By Giorgos Kentas*
Even from the first day of negotiations in Geneva last week (Jan. 9) it appeared that the two communities on Cyprus are not only unable to bridge the gap that separates them on the issue of governance, but that differences are greater than those presented in public over the recent period.
The issue of a rotating presidency, which is a Turkish demand for an alternating of a Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot in the head of state office, has emerged as a major difference. Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci, in fact, made this a condition for an agreement that foresees the prospect for a return of territory.
Differences have also emerged over a variety of other issues, such as property, with many facets of this sensitive matter in limbo.
Moreover, there is concern over the economic aspect of a possible Cyprus solution.
For instance, the Turkish Cypriot side refuses to provide figures on the banking system in the occupied parts of the island, whereas heightened concern exist over the fiscal viability of a future Turkish Cypriot state within a federal Cyprus. For months now the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank have tried to acquire data on the credit and financial institutions in the occupied territories as well as fiscal figures, but to no avail so far. It’s a well-known fact that the occupation regime in the Turkish-occupied territory of Cyprus is completed dependent on Turkey.
Just as worrying is the fact that during the Geneva talks new claims emerged by the Turkish Cypriot side over issues that had been previously considered as resolved.
Among others, the Turkish Cypriot delegation submitted a claim for numerical equality in the future state’s federal offices and agencies. Valuable time was spent over negotiations on minor issues.
For instance, Akinci and Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades spent more than an hour discussing the manner in which members of a committee for public health will be selected; the service that will oversee hirings, transfers, and promotions of staff in a federal government.
The most crucial moment of the Geneva talks was when maps were unveiled by the two sides. On the afternoon of Jan. 11the two sides displayed separate maps that detailed territorial changes, and essentially delineated the territory that each side will hold. The Greek Cypriot side’s map allocated 28.2 percent of a federal Cyprus’ territory as being under the administration of a Turkish Cypriot state; the map submitted by the Turkish Cypriot side put the same figure at 29.2 percent.
Submission of the maps came without an agreement on three criteria regarding the territorial issue, i.e. the number of Greek Cypriot refugees that will return to their homes and properties; the respective coastlines of the two entities; and the exact percentage of territory held by each side.
However, prior to the commencement of negotiations in Geneva, concluding the three criteria and an agreement for a final map had been prerequisites for the Greek Cypriot side in order to convene the international conference.
Resolution of all the other chapters, sans the ones dealing with security and guarantees, had also been a condition to convene the conference.
Yet President Anastasiades made a historic concession on an issue of principle for the Cyprus problem, namely, he accepted the holding of a five-party conference. The five parties were, of course, the two communities on the island and the three guarantor powers (Greece, Turkey, UK), but without the manifested presence of the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus, of which Anastasiades is the head of state.
When the conference convened on Jan. 12 to focus on security and guarantees, there was no chance of success, as Turkey insisted on the continued presence of its troops on the island and the maintenance of guarantor rights over Cyprus.
Conversely, Greece favors an end of the system of guarantor powers from the very first moment of an agreement’s implementation, as well as the gradual withdrawal of foreign troops over a timetable of 12 to 18 months.
Britain wants to retain its military facilities on Cyprus while at the same time absolving itself of any responsibility vis-a-vis the island republic.
In the end the Cypriots failed, at this juncture, to agree on a common vision for security, or even over necessary institutions to deal with internal and external threats.
The issues of security were simply referred to an experts’ committee that will convene in Zurich on Jan. 18, with the UN now aiming for a repeat conference by the end of January 2017.
Giorgos Kentas (PhD 2009, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium) is an assistant professor of international relations at the University of Nicosia. He is a research fellow at the Cyprus Center for European and International Affairs.
