Greek-Turkish rapprochement helps Cyprus talks, says president
On the 50th anniversary of the invasion, Nikos Christodoulides voices optimism to Kathimerini that a solution can be found if negotiations resume
“Neither the Greek Cypriots nor the Turkish Cypriots had affection for the Republic of Cyprus in 1960,” Cypriot President Nikos Christodoulides tells Kathimerini in an extensive interview on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Turkey’s bloody invasion of the island.
Talking about Archbishop Makarios, Christodoulides admits that “mistakes were certainly made,” the biggest of which, he argues, was the Cypriot leadership’s failure to “set out clear goals and a direction for the country.” “We went from the position of union with Greece to independence, then worked for union with Greece and later pursued the attainable, which was independence. We were discussing a federal structure for Cyprus only to end up today discussing the specific form.”
On the question of Konstantinos Karamanlis, Christodoulides notes that the Greek prime minister could not have prevented the invasion and was quite right, as time has proven, to argue that efforts should have focused on the return of as much territory as possible – something that would also have allowed more refugees to return home – and less so on the question of governance, where the more powers there were at the central level, the greater the likelihood of disagreements.
As for the future, the 50-year-old president of Cyprus is convinced that “with a new approach and greater emphasis on the geopolitical dimensions of the Cyprus issue,” talks can resume and result in a mutually acceptable solution.
He goes on to declare Cyprus’ unequivocal alignment with the West, as evidenced by its capacity as a member of the European Union and confirmed by the recent launch of a strategic dialogue with the United States. At the same time, Cyprus and the US are working on further developing the close cooperation between the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a bid to root out corruption in Cyprus.
Last but not least, Christodoulides states his support for the Greece-Cyprus electricity interconnector, noting the project’s importance at a geopolitical, political and energy level, while expressing hope that a deal will be achieved with regard to its financial aspects.
Where are we on the Cyprus issue, 50 years after the Turkish invasion?
Regrettably, 50 years later, we are faced with much more challenging faits accomplis. New issues are being brought to the negotiating table and the current situation can by no means be considered a solution to the Cyprus problem. The passage of time brings more faits accomplis and reduces the chances of a resolution that will be acceptable to the Greek Cypriots. This is why we are focused on the primary goal, which is the resumption of negotiations.
Is a solution still within reach?
I believe that with a new approach and greater emphasis on the geopolitical dimensions of the Cyprus issue, we can reach a solution that is acceptable to everyone. The key is to restart talks. If we can do this, we can achieve a mutually acceptable solution, for the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots.
Do you believe that the relative improvement in Greek-Turkish relations has improved the prospect of talks on the Cyprus issue?
We encourage such an improvement; it is the right way to go in my opinion. I also believe that it can indeed help efforts on the Cyprus issue. I must add that I do not believe a complete normalization in ties is possible without a solution for Cyprus, but a positive climate between Athens and Ankara inevitably assists our efforts to this end. What we argue in Cyprus, and quite rightly too, is that Ankara holds the key to a solution. Ankara is the one that refuses to talk to us directly, but the existence of a dialogue and progress in talks between Greece and Turkey inevitably helps in the Cyprus issue.
‘The passage of time brings more faits accomplis and reduces the chances of a resolution that will be acceptable to the Greek Cypriots’
Let’s go back to 1974 and to even before the invasion. Looking back, how do you assess Archbishop Makarios’ stance? Did he make any mistakes?
Mistakes were certainly made, but we have the advantage of 50 years of hindsight to judge. The biggest mistake by the Cypriot leadership was its failure to set out clear goals and a direction for the country. We went from the position of union with Greece, to independence, then worked for union with Greece and later pursued the attainable, which was independence. We were discussing a federal structure for Cyprus only to end up today discussing the specific form. Turkey, in contrast, had clear objectives that served Turkey’s interests regardless of its leadership. Furthermore, there was a lack of essential honesty between Athens and Nicosia in the past. Declarations of a convergence of opinions and approaches served more communication purposes. Today, however, there is complete honesty between the Greek prime minister and myself. There are issues over which we have different approaches or interpretations, but the honesty with which we discuss such issues allows us to achieve a common approach at the end of the day.
Was there honesty 50 years ago?
