Cypriot High Commission in London Euripides Evriviades has stressed that partition of Cyprus cannot be imposed that the people of the island would never grant it legitimacy.
He was commenting in a letter, published in the Economist on Saturday, on an article of November 29 on the Cyprus problem, which said that “many observers doubt if a federal solution would ever work” and notes among others that “partition would reopen the border, return more property and land (including the ghost resort of Varosha, next to Famagusta) to the Greek-Cypriots and stop the Turkish-Cypriots’ international isolation.”
“If the latest talks fail, its time may yet come,” the Economist article concluded.
In his letter Evriviadies addresses the author of the article saying that “you described the options for solving the Cyprus problem as `intractable – or insoluble?`”.
According to him “it is neither, unless one is willing to accept that a stronger state can forcefully dismember one of its neighbours; none of the UN resolutions and European Court of Human Rights rulings matter; international rules and regulations do not apply to occupations; civil and human rights are not universal; the Ankara narrative that the Republic of Cyprus does not exist is true; and that Cyprus is Turkey’s vassal state.”
If one accepts this, he noted, “which sadly but not surprisingly you seem to do, then its logic leads to your partition argument which, in a bygone age, was the favourite fetish of colonial bureaucrats. A cursory look at the history of partition in the 20th century reveals its moral and political bankruptcy.”
The Cypriot High Commission recalls that “the European Union strove for unity, not division.”
At the same time he warns that “there is a risk with your argument”. Partition, he adds, “opens the Pandora’s box for other seemingly “intractable” or “insoluble” international problems.”
“The partition of Cyprus may remain a favourite notion for many academics. But they should know that it cannot be imposed”, he points out, highlighting the fact that “legitimacy for its implementation will not be granted to them by the people of Cyprus, whatever the subterfuge used”.
The article attracted commentary from former British special representative for Cyprus David Hannay who expresses the point of view that “better surely for all parties to get back to the negotiating table and give the new UN envoy a fair chance to tease out a solution.”
Hannay says that alternatives to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation “all require the parties to cut deals on precisely the same issues that are frustrating a successful conclusion to the UN-led negotiations: territory, property, security.”
“Why should the parties reach painful compromises for a lesser reward?”, he wonders.
At the same time he recalls that Turkish Cypriot negotiator Ergün Olgun “has been peddling the same highly theoretical objections to federation since he worked for Rauf Denktash at the end of the last century.”
Hanney also expresses the point of view that gas reserves in Cyprus` Exclusive Economic Zone will bring real benefits to everyone on the island “only if they can co-operate over their development, including with Turkey”.
Cyprus has been divided since 1974 when Turkey invaded and occupied its northern third. Numerous rounds of UN-backed talks to reunite the island under a federal roof have failed to yield results.
Cyprus President Nicos Anastasiades decided to suspend his participation in settlement talks, following Turkey`s provocative acts in the island`s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
Turkish seismic exploration vessel Barbaros entered Cyprus` EEZ in October, a few days after Turkey had issued an illegal maritime order (NAVTEX) for the area.
