European Union and the Cyprus issue
by
ALİ YURTTAGÜL*

This issue was discussed at the December 2006 summit, following failed attempts by the Finnish presidency. At the summit, Turkey was asked to fulfill its obligations and eight negotiation chapters were suspended. Part of the resolution adopted at the summit stating that developments in the years to come would be monitored is now the source of the ongoing discussions. Opponents to Turkey’s European Union membership, including the Cypriot Greeks, view this part as a deadline for the fulfillment of Turkish obligations and expect tougher sanctions and measures in case Turkey fails to meet the deadline. For this reason, the number of those who are asking for a more constructive approach from Turkey is on the rise in Brussels. A decision from the Turkish side to change its position is unlikely, but there is almost no chance that the EU would adopt tougher sanctions. The test of the “EU trump card” in the talks on Cyprus expected by the Greeks is at the core of the matter. Because the Greeks hope that they will be able to use Turkey’s EU bid in an attempt to push for a compromise from Turkey, they rejected the Annan plan and devised their policy accordingly. Before an assessment of whether this expectation is a realistic one, I would like to shed light on the EU’s position with regard to the Cyprus issue.

 Even though its main focus is economic interests, the EU was created out of a search for lasting peace and stability on the continent in the aftermath of World War II; for this reason, achievement and preservation of peace has been a primary goal since its inception. This policy, which has played a key role in the rapprochement between Germany and France, has also been influential in the achievement of internal peace in Spain and Portugal and a determining factor in the democratization of Eastern Europe. For this reason, the admission of Cyprus into the EU was viewed as an opportunity to find peace on the island. However, sadly, the misperception held by Günter Verheugen, now vice president of the European Commission, and EU High Representative Javier Solana that Rauf Denktaş was the only obstacle to the attainment of peace on the island and the design of the entire EU policy vis-à-vis the dispute based on this misperception has created grave consequences.

 The dismissal of the Annan plan by the Greek Cypriots was due to their contention that they would get full membership without achieving a resolution on the island and that they would have a better position in the talks because of their membership in the exclusive club. This was not actually wrong. For this reason, the EU has become part of the problem rather than the resolution in the dispute and turned into a useful tool in the hands of the Greeks. We will see whether this card is still influential and powerful in the summit scheduled to take place in December. However, we may say that the resolution adopted in 2006 and the suspension of membership talks with Turkey in its aftermath makes us pessimistic on this matter.

Realization of grave mistake

However, rejection of the Annan plan and the nationalistic environment in southern Cyprus in the 2004 referendum was well noted by Brussels. A number of politicians, including Verheugen, then the EU commissioner for enlargement, realized that a grave mistake had been committed by admitting Cyprus to the EU. In a speech he made before the European Parliament on April 21, 2004, Verheugen openly said he had actually been deceived. No sanction was imposed against Cyprus, though, and there is no institutional mechanism to do so anyway. However, Tassos Papadopoulos’ defeat in the presidential elections was partly due to the implied objection by Brussels to his rule and stay in power. But, I should still note that the Cyprus issue is an obstacle to Turkey’s EU membership and that the EU is unable to take action because of its institutional weaknesses and shortcomings. I may also argue that reference to the decision taken in the 2006 summit in the resolution adopted in 2009 negatively affected the negotiation process and raised unrealistic expectations among the Greeks. It is now time for a discussion of a probable resolution to be adopted at the December summit with regard to the Cyprus issue.

 Cypriot representatives in the parliament and opponents to Turkey’s membership in the EU argue that additional measures and sanctions should be imposed upon Turkey in case of failure to meet the deadline. Diplomatic circles that support the Cypriot stance but view the introduction of additional sanctions as unrealistic hold that the issue should be discussed at the summit. They further argue that Turkey should be warned of the consequences of its failure. Some diplomats are already considering the proper response to Turkey’s reluctance to meet its obligations. However, they are particularly concerned about the determination of the European Commission and the Swedish presidency to remain calm and cautious and not to take any steps that will be detrimental to the negotiations.

