The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Serdar Denktas in an interview given to the Wall Street Journal stated that the negative signals the Turkish Cypriot side had received from the Greek Cypriot side did not leave much room for hope for an early settlement.

He said Greek Cypriot Leader Tassos Papadopoulos felt no pressure, urgency or necessity to change his intransigent policy, he only appeared to be playing for time in order to strengthen his position.
The full text of Minister Denktas' interview is as follows:

"Two years ago this month, the most comprehensive proposal ever produced by the United Nations for the settlement of the Cyprus problem— the "Annan Plan"—foundered on account of the Greek Cypriot rejection by a staggering 76% of the votes. Turkish Cypriots inhabiting the other side of the "Green Line" that divides this east Mediterranean island backed the plan with 65%.

We have since waited in vain for the promised relief from international isolation.

While some symbolic gestures have been made towards the Turkish Cypriots, it is concrete action that has been lacking. Historians will have to determine the significance of the lost opportunity in 2004. But the challenge for the leaders on both sides of the island and their people is to find a way out of the present stalemate. We need to make progress towards a comprehensive settlement with the active engagement and assistance of the international community.

Towards this end Turkey, in full consultation with the Turkish Cypriot side, in January unveiled an "Action Plan on Lifting of Restrictions in Cyprus." Among other things, the plan proposes "the simultaneous lifting of all restrictions on the freedom of goods, persons and services by all relevant parties in the context of the Cyprus issue" and the convening of "a high level meeting, no later than May-June 2006, under the auspices of the U.N. with the participation of Turkey, Greece, the Turkish Cypriot side and the Greek Cypriot side" to finalize and implement the plan. We continue to hope that the Greek Cypriots will reconsider their initially negative reaction to a visionary approach that could pave the way to a comprehensive settlement.
Another significant step that could help improve the atmosphere and build confidence between the two sides is to hold technical-level talks on practical issues, such as health, environment, crime prevention, etc. We have informed the U.N. Secretary-General of our acceptance of the list of technical committees proposed by his representative in Cyprus and our readiness to start these talks, without any political strings attached. The U.N., not the EU as some Greek politicians have recently stated, should continue to lead the negotiations process on the island.
It is obvious, both from the referendum and developments since, that our words—about a reconciliation leading to a comprehensive settlement—match our actions. It is also clear, however, that without any reciprocity from the Greek Cypriots it will not be possible to move towards unification. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.
The signals that we have received from across the Green Line do not, unfortunately, leave much room for hope for an early settlement. Our Greek Cypriot counterparts, having acquired unilateral EU membership to the exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots, don’t seem interested in power-sharing on the basis of political equality. They’re playing a zero-sum game. The Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos, last year told the U.N. General Assembly that "osmosis" is his preferred solution for the Cypriot question. Osmosis is a euphemism for the assimilation of the Turkish Cypriots. Mr. Papadopoulos feels no pressure, urgency or necessity to change this policy. He only appears to be playing for time to strengthen his position.
Impartial EU officials are exasperated with the Greek Cypriot side’s inflexible approach. They tell us frankly that it was a mistake to admit the Greek Cypriots as EU members before reaching an overall settlement on Cyprus first. As much as we appreciable this admission, it leaves unanswered who should pay for this mistake. It should certainly not be the Turkish Cypriot side or Turkey, who have done and continue to do everything they can to reach a settlement!
The only way to get the Greek Cypriot leadership to adopt a more constructive approach would be, as it has been all along, to end the isolation—economic, social, political—of the Turkish Cypriots. Despite the ordeal they have gone through in the ’60s and ’70s our people have demonstrated remarkable flexibility and political maturity. They rose to the occasion when the critical moment came two years ago to mutually decide the future of Cyprus.
It is also to the credit of our people that they have maintained their positive posture and commitment to a settlement despite the lack of concrete action by the international community to remove or relax the undeserved and inhumane restrictions imposed on them in the last four decades. Turkish Cypriots cannot directly trade, travel, engage in social, cultural and sports events and activities with the outside world, let alone establish unhindered political relations. At the same time their Greek Cypriot counterparts pretend that they are the sole representatives of the whole of Cyprus, and enjoy all the full benefits.