In response to an appeal by the UN Secretary General, whose constructive approach I deeply appreciate, and out of respect for diplomatic customs, I decided that, at this stage, instead of proceeding with the publication of part of the words exchanged at the dinner of 6 July in Crans-Montana, to communicate the minutes to all the Permanent Members of the Security Council as well as to the President of the Body, with copies to the UN Secretary General and the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission.

At the same time, I have decided the convening of the National Council on 1 August, for a discussion of the situation that has developed and a briefing on the recent developments.

In spite of these, I wish to stress that the continuing public, selective references by Mr. Espen Barth Eide, are in full contrast to the private explanations he gave during our recent meeting on 24 July.

I note that all the responses by Mr. Eide were in agreement with what was registered that evening about the positions of the Turkish side and the responsibility for the final unfolding of the discussion, as well as with the detailed minutes that were kept by the Interlocutor of the Greek Cypriot side Ambassador Andreas Mavroyiannis.

In fact, at the meeting in question, Mr. Eide not only congratulated the Greek Cypriot side for the fact that at Crans-Montana it was the only one that submitted specific proposals within the framework of the UN Secretary General, but, at the same instance, he pointed out that the proposals did not get any response from the Turkish side either in writing or orally.

At the meeting in question, I invited Mr. Eide to correct publicly and to make corrective remarks to restore the actual facts in order to put an end to the misrepresentation which, through rumors, he allowed to be understood.

I had also pointed out to him that he is the only one, who, through his remarks, denies whatever Mr. Cavusoglu was proclaiming, either before 6 July when he was stating that “the Greek Cypriot must wake up from the dream about the termination of the Guarantees and the intervention rights,” or after 6 July when he was stating that “the proposal about the termination of the Treaty of Guaranteed and the intervention rights is a stupid proposal that could not be accepted.”

Just indicatively, I mention the following in relation to what was said at our meeting on 24 July:

1. To my question to Mr. Eide, whether the proposals which I submitted on 5 July were within the framework of the Secretary general, if they addressed the concerns of the Turkish Cypriots and if there should be a response from the Turkish side, the Special Adviser responded to me that I am absolutely right and what I describe is absolutely true.

2. To my question whether the final Turkish position at the dinner was to change the name of the Treaty of Guarantee to Treaty of Implementation, as well as a permanent presence (by Turkey) on the island with a military base, Mr. Eide responded that my understanding was correct, noting that the Turks wish to maintain their presence on the island for broader geopolitical reasons.

3. To a question if the UN Secretary General, following the intervention of the Turkish Foreign Minister at the dinner, mentioned that he did not understand correctly the Turkish position on the Chapter of Security and Guarantees, Mr. Eide responded in the affirmative.

4. To my reference that the Turkish Foreign Minister, during the dinner of 6 July, expressed the position that the Treaty of Guarantee and the right of intervention must remain for 15 years with a clause for reexamination, Mr. Eide responded that that is valid and it is also registered in the minutes of the United Nations.

Finally, I want to repeat the provocation/invitation to the Turkish Government to confirm whether all that Mr. Eide claims are true, and if it acts accordingly I state, unequivocally, that I am ready to continue the efforts at the negotiating table, as I had also mentioned at the press conference on 10 July.

Source