Our View: The process on Cyprus has been kept alive for a little longer

The dinner in New York did not bridge the differences between the two sides, but it kept the process alive and confirmed the continued involvement of the UN. The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres could have called an end to this involvement after the failure of his personal envoy Maria Angela Holguin to make any progress – she was not even able to arrange a meeting of the two leaders – and he would have been perfectly justified to give up on the Cyprus problem.

He did not do so and instead came up with the idea for an “informal meeting of a broader format in the near future, under the auspices of the secretary-general, to discuss a way forward”. This would include the three guarantor powers, which would have been sounded out and given the go-ahead before Tuesday’s dinner. The two leaders agreed to the informal meeting, said an announcement issued by the UNSG’s office after the meeting, although the only information being that it would be held “in the near future”.

Improving relations between Greece and Turkey made this development possible. There was no mention of the guarantor powers in the official UN announcement, but it was big news that Turkey and Greece would participate at the next informal meeting, especially in the Turkish media. Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar reportedly opposed Britain’s participation but President Nikos Christodoulides, apparently argued that Britain should also be present and got his way.

Turkey’s agreement to participate in a five-party meeting raises a glimmer of hope, indicating that there could be a different format of talks. Whether Ankara would be prepared to modify its position about a settlement and put aside the two-state solution is not known, but it may have given some indication of adopting a more flexible approach to the UN. Holguin had put together proposals for bridging the differences on a range of issues, but they were not properly explored because of Tatar’s refusal to engage in talks before his conditions were met.

The broader format meeting has been labeled ‘informal’, like Tuesday’s dinner, for the sake of Tatar. Using the ‘informal’ label is a way of having talks without satisfying his pre-condition for separate sovereignty. How informal was the dinner, considering the leaders agreed on the five-party gathering and on meeting in Cyprus to explore the possibility of opening new crossings? And was Tatar’s demand that Holguin gave up her involvement in the process – a demand Guterres satisfied – informal?

In the end, for the people that support a settlement, the outcome of the informal dinner in New York was positive. The UNSG will continue pursuing his good offices mission and Turkey has agreed to take part in the next meeting of the two sides. There is a slightly better chance of achieving a breakthrough when Turkey is directly involved, and Tatar will no longer be free to call the shots. Of course, nobody can forecast at present what Ankara’s line will be at such a meeting – nor Christodoulides’ for that matter.

For now, we should be content that the process has been kept alive for a little longer.