Our View: President must stop moving the goalposts

Playing host to the Famagusta municipal council at the presidential palace on Monday, President Nikos Christodoulides said that his proposal about the fenced area of Famagusta, was still on the table despite the other side having rejected it. He also dismissed criticism that he had revived an old proposal – a similar one had been made by President Tassos Papadopoulos in 2005 – because he had built on that. He also made the contentious claim that the old proposal “had advanced considerably and we were close to having a result.” According to the proposal, which was the same as that made 21 years ago, the fenced area of Famagusta would be handed over to the UN who would oversee the return of the town’s legal inhabitants and in exchange Famagusta port would be opened under the authority of the EU. The obvious question is, how could a proposal that was rejected by the other side still be on the table? Was the president just telling the Famagusta mayor and councilors what they wanted to hear? And although his proposal was rejected, he told his guests: “It is an issue that I want us to discuss today and to see how we can enrich it, shape and change it so that with your contribution we can have a positive result, because I consider it would be that issue we are looking for at this moment – if we all want to prove that we mean in practice that we are working for a solution of the Cyprus problem – bold confidence-building measures.” There was no announcement informing us whether the Famagusta municipal council enriched the president’s proposal, which was rejected but was still on the table, during Monday’s meeting. Government spokesman Konstantinos Letymbiotis, however, claimed the proposal for the fenced area of Famagusta was “absolutely aligned with the priorities set by the UN Secretary General.” Surely, the priorities of the UNSG are agreement on the seven confidence-building measures he set as conditions for the process moving to the next stage, which would be 5+1 meeting. There has been no agreement on any of the proposed measures, so why would he introduce a much more complicated measure that would require years of negotiation to reach an agreement? If the president is as keen as he claims on securing the resumption of talks, why does he not agree on the UN-proposed CBMs? This would open the way to the broad conference that he has been angling for, and possibly a resumption of talks, before the UN Secretary-General steps down at the end of the year. Does he not realise that coming up with new proposals every week achieves nothing other than delaying agreements on the actual measures that are key for any progress?