FOR SEVERAL weeks now, the UN Special advisor Alexander Downer 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.
In an interview carried by this paper two weeks ago, Downer pointed out that the UN Secretary-general would be issuing a report to the Security Council in November and implied that unless there was substantial progress to report the Good Offices mission could be wound up. This point was made even clearer by UN spokesman Jose Diaz who said this week that what was contained in the November report would have an impact on how the UN viewed its mission on Cyprus.
And for those who did not understand the diplomatic language, Diaz spelt out exactly what he meant. “The talks are not open-ended; they can’t go on forever,” he said, before reminding everyone that this was also the line taken by Ban Ki-moon during his visit to Cyprus. Ban had warned that time was not on the two leaders’ side and welcomed the hope expressed jointly by Talat and Christofias last December that the talks would be completed by the end of 2010.
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. The UN, quite clearly, is not prepared to pander to the two sides indefinitely in the vain hope that in a few years’ they may buckle down and work for a deal. After more than two years, results are expected.
This is why a time-frame has been set. 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. The Secretary-General would not be setting up another Good Offices mission in the foreseeable future, which would mean that the status quo would be preserved.
Christofias is smart enough to be aware of the stark choice he faces, but he needs to make a decision and stick to it. 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.
