The principle of “No Return to the Status Quo” and the prerequisite of rotating presidency should be reviewed.
After Turkish Cypriots wasted a long and valuable period of time with Ersin Tatar’s unsubstantiated rhetoric, they elected Tufan Erhürman, who symbolizes the will for a solution in the eyes of the community, to the leadership position, hoping, among other things, to see progress on the Cyprus Problem.
However, there are two points in Erhürman’s proposed “methodology” that, in my opinion, need to be reconsidered. The view expressed in the fourth point—that if negotiations fail because of the Greek Cypriots, there will be no return to the status quo—is unacceptable from the perspective of traditional negotiation methods. No negotiator would accept beforehand what they stand to lose in a negotiation that ends negatively! Especially when there is no concrete idea about what is being demanded…
The second point is the view expressed in the first item of the “methodology” regarding rotating presidency.
Rotating presidency has always been the subject of a broader negotiation package. Therefore, insisting on obtaining rotating presidency before negotiations begin is not the right approach.
Erhürman justifies this insistence by claiming that Nikos Anastasiadis said in Cran Montana, “I categorically reject the presidential rotation.” This is not entirely accurate; it is an incomplete assessment.
Nikos Anastasiadis did indeed make such a statement. He even communicated this view in writing. However, he later clarified his acceptance of the rotating presidency in Crans Montana, again in a written document.
Indeed, Mustafa Akıncı himself stated this. Responding to questions from TAK and BRT reporters on May 2, 2018, Akıncı said that the Greek Cypriot side initially adopted a “rejection” stance on the rotating presidency in Crans Montana, giving a written response stating, “We have already ensured the equality of Turkish Cypriots, there is no need for a rotating presidency, we are fundamentally opposed to it,” but added that “towards the end of the negotiations, they indicated that they could accept the rotating presidency.”
Akıncı also stated that the Greek Cypriot side proposed that the Co-Chairs be elected using a single ballot, known as a ‘Single Ticket’ system.
Everyone knows that Nikos Anastasiadis is not sincere about this and is maneuvering. However, it is also true that he is using the rotating presidency as leverage in negotiations on other issues.
There can be no rotating presidency without give-and-take.
The Guterres Framework explicitly states that the rotating presidency leaves no room for misunderstanding. The framework refers to a 2:1 rotating presidency.
However, while the Guterres Framework addresses the Turkish side’s demands regarding political equality and rotating presidency, it takes into account the Greek Cypriot demands concerning guarantees and territory. It particularly emphasizes that the right of unilateral intervention is unsustainable. In other words, the demands of the parties are regulated on a give-and-take basis within this Framework. For example, it is proposed that while Turkish Cypriots obtain rotating presidency, the Greek Cypriot demands regarding territory and guarantees are taken into consideration.
Frankly, demanding a rotating presidency without stating your position on other negotiation issues, let alone starting negotiations, is not an acceptable approach.
Kaynak: Paralel Monologlardan Diyaloğa Geçmek Elzemdir! – Niyazi Kızılyürek
1 commento
The principle of “No Return to the Status Quo” and the prerequisite of rotating presidency should be reviewed.
After Turkish Cypriots wasted a long and valuable period of time with Ersin Tatar’s unsubstantiated rhetoric, they elected Tufan Erhürman, who symbolizes the will for a solution in the eyes of the community, to the leadership position, hoping, among other things, to see progress on the Cyprus Problem.
However, there are two points in Erhürman’s proposed “methodology” that, in my opinion, need to be reconsidered. The view expressed in the fourth point—that if negotiations fail because of the Greek Cypriots, there will be no return to the status quo—is unacceptable from the perspective of traditional negotiation methods. No negotiator would accept beforehand what they stand to lose in a negotiation that ends negatively! Especially when there is no concrete idea about what is being demanded…
The second point is the view expressed in the first item of the “methodology” regarding rotating presidency.
Rotating presidency has always been the subject of a broader negotiation package. Therefore, insisting on obtaining rotating presidency before negotiations begin is not the right approach.
Erhürman justifies this insistence by claiming that Nikos Anastasiadis said in Cran Montana, “I categorically reject the presidential rotation.” This is not entirely accurate; it is an incomplete assessment.
Nikos Anastasiadis did indeed make such a statement. He even communicated this view in writing. However, he later clarified his acceptance of the rotating presidency in Crans Montana, again in a written document.
Indeed, Mustafa Akıncı himself stated this. Responding to questions from TAK and BRT reporters on May 2, 2018, Akıncı said that the Greek Cypriot side initially adopted a “rejection” stance on the rotating presidency in Crans Montana, giving a written response stating, “We have already ensured the equality of Turkish Cypriots, there is no need for a rotating presidency, we are fundamentally opposed to it,” but added that “towards the end of the negotiations, they indicated that they could accept the rotating presidency.”
Akıncı also stated that the Greek Cypriot side proposed that the Co-Chairs be elected using a single ballot, known as a ‘Single Ticket’ system.
Everyone knows that Nikos Anastasiadis is not sincere about this and is maneuvering. However, it is also true that he is using the rotating presidency as leverage in negotiations on other issues.
There can be no rotating presidency without give-and-take.
The Guterres Framework explicitly states that the rotating presidency leaves no room for misunderstanding. The framework refers to a 2:1 rotating presidency.
However, while the Guterres Framework addresses the Turkish side’s demands regarding political equality and rotating presidency, it takes into account the Greek Cypriot demands concerning guarantees and territory. It particularly emphasizes that the right of unilateral intervention is unsustainable. In other words, the demands of the parties are regulated on a give-and-take basis within this Framework. For example, it is proposed that while Turkish Cypriots obtain rotating presidency, the Greek Cypriot demands regarding territory and guarantees are taken into consideration.
Frankly, demanding a rotating presidency without stating your position on other negotiation issues, let alone starting negotiations, is not an acceptable approach.
Kaynak: Paralel Monologlardan Diyaloğa Geçmek Elzemdir! – Niyazi Kızılyürek