No, there wasn’t. Entire books have been written on the lost opportunities for a solution to the Cyprus problem. The biggest lost opportunity concerned the Republic of Cyprus itself. Neither the Greek Cypriots nor the Turkish Cypriots had affection for the Republic of Cyprus in 1960. We regarded it, even at the leadership level, as a transitional stage in the accomplishment of a different objective.
But clearly opportunities were lost for an honorable, mutually acceptable solution.
To talk about lost opportunities – and that is why I brought up Cyprus’ independence – a plan for a solution must have been accepted by the other side and rejected by the Cypriot side. The only such proposal was the Annan Plan, which I believe was a failed effort by the international community, because it focused on completion of the process before the Republic of Cyprus became a member of the European Union. Everything was done without taking into account even the most basic concerns of the Republic of Cyprus, which was going to be an EU member-state just a week later.
What is your view of Konstantinos Karamanlis’ role in those dramatic hours of 1974? Is there anything he could have done differently?
I believe that if Greece could have prevented the invasion, it would have. Anyone trying to cast shadows and stir controversy over that tragic time is wrong. It was a difficult time for Greece too, as the Athens junta remained in power until the final days. I do not believe that the Greek government and Konstantinos Karamanlis had no desire to act to prevent invasion in Cyprus; if they could have they would have done it.
What about his approach to a possible solution?
We must evaluate politicians as a whole, for their entire career, so I would like to say something about Karamanlis that relates to the present problems with the Cyprus issue. Back in those crucial days, in late October and early November 1974, when the Cypriot leadership was in Athens with Archbishop Makarios, Karamanlis, in two meetings, argued that – leaving the final say to us, the Greek Cypriots, of course – our efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue needed to be focused on getting back as much territory as possible, something that would also have allowed more refugees to return home. That they should not have been focused on questions of governance and executive powers, given that the more powers there were at the central level, the greater the likelihood of disagreements over how the state operated.
What about Henry Kissinger’s role as the US secretary of state?
Kissinger was certainly pivotal in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus not being prevented. Without wanting to make excuses for anyone, the fact is that people act according to what best serves their interests. The message from that time is twofold. The first concerns our own political stance, too. We’re seeing it today, unfortunately, in Ukraine and in other parts of the world: International law is not the factor that determines decisions by countries; what determines these decisions is whether their interests are served. And we must act also guided by what is in our interests. The second message is that 1974 belongs in the past when it comes to US-Cypriot relations. Our relationship with the United States is at the highest possible level today. Important announcements have been made in 2024 and we recently instituted a strategic dialogue between the two countries. The Republic of Cyprus is one of a handful of countries that has such a strategic dialogue with the US, without being a member of NATO. Even more positive announcements on US-Cypriot ties are expected in 2025.
So, we could say that after decades of prevarication – or neutrality – between East and West, Cyprus is now firmly in the Western camp. Has this been a strategic choice?
Since you mentioned history earlier, I would like to note the paradox that while the Republic of Cyprus became an independent state in 1960 with the guarantees of three powers that were members of NATO, it still joined the Non-Aligned Movement. Need I say more? I believe that the Republic of Cyprus’ Western orientation became clear after it joined the European Union in 2004. All of our rapprochements are toward this end and are strengthened even further by the recent announcements of cooperation with the United States. The interests of the Republic of Cyprus are best served by its Western orientation.
You referred to the strategic dialogue. Does this include talks for defense supplies from the US?
Yes, we would like to procure American military equipment. One of the issues under discussion right now – and I am pleased that it is being discussed in the US Congress – is an extension to the lifting of the arms ban. The fact that this extension is annual does not allow us to do any long-term planning, which is essential to such serious matters as arms procurements.
Does this cooperation with the US also extend to corruption?
Yes, we are working with the US on combating corruption too. I had requested support from a special FBI team and I am very pleased to say that it is in Cyprus now. I recently met with the team and its leader, who came from Washington for this precise reason. I am very pleased with the work that is being done, because I believe it is an issue that needs to be resolved once and for all. We want to attract foreign investments and we’re doing a lot to this end, but we want quality, reliable investments. We do not want our country to be considered as a country where activities and investments that violate international laws can be conducted. All that belongs in the past now and we won’t allow it to happen again. At the end of the day, we are paying the price for the mistakes of the past.
