For the first time, responsibility for whether there will be progress on the Cyprus issue has shifted onto the shoulders of the island’s two leaders, with the UN Secretary-General asking them to prove whether they have the political will to take a step forward
Guterres is leaving, Holguín is trying to preserve the convergences, and the two leaders are returning to the negotiating table. The question remains: is there a genuine path towards negotiations, or is a process simply being maintained because it serves the different needs of all those involved?
In New York these days, there is more discussion about who will succeed António Guterres than about what he himself will manage to accomplish before the end of his term. That alone says a great deal. His second five-year term ends on December 31, 2026, and the succession battle has already shifted to the UN’s real centre of power, the Security Council. Eight candidates are now competing for the position, with informal ballots already underway.
The dispute between the United States and Russia and the President of the General Assembly, Annalena Baerbock, is revealing of the balance of power. Washington and Moscow accused her of attempting to expand the General Assembly’s role in the selection process. The substance of their objection is simple: Article 97 of the UN Charter provides that the Secretary-General is appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. In practice, without the consent of the five permanent members, there can be no Secretary-General.
This is where the great contradiction surrounding Guterres’ departure lies. It may be an exaggeration to objectively describe him as “the weakest Secretary-General in history”, but he leaves office having experienced, perhaps more than many of his predecessors, the diminishing political power of the position. In Ukraine, Gaza, Iran and the major crises of our time, it is not the Secretary-General who makes the decisions. They are made by the major powers, often outside the UN or by blocking one another within the Security Council. Guterres could warn, mediate and condemn, but he could hardly impose developments.
Limited time
It is within this context that the latest effort on the Cyprus issue must also be viewed. For the outgoing Secretary-General, there is a limited window of time to ensure that he hands over at least a process that is moving, rather than yet another frozen file, to his successor.
This does not mean that any spectacular initiative is being planned. On the contrary, María Ángela Holguín appears extremely cautious. She has made it clear that the UN does not want another expanded meeting that ends in failure and considers confidence-building measures a necessary prerequisite for the next “5+1”.
This is why the most important work is currently taking place away from the cameras. Canadian constitutional expert John McGarry, brought in by the UN alongside other experts, is attempting to consolidate into a single document the convergences reached up to and including Crans-Montana.
Holguín has explained that these convergences should not be reopened one by one, as doing so could lead to years of renewed negotiations over issues that were already considered settled. Once completed, the document will be given to the two sides and the three guarantor powers and will essentially serve as a test of whether there is common ground on which negotiations can genuinely resume.
This, however, is where the difficulties begin. The Christodoulides–Erhürman meeting on August 26 could produce a small agreement, particularly on the issue of crossing points. If there is a result, the UN will be able to present it as evidence that the two sides are capable of reaching agreements and move towards another expanded meeting.
To date, however, even the issue of crossings remains blocked. Although there is now an agreement in principle for more frequent meetings between the two leaders, they will meet a full month after the UN Secretary-General’s visit to Cyprus.
Minimal change
The more fundamental problem is that, behind the renewed activity, there is still no visible change in strategic positions.
Turkey continues to publicly support a two-state solution. Erhürman himself, although clearly more conciliatory and more oriented towards negotiations than his predecessor, openly acknowledges that neither a “5+1” meeting can take place without Turkey nor can an agreement be implemented without Ankara’s consent.
This is perhaps the most critical factor: a change in tone in the occupied areas does not necessarily amount to a change in Ankara’s strategy.
At the same time, the so-called effort to build confidence is colliding with the politics of confrontation in everyday practice. Erhürman’s allegation that the Cypriot Foreign Ministry contacted embassies to discourage diplomats from attending a briefing by the Turkish Cypriot side was confirmed by diplomatic sources.
At the same time, Nicosia mobilised to secure the withdrawal of Serbia’s EXIT from a music festival at Kyrenia Castle, which it succeeded in doing. From the perspective of the Republic of Cyprus, this represents an obvious policy aimed at preventing actions that could upgrade the status of the occupation regime. From Erhürman’s perspective, however, it provides an ideal argument for claiming that the Greek Cypriot side speaks of confidence at the negotiating table while pursuing a policy of isolation outside it.
Artificial momentum?
This brings us to the real question: is the current momentum substantive or artificial?
The answer may be that it is real as a process, but it does not yet possess political momentum. Guterres wants to leave having made an effort. Holguín wants to create something more substantial than yet another photograph of five sides sitting around a table.
Erhürman wants negotiations but operates within the limits imposed by the Turkish Cypriots’ subordinate relationship with Ankara. Turkey has much larger geopolitical fronts to manage and has so far shown none of the political shift required for a federal solution. Athens supports the process but does not appear to be the player attempting to drive it decisively, wary of being burned once again.
And then there is Nikos Christodoulides. For the President, the renewed activity undoubtedly also has political value. A President who appears to be bringing the Cyprus issue back onto the international agenda, bringing the UN Secretary-General himself to Cyprus and keeping dialogue open can politically capitalise on that image ahead of 2028, even if no solution is reached.
This does not prove that his efforts are merely for show. It does, however, create an interesting political paradox: the process can be useful even without producing a result.
That is also the greatest danger. The Cyprus issue could once again begin producing meetings, statements, documents, visits and five-party conferences without producing tangible results. In other words, there could be enough activity for everyone to claim they are trying, but not enough to force anyone to make the difficult decisions. We have seen this play out many times before.
Will there be a breakthrough?
August 26 will show whether there is even the first small crack in this pattern.
Crossing points will not solve the Cyprus issue. They can, however, demonstrate whether the two sides are currently capable of reaching agreement even on the easier issues. Because if they cannot agree even on those, then the major document recording the convergences may ultimately demonstrate not how close the two communities once came, but how far apart they still remain today.
If António Guterres achieved anything during his visit to Cyprus at the end of July 2026, it was to place responsibility for progress or the lack of it on the shoulders of the two leaders.
He did not ask Mr Christodoulides and Mr Erhürman to solve the Cyprus issue. He asked them to open two or three crossing points.
If even that cannot be achieved on August 26, why, in truth, should anyone engage with the Cyprus issue again?
Source: Dionisis Dionisiou, Politis.com
Also read: Bedroom catches fire in Deryneia: Blaze caused by charging mobile phone
