Time running out for Cyprus

Makarios Droushiotis writing in Politis says that hopes for an agreed solution to the Cyprus problem are evaporating, not just in the minds of Cypriots but foreign observers as well. He says thoughts are now turning to Plan B, ie how Cyprus will be after the problem has been declared unsolvable.
This past week the G/C side did all it could to prevent the UN Security Council from adopting the UN S-G’s statement in his last report that he would be promoting the “objective aim” of reaching a solution by the end of 2010, that he would be “closely monitoring progress in the forthcoming months” and that he would be submitting another report by November.

What is important about all this is that the UN S-G has decided to put an end to the process once and for all either by a solution or by declaring a deadlock. It seems that the UN does not agree with President Christofias that the talks don’t have a deadline. Noone can force the UN to continue their good offices mission in Cyprus if they feel the process is useless. This is the message coming from the UN, but it seems it is falling on deaf ears in Nicosia. Clearly from various statements from UN officials their message is that the talks must be completed by the end of the year and the whole process will be evaluated in November. If there is no hope, the UN will disengage.

The two sides have already started playing the blame game. Christofias is trying to show that Eroglu is being intransigent, while the Turkish side, has brought Eroglu under control and accused the G/C side of delaying tactics.
The Turkish side seems determined for a repeat of 2004 and is committed to a solution by the end of the year. They are committed to the UN parametres for a solution and made sure that Eroglu tows the line. If the talks don’t go anywhere, at some point they will ask Downer to submit bridging proposals. In this case the pressure will be on the G/C side to reject them or not. The Turkish side has an advantage. The fact that it accepted the Annan plan and its desire to repeat this knowing that the G/C side has no room for manoevre.

The G/C side is in a spot. The more it demonises the UN parametres, the more it loses sight of reality. It focused all its efforts on a process with no deadline, which together with other refusals, gives the impression to outsiders that it is following a delaying tactics. This inflexibility has not gone down well abroad where no country, not even those friendly to Cyprus like France, Russia and even Greece, believes that Turkey is intransigent. On the contrary it is felt that it is Cyprus which is employing time wasting tactics.

An article in Politis says that as from Tuesday the property issue will come to the forefront of the agenda in the talks. What is being sought is a magic formula that would safeguard the rights of the legal owners of property without ignoring present users, while at the same time maintaining the element of bizonality. The key is to find a balance between compensation, restitution, and exchange of property. The paper says the international community has made clear to the Turkish side that the Greek side must obtain gains in the property issue if it is to have gains as far as government are concerned.

The paper says Downer’s team includes internation experts on property matters headed by an American lawyer Jeff Bates, who has a name for finding solutions to complex property issues along a win-win basis.

The editorial in today’s Sunday Mail says that for several weeks now, the UN has been at pains to make the Cyprus government understand that the stuttering peace process will not be allowed to drag on indefinitely, as seems to be the prevailing view in Nicosia. He first made this point after a visit to New York, during a break in the talks, and has repeated it publicly at every given opportunity.

This week the UN Security Council also made reference to an end of year deadline in the preamble of the draft resolution for the renewal of the UNFICYP mandate, but the Cyprus government objected to this and managed to have it slightly modified. It had the phrase ‘if possible’ added to the resolution’s expression of hope for a solution in 2010, and blamed Britain for introducing the time-frame, when it was clear this had the support of the Security Council as well as Ban. The European Commission also supports the time-frame – if there is no deal this year it will approve the direct trade regulation, it has warned.

In view of all this, how is it possible for the Christofias government to still be in denial and repeat the hackneyed slogan, which has become gospel for our political leadership, of ‘no to asphyxiating or artificial time-frames’? This nonsensical slogan was coined during the presidency of Tassos Papadopoulos, who did not want a settlement, so why was it zealously adopted by Christofias, who supposedly does? Perhaps he had hoped to keep the talks going until the end of his term, which is supported by his insistence on a slow-paced procedure.

But after almost two years of talks, only a fool would argue that a November deadline was ‘asphyxiating’ or ‘artificial’. By November the peace talks will have been going on for 27 months. If an agreement cannot be secured within this time, no sane person can believe that it will be achieved in the subsequent three years. Hence the deadline. If there is substantial progress by November and the UN consider a deal achievable, the deadline might be extended by a few months, but if there is not, the Good Offices Mission would be wound up, without the dreaded international conference and arbitration.

Christofias is smart enough to be aware of the stark choice he faces. Either he works constructively for a deal in the next few months or he starts playing tactical games in the hope that he would not be blamed for the breakdown. His refusal to attend the scheduled meeting 10 days ago indicated that he may have gone for the second option.

But this will not be as easy as he expects because Dervis Eroglu, on strict instructions from Ankara, is playing ball. And if there is one side, at least in the eyes of the UN and the EU, which has been dragging its feet it has been the Greek Cypriot side which opposed time-frames and repeatedly rejected the intensification of the procedure. Saying ‘no’ to a time-frame now can only be interpreted as opposition to an agreement, but Christofias seems incapable of understanding this simple truth, which means he will also lose in the blame game.