Makarios Droushiotis writing in Politis says that through Ban Ki-Moon's visit to the island, the UN have indirectly set a timeframe for the Cyprus problem to be clarified, though not necessarily solved. The elections in the north on 18 April are critical. If Eroglu is elected the UN considers that talks from then on will be meaningless but for him not to be elected there must be some kind of spectacular progress in the talks in all chapters. Thus the talks must proceed intensively between now and then otherwise they will inevitably come to an end.
In short Mr Ban Ki-Moon conveyed the message that unless there is some drastic movement now, time will run out.
Turkey on the other hand has a clear policy that it has been implementing successfully since September. It has set the April elections as a clear timeframe for a solution and has been actively working in this direction. More than just because it's a regional power, its arguments ring positively in the ears of the international community. It accepts a timeframe; it wants the active involvement of the UN; it proposes procedures (five party meeting, four party meeting, conference outside Cyprus etc). In contrast the G/C side has been following a policy of just reacting to developments, just like in 2004 under Tassos Papadopoulos.
Talat has asked for two rounds of intensive negotiations with the aim of substantial convergence on the three chapters of governance and power sharing, economy and EU) so that something positive could have been announced before the elections. Christofias agreed to the intensive talks assuring party leaders these were just so as to help Talat and publicly said there was no chance of a solution before April and that he would continue the talks with whoever was elected. Talat then announced his willingness to proceed to another round this time on the property issue, and with the document he submitted he made clear that his intentions were beyond simple pre-electoral politics. The G/C side, aiming at a slower process, outright rejected the document as being confederationist, whereas in reality they viewed it as positive, proof being that despite Byzantine haggling and hair-splitting, there was broad convergence as regards governance and power sharing. Both UN circles as well as government circles have confirmed to the paper that this chapter has practically been closed.
It was in view of this progress, and with Turkey's commitment for a speedy negotiation of the remaining chapters that the UN went ahead with Ban Ki-Moon's visit. The aim of the visit was to announce this progress, to commit the leaders to carry on at the same speed, to come close to an agreement on all chapters,to announce this, for Talat to be reelected, and for the talks to conclude by June. The reason Christofias held back was that he felt he was losing control of public opinion and his cooperation with the coalition parties. Nonetheless Ban Ki-Moon came and spread his message of urgency.
Meanwhile Alexander Downer is busy trying to arrange the dates for the continuation of the talks though not at an intensive rate. The Turkish side is increasing pressure wanting talks up until the day before the elections, while Talat himself is proposing a conference outside Cyprus.
The international community credits Christofias with decisiveness to solve the Cyprus problem, but finds that Talat more eager to speed things up while Christofias is trying to slow things down, something that could prove fatal if Talat loses the elections.
If the G/C side does not cooperate in making full use of the time up until the April elections, then they will also have to bear the responsibility. And that is the dilemma that Christofias faces today.