be agreed upon. It’s not that these will solve the Cyprus problem. Nor are they the essence of the Cyprus problem. But they are measures that will help keep the process alive and move it to the next step.”
Regarding the convergence document and the reason it is not being provided to the two leaders, Mr. Paraskevas explains:
“If we take, for example, the document on points of convergence, which appears to be ready on the part of the United Nations but, according to Ms. Olgin, will not be provided to both sides, because the United Nations is taking the precedent seriously—namely, what happened with the recording of the convergences by Mr. Alexander Downer—and when that document was provided to the two communities, a blame game ensued between the two communities, but there was also disagreement over exactly what had been agreed upon—or what each of the two communities considered to have been agreed upon—and in fact, the two leaders at the time were asking themselves, “When did I agree to something like that?” or when not.” So, in order to avoid getting caught up in that whirlwind again, Ms. Olgin says, the document is ready, but it will be given to both sides when and if negotiations begin, in an effort to avoid this bad precedent that existed—and which, rather than bringing the two sides closer together, it drove the two sides apart precisely because the parties had behaved in this manner.”
He placed particular emphasis on the issue of the rotating presidency, which remains one of the most significant points of disagreement regarding the methodology for resuming the talks. The Turkish Cypriot leader, Tufan Erhurman, is reportedly demanding acceptance of the rotating presidency as a precondition for the start of negotiations. The Greek Cypriot side, on the other hand, believes that the issue should be subject to negotiation and cannot be agreed upon in advance as a condition for the resumption of talks.
In its view, acceptance of the rotating presidency cannot be set as a precondition prior to the start of talks. It could, however, be discussed from the early stages of the negotiation process to determine whether there is a real possibility of convergence.
“What is unknown to us, however, is whether the impression has arisen that the Greek Cypriot side does not accept the rotating presidency as a matter of principle, which is something quite different. Because, as we know, this has been a key point of comparison since the time of President Christofias and Talat; the rotating presidency—which was discussed again—was also a point of comparison during the negotiations between Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Akinci. Therefore, I am not in a position to know whether there have been any further developments. And that is to say, whether today the Greek Cypriot side does not accept the rotating presidency as a matter of principle.”
Mr. Paraskevas notes that Ms. Olgin adopts a “dramatic tone” in her interviews.
“The strongest statement she has made is that there is a lack of political will on both sides to take that final step. This is a very serious—if you will—suggestion or even a rebuke directed at both sides.”
