The EU already has a role in the Cyprus problem, but it does not have Washington’s political clout

By Marios Eliades

During the election campaign, now President Nikos Christdoulides based his Cyprus problem policy on his intention to involve the European Union more substantially in the process of resuming negotiations. He has since persistently pursued this policy with visits to Brussels and major European capitals.

Without underestimating the usefulness of the effort to engage the EU on the Cyprus problem, and the valuable political support given by Europe so far, I do believe that the appointment of a high-level European envoy specifically for the Cyprus problem will not be able to act as a catalyst for reaching a solution. This is due to the following reasons:

Since Cyprus’ EU accession in 2004, and even before that, the EU has been actively involved in the negotiation efforts through the permanent presence here, at various times, of its special envoys. In 1994 the then EU Commission president Jacques Delors appointed Serge Abou as his representative. In 2012, Jean Claude Junker, also commission president, appointed Pieter Van Nuffel as his representative on the issue. In 2015 Van Nuffel was reappointed. The culmination of Europe’s representation on Cyprus was the EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, Junker and commission vice-president Hans Timmermans in the Cyprus negotiations held in Geneva and Crans-Montana.

The appointment of a European envoy for the Cyprus problem can make only a small contribution to the effort to solve the issue, since any envoy – even a figure such as Angela Merkel – cannot exert sufficient influence on the parties, always within the framework of UN resolutions and decisions, to make them show the necessary moderation and daring required to solve our long-standing issue.

The most fundamental reason why appointing such a European envoy was not effective is that even to this day the EU has not achieved a sufficient level of cohesion to have a united front in its approach to the intractable problems of our time. The fact that the parties directly involved, especially Turkey, are well aware that the EU does not speak with one voice largely nullifies its ability to act effectively. Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that important states of the EU, such as Germany, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands and possibly others, have very important interests in Turkey that dictate that they continue to follow a quite moderate, almost lukewarm, attitude even though Turkey, as European institutions admit, blatantly violates international law. Many EU countries continue unwaveringly to provide enormous military aid to Turkey which uses this very aid to threaten to cripple Greece and Cyprus, i.e. the European territory itself.

An additional reason for Turkey’s unprecedented disrespect and contempt for European institutions is its ability to blackmail Europe by invoking the migration crisis, which poses a serious threat to European societies.

The EU also does not seem to have any significant experience in the field of international dispute resolution, a capacity necessary for the success of such an endeavour. History teaches us that the EU has never been actively and decisively involved in the solution of any international problem.

In contrast to the EU, the US has been involved in a number of intractable international problems, sometimes scoring sensational success, such as the restoration of Israel-Egypt relations in 1978, the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement at Camp David in the 1990s, the famous Good Friday Agreement in 1998 on the Irish question, the Prespa agreement between Greece and FYROM, the delimitation of the EEZ between Israel and Lebanon, the agreement to restore relations between Israel and Arab countries with the well-known Abraham Agreement, which constitutes a decisive contribution to the prospect of restoring peace throughout the Middle East. Nowadays, a US mediation effort is underway to restore relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel.

No further examples are needed to substantiate that the US has the necessary experience and, more importantly, the political and economic clout and prestige to be effective in any mediation.

Given Washington’s firm commitment to a federal solution to Cyprus, as envisaged by the UN, I believe that our side should seriously study the possibility of requesting the US to appoint a special representative of the US president. I do not ignore the reservations that such a possibility might raise, given the legitimate connotations that an ‘Americanisation’ of the Cyprus problem continues to evoke, due to objections based mainly on historical reasons. I believe, however, that our country’s now unquestionable Western orientation and the US’ long-standing strong support for a federal solution, as provided for in the UN Security Council resolutions, blunt any phobic reaction or concern that belongs to the Cold War period.

A basic prerequisite for the success of such an effort is for us to demonstrate seriousness and credibility in what we declare that we want and, above all, in what we do. I believe that such a request will receive even more attention from the US if our side treats our Turkish Cypriot compatriots with respect and confidence.

The presence of a prominent American political figure representing the US president himself would enable American diplomacy, which is already actively involved in the issue of restoring Greece-Turkish relations, to deal even more actively with our problem. I am sure that everyone will agree that the United States is perhaps the only country that can exert its influence on the Turkish government substantially and effectively. Also, precisely because of its special political, diplomatic and economic clout, the US is in a position to talk convincingly with all interested parties, including, in particular, the UN, in the framework of which we are seeking a solution.

The current situation in Cyprus is not simply a question that affects only the relations between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots as well as Greek-Turkish relations. In the current conditions of the new bipolar world that emerged in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Cyprus problem acquires a new, broader geopolitical dimension, which deserves to be studied in its full breadth and depth.

The above thoughts are expressed due to my deep concern about the future of Cyprus, especially after the re-election of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a leader who no longer hides his ambitions to make Turkey Great Again in the 21st century. These were precisely the intentions that he confirmed once more during his recent illegal visit to European Cyprus, the homeland of Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

To forestall any reservations from any quarters, I categorically state that I have always been and remain committed to the European vision, and I am a strong believer in the role that the EU can play in trying to reach a compromise in Cyprus so as to turn it into a country of security and prosperity for all its legitimate inhabitants. Despite this, I deeply believe that at this juncture, due to geopolitical, economic and other factors, the role that the US can play can prove to be a strong catalyst for the future of our homeland.

Let us all reflect on this.

Marios Eliades is a former communications and works minister and founder of Eliades & Partners law firm