President Christofias speaking on his return from Peru, where he participated at the EU-Latin America Summit, has said that next Friday he will have the opportunity to discuss with Mr Talat the difficulties in the present phase of the Cyprus problem, as well as the questions created by the persistence of the Turkish Cypriot side to start direct negotiations as soon as possible. “Some groups have moved forward while others have not,” he said.

During a talk in London on Sunday where he stopped on his way back, he said that in order for negotiations with Talat to have any possibility of success, they should be based on real and not fictitious progress at the working groups. He also referred to his forthcoming meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown saying he hoped such meetings would be the rule and not the exception. He talked about the history of relations between Cyprus and Britain and said that some of the handlings of the British government had disappointed the Cypriots. He stressed that his government aimed to overcome such past problems and to improve bilateral relations from now on. He repeated that solving the Cyprus problem was the reason he stood for President and was the vision guiding his government.

According to the Cyprus Mail, Ozdil Nami, the Turkish Cypriot leader's advisor on the working groups and technical committees, outlined the differing interpretations that each side has of the process, which has led to difficulties. The paper adds that international mediators have said the Greek Cypriot side has fielded a high-profile team it hoped would prepare the ground quickly for negotiations. However, the process has been slow because the Turkish Cypriot members of the 13 groups and committees have not been given the same powers. Nami said that “The duties of the working groups are to put forward in a clear manner the positions of the sides and to find out whether these positions could be brought closer or not,” he said. He said some of the agenda issues brought the positions of the sides’ closer and some of them could not. “The duty of the groups is neither to reach an understanding nor to secure a consensus as regards the positions,” he said. “Their duty is to bring closer as much as possible the positions of the sides on possible points. On the issues where no such thing is possible these points would be noted and codified and at the end of the third month will be submitted to the leaders with its pros and cons as a report so that the leaders will use them in their comprehensive negotiations.”Nami said the Turkish Cypriot side was puzzled by Christofias' stance, given that his counterpart at the talks, Presidential Commissioner George Iacovou, did not raise any problem during their meetings. “Mr Iacovou did not paint the pessimistic picture that Mr Christofias painted,” Nami said.

He said issues such as the EU, economy, administration and power sharing had moved closer but it would not be possible for the groups and committees to move closer on the issues of territory, security and guarantees. “The Greek Cypriot side had accepted that the territorial issue, guarantees and security issues will be taken up at a later stage. And also everybody knows that the most complex issue of the Cyprus problem is the property issue. Here one could only present a position and try to bring closer certain issues, what else could one do?” said Nami. He also said the March 21 agreement on when negotiations should begin was very clear, and it led to June 21.

Politis' editorial says that relations between Cyprus and Britain have always been relations both of conflict and cooperation. Politically Nicosia has often clashed with London over its stand in the Cyprus problem. Economically Cyprus always looked to Britain especially in the tourist sector. These relations have never managed to find an equilibrium to benefit the people of Cyprus. On the contrary there have been periods of open hostility such as during Tassos Papadopoulos' rule. However, the reality is that they have a role to play. President Christofias' statement in London during which he expressed the Cypriots' bitterness at past British policies, that one of the main aims of his government was to forge closer ties with Britain is a correct and politically responsible approach. Since we all acknowledge that Britain does have a role to play, we should try to influence them diplomatically and not antagonise them. It's clear Britain has interests in Cyprus. What needs to happen is for these interests to coincide with those of the Cypriot people as a whole. This can happen not through marginalisation and isolation, but through being actively involved in Europe in which we both belong.

Simerini's editorial says we told you so. It says that as someone who claims to know all about Turkish policy, he should have expected that the working groups and committes could not possibly have produced results. How could they, since the Turks never give in from their intransigent positions. We said as much before they even started. They've put the cart before the horse instead of first deciding the form of a solution and then the methodology. So now everything is on the table which enables the Turks to raise the spectre of the monstrous Annan plan again. Christofias' effort is too late and without result. We think he now realises the dangerous trick that his Turkish comrades and the Anglo-Americans are about to play on him. They don't want to waste any more time and want talks even if no progress was made. They want to create the impression of a cooperative Turkish side ready to talk and an uncooperative Greek side that doesn't even want a solution. Nevertheless even if Christofias and Talat manage to agree, they have to get the consent of the invisible negotiator - the Turkish army.