The interview given by Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhürman to Politis and the reactions of President Nikos Christodoulides, combined with the recent message from the UN Secretary-General’s Personal Envoy, María Ángela Holguín, also delivered through Politis, allow for an initial assessment of where the Cyprus problem is heading. The picture is not encouraging.
Despite declarations about a resumption of talks, the differences remain substantial. More importantly, however, the discussion is beginning to take on the character of mutual recrimination, while the United Nations is trying to salvage the momentum of the process.
Methodology as a field of confrontation
Erhürman presents his four proposals as a necessary methodology for avoiding the failures of the past. However, his demand for prior acceptance of the rotating presidency as a key element of political equality, without this being linked to the issue of guarantees, limits the scope for an overall give-and-take.
Christodoulides, for his part, insists on resuming talks from where they left off, citing previous convergences. It has not been made clear, however, how the disagreement over methodology can be bridged so that the two sides can move on to substantive negotiations.
Holguín’s message
The intervention of the UN envoy carries particular significance. Ms Holguín makes clear that the rules governing the conduct of the talks are one thing and the issues to be negotiated are another. Agreement on methodology, she stresses, does not mean abandoning positions on substance.
This position can be read as an indirect warning to Mr Erhürman not to build substantive demands into the process, but it also concerns Mr Christodoulides, who is expected to help shape mutually acceptable rules.
More revealing is Holguín’s reference to Confidence-Building Measures. If the leaders are unable to agree on new crossing points, demining or tackling pollution, how will they manage to agree on a complex political and constitutional structure? This effectively amounts to questioning their readiness to take the decisions that a comprehensive settlement requires.
Responsibility and trust
The public confrontation shows that the political climate is deteriorating. Erhürman denounces actions by the Republic of Cyprus that he considers damaging to trust, while avoiding acknowledging the impact of continuing developments on Greek Cypriot properties in the north.
Christodoulides counters that the Turkish side is setting terms and preconditions, arguing that the interview confirms this position and explains the reasons for the deadlock in the Cyprus problem.
The dispute over the President’s 19 proposals is telling. Rather than their content being highlighted, the public debate is focused on whether they were submitted in writing or orally. Had they been submitted in writing, of course, they would have carried a different weight and would not have been treated as remarks made in the course of a meeting. At the same time, the stalemate over crossing points is accompanied by differing accounts of who is blocking an agreement.
The prelude to a new stalemate?
Holguín’s upcoming visit will be a critical test. She appears cautious, avoiding presenting a record of previous convergences before talks resume, so as not to cause further disagreement.
This approach suggests how fragile she considers the current process to be. At the same time, her reminder that the decision to resume talks rests with the leaders carries particular weight.
A new deadlock cannot yet be taken for granted. There is room for progress, provided that specific CBMs and a workable methodology are agreed.
For now, however, the Cyprus problem appears to be moving towards the prelude to a new stalemate rather than towards meaningful developments.
Most worrying of all, before talks have even begun, the two sides have already started building their arguments over who will bear the blame if they never take place.
