Gözde AKBEN
Özdil Nami, a CTP-BG Nicosia MP who once served as Special Representative to Second President Mehmet Ali Talat, assessed the new negotiation process. Özdil Nami, a guest on Öğlen Ajansı, broadcast on Ada TV, answered Cem Kar’s questions.
Cem Kar: How have your days been since leaving your post as Special Representative to the President?
Özdil Nami: Of course, a great burden has been lifted from our shoulders. Looking back, we handed over our duties in a way that was, at least for us, spiritually satisfying. Our people’s legitimate interests were advanced, and things proceeded in coordination with Türkiye. So we handed this heavy responsibility over to the new team with a clear conscience. We feel a sense of relief as a result.
C. Kar: Do you have confidence in the team you handed over the job to?
Ö. Nami: Mr. Kudret is a friend we know, and his knowledge of the law is extremely deep. We have no doubts about him, but I don’t have much faith that the new setup can lead the Cyprus problem to a solution. That’s because visions and philosophies have been put forward up to now. I’m not among those who believe these can be changed with two or three statements. I think a crisis will emerge at the negotiating table before long. The Greek Cypriot side is already inclined to create these kinds of situations. I have completely lost my former optimism about the Cyprus problem.”
C. Kar: Are you making this assessment as a CTP MP, or as someone who has been part of the negotiating team?
Ö. Nami: I know that team, and I know the people who have taken on this role well. I also know their statements well. So I don’t see an environment at the negotiating table in which they could reach an agreement. What’s more, they are starting with the property issue, which is an extremely misguided topic. So they have invited a crisis. What should have been done first was for the two leaders to align their visions at the negotiating table. If they are genuinely sincere about continuing from where things left off, this needed to be confirmed at their first face-to-face meeting. At the first meeting, they absolutely should have held discussions on the structure of the state to be established and on confirming the understandings reached to date. It makes no sense to move on to the property issue without doing these things. The negotiations are now getting off to a wrong start.
C. Kar: Is this a game being played by the Greek Cypriot side?
Ö. Nami: There is a situation that serves the interests of the Greek Cypriot side. We had brought the outstanding issues in “power-sharing and governance” to the point of resolution, and had reached a position before the UN where the Greek Cypriot side could no longer backtrack. However, because we entered the election period, we could not get them to take the final step. Instead of focusing on this now, moving on to property without fully resolving these issues and while raising a host of question marks over them was not, in our view, an appropriate decision. In practice, I think it is illogical to discuss property with a side with whom you do not agree on what the state you are about to establish will look like. If you are genuinely sincere when you say you will continue from where things left off, you need to confirm that at your first meeting. If you don’t confirm it, your sincerity will be questioned. You won the election with different rhetoric. You said that Mr. Talat and his team—that is, we—had made concessions that should not have been made. You came to this office promising to take them back. Now you are suddenly discussing property as if none of that had happened, even though this is a persistent demand of the Greek Cypriot side.
C. Kar: What are your thoughts on the new team?
Ö. Nami: Looking at the team presented as the main negotiating team, there are young colleagues in it. I know many of them and hold them in high regard. I have not the slightest doubt, in particular, about Mr. Kudret’s knowledge of the law. So all I can do is wish such a team good luck. But my assessment of the advisory board is very different, because it is not possible for that board to reach agreement within itself. I don’t understand what kind of position recommendations an advisory board that cannot reach agreement will make, or how it will advise the president. There are views from very different camps. A diversity of ideas resulting from different views can be useful within the framework of a shared vision, but when I look at this advisory board now, I see people who want to move toward very different goals. So I don’t believe it can perform a sound advisory role, and no one should expect much from it. Having these views on the board will not lead to a brainstorming process; it will make the board like a bee that produces no honey, working among themselves constantly but unable to produce any outcome or reach any conclusion.