The Light That Appears Before You isn't Always Dawn. Sometimes it's The Headlights of an Oncoming Train*

María Ángela Holguín shuttled between Nicosia, Ankara, Athens, London, and Brussels for months. Everywhere she went, the doors didn't seem to be completely closed. No one was saying, "We don't want negotiations." On the contrary, everyone was saying, "If the right conditions are met," "If a suitable methodology is found," "If the other side also takes a step." In diplomatic language, these are often read as signs of hope.

Perhaps that's where the problem began.

What Holguín saw was indeed movement. But was this movement leading towards a solution, or was it serving to consolidate the positions of the parties?

Looking at what has happened in recent months, the second possibility seems stronger. Turkey, while trying to open a new chapter in its relations with the European Union, kept the Cyprus issue as one of the important topics on the negotiating table. The Greek Cypriot-controlled Republic of Cyprus, on the other hand, tried to make the EU's support more visible and institutionalized. In the north, the new leader used open language for negotiation, but emphasized that the preconditions were confidence-building and a new methodology. No one overturned the table; but no one was ready to sit down at the table either.

From the outside, all this might have seemed like a "green light."

Perhaps that's what brought Guterres to the island.

However, the language he used after arriving and listening to the two leaders was noteworthy. He didn't announce a major diplomatic breakthrough. He didn't say he was starting a new process. He constantly returned to the same three concepts: confidence-building measures, a common methodology, and preparation.

This was actually an important clue. Because the UN Secretary-General seemed to have seen firsthand that the parties weren't yet looking in the same direction. He realized that an unprepared 5+1 meeting would only produce another failure.

Perhaps Holguín didn't gather misinformation. What was wrong was the way this information was interpreted.

The parties were indeed moving. But not towards each other; they were moving towards international public opinion, the guarantors, and the European Union. Diplomacy had accelerated, but not towards compromise, but towards the arbitration of positions.

One of the greatest paradoxes of the Cyprus problem lies here. The same development can be interpreted completely differently by two different perspectives. One diplomat might see the increased contact as a sign of a will to resolve the conflict. However, experience on the island tells us something else: an increase in the number of contacts in Cyprus doesn't always mean that a compromise is approaching. More often than not, it indicates the beginning of a period where the parties are gaining ground to enter a new round of negotiations with greater strength.

Perhaps the most important outcome of Guterres' visit wasn't that it opened a new door, but that it made him realize that they hadn't even reached that door yet.

The problem in Cyprus is no longer just the model for a solution. The problem is that the parties haven't even been able to establish a common narrative about why they should sit at the same table. Without a common narrative, a common methodology cannot be established; and without a common methodology, even the brightest light can turn into a mirage as you approach it.

* Mete Hatay is a researcher and writer. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of The Levant Files.