PRESIDENT Christofias’ meeting with the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday went very well, according to reports from Paris, and all that remains now is for a date to be set for the start of direct talks. By all accounts, this is now a formality, with the two leaders expected to announce the start date after their scheduled meeting on July 25. Even the government spokesman, speaking from Paris on Sunday, indirectly admitted that we are heading for direct talks.
The fact that the UN officially appointed Alexander Downer as the Secretary-General’s special envoy to Cyprus last Friday was another confirmation; the UN had previously said that no envoy would be appointed before the two sides had agreed to start negotiations. The official announcement of Downer’s appointment may have been speeded up to pre-empt the voicing of objections from the two sides neither of which is entirely happy with the UN’s choice of special envoy.
The format of the new round of talks will be different from those in the past, with the UN making it clear that it would not draft a blueprint for a settlement as it had done with the Annan plan. The two leaders would be responsible for coming up with ideas and proposals – if there were sticking points. However the two sides could refer to the volumes of work that had been produced by negotiations of the past, the UN said.
Ban Ki-moon stressed that the new procedure would be “in Cypriot hands”, a remark that President Christofias welcomed, stating after the meeting that “we re-affirmed that the Cypriots are the owners of the procedure” and that the UN would act as the facilitator. He seemed to be pleased that there would be no arbitration by the UN Secretary-General on issues that were not agreed, as there had been in 2004.
After the bad press given to the Secretary-General’s arbitration, by Greek Cypriot media and politicians before the referendum, this should come as no surprise, even though the weaker sides at the negotiations had more to gain from a filling in of the gaps by the UN. Then again, arbitration would give yet another pretext to opponents of a settlement to attack any agreement.
This is why the UN has, quite rightly, now decided to leave all the decision-making to the two sides. The hardliners on both sides would not be able oppose an agreement on the grounds that it was imposed by foreigners, as they had done in 2004. More importantly, if and when the leaders reach an agreement they would be responsible for selling it to the people and not the UN or EU as was the case during the referendum.
Ownership of the procedure also places big responsibilities on the two leaders, which is no bad thing when we consider how quick politicians have been to reject peace proposals over the last three decades on the grounds that they had been drafted by foreigners. The UN Secretary-General has refused to take the role of the fall-guy this time around, placing all the responsibility, for the success of the peace procedure, on the leaders of the two sides. It was about time.
