Yiannis Ioannou
President Christodoulides' strategy to pressure Ersin Tatar into agreeing to a trilateral meeting, despite Tatar’s ongoing refusal, appears ineffective. This approach has sparked criticism, although it is not fundamentally flawed.
Christodoulides' tactics are not wrong simply because, like past Greek Cypriot leaders, he is trying to advance the Cyprus issue. The situation is very specific: a seven-year deadlock and Tatar’s refusal to meet with Ms. Olgin during her tenure in Cyprus highlight the challenges.
The UN is aware that Tatar’s refusal reflects Turkey’s stance, though it is expressed through the Turkish Cypriot leader. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres understands both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot perspectives, and he is familiar with the complexities involved.
Guterres will need to consider whether inviting both sides to a trilateral meeting will lead to a genuine dialogue or if it will simply become another blame game.
He will assess whether Ankara, through Tatar, is genuinely interested in resolving the Cyprus problem or merely using the situation to deflect responsibility. This evaluation will help him determine if there is a real opportunity to address the issue.
Tatar and Ankara are aware of the Greek Cypriot position that they are ready for talks while Tatar refuses. They likely do not wish to return to negotiations immediately.
It is important to keep this in mind when reflecting on our own strategies and criticisms. Reaching a strategic agreement to solve the Cyprus problem is extremely challenging.
However, a meeting between the two leaders will offer insight into the current state of affairs, seven years after Crans Montana.
[This article was translated from its Greek original]
