As the United Nations turns its attention back to the Cyprus question and U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is expected to visit the island this week, the European Union is trying to find a role in the process. However, the bloc, which recognizes the so-called Republic of Cyprus as a member, does not meet the standards for such a role, including objectivity, the consent and confidence of one side, and the absence of a conflict of interest, not to mention the necessary jurisdiction.
It is likely to be Guterres’ last visit to the island before his term officially ends in January. He is expected to hold talks with representatives of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities during a two-day visit. Meanwhile, the EU has ramped up its activity on Cyprus, despite having no formal role in the resolution process. That was the first step in this direction by the EU, which, in 2025, appointed Johannes Hahn as its special envoy for Cyprus, describing it as a contribution to a solution on the divided island. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen discussed with Guterres on July 13 the “momentum” in the drive to resolve the Cyprus question. On the same day, the EU appointed Raffaele Fitto as the new special envoy for Cyprus.
The island has been in dispute between Greek and Turkish Cypriots for decades, despite U.N. diplomatic efforts to forge a comprehensive settlement.
In the early 1960s ethnic attacks drove Turkish Cypriots into enclaves for their own protection. In 1974, a Greek Cypriot coup to annex Cyprus to Greece led to Türkiye’s military intervention as a guarantor power to protect Turkish Cypriots from persecution and violence.
Thus, in 1983, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) was established. The country is only recognized by Türkiye, which doesn’t recognize the Greek Cypriot administration in the south.
The island has had an intermittent peace process, but the talks have been stalled since 2017.
Responding to a question from Anadolu Agency (AA) on how Turkish Cypriots could trust the EU as a neutral facilitator in the process, especially after the EU did not fulfilll its pledge to integrate Turkish Cypriots more closely into the bloc and end their isolation following a 2004 referendum on a U.N. plan to reunify Cyprus as a federal state, and after failing to seek the views of the Turkish Cypriot side on the appointment of Fitto, the European Commission said Fitto would be tasked with preparing the ground for the resumption of negotiations between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The commission said both communities in Cyprus will be included in Fitto’s efforts to build trust between the two sides.
EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, said she also spoke by phone with Maria Angela Holguin Cuellar, the U.N. secretary-general’s personal envoy for Cyprus, on July 21, and said “the EU’s determined support for U.N. efforts will continue.” Cuellar, who was in Brussels, also had a face-to-face meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the EU’s new special representative for Cyprus, Raffaele Fitto on July 22.
In a statement following the meeting, von der Leyen said she welcomed Cuellar’s efforts to find a solution “within the U.N. framework and in line with the EU’s principles, values and legislation.” She said the EU would continue contributing to the process.
The main criteria generally considered when a party wishes to play the role of mediator, facilitator or official actor in international disputes are: impartiality, consent and trust of the parties, absence of conflict of interest and the requisite authority and capacity. Another key reason that the EU is unable to play a role in the Cyprus issue is its lack of neutrality. The Greek Cypriot administration in the south, a party to the dispute, is an EU member.
On 4 July 1990 the “Republic of Cyprus” submitted a request to join the European Community in its entirety. In 1993, the European Commission gave an opinion to the EU Council, despite strong objections and criticism from the Turkish Cypriot side, that the application was eligible for consideration, although this was unlawful. The 1960 Treaties required that Cyprus not be allowed to join any economic or political union of which Türkiye and Greece were not both members, and that the Greek Cypriot administration did not have the authority to represent Turkish Cypriots. Yet, in 1993, the EU started processing the Greek Cypriot administration’s membership application.
Cyprus and the EU began full membership negotiations on March 30, 1998.
Following negotiations, the Greek Cypriot administration, which did not meet the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership, became a full member of the EU on May 1, 2004.
The EU itself became a party to the dispute when it admitted the Greek Cypriot administration into the bloc before a solution to the Cyprus issue was found.
The Greek Cypriot administration gained the veto power in the EU and the ability to influence the bloc’s policies on Cyprus. But the EU also took a position that supported and protected the Greek Cypriot Administration, which started to consistently influence the developments related to the process across the bloc.
Question of impartiality
“The EU must not only be neutral to have its say on the Cyprus issue, but must enjoy a relationship of trust with the parties.
But the EU also often acted in ways that shook the confidence of Turkish Cypriots, broke its promises, and even ignored the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC).
Indeed, when the Annan Plan was put before the two communities on the island in 2004, the EU and the U.S. had signaled before the negotiations that the side voting in favor of the peace plan would be rewarded, and the side blocking it would bear the costs.
The Greek Cypriot population rejected the Annan Plan and consequently it could not be implemented. But the doors to EU membership were opened to the Greek Cypriot administration.
Turkish Cypriots had been told that if they voted “yes” for the Annan Plan, their isolation would be lifted.
Following the constructive approach of the Turkish Cypriots, the EU prepared the Green Line Regulation, the Financial Aid Regulation and the Direct Trade Regulation with the Turkish Cypriots.
The only regulations that could enter into force were the Green Line Regulation and the Financial Aid Regulation. The Direct Trade Regulation with Turkish Cypriots could not be implemented due to a Greek Cypriot veto.
At the same time, the EU institutions and leaders continued to act as spokesmen for the Greek Cypriot side and the European Parliament continued to adopt provocative resolutions on Cyprus.
The European Commission also recently ignored the TRNC and the will of Turkish Cypriots, not consulting them or obtaining their consent even while appointing a special representative.
The Turkish Cypriot Foreign Ministry said the new EU representative has no official status and said: “It is absurd for a representative of an institution that ignores the inherent rights and the sovereign will of the Turkish Cypriot people to claim that they can have equal dialog with both sides on the island. We reiterate on this occasion our call on the European Commission to recognize the realities on the island and once again remind it that we will not participate in any negotiation process unless our sovereign equality and equal international status are recognized.”
