By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
I chose this title deliberately. I don’t think there is anyone else in the entire history of Cyprus who has used this phrase more than I did.
It was the design of the international community in 1878, it was the same in 1960, and it certainly applied for 1974 as well.
I believe that the only critical time when the international community, or other actors were least involved is 15 November 1983. That is the foundation of the TRNC!
So much so that, in my opinion, the administration in Turkey, which went to the polls for the first time on 6 November 1983 after more than three years following the coup of 12 September 1980, and which ushered in the Turgut Özal years, also found this declaration in its lap.
This ‘unilateral declaration of independence,’ which imposed the label of ‘illegal separatist entity’ on us, is undoubtedly an important milestone in the journey towards the erasure of Turkish Cypriots from the stage of history.
However, as I said, the Cyprus issue is an international issue and the place for its solution is international platforms, not unilateral fait accomplis!
Recently, when people ask me, “What’s going to happen with the Cyprus issue?”, I respond, “Our only hope is Trump.”
I give this answer deliberately, based entirely on logic and historical facts.
Some criticise my response and say, “Don’t be ridiculous,” but I insist. Only someone with a ‘merchant’s mind’ like him can save us!
Indeed, I know that I am not alone in thinking this way.
In this context, former British diplomat William Mallinson recently wrote a very important article.
The title is: “Could Trump and Putin Solve the Cyprus Conflict?”
Mallinson, who has previously written about Cyprus and published a book titled “Cyprus 1974: Anatomy of an Invasion,” and who served as an expert on the Balkans and the Middle East at the British Foreign Office, has taken a broad perspective in his lengthy article.
The article, which analyses the anatomy of relations between Greece-Russia-NATO, Turkey-Russia-NATO, and Turkey-Israel, also outlines a roadmap for how the Cyprus issue can be resolved.
In the introduction part, which also includes excerpts from Cypriot history, Mallinson writes, “As the talks on re-uniting Cyprus grind on, as they have for over fifty years, it is time to consider the potential effect of the current fluidity and re-setting of inter-state relations. China, Ukraine and the Middle East are now in the cross-hairs of US policy. But when and if Syria and Palestine stabilise – at least to some extent – and when the tension vis-á-vis China lessens, Cyprus is likely to come under increasing scrutiny from its controllers.”
Regarding that the Russia-Ukraine peace agreement has reached a tangible point; a relative stability has been achieved in Syria with the fall of Assad; difficult talks on Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation have somehow commenced, and trade tensions between the US and China have eased following yesterday’s two-hour phone call between Trump and Putin—which was rare in diplomatic history—the former diplomat’s words sound exciting.
Can Trump and Putin really reach some kind of an agreement on the Cyprus issue?
In his article, Mallinson examines the network of relationships between the three guarantors of the island, and NATO and Russia, as well as their relations amongst each other.
Mallinson discusses Greece’s process of gaining independence from the Russian-backed Ottoman Empire, followed by the historical negotiations between Russia and the United Kingdom, and the events that took place after 1945. He also mentions the influence of the church, emphasising that there is now a deep rift between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church.
In this context, he emphasises that the Greek Orthodox Church has long since separated from Russia.
The fact that we have come to this point, from Makarios, who was referred to as the ‘Red Priest’ by Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State and architect of the division of Cyprus, is, of course, indicative of the extent of this historical split.
Mallinson explains that Greece has been ruled by pro-NATO governments for a very long time and emphasises in his article that Turkey has traditionally pursued a policy of balance between Russia and NATO.
Mallinson describes this situation as follows: “Turkey, given its strategic location and large armed forces, has traditionally pursued a policy of being all things to all men, often dancing diplomatically between the different interests of Moscow and Washington, both of which consider Ankara important to them.”
Arguing that one of NATO’s greatest fears is a Turkish-Greek war, the author states that such a war would collapse NATO’s southern flank.
The former diplomat states that Cyprus is an issue that could cause war between the two countries, reminding that the two countries have previously come to the brink of war three times because of this.
The author also uses harsh words to describe his own country, the United Kingdom. For example, he says: “Since 1955, thanks to Britain’s success in cultivating enmity between Greece and Turkey, in order to hang on to Cyprus, these two NATO members have come close to war three times, something unacceptable to the US, since a war would benefit Moscow by destroying NATO’s southern flank.”
Stating that Russia wants the British bases in Cyprus to be removed, the author says that the Russians consider these bases to be NATO bases and that, in the name of neutrality, they will not be included in the new solution plan.
“Trump’s and Putin’s objectives are to balance their interests in the Middle East”, says Mallinson, putting forward two hypotheses for a solution:
“First, Moscow, angry at Athens’ clear slavish anti-Russian stance, could recognise northern Cyprus, in a deal that it would be neutral and never apply for NATO membership. The British bases would be relinquished to the two Cypriot states, and the Greek and Turkish contingents (ELDYK and TURDYK) would be withdrawn. Britain would be keen to satisfy Washington’s wishes, as it always has since 1960, and indeed ever since the Suez crisis. It would be almost impossible for the Jewish state to throw a spanner in the works, as it needs Trump’s support for its illegal occupation of Palestine and parts of Syria.
At this point, part of the deal could involve the two new states negotiating for the return of refugees and property, for which a mechanism already exists. It would of course be a hard and long haul. At a later point, the two states could negotiate for a confederation à la Suisse, thus finally ending up with a new and peaceful state. This whole process could of course take some years. But one can’t build Rome in a day. Turkish pride would satisfied, while Greece would simply have to swallow the bitter pill of having ‘betrayed’ Russia. With the Turkish linkage to Cyprus and the Aegean now cut, this might simplify Greek-Turkish negotiations on the Continental shelf. Most important, it would reduce the chances of a Greek-Turkish war, which Washington has always feared, since it would make a mockery of NATO.
Mallinson’s second hypothesis is very familiar: “Second, another deal would be double enosis. But since this would strengthen NATO, it would be unacceptable to Russia, unless NATO, in a new Western security architecture, were to transmogrify into a non-aggressive purely defensive organisation, with the emphasis on culture rather than on manufacturing and selling weapons. This second idea is however somewhat idealistic, given the vagaries of human behavior and the greed of shareholders.”
Just look at what the island has lived through in the last three to four years: the lifting of the US defence arms embargo, rumours that the island will be admitted to NATO, the activation of international gas and oil companies around the island, Turkish-Greek rapprochement and the Israel-Hamas war…
All of these are fragments of a larger game of chess, and if the international powers deem it appropriate, they can resolve the Cyprus issue within 24 hours, and no one will ask anything to us!
Indeed, Mallinson also expresses this view in the conclusion of his article:“But with the new developing ‘business climate’ between Washington and Moscow, Cyprus, like the Ukraine, may well be sorted out, whatever European Union shrieking. Nor will any amount of linguistically bulimic, misused and tautological phrases such as ‘diversity’, ‘equity’, ‘sustainability’, ‘inclusion’, ‘going forward’, ‘shoulder to shoulder’, ‘global world’, and ‘period of time’ alter reality.”
For those who might be interested, here is the link to Mallinson’s article: https://www.e-ir.info/2025/05/19/could-trump-and-putin-solve-the-cyprus-conflict/
This article was originally published on 21.05.2025
Source: THE CYPRUS ISSUE IS ULTIMATELY AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE…
