BY MERTKAN HAMIT
While Christodoulides states that he does not want Cyprus to be dragged into a conflict due to the British bases operating on its territory, he simultaneously argues that Cyprus must be more deeply integrated into the Western defense architecture through NATO and the EU.
President Nikos Christodoulides gave an interview to Bloomberg TV and, with the kind of eloquence only a man standing before the cameras could muster, declared that “everything is on the table” regarding the future of the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus. On the other hand, he described the bases as “a remnant of colonialism.” Impressive. Headline material for a journalist, enough to fill a historian’s glass.
Let’s try to ask the obvious question that Bloomberg TV forgot to ask: What exactly does the phrase “everything is on the table” mean when you have no deterrent power, no timeline, no legal strategy, and yet, in the same week, you reaffirm your “strong partnership” with London?
Hello, dear reader, and welcome to Cyprus’s time-honored tradition: the fun of producing anti-colonial rhetoric without taking any action against colonialism…
What the President Said …
Christodoulides made a few memorable statements this week. Let’s tackle them in all seriousness.
“When the crisis ends, we must put everything on the table, discuss the future of the bases together, and make decisions together.”
Translation: When the current regional crisis subsides—which may take months, years, or may never happen—Cyprus wishes to have a polite conversation with London. Most likely over tea.
“We do not want our country to become a target.”
A reasonable and entirely justified concern. When the bases are used for military operations in the Middle East—and this is not the first time, the bases have been used repeatedly—Cyprus’s geography traps it in an extremely vulnerable position. The problem is that voicing this concern in a Bloomberg interview is not politics but a public expression of anxiety.
“I have already had a discussion with the Prime Minister regarding certain developments in the management of this crisis that we do not approve of.”
A discussion took place. About things he did not approve of. With the Prime Minister of the country that owns the bases. And the outcome of this discussion… has not been shared with the public. But rest assured, the discussion took place. Words were exchanged. Concerns were recorded, and minutes were taken.
What Is Missing?..
The President’s diagnosis is not baseless. The Sovereign Base Areas are indeed a remnant of colonialism. This is not a metaphor, or political rhetoric; it is a legal and historical fact. When Cyprus gained its independence in 1960, the United Kingdom retained sovereignty over approximately three percent of the island and, as a condition for the establishment of the Cypriot state, left two military enclaves outside its borders. The Cypriot people were not consulted on this matter in a substantive way. The uti possidetis principle—which dictates that post-independence states must inherit the borders of the colonial era as they were—had been violated from day one.
In my doctoral thesis examining the right to self-determination in Cyprus: I argued that Cyprus’s post-colonial process was never fully completed. Britain used the threats of partition and Enosis as political leverage to “secure sovereign base areas and withdraw from Cyprus,” leaving Cyprus’s sovereignty to be “applied in a peculiar manner” from the very beginning.
Christodoulides knows this history, as he is a politician with a background in history. However, he uses history selectively. What is missing is not the rhetoric, but the legal framework to support it.
Three things are notably absent from the President’s stance:
First: The Chagos precedent. The International Court of Justice’s 2019 advisory opinion on the Chagos Islands determined that the UK had violated the right to self-determination by separating the Chagos from Mauritius during independence and that the UK was obligated to end its administration. The structural similarity to the Sovereign Base Areas is striking: there is a decision built upon the narrative of territories severed under unequal bargaining conditions to serve British military interests during independence. The Republic of Cyprus had submitted a written statement in that case, emphasizing the Sovereign Base Areas. Did Christodoulides instruct his legal team to transform this argument into an official international legal position? Apparently not, or at least nothing has been made public.
Second: the definition of “everything on the table.” Does this include the transfer of sovereignty? The return of the territory to the Republic? Revenue sharing? A renegotiated lease agreement containing sunset clause provisions? Joint administration? Compensation for the 10,000 Cypriots living under British jurisdiction in the base areas? The President isn’t saying any of this. The phrase “everything is on the table” is a maximist-sounding expression designed to avoid committing to anything concrete.
Third: The dimension of Turkish Cypriots. The bases are located on a divided island. Any renegotiation of the Base Areas framework that ignores the northern part of the island and the Turkish Cypriot community’s own relationship with this colonial legacy will either fall short, or face the risk of being instrumentalized. Cyprus’s colonial history was not experienced solely by Greek Cypriots. This silence is no coincidence; it reflects a political calculation. It demonstrates the impossibility of addressing the island’s future in a holistic manner without transcending the ‘divide and rule’ mentality.
The EU Move…
To give the President some credit, he is attempting to make use of the current crisis in a productive way. Bringing Article 42.7 of the EU Treaty (the mutual defense clause) to the forefront and positioning Cyprus as an indispensable EU-Middle East mediator is politically astute. If the EU is truly serious about strategic autonomy, Cyprus possesses a genuine geographical and diplomatic value that Brussels has historically undervalued.
However, there is an inherent tension at the core of this strategy. While Christodoulides states that he does not want Cyprus to be dragged into a conflict due to the British bases operating on its territory, he simultaneously argues that Cyprus must be more deeply integrated into the Western defense architecture through NATO and the EU. These two positions are not necessarily contradictory, but they require a level of strategic consistency that is notably absent in the current discourse.
You cannot position yourself as an enthusiastic candidate for NATO integration while simultaneously arguing that the bases are a colonial remnant threatening your sovereignty without explaining how you reconcile these two positions. Of course, if the plan is to replace the British colonial lever with the NATO collective lever—which could be a rational choice—one would expect this to be stated clearly without resorting to rhetorical spin.
To Conclude…
Christodoulides is not wrong to bring the bases to the forefront. Where he is wrong is in doing so in a manner calculated for a press conference rather than the negotiating table. Calling something a “relic of colonialism” on Bloomberg TV costs nothing. Developing a legal strategy, building international coalitions, applying the Chagos precedent, defining what Cyprus actually wants, and being honest about the Turkish Cypriot dimension—these require political capital and intellectual courage.
The bases have been on the agenda in various forms since 1960. If the only concrete outcome of this moment is a Bloomberg interview and the promise that “everything is on the table,” they will remain on the agenda in 2026 as well.
As Edward Said once wrote, history has a weight. It shapes legal claims. It shapes what is possible. Acknowledging this weight in the language of press releases is not the same as confronting it in the language of international law.
This article was originally published on 25.03.2026
Source: THE EMPEROR’S BASES: THE ART OF SAYING EVERYTHING AND PROMISING NOTHING
