Greek Cypriot President at White House: A new strategic era in Mediterranean?

Greek Cypriot Nikos Christodoulides’ recent meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden at the White House marks a historic turning point in (Greek) Cyprus-U.S. relations. The Biden administration’s view of the Greek-Cypriot administered Cyprus as a strategic partner, coupled with the possibility of designating it as a Major Non-NATO Ally (MNNA), positions Cyprus as an essential player in the Eastern Mediterranean, presenting Türkiye with a significant diplomatic challenge. Both leaders’ statements underscored the intent for Cyprus to become a reliable U.S. ally in regional security and humanitarian efforts.

This visit holds historical importance as it was the first official invitation for a Greek Cypriot leader to the White House since 1996 when President Glafcos Clerides met then-President Bill Clinton. Biden referenced the 50th anniversary of Türkiye’s intervention in Cyprus, describing it as a “sad day,” and reaffirmed his support for a “bizonal, bicommunal federation” solution on the island, reinforcing the longstanding U.S. position on the matter.

A new process: Three-phase solution for Cyprus

Christodoulides’ earlier “2+1” trilateral “informal” meeting in New York, facilitated by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, signaled a new approach to Cyprus negotiations based on three core pillars: governance, security, and guarantees. Under this framework, governance talks would follow a “2+1” format with both communities and the U.N.; security discussions would involve Greece, Türkiye , the two communities, and the U.N. in a “4+1” format; and guarantees would include the U.K., Greece, Türkiye, and the U.N. in a “5+1” format. However, Türkiye’s silence on this process has left its position in regional negotiations unclear and vulnerable.

Biden and Christodoulides’ Messages: The U.S. strategy for Cyprus

Biden emphasized (Greek) Cyprus’s role as a trustworthy partner, affirming the need to expand defense and security cooperation between the two countries. Christodoulides outlined the strategic scope of Greek Cypriot-U.S. relations in areas like defense, energy, technology, and humanitarian support, stating that the island could serve as a base for regional stability. The humanitarian operations for Gaza through Cyprus, known as the Amalthea plan, and Cyprus’s role as a coordination point in regional crises highlighted the depth of U.S.-Cyprus alignment on defense and security.

Describing (Greek) Cyprus as being at a “historic high” in its relations with the U.S., Christodoulides reiterated Cyprus’s unique capacity as a regional partner in the Eastern Mediterranean, positioning Cyprus as a vital strategic partner for the U.S. in regional security.

Türkiye’s silence: A diplomatic gap

Türkiye’s lack of a substantive response to this development underscores the country’s strategic vulnerability in the Eastern Mediterranean. Türkiye’s silence on the potential MNNA status for Cyprus reflects a missed opportunity to address shifting alliances in the region. With rising competition over hydrocarbon reserves and security interests, Türkiye’s passive stance highlights a lack of long-term vision in its foreign policy approach, potentially allowing the U.S. to expand its influence in ways that weaken Türkiye’s strategic position.

Namık Tan, the chief advisor of CHP leader Özgür Özel on foreign policy labeled the Christodoulides-Biden meeting as a diplomatic setback that undermines Türkiye’s influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Tan argued that Türkiye’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah has weakened Türkiye’s diplomatic standing in the eyes of the U.S. and the EU, inadvertently strengthening Greece and (Greek) Cyprus’s hand in regional diplomacy. He noted that the MNNA designation for Cyprus has been in the works for some time, criticizing Türkiye’s failure to adapt to the “chess game” of international relations, which he described as a “diplomatic defeat” for Türkiye.

Tan’s remarks reflect CHP’s concern over Türkiye’s diminishing influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. His criticism underscores the opposition’s call for a more strategic approach to foreign policy, one that considers the long-term diplomatic maneuvers needed to safeguard Türkiye’s interests in an increasingly competitive regional environment.

Implications of Greek Cypriot-US closer ties for Türkiye

The closer ties between the U.S. and Greek Cypriots pose a direct challenge to Türkiye’s regional interests. An MNNA designation for the Greek Cypriot administration would afford it greater security cooperation opportunities, reshaping military dynamics in favor of the Greek Cyprus-U.S.-Greece axis. The lifting of the U.S. arms embargo and expanded defense agreements with Greek Cypriots signal a potential shift towards making the island a strategic U.S. outpost in the Eastern Mediterranean.

As noted by Gönül Tol of the Middle East Institute, the U.S. is increasingly viewing Türkiye as a “dispensable partner,” with Washington seeking more reliable allies in the region. This shift reflects a recalibration of U.S. strategy, which appears to prioritize cooperation with Greece and Cyprus over traditional alliances with Türkiye, complicating Türkiye’s position in regional security frameworks.

Turkish Cypriot Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu, as expected, voiced strong opposition to the U.S.-Greek Cypriot rapprochement, claiming it undermines the rights of the Turkish Cypriot community. Ertuğruloğlu emphasized that federation is no longer a realistic solution, advocating instead for a two-state approach. This position reflects an increasing alignment between Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots toward a model that seeks greater independence from Greek Cypriot influence, aiming to redefine the terms of any prospective settlement.

A turning point for Türkiye’s foreign policy

Christodoulides’ White House visit serves as a wake-up call for Türkiye to reassess its diplomatic approach in the Eastern Mediterranean. Türkiye’s muted response to this development and the potential MNNA status for Greek Cypriots suggest a need for Türkiye to revitalize its strategic focus and leverage its regional influence.

CHP’s critique, particularly through Namık Tan’s analysis, underscores the importance of a proactive and adaptable foreign policy. The opposition’s emphasis on Türkiye’s declining influence reflects the need for Türkiye to strengthen its diplomatic capacity to navigate complex regional dynamics.

The U.S.-Greek Cypriot rapprochement represents a critical juncture for Türkiye. A more forward-looking and strategic approach to the Eastern Mediterranean would be essential for Türkiye to maintain its influence and protect its interests in an increasingly competitive environment.