By Anna Koukkides – Prokopiou*
Nicosia has faced a significant diplomatic dilemma in recent days following an invitation from Donald Trump to attend, as an observer, the inaugural meeting of the newly formed Board of Peace on 19 February 2026 at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C.
States at the heart of the European Union, such as France and Germany, may have outright rejected the invitation, but after some twists and turns, the decision has been taken that Brussels will participate in the workings of the meeting on observer status, claiming to do so on the basis of safeguarding the implementation of the relevant UN Security Council Resolution on Gaza which theoretically drives the workings of this summit. Meanwhile, there has been a change of heart in Italy and Greece. Whereas Georgia Meloni initially cited reservations based on constitutional constraints and Kyriakos Mitsotakis invoked a heavy schedule with travel abroad during the same period preventing him from being there in person, both leaders have now caved in, sending their own representatives as observers.
For Israel’s U-turn, it took a personal meeting between Trump and Netanyahu at the White House last week, where, according to well-informed sources, beyond the public snub, Israeli demands on Iran were turned down. As this drama was unfolding, President Christodoulides chose to accept Trump’s invitation for Cyprus to participate as an observer, having already previously declined politely to attend the opening session of the Board in Davos.
Right or not?
At an ideological level, the creation of the Board of Peace, where the founder and dominant figure in all decisions will be Donald Trump, acting in a personal and not merely institutional capacity, as a lifetime president who will even select his successor, raises profound concerns about the future of the international order and the future of the United Nations, in whose creation the Americans themselves played a leading role after the Second World War. Yet after the period of mourning that we originally went through (a colleague recently entertained the notion of nostalgintellegentsia to describe culprits to this phenomenon), reminiscing about the order of things we were familiar with needs to somehow come to an end.
The world is now moving more rapidly and in a different direction than we ever thought it could. Reality has come calling. A reality in which decisions that were taken by consensus, or at least not taken due to veto, in the UN Security Council chamber in New York, no longer exists. A reality in which the most significant speeches are not delivered at multilateral, equitable gatherings, such as the UN General Assembly, but in privately organised forums, such as Davos and the Munich Security Conference. A reality that reminds us that no major problem or conflict faced by humankind in recent decades has been resolved through negotiations conducted via the channels of international organisations.
The Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently made this crystal clear in his now-viral speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Nostalgia is not a strategy. The belief that the undermining and delegitimisation of international institutions while they are under American pressure is merely an interruption in the international system that will quickly pass, like a bad dream, appears increasingly utopian. Thus, our strategy for the future, a strategy that first and foremost needs to safeguard our survival, must adapt to the new realities.
Cyprus, however, is not a middle power like Canada that can seek solutions through alliances and co-operation with other middle Western powers to face the Trumpian storm.
Current dilemmas
First and foremost, the international reactions to the American President’s ambitious plans to restore peace across the entire planet, as he himself understands it, pressured American diplomats to scale back the vision of the Board of Peace and to focus its attention, at least for now, on the reconstruction of Gaza. They place the implementation of the corresponding UN Security Council resolution at the forefront of the effort, even if they do not come across as particularly convincing while doing so – Mr Trump’s unpredictability and volatility certainly contributes to that.
Tiny Cyprus, which for some time has been striving intensely to play a role in developments in our region, demonstrating and proving its utility as a strategic partner for larger players, cannot act independently of realities on the ground. Like any small state, it must tie its small boat to a beneficially aligned ocean-liner, that is, create a partnership underpinned by a common denominator that can serve the interests of both countries.
This is precisely what an oscillating Cyprus, member of the Non-Aligned Movement, failed to do after it was granted independence in the 1960s. Juxtaposing East and West while joining neither proved detrimental to Cyprus’ interests.
Let us therefore note the almost self-evident facts that should guide our efforts at present.
Trump in the driving seat
First, despite the rhetoric about an expected multipolarity in the international system, for now, undeniably, there is only one man in the driving seat and that man is the American president, Donald Trump. Friend and foe alike agree that he is, as his Vice-President bluntly put it, ‘the new sheriff in town’. Repeatedly rejecting the invitation to participate in his very own decision-making body creates risk and closes an entry point, especially since personal relations between Trump and Christodoulides are close to non-existent, having in no way reached the interpersonal rapport that had been in place with the previous American administration.
Second, distancing oneself from the arena where serious decisions concerning our region will be taken, even if these decisions could be ones with which we may well disagree because we understand the dangerous precedents that would be created, may also prove foolish. The presence and weight of Turkey and Israel in the developments that will emerge must be noted as inevitable. Certainly, Nicosia as an observer will not carry weight, but it will remain present in the process, hoping it may play some constructive role in the broader effort to assist the Palestinians (exactly as the EU at large is hoping to do) given its longstanding good relations with all actors in our region.
Third, Nicosia, even as holder of the EU presidency, constantly feels Ankara’s breath on its neck, even more so in the corridors of power in Brussels. Brussels, meaning the member states, will not sacrifice Turkey’s significant contribution to Europe’s security architecture in a post-NATO or even neo-NATO era for Cyprus’s reservations, which, to be entirely frank, we ourselves know they do not share.
Therefore, in the present circumstances, Cyprus, compelled by harsh reality, must see things as they are and not as one would conveniently prefer to present them. That is, if required, we should set aside the hesitations of our European partners on this one. They are not in the same position as we are. Neither politically, facing invasion and occupation of their homeland, nor geographically, cushioned away from the potentially explosive Eastern Mediterranean region.
In conclusion, a seat at the table, or even a distant seat inside, rather than outside, the room where decisions are taken about the future of the Middle East, and especially the Eastern Mediterranean, may prove an important opportunity. Let us remember that Cavour, the man who cast off