In an open letter to the new US ambassador, former Cyprus ambassador Euripides Evriviades calls for a deeper strategic partnership between the two countries

Dear Ambassador John Breslow,

A warm welcome to Cyprus for you and your family. Godspeed.

At the Cyprus Forum 2026, you underlined that relations between our countries are at an “all-time high”, with an opportunity to “break new ground”. You invited us to think long term.

That invitation is worth pursuing.

Thinking long term means future-proofing Cyprus.

Our relations have evolved across successive administrations, going from strength to strength. They have acquired depth, substance and strategic significance.

In your October 4 interview with the Cyprus News Agency, you described our defence cooperation as “almost like Nato”.

Then came a striking statement: “the United States is going to protect Cyprus in the future.”

Consequential words. What might such protection entail? Deeper defence cooperation? A political commitment?

Whatever the answer, there are practical steps Washington can take now.

A strategic partnership for the long term

I have long argued that the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) should be designated a Major Non-Nato Ally (MNNA) of the US. Across the Middle East and North Africa, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Morocco and Saudi Arabia enjoy this status. Extending it to Cyprus would help fill a strategic gap in America’s security architecture. MNNA carries no US security guarantee. It requires no Nato consensus. It can anchor defence cooperation for the long term.

Strategic partnerships should outlast the governments that establish them.

Yet something more fundamental is at stake.

John Breslow meeting with President Christodoulides after his appointment

A sovereign state, not a strategic object

The RoC is a sovereign state with agency. A subject of international law, not an object of other states’ policies. And it must be treated as such.

Historically, Cyprus has too often been viewed through the prism of other strategic priorities: Britain. Turkey. Greece. The US. Nato. The Soviet Union. These priorities were real. Some remain so. The resulting calculations proved inimical to Cypriot interests. Sometimes with catastrophic consequences.

And then there is the anachronistic, colonial-era system of guarantors. Britain, Turkey and Greece. The system failed miserably to protect Cyprus. But who guaranteed the guarantors?

The time has come to stop treating Cyprus as a derivative of those relationships. Recent US policies are encouraging steps in that direction.

The strategic landscape of the Eastern Mediterranean is being redrawn. Greece and Turkey are important American allies. Israel, the Palestinians, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, the Gulf and India are part of a wider strategic equation in which security, energy and connectivity overlap.

And Cyprus sits right smack in the middle of it all.

Cyprus brings assets to the table: EU membership, ports and airfields, regional relationships, maritime security, humanitarian and evacuation capabilities, and potential in energy, technology and connectivity. It is a dependable partner and security enabler in a region critical to US interests. Washington increasingly recognises this. That recognition is already being translated into concrete policies. The strategic partnership must now be solidified for the long term.

But geography can put us at the table. Or on the menu. It need not determine our future. That is for us to shape.

We must invest more in education, healthcare, research, innovation and AI. Address our demographic challenges. Strengthen cybersecurity, water and energy security. Improve emergency preparedness, including wildfire prevention and response, and protect critical infrastructure. Enhance civil protection, defence, maritime and air capabilities. And make our institutions more effective, trustworthy and accountable. Root out corruption.

Future-proofing is not just about protecting Cyprus from external threats. It is about strengthening Cyprus from within.

All states pursue their interests. So does Cyprus. The opportunity lies where they converge.

But convergence is not permanent.

Governments change. Priorities shift. Alliances evolve. Yesterday’s enemy is today’s friend. And vice versa.

Cyprus needs several anchors: EU membership, an enduring strategic partnership with America, strong regional ties and the pursuit of normal relations with Turkey.

No single patron. No single dependency. No overlords. The freedom to choose.

A settlement that protects independence

And this brings us to our existential issue: the Cyprus question.

Washington supports a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, consistent with UN Security Council resolutions. At the presentation of your credentials, you called for “a Cypriot solution for the Cypriot people”.

Quite right. That’s the way it should always have been. And that’s the way it should be. To borrow from Lincoln, government of the people, by the people, for the people.

But there is an elephant in the room. It has a name. It has an address: Turkey. A Nato member to boot. Ankara has the power to make a settlement possible. Yet its strategic importance to the West has too often shielded it from meaningful consequences for its continuing occupation of part of Cyprus. That strategic importance must not give Ankara the licence to dictate the terms of a settlement or control the state that emerges from it.

A federation must ensure that Cypriots of Greek and Turkish heritage govern together, with political equality and protection against domination by either community. Their common state must govern independently, free from external control or veto.

Washington has an interest not merely in settling the Cyprus question, but in the kind of state that emerges.

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, you described the partnership with Cyprus as “vital to American interests and to the broader transatlantic community”. A reunited Cyprus must be free to remain precisely that: a vital partner.

Foreign policy, defence and EU relations, for example, cannot be federal competences on paper alone. A reunited Cyprus must be able to decide and act.

But what if an external power could exercise a de facto veto over those decisions through its influence over one of the constituent states? The result could be paralysis. Hardly in the interests of Cyprus, the US or the EU.

Cypriots will disagree. That is normal. Their institutions must enable them to decide together. But legitimate disagreement must not become a vehicle for external control. A state may remain sovereign on paper, yet lose its independence in practice.

A federation is designed not for the days when everybody agrees, but for the days when they do not.

A settlement must be designed not for the governments we know, but for the governments we cannot know.

Mr Ambassador,

Your country marks 250 years since the Declaration of Independence. The American aspiration towards “a more perfect Union” is particularly relevant to Cyprus. The challenge is familiar: preserving the rights of the parts while ensuring that the whole can function.

You invited us to think long term.

Challenge accepted.

A sovereign, functional Cyprus would be a more consequential partner for the US and the EU and, above all, a more secure home for all its people.

A partner by choice, not by anyone else’s permission.

Cyprus is the satrapy of no one.

#CyprusWholeAndFree