The Cyprus Joint Statement: Product of silent diplomacy

By Ozdem Sanberk, Director of International Strategic Research Organization(USAK)

The two leaders in Cyprus restarting, albeit cautiously, talks for a UN-supervised comprehensive solution has revived hopes. It is crucial for the stability, security, and welfare of the Eastern Mediterranean and its surrounding regions that the two leaders as well as the international public seize upon this emerging opportunity.

While the bloodbath continues all around the Middle East, the Joint Statement by the island’s Turkish and Greek communities declaring the recent decision to restart negotiations for a comprehensive, UN-supervised solution has revived hopes.

The fact that some sort of a balance was established between the fundamental demands put forth by both parties—demands which they’ve been sensitively urging all along—underpins the emergence of such an optimistic atmosphere. Indeed, when Anastasiades and Eroğlu declare that the new state is to be established as a single legal entity with singular sovereignty over its domain, they also clarified that the solution will be based on political equality between the Turkish and Greek communities separated into two distinct political zones. In this scheme both constituent states (political zones) would have full residual authority exclusive of the central government’s authority, and the distinction between these two legal domains would be clearly defined by the new state’s constitution. The entitlement of being a constituent state and the rule that constituent states will have the outright authority to administer their own legal affairs respectively—two conditions for reunification which the Greek political entity has long denied the Turkish party—have been the backbone of the Turkish demands since the beginning of negotiations. This rule is also in line with the principle of subsidiarity set forth by the European Union. What really matters within the EU is that the member states simply hold on to their basic authority while delegating limited authority to the supranational institutions of the EU. Similarly, the Joint Statement suggests that neither side will be able to claim legal authority over the other, which is a clear indicator that the principle of equality was also fully accepted in line with the demand of the Turkish party. However, maybe the most important clause of the Joint Statement is the one that calls for the Turkish and Greek administrations to hold separate but simultaneous referenda following the solution.

Equality in word, but in deed

The Joint Statement is of capital importance because it proves a convergence of understanding regarding the essential issues explained above. The consensus implies that the Turks on the island will have de jure and de facto liberty in making decisions related to their own society and their own daily lives without being dependent on the central authority. A federation established on such grounds will provide Turkish Cypriots with equality not in word but in deed—though only, of course, if in the coming period the negotiation process which has started so well doesn’t completely go off the rails.

Is there such a possibility? The answer is yet to be revealed. However, it turns out, not only Anastasiades but now the majority of the population are hoping for a solution. If this was not the case, it would have been out of the question for the Greek party to assent to simultaneous referenda after the experience of the Annan Plan process. Nevertheless, whether or not the Greek Party (which looks to be in favor of a resolution) will consent to a concrete offer for a resolution in the coming period will be revealed as the negotiations progress and the subject of shared sovereignty comes to the table.

Turkish-Greek balance

It is not enough to approach the Cyprus issue considering only the two separate communities.. The independent state of Cyprus was established with the Treaties of London and Zurich which were signed between the UK, Turkey, Greece, and the island’s Turkish and Greek communities more than half a century ago. These treaties provide political equality to Turks and Greeks on the island, and equal rights for the members of both communities at the individual level. Moreover, these treaties affirm the Turkey-Greece security balance over the maritime region covering the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean that was established through the Treaty of Lausanne. Turkey’s interest in Cyprus derives from its will to preserve bilateral relations with Greece in a cooperative, friendly, and neighborly manner as much as it derives from an urge to protect (in its capacity as a guarantor state defined by the Treaties of London and Zurich signed in 1959 and 1960, respectively) the legally vested rights of the resident Turkish community on the island. Just like yesterday, today maintaining Turkey’s constructive relationship with Greece deeply depends on the ability of all parties involved to maintain the security balance over the Eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea. Therefore the resolution of the Cyprus dispute will help normalize Turkey’s relations with Greece and with the West at large. Behind the silent but effective endeavors of Turkish diplomatic institutions to re-prepare the conditions for a resolution lies the fact that Turkish diplomacy is well aware of the larger mechanism explained above. That these endeavors center on the United States—an ally of both Greece and Turkey—is also worth mentioning.