The Hezbollah threat
Are you worried about the threats made by the leader of Hezbollah against Cyprus over its alleged role in the Gaza war?
It is something we are keeping in mind, but I must also add that this is why we sought and immediately conveyed messages to Hezbollah, highlighting that the Republic of Cyprus is part of the solution, not the problem in the region. Let me recall that the Republic of Cyprus was utilized to send humanitarian aid to Gaza, to the Palestinians, to the civilian population there. The Republic of Cyprus has excellent ties with Lebanon and I am very pleased by the positive reactions to [Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah’s comments by Lebanese officials regarding the constructive role Cyprus is playing. We are among just a few countries, along with Greece and France, that often raise the need at the European Union level to support the country, which shares a border with the bloc. Therefore, it is something we are keeping a close eye on, but from the very first moment, we conveyed specific messages to Hezbollah.
What was its response?
From the feedback we received, I believe that the Republic of Cyprus’ messages have gotten through.
Energy and the EU
About the Greece-Cyprus electricity interconnector: Is it going to happen? Should it happen?
The Republic of Cyprus is the only EU member-state that does not have an electricity interconnection. It is isolated from an energy standpoint. So yes, of course we are in favor of the interconnection of Cyprus with Greece, but also with other countries in the region, as there is also the very important Israel dimension. We ardently support the interconnection, from a geopolitical, political and energy standpoint. We are waiting for the study on the economic dimensions of the project before making a decision at the cabinet level.
Is the project at risk in terms of European support and funding?
We have conveyed the necessary messages to the European Union, as it is a project of common interest for the European Union, and EU funding has been secured in this regard. However, the government also has a responsibility toward the Cypriot people who elected it, and they need to know the economic facts. This is something I have also discussed with the Greek prime minister in the framework of the sincerity that must define our relationship. Public comments on this particular matter, which sometimes also prompt negative references to Cyprus on social media, are not helpful. I repeat: The project is of the highest importance for the Republic of Cyprus. The decision will depend on the financial aspects which, like any country, we need to bear in mind before going ahead.
Are you confident of a positive outcome – and soon?
I am. What I can say with certainty is that Cyprus’ interconnection will be instrumental in achieving one of this government’s key goals: reducing the price of electricity. Rates in Cyprus, partly as a result of its energy isolation, are much higher compared to other EU member-states.
Have you settled on who you will put forward as Cyprus’ commissioner in the new EU Commission?
I have two people in mind, both of whom have experience related to the portfolios I have requested from the Commission president [Ursula von der Leyen]. I have not shared their names with her yet, but we have discussed the portfolios that the Republic of Cyprus is interested in.
Which are these portfolios?
We are interested in a portfolio with an area with acquis and EU budget allocation. We’ve been in the EU for 20 years, so are no longer a “young” member-state. I believe that, in the framework of the role we seek to play in the EU – within the bounds of what we can do – taking also into consideration the fact that we are no longer a single issue member-state, our foreign policy is no longer monothematic, and the Cyprus issue is not the only issue on which we seek to be a leading voice. The Amalthea Cyprus Maritime Corridor initiative, for the launch of which the president of the European Commission came to Cyprus, our joint visits with the president of the European Commission to Lebanon and Egypt, with the Greek, Italian and Belgian prime ministers, have proven, I believe, that the Republic of Cyprus has actively demonstrated that it has a voice and a role in the European Union. This is especially so on issues where it can offer added value through its interventions. We are, therefore, asking for an upgraded portfolio.
There is something of an odd situation in Cyprus right now. You are an independent but you are on the European Council as a member of the European People’s Party (EPP). At the same time, Annita Demetriou is head of the opposition Democratic Rally party. Are you both with and against Democratic Rally?
Look, for my part, I participate in the European People’s Party representing and expressing the Republic of Cyprus’ positions, particularly on matters of national interest, like the Cyprus problem, EU-Turkey relations and migration. I don’t have domestic matters and the political situation in Cyprus at the back of my mind. I was elected by the Cypriot people in a democratic process. I had proposals from two political camps to join them, but my decision to participate in the powerful group of the European People’s Party was not hard at all.
