Historical last train!

The eighteen-month negotiation process we have been through faced significant challenges until today.
Besides the 77-79 high-level summit agreements, which served as the basis for the eighteen-month negotiation process, Talat and Christofias’ convergences were also a guiding light. However, Anastasiades – Eroğlu declaration of 11 February 2014 was the basis of the settlement building process. Corner stones of the structure defining the federation are embedded in this declaration. Not only this but the strategic structure of the negotiation process was clearly defined by all means and constrained the parties.
That being; rejection of arbitration, chapters being discussed interdependently, nothing being agreed until everything being agreed and certainly, having simultaneous referenda following the approval of the leaders.
Looking closely into the 18-month process, both leaders adopting a result oriented negotiating approach and negotiating for “two yes votes” as a translation of the settlement will they had can be listed among the distinctive characteristics of the new period.
Yet, I can’t help thinking that both leaders have failed to take the actions, which would transform or influence their own status quo. Especially, the fact that not even an influential confidence building measure could be taken is well worth of attention. Inefficiency in transforming their own sovereign structures, while making significant progress at the negotiating table is also an issue, which exercises one’s mind. Deryneia and Apliki checkpoints still not being open, being unable to integrate the mobile telephony systems on the island of Cyprus, failure to take the steps which would have a positive impact on the daily lives of people in practice, despite various verbal statements on issues such as education and culture created a big dip.
The constructive strength of leaders at the table did not make progress with support in the daily life.
As a person who closely follows the process, I believe that the main breaking point was experienced in New York. And the conflicting wishes of the two leaders in New York, regarding setting a date for the five party conference and waiting until all negotiation chapters were complete before any further step was taken, never converged, could not be converged in any further meetings.
I believe that the confidence crisis between the two leaders has marked the 1st and 2nd Mont Pelerin discussions.
At this point, I think that Mr. Anastasiades did not construe the strategic approach of the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Akıncı. For Mr. Akıncı’s strategic approach did not involve any intention to outmanoeuvre the Greek Cypriot community and to put it in a difficult position. On the contrary, a settlement which would be embraced by both sides and a position, which would not create a perception of dominance of one side over the other, has been the sincere position of Mr. Akinci since the very first day. My impression is that Mr. Anastasiades has indeed responded constructively and positively to this stance up to a certain point.
Cyprus problem is an international problem. If Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots do not become determinants of this process and request the external factors to play a role in this picture, the equation will end up in a crisis. That is because Turkey and Greece, perceived as support by both sides today, do not share a political world belonging to the same block. Then again, in a period where very critical conflicts of interest, imperialist polarization and interventions exist in the region, ignoring the balance and sensitivity between the parties would have brought an upheaval and it did so.
Turkey has always made supportive statements regarding the negotiations throughout the process and also showed this in practice. We need to underline this without any complexes. However, the same Turkey, as a country that has tendency to move away from the EU and to become part of the Shanghai Five, which opts for a tough line in foreign politics, would not have remained silent against statements of Greek Foreign Minister Mr. Kocias that unfortunately still continue. This was very well known. And it was a reflection of Turkish real politics. Whether we like it or not.
And the stage we are in today has lost its promising dimension. The train has been derailed. In other words the will now is shifted to Tsipras and Erdoğan and it is not with Anastasidaes and Akıncı.
At this point a new page is being turned for Turkish Cypriots who lost their hopes for resuming, as well as the Greek Cypriots.
The success of the new process that will begin in January mainly depends to the change of rhetoric of Turkey and Greece to a constructive language. We will see to what extend this will happen.
I don’t believe that the way to the solution is fully open. However, it's true that we can be more hopeful today than the yesterday.
Cautious and hopeful…
That’s the way in which historical processes work. History does not always give you the opportunity to transform. And when it does, you have to bring it to a conclusion. If you fail to put forward the required will, then there is no possibility of taking a new opportunity. And you furnish an occasion for other terms to be discussed. Other terms you disapprove of…
Price of non-solution would be an out of control struggle for power and show of force.
A price to be paid that we do not deserve!