By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
What really happened at the informal meeting on the Cyprus Problem in Geneva?
Neither side shifted significantly on core issues, and even the UN Secretary-General appeared satisfied that the five-party talks secured another meeting, despite failing to address substantive matters. With his term ending in December 2026, Mr. Guterres has time to keep the last cell of the Cyprus Problem half-alive. This explains his assessment that “Today marked the most significant progress since 2017, as the parties showed willingness to continue dialogue.”
The same person who presented a framework for comprehensive settlement in June 2017 made no mention on Wednesday of a comprehensive solution, his Framework, or anything suggesting prospects for resuming meaningful negotiations. Most notably—and not coincidentally overlooked—was that no participant at any point during the conference mentioned a Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation or a comprehensive solution, fulfilling predictions that the Cyprus problem was lost at Crans-Montana.
The representatives of the status quo in Cyprus evidently agreed to attend the Geneva meeting on the Archimedean principle of “do not disturb my circles” [Editor’s note: Noli turbare circulos meos!]. Specifically, they said we will participate in the Informal Meeting with the guarantor powers and the UN and we will agree to another meeting and several confidence-building measures recycled from previously unimplemented proposals. This is what they did, and they will reconvene in July. Presumably to reaffirm their commitment to maintaining the status quo, as I often write, which conveniently serves the regimes on both sides of the buffer zone.
This was irrefutably demonstrated in the Parliamentary Committee on Institutions, where it emerged that the Customs Department accepts certificates of gambling winnings issued by casinos in the self-declared state, despite being unable to verify their authenticity. This allows Greek Cypriots to return to government-controlled areas from occupied territories with thousands of euros in cash, and foreigners to depart the Republic of Cyprus with suitcases full of cash, provided they declare to Customs that these are winnings from casinos in the occupied areas. This system facilitates hundreds of thousands in illicit funds crossing the buffer zone.
Thus, everyone left Geneva claiming victory, while the real losers remain the Cyprus issue, Varosha, Morphou, Karpassia, and all refugees who can only view their properties from afar, hoping that cemetery maintenance might somehow lead to return to villages that still stand empty.
On Wednesday, former Turkish Cypriot negotiator Ozdil Nami posted on X after the five-party talks, referring to “more bricks being put into the wall of status quo”: “Today in Geneva we saw more bricks being put into the wall of status quo. It’s no surprise that the two leaders are happy with the result but it was painful to see the UNSG become a part of it.” Later, speaking to OMEGAlive, Nami said, “This week’s Geneva talks will go down in history as the most meaningless of all high-level meetings on Cyprus. For the first time, a meeting of leaders with guarantor powers and the UN Secretary-General did not have a comprehensive settlement on its agenda. We understand that during the meeting, neither federation nor a two-state solution was discussed. Participants did not even discuss a roadmap for returning to comprehensive settlement talks. In the absence of such talks, all that remains is maintaining the status quo. It is clear this is the unspoken agreement of those who attended the Geneva meeting.”
On Thursday in Brussels, President Christodoulides highlighted EU interest in the Cyprus issue. Speaking to Euronews, he said, “This is something I consider particularly significant from yesterday’s conference in Geneva. A conference which, to use the Secretary-General’s words, has yielded positive developments for the first time since 2017. You see the EU determined to play an active role within the framework of the negotiation process, both before and after. I am particularly pleased because the EU sees two things from our side: our credibility, our political will, and at the same time the broader role the Republic of Cyprus plays. I repeat that the Von der Leyen and Costa letter to Guterres on Cyprus is a reference point for the Cyprus issue and negotiations to resume talks.”
It is known that before Geneva, Nikos Christodoulides, now characterised by PR incontinence, announced that the EU would be represented at the Informal Meeting by Rafaele Fitto, Commissioner for Cohesion and Reforms for Cohesion and Reforms. Turkey objected to this, prompting Brussels to send a second-tier official to Geneva, as if on a leisure trip. This forced Christodoulides to demand the infamous Von der Leyen and Costa letter, which received no mention at the five-party talks. Meanwhile, because the five-party results were meagre regarding the substance of the Cyprus issue, President Christodoulides, like Cadmus sowing dragon’s teeth, is spreading narratives domestically, hoping that indigenous supporters will believe his statements and bolster his voter base.
On the other side, Ersin Tatar stated that Maria Angela Holguin Cuellar was proposed by the UN Secretary-General to continue as his personal envoy to help implement the agreed cooperation points and prepare the next 5+1 meeting in late July. He added that the Turkish Cypriot side had approved this and that Ms. Holguin’s appointment was “very likely.” After returning from Geneva, Tatar reiterated his fixed position on “sovereign equality and equal international representation” for Turkish Cypriots, adding that “a federal solution model in Cyprus is no longer feasible. That chapter is closed. For four years we have insisted on our sovereignty, our sovereign equality and equal international representation, and we will not take a single step back from this position.” He added that he has the full support of Turkey and Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, who participated in the meeting.
And now what? Should we wait for the announcement of Ms. Holguin’s appointment as the UN Secretary-General’s Envoy? And when she comes to Cyprus, likely after Easter, will she oversee the opening of crossing points? What if events like those in Pyla last year repeat in Kokkina? Or perhaps Holguin will persuade Ersin Tatar to change positions? Moreover, will Mr. Tatar be available to attend another five-party meeting in July amid an election campaign? Unless Tayyip Erdogan judges Mr. Tatar unsuitable to lead the Turkish Cypriot community again, especially as Ankara now wants the Turkish army to become the European military force protecting—for a price—the 28 EU countries.
Given these circumstances, the only thing that could save Cyprus, thinking outside the box, is the Strategic Dialogue with the US, under which the Andreas Papandreou base would be converted into an American air base, Mari into a naval base with French involvement, Dhekelia into an Intelligence Centre, and the entire island into a military hub from which Western powers, led by the United States, would control the southeastern Mediterranean region. Thus, the departure timing of the occupation army would no longer be our concern, as our security would become a US responsibility.
This article was originally published on 23.03.2025
