Cyprus is pursuing peace through a two-state solution, with strict timelines and a focus on engaging civil society to break the deadlock between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The renewed approach aims to foster urgency, clear choices, and a shared future for both communities amidst ongoing challenges and shifting political dynamics.
What is Cyprus’s renewed approach to achieving peace?
Cyprus’s renewed approach to peace involves strict negotiation timelines, accountability for failure, and a participatory process engaging civil society, women, and youth. This method aims to break the deadlock by fostering urgency, clear choices, and a focus on a shared future for both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.
Breaking the Impasse
The quest for peace in Cyprus has been a long and tumultuous journey. The United Nations secretary-general’s personal envoy is currently endeavoring to break the persisting deadlock that has gripped Cyprus negotiations for over seven years. In the face of these challenges, the Turkish Cypriot pro-solution camp is coalescing around the idea that new negotiations must be bound by pre-determined timeframes and should entail clear consequences should they fail. This approach is rooted in the belief that a sense of urgency and accountability could be the key to breaking the cycle of unsuccessful talks.
Despite earnest efforts, peace talks have come to a grinding halt, particularly after the 2017 Crans-Montana discussions faltered. In a stark shift, Ankara has pulled back its support for continued dialogue predicated on a bicommunal, bizonal federation. The current Turkish Cypriot leadership, backed by Ankara, insists on affirming the ‘sovereign equality’ of the breakaway state prior to any further negotiation—a stance that has drawn criticism from long-time advocates of a federal solution within the Turkish Cypriot community.
Voices for Change
Ozdil Nami, a stalwart proponent of a federal solution and a former chief negotiator, firmly believes that the path forward lies in resuming talks from the breakpoint at Crans-Montana. He advocates for a definitive timeline, leading to a referendum where both Greek and Turkish Cypriots would have a clear choice between federal unity or division. Nami asserts that trust has eroded to such an extent that the negotiation process itself must be revolutionized to foster any hope of a federal solution.
International organizations such as the International Crisis Group have echoed these concerns. They highlight the pervasive distrust between the two sides, which poses a fundamental obstacle to any meaningful dialogue. Nami, in response to the UN’s appointment of a personal envoy, has tweeted that searching for common ground without shifting methodologies would be an exercise in futility.
The Opposition’s Stance
The Republican Turkish Party (CTP), the main opposition party, has expressed a similar sentiment. In their communications, the CTP has reaffirmed its dedication to a federal solution aligned with UN Security Council resolutions. Yet, it recognizes the need for a fresh approach. Fikri Toros, representing the CTP, argues that successful peace processes are often underpinned by a target date—indicating that the open-ended nature of previous talks might have contributed to their failure.
The CTP advocates for a concrete deadline for negotiations, emphasizing the elimination of any potential return to the status quo. Toros also touches upon the delicate topic of the ‘cost’ associated with abandoning or rejecting an agreement, though specific proposals on this ‘cost’ are yet to be articulated.
Reinventing the Process
Ipek Borman, a veteran of the negotiation teams, concurs that a new negotiation process must be more results-oriented and include clear benchmarks and mechanisms to resolve stalemates. She emphasizes the significance of not only a participatory process involving civil society but also one that is inclusive of women and youth.
Borman warns against creating a divisive atmosphere while setting the groundwork for future talks. She advocates for a collaborative approach between Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, focusing on a shared future rather than retreading old grievances.
In summary, the path to a lasting resolution in Cyprus remains fraught with historical complexities and contemporary political challenges. Yet, there is a growing consensus that a new, structured approach to negotiations—one that incorporates stringent timelines, accountability measures, and broader societal involvement—may offer the best hope for a peaceful and united Cyprus.
What is Cyprus’s renewed approach to achieving peace?
Cyprus’s renewed approach to peace involves strict negotiation timelines, accountability for failure, and a participatory process engaging civil society, women, and youth. This method aims to break the deadlock by fostering urgency, clear choices, and a focus on a shared future for both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.
What challenges have peace talks in Cyprus faced in recent years?
Peace talks in Cyprus have faced challenges such as a persistent deadlock lasting over seven years, a shift in Ankara’s support for continued dialogue based on a bicommunal, bizonal federation, erosion of trust between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and failed negotiations post the 2017 Crans-Montana discussions.
What are some proposed solutions to break the impasse in Cyprus negotiations?
Proposed solutions to break the impasse in Cyprus negotiations include setting strict timelines with consequences for failure, engaging in a participatory process involving civil society, women, and youth, resuming talks from the Crans-Montana breakpoint, and advocating for a referendum with a clear choice between federal unity or division.
How do political parties and veteran negotiators suggest reinventing the negotiation process in Cyprus?
Political parties like the CTP advocate for a federal solution with a concrete deadline for negotiations to prevent a return to the status quo. Veteran negotiators emphasize a results-oriented approach with clear benchmarks and mechanisms to resolve stalemates, as well as the importance of inclusivity involving civil society, women, and youth in the negotiation process.
