Ulaş Barış writes..."Messiahs and Cypriot Romanticism of Solutionism"

Aristos Mihailidis, a columnist for the Greek Cypriot newspaper Filelefteros, scrutinized the informal dinner set for October 15 in his article yesterday.

Mihailidis, known for his critical stance on the seemingly “unrelenting” quest for a solution, sent warnings to President Nikos Christodoulides, accusing him of “walking barefoot on thorns.” He highlighted that Ersin Tatar stated there was no federal agenda for the dinner in New York, suggesting that Tatar intended to “cement” familiar separatist ideas through this meeting.

Conversely, Christodoulides asserted that the dinner had an agenda aligned with the UN’s parameters for a solution, emphasizing federalism, yet, according to the columnist, he would attend the meeting “unprepared.” Mihailidis argued that the Secretary-General’s attempt to find a “middle ground” could pave the way for an elevation of the TRNC’s status quo. He claimed that Christodoulides’s declaration of “I will not accept any formula outside a federal solution” was merely a red line, insufficient on its own.

Mihailidis further pointed out a critical aspect, stating, “but we are not the ones to articulate this red line. It is the Secretary-General Guterres who must do so.”

To provide context, 185 days prior, on April 5, 2024, Tatar met Guterres in New York. Before that meeting, Christodoulides had met with Guterres during an EU summit, prompting the Turkish Cypriot side to call for “reciprocity.” Although Guterres accepted the call and invited Tatar, he was unable to find a suitable flight to attend. Subsequently, Guterres summoned Tatar to New York, where they met.

In that meeting, Tatar reiterated his longstanding insistence on a two-state solution, openly expressing pride in his position during a press conference, stating, “We cannot wait for a solution indefinitely; we will continue with our state.”

After watching that press conference live, I criticized the Secretary-General for permitting such “shows,” which undermine the goal of a federal solution. In my last article, I insisted that the dinner on October 15 should not merely be a token event. If the dinner proceeds without tangible outcomes, and both sides merely repeat their respective positions to the press, it will undoubtedly benefit Tatar.

As Mihailidis noted, Guterres has not reprimanded Tatar for persistently advocating solutions outside the UN parameters since the Geneva meeting in April 2021. If Tatar uses this dinner to reiterate his stance and Guterres remains silent, the impression that the UN is not standing behind its own solution will be further reinforced.

However, the author of Filelefteros fears another issue, regarding a “non-document document” that is said to be introduced at the dinner. It is alleged that Guterres plans to present a new document based on the report from his personal representative, Maria Holguin, outlining criteria established in Crans Montana for a federal solution, albeit without labeling it as such.

Mihailidis contends that if Guterres offers a proposal that is more favorable to the Turkish Cypriot side in his eagerness to find a “middle ground”—which is his duty—then Christodoulides would have no luxury to reject it.

But should this be a concern?

While saying “should be” opens up the opportunity for some to accuse me as traitor in their reports, it doesn't bother me as a federalist. Conversely, if I assert it shouldn’t be, it contradicts my previous points. For a solution to be viable, reaching a compromise between the parties is essential.

Yet, if one side maintains maximalist positions contrary to the agreed UN solution parameters, the onus of intractability must rest with that maximalist party. It is the Secretary-General’s responsibility to identify this.

Nevertheless, there’s another significant claim regarding this dinner: the Turkish Cypriot side’s push for a meeting involving Turkey and Greece in a 4+1 format. Tatar has stated that this dinner’s main purpose revolves around that meeting, while Christodoulides has chosen to remain silent on the matter.

Yesterday morning, at a commemorative event, Christodoulides expressed that the international community would recognize how eager they are for a solution, saying, “Despite all adverse conditions, we have managed to bring new momentum to the Cyprus issue. The European acquis and UN Security Council resolutions guide us. We are working towards the much-desired liberation and reunification of our country within the mutually agreed framework.”

It is evident that Christodoulides has injected new energy into the Cyprus issue since taking office. Although he played a less influential role at Crans Montana, where he was treated as a minor player, it is essential to acknowledge what he has done in the last 1.5 years.

Forgive me, but my preference lies with the individual advocating for resuming federal solution negotiations rather than one declaring that federalism is dead. As I mentioned, I am a federalist.

Therefore, I find it insidious that CTP leaders and elites, in unison (and through the AKEL voice), manipulate the narrative that “there are still 3.5 years left of Christodoulides's presidency; a solution will only be possible afterward.” Such pre-judgments attempt to lead to a conclusion: the eternal and outdated corridors of the Cyprus issue’s unresolved status.

Those who engage in “blame games” before even assuming office, purportedly for the sake of garnering votes, are not genuinely pursuing a federal solution; their true aim is to secure their positions.

This shallow mindset aims to select a “Messiah” in the north first, then one in the south 3.5 years later, to revive the “Cypriot romanticism of solutionism.”

While I find the likelihood of such a scenario slim, I consider it my duty to rigorously critique those pushing for the status quo under the guise of conformity.

We have witnessed this narrative before. When former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon visited the buffer zone on that fateful day, we experienced firsthand the disappointment of such visionless thinking. Long before that, during the Annan Plan period, we had learned but failed to take heed.

Thus, it is those harboring such notions who must shed their “solutionist mask,” not Christodoulides. His track record speaks for itself, and no matter what he does, it will always be scrutinized.