Yiannis Ioannou
The recent dinner in New York served as a reminder that, in the cynical world of international negotiations, continuing the process for its own sake remains, methodologically, the way to avoid declaring an impasse.
It also represents an approach to reaching the so-called "end at the end of the road." The President declared that the Cyprus issue has now entered a vague process of informal, expanded consultations, likely because, seven years after Crans Montana, he recognizes that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots are unable to sit at the negotiation table. Tatar continues to express his stance, Turkey moves too slowly, and while our side maintains a creative attitude, it has not been enough to unlock the process.
What lies ahead in the coming months? Two developments and one risk. First, albeit at a slow pace, there could be an agreement between the UN and the two communities. The second development hinges on the removal of Tatar from leadership within the Turkish Cypriot community, which would pave the way for an international conference on the Cyprus issue. This is likely the only viable path forward. The risk, however, lies in the negotiating period between the New York dinner and the potential date for an international conference. During this time, the Turkish Cypriot side – along with Ankara – could secure negotiation gains more favorable to their initial positions. This could happen if our side fails to demonstrate seriousness and credibility and instead turns the Cyprus issue into a tool for internal political gain.
As 2024 draws to a close, 2025 is shaping up to be a pivotal year for the Cyprus issue, almost a decade after the 2017 Crans Montana talks. We are nearing the "end at the end of the road" for the Cyprus problem, as we've known it since the start of negotiations in 1977. The path is coming to a close, and we must either define that end or, before we reach this critical juncture, find the vision and leadership needed to change the course. In the worst-case scenario, we will simply become bystanders to an outcome in which we had no meaningful role. No other option exists.
The "end at the end of the road" is not just a periodization or a critical analysis of our options and strategies for the Cyprus problem's next steps. It is, I fear, an existential quest. In an age dominated by social media and fleeting attention spans, we seem unable to fully grasp its significance and the real consequences for survival, whether we choose the status quo, the continuation of the current situation by any means, or some form of cooperation with the Turkish Cypriots, ideally under United Nations terms. The "end at the end of the road" signifies not just the conclusion of one journey but the furthest point we can reach. Even if this marks the end of one path, it also lays out the map for the next.
The Cyprus issue is entering its final stretch following the New York dinner. This time, we are likely to witness the conclusion of its journey. I cannot recall a more difficult period in recent history, and it would be wise for all of us to approach the situation with the seriousness it demands.