The first confusing surprise came along with the European Commission’s report on Turkey. In this report, the commission did not put a strong emphasis on Turkey’s failure to fulfill its obligations under the relevant treaties and agreements. To this end, it should also be noted that the report does not include any view or recommendations that could be discussed at the upcoming summit in December. Olli Rehn’s approach to this issue further raised concerns for the Greeks. In presenting the report on Turkey at the European Parliament, Rehn praised Turkey’s efforts to contribute to the resolution of the Cyprus issue and also stressed that December 2009 should not be viewed as a deadline. He wanted to clarify the contentious expression in the report, saying that it was himself who penned the statement and that it did not mean to impose a deadline.

Sweden, responsible for drafting the agenda of the summit and the texts of the decisions to be taken at the end of the meeting, seems to be constructive and realistic on this matter. The Swedish presidency is particularly focused on the successful conclusion of the negotiations on the Cyprus issue. Carl Bildt, the Swedish foreign minister and an experienced politician, describes the ongoing talks on the island as a historic opportunity and stresses that the term presidency is entirely focused on the successful conclusion of the talks. For this reason, Sweden particularly refrains from making any reference to the details including the controversy on the free passage of Cypriot vessels in Turkish ports and harbors. The Finnish presidency also attempted to resolve this problem but it failed. The German presidency abstained from dealing with this problem because it realized that the Greek side was unwilling to give up on its isolation policy on northern Cyprus. Basically, Sweden is ambivalent about the two options. They will either work hard to make sure that Turkey complies with the provisions of the Ankara Protocol and opens its ports to Greek vessels or focus on the successful conclusion of the talks. It seems that Sweden will stick to the second option and remain indifferent to Turkey’s fulfillment of its obligations.

A more active role requested of Turkey

Considering the attitudes of the European Commission and the term presidency, it could be said that the relevant paragraph on Cyprus will include two messages: First, the report may stress that Turkey should take action to fulfill its obligations under the relevant treaties and agreements but offer no tough sanctions. Secondly, the same report may also call all relevant actors to make an effort in an attempt to successfully conclude the talks. To this end, Turkey will most probably be asked to remain resolute to contribute to the achievement of lasting peace on the island and assume a more active role. However, it should be recalled that resolutions at EU summits are of a collective character and reflect the common denominator of the 27 member countries shaped by their internal dynamics. Who knows, maybe the reasonable approach held by the European Commission and the Swedish term presidency will not be influential. There are many politicians who want to deliver a message to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan over the Cyprus issue because of his recent visit to Iran.

This is actually what Turkey should pay attention to and concentrate its efforts on. Turkey, which has been feeling comfortable because of the endorsement of the Annan plan by the Turkish community on the island, should follow Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu’s active policy on this matter as well and develop new options toward achievement of a viable resolution. This should not mean that the ongoing policy is wrong. Turkey should keep focusing on the resolution of the problem and take proper measures against Papadopoulos’ doctrine seeking to put Turkey in a difficult position. Compromise will attract other concessions and do nothing but contribute to the preservation of the state of irresolution. A lasting and viable peace and resolution will serve the interests of both Cyprus and Turkey.

It is necessary to understand Dimitris Christofias, who holds a crucial position at the negotiation table. Not only diplomats but also the opposition that supported the Annan plan are waiting for the December summit and expecting the introduction of sanctions against Turkey because of the controversy over the ports. For this reason, it is not possible for Christofias not to consider this expectation before the summit. However, it appears that the two “old friends” are aware of the historic opportunity they have and of their responsibilities to resolve the problem. Those who are familiar with the Cyprus issue will confirm that Papadopoulos committed a grave mistake when he asked Cypriots to vote against the Annan plan. Failure in the conclusion of the ongoing talks will exacerbate the situation on the island and make the parties, as well as ordinary people, unfaithful toward the achievement of a viable resolution. No additional political, economic and social walls should be constructed while there are already plenty of other obstacles and barriers on the island.

Hopefully, the EU institutions and political actors that have failed so far in the Cyprus issue will act more responsibly now and not allow a discussion over deadlines and details like the Ankara Protocol. I could argue that Mehmet Ali Talat’s complaint suggesting that the EU’s greatest problem is their lack of knowledge on the Cyprus issue does not apply to EU Commissioner Olli Rehn and the Swedish term presidency. Both the commission and the presidency are aware that the extension of support for the ongoing talks carried out under the auspices of the United Nations is the most constructive and viable approach for the EU.