Ulaş Barış writes..."Is It a Simple Meal or a New Process?"

Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has once again taken the initiative on the Cyprus issue by inviting Ersin Tatar and Nikos Christodoulides to a tripartite meeting.

This informal dinner is scheduled for October 15 in New York.

Tatar's office announced this information to the press last night, emphasizing that there is no 'agenda' for the dinner and that it does not signify the beginning of federal negotiations.

Moreover, Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu joined the discussion, reiterating that the meeting is merely a “dinner” and emphasizing that the negotiations for a federal solution have stalled.

Ersin Tatar, who reluctantly accepted the dinner invitation upon returning from New York, seems to be reflecting the frustrations of the unresolved status in our country. This stance, led by Ertuğruloğlu's faction, which often criticizes Tatar with the phrase, “A lion in Lefkoşa, a mouse in New York,” reveals their bias against any steps taken toward a resolution.

Simultaneously, Tatar is grappling with accusations of inaction while recognizing that CTP leader Tufan Erhürman has emerged as a serious candidate for his position following Erhürman’s recent trip to New York, which was later disclosed to be at the behest of Ankara. Tatar is acutely aware that, under normal election circumstances, he would likely fare poorly against Erhürman.

Therefore, he understands the necessity of taking action, as his tenure has been marked by travel records rather than any tangible achievements. He has neither opened new doors nor signed any agreements, and he knows well that the “recognition of the TRNC” proposals presented in Geneva in April 2021 have become stale and yielded no results.

Thus, Tatar is in dire need of a success, which is evident in the context of this tripartite dinner. Another motivation behind this meeting is Turkey's efforts to engage in foreign policy initiatives, particularly the rapprochement between Turkey and Greece.

This rapprochement holds significant importance in terms of the Eastern Mediterranean dynamics and EU-Turkey relations. As previously stated countless times, a Turkish-Greek rapprochement that continues to leave the Cyprus issue unresolved is doomed to fail.

If given the chance, especially Greece would prefer that the Cyprus issue not be mentioned in the context of Turkey-Greece relations. However, the realities on the ground suggest otherwise. Therefore, the Cyprus issue is unsustainable for both countries (apart from some interest groups).

Of course, one can assess the extensive geostrategic implications, but given the Middle East situation, the Russia-Ukraine issue, and the energy dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is not difficult to assert that a political solution to the Cyprus problem is essential.

Nonetheless, the number of those wishing to maintain the status quo is not insignificant. The long-standing status quo has created false narratives through organic ties and obligations, and the Cyprus issue has devolved into empty, grandiose slogans.

However, setting these aside and examining the state of the tripartite dinner, we can conclude that either the Secretary-General has called for this meeting under the Cyprus-style understanding of “friends show up for shopping,” or there is something at play that we do not fully comprehend.

What we may not fully grasp could relate to the “4+1” meeting issue mentioned subtly by Ertuğruloğlu. Tatar subsequently echoed this notion upon returning from New York, stating that the dinner might be a groundwork for the 4+1 discussions. In this context, two theories emerge.

The first question arises as to why the fifth party, namely the UK, is not involved. According to HP leader Kudret Özersay, this situation seems somewhat strange, yet it is ultimately believed that the British will participate in the process. Özersay also noted that the Greeks view the UK as an ally and will insist on its involvement in the process. But why not from the start?

The second point that comes to mind is that, given the doomed nature of this process, the British may have better things to do.

Could it be that simple?

A third theory suggests that discussions are ongoing between Turkey and Greece regarding certain formulas and collaborations, with rumors of Greece mediating between Turkey and the Greek Cypriots.

It is widely known that top representatives of the AKP met with former President Anastasiades at his residence in Troodos.

In any case, returning to the 4+1 issue, I believe this could represent a significant step forward. However, before reaching this point, we face several major challenges. The foremost among them is the agenda issue I mentioned at the beginning of the article.

Tatar insists there is “no agenda.” In contrast, Christodoulides asserts, “the agenda is clear: discussing the potential to resume solution negotiations from where we left off in Crans.” In other words, a federal solution!

I think: if there is such a thing as a UN criterion and if the UN Secretary-General's mandate aligns with those criteria, indicating a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation based on political equality, what other agenda could there be?

If the UN has arranged this informally, allowing everyone to say what they wish, then I can’t say for certain.

If anyone can say anything they want, then the Turkish side will speak of a two-state solution, and the counterpart will insist on federation, effectively ending the conversation before it starts.

Is this what the UN wants?

Will the Secretary-General listen to the parties once more and declare that the federal solution has ended?

Or has a formula been found that will not be referred to as a federal solution but will essentially contain its elements?

Some suggest that the agreement reached will be somewhere between a confederal structure and a decentralized or loose federal system.

Others believe, just as in the federal negotiations, that the Turkish side will concede land, ceding Maraş, thus creating a model of cooperation between two states.

There is much speculation, yet no tangible arguments exist.

Regardless, if no concrete steps emerge after the meeting on October 15, the UN will bear the greatest responsibility. Each failed step taken further buries hopes for a resolution on the island and alienates the communities from one another.

I hope the UN is aware of this.

Is it a simple dinner or a new process?

I suppose we will find out on October 15…