Opinion
By Michalis Sophocleous
“So, if you can’t even open a crossing point, how exactly do you expect to convince anyone that you genuinely want a solution to the Cyprus problem? Where will you find the courage tomorrow to agree to political equality and effective participation? You won’t even allow school groups to play football while you block crossings and trade. On the one hand you call for talks, and on the other you prove you cannot lead. If you think we will enter negotiations just for the sake of negotiations so you can embarrass us, like all the previous attempts, then look elsewhere.”
The above is not a work of fiction. It is, more or less, what anyone who speaks with the international community hears. Fair or unfair, it doesn’t really matter. This is what the president hears. What party leaders hear. What diplomats and journalists hear. Of course, no one dares say this openly to the public, because in Cyprus we have a habit of shooting the messenger instead of reflecting on the message. There has been one notable exception lately: María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, who hints at it indirectly. Still, it barely makes us flinch.
“But surely it’s not our fault the Cyprus problem hasn’t been solved?” someone will ask. Of course not. The Cyprus issue cannot be resolved peacefully without Turkey’s consent. What is undeniably our responsibility, however, is this: not only did we give Turkey a chance in 2004 to largely shake off the label of invader (the leadership, not the people, who had every right to vote as they wished), but today we don’t even force Ankara to take a position on Cyprus at all. There have been no negotiations since 2017. Almost nine barren years have gone by.
Let’s be honest. While I agree that Turkey did not back down on security at Crans-Montana, the impression left behind is that we triggered the crisis at the dinner table and then packed up and walked away. “Why didn’t you let Erdoğan and Tsipras come and present their positions themselves?” we are asked, and we have no convincing answer. Nor do we when asked, “Why did you later torpedo the very concept of political equality from the UN podium?” These are heavy charges that weigh on former President Anastasiades but also on President Christodoulides, who was his right-hand man at the time, whose positions were well known, and who was present at every critical moment.
Our response? Whataboutism. “So Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots are doing everything right, and we’re the ones to blame?” we say. “Aren’t they the ones pushing for two states?” These arguments are weak. Turkey uses the Cyprus problem as a tool to serve its geopolitical ambitions. Turkish Cypriots are a dependent pawn, especially when we do nothing to bring them closer. If, as I believe, our goal should be to apply real pressure on Turkey over Cyprus, what we are actually doing today is making Ankara’s life easier.
I’ve written at length about the global and regional conditions taking shape, conditions that could very well turn Cyprus into the last unresolved obstacle to Europe’s energy and trade autonomy. The Europe–India agreement is yet another step in that direction, following the ceasefire in Gaza. And this is where the key question lies: will we have a seat at the table, or will we be on the menu when these plans are implemented? Because no one will allow the Cyprus problem to derail such initiatives. If we don’t solve it ourselves, others will solve it for us.
In the next two to three weeks, we have the crucial Mitsotakis–Erdoğan meeting. Will Greek-Turkish relations move forward without Cyprus? Have we coordinated clearly with the Greek prime minister, or are we still stuck at the stage where we exposed him, irrevocably, with the GSI, in service of our so-called “friends”?
President Christodoulides has two urgent challenges. First, to prove that he genuinely wants talks that can lead to results. Second, to rise above petty political fear of losing votes. History will not wait for him. Worse, it will judge him harshly if he continues with cheap tricks that irritate rather than solve.
He could overcome this today, easily, by opening the Mia Milia crossing point, linking it to the resumption of talks and the resolution of the irrigation issue. But he doesn’t. Instead, he gives the impression of a very small leader, one who risks losing his country for good because he lacks the courage to open even a single damned crossing point...as if something terrible would happen if he did.
