The weekly meetings, the differing interpretations, and the timing that risks being lost
Expectations regarding the Cyprus issue may have been heightened at the start of summer, due to President Christodoulides’ statements regarding a solution plan and milestones, as well as Guterres’ visit; however, his remarks shortly before leaving Cyprus dampened and significantly reduced the initial enthusiasm reflected in the grandiose statements that spoke of major strides.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Antonio Guterres was clear, no matter how many times people try to reinterpret his statements in an effort to keep hopes high. He came, saw, and left without announcing a single decision, choosing instead to refer in general terms to an informal five-party meeting for which he was not even able—since there had been no developments—to set a timeline. At the same time, he gave instructions to the two leaders regarding regular meetings as well as where they should focus their “spotlight,” highlighting the three-pronged approach of methodology, convergence, and confidence-building measures.
On a path marked by measured steps and sharp turns
In the end, all the key players took their breaks—to a greater or lesser extent—and returned to the table of informal dialogue 28 days after the Secretary-General’s departure from Cyprus. Wednesday’s meeting took place amid reactions from the pseudo-state to the diplomatic efforts of the Republic of Cyprus to prevent sporting and illegal cultural events in the occupiedoccupied areas.
Despite the frosty atmosphere of recent days, both described the meeting as ultimately constructive. Essentially, the only thing they had to announce beyond the development regarding weekly meetings was the agenda for the one-on-one meeting. In other words, they discussed these matters without providing any indication of an outcome—not even on a single aspect of the issues brought to the table.
The United Nations issued a standard communiqué welcoming the Secretary-General’s efforts and commitment to resolving the Cyprus issue.
The differing interpretations and the pre-negotiation “bargaining”
The gap between the two sides became apparent after the meeting, with differences emerging even regarding how they interpret the Secretary-General’s guidelines and what is considered necessary to do and what is not—leading up to the five-party convergence. For example, the Greek Cypriot side focuses on convergence and methodology, considering that confidence-building measures are not an absolute prerequisite for a five-party convergence meeting, but rather a parallel process intended to strengthen communication. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot side and Ms. Olgin interpret this differently and assert that confidence-building measures are necessary to break the deadlock in the informal expanded talks.
On the issue of roadblocks, Nikos Christodoulides and Tufan Erhurman did not write a single word on the same page. At Wednesday’s meeting, the Turkish Cypriot leader insisted on rejecting the route along the Athienou-Pyroi-Aglantzia route, contrary to the compromise proposal put forward by the secretary-general.
As a result, the scope of the one-on-one talks broadened, and the issue of opening Kokkina and Louroutzina was brought back into the equation.
The Turkish Cypriot leader insists in every post that, before taking major steps, the two sides must first restore mutual trust, which, according to him, has been shattered. The atmosphere grew even more tense on Friday when, in the wake of the cancellation of Barcelona’s training camp in the occupied territories, Erhurman used strong rhetoric and sent letters to the UN and the EU, placing heavy blame on the Greek Cypriots for “isolating and hindering the cultural and athletic development of Turkish Cypriot youth.”
Amid all this, then, the two leaders are called upon to meet the even more difficult challenge of finding common ground and substantive agreement, despite differing interpretations and positions on key issues.
The leaders are anxiously awaiting McGarry’s documentation of the points of convergence. He is an academic with experience in the Cyprus issue and direct involvement in the Crans-Montana talks. This raises the question of whether both sides will accept this summary without objection, which will simultaneously shed light on the differences regarding the Cyprus issue.
For the time being, an in-depth discussion of the points of disagreement is absent from the agenda. After all, no one expects Nikos Christodoulides and Tufan Erhurman to discuss on their own security, guarantees, and troops, or other crucial aspects on which Turkey has the final say, as it continues to have only the two-state solution in its vocabulary.
The President of the Republic proposed, as a first step, linking aspects of the Cyprus issue within the framework of the dialogue. His goal, as reportedly stated during the one-on-one meeting, is to conduct a cross-cutting discussion in which one side can gain from the other, with the ultimate goal of finding a formula that satisfies, to a satisfactory extent,degree the expectations of both communities. Every aspect, from the Greek Cypriot perspective, must be discussed separately, but as a link in a broader chain and part of a give-and-take process that will ultimately lead to a solution to the Cyprus problem.
Awaiting Olgin and the Convergences
Diplomatic sources estimate that Ms. Olgin’s visit to Cyprus next week will be a milestone for the future of the process, as there are reports that she will have on the plane a document, which she will deliver to both sides. This will follow two previous meetings between the leaders, who will meet again next Wednesday to continue the dialogue.
The Secretary-General’s personal envoy will push to finalize at least some agreement, so that it can be presented as a positive step to António Guterres, who will meet separately with Christodoulides and Erhurman on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in mid- to late September.
The window of opportunity that risks slipping away
In such an uncertain environment, the two communities are called upon to chart the next steps toward a five-party convergence.
The President’s office chooses to see the glass as half full. Sources close to the President report that Nicos Christodoulides does not draw conclusions from a single meeting; for this reason, they recommend patience rather than haste, as something may be happening behind the scenes.
On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot leader appears pessimistic, speaking of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and insistently presenting the issue of clarifying the policy equality before sitting down at the negotiating table.
The clock is ticking, as there are only four months left until the end of António Guterres’s term. Despite his commitment, it was and remains clear that he will not take the path of coercion. Unless he sees substantial progress and concrete steps, unless the groundwork is laid, there can be no developments—no matter how much optimism is maintained, for whatever reason.
The question that arises is whether the positions, interpretations, and views of the two leaders can indeed find common ground, putting an end to a parallel course, which in recent days has been accompanied by grandstanding on petty political issues that are being blown out of proportion.
Leaders will not be judged solely by their behavior during their one-on-one meeting, nor can developments in the Cyprus issue be determined in the one or two hours that a meeting lasts unless they are preceded by a stable and politically mature process as a whole, including self-restraint. Every move—behind the scenes or otherwise—and every statement is noted and influences the atmosphere and developments, either positively or negatively.
In the coming period, and particularly with the UN General Assembly serving as an informal milestone, it will become clear whether the institutionalized weekly meetings can indeed lead to discussions that are not merely for show but also substance.