Greece’s responsibility

Another reason why the Cyprus dispute has been unresolved for the last half a century is that nobody wants to remember Greece’s responsibilities as a guarantor state. As a matter of fact, Greece pulled itself away from the Cyprus issue after the Greek Administration in southern Cyprus attained membership in the EU. Athens is not actively and constructively making an effort to resolve the dispute on a bilateral basis. It has always refrained from directly engaging Turkish Cypriots. Such an attitude from Greece forms the basis of Turkish doubts and a feeling of uncertainty over whether Greece actually wishes to reach a solution. Whereas it should be noted that Turkish PM Erdoğan received Greek Cypriot journalists and a delegation of Greek Cypriot NGO members in Ankara in 2010—leading to an enormously constructive and positive meeting.(*)

We hope that the Joint Statement, which opened the door to contacts across both sides of the island and from Athens and Ankara, will help remove mutual distrust.

The U.S. and energy diplomacy

The Cyprus dispute had actually been off the international agenda until quite recently. However, relatively recently rich reserves of natural gas were discovered to lie beneath the maritime territories belonging to Israel and the Greek administration in Cyprus and. The discovery of energy riches beneath the Eastern Mediterranean maritime zone brought the Cyprus dispute to Washington’s agenda once again. Indeed, Turkish diplomatic initiatives make it clear that this emerging context has not escape Turkey’s notice. That is because it is well-known that the energy deposits in question would most safely and reliably be transported to global markets through Turkey. However, realizing such a lucrative scenario requires first finding a solution to the Cyprus dispute. On the other hand, shipping energy resources through Turkish territory directly concerns Israel’s national interests too, bringing a strong incentive to repair Turkish-Israeli relations.

Win-win formula

From Washington’s perspective, three regional allies’ convergence on the fields of peace-building, energy cooperation, and economy is a win-win formula. Thus, in all likelihood the U.S. will continue to stand behind efforts to resolve the Cyprus dispute. For solving the dispute over Cyprus will not only yield results merely related to maintaining energy-security around the Eastern Mediterranean; it may also have positive effects such as the opening of new chapters in Turkey-EU negotiations, overcoming the bottleneck in NATO-EU cooperation, and creating further opportunities for NATO-Israel relations and even NATO-Cyprus relations.

The European Union

As it is obvious that developments in this vein will yield favorable results for Brussels as well, EU support for the new round of negotiations on Cyprus dispute would be a rational course of action. One natural dimension of this support would be lifting the vetoes obstructing the negotiation process with Turkey. For if Turkey renounces its EU policy vision it won’t make resolving Cyprus any easier—to the contrary it will make it impossible. However we are well aware that at this stage not all members of the EU have enough political will to support efforts for a peaceful solution in Cyprus. For now, it’s clear that the U.K.’s attitude will be decisive, and the policy line that London pursues will be shaped in accordance with how it assesses the future of its military bases on Cyprus.

Russia

What is unclear at this juncture is Russia’s attitude, though it is well-known that Russia has a special relationship with Southern Cyprus. Since the advent of the Arab uprisings and the Syrian crisis Russia has demonstrated its capacity to influence political and strategic developments around the Mediterranean and the world at large. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, its interest in Mediterranean affairs as well is manifest. Moreover, it is no secret that Russia is a candidate power center within the newly emerging and gradually forming multipolar international order of the early 21st century. Therefore a newly initiated negotiation process that does not secure Russian support alongside strong backing from the U.S. and the EU, may end up a great disappointment.

The new trend in ethnic conflicts is partition

A point worth stressing is that the principle of national borders’ immutability has been losing its importance throughout Europe since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. As Mustafa Kutlay correctly pointed in his study, the underlying dynamic in ethnic-based border disputes in Europe and the Balkans is no longer a force favoring unification, but disintegration.(**) Therefore, it is crucial that the two leaders as well as the international community seize upon the recent decision to restart negotiations for a UN-supervised, comprehensive solution in Cyprus for the sake of the stability, security, and well-being of the Eastern Mediterranean and its surrounding regions.

Ozdem Sanberk, Director of USAK

(*) Hugh Pope, A Little Something New: Cyprus Talks Begin, Crisis Group, 11 February 2014.

(**) Mustafa Kutlay, “Kıbrıs sorununda çözüme ne kadar yakınız?”, Radikal, 10 February 2014.

*JTW – the Journal of Turkish Weekly – is a respected Turkish news source in English language on international politics. Established in 2004, JTW is published by Ankara-based Turkish think tank International Strategic Research Organization (USAK).