Jalâluddîn Rumi said, “My dear, whatever was said yesterday vanished with yesterday. Now it’s time to talk anew.” Yesterday is left behind; yes, that’s true, but we must remember the evaluations made yesterday and talk anew. It was the night of July 5 when there was a meeting in the county of Crans-Montana in Switzerland. Do you recall?
Mustafa Akıncı was sitting at the table as the “Leader of Turkish Cyprus” and rebelled to the situation. He asked to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres: “Let’s say the Greek side accepts it. If they do not change their attitude – and it is for sure they won’t – how we apply the solution we have decided upon here?”
Akıncı was complaining about the behavior of Nikos Anastasiades who sat at the table as the “Greek Community Leader”, but had set in his mind the title of “Cyprus President” (as a whole island), and would never compromise on this. Although Turkish Cyprus Chief Negotiator Özdil Nami kept stating “We are very close to a solution”, Akıncı became fed up with Nikos’s indecisiveness, and his deceptive and tricky negotiation tactic of saying “Yes to a rotating presidency” in the morning, but changing his mind and stating “This is not possible. Even if I say yes, my people will reject it.”
In the month of July, the minutes of the negotiations between Nikos and Espen Barth Eide had already been delivered to the press. His purpose was obvious. On one hand, Nikos says he is ready to begin negotiations immediately, with the hope of gaining the votes of the leftists, and so wants to continue where the negations left off, but on the other hand, as the minutes clearly show, he rejects a federation solution, although he reaches his objective. The people who are against Nikos want to demonstrate that Nikos is, in fact, staunchly against a federation, and the Greek people who support such a solution should not be fooled by this propaganda. Are they right? To tell the truth, yes…
What does Nikos say? He says that the negotiations collapsed because Turkey was unwilling to give up its role of guarantor of Northern Cyprus, and to remove its military from the island. Unfortunately, he is lying; and I wonder why Turkey accepted these conditions or acted in this way. Although not putting it in writing, but both Akıncı and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu promised that if they reached an agreement, the Guarantee Agreement would be terminated on the very “First Day”. Furthermore, Turkey would waive his right to single-sided interference and reduce the number of soldiers on the island to the level of 1960 Alliance Agreement (650 Turkish and 950 Greek soldiers), which was duly noted by the UN. Nikos wanted this in writing, but Akıncı and Çavuşoğlu said: “When we are signing everything. Not before.” Then what was the obstacle to reaching an agreement? The fact that Nikos rejected political equality or the rotation of the presidency…
Briefly, let us remember yesterday, but not forget that yesterday is history. Our romantic Turkish leftists who support a federation should not feel sorry that their solution became history. It didn’t happen, and it would not. Do not insist. If you do, it will cause more pain.
Now pay attention to what Ankara says. Since July 6, have either Çavuşoğlu or President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said anything about the idea for the solution of the Cyprus issue? No. They have not added anything new, just a few brief repetitions of earlier statements. Then what did they say on July 6? “This is where it stops. The federal solution is dead. Different approaches should be emphasized now.”
Now this is where we stand: Whether a confederation, or two states, or even another solution. It is time to develop new ideas and to look for a new approach. For this purpose, a conference should be called of intellectuals from both sides, and reciprocal diplomatic efforts should be prepared and new objectives established to contribute to policies.
In spite of this fiasco, it is impossible to understand Özdil Nami’s obsession with being at Greece’s beck and call as the “romantic federation wing” of the Republican Turkish Party, the other leftists and the submissive unions. Everything is out of joint. Political Parties are likely suffering from the absence of an agenda and are more interested in the love life of the Prime Minister. Strange things are happening; a Teachers Union suggests to the Greek side that children born in Cyprus with a Turkish mother or a father should be given Cypriot citizenship. Is this not disrespect? Should it be permitted?
It is not too late. The January 7 elections are just a month away. Don’t the people on the Turkish side deserve to know which party supports what kind of a solution? Why are the parties dwelling upon pointless matters and hitting below the belt when they should be coming up with a solution that focuses on the agenda of the people and their failures in this issue.
The problem has two layers. At the first layer, the parties should explain the solution they have in mind; while at the second layer, it should be recognized that regardless of whether or not a solution is decided upon, there are serious problems in the state or in the public sector of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). What are the parties’ thoughts on these subjects? Are politics still going to be carelessly carried out with those in power asking “What’s in it for me?” or “Can I find work for my son, daughter or the son of my neighbor?”
