About what needs to be done regarding the Cyprus issue. And I personally came to the conclusion that we have done enough talk about the content of a possible solution to the Cyprus problem, by which I mean we have discussed enough about governance and power sharing and property and economy and territorial adjustment, all that stuff. And we matured those discussions to a very advanced level. So much so that a secretary general after Grand Montana wrote a report where he said the solution was on the table and but what was lacking to cross the finishing line was political will. So I came to the conclusion that from now on we should stop talking about the content of a solution and we should think about why we failed in Crown Montana. And that aspect for me is related to process design, negotiation process design.
Later on I did a lot of research and I found out that in successful cases around the world, including the Irish case and the South African case and many other cases, process design takes president to content negotiations. Successful negotiations first design a proper negotiation process whereby they define who will the parties be, what will be the issues discussed, for how long, what kind of a arbitration mechanism will exist and what will be the consequences of failure. So then I, which is quite similar to the debate that we have had in the first panel. So I started pushing this idea forward. Track 2 was engaged. We formed an NGO that involved Greek Cypriots and Turkey, Cypriots together, ex politicians, diplomats and we issued a joint statement and we send it to Mrs Gutierrez where and in that statement we had an operative paragraph.
We started by saying the status quo is not acceptable. So for the first time this was a joint statement by these ex secret and 30 secret politicians and diplomats. We said status quo is unacceptable. We said negotiations must resume from where they were left off. But the new process must not be open-ended. There must be a calendar, a phase approach and in case there are dead dogs there must be a pre agreed mechanism to resolve these dead dogs and the process should end in a way that prohibits return to status quo OK. And the consequences of rejecting the deal must be made clear to both sides a priori. And on this we agreed. And soon after this we received this, received an invitation to go to Ireland. And the reason was they said we have a similar experience in Ireland and we think your political parties and people like you should go and talk to people who made it happen there. So we went first to Republic of Ireland, to Dublin and then we flew to, we drove to Belfast. Belfast was quite an experience. Quite an experience. It was like a shock to me to see a a city which upon recently was within the European Union, in a very civilised western environment, being so bitterly divided and still going through the trauma of the past events.
It was shocking to see in such a city as a wall still remaining being closed down at a certain time at night. It it was, it was a huge shock from I didn’t know it was my ignorance. So maybe I should say what I I was going to say last year. The peace process, it is clear, is a never ending process. We should not be under the illusion that the leaders supported by track 1 1/2 or two will have a Eureka moment, find the perfect formula, sign the dotted line and then that’s it. We will live happily ever after. It doesn’t work that way in the Irish case, which I found quite useful for us too. They took their job extremely seriously. They took their job extremely seriously but it didn’t happen overnight. They suffered a lot. They lost lots of lives, they suffered a lot economically. Everyone, everyone paid their price and they got fed up with it. So there was a lot more pain on both sides going on. And despite this, maybe even a, a symmetric pain, symmetric pain, they were unable to cross the Rubicon, cross the final line. And that’s when they decided to design something new, something new. And if if you allow me, I will look at my notes. So what made that process, this new process design work? Well, first of all, they decided on certain rules criterias before engaging in serious negotiations.
They said we are going to build on all previous agreements and improve upon them. So they didn’t decide all of a sudden to throw all the past convergences like we are doing right now into the bin and try to start from scratch. Second, they designed an inclusive process that involved not only political parties, but religious leaders, women’s groups, etcetera. It was quite representative negotiators from top ten political parties got directly involved. It required the parties to commit to non violence. It had a broad ownership, but, and this final point was extremely striking for me, it was based on rules of procedure negotiated and agreed by all parties before substantive negotiations began. Rules of procedure negotiated and agreed. This we never did in the Cyprus negotiations. I’ve been in the negotiating team of Pengtash, later on negotiator of Thailat and later on foreign minister during her all the time and later on negotiator of Akanjit. So I lived through. Never did we even once paid even one meeting to seriously talk about this. We simply started talking and hoping that we will reach somewhere, never thinking what will happen if we don’t. What kind of arbitration should take place? What happens if someone leaves the room? Creates a crisis? Nothing, nothing. What will be the role of UN? Are we going to allow them to present ideas or are they just going to take notes? We even scared the United Nations. Now we are talking about he allowing them a little bit more role. The Soto was so afraid he defined himself as a family on the wall. So in Ireland they took this very seriously and to make it realistic, they asked the Americans to be involved because they decided that it was only the Americans who could have the leverage to exert consequences on sides if they misbehave. And Americans during Clinton time, they decided to appoint a very high level official who got directly involved, who settled in Ireland. And he was really fully engaged. And it came to the point where he gave up.
