Thanasis Photiou
First, let us recall the facts, because in this country, our memory tends to become remarkably short, and we often find ourselves somewhere without remembering where we started.
Following the drone strike on RAF Akrotiri on March 2, 2026, the President of the Republic chose, through his public statements, to reopen the issue of the status of the Bases in a way that suggested he was putting their “sovereignty” on the table. He even used the weighty term “colonial relic.” That description was not chosen by chance. It deliberately tapped into a longstanding collective Cypriot sentiment and the social and political instincts of a society that, quite rightly, feels the weight of history.
The communication strategy was obvious, and this is not some arbitrary conclusion based simply on the established perception that the President is particularly skilled at political messaging. The rest of the presidential performance made that even clearer.
When directly asked whether he wanted the Bases to leave the island, Nikos Christodoulides carefully avoided giving a clear answer. He hid behind the familiar diplomatic cliché, “I will not negotiate in public,” keeping alive the narrative that he was “opening the issue of the Bases” while simultaneously allowing the impression to form that, yes, he was prepared to negotiate that as well. In other words, that “withdrawal” would be on the table.
Although he is in a position to know that there is no real possibility of reopening such an issue, he nevertheless made sure to leave no doubt that we were dealing with a policy designed for effect. He concluded with the meaningful but entirely vague statement: “We need to have an open and honest discussion with the British government to discuss the status and future of the British Bases. We have a clear approach regarding their future.”
The message may have appeared to be directed at London, but its real audience was at home. It was a political firework designed to impress the domestic public and create the image of a leader who “takes on” the British and boldly questions the status and presence of the Bases. A leader who has a “clear approach to their future,” which, apparently, we are supposed to shape together.
The President’s “clear” approach to the “future of the Bases” was supposedly going to unfold during an “open and honest discussion” that he believed needed to take place with the British government. “We need to,” he himself said. During this discussion, they would address “the status” of the Bases. Yet this approach has remained secret from the Cypriot people and, I assume, from the political establishment as well, presumably for negotiating reasons.
Of course, political reality and diplomatic possibilities are one thing. Political fireworks are another.
Nicosia is in no position, legally, militarily or politically, to reopen the question of sovereignty. And lest this be seen as criticism directed solely at the current government, let us be clear: Nicosia is not, and never has been, in such a position, despite the occasional flashes and bangs over the years. It was therefore both wrong and dangerous to suggest that this was the objective.
London, unsurprisingly, showed no sign of being caught off guard. Nor was it shaken by Nicosia’s supposedly revolutionary intentions. More importantly, it did not rush to schedule any dialogue, even an “honest discussion,” to calm Nicosia down before it placed the issue of sovereignty over the Sovereign Base Areas on the table, as established under the 1960 Treaties of Establishment.
For the Foreign Office, the sovereignty of the Bases is not a red line. It is simply not an issue. Especially at a time when their geostrategic value to the West and to operations in the Middle East is at its peak.
At this point, allow me a brief digression. There is a fundamental difference between communication tricks and serious, methodical work. History shows that results come only when you work quietly, realistically and with a clear understanding of the facts.
A striking example is the Anastasiades Agreement of 2014, which was fully implemented in 2022. That administration, despite the countless things for which it can rightly be criticized, did not waste its time on cheap rhetoric about “colonial relics.” It came to the table with a concrete plan and secured a major, tangible agreement. It released a significant amount of Base territory, allowing residential, urban and commercial development that benefited thousands of Cypriot citizens.
There was a result. There was a strategy that was translated into action.
And so we come to the heart of the issue created by the President of the Republic, and created in the manner he chose, to see where these “clear approaches” ultimately lead.
A few days ago, Foreign Minister Constantinos Kombos emerged from the British Foreign Office, where he had met with the Minister of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, and announced what was presented as a long-awaited development: the finalization of the strategic dialogue between Cyprus and the United Kingdom toward the end of this year.
The Strategic Dialogue is not something new, nor did it emerge today. It also has nothing to do with the issue of the Bases that the President created.
This close bilateral cooperation essentially began in November 2022, when the historic Memorandum of Strategic Cooperation was signed in London by the then foreign ministers, Ioannis Kasoulides and James Cleverly. That memorandum laid the foundation for the institutionalized annual mechanism known as the Strategic Dialogue, beginning in 2023.
And before we turn to the Bases, which are the issue that concerns us here, even the finalization of the dialogue at the end of the year is not news. First, because it is an annual process. Second, because as recently as July, during the meeting between the Cypriot Foreign Minister and his British counterpart, precisely this autumn review was agreed upon before the process was to be completed at the end of the year.
But let us look at what has happened to the “discussion about the status and future” of the Bases that the President believed he needed to have with the British government.
The Foreign Ministry's announcement states: “Further to previous discussions between the two sides, issues concerning the British Bases were also raised. In this regard, and following the established structured dialogue on issues related to the British Bases, emphasis was placed on the need to make progress on matters affecting the daily lives of Cypriot citizens living and working within the British Bases.”
From the Minister’s response to a question from the Cyprus News Agency, we learn that Nicosia is seeking the creation of an “institutionalized, structured dialogue” aimed at resolving a number of problems connected to the British Bases.
As he put it: “This was raised by our side and we are awaiting the finalization of a date for the commencement of precisely such a dialogue.”
So, Nicosia wants to turn the “established structured dialogue” mentioned in the Foreign Ministry’s announcement into an “institutionalized, structured dialogue.”
And, if I have understood this correctly, based on the statement that “this was raised by our side and we are awaiting the finalization of a date for the commencement of precisely such a dialogue,” we are waiting for them to give us a date when this dialogue will begin. The institutionalized one, that is, not the established one that already exists.
And this, too, is not news.
Last July, during the meeting between the Cypriot Foreign Minister and his British counterpart, “issues affecting the daily lives of Cypriot nationals residing in the British Bases were raised, including health and infrastructure matters, and it was agreed that a relevant meeting would take place within September to finalize the systematic examination and resolution of issues related to the British Bases, as part of an established dialogue.”
In short, the only news here is that we have apparently been waiting for them to give us a date since July rather than September.
And it will be a great diplomatic success indeed if we manage to transform the “established structured dialogue” into an “institutionalized structured dialogue.”
In any case, none of the announcements makes even the slightest reference to “the status and future of the Bases.” They speak only of a reaffirmation of the “shared will to maintain the momentum developed in recent years in Cyprus-UK relations, as well as to further strengthen strategic cooperation between the two countries.”
I assume this can be explained by the framework of the dialogue.
Apparently, such a discussion can take place only within an “institutionalized structured dialogue,” and not an “established structured dialogue.” Only within the institutionalized one, not the established one, can Nikos Christodoulides’ “clear approach regarding the future of the Bases” finally unfold.
An approach which, apparently, is not keeping the British awake at night, given that they have had us waiting for a date since July.
Foreign policy in a country that remains half-occupied cannot be conducted on the basis of impressions designed for domestic consumption, nor can it be sacrificed for short-term political gain.
The only thing this achieves is to make Cypriot diplomacy look foolish, as words are used in an attempt to close the gap between the expectations cultivated by the President of the Republic and reality.
