The agreement on two new crossing points offers a welcome sign of cooperation, but unresolved questions continue to complicate reunification efforts
UN envoy Maria Angela Holguin has been and gone, and the opening of two crossing points have been agreed and if and when they are opened at least one of them should be named checkpoint Maria in her honour.
The most notorious checkpoint during the Cold War was checkpoint Charlie that derived from the Nato phonetic alphabet: Alpha was where you entered East Germany from West Germany; Bravo where you entered West Berlin from East Germany and Charlie where you entered East Berlin from West Berlin.
In Cyprus the most famous crossing is the one on Ledra street, known as Lokmaci on the Turkish side, that was opened in 2008 during the Christofias-Talat era 2008-2013. It should not to be confused with the Ledra Palace crossing, which was the first to be opened unilaterally in 2003 when a solution to the Cyprus problem was believed to be imminent.
Back in 2003 there was a best-endeavours undertaking for Cyprus to join the EU without its problem. Alas it was not to be! And although Cyprus’ accession into the EU in 2004 was promoted as a catalyst for a solution, the catalysis never happened.
Predictably, the federal solution on offer in 2004 was roundly rejected by 75 per cent of the Greek Cypriot community and nothing much has happened since. These days the EU and Turkey are not as enthusiastic as they were in 2004, the powers that be in Cyprus do not mind the status quo and Cyprus-problem fatigue prevails all round.
The geopolitical situation has changed too. The wars in Syria, Ukraine, Gaza, South Lebanon and the attack by the US and Israel on Iran and its retaliation in the Gulf and the closure of the straits of Hormuz and the oil and cost of living crises that followed have made states readjust their international relations.
In Cyprus, the RoC government has abandoned its close association with Russia in favour of the US due to the war in Ukraine. It has also responded positively to overtures from Israel when most other countries are giving the current extremist government in Israel the cold shoulder. Being close to Israel backed by the US is reassuring for some but a touch naive and sycophantic for others.
Turkey is not indifferent to these realignments and it is difficult to see how it would agree for Turkish Cypriots to join in a federation within a Cypriot state so close to Israel.
Nevertheless, for Turkish Cypriots a bicommunal bizonal federation (BBF) is the only pragmatic option that suits their Cypriot identity, while preserving their culture and way of life.
For this reason, the agreement to open two crossing points in Cyprus was a welcome development. It involved extensive and difficult negotiations and required a blunt warning from Holguin to happen.
“If, over the past two years, the parties have been unable to agree on a crossing point to facilitate communication… how can they agree on a political, economic and social model capable of overcoming decades of division and growing distance between the two communities?” she asked rhetorically in an interview with newspaper Politis last October.
She also pressed the parties to discuss the issue of a rotating presidency and resolve it at the outset of negotiations as there would be little point continuing if they could not agree on this pivotal issue.
Although it is hard to believe, a rotating presidency had not been a controversial issue let alone a taboo subject in the past. In 2010, the Turkish Cypriot side accepted a Greek Cypriot proposal for a rotating presidency to serve a five-year term on a 2:1 rotation, elected separately but with cross voting weighted 80:20 on each side
The idea was that two presidents would be elected to serve in consecutive turns of two thirds and one third and, importantly, that each zone would have an input on who would be elected president on the other side. Greek Cypriots would naturally have a bigger say on who becomes president-elect in the Turkish zone, but that’s fair enough since they are the majority.
The proposal was accepted by the Turkish side but was subject to the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and everything was not agreed.
The issue of a rotating presidency remained on the table to resurface in the next round of talks in 2017 at Crans Montana, but with two variations: voting would be for president and vice president elected from a common roll and weighted as agreed previously.
As is well known, the talks at Crans Montana in 2017 failed to produce a settlement. There were a few important loose ends that could not be tied up and one of them was the importance of a rotating presidency to political equality.
However, the reason why a rotating presidency is difficult is not just political, it is also human or even personal. Why would Nikos Christodoulides agree to emasculate the office he holds as president of the RoC, if conceding a rotating presidency is likely to lose him votes in the 2028 election?
My own view is that the arrangement that best serves the people is an executive council of seven like they have in Switzerland whose chair rotates every year and is the first among equals — primus inter pares.
My reason for preferring a rotating executive council is not because it is conducive to political equality but because an executive council is less prone to corruption.
