The future of Cyprus has been a central issue in the Eastern Mediterranean for decades. Since the island’s division in 1974 following a Greek Cypriot coup and subsequent Turkish military intervention, efforts to reunify the island have consistently faced hurdles.
This year, dialogue between the two parties is set to resume in Switzerland with attempts to advance on some of the most difficult issues facing the Island. Upon conclusion, what could this look like?
While the United Nations and international actors have long championed a federal solution, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), supported by Türkiye, has taken a pragmatic step by supporting a two-state framework for the island.
Will it be successful and something negotiators can unite around? Time will tell but as a former member of parliament who represented Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, I have learned over the years that ruling out fresh ideas before they have a chance to be explored (and probably refined) would be a disservice to the younger and future generations of this beautiful island. We should remember that they do not and will not have a recollection of 1974, and only know an island divided and with the last remaining city in the world to be two distinct zones.
I have a passion for Cyprus that goes back longer even than the current dispute between North and South. My elder brother was born in Lefkoşa (Nicosia) in 1956 while my father served in the Royal Air Force (RAF) where he witnessed the horrors inflicted on British servicemen by the EOKA, a Greek Cypriot right-wing nationalist guerrilla organization, which began an armed campaign in support of the end of British colonial rule and the unification of Cyprus and Greece (Enosis) in 1955.
Our family legacy remains; sadly, my parents lost a child, Paul Nicholas, as a baby who remains buried in the military cemetery of Wayne’s Keep. Ironically, in the “no man’s land” that is the Green Line dividing northern and southern Cyprus. I need special permission to visit his grave, as I do from time to time.
It is time to end the division of this island as we know it and the injustices on both sides that coexist and new initiatives may be the only way to do that because all else has failed.
Ankara’s backing of the TRNC’s two-state policy signals a recognition of the realities on the ground and offers a potentially sustainable way forward for that settlement and stability.
For years, the international community has promoted a federal solution as the most viable path to reunify the island. Under this model, Cyprus would operate as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, allowing the Turkish Cypriot north and the Greek Cypriot south to share power while maintaining a degree of autonomy.
Proponents argue that this framework balances the rights and security concerns of both peoples, creating a unified state underpinned by international law and European Union principles. In theory, this should work, yet the federal model has proven to be little more than a theoretical ideal. Repeated negotiations, including the 2017 Crans-Montana talks, have previously collapsed with negotiators walking away, principally over security concerns.
From a Turkish Cypriot point of view, it’s hard to shake off the view that Greek Cypriots view federalism as a means to consolidate control over the entire island, while Turkish Cypriots see it as a threat to their autonomy and security.
What is clear, while Greek Cypriots lived with the continuing border dividing the island and for some the long-lived distress of fleeing south during the Turkish intervention in 1974, the fact is decades of failed talks have also left the Turkish Cypriots isolated and disenfranchised, underscoring the need for a fresh approach.
Türkiye’s advocacy for a two-state solution is, by any definition, pragmatic. TRNC President Ersin Tatar and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan have consistently argued that the island’s division is a reality that cannot be undone.
The TRNC, declared in 1983, has operated as a de facto state for decades. Formalizing its sovereignty would not only acknowledge this reality but also provide Turkish Cypriots with the dignity and recognition they deserve.
As unappetizing as that is and will be to many both back in my old constituency and on the island, decades of failed talks suggest that this is a cold-headed factual assessment of the situation. In other words, nothing else has worked, so why not take this idea seriously?
So, is there an upside for Cypriots? Certainly, Türkiye benefits as do Turkish Cypriots. First, it ensures the political and economic autonomy of Turkish Cypriots, who have been marginalized in the international arena.
A two-state framework would end their isolation and allow them to engage with the world on equal terms. Second, it aligns with Türkiye’s broader strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, where competition over energy resources and maritime boundaries has intensified. A sovereign TRNC would strengthen Türkiye’s hand in these disputes and contribute to regional stability.
Critics, however, of the two-state model argue that it would entrench division and violate international law. The first point is speculative the second more substantive and the incentives for Greek Cypriots to accept the division are not clear except the prize from learning the lessons from decades of negotiation failures. If the status quo persists who benefits?
A two-state solution offers clarity and finality, providing both peoples with the opportunity to coexist peacefully as neighbors. In theory, at least.
The last substantive talks failed, as I mentioned, over security issues, and a two-state solution could leave Turkish garrisons in the TRNC, meaning the conditions for failed talks exist once again. What guarantees could be offered?
The Cyprus issue is a longstanding history of inter-communal violence long before the 1974 military intervention by Türkiye and the failure of the 1960 constitutional framework. A two-state solution has the potential to formalize the existing realities, providing a stable and equitable framework for both sides.
International law should be upheld, but after decades of failure, hurt, loss of lives and repeated breakdown of talks something new needs to be tabled and legally constructed.
For a new vision to succeed, it will require support from key stakeholders, including the European Union, the United Nations and the broader international community, which might give negotiators a fighting chance.
As of yet, that support is lacking. So what chance of a settlement is there if this has been the case for years, as entrenched ideas get rehashed and then rejected this time around at the Swiss talks?
The president of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, declared in 2021 that the EU would “never ever” accept a two-state solution for the island. She was following a broad consensus over the years that has never yielded a solution. Yet, as Jack Straw, former foreign secretary to the U.K. government, pointed out earlier this year: There are “plenty of examples, in Europe and beyond, where partitions are the least-worst solution to continuing conflicts.”
A key step could be if the EU, and key international partners, including the U.K. (a “guarantor power” under the independence settlement) agree to emphasis unless the south does negotiate in good faith (having walked always from the table in negotiations and undermined a referendum on a U.N. brokered discussions in 2004), that partition of the island will be on the table, and the enforced isolation of the north will end.
Perhaps even if this did not come to fruition the specter of partition would be the catalyst for the south to work in good faith toward a solution, because if not, they would have an entirely separate, internationally recognized, independent state to their north.
In Switzerland, fresh thinking is vital to solve a problem that is fast fading from the living memory of those who felt it most in 1974. Perhaps one day the missing can be accounted for, the property disputes solved, the re-emergence from world isolation for the innocent people of the north and maybe, the chance to visit my brother again free of the Green Line and U.N. support.
