Another ‘constructive’ meeting of the two leaders was held on Tuesday, according to an announcement issued by the UN. A week earlier, they had a ‘positive’ meeting, said the UN. Despite the positivity and constructiveness of the meetings, there was still no agreement on anything, not even on the most inconsequential matters being discussed for months.
Interestingly, leaving the presidential palace on his way to Tuesday’s meeting with Turkish Cypriot leader, Tufan Erhurman, President Nikos Christodoulides told journalists, “We need positive news on the Cyprus issue, and I sincerely hope we will have them.” He gave the impression that he was an observer, whose role in the talks was peripheral, with no responsibility for ensuring there was positive news. The positive news, presumably, would be provided by some unknown, benevolent force from above, because it is not Christodoulides’ duty to provide it.
Maria Angela Holguin, the personal envoy of the UN secretary-general, will certainly not provide the positive news the president craves when she returns to the island later in the week, because she has made a habit of pointing out painful truths about the leaders’ unwillingness to make the smallest compromise in order for the process to move a little forward. One columnist, wrote with a sense of vindication, that Holguin “will enter the long list of representatives of the UN that were appointed and failed”.
How could she not fail when the political will for compromise does not exist. In a letter published in Politis last week she wrote: “If, over the past two years, the parties have been unable to agree on a crossing point to facilitate communication, demining, or a joint effort to eliminate plastic pollution across the island, and many other areas of potential cooperation, how can they agree on a political, economic and social model capable of overcoming decades of division and growing distance between the two communities, especially bearing in mind that such divisions are becoming more pronounced by the day?”
Who can disagree with this account of the so-called process? In fact, it is difficult to understand why Holguin will be returning to Cyprus. Will she be here to perform the last rites of the process when she finally meets the two leaders on November 9? Christodoulides, still entertained hopes that the meeting with Erhurman and Holguin could open the way for the 5+1 meeting, saying this would be determined by the discussions on methodology and substance as well the talks between the EU and Turkey. He has removed the confidence building measures from the equation, despite agreement on these being a requirement of the UNSG for calling the 5+1 meeting. Erhurman meanwhile wants conditions satisfied, in addition to the CBMs to go to a 5+1 meeting.
It is bizarre the leaders still engage in tactical manoeuvres and a low-level blame game when time is running out. The UNSG, Antonio Guterres, will step down at the end of the year, which would also mean the end of his Cyprus initiative and the end of Holguin’s role as his personal envoy. His successor will have a host of much more pressing international problems to deal with when he or she takes over and might not consider the Cyprus problem worth bothering with because there is peace and stability on the island. It is entirely possible a new secretary-general could decide to withdraw the UN peacekeeping troops from the island and give up the good offices mission altogether.
Has this possibility not entered the thinking of the two leaders who are acting as if they have all the time in the world. Yet if there is no breakthrough at their meeting with Holguin on November 9 it will be game over once again. Will there be a new initiative after this? Will the new UNSG want to deal with two sides that are only interested in having a process but never a result?