By Christos Pourgouridis
The way I assess António Guterres's visit to our island can be summed up as follows: through diplomatic mastery, which included a number of significant ambiguities, he kept alive the hope of creating the conditions for the resumption of talks on the Cyprus issue.
Having said that, it must also be added that no substantive progress was achieved during Mr Guterres's visit towards the launching of direct dialogue between the parties involved. Indirect contacts are, of course, taking place among all sides through the mediation of the UN secretary-general's special representative.
Christodoulides' celebrations
The camp of President Nikos Christodoulides is presenting Mr Guterres's visit and its outcome to the Cypriot public as a significant success of its own. I struggle to see where exactly that success lies.
Without dismissing the efforts being made by President Christodoulides to restart the dialogue, I will once again express my reservations about his willingness and ability to "go the last mile," In other words, I have serious doubts as to whether the president is pursuing negotiations that are intended to lead to a settlement.
The impression I have formed is that he seeks talks in order to retain within his electoral base those who still believe in a solution. Their number is certainly not large. The overwhelming majority of voters within his political constituency are hard-line supporters of the view that a satisfactory solution for our side is impossible because of Turkey's intransigence.
There is, however, also a smaller but electorally significant group that supports a compromise settlement.
Ready to vote for him
I wish to state in the clearest possible terms that I am prepared to forgive every political mistake he has made, including the division he caused within DISY when he ran in the last presidential election without first resigning his party membership, if he genuinely and convincingly pursues a compromise solution to the Cyprus problem.
And not only would I forgive him, I would stand alongside him and even vote for him.
I said the same repeatedly about Nicos Anastasiades. Had he genuinely and sincerely pursued a solution to the Cyprus issue, I would have been prepared to forgive and erase everything I had passionately criticised him for in hundreds of my commentaries.
I was, and remain, ready to become "a carpet for any president to walk on" if that president pursues a settlement with honesty, sincerity and determination.
What a feasible solution means
Honesty means pursuing a solution that is achievable.
An achievable solution to the Cyprus problem is not the one we would ideally like, but the best one we can attain under the circumstances.
I do not believe there are many disagreements among us regarding the solution we would ideally prefer. The real disagreement concerns the much larger question of what constitutes the best solution that can realistically be achieved.
Without doubt, our lives are shaped, to a greater or lesser degree, by the quality of the choices we make and the effectiveness of the solutions we adopt when faced with problems.
Yet the choices available to us are never determined solely by our wishes. We are compelled to make choices almost every day, both on minor matters, such as what clothes to wear, and on major matters whose consequences shape our lives over long periods, including careers, property, marriage, children and much else besides.
The right choice
What depends on us, given existing constraints, is how sound our choices are and how effectively we solve our problems.
A sound choice is one that delivers the greatest benefit relative to the available alternatives, always taking costs into account in the broadest sense of the term.
The quality of our decisions does not depend so much on intelligence itself, because all human beings possess enough intelligence, thank God, but on how much and how well we use it when making decisions or solving problems.
Settlement proposals
A widely held view is that the various solutions proposed over the years by the United Nations have been unfair.
Yet all proposals have continued to operate within the same parameters. One aspect is improved in favour of our side, while another is improved in favour of the other side.
Mr Guterres moved within the same framework a few days ago.
The settlement framework that the international community is prepared to support already exists and is not going to change in any substantial way. Our side does not possess the ability to persuade the international community to support major improvements in our favour.
As time passes, our negotiating position will weaken while that of the other side improves.
The framework is already there. It is established and it is not going to change. If it changes at all, it will almost certainly do so to our detriment, because time invariably works in favour of the stronger party that holds territory and against the weaker party that does not. That has been the case since the dawn of history.
I do not see, nor do I hear, President Christodoulides explaining these realities to the public in order to prepare and ground expectations. Instead, he allows people to believe in the "miracles" of Archbishop Georgios and in what I regard as the greatest falsehood of the 20th century: the famous and morally indefensible slogan that "all refugees will return to their homes".
Not just any solution
We are often accused of supporting just any solution.
That accusation is made because there are no arguments left.
Yes, we support a solution. But not just any solution. We support the solution that it is possible to achieve with the support of the international community.
And we know very well that the framework of that solution is already established.
President Christodoulides also knows very well the limits of our capabilities. Yet he does not explain them to the public because he is thinking about presidential elections.
All previous UN efforts were sacrificed on the altar of presidential elections. The same fate, I fear, awaits the current effort under discussion.
If we are to shape our destiny rather than surrender to inevitability, we need vision and purpose, goals, patience, persistence and focus. We need courage and determination.
I do not see these qualities anywhere in relation to the Cyprus problem.
I do see them, and in abundance, when it comes to presidential elections.
As a result, I remain pessimistic.
