THE SEPARATED ISLAND

Yet another attempt to resolve the quite promising Cyprus issue failed. Both parties on the opposite sides of the dividing line had discussed the prospects of the establishment of Cyprus Federation, but to no avail. The negotiations held in the Swiss city of Crans-Montana and attended by the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, the leader of the Turkish community of Cyprus Mustafa Akinci, the leader of the Greek community, President of Cyprus Nicos Anastasiadis, the representatives of Great Britain, Greece and Turkey, as well as the European Union came to a standstill. We have interviewed Huseyn Isigsal, Near East University Department of International Relations Associate professor, about the causes of the fiasco.

Why did the conference on the settlement of the Cyprus issue in Crans-Montana fail?

There are several reasons why the Cyprus conference ended in vain. First of all, it should be noted that the Greek side held a propaganda campaign on the international arena around the five agreed principles: possession of land, property, relations with the EU, economics and governance and the separation of power. However, there were significant contradictions between the parties on principal issues. The Greeks did not accept the proposals of the Turkish community regarding the presidential power and mechanisms for the adoption of state decisions. They said that these issues could be resolved after agreeing on the principles of land tenure. Incidentally, the negotiators also had deep disagreements in the issue of ownership of the territories. The share of ownership of the territories is almost the same, with a slight difference of 1%. But the Turkish side does not intend to give up the possession of the rich water resources and citrus plantations of Guzelyurt region and the strategically important Karpazi region in the east of the island. Meanwhile, the Greek community puts forward the condition of unconditional transfer of Guzelyurt to her. Another obstacle was the issue of the application of Law No. 1 of the European Union on freedom of residence. If the Greeks offer the application of all EU rights and freedoms in Cyprus, the Turkish side, as an ethnic minority, wishes to preserve the demographic status of the Turkish majority in the north of the island. Also, there are problems in granting to the Turks living in Cyprus of the rights and freedoms that the citizens of the European Union enjoy. The Turkish community supports the granting of EU status "most favored" to Turkish citizens. The Greek Cypriots categorically reject this aspect. But the most profound were the contradictions in matters of security and guarantees. The Greek community persistently insisted on the principle: no to the military of other countries, no to security guarantees. But the Turkish community, which has a sad experience of the past events, does not accept such an approach to security issues. The overwhelming majority of Turkish Cypriots consider Turkish troops in Cyprus a security guarantee. By the way, the Turkish side also made a compromise on this issue. It was stated that Turkey could revise the principles of security guarantees if certain changes are followed. It would also significantly reduce the deployed military contingent, and consider the withdrawal of troops in 15 years. However, the Greek side has demonstrated inconsistency and left the negotiations.

Does it imply that there is no chance to unite Cyprus?

The head of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Mustafa Akinci noted that the parties were never so close to reaching agreement. It will be very difficult to get a second such chance. By the way, back in 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had a plan to resolve the Cyprus issue. At the last referendum, the Greek Cypriots rejected this plan by a majority of votes. Although most Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of the Annan Plan. The current refusal of the Greek side to negotiate is the result of profound contradictions in the positions of the parties.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu suggested that the conference in Crans-Montana might be the last one. Given that in 2018 the Greek side will hold presidential elections, then any chances of unification are not possible in the near future.

Leaders of Greek Cypriots accuse Turkey of disrupting negotiations. The statement from Nicosia says that Turkey seeks to ensure military and political control over the island through its army and the right to intervene.

These accusations are irrelevant. It is interesting that in the divergence of views on the five principles, the Greek side focuses only on one thing - the Turkish troops. This is the strategy of the leaders of the Greek community. According to the wishes of the Turkish community and given the significance of the preservation of regional security, the unconditional withdrawal of Turkish troops is unacceptable.

Is there a connection between Turkey's relations with the EU and the settlement of the Cyprus issue? The Greek Cyprus is confident that Ankara's position depends on how Turkey's relations with the European Union will develop.

Yes and no. In reality, there is no direct connection. Given the current tension in Turkey's relations with the EU, there is no connection with Cyprus. The problem in these relations is the position of President Erdogan, Kurdish separatism, the state of emergency in Turkey, FETO, problems with observance of rights in Turkey, etc. I think that the EU uses double standards and prejudiced attitude towards Turkey on many issues. For example, in the issue of Turkey's accession to the EU. Since 1959, Turkey has been one of the first candidate countries to join the EU, which was called the European Economic Community at that time. After 58 years of negotiations, there are no results. In 1995, Turkey signed an agreement on the Customs Union. In the first years of its operation, this agreement proved to be extremely destructive for the Turkish economy. The agreement includes clauses that violate the balance of imports and exports between the two member-states in favor of European partners. Asymmetry in the possibilities of export and import was in the basis of the agreement. I can give you specific examples. The sectors of agriculture and textile industry were excluded from the agreement on the Customs Union with Turkey. In addition, the EU also refused to include the items envisaged in the Customs Union of 1973 concerning financial assistance and free movement of labor, that is employees. Turkey is the only country in the Customs Union that does not receive financial assistance. All other countries are in a similar socio-economic situation - Portugal, Greece, Spain, the Mediterranean states - after the signing of the agreement on the Customs Union were admitted to the European Union. Although Turkey is signatory to the agreement, there is still no light at the end of the tunnel. In the signed framework agreement of 2005, which indicates conditions for accession to the EU, specific conditions have been put forward for Turkey. Such conditions were not requested from any of the candidate countries. The agreement does not include any clear guarantee that Turkey will be accepted if these conditions are met. It is interesting that even in the case of EU membership, Turkish citizens will be limited for some time in free movement around the Union, and will not be able to participate in the common policy of the commonwealth. Restrictions will also affect Turkey's agricultural policy, right to freedom of residence, and prevent Turkish citizens from working in the European Union.