A WEEK AGO the House of Representatives approved a resolution declaring that foreign guarantees were incompatible with an independent and sovereign state. It condemned Turkey’s arbitrary interpretation of the Treaty of Guarantee and called on Ankara to work towards ensuring Cyprus’ territorial integrity and independence by withdrawing its occupation troops.
Hundreds such resolutions have been passed over the years without anyone giving them a second thought and the same would have happened last week, had it not been for Mehmet Ali Talat’s intervention. On hearing that a resolution about Turkish guarantees had been drafted by the legislature, Talat contacted President Christofias and the DISY leader, asking whether its adoption could be avoided.
According to DISY chief Nicos Anastassiades, this was ‘friendly advice’ and not a demand, as some of the news media had reported. Talat was concerned that adoption of the resolution would provoke a reaction from the Turkish Cypriot ‘parliament’, where hardliner Dervis Eroglu’s party had a majority. Worse still, decisions by the ‘parliament’ were binding for the Turkish Cypriot negotiator.
It was a perfectly legitimate point and Talat was not being arrogant in conveying his concern to Anastassiades and Christofias. Nor was he ‘provocatively’ imposing his diktats on the House, as many on the Greek Cypriot side claimed. The resolution could have sparked retaliatory action which would have cause problems in the peace talks by needlessly raising the stakes.
Surely the Turkish Cypriot leader was entitled to communicate this concern to Christofias, considering they are both working towards the successful conclusion of the talks. This is how co-operation and trust is built.
Allowing the hardliners and demagogues of both sides who want the talks to fail to put pressure on the two leaders by conducting parallel negotiations in public undermines the entire peace process. Anastassiades recognised this but Christofias took a defiant stance, with his spokesman giving a lesson in constitutional theory by saying that “nobody has the right to doubt the authority and the right of the House to take its decisions”.
Does Christofias seriously think that allowing populist deputies to take control of the talks, by issuing resolutions on issues that have to be decided at the negotiating table, is helpful? If the objective is to do away with Turkey’s guarantee or, failing that, to limit its scope, would this be achieved through House resolutions or hard and clever bargaining? Realising this objective will be made much more difficult when the deputies of the two sides embark on a war of words and resolutions.
We are sure Christofias recognised this danger but in the last week his primary concern was persuading DIKO to stay in the government alliance. This would not have been achieved by adopting a sensible stance.
