27 February 2026, HARAVGI newspaper
On the three years of the Christodoulides government’s handling of the Cyprus problem
Article by Andros Kyprianou, former General Secretary of AKEL and AKEL MP
It has been three years since Nicos Christodoulides took office as President of the Republic. There are numerous serious and critical issues that he has had to deal with during his term in office.
One of the most serious is the Cyprus problem, which concerns the survival of the people in our country.
N. Christodoulides’ handling of the issue so far has been disappointing, to say the least, and completely unfocused. What is the main obstacle to the resumption of substantive talks aimed at resolving the Cyprus issue? It is the unacceptable demand by the Turkish side, which was encouraged by Anastasiades’ position, for a solution involving two separate states. Unfortunately, the assumption of the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community by T. Erhurman has not, at least so far, managed to change its position.
What should the President’s goal be given these circumstances? It should seek, through the assumption of initiatives and elaboration of specific proposals, to persuade the Turkish side to move away from its unacceptable demand.
AKEL submitted a relevant proposal in December 2020. How has N. Christodoulides acted to date? For the first six months, he begged the EU to appoint an observer to the talks… which were not taking place. N. Anastasiades had sought something similar in 2013, with both receiving the same response. “When talks begin, the observer will be appointed,” as was the case when something started to happen.
When this idea did not yield any results, he requested the appointment of a personal envoy on Cyprus of the UN Secretary-General. He did so without realizing that the huge gap between the positions of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot sides and the Turkish side’s unacceptable demand for a two state solution would not allow her (María Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, the Personal Envoy of the UN Secretary-General on Cyprus, appointed by António Guterres) to produce any work. In the end, President Christodoulides clashed with her.
The assumption by T. Erhurman of the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community caused some movement and raised expectations that progress would be possible. Unfortunately, this has not been possible so far.
For the past three years, President Christodoulides has repeatedly stated his readiness to resume negotiations and participate in a five-party conference. These are positions that may convince those who are unfamiliar with the Cyprus problem or those who are satisfied with the current state of affairs. For those who are familiar with the Cyprus problem and the difficulties that exist in resuming the talks, it is obvious that Mr. Christodoulides’ statements are purely for communication considerations/purposes.
Worst of all, the President does not seem to realize that his stance does not put pressure on Turkey, just as our hardening stance on various issues concerning Turkey does not put pressure on it. His stance will not create any prospect for the resumption of talks.
It is evident that Mr. Christodoulides does not understand that the prolonged impasse on the Cyprus problem will push many in the international community to start thinking about alternative solutions outside and beyond the agreed framework. This will become more pronounced with the departure of Mr. Guterres from his post as UN Secretary-General in December.
I conclude by saying that if some people believe that the more concessions we offer Trump, the more likely he is to resolve the Cyprus issue, this is very dangerous. Trump has proven that he does not respect international law, which is our shield of protection, and operates according to his own logic… which is irrational.