Straightforwardly, a memorandum denotes a “reminder” or a “note of things to be remembered.” Diplomatically, a Memorandum of Understanding is when two countries “express a convergence of will, indicating an intended common line of action.” Both definitions could quite reasonably portray last week’s UK-Cyprus Memorandum of Understanding signed by Republic of Cyprus (RoC) President Demetris Christofias and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. But despite the mixed feelings over this memorandum and stalwart macho talk that typifies Cypriot politicians, what does the Memorandum essentially mean and why has it been welcomed by some Cypriots but is vehemently opposed by others? 

UK – CYPRUS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

During his first official visit to the UK, President of the Republic of Cyprus Demetris Christofias met his British counterpart Prime Minister Gordon Brown before signing a Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Cyprus. An attempt to improve and strengthen UK – RoC relations, which during the last Papadopoulos Presidency had deteriorated, the timing of the memorandum was seen by many as belated.  Both the UK and the RoC are sovereign states and partners in the European Union (EU). Both countries have strong economic trade links with 300,000 Cypriots living, working and studying in the UK. It is as much in Britain’s interest as it is in Cyprus’ interests to strive to maintain and improve their relations.

But not all is international, the memorandum was also an attempt to “boost domestic support” for President Christofias, according to Stephanos Evripou of the Cyprus Mail. Like Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, Christofias too is an elected politician and so too is British Prime Minister Mr Brown who is aware of the impact of Cypriot voters in the UK.

The memorandum for the most part deals with ‘usual issues’ found in all state-to-state bilateral agreements; a pledge to counter International Terrorism, to Cooperate in Education, Health Care, Immigration and Football Hooliganism. But a few aspects have disturbed a hornet’s nest in the north of Cyprus among many Turkish Cypriot leaders.  

UNACCEPTABLE

Hasan Ercakica, the spokesman of Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, called the memorandum “unacceptable, and contrary to the agreements Talat and Christofias made in their meetings on March 21 and May 23.” Mr Ercakica said the British were providing support to the Greek Cypriots “which they do not deserve” with the motive of preserving their military bases on the island. A strong remark, perhaps the crux of Mr Ercakica’s argument was the fact that the Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly rejected the Annan Plan in 2004… but must we muse over the past?

The memorandum also perturbed the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat who was allegedly “not happy with a number of clauses in the memorandum.”  One of his objections was the reference to the basis of a future settlement: a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality, reflecting single sovereignty, citizenship and international status. Another point of contention was Britain’s pledge not to recognise or upgrade the status of any new political entity on the island. 
 

COMMITMENT TO REUNIFICATION

However, while the memorandum may not treat both Cypriot communities as equals (only the Republic recognized by the UK), which justifiably upsets the Turkish Cypriot side and it can be argued is ill-timed during the current peace process, the wording of the memorandum is actually hardly controversial: “…the UK commends the leaders of the communities on the process agreed on 21st March and 23rd May 2008.” Further down, the memorandum states: “The Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom will cooperate in the following areas: Both countries commit themselves to working together to reunify the island. The aim is a comprehensive and durable settlement based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and political equality as defined by the relevant UN resolutions… The wording continues: “This settlement must be based on a single sovereignty, international personality and a single citizenship.” Echoing the 23 May Joint Statement, which all sides welcomed, the memorandum does not appear to deviate from what has already been agreed by all sides. 

NO TO KOSOVO PRECEDENT IN CYPRUS

The only possible bone of contention is the following: “The UK reiterates its commitment to its obligations as a Guarantor Power. The UK will continue fully to respect existing UN resolutions on Cyprus, including UNSCRs 541 and 550. Therefore the UK will not support any moves towards the partition of the island or the recognition or up-grading of any separate political entity on the island.” 

Why? Kosovo which recently unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia with Western support has led Russian-backed leaders in South Ossetia and Trans-Dniester began to speak openly about following the example of the American-backed Kosovars. As Timothy Garton Ash of the Los Angeles Times remarked: “Calling the Kosovo Precedent a special case won't stop others from trying to follow its independence example.” Naturally pro partition Turkish Cypriots found renewed hope but strangely so did many Turkish Cypriot supporters of reunification. When relations between the UK and the RoC under the Papadopoulos Presidency were strained and progress very weak, the threat of a Kosovo Precedent repeated in Cyprus served as an important ‘stick approach’ strategy for a solution aimed at forcing the economically more comfortable Greek Cypriots to sit and negotiate towards a solution. The core of the argument was they (the Greek Cypriots) have nothing to lose if talks fail.

The memorandum effectively shatters this approach. Ruling out another Kosovo no doubt angered partioners but also enthusiasts of a ‘stick approach’ seen a ‘last hope.’ But as academic Costas Carras said this week, Kosovo is hardly a model to follow. Since its independence, some 30 countries recognise her while 50 point blank refuses to.  Established contrary to International Law, the statelet cannot join International Organisations and is forever blocked from ever joining the EU by countries like Spain, Romania and Bulgaria who have similar autonomous regions.  
 

TURKISH CYPRIOT ISOLATION

Mr Papadopoulos’ Snooty Presidency which had made little effort to meet Mr Talat may have prompted Britain and Turkey to sign a Strategic Partnership Agreement which hinted at upgrading the status of the TRNC, but now Mr Christofias is no Mr Papadopoulos!

A long term friend of Mr Talat and from a trans-ethnic party which includes Turkish Cypriots, President Christofias see issues such as Turkish Cypriot isolation as “unacceptable.” Earlier this month Mr Christofias lifted all legal obstacles for the delivery of EU aid to the north of Cyprus as imposed by the Papadopoulos Presidency, Mr Christofias helped reopen Ledra / Lokmaci Street and has demonstrated understanding to the pressures on Mr Talat by Turkey. Even the spokesman of the Turkish Cypriot leader Hasan Ercakica was forced to praise Mr Christofias for his lifting of legal obstacles to EU aid.

So before we lament losing a ‘stick strategy’ that may not have even been necessary, let us reflect on what what else the memorandum said. Both the UK and RoC reaffirmed support for the “economic integration of the island in accordance with the 26 of April 2004 EU Council Conclusions and helping to prepare the Turkish Cypriot community for reunification and full application of the acquis communautaire...” Although, more action is needed by the RoC in this regard, the new memorandum rightly puts the issue of Turkish Cypriot isolation on the RoC agenda where as before, under Papadopoulos Presidency the issue was overtly shrugged off.

Opponents may well argue that it is not the “Greek Cypriot Side’s responsibility to take measures for the Turkish Cypriots” and “it is not Britain’s duty to appreciate these measures,” but rather than be harmful to Turkish Cypriots, RoC support for ending Turkish Cypriot isolation could on the contrary be far more useful for Turkish Cypriots than Turkish economic triangulation and financial aid. An EU state unlike Turkey, most Turkish Cypriots are citizens of the RoC and its ports are in proximity to the north. 
 

MEMORANDUM SHOULD ENCOURAGE A SOLUTION

Overall the Memorandum of Understanding is not a betrayal or deviation from our already agreed goals. The ruling out of a Kosovo Precedent should therefore not alarm the Turkish Cypriot leadership who has up to now openly declares it support for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. All parties have so far agreed to this as a basis for negotiation and the memorandum simply reaffirms support for it. If one now opposes a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation then they are in effect deviating from everything that has been agreed. Moreover those who lament the loss of a ‘stick’ with which to force Greek Cypriots to sit down and negotiate should note that under the leadership of Mr Christofias this is hardly necessary. If anything the domestic support Christofias will gain from the Memorandum should lend support to reunification amongst Greek Cypriots.