Hope, irony and the peril of brinkmanship

“Wonders are many, and none is more wondrous than man;
But when he turns away from justice, no city can he save.” – Sophocles, Antigone

The recent remarks of Jean-Pierre Lacroix, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, offered Cyprus a rare moment of optimism. Speaking to The Cyprus Mail, he reaffirmed that the UN remains “very strongly committed” to resuming negotiations and warned that opportunities “should not be missed”. Such reminders matter; they show that the door to reconciliation is not yet closed.

Yet optimism competes with a harsher reality. Recent diplomatic and political signals suggest that Cyprus stands once again at a fragile crossroads – between renewed possibility and the slow consolidation of division.

While UN officials speak of reconciliation, developments on the ground point in a different direction. New defence partnerships, Norway’s lifting of its arms embargo, and the expansion of regional alignments are prompting a more militarised posture. However, stability acquired through armament deepens mistrust and drives the island further away from the Bizonal Bicommunal Federation (BBF 2.0) that the UN continues to advocate.

Irony of ironies

Nothing highlights this contradiction more clearly than President Nikos Christodoulides’ recent meeting with Norway’s Foreign Minister, Espen Barth Eide – the same diplomat who served as the UN envoy at Crans-Montana. In a striking irony, the architect of earlier rapprochement stood alongside the president (and former negotiator) to announce the lifting of the arms embargo along with increased security cooperation.

This is not merely symbolic. It signals a broader European shift away from mediation and a hardening of Cyprus’ stance, reinforced by the upcoming assumption of the EU Presidency in January 2026. The political space for compromise is narrowing. These expansive actions risk entrenching the very “security guarantee dilemma” that prevented progress at Crans-Montana. UN Security Council resolutions call for mutually agreed security arrangements as part of a settlement.

A sober reading of Christodoulides’ public pronouncements reveals a vital pattern: he operates within the nationalist centre of gravity of Greek Cypriot politics, even while using pro-federal language internationally. Across interviews – including Euronews, BBC, and The Rest Is Politics podcast – and especially in his domestic commentary, his vocabulary describing the “occupied territories” is uniform: “pseudo-state”, “reprehensible act”, “illegal faits accomplis” and the need to “reverse the unacceptable status quo”.

He needs to define the core content of BBF 2.0, including how it differs from reunification or a return to the status quo ante, its positions on the rotating presidency, effective participation and what is tolerable within the UN-mandated parameters of political equality. Without these, “federation” becomes a rhetorical shell rather than a workable model.

Given new defence partnerships in what he characterises as “our region”, it would be politically difficult for him to accept any transitional Turkish role in security – even a time-limited, treaty-based arrangement. This remains the heart of why future talks are likely to fail.

His electoral base includes forces deeply uneasy with genuine power-sharing. Appearing flexible abroad while remaining unyielding at home is politically safer than taking the risks required for a negotiated settlement. Together, these tendencies reveal a long-serving diplomat who treats the Cyprus Problem primarily as a legal case to be argued, rather than as a shared trauma (both pre- and post-1974) requiring empathy and reciprocal concessions.

The northern drift

Meanwhile, newly elected Turkish Cypriot leader Tufan Erhurman recently spoke in Ankara of “two peoples” while Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan reiterated the demand for “two states”. Yet Erhurman also stressed – politely – that political equality is embedded in UN parameters and must be respected. He highlighted the Turkish Cypriot “yes” to the Annan Plan in 2004 and their constructive stance at Crans-Montana in 2017.

Whatever one thinks of Ankara’s entrenched position, Erhurman’s tone points toward a shared future rather than exclusive prosecution of past illegality – including the coup d’état that precipitated the occupation. When one side feels structurally excluded – from EU processes, recognition and governance – it inevitably explores other futures.

Left unchecked, Cyprus risks drifting toward a reality neither side publicly claims to want: a de facto version of Enosis (or “EU-nosis”) in the south and partition in the north.

Clarity needed

Given these contradictions, the Cypriot public on both sides deserves clarity. Cyprus is moving in the wrong direction. Both communities urgently need a structured consultation – a bicommunal dialogue, a memorandum of agreed principles, or even a referendum – to determine what settlement parameters within the BBF 2.0 framework the public is willing to accept.

In this challenging moment, The Cyprus Mail deserves genuine thanks. By publishing both hopeful messages and sobering realities of political drift, the newspaper performs a public service that transcends partisanship. Its reporting preserves the civic space in which differing views can be expressed clearly.

The Golden Age of Athens marked one of the most important intellectual shifts in human history: from a mythological worldview governed by fate and divine intervention to a rational, ethical and civic worldview grounded in human agency, debate and responsibility. Of my education at The English School, it was this foundation of modern thought that left the deepest mark: that knowledge without conscience is hollow, and that even the sciences that shaped my career found purpose through a moral sense.

The Federal Republic of Cyprus must now move beyond hardened national narratives and toward a shared sense of responsibility. In moments of tension, societies must learn to temper hostility, restrain passions, and allow reason – rather than grievance – to guide their choices. If Cyprus is to reclaim its path forward, it must turn not toward alliances that exclude, but toward solutions that embrace both communities with dignity and respect. The door to reconciliation remains open – but it will not remain open indefinitely.

By Professor Kerim M. Munir, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; graduate of The English School, Nicosia. This piece is offered as both a personal reflection and a civic appeal seeking to advance public discussion at a critical moment