Opinion
By Kyriacos Jacovides*
“It would be particularly interesting if the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative would list each side’s violations in the buffer zone and their characteristics”.
The policy of equal footing, which in essence offers cover to the Turkish side and exonerates it for its provocations in the buffer zone, was once again followed by the UN Secretary General's Special Representative in Cyprus, Colin Stewart. This “equal footing policy” which is in fact biased in favor of the occupying power and the pseudo-state is not Mr. Stewart’s invention. It is the standard tactic of all the special representatives of the Secretary-General and his envoys in an attempt not to discredit Turkey.
By what logic does the UN official believe that it is possible to find a mutually acceptable solution? Does he not listen to Tatar and Erdogan who are calling for a two-state solution?
In his statements in New York, Mr. Stewart claimed that there were violations of the buffer zone by both sides. It would be particularly interesting if the Special Representative of the Secretary-General would list each side’s violations and their characteristics. Who is violating the buffer zone in Strovilia? Who is intervening in Famagusta? Who is violating the buffer zone in Agios Dometios? Who is responsible for the stagnation of the memorandum of understanding in Pyla? Why doesn’t he list the violations committed by each side?
Offering cover to occupying Turkey, who has admitted she is responsible for what is happening in the occupied areas of Cyprus, Stewart argued that each incident should be examined separately, depending on its characteristics, noting that different things in different parts of the buffer zone should not be equated.
Here is a glorious field of glory for the Canadian diplomat, to present the violations in the buffer zone by each side, examine them separately and assess how serious and dangerous each one of them is.
In the same statements, Mr. Stewart said that the United Nations believes that it is possible to find a mutually acceptable solution to the Cyprus problem. Another classic example of the equal footing policy. By what logic does the UN official believe that it is possible to find a mutually acceptable solution? Does he not listen to Tatar and Erdogan who are calling for a two-state solution? How will Ms. Cuellar try to move forward with efforts to resolve the Cyprus problem, as Mr. Stewart noted? Isn’t this statement also a cover for the Turkish side which publicly states that it is seeking a two-state solution? How can one move forward with the processes to solve the Cyprus problem when Turkey and the occupying regime are seeking a two-state solution and the United Nations pretends not to have heard anything?
Having Mr Stewart’s cover, Turkish Cypriot leader, Ersin Tatar, became even more exasperated: he claimed that the UN reports on the violations in the buffer zone are biased, while he did not fail to accuse the Greek Cypriot side of maximalist positions. In fact, the side that is provoking in the buffer zone accuses the other as well. The side that wants a two-state solution accuses the other of maximalist positions. Tatar also claimed that the Turkish Cypriot side was trying to promote a positive agenda. I guess that’s why they are violating the buffer zone. So, Tatar started promoting the “positive agenda”. The tragedy is that he says it and believes it. After all, how many times can he repeat the same lie?
*Kyriacos Jacovides is a Political Scientist/ Journalist
