Just as long as there is no progress

IT SEEMS that the comments made by US Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, after his meeting with President Papadopoulos last week, did not impress the latter.

The government spokesman, acting on the president’s instructions, was at pains to play down the importance of what Burns had said in case anyone started thinking that a new initiative was imminent.

“We should not give the Cypriot people the impression that we will be reaching a solution soon or create expectations that there would be talks on the substance of the problem soon leading to a comprehensive settlement of our national problem,” said Vassilis Palmas, as he urged people to “show restraint”. He added that “we must be satisfied by the fact that there is mobility and interest on behalf of the international community, the UN and a country such as the US.”

These sentiments were echoed by the president in his message to mark the 47th anniversary of the Cyprus Republic. “There are no simple recipes and magic solutions for the Cyprus problem,” he warned, while stating that the only way forward was through the “full implementation of the July 8 agreement”, to which the Greek Cypriot side remained committed.

This July 8 agreement, also known as the “Gambari procedure”, has become the president’s rallying cry and the only argument he has to back the claim that he is committed to a settlement. But the government’s faith in a procedure that has gone nowhere for 15 months and has served to underline the chasm that separates the two sides is mind-boggling. Accepting the government’s position that the Turkish side was exclusively to blame for the deadlock, what is the point of insisting on the implementation of an agreement that does not lead anywhere?

Admittedly, it allows the government to engage in the blame-game, which is very useful now that elections are approaching. All the government wants is the appearance that things are moving even though nothing is happening. This was why the spokesman said, “we should be satisfied that there is mobility and interest on behalf of the international community”. As long as this mobility and interest remained theoretical and was not translated into action the president would be happy.

This is why he has such faith in the July 8 agreement – it is a guarantee of nothing happening – and was taken aback by Burns’ announcement that the US would be “recommending to the UN Secretary General that he make a new attempt to appoint a negotiator, to lead international negotiations for peace on Cyprus.” That is the last thing Papadopoulos wants during an election campaign in which the rejection of the Annan plan would be touted as the crowning achievement of his presidency.

Mobility and interest are welcome as long as they do not threaten the July 8 agreement or create expectations that there may be some progress.