Erhürman's interview, Christodoulides’ responses and Holguín’s message highlight the risk of a new deadlock. The two leaders are keeping the channels of communication open, but are struggling to agree, even on the steps that will lead them to the negotiating table
The interview given by the Turkish Cypriot leader, Tufan Erhürman, to Politis and President Christodoulides’ reactions, combined with the recent message from the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy, María Ángela Holguín, via Politis, allow for an initial assessment of the course of the Cyprus issue, though the picture is not encouraging.
Despite declarations regarding the resumption of talks, the differences remain substantial. Most importantly, however, the discussion is beginning to take on the characteristics of mutual blaming, whilst the United Nations is attempting to salvage the momentum of the process.
Methodology as a point of contention
Erhürman presents his four proposals as a necessary methodology to avoid the failures of the past. However, his demand for prior acceptance of the rotating presidency – as a key element of political equality, without linking it to the issue of guarantees – limits the scope for a comprehensive give-and-take.
Christodoulides, for his part, insists on resuming talks from the point at which they were suspended, citing previous points of convergence. However, it remains unclear how the disagreement over methodology can be bridged so that the two sides can move on to substantive negotiations.
Holguín’s message
The UN envoy’s intervention takes on particular significance. Ms Holguín makes it clear that the rules governing the conduct of the talks are one thing, and the issues to be negotiated are quite another. She emphasises that agreement on methodology does not imply abandoning positions on the substance of the matter.
This stance may be interpreted as an indirect warning to Mr Erhürman not to incorporate substantive demands into the process, but it also concerns Mr Christodoulides, who is expected to contribute to the formulation of mutually acceptable rules.
Even more revealing is Holguín’s reference to Confidence-Building Measures. If the leaders are unable to agree on new checkpoints, demining or tackling pollution, how will they manage to agree on a complex political and constitutional framework? This essentially calls into question their readiness to take the decisions required for a comprehensive settlement.
Responsibilities and trust
The public debate suggests that the political climate is becoming increasingly strained. Erhürman condemns actions by the Republic of Cyprus which he considers to be undermining trust, whilst avoiding, however, acknowledging the impact of ongoing developments on Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied areas.
Christodoulides counters that the Turkish side is setting terms and conditions, arguing that the interview confirms this position and explains the reasons for the deadlock in the Cyprus issue.
The debate surrounding the President’s 19 proposals is indicative of this. Rather than highlighting their content, the public debate centres on whether they were submitted in writing or verbally. Had they been submitted in writing, of course, they would have taken on a different dimension and would not have been treated as mere remarks made during a meeting. At the same time, the deadlock at the checkpoints is accompanied by differing accounts as to who is blocking the agreement.
The prelude to a new stalemate?
Holguín's forthcoming visit will be a crucial test. She herself appears cautious, refraining from presenting a record of previous points of convergence before the resumption of talks, so as not to provoke further disagreements.
This stance suggests just 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 takes on particular significance.
A new deadlock cannot yet be ruled out. There is scope for progress, provided that specific CBMs and a workable methodology are agreed upon.
For the time being, however, the Cyprus issue seems to be heading more towards the prelude to a new stalemate than towards substantive developments.
And what is most worrying is that, even before the talks have begun, both sides have started to formulate their arguments as to who will bear the responsibility if they never take place.
Source: CYPRUS PROBLEM: THE BLAME GAME BEGAN EVEN BEFORE THE TALKS STARTED