He said that’s it, you are not serious. We are pushing, we are finding agreements and then there’s an excuse here or a bomb there, something to destroy because there are many spoilers which do everything they can. And he said, I give you exactly 2 months, I’m going back to the States, I give you exactly 2 months, I’ll come back. If you don’t, don’t sign it, all American money will be cut, all umbrella for security will be removed and you will be left on your own to kill each other. And UK was also behind this. And this was a big shock because one thing that they didn’t want, one big fear they had was going back to the days when their children were killed, where their businesses were bombed and they couldn’t feel sleep safe at night at their home. So that was one risk that they couldn’t afford to take. And that’s how they got the final push. And this was made clear to us by the Irish, both Protestant and Catholic. They said if the Americans did not impose such a strict deadline and define a strict consequences, we would constantly continue negotiating, trying to catch the extra concession, pocket what we have and demand something more. And it was like an epiphany to me. I mean, we lived exactly the same thing in Crans-Montana.
In Crans-Montana, we thought if we convince Turkey to let go of the right of intervention in the territorial guarantee, that’s it. That would make us some did. The minute we did it, we were faced with extra conditions. So this was the big lesson that I learned from the Irish case. But there were other lessons. Leadership was extremely important. They had leaders who were fighters, who lost, who had personal losses, who lost their sons, daughters, people close to their family. One of the negotiators that we talked to, his house was bombed that night and in the morning he was obliged to go and negotiate peace with their counterparts. He didn’t even have a home to go back. But next day he went to the meeting and continued negotiating for peace. This was the kind of leadership charisma they had, religious leaders here in Cyprus. I don’t need to tell you how these are there. They took leadership and ownership of the peace process. They told their people we have to live together. We have to understand and respect each other. So this was the kind of environment that they they created and which lead to a success. And maybe one final point, probably my time has run out. The importance of the European Union in making it all easier to digest, to live with European Union does have can have a very positive role in addressing very difficult issues like issue of sovereignty, control, borders, whatever. And after Brexit, some of the old problems have resurfaced and they’re desperately trying to find accommodations to align themselves to the new reality. But they are quite regretful that Brexit did happen and it did have a huge negative impact on them. All in all, when they look back, they saw a very big peace dividend. Economically the numbers are mind boggling. It’s incomparable.
The Ireland, Northern Ireland vote today compared to pre Good Friday Agreement is incorporate comparable economy. Young people are coming back. Foreign direct investment is flowing in. They’re flourishing. Don’t don’t they still have problems they do, but they are clearly seeing the peace dividend there. EU is helping in that process as well. And one final note, which I hope we get in Cyprus one day, upon signing their peace agreement, they foresaw problems. They didn’t say we signed it. Insha’allah, nothing happens. But if it happens, we will cross that bridge when we come to it. No, they predicted the things that can happen. And they built institutions. They built institutions. They formed them, gave them legal personality, not only, but they also secured financing to keep those institutions alive. And those institutions are still up and running, operating every day within the societies to make sure that conflicts don’t arise. And if there are problems, they’re settled, handled before becoming too big to handle, like making sure that the peace dividend is being distributed equitably, like making sure that the religious tract is delivering education system.
So it came to a point whereby now in Northern Ireland many people started to identify themselves as Northern Irish, not as Protestant or Catholic, but simply Northern Ireland and initiating political debate based on issues like unemployment, environment, so on and so forth, instead of Protestant versus Catholic. So when you design it well, then it starts to deliver and it it’s an ongoing process which can increase the level of well-being of everyone involved and brings stability and security to everyone involved. And I left there hoping that one day we will also see those days for our islands as well.
Thank you so much. Thank you for for this. I’ve always believed in learning from other cases. I don’t think that.
