insan wrote:Can you tell me what has changed on the basic solution principles of Turkish side when compared with Denktash term and Erdogan term or Talat term. Nothing. Turkish side still defend the same basic principles and parameters of solution.
I would like to hope something has changed, because Denktash never had his heart in re-unification. The best he would condone (and I hope we will not need to argue on this) was a loose confederation of two separately sovereign entities. I am not saying that Denktash didn't want peace, but these were the only terms on which he would choose peace instead of the current situation.
Now, what was the Annan Plan? Simply the direct result of the High Level Agreements and nothing else? We should not ignore the process of negotiation leading up to the creation of the plan, during which period Alvaro de Soto and his assistants were desperately attempting to reconcile the demands of Denktash and Clerides. And since most of Denktash's demands were way outside the 1977 / 1979 framework, (eg confederation instead of federation, no right of return for GCs under TC administration), the authors of the Annan Plan did their best to accomodate these demands while remaining faithful to the letter of the high level agreement. This is how we ended up, for instance, with the "virgin birth" approach to sovereignty, by which the Annan Plan is neither a clear federation nor a clear confederation, or with the highly constricting residence limitations which, while remaining true to the letter of the High Level Agreements, which talked of majority control of constituent states, in fact created a situation closer to the "ethnic purity" which Denktash envisaged. It is such provisions in the Annan Plan which made GCs reject it ...
(And of course, there was nothing in the High Level Agreements to suggest that 60,000 settlers should have the right to stay, or that large number of troops would stay in Cyprus for 20 years after the solution, or that Turkey would have the right to intervene in the GC constituent state as well, or that the whole scheme would lead to economic ruin within a few years because the authors of the plan were lawyers who did not understand Economics well.)
How would it be different with Talat? Well, Talat comes from a different ideological background, CTP has always favored re-unification rather than independence. So, even though his behaviour at the negotiating table has not been proven yet, I expect that he will be more open to amendments that will lead to genuine re-unification (cross voting, integrated schools, a federal zone, less restrictions to residence etc. etc.)
In Turkey, also, a wind of change is blowing (you are right though, it's not just Erdogan). A more co-operative approach to international problems is replacing the older oppositional doctrine. (This has been confirmed to me by some Turkish academics in Istanbul who are friends of mine) This, too, will bring a new air to negotiations over Cyprus.
About Tassos, I don't know: I have no hard evidence as of yet either way, that will prove to me whether he is an implacable hardliner or just someone who wants a decent solution to the Cyprus Problem. So far, his public statements as to how the Annan Plan should be improved are generally on the right wavelength: Stronger integration of the two communities, more effective deadlock resolution
(let's not immediately assume that this is a ruse to conceal "majority rule" demands), settlers, security, guarantees, economy. To me it sounds like his greatest concern is to not sign a solution that will collapse two years later - and I am in tune with that. Of course, we shall only know for certain how he will behave, when negotiations recommence ...
Overall, I would say I am tentatively hopeful that important progress will be made this year. I am not saying we will get a solution this year: Too much needs to be done before we reach that stage. But a new understanding will gradually begin to emerge, a new vision of what a bizonal - bicommunal Federation should look like ...
Have a good evening, my friend. My apologies if I have been rude or sarcastic during the course of this intense discussion today.
