Faustmann, associate professor in European studies at Nicosia University. He said negotiations had "largely stalemated". They had got bogged down in disputes over governance – how a reunified island should be run, "cross-voting" – and what rights the minority Turkish Cypriot population should enjoy in a liberal democracy, he said.

In theory, both sides share a vision for the island's future. The new state would be a "bi-zonal" and "bi-communal" federation, with "one citizenship" and "one international personality". The problem is that no one agrees what this actually means. There is also a profound lack of mutual trust, with both leaderships accusing each other of obduracy, unreasonableness and a bone-headed refusal to compromise.

The lack of consensus spills over into the terms used to describe Cyprus's fraught modern history, encompassingBritish imperial rule, smouldering communal tensions and the Turkish military's invasion of 1974, which led to today's bitter partition. The Greek Cypriots want the right of return for ethnic Greek refugees (or their descendants), turfed out of their homes in the north and forced to flee. It is unlikely, though, that many would go back even if they could.

Turkish Cypriots reject the word invasion. They prefer the term "intervention". They point out that their community suffered too and was the victim of Greek Cypriot violence and ghettoisation from 1963 onwards. There is no agreement either on how to describe the tens of thousands of mainland Turks whom Denktash invited to the north since 1974, deliberately changing the island's ethnic balance. Are they settlers or immigrants? And do they