July 12, 2026, “CHARAVGI” newspaper

Interview with STAVRΙ KALOPSIDIOTOU, Head of the Cyprus Problem Office of the Central Committee of AKEL

• The window of opportunity on the Cyprus problem will not remain open forever
• Questioning the negotiation acquis poses serious dangers

According to AKEL, the debate initiated recently surrounding the so-called “loose federation” poses serious dangers to the agreed framework for a solution to the Cyprus problem. AKEL warns that calling into question the convergences achieved in the negotiations could lead to confederalist thinking, pushing the prospect of genuine reunification further away. At the same time, the new momentum on the Cyprus problem and the UN Secretary-General’s references to a “window of opportunity” are raising hopes for a resumption of the talks.

Stavri Kalopsidiotou, Head of the Party’s Cyprus Problem Office and a member of Central Committee of AKEL, speaks to “Haravgi” about these developments, AKEL’s positions and the preconditions for progress.

“There are certain powers that, if delegated to the regions, would in and of themselves lead to a confederal structure—for example, defence, the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the Central Bank, and so on.”

“At this stage, we can speak of indications that point toward the convening of an informal multilateral conference.”

“It is the two leaders who must, first and foremost, convincingly and through concrete actions, demonstrate the necessary political will, adopting constructive approaches aimed at a positive outcome in the near future.”

-----------------------------

QUESTION: Starting next Tuesday, AKEL will be holdingopen public meetings in the four major cities to brief people on the developments surrounding the Cyprus problem. What is the reason behind this decision?

SK: The Cyprus problem has consistently been at the centre of AKEL’s political agenda. Our efforts to keep both our party grass roots membership and society in general informed about an issue that has shaped our lives for decades are ongoing. The position that there can be no active citizen without adequate, reliable, and substantive information—and, consequently, that there can be no critical assessment of developments without knowledge—precisely defines the role we seek to play as a responsible political force. In the current context, the unfolding circumstances make these discussions particularly necessary.

After nine years of deadlock in negotiations, there is a renewed diplomatic momentum; the possibility of convening an informal enlarged conference aimingat the resumption of a substantive dialogue is visible. At the same time, public debate has begun to be flooded with “reports” regarding the form and content of a possible solution.

All of this naturally leads to the conclusion that a Party playing a leading role in the efforts to liberate and reunify our homeland must address citizens directly, promptly and substantively.

QUESTION: Do you believe there are actual developments that could lead to developments—such as the convening of a new informal multilateral conference—which would in turn lead to the resumption of dialogue?

SK: At this stage, we can speak of indications that point towards the convening of an informal multilateral conference. UN Secretary General Guterres’s intention to exhaust all avenues in this direction must be considered as given, an intention reinforced by other international actors who appear to be seeking conditions of stability and cooperation in the wider Eastern Mediterranean region.

At the same time, Turkey’s European aspirations can be leveraged as an opportunity to link Euro-Turkish relations with the Cyprus problem. The position of the leaders of the two communities regarding a solution within the agreed framework evidently serves this perspective.

However, for the resumption of substantive negotiations to be decided, there are important steps that must be taken in this direction.

It is the two leaders who must, first and foremost, convincingly and through specific actions, demonstrate the necessary political will, with constructive approaches, to enter into a negotiation procedure with increased chances of reaching a positive outcome in the near future, bearing in mind that the key elements for a positive conclusion have been in place since 2017.

QUESTION: However, in his latest report on his Good Offices, the UN Secretary-General calls on the leaders of the two communities to make use of of the current “window of opportunity” for progress on the Cyprus problem, warning that this should not be taken for granted. How would you comment on this?

SK: The choice of this wording was obviously not accidental. The fact that he refers to an actual “window of opportunity” is particularly significant. It is indicative of his intentions, the UN’s support for a new procedure, and his assessment that there is available information that can set us on a path towards registering substantive progress.

However, the rest of the Secretary General’s statement reveals some key messages, which we believe he intends to convey to the parties involved before the new informal multilateral conference is apparently scheduled.

The most obvious point is that political circumstances are changing, and a window of opportunity can close at any moment—even due to the multiple challenges facing the international community or those a new Secretary-General will be called upon to manage. But, above all, improving dialogue is not in itself sufficient for the international organization to invest diplomatically in a new round of negotiations, effectively shifting the responsibility on to the two leaders to move from issuing verbal statements to practical deeds.

In our view, of course, it is also clear that, for progress to be recorded, Turkey must also abandon its unacceptable position for a twostate solution.

QUESTION: Various reports have been leaked regarding what the UN Secretary General envoy on Cyprus María Ángela Olguín might submit. As a party, have you had any official briefing from the government on this matter, or are you in the dark?

SK: What I can tell you is that, during a particularly productive meeting between the General Secretary of our Party and Ms. María Ángela Olguín, we conveyed our positions with clarity, just as we did at the session of the National Council. We explained the importance of safeguarding the negotiationacquis so that we can cover the final stretch of this entire effort and reach a comprehensive solution within the agreed-upon framework in a short period of time.

At the same time, AKEL warned that the “new ideas” that are being brought up recently in reality call question fundamental aspects of the convergences that have beenagreed and dangerously open Pandora’s box.

QUESTION: In light of these developments, a debate has begun within society regarding a federation with a strong central government versus a loose federation. Is the name of the potential solution the essence or the substance? Which of the two is AKEL closer to, and why?

SK: This is not the first time this debate has taken place. We are all familiar with Mr. Anastasiades’s well-known vacillations on this issue, which have contributed to this speculation. However, the facts are very clear.

Decentralized federations do indeed exist around the world, but the drastic limitation of their powers points to other models that are not consistent with the agreed-upon basis for a solution to the Cyprus problem.

More specifically, there are powers which, if delegated to the regions, would in and of themselves lead to a confederal structure (e.g., defence, the Exclusive Economic Zone, the Central Bank, etc.). At the same time, this is an issue that, in the case of Cyprus, must be considered a thing of the past, since the powers that define the character and substance of the federation have already been agreed upon.

For AKEL, it is clear that the unity of the state, with a single sovereignty, a single international legal personality and a single citizenship—with the necessary powers at a central level—must be given, while at the same time maintaining the flexibility for the two federated units to handle matters concerning the daily lives of citizens.

Otherwise, I repeat, there is a danger that the agreed-upon basis for a solution will be derailed entirely, leading us to a confederal formation, which we will never accept.

• The UN Secretary-General’s Good Offices Report came as no surprise

More generally, as AKEL, how do you assess the UN Secretary-General’s Good Offices Report?

SK: We do not find anything in the Report that surprises us, and we focus on the substance—the guiding messages the UN Secretary-General sends regarding the dynamics and opportunities that exist, but also his warning about the dangers inherent in perpetuating the status quo and the critical nature of the next steps, which now touch on the very essence of the Cyprus problem.

For us, the steps that must be taken arevery clear and are set forth in our proposal for the elaboration of a roadmap that should ensure that the negotiations will indeed resume from the point where they were interrupted, building on the convergences recorded and the Guterres Framework, in order to reach a strategic agreement that will inevitably set us on the path to a comprehensive solution, taking into account that there are issues which, at the right time, can serve as incentives to give momentum to the procedure and lead to a positive conclusion.