THE COLD, sombre expressions of the two leaders, standing on either side of the UN Secretary-General, as he read his statement after Thursday’s meeting suggested that things did not go very well. This was also obvious from Ban Ki-moon’s statement which, in diplomatic language, censured Demetris Christofias and Dervis Eroglu for the total lack of progress in the talks and demanded that they adopted a positive approach.
The talks had been dragging on for some time “without clear progress or a clear end in sight,” he said, in what was a clear criticism of the two leaders, whom he held responsible for this failure. The talks “were losing momentum and needed a boost,” he said, adding that “only the leaders can give the talks a boost” and “only the leaders can arrive at a solution.” He also reminded them that this was a “Cypriot-led process” and that was why he expected the “two Cyprus sides to assume responsibility.”
These comments were a far cry from Ban’s optimistic message of hope at the start of the year, when he visited Cyprus and praised the two leaders for the courage they had shown and the progress that had been made. Since then, there was a change of the Turkish Cypriot leadership and talks moved to the property issue on which there has been no convergence despite countless meetings.
It is clear that the UN is losing its patience and Ban would have made it blatantly clear at the meeting that he was not prepared to see the talks drag on indefinitely. “The people of Cyprus and the international community want a solution, not endless talks,” he asserted. This no-nonsense approach was quite unexpected showing that Ban meant business and was prepared to apply pressure – he asked the two leaders to intensify their contacts in the coming weeks, something they both accepted and scheduled another meeting with them at the end of January to review matters.
President Christofias meanwhile, tried to present the meeting as a personal victory, arguing that the negative predictions by the opposition parties about, arbitration, time-frames and change of procedure had been proved wrong. But he was pushing the bounds of credibility when he claimed: “There are no time-frames, there is no threat from anywhere and no intention whatsoever by the Secretary-General to apply pressure.”
Why did he agree to intensify the contacts with Eroglu, something he had been resisting for some time now, if there was no pressure and what is the review at the end of January if not a time-frame? It might not be a formal time-frame, but if there is no progress by January, Ban could well end his good offices mission. This was the message of his statement that Christofias obviously missed.
