The matrix within Cyprus should have been one of equal partnership. This has however not happened, much to the regret of most people. A small island, it could have been an example of harmony and understanding. Rich in history and blessed with cross-currents of important civilisations for the past three thousand years. Cyprus could have been a symbol of political partnership between two national communities sharing power and cooperating with a bi-communal state. Unfortunately, this has not been possible.

Despite UN Peacekeeping Forces being present since 1964, matters came to a head in Cyprus on 15 July, 1974 when Greece staged a coup in Cyprus with the aim of achieving ENOSIS (union). The UN presence proved largely ineffective. Hundreds of Turkish Cypriots were killed and thousands made homeless. Turkey, one of the three guarantor states (the others were Great Britain and Greece) of the island, called on Britain as the other guarantor for joint intervention under Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee. When Britain refrained. Turkey intervened on her own to safeguard the lives and interests of the Turkish Cypriot community, who were Muslims, spoke Turkish and had ties with Turkey for the last three hundred years.

This step stopped the possibility of widespread inter communal violence and bloodshed in Cyprus. It also created a political impasse that still continues.

Talks held under UN auspices between 1975 and 1979, tried to find a common ground so that both communities could establish a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation based on the political equality of the two parties. This discourse and negotiating process however collapsed when the Greek Cypriot side brought up the issue in the UN General Assembly in 1983. Turkish Cypriot community not having any accreditation within the UN was denied any formal presence. This led the frustrated Turkish Cypriots to declare the same year the establishment of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

The formation of this Turkish Republic has however not meant the absence of any further negotiation over the past two decades. At different times, the UN Secretary General has sent his Special Representatives to Cyprus to find a compromise solution despite latent mistrust between the two sides. Many confidence building measures have been proposed, undertaken and then discarded. This has included the unsuccessful meeting in New York, in 1990, between the leaders of the two side with the UN Secretary General. We have also seen the failure of Security Council Resolution No. 649 of 12 March, 1990 which called for a mutually acceptable solution on an equal footing.

The unwillingness on the part of the Greek Cypriot authorities to make any compromise appears to have been largely due to indirect encouragement received from Greece and some other states of the European Union. All efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement received a body blow when the southern Greek Cypriot side applied on behalf of Cyprus as a whole to become a member of the European Community and subsequently gained entry into the European Union. This was done without the explicit consent and inclusion of the Northern Turkish side. This has only exacerbated the situation.

This last step has also affected UN efforts to establish a Federation on that island. It has also reduced the prospect of an overall agreement that might safeguard the identity, integrity and security of each community as well as their political, economic, social, cultural, linguistic and religious rights as politically equal members of a Federation.

Nevertheless, there has been since the beginning of this year, another attempt to find least common denominators whereby the political negotiating process can be jump-started. This effort has coincided with the spurt of economic growth in Northern Cyprus which has seen its per capita income rise from US dollar 4500 in 2003 to 11,300 in 2006.

Renewing the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for a further period of six months through Security Council Resolution 1687 on 15 June, 2006, has brought the unresolved Cyprus problem again on the international table.

Northern Cypriot authorities have taken exception to the fact that such an extension has been undertaken with the consent of the 'so-called Government of Cyprus'. They have pointed out that internationally recognised principles required that UN peacekeeping operations be carried with the consent 'of all parties' and this has not been done. They have also referred to other issues regarding the ceasefire line and the buffer zone. In this context they have specified developments in the Dherinia region which are associated with the construction of a new observation post by the Greek Cypriot National Guard. It has also been claimed that constructions by Greek Cypriots in the buffer zone 'are a threat to security and create fait accompli which are unacceptable.'

Two weeks ago I was in Northern Cyprus and had the pleasure of meeting several senior officials of the Northern Cyprus Government, including its President Mehmet Ali Talat. In addition to attending the 32nd anniversary of its Peace and Freedom Day, I also had the opportunity to meet and discuss the Cypriot problem with members of its professional community that included doctors, lawyers, teachers and journalists and students from different educational institutions. One could clearly see that there was buoyancy as well as disappointment.

Almost all of them referred to the 10-point Turkish Action Plan regarding Cyprus that has been presented to the UN Secretary General in New York in January, 2006. They also pointed out that this Plan had been the subject of recent discussion between the UN Secretary General and the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan in Davos, Switzerland. There was a hint of optimism, particularly among the younger student community. Some lawyers also explained that the Action Plan, will in no way, prejudice legal and political positions of the parties concerned.

This Action Plan has generated interest because it calls for, under and established time-table, an integrated package of proposals for simultaneous lifting of all obstacles on free movement of goods, persons and services, including restrictions on means of transport by all relevant parties in the context of the Cyprus issue. The general opinion on the street was that the proposals contained in the Action Plan were balanced and equitable. It is believed that this will provide substantial benefits to all concerned parties and lead to an improved environment of mutual confidence and economic development that will bring greater prosperity to both communities.

It is clear that the Turkish authorities would like to convene, as soon as possible, a high level meeting this year, with the participation of Turkey, Greece, the Turkish Cypriot side and the Greek Cypriot side for not only finalising the Turkish Action Plan but also an agreed time frame for its implementation. The Northern Cypriot authorities believe that the outcome of such a meeting could then be forwarded to the UN Secretary General for eventual submission to the UN Security Council. It is also being suggested that the UN Secretary General, if so authorised by the Security Council, could not only establish a mechanism to keep the implementation of the Plan under review but also report developments to the Security Council. They are also being encouraged in this regard by recent comments made by Matthew Bryce, US Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs during his visit to the UN buffer zone near Lefkosa.

I must admit that these are ambitious ideas. The Plan denotes a constructive engagement on the part of both Turkey as well as the Northern Turkish community. It also provides a framework for facilitating a comprehensive settlement to the existing Cyprus problem.

We are aware that the situation has been further complicated by the fact that Cyprus is now a member of the European Union and Turkey is seeking to join this Union. We also know that this has made the settlement process more difficult. Nevertheless, I believe that both the United Nations and the European Union should work together in finding a compromise. They can, and should, exert necessary pressure on all parties to actively engage in finding a common ground that could lead to a settlement under the UN framework and facilitate reunification.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net