The Cyprus problem show is back. Nothing constructive or meaningful will be agreed, but that was never the objective. As has been made evident over the decades, the two sides are more interested in the process rather than in producing tangible results. And it would appear that Monday’s meeting between President Nikos Christodoulides and Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar, in the presence of the UN Special Representative Colin Stewart, is part of this new process, which had been taking place under the radar, since the two leaders returned from New York in October.

It is the “resumption of the talks” which Christodoulides has been calling for at every opportunity, but a low-expectations process that is unlikely to lead anywhere. After the leaders’ meeting on Monday, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, Rosemary DiCarlo is expected to visit – sometime in mid-February – and in March the multi-party gathering that will include the representatives of the guarantor powers, could take place in Switzerland, assuming Turkey does not decide to pull out.

On the Greek Cypriot side, the low-key process has already sparked the the obligatory criticism of the UNSG’s reports on Cyprus and Unficyp, in the media. Before this, there had been the traditional efforts of the foreign ministry to change the wording of parts of the draft report, which, as always, the diplomatic service considered biased. It had to object to the UNSG maintaining “equal distances” from both sides and of “equating the victim with the aggressor.” And there were some political parties that urged the government to demand the withdrawal of Stewart because of his alleged pro-Turkish bias.

As regards the opening of the crossing points, the process has been ticking along unproductively for close to three months. It was mid-October that Tatar and Christodoulides met UNSG Antonio Guterres in New York and were asked to discuss the opening of more crossing points as confidence-building measure. Stewart said he had hoped to announce an agreement at Unficyp’s end of year reception, in early December, but no deal was reached. A month later, there is still no deal, although there have been ongoing discussions. According to UN sources, the sides were still very far apart.

The important thing however was that a process was in motion and each side could hold its ground. According to Cyprus government sources, the Turkish Cypriots just want a crossing for cars opened at Mia Milia, while the Greek Cypriots would like more opened. Government spokesman Constantinos Letymbiotis, admitted on Friday, that “we have our red lines.” The government could not possibly engage in any talks – even about the most inconsequential matters like the opening of crossings – without having its own red lines to counter those of the Turkish Cypriot side. Nothing must be easy in any process apart from the blame game.

Despite the existence of red lines, Letymbiotis insisted that “with the very specific proposals we submitted, we have proved our constructive stance so there could be a positive conclusion,” but for there to be a positive conclusion, “there must be sincere political will from both sides.”  The narrative is already in place – our constructive stance will stumble on the other side’s lack of a sincere political will. If there is no conclusion on Monday, “we would be happy to have a second meeting”, said Letymbiotis on Friday. Attending meetings is proof of the constructive stance and of sincere political will, neither of which Tatar has displayed.

Even if there is no agreement on the crossing points, the multi-party meeting in Switzerland would still go ahead, said Letymbiotis, as it did not depend on the outcome of Monday’s meeting. The process would continue even if the two sides were incapable of agreeing a confidence-building measure of no consequence, because they cannot depart from the decades-old, zero-sum game mindset. Whether Guterres would be prepared to waste valuable time, money and resources on a multi-party conference that would have no possibility of success, is debatable. DiCarlo, during next month’s visit might see no point to such a meeting, although this would not necessarily mean the end of the process. The two sides could carry on discussing – without sincere political will – which crossing points would be opened.

This suits the Turkish side which is quite clearly the beneficiary of the maintenance of the status quo, something the Greek Cypriot side refuses to see. If Christodoulides genuinely believed the status quo was unsustainable and sincerely wanted one last shot at reaching a settlement, he would give Tatar what he wants on the crossing points to ensure that the process could move to the next stage – the five-party conference – which is not the certainty the spokesman claims it is. Putting aside the red lines on the crossings is the only way to prove the “constructive stance” that Letymbiotis keeps banging on about and the only way to persuade the UNSG that a five-party conference might not be a monumental waste of time.

It is a breakthrough Christodoulides should be looking for and not another process, guaranteed to peter out.