Our View: Why is UN so keen for a Cyprus settlement?

It was not a surprise to hear Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar say that he had received a telephone call from the UN asking him to go to New York in September for talks on the Cyprus problem. There have been reports about a meeting of the two leaders at the UN next month for some time now, although the UN Secretary-General’s spokesman told the Cyprus News Agency on Friday that Antonio Guterres was still considering whether to invite them to a joint meeting.

President Nikos Christodoulides said at the beginning of the month that he had been sounded out by the UN about attending a meeting in New York on August 13 and was ready to do so, but there was an immediate denial by Tatar, who said there was no point to such a meeting as there was no common ground. He accused Christodoulides of trying to create impressions that would put pressure on the Turkish Cypriots.

Tatar indicated, while on a visit to Turkey, that he would be in New York in September and would sit at the negotiating table “only if our sovereign equality and statehood is affirmed.” He stressed that he was waiting for the UN to satisfy these conditions although he seemed to be less strident than usual. The small change of stance might be linked to the invitation extended to Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan to attend Monday’s informal meeting of the General Affairs Council in Brussels.

The real question is why the UN is persisting in getting the two sides together after the failure of the mission of the Secretary General’s personal envoy Maria Angela Holguin. After months of contacts and trips to the region, Holguin could not even get Tatar to agree to a face-to-face meeting with Christodoulides in Cyprus, so why has the UN persisted with its initiative? Holguin’s mandate may have expired at the end of June but she is still leading efforts to bring the two sides to the negotiating table, with the support of the UNSG.

There must be outside support for the UN to persist with attempts to bring the sides to the negotiating table. The EU may be pushing as this would remove a major obstacle for Brussels’ drive to upgrade relations with Ankara, something that both sides want, but has been stumbling over the Cyprus problem. April’s European Council decision linking EU-Turkey relations to the Cyprus problem has not helped matters. Greece’s government, which has also backed the UNSG’s efforts, recognises that a Cyprus settlement is an imperative for the full normalisation of relations with Turkey that both sides have been working on. And it would not be a surprise if the United States, although it has much bigger and more pressing concerns, was also supportive of a settlement drive in a region that has become a tinderbox.

According to diplomatic sources, the UN is working on a formula designed to satisfy each side even though it would require the consent of the other side. For example, there is information that it would propose the Turkish Cypriot side would be given the “three Ds” – direct trade, direct flights, direct contacts – if settlement talks fail because of the Greek Cypriots. It is unclear whether Christodoulides would agree to such a condition. Perhaps this is the reason he has called a national council meeting before heading to New York. The Greek Cypriot side, meanwhile, would be given assurances of the so-called “three Ss” – single sovereignty, single citizenship, single international personality – if talks failed because of the Turkish Cypriots. Nobody knows whether the Turkish side would agree to this.

All this remains speculation for now, but the fact that the UNSG has not given up the effort, despite ample justification to do so, would suggest there is real interest in a settlement outside Cyprus. In fact, it is questionable whether there is such a level of interest inside Cyprus, where the two sides have found a new reason for exchanging accusations – tour operator Tui reportedly stopping taking tourists on day trips to the north at the behest of the Cyprus government.

Ways of keeping alive hostility and mistrust will always be found on the island so long as the leaderships of the two sides obdurately refuse to see the bigger picture, of the benefits of a settlement for all, which at present can only be seen by outsiders.