by Jerry » Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:51 am
President Chrisotofias should attend the talks with UN and EU as observers. He should open by saying that he is only willing to accept a solution that enshrines the principles of the UN Charter of Human Rights. He should add why, as an EU member and independent State, Cyprus should be expected to forgo its sovereignty by accepting the right of third parties intervene in the island's affairs.
From The Cyprus Mail:-
Christofias was wrong to reject Erdogan’s invitation
PRESIDENT Christofias wasted no time in rejecting a proposal made by Turkey’s prime minister Tayyip Erdogan for five-party talks on a Cyprus settlement. During a meeting in Rome with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, Erdogan proposed that the three guarantor powers together with Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat should meet and work together for a settlement; he also brought up the idea of Ban bringing the two leaders to New York for talks.
A few months ago Erdogan made a similar proposal for a four-party meeting but again it was rejected by Christofias on the grounds that this would upgrade the status of Talat, who was not the leader of recognised state.
It was a rather unconvincing excuse, even though he repeated it yesterday, saying a five-party meeting means “two communities; it means the downgrading of the Cyprus Republic which cannot be accepted.”
On the surface this may seem a legitimate reason for not having the meeting, but it undermines Christofias’ position about the need for Turkey to adopt a more positive role in the peace process as well as his oft-repeated assertion that the key to a solution was in Ankara.
The president is being given the opportunity to engage in talks directly with Turkey, which holds the key, but instead of seizing it he has turned it down because the Republic’s status would supposedly be downgraded.
But a man who is committed to a settlement and who believes the main obstacle is Turkey would have jumped at the opportunity to participate in such a meeting. It is not pragmatic to entertain the idea that Erdogan would ever sideline Talat and have a one-on-one meeting with Christofias about Cyprus.
The Turkish PM made a counter-proposal, which should not have been rejected outright by the president if he sincerely believes that he can persuade Erdogan to change his stance on the peace process. At such a meeting, he would have a good chance of achieving his objective because he would also have the backing of Greece’s Prime Minister, something that would strengthen his position.
It makes no rational sense to waste this opportunity on the grounds that the Republic would be downgraded. How would this happen? Would it cease being a member state of the UN or the EU, or would other countries recognise the ‘TRNC’ as a result? None of this would happen. As for Christofias’ conviction that “Turkey is in the orbit of a communications game, appearing to want solutions and making proposals,” there is only one way to prove it – by calling Erdogan’s bluff.
By rejecting the proposal for a five-party meeting outright, he is helping Turkey’s communications game to achieve its objective, which according to the president, was to show “that we do not care particularly for a solution to the problem”. This was why he should have responded diplomatically to Erdogan’s proposal rather than immediately rejecting it.
Last edited by
Jerry on Thu Nov 19, 2009 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.