The Left and the Cyprus problem

The new and threatening development is Cyprus’ involvement in the Middle East crisis. The agreements made by the Cypriot government with the U.S. radically alter the dynamics. Where Cyprus, even with its unresolved issues, used to be a country in the Eastern Mediterranean with close relationships with neighboring nations, both Arab and Israeli, this military cooperation with the U.S. now changes the situation dramatically.

Did the Americans need bases on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus? Certainly not. Until now, they used the British bases, with or without the consent of the Cypriot government, for their operations in the region. Recently, for instance, during the new outbreak of hostilities in Gaza, the British bases provided military support to Israel. Moreover, the U.S. already has bases in Syria, Turkey, and Greece.

Now we learn that a heliport equipped with U.S. Navy machinery and personnel is being constructed in Mari. Additionally, according to an article in Politis (Christos Georgiou, 9.1.2024), the Cypriot President has directed 100 million euros to upgrade the Paphos military airbase and 150 million euros for projects in naval bases and ports to meet U.S. needs. These actions fundamentally change Cyprus’ role and function in the region. With Trump in the White House, openly committed to supporting Israel, Cyprus is on the verge of becoming part of the U.S.-Cyprus-Israel axis. Commentators also note that with Rubio as Secretary of State, the Greece-Cyprus-Israel triangle is being secured as a central pillar of U.S. policy in the region. This development satisfies Netanyahu but certainly provokes the broader Middle Eastern world—not necessarily the regimes but definitely the people of the region.
The Americans’ strong presence in Cyprus sends a political message that Israel is not isolated and has a link and extension in Cyprus. Militarily, it also sends indirect signals to their NATO ally, Turkey—not to replace Turkey, which is impossible, but to express dissatisfaction with its pivot toward the Muslim world and its support for the Palestinians. It hints that the U.S. can bypass restrictions on the use of Incirlik Air Base for Middle Eastern operations.

The strategic agreement between Cyprus and the U.S. has been welcomed by Greek commentators. It has been tied to U.S. bases in Greece, such as Alexandroupolis and Souda. Furthermore, the enhanced U.S.-Cyprus military cooperation has been seen as adding a critical dimension to the balance of power in the Middle East. However, there is a fundamental difference between Greece’s and Cyprus’ relationships with the U.S. For Greece, military alignment with the U.S. can be explained by historical, political, and geographical factors that do not apply to Cyprus. Greece experienced a civil war influenced by U.S. intervention, is a NATO member, and is located in the Balkans—a region largely integrated into NATO or aligned with the U.S., except for Serbia. This explains why a Greek commentator noted that “Greece’s almost entirely compatible position with the U.S. on supporting Israel might be a key factor for regional balance” (Vima, 10.11.2024, Angelos Koveos).

In contrast, Cyprus, as an Eastern Mediterranean country, is surrounded by nations either outside U.S. influence or directly opposed to it. Thus, Cyprus’ military and political alignment with the U.S. isolates it from its geographical and historical environment, disrupting the existing balance.

There is another aspect: Cyprus is divided into the north and south. The division line defines different political and military realities. In the north is the Turkish occupation army under Erdoğan’s policies, while in the south is the National Guard with a diametrically opposite orientation. These dynamics widen the gap and worsen the atmosphere in an era when common ground is desperately needed. All this under a U.S. president like Trump, who disregards institutions and international laws and is likely to further weaken the U.N., continuing from his previous term.

The conservative forces of the Greek Cypriot side are thrilled with this unilateral shift in the policies of the Republic of Cyprus. They even attribute the failure to resolve the Cyprus problem, if not its origin, to the non-aligned policy—a complete rejection of Cyprus’ recent history, from its anti-colonial struggle to its independence, which required Greek and Turkish Cypriot cooperation, to the abandonment of the non-aligned policy.

Was the choice of a non-aligned policy a mistake? No. But there was a flaw—it was monopolized by the Greek Cypriot side to advance its national goals after the intercommunal talks. Today, this history and tradition are being erased by total dependence on the U.S., which serves American interests but not those of Cyprus or its future. Conflict with the U.S.? No, but neither submission nor dependence. Conflict with Israel? No, but Cyprus should not become Israel’s hinterland in its conflict with the Palestinians.
Tatar protests the Republic of Cyprus’ agreements with the U.S., while advancing his own divisive agenda. The leftist forces of Cyprus, along with all Cypriot patriots, reject both Tatar and Erdoğan’s vision for Cyprus and the Republic’s military agreements with the U.S.

Cyprus will find its way not through more armies on its soil but by resolving its issues within the framework of a bicommunal, bizonal federation—a demilitarized and independent state for all Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians, and Latins.

This crucial goal is what the leftist parties, Greek and Turkish Cypriot alike, must unitedly serve as a common purpose and shared objective.