LOCAL reaction to the three-party meeting in New York and the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s subsequent statement, setting a deadline for the talks, was the expected one. All the opposition parties felt that inadequate progress had been made, expressed deep concerns about the idealised picture of the talks presented by Ban and were angered by his view that the end of the negotiations was approaching.
This comment sparked accusations that the UN had imposed an asphyxiating time-frame and had set up a trap for the Greek Cypriots. As if this were not bad enough, in January, Ban would announce a multi-party conference for Cyprus that would involve arbitration. There were charges that arbitration was already taking place through the new procedure of proximity talks, introduced in New York by the UN.
President Christofias set the agenda by complaining about this change when he was informed about it on Sunday, and creating an excuse for the opposition parties to claim foul-play. Despite his protests, he went along with it and has agreed for the format to be used in Nicosia as well. There is no logic to these reactions, which create the impression that the Greek Cypriots do not take the peace process seriously and want it to fail.
Regarding the change of procedure, all parties agreed that the direct talks in Nicosia were moving far too slowly. The UN decided that the procedure could be speeded up by changing the format, but we had to complain, giving the impression that we approved of the snail’s pace at which the talks had been moving for three years. Then there was the issue of the January deadline, for convergences on all domestic issues. This also sparked protests and charges of asphyxiating time-frames, but did we expect Ban to keep inviting the two leaders for meetings in New York, every few months, for the next two or three years?
The UN went along with the idea of the Cyprus-owned talks, without mediation or arbitration and asphyxiating time-frames, for more than three years, and it produced unsatisfactory results. After three years, Ban has decided to take control, introducing a format that allows his envoy to dictate the pace of talks and setting a January deadline for convergences. If these are achieved, he will call the dreaded multi-party conference that would discuss guarantees and security; if not, he will end his mission.
In effect, he is giving the two sides a last chance to overcome their major differences and reach a compromise. It is a perfectly reasonable approach, after three years of talks that have led nowhere – and that at a snail’s pace.
