KOFI ANNAN’S report said that the outcome of four-and-a-half years of effort on the Cyprus issue represented another “missed opportunity” to resolve the problem and said the Greek Cypriot side could have achieved more had it engaged in any give and take throughout the final stages of the process.
Annan’s report gives a run down of the negotiations from the failure at The Hague last year, when the Turkish Cypriot side walked out, to the last stages at Burgenstock in Switzerland in March this year.
“Full use had not been made out of four of the six days available for this critical negotiations,” the report said adding that the UN team had been reduced to shuttling between the sides in lieu of direct negotiations.
He said that after talks collapsed at The Hague last year he had told the Security Council that he would not propose any new initiative unless there was a solid reason to believe that the political will existed necessary for a successful outcome. He said he sought these guarantees from the two sides and from Greece and Turkey.
He also said that at that time President Tassos Papadopoulos had been prepared to submit the plan to referendum provided certain procedural concerns were met.
In December 2003, the Greek Cypriot side asked for the renewal of negotiations and this was followed by a commitment to talks by Ankara in January 2004. The two sides then went to New York in early February and a procedure was agreed that negotiations would take place in Nicosia on February 19, and a second phase in Burgenstock in Switzerland from March 24-31 with the contribution of Greece and Turkey. If all procedures failed Annan would fill in the blanks on his plan by March 30, and the two sides would take it to referendum on April 24.
Recounting the to-ing and fro-ing, Annan said little of significance had been achieved during the Nicosia talks. He said the Turkish Cypriot side’s demands had been outside the parameters of the plan and had far-reaching changes. It was mid-March by the time they modified their demands, he said, adding that no territorial proposals were put forward by them.
Annan said that by contrast the Greek Cypriot side took each issue in turn and produced dense and lengthy papers “one after another” and it became apparent that their list was not exhaustive.
“The Greek Cypriot side declined to provide a comprehensive paper of all textual amendments it sought until midway through the Burgenstock phase and declined to prioritise its demands,” said the report.
Annan added that the Greek Cypriot side insisted its proposals did not take any rights from the Turkish Cypriots and therefore did not require tradeoffs. By contrast the Turkish Cypriot side was prepared to engage on Greek Cypriot proposals and to discuss matters on a realistic basis and sought to make counter offers, the report said.
Annan said that an additional factor blocking any kind of frank discussion at the table was the regular disclosure of the (Nicosia) talks to the media usually with a negative spin “either by Greek Cypriot leakage or the daily oral briefings by Mr Denktash to the press”.
He said the Greek Cypriot side had also refused the four-party meeting with Greece and Turkey at Burgenstock, reducing the UN to holding social gatherings to break the ice, which it did “but did not lead to real negotiations” Annan said.
He said the Greek Cypriot side did not produce a full list of demands until March 25, which ran to 44 pages but was still not prioritised. “The opportunity was not taken for full and frank dialogue at Burgenstock,” said the report.
When the two sides failed to agree on a comprehensive settlement, Annan then filled in the blanks as agreed, but he said the Greek Cypriot side was dissatisfied with his bridging proposals and made this clear publicly. “This negative public reaction was reflected in the resulting media coverage on the Greek Cypriot side,” he said.
He also said it was March 30, one day before the talks ended, that the Greek Cypriot side communicated its views for the first time on the UN proposals and it was the first time it expressed any interest in specified pieces of additional territory.
He said that despite four years of negotiations, the parties found it difficult to agree on key points “even though they were well aware of the kinds of compromises that would be needed”.
Annan’s report, in addition to heaping praise on the Turkish Cypriot side, also lauded Turkey “whose policy enabled the new effort and which reflected the political maturity of that country and her leaders”.
“Prime Minister Erdogan’s commitment to me to be one step ahead of the efforts for a solution was kept and I appreciated the strong support of the Turkish government from the top down, for my efforts,” he said.
Annan also praised the Greek government for its advice and the way it refrained from taking positions that might appear that it was interfering in Cyprus’ internal affairs.
“There is always the possibility that following a period of reflection something may emerge which offers a way to refloat the plan and salvage a settlement from the current situation,” he said. “But neither of the Cyprus parties has made a proposal to the United Nations or to the other – to my knowledge – to resolve this impasse. I do not see any basis for resuming my good offices as long as this stand-off remains.”
