Columnist argues that the main objective behind the Cyprus settlement is to have a new partnership based on two communities and two states on the island

Columnist Resat Akar, writing in Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris (05.07.11), reports the following commentary under the title “Win, win”:

“UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon makes a strenuous effort to have the half-a-century-old Cyprus problem solved. He will definitely be remembered in history if he achieves his objective.

Ban Ki-Moon adopted the ‘win, win’ concept, which Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan proposed in the past, to persuade the sides to reconcile their differences. He informs the Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders at every opportunity that they ‘stand to gain, if they make concessions’.

But, can a solution be found without the sides moving on to the give-and-take phase of the process?

No, a solution cannot be found.

If the Turkish Cypriots are to be recognized rights beyond those they had in 1960, then the objective is to solve the refugee problem through the return of a very large section of the property in the north to the Greek Cypriot side.

The main objective behind the solution is to have a new partnership based on two communities and two states on the island… That calls for the removal of the Cyprus Republic, which is controlled only by the Greek Cypriots, and the establishment of a new partnership Republic by the Turkish and Greek Cypriot founding states.

What is more important is that the Turkish Cypriot state will be recognized by the UN for the first time. It will have its separate legislative, executive, and judicial organs. And, Turkish will be an official EU language. All that will be among its gains.

We will do injustice to ourselves if we fail to sincerely accept all that.

Undoubtedly, there will be things that we will lose…

The Greek Cypriot side demands the return of all the property the Turkish Cypriot side began to control after Turkey’s peace operation [translator’s note: Turkish invasion in Cyprus] in 1974 to agree to give up the Cyprus Republic. However, the Turkish Cypriots, with a view to maintain the bi-zonal structure on the island, argue that some of the property cannot be returned. They insist that the principle of exchange or compensation can be applied for those who will not receive their property.

More than 100,000 Greek Cypriots will have an opportunity to return to their property if the matter is solved on that basis. That must not be underestimated.

Another point on which the Greek Cypriot side insists, is related to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island.

The Annan Plan called for the withdrawal of the Turkish troops within a period of 14 years. The 39,350 Turkish military units in Cyprus would be reduced to 6,000 two years after the solution of the island’s problem. They would later be reduced to 3,000. Some 650 Turkish troops and 950 Greek troops would remain by the end of the 14-year period.

The symbolic presence of 650 Turkish troops in Cyprus will definitely not be a serious and durable guarantee for the Turkish Cypriots. What is feared is that the Turkish Cypriot people will be confronted with a serious security problem if Turkey fails to join the EU or if EU, in which Cyprus is a member, cannot exist for a long time.

That is the main reason for the insistence of the Turkish Cypriot side on the continuation of the system of guarantees.

If the Turkish Cypriot minority is attacked again, the attackers must realize that Turkey is only eight minutes away from the island.

The problem of guarantees will be debated at a four or five-party conference if the sides reconcile their difference on the property and land problems during the next two months. They [guarantors] will make the final decision. However, they must consider the fears of the Turkish Cypriot people. The Turkish Cypriots must not be left without a guarantee after so many years.”