Developments on the Cyprus problem over the past week have been less of a “flurry of diplomatic activity” than a “flurry of negativity”.

At home we’ve had the fiasco surrounding the annual Cyprus Forum over the title of the Turkish Cypriot mayor of Nicosia, courtesy of the government, while abroad, President Nikos Christodoulides engaged in a bit of pot-stirring at the UN.

Christodoulides said the Turkish Cypriot side had responded negatively to the prospect of a tripartite meeting to explore new ideas which he said had been positively received by UN chief Antonio Guterres.

Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhurman disputed his account, saying that “if there had been any result of substance” from the talks in New York or his three meetings with Christodoulides since July, “the secretary-general would be insistent on holding a tripartite meeting”.

The atmosphere had been spoiled from the get-go however when the Greek Cypriot side sent a letter urging diplomats not to meet Turkish Cypriots during the usual week-long contacts on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.

That aside, for anyone who remembers Guterres’ visit to Cyprus in July, he was explicitly asked whether there would be a tripartite during the General Assembly to which he replied that there were no such plans.

On Sunday, perhaps in an effort to dispel the confusion, Guterres’ personal envoy Maria Angela Holguin said that although a trilateral meeting was not initially planned, Christodoulides had proposed one but “at this moment, the Turkish Cypriot leader did not consider it”.

Well that clarifies something – the initiative for a tripartite had not come from Guterres but it does not clarify whether or not the UN chief had been open to holding one even though such a meeting was not meant to be on the cards, especially without progress since his visit in July.

It’s highly unlikely that if Guterres thought it was a good idea to jointly meet both leaders Erhurman would have refused. Perhaps he declined simply because it was Christodoulides who suggested it and he was annoyed over the letter to foreign diplomats.  

Or, he really felt that not enough progress has been made at home to warrant a tripartite while Christodoulides was submitting “new ideas” to the UN and perhaps wished to have those ideas validated by a high-level meeting he could brag about at home.

By the same token, because this is the Cyprob, did Christodoulides suggest the meeting knowing full well Erhurman would reject it just because it came from the Greek Cypriot side and he could add it to the intransigence tab?

Holguin did clarify that Guterres had “reiterated the urgency” for the leaders to proceed with the implementation of the confidence-building measures he laid out in July “as a reflection of their ability to cooperate”. This indicates that in the UN’s opinion, there really was nothing substantial to discuss that would warrant a tripartite in New York.

It’s a shame the UN can’t ever seem to place the blame where it belongs no matter which side engages in shenanigans. All we ever seem to get is smoke and mirrors from the UN and playground diplomacy from both sides.