ON THE SURFACE, the statement made by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, after yesterday’s meeting with the two leaders in Geneva, appears clinically bland. Yet more careful reading reveals his intentions, which although set out in diplomatic language aimed at keeping both sides happy, are made pretty clear.
In fairness, nobody expected him to speak openly about a time-frame or to censure the two leaders for failing to deliver on what had been agreed during November’s New York meeting. He did, however, mention that “the two leaders worked to move closer together through a range of bridging proposals,” as had been agreed, but “nonetheless more work must be done to reach further convergence on the outstanding core issues.”
And as they had failed to propose practical steps for overcoming differences, they agreed to “intensify the negotiations”, overseen by Ban who said he would “take stock of progress” and “encourage the parties in further narrowing their differences”. This involvement by Ban also signalled the end of the much-touted Cypriot ownership of the procedure in which UN experts would play a more active part. “I have encouraged both sides to talk to experts that I can make available on the technical aspects of the property issue.” This might not be arbitration, but as the two leaders failed to reach convergence on the property issue, UN experts would come up with bridging proposals.
As for the March time-frame for agreement on all issues, mentioned in New York, it has been brought forward to the end of February, when Ban will be submitting a report on the state of the talks to the Security Council. The report could apportion blame, even though this was not said but implied. “I am certain that if the constructive spirit that I witnessed today continues, I will have a positive report to submit,” he said in what could only be described as a diplomatically-worded warning.
As far as warnings go, he politely reminded the leaders that the indefinite continuation of the talks was not an option as surveys showed that people from both communities “want more than talks – they want a solution.” Ban decided he would not take any questions from journalists and neither did the two leaders who cancelled news conferences, scheduled for after the meeting.
For how long the two sides will be prepared to stay quiet remains to be seen, but we suspect that Dervis Eroglu will have more cause to be happy with the outcome of the meeting than President Christofias. After all, he went to Geneva demanding that the procedure was abandoned if there was no agreement by March and it would appear that this will be case. On the other hand, it is very doubtful the UN would allow him to adopt spoiling tactics at the intensified negotiations so there would be no convergences.
As was suggested by Ban back in November, the UN-sponsored peace initiatives are reaching the end of the road.
