What was achieved at the Geneva Cyprus talks?

Has there been any progress at the Geneva Cyprus talks? This is a very important question, the answer to which largely depends on which perspective one might wish to answer it from. Was it a success? Was it a failure? Did Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akıncı engage in a treacherous act and surrender to the demands of Greek Cypriot leader Nicos Anastasiades, or was he a successful negotiator that elevated the status of the Turkish Cypriot state to that of the Greek-held Cyprus Republic?

Indeed it is a very difficult question. Perhaps for an answer, it might be useful to look at what the two sides obtained from the unprecedented three days of bilateral talks, and one day of five party rounds, in Geneva.

1-      As four Greek Cypriot opposition parties accused him and left Geneva in protest while the five-party conference was still underway, did Anastasiades help Akıncı elevate his unrecognized state to the level of the internationally recognized Greek Cypriot state?

While such an argument might be possible, it was indeed an exaggeration. Yet, if Anastasiades was representing both the Greek Cypriot community and the Cyprus Republic - as he reportedly said in his speech at the international conference - then there was obviously not two leaders and three foreign ministers of the guarantor powers, but there were as well two presidents there. In that framework and with some creative exaggeration, the argument might be acceptable. Yet, it falls contrary to the established principle that the two leaders represented their communities and nothing else, on the basis of equality.

2-      Anastasiades managed to open discussions on a taboo subject without delivering anything: The fate of the guarantee system…

Indeed, that was a big...