A new and critical stage has been reached in the Cyprus issue with the UN plan submitted to both sides by Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has asked for either approval or rejection.

            It has become clear that at this critical stage neither side  can accept the plan as it is. Instead they will move into negotiations by drawing attention to some points in the document.

            Within this process of negotiations, which can be seen as an important  and new beginning towards an end to the Cyprus issue, aspects of the UN plan should be clarified for the Turkish Cypriot side.

            Asking for the clarification of certain points in the plan should not be perceived as being against a solution.

The plan should bring a just and lasting settlement to the island

            The document prepared by  UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, which proposes a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problem should be changed into  grounds which should bring a just and lasting peace to the island. Otherwise a solution reached in a hurry and under  pressure can only bring uncertainty, instability and chaos to the island instead of a lasting settlement. It may be possible to impose a solution in a short time, but this definitely  could not be long lasting. Cyprus needs long-lasting solutions instead of short-term and risky ones.

            A map was also submitted with the plan. It is expected that a preliminary agreement is going to be signed before the EU Copenhagen Summit on 12 December. There is a  high probability that both sides are going to sign this preliminary agreement and start to discuss and talk in detail about all the different aspects involved.

            To move hastily over an issue like the Cyprus problem which has been dragging on for a long time and which involves many delicate balances, can have undesirable results. Rushing and exerting pressure can put at risk the existing peace and stability in the region.This can lead to undesired negative developments in Turkish-Greek, EU-Turkey, and EU- Cyprus relations. Therefore, after  preliminary agreement, the UN plan should be discussed  and revised in order to  put it into a form based on the realities of Cyprus.

A well-promoted plan

It has been indicated that the plan submitted by the Secretary-General is a last and  never to be missed opportunity. Although this is a correct diagnosis there are many contentious aspects to the plan.

            The document was well-promoted to  public opinion by the media  before it was presented to both sides. It was reported that the plan included what the Turkish side wants. Furthermore, it was claimed that the Greek side was deeply uneasy because of this. After the submission of  the plan, the first positive statement about the plan, was made by Greece. This was followed in  parallel by the Greek Cypriot side. The Turkish media also claimed that this plan was a comprehensive settlement plan which included what the Turkish side wants. It was emphasised in the media that the equality of  the Turkish side was written into the plan and   there would be no minority-majority relationship in the partnership state to be comprised of two constituent states. To cut a long story  short, positive aspects of the plan were emphasised, while the negative perspectives were disguised. Suddenly, people were being made to believe that the EU membership of Cyprus would be possible  without any difficulty with this plan and the EU would give a negotiation date to Turkey parallel to this.

  Uncertainties in the plan

 Although at  first glance the contents of the plan submitted by the Secretary-General appear to include the demands of  the Turkish side, when the details are examined it can be observed that this is not the case. The plan’s approach to sovereignty and guaranties is not as clear as has been claimed. It is  indicated in the plan that the component states shall not be sovereign but shall each  exercise their own authority within the limits envisaged by the constitution of the common state. In spite of the fact that there were similar articles in the 1960 partnership agreement, and even  sanctions and supervisions together with  Guarantee and Alliance Agreements, the Turkish Cypriot side was ousted from the partnership Republic and the Turkish Cypriot people had to live under Greek Cypriot threat for many years. Thus it  is impossible  to protect the Turkish Cypriots’ rights and equality only by a few written forms of guarantee. During  the period 1960-1963,  the Greek Cypriots did not allow  the partnership mechanisms to work and even the Guarantee and Alliance Agreements were not enough to make these mechanisms work properly. This illustrates the importance of good intentions and sincerity. At the stage we have reached it is a reality that there is no confidence between the sides. There are  worries that some points in the plan may lead the Turkish Cypriots back to the pre-1960 period. These should be seriously  assessed  well, and concrete articles which  guarantee the Turkish side’s rights and interests should be written into the plan.

 Handing over and sharing authority

             According to the proposals put forward by  Kofi Annan, authority is not being handed over by the component states to the central government.  Instead, the component states shall exercise  authority within the limits  envisaged by the central government. There is the danger of  rearrangement of this handing over of authority which is initially planned to be realized by a fully constitutional arrangement. Thus, in a situation where  the common administrative system reaches a deadlock, there are no provisions in the plan that provide for the protection and continuation of the legality and  international existence of the component Turkish State. Yet another problem in this connection is the reality that when Cyprus becomes a member of the EU much of the central government’s decision-making authority will be transferred to Brussels. With this development it becomes unclear just how authoritative and independent the component states will be allowed to be, despite of  central government and  EU norms.According to the viewpoint of  EU legal expert Prof. Dr. Nanette Neuwahl, the distribution of  powers between the component states and the central administration has  not been well balanced  and  the authorities of the component states remain unclear. Prof. Nuewahl is concerned that together with the membership of Cyprus in the EU some powers which originally are going to be vested in the component states could be transferred to the central government.   In short, in the long-term the canton model solution based on one state could in time revert to being a unitary structure in which the largest population will have all the advantages.

