Friday, May 17, 2024
More
    HomeOpinionsCypriot PerspectiveThe rejection of the Guterres framework! Oh of insanity...

    The rejection of the Guterres framework! Oh of insanity…

    When we talk about the Guterres framework, we mean the one of 30 June 2017, because only that has the un stamp. The Guterres framework dated 4 July is just a desirable amendment on the part of the Greek Cypriots and nothing else.

    By George Koumoulli

     

     

    Everyone, without exception, recognizes the tragic stagnation in which the Cyprus problem has fallen. But few recognise that the current stagnation may lead, in the long term, to the acceptance of the two-state solution by the EU and the UN.

     

    It has been over half a century (since 1968) that we talk to the Turkish Cypriots without any result. In 2-3 decades we will be approaching a century. It is logical for the UN to tell us at the time: “Since there is not the slightest prospect of agreement and, bearing in mind (a) the successive shipwrecks of the talks in the past and (b) the nationalist hysterias of those of your political leaders who thunder every calm treatment of the problems of any solution and bid on maximalism and intransigence, you better part officially, be quiet too, let us be quiet too.” Only we will not rest, because the withdrawal of UNFICYP will mean the abduction of the dead zone by the powerful.

    So? So I’d better not talk about potential nightmarish moments we might experience. Unfortunately, this will be the legal outcome of the Cyprus problem and I hasten to add that I will be the first to celebrate if history disproves me.

     

     

     

    Our leaders, in order to be relieved of their own responsibilities for the failure of the talks, are throwing everything at The Turkish intransigence, that is, that the “other side” is 100% to blame for the stagnation, a position that will also make the pardal goat laugh relentlessly. I am not implying that Turkey is the most conciliatory country in the world. Far from it! But, to take the anger, it is we who have kicked the opportunities for a solution over the last two decades, namely:

    (1) the Annan plan that was given to us on the plate of Morphou, Famagusta, 52 villages and the gradual withdrawal of Turkish troops,

    (2) the enigmatic, unprovoked, unjustified withdrawal of the PD from the talks in Mont Pellerin and Cran Montana and

    (3) the rejection by the PD of Akinci’s suggestion that the Guterres framework is also adopted by the two sides as a “strategic package agreement”. At the same time, it is worth recalling that the UN praised Turkey for its constructive attitude (indeed!) in both 2004 and 2017.

     

     

     

    The rejection of Akinci’s proposal for a strategic agreement on the Guterres framework in 2018 is perhaps the darkest page in Cyprus’ history since 1974.

    First of all, however, I would like to stress that when we talk about the Guterres framework, we mean the one of 30 June 2017, because only that has the un stamp.

    The Guterres framework dated 4 July is just a desirable amendment on the part of the Greek Cypriots and nothing else.

    The framework was not offered as a solution, but provided guidelines for negotiations.

    It provided in the first 2 of the 6 points, which in my opinion are the most important, the revision of the system of the 60s and its replacement by a new security regime, as well as the withdrawal of troops. In particular in point 1, Guterres calls “the current guarantee system unsustainable”.

    Guterres also specified in his context that “Cyprus needs a new security system and a credible monitoring framework” to implement the settlement agreement. His reference to a “new safety system” meant replacing the Guarantee Treaty with a new Security Treaty.

    The primary reason for monitoring the implementation of the solution would be the UN Security Council and not the three guarantor powers as with the Guarantee Treaty. In summary, the Guterres framework is extremely important because it is the first document in the history of the talks that provided for a rapid withdrawal of Turkish troops and the abolition of guarantees.

    As unbelievable as it sounds, the leader of the Turkish Cypriots accepted it, while our own leader rejected it! What insanity!

     

     

     

    How is Anastasiades’ rejection of this opportunity explained? Indeed, the problem is complex.

    First of all, Akinci’s suggestion was made in April 2018 when the industry producing “golden” passports was at its zenith and money was then flowing around and with deafening noise into the coffers of the big lawyers linked to the ministers and the PD.

    As we now know from the various reports, the riches from the ‘golden’ passports have emasculated everyone and the solution to the Cyprus problem has been marginalised.

    Next, Anastasiades does not accept, in fact, political equality as described by the UN, because, according to Anastasiades, it is tantamount to the domination of the one who is numerically the minority over the one who is numerically the majority.

    After all, he does not accept that the Turkish Cypriots must be effectively involved in all the decisions of the federal government.

    Moreover, let us not forget that Anastasiades has expressed to many personalities his preference for a two-state solution.

    It is no secret that the nationalist right, the Church and the landowners prefer half of Cyprus purely Greek rather than a unified, bicommunal Cyprus, and this, by the way, is an additional dramatic irony, since, all of them, they are seeking the solution envisioned by the Turks since the 1950s!

     

     

     

    *Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.

    - Advertisement -
    RELATED ARTICLES
    - Advertisment -

    Most Popular