I don't want to seem to nitpick, and by criticising certain passages I think that is what it would seem I was doing.
But I am not sure that such a statement is the proper means of reconciliation.
I believe that the proper text should be a compilation of all those conciliar documents, acts and canons which both sides wish to affirm, with whatever glosses and clarifications are necessary, and that any conclusion describing the restoration of unity should be couched in a much more theological and spiritual manner.
I don't think it is necessary to start talking at all about who did what. I am not sure that I do believe that there was mutual persecution to the same extent, but this should not preclude unity. I am not sure that one side is less blameworthy than another, but this should not preclude unity.
I will address point #1 for now. I don't believe that it is only after 1500 years that unity is being pursued. Dialogue between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians took place well into the 7th century under the sponsorship of the Emperor, and continued to take place through the centuries. There was discussion with Rome for instance in the 14th-16th centuries with our Coptic Church, and others also had dialogue with both Byzantium and Rome on different occasions. I would say that there has been a constant desire and witness for unity through the ages which has been subverted by sinful men, political conditions, and the oppression of Islam. In the mid-19th century, for instance, there was a possibility of the reunion of the Greeks and Copts in Egypt but the Coptic Patriarch was murdered by the Muslim authorities at the instigation of the British who did not want a united Christian community under the influence of the Russians. There are many texts from these intervening centuries which show that thoughtful Orthodox understood that there was no substantive difference in faith between the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalceodnians.