Our View: EU makes clear that Cyprus talks are remit of UN

After three months of much-publicised efforts to secure a more active and leading role by the EU in the resumption of the Cyprus talks, all that President Christodoulides achieved, apart from building expectations, was a reference in the conclusions of the European Council, under the heading ‘Eastern Mediterranean.’ There would be no appointment of a political personality to deal with the Cyprus problem, as he had sought, the problem would not be part of the structured EU-Turkey dialogue and the EU would have a supporting, rather than a leading role in the process.

This was made quite clear in Paragraph 43 of the conclusions, which said: “Recalling its previous conclusions, the European Council remains fully committed to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, within the UN framework, in accordance with the relevant UNSC resolutions and in line with the principles on which the EU is founded and the acquis. The European Union calls for the speedy resumption of negotiations and is ready to play an active role in supporting all stages of the UN-led process, with all appropriate means at its disposal.”

Christodoulides was satisfied with this outcome, claiming rather unconvincingly that his objective, from the start, was to bring the Cyprus issue and EU-Turkey relations “under the same umbrella,” that is, under the heading ‘Eastern Mediterranean’. According to the government briefing of journalists, having the two issues under the same heading, “was interpreted as linking of the Cyprus issue with EU-Turkey relations.” It extremely imaginative to suggest that because the two issues were under the same heading, the Cyprus issue would become part of the EU-Turkey dialogue, especially considering the European Commission has not even hinted at this possibility.

Then again, President Christodoulides is consummately skilled at putting a positive spin on things and he could not possibly admit failure after all the time and effort he invested in the matter. His proposal was first presented to the top officials of the Commission, just before last March’s European Council during which he also raised it. He then presented it on official visits to Paris and Berlin, regularly bringing up his idea about the appointment of a political personality by the EU as an envoy for the Cyprus problem. Government spokesman Constantinos Letymbiotis kept playing up the “importance” of the proposal, at every opportunity, while a few weeks ago Christodoulides said he had received a phone call “based on which there seemed to be prospects in the direction of a more active involvement of the EU in the Cyprus problem.”

More active involvement was made evident, said Christodoulides, by the European Council’s conclusions, which recorded the “readiness of the EU to contribute at all stages, today’s effort at breaking the deadlock, but also after the resumption of the talks.” The EU was also actively involved in the process that took place at Crans-Montana, without the Cyprus government campaigning for its presence, but again it had a supporting role in the UN-led process, which is what it has offered this time as well. In short, despite all the efforts there is nothing new or different.

What was the purpose of all the fuss about “a leading and active role” that Christodoulides has been making for the last three months? He has enough experience of the Cyprus problem and of dealing with the EU to have known his proposal would get nowhere. Even in the hypothetical case that the EU accepted his proposal, there was no way Turkey would have, as Ankara does not consider the EU an objective party. As for the appointment of an envoy, and the rather tactless mention of Angela Merkel’s name, as a possibility, the less said the better. The whole exercise was terribly superficial and amateurish, very much a case of much ado about nothing.

Was this just a communications exercise, a publicity stunt, targeting the Greek Cypriot audience and political parties that support the president and are stridently opposed to the idea of a settlement? Rejectionist parties would be content that the president’s effort did not get anywhere as they can praise his initiative while blaming Turkey and, to a lesser extent, the EU, for the failure. This has always been the favoured narrative in Cyprus, but did Christodoulides seriously believe that his unrealistic proposal would have convinced anyone outside the island?

On the contrary, he may have dealt a blow to his own credibility in Brussels by persisting with a proposal that was so emphatically a non-starter. And this was made very clear in the European Council’s conclusion, which politely reminded everyone that the EU would be playing “an active role in supporting all stages of the UN-led process.” In other words, if president Christodoulides sincerely wanted a resumption of the talks, he should have taken his proposal to the UN Secretary-General instead of wasting his time trying to involve the EU in something it did not want – and could not have – an active role in.

It took three months of meetings, visits abroad and big declarations, for the president to accept that the resumption of talks is the UN’s job.