Thus in the plan, which envisages EU membership with one national identity, and one representation and sovereignty, the authority of the component states remains unclear. Therefore during the  period of negotiations this complicated issue must be discussed  and clarified.

 Constitutional issues 

 In the 1960 Republic of Cyprus constitution each side had veto powers regarding important decisions related to both sides that could be taken by the ministers, president or vice-president. Due to this veto power both sides had to compromise in decisions that would be taken. Thus they were taking decisions together within a completely  equal partnership institution. However, due to the unwillingness of the Greek Cypriot side to see the Turkish Cypriots as their equal partners this system could not work. Makarios, the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, first tried to make constitutional changes in order to reduce  the Turkish Cypriots from an equal to minority status. Since this could not be achieved, the Turkish Cypriots were ousted from the partnership government by force of arms. In spite of all the guarantees in the constitution, the Greek Cypriot partner took the title of the Republic of Cyprus overnight while the Turkish partner was left without any status in the international sense. Therefore, the Turkish side has always been insistent on the issues of equality and sovereignty while searching for a solution to the problem. During the years 1984-1986 the then UN Secretary-General Perez De Cuellar and in 1992 the then UN Secretary-General Butros Ghali both prepared models for a solution to the Cyprus problem and included provisions for veto powers for both sides in legislative and executive matters. Thus they tried to eliminate the danger of population majority dominating and pressurising the minority. However in the new plan submitted by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan there is no provision which will actually establish a balance of equality between the two sides. According to the plan, decisions in parliament and the senate will be taken on the basis of merely a majority vote. In parliament the sides will be represented according to the proportion of their population. However, in the senate equal representation is being considered. While taking decisions within the framework of this mechanism, one fourth of the component states’ representatives ‘yes’ vote will be required in the meetings. However, representatives of the component states in the parliament and the senate will not be homogenous. That is to say there may be minorities (Maronites, Armenians and even Greeks) among the representatives of the Turkish Component State in parliament. Nevertheless in the long term such a structure will lead to the advantage of those who comprise the majority of the population. In short, in a legislative system where there is no veto power vested in the sides, there is the danger of  the Turkish side losing its power in the decision-making mechanisms.

Again, in the Presidential Council executive representation will be according to the population ratio. The Council will be comprised of four Greek Cypriots and two Turkish Cypriots. In the Council there will be a rotational Presidency and decisions will be mostly taken on the basis of consensus. However, if this cannot be achieved then decisions will be taken on the basis of merely majority votes. In such majority vote decisions it will be essential that there shall be at least one ‘yes’ vote from the representatives from each community among those who vote. Another important issue at this point is that the members of the Council will be elected by the parliament at which the Greek Cypriot side will be the majority in numbers. In such a Presidential Council, the veto right is so weak that it like non-existent. In time the structure of the Council will change, giving the advantage to those who have a population  majority.

While evaluating this subject, it should be noted that according to the plan envisaged by the Secretary-General a certain number of Greek Cypriots will come over to the Turkish side every year and will have the right to live and settle here. Therefore, although at first glance it appears that there is political equality in the plan, if the existing proposals are going to be applied as they are foreseen in the plan the Turkish side will be reduced  to  a minority position and will lose its powers in the legislature and executive.

 The issues of  guarantees and territory

There are complications in the issue of guarantees. It is felt that in the proposals the guaranty system is being internationalized with the intention of reducing Turkey’s powers. For Turkish Cypriots the acceptance of the effective guaranty of Turkey is very important. Another important factor for the Turkish side is the issue of territory and exchange of property. The maps involved in the plan and the right given to the Greek Cypriots to return to their old properties, even if it is limited, may lead to the abolition of  bi-zonality in the future. Another important question is that the Greek Cypriot capital may take control over the Turkish side. This issue also needs to be discussed and clarified, and how the economies of both sides will be balanced should be made clear.

Conclusion

It is the Turkish side which is most in need of a solution due to the isolation and embargoes imposed upon it by the international community. A solution is for the benefit of the Turkish Cypriots. However such a solution should be just and lasting. At this stage everyone should contribute to this.

            In the plan submitted by the UN Secretary-General it is foreseen that everything will develop with an attitude of goodwill. With this in mind, it is proposed that the Turkish side should give up all national values and take every kind of risk in return for EU membership. In  this proposal sovereignty, equality, bi-zonality in the long-term, or the effective guaranty of Turkey are not as they are desired to be.  In the issue of property, title deeds are fundamental and those who did not own any property in the South but who are now holding the ownership of some Greek Cypriot property in the North shall have to pay the financial cost for this. The plan is positive for those who are prepared to do that.  However, the UN Secretary-General’s proposals are not sufficient and there is still much work to be done in the opinion of those who think that there is a need for a solution in which the political equality and sovereignty of both sides will be recognized, the Turkish side will have the right to be represented in the EU, cultural autonomy shall be preserved, the effective and full guaranty of Turkey will continue and the obstacles blocking Turkey’s EU perspective will be removed.