If one thing was made clear by Monday’s meeting of the two leaders it was that neither possesses the political will, mettle or flexibility that would give the stagnant process a small push forward. They see every attempt at reaching an agreement, even on issues of no consequence, as a zero-sum game. The idea of ‘win-win’ has never been part of the Cyprus problem mindset, which makes it extremely difficult – if not impossible – for either side to show the necessary flexibility that could create some momentum.

As we wrote a few days ago, the sides are more interested in having a process that leads nowhere rather than taking risks to achieve a breakthrough. This was what happened on Monday. Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar asked for the opening of a crossing point at Mia Milia and was willing to offer a crossing at Louroujina as a show of goodwill. President Nikos Christodoulides, meanwhile, had proposed four crossings, two of which (Kokkina and Pyroi) would be ‘transit’ crossings – Greek Cypriots would drive through the occupied area and exit without any checks. He had also proposed Mia Milia and Louroujina over which the sides agreed.

Christodoulides also said that the four crossings were part of a ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ proposal. Did he say this because he knew the Turkish Cypriot side had ruled out the opening of the ‘transit’ road in Kokkina to Greek Cypriot drivers? Was there a reason to take a hard line? Tatar reportedly asked for time to discuss the Pyroi crossing with Turkey, the implication being that he would agree to its opening if Ankara gave the go-ahead. In such an event, would Christodoulides hold out for Kokkina as part of his ‘take-it-or-leave-it tactic’, knowing that the Turkish side would not budge on that?

Was this his way of leading the discussions on the crossings to deadlock? It is difficult to understand why he adopted such an inflexible approach when there is a chance that three out of four of his proposals would be adopted. It is not as if the number of crossings or transit points to be opened would have any impact on the negotiations for a settlement, in the unlikely event there is a resumption of talks. He should not be attaching so much importance to the crossings as they are nothing more than a confidence-building measure. Why does he want to turn the matter into another negotiation? Tatar has offered to meet again after consultations with Ankara while the government spokesman said Christodoulides was ready to meet as soon as tomorrow.

Spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis on Tuesday tried to explain that the “proposals which were submitted yesterday also had to have the aspect of mutuality and this is something absolutely understandable with regard to the positive substantive development.” Another four proposals were submitted by the president at Monday’s meeting, a decision that is as difficult to understand as Letymbiotis’ explanation above. They may have been good proposals but what was their point? Do the two sides need more issues to disagree on in addition to the crossings?