Geopolitical developments in the Eastern Mediterranean are simultaneously raising hopes for a resolution to the Cyprus problem and deepening the complexities of the process. The 2+1 summit in New York on October 15 represents a significant diplomatic initiative that has effectively revitalized the search for a solution on the island, even though the parties have stated that a new formal negotiation process has not begun.
Geopolitical developments in the Eastern Mediterranean have given a new impetus to the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem, while increasing the challenges facing the process. The informal 2+1 summit held in New York on October 15th stands out as a de facto sign of the revival of the search for a solution, even though the parties have declared that the negotiation process has not officially started.
However, the success of this new process requires an extremely difficult diplomatic balance due to multilayered and complex issues such as regional dynamics, energy resources and the interests of guarantor countries.
The Cyprus problem has remained unresolved for decades as a result of historical, ethnic and political divisions between the two communities on the island – Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. These internal dynamics are intertwined with a number of external factors that have made the island a major regional and global challenge. The guarantor status of Turkey, Greece and the UK is a decisive factor not only between the communities on the island but also in terms of regional strategic balances.
Turkey’s military and diplomatic presence on the island aims both to ensure the security of the Turkish Cypriot community and to protect its energy and strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. Greece, on the other hand, while playing an active role in the solution of the problem due to its historical ties with the Greek Cypriot community on the island, frequently raises the issue of guarantor rights in Cyprus. However, Turkey clearly emphasizes that it will not give up these rights.
The issue of guarantees is not only a historical issue between the two countries, but also at the center of security and sovereignty debates in the Eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, balancing the interests of Turkey and Greece in the resolution of the issue is crucial for the success of the settlement process.
Energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean play a key role in the solution of the Cyprus problem. The natural gas reserves discovered in the region in recent years have increased the geopolitical importance of not only Cyprus but also other countries in the region.
While the Greek Cypriot administration is taking steps to extract natural gas resources in the region in line with the agreements it has made with international energy companies, Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side consider these initiatives as contrary to their sovereign rights and the regional balance. Turkey’s drilling activities carried out in cooperation with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have led to serious tensions in the region.Energy Resources in the Eastern
Hydrocarbon resources in the Eastern Mediterranean play a key role in the settlement of the Cyprus problem. Natural gas reserves discovered in the region in recent years have increased the geopolitical importance of not only Cyprus but also other countries in the region. While the Greek Cypriot administration is taking steps to extract natural gas resources in the region in line with its agreements with international energy companies, Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side consider these initiatives as contrary to their sovereign rights and regional balance. The drilling activities carried out by Turkey in cooperation with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have led to serious tensions in the region.
The sharing of energy resources not only fuels conflicts between countries in the region, but also leads to the involvement of international actors. Actors such as the United States, the European Union and even Russia see the energy resources in the Eastern Mediterranean as an area of strategic competition. If a solution is found in Cyprus, energy resources could be shared fairly within the framework of regional cooperation. At this point, however, given the current tensions, the energy issue remains more of a source of conflict. Unless a common energy cooperation platform is established between the parties, there is a high probability that the Cyprus negotiations will be bogged down by energy competition.
The role of the guarantor countries is vital in the settlement of the Cyprus problem. Turkey, Greece and the UK are the main actors in maintaining the status quo on the island and guiding the negotiations. Turkey’s stance on the Turkish military presence on the island and guarantor rights stands out as one of the most critical issues in the negotiations. While Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration demand that Turkey end its guarantor rights and withdraw its military presence on the island, Turkey considers these demands as an attempt to jeopardize the security of the Turkish Cypriot people.
The guarantor status is also critical for the military balance in the region. In particular, the US and NATO’s strategies to strengthen their military presence in the region are among the factors that directly affect the Cyprus issue. The US lifting the arms embargo on Greek-Cypriot administered Cyprus Republic and its attempt to establish military bases on the island are perceived as a threat by Turkey. NATO’s steps to defuse tensions between Greece and Turkey are aimed at supporting the Cyprus settlement process. However, there is also a risk that such military and strategic moves will create new difficulties rather than facilitate the settlement process.
Among the proposed solutions to the guarantor issue, approaches similar to the Acheson Plan, which aims to overcome the diplomatic impasse by maintaining Turkey’s military presence on the island, are also being discussed again. The Acheson Plan was a solution put forward by US diplomat Dean Acheson in the 1960s, which envisaged giving Turkey a military base on the island similar to Britain’s Akrotiri and Dikelya bases. Such a proposal remains viable as a formula for overcoming the problems with the guarantor status by meeting Turkey’s security concerns on the island. Modernized versions of this plan could be considered in a way that both safeguards Turkey’s security interests and provides effective protection for the Turkish Cypriot community.
There are also ideas on the table, such as granting Turkey some island-specific rights independent of the European Union. In this context, offering Turkey a limited partnership model on the island in the European Union’s policies towards Cyprus, i.e. granting Turkey the same rights that Greece enjoys with Cyprus’ EU membership, limited to the island after the settlement, similar to the British-Irish example, stands out as another suggestion for compromise in the settlement process.
In particular, this is seen as a formula that could guarantee Turkey’s access to energy resources in the eastern Mediterranean while preserving Cyprus’ security and political status. However, these ideas have started to be voiced not only by independent assessors who support a solution to the Cyprus problem, but also by pro-settlement actors both in Turkey and on the island.
Although the 2+1 summit held on October 15th in New York under the auspices of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was considered as a promising step towards a solution to the Cyprus problem, it was emphasized that a negotiation process has not officially started. Nevertheless, this summit is considered as a sign of a de facto new diplomatic initiative for a settlement on the island.
Two particularly important decisions were taken at the summit: The first is a 4+1 summit to be organized in the near future with the participation of the guarantor countries. At this summit, political equality, security and status issues on the island will be discussed. The second decision was to open new crossing gates to facilitate daily life between the two communities and to continue dialogues to solve local problems.
These steps stand out as small but critical developments in the long frozen Cyprus negotiations. However, the success of this process requires the parties to abandon their past rhetoric and develop a new diplomatic language. It is especially important for Turkey and Greece to play a “facilitating” role in this process. These two countries will continue to be key actors in the settlement of the Cyprus problem due to their guarantor status and strategic interests in the region. However, as in the past, overcoming the mistrust and diplomatic deadlocks between the parties could be a critical turning point not only for the two communities on the island, but also for energy sharing and security issues in the region.
While the decisions taken at the end of the summit can be seen as small steps towards concrete progress on the Cyprus problem, it is clear that this will be a long and complex journey that will last until next spring. The planning of the “unofficial” summit in the 4+1 format, together with the inclusion of the guarantor states, will give the Cyprus negotiations an international dimension. This would attract more countries to the settlement process, which could lead to greater support for the negotiations in the international community.
However, a summit with the participation of both guarantor countries could complicate the process as much as it could accelerate it. The deep historical rivalry between Turkey and Greece, the military presence on the island and security concerns stand out as the biggest obstacles to a solution. Moreover, if the process can reach the 5+1 stage, the UK will also be involved in the process.
The change in Britain’s post-Brexit strategies towards Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean is also an important factor that could affect this process. While Britain’s military bases in Cyprus remain strategically important for the West’s security policies in the region, it is critical for London to maintain the balance on the island in line with Britain’s interests.
Turkey’s presence and guarantor rights in Cyprus remain one of the most contentious issues in the settlement process. However, solutions such as the Acheson Plan suggest that the guarantor status could be reorganized through a de facto settlement, with a proposal to give Turkey a military base similar to the UK’s two bases. Such a solution could both secure Turkey’s strategic interests on the island and address the security concerns of the Turkish Cypriot community.
There is also a proposal for Turkey to gain some rights in its relations with the European Union, specific to Cyprus. If the European Union becomes more actively involved in the Cyprus settlement process, the idea of Turkey having similar rights to Cyprus as EU membership could be seen as a win for Turkey. This could provide new opportunities for Turkey to continue to support the Turkish Cypriot community while enhancing regional cooperation.
The search for a solution to the Cyprus problem is not limited to issues between the communities on the island and the guarantor countries. The involvement of global actors such as the United States, Russia and the European Union makes the solution much more complex. The US continues to actively participate in the process, especially in line with the security of energy resources and its strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean. The US lifting of the arms embargo on Cyprus and its attempt to establish a military base on the island is perceived as a threat by Turkey, which could lead to new tensions in the settlement process.
Russia, on the other hand, continues its efforts to have a say over the energy resources and geopolitical balances in the region. In Cyprus, Moscow remains an important actor in this process, both by establishing close relations with the Greek Cypriot administration and by maintaining strategic cooperation with Turkey. This may make it difficult to establish an international balance of power on the Cyprus problem.
The European Union, on the other hand, is trying to take a more active role in the settlement of the Cyprus problem. In particular, the advantages of Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration stemming from their EU membership constitute a significant obstacle for Turkey.
However, Turkey’s desire to revitalize its relations with the EU and to make gains through Cyprus can be considered as an opportunity in the settlement process. If the EU allows Turkey to have some rights in Cyprus and adopts a more flexible stance on the Cyprus issue, this could be the beginning of a new era in Turkey-EU relations.
The settlement of the Cyprus problem is an extremely complex process that requires balancing the interests of regional and global actors. The 2+1 summit can be considered a small but important step in this process. However, for a solution to materialize, the parties need to reshape their diplomatic language, the guarantor states need to make concessions and a fair compromise on regional energy sharing needs to be reached. Solutions such as the Acheson Plan could play an important role in overcoming the impasse over Turkey’s guarantor status. Moreover, the proposal to grant Turkey EU-like rights could facilitate confidence building between the parties.
Given all these dynamics, a solution to the Cyprus problem is difficult but not impossible. It is critical for stability and security in the Eastern Mediterranean that the parties find common ground through regional cooperation and diplomacy. However, this solution requires a multi-layered diplomatic negotiation process that must balance the interests of not only the communities on the island, but also those of global and regional actors.
The success of the Cyprus peace process will depend on a delicate diplomatic and political balance. In addition to the demands of the two communities on the island, the interests of regional actors and guarantor states need to be carefully taken into account. The role of the EU in particular will be crucial in this new process. However, if the EU’s stance on Cyprus continues to favor only the Greek Cypriot side, as it has in the past, the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey will have little incentive to engage in negotiations.
Turkey’s military might and diplomacy, combining strategic alliances, will play a key role in balancing regional dynamics. Despite its serious economic difficulties, Turkey’s recent proactive foreign policy has strengthened its hand in the Eastern Mediterranean. However, Turkey’s ability to use this diplomacy effectively in the Cyprus peace process will require it to maintain this balance with the island’s guarantor countries as well as securing the support of the EU and the UN.
The new process in the Cyprus problem presents both opportunities and challenges. The 2+1 summit in New York opened the door to a possible settlement, but a solution on the island will require overcoming complex regional dynamics, competition for energy resources and guarantor state interests, as well as the obsession with semantics symbolized by the “federation” and “two states” approaches.
While past peace processes have failed, the current moment is a critical juncture that may be the last opportunity. Both communities as well as regional actors need to approach the negotiations with a realistic, pragmatic and cooperative mindset. In the end, the two peoples of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece, may be faced with a “take it or leave it” moment. A chance for a solution or another missed and perhaps final opportunity.
By Mehmet Öğütçü and Rainer Geiger The Middle East, scarred by years of political instability…
The US Military once again defies Trump on Syria. The Pentagon is pushing back against…
Assad is gone, but I believe toughest challenge for Syria is just beginning. Israel has…
The Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and Kurdish-issue focused DEM Party continue to confound their adversaries…
Intelligence suggests that the operation to overthrow Assad's regime in Syria was meticulously planned for…
As a diplomat, businessman, and traveler, I have visited 135 countries. In many of them,…