In other words, the Cyprus issue has returned to a state of controlled stagnation—a process that is neither moving forward nor collapsing.
The UN Secretary-General’s visit to Cyprus concluded without the process collapsing. However, it did not prevent the political impasse either. The collapse did not happen now; it was simply postponed for later. Perhaps the images from António Guterres’s arrival were indicative of what followed. The Secretary-General was dragging his suitcase and jacket case by himself, while the Minister of Foreign Affairs and UN officials welcomed him at the modest facilities of the old Larnaca airport. It wasn’t just the glamour that was missing. There was also no sense that either side was truly expecting anything from this visit.
Leaks in recent weeks regarding ideas for a decentralized federation had already caused nervousness and defensive reactions. Instead of creating political space for initiatives, even greater wariness was fostered. The result was rather predictable. Those who had hoped that at least the date of a new informal five-party conference would be announced were disappointed. Instead of political decisions, the familiar sequence of conditions was reiterated once again: first, confidence-building measures; then, agreement on the methodology; next, discussion of the substance; and only then a new conference…
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
In other words, the Cyprus issue has returned to a state of controlled stagnation. A process that is neither moving forward nor collapsing. A stalemate that allows everyone to declare that they remain committed to dialogue, without, however, bearing the political cost of any substantive initiative.
This was also reflected in the public statements of the two leaders. President Nikos Christodoulides insisted that the talks must resume from the point where they were suspended in 2017. Tufan Erhürman reiterated that confidence-building measures and a change in the methodology of the dialogue must come first. No new proposals. No moves that would alter the balance of power.
The reality, however, is being shaped primarily in Ankara. Turkey does not appear to feel any particular pressure to make progress on the Cyprus issue. Its priorities lie elsewhere: in restoring relations with the United States, capitalizing on the personal relationship that Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seeks to build with Donald Trump, and asserting an enhanced geopolitical role in the new security architecture of the region’s security architecture.
At the same time, Ankara believes that its position in the Eastern Mediterranean has been strengthened. It knows that neither energy plans nor regional balances can easily ignore it. And it realizes that the difficulties facing its European aspirations—from upgrading the Customs Union to participating in new European defense programs— are not due exclusively to the objections of the Republic of Cyprus, but also to the reservations of powerful European Union member states.
It was therefore no surprise that, following Guterres’ departure, the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that the solution models implemented over the past decades have now reached their limits.
Thus, everyone can claim, for different reasons, to be relatively satisfied. The Turkish side sees recognition of the need for a new approach and an emphasis on confidence-building measures. The Greek Cypriot side views it as a positive development that the possibility of a new five-party conference remains open. And the UN is keeping alive a process that continues to exist more as a framework than as actual negotiations.
The only reality that does not change is the one on the ground. Every month that passes without negotiations widens the gap between the two communities. Each year makes it harder to reverse the status quo. The occupation becomes entrenched, the division takes on the characteristics of permanence, and the political cost of a solution rises for everyone.
The question, therefore, is not whether disaster has been averted.The real question is how much longer we can continue to label protracted stagnation as a “process,” until reality itself renders a solution impossible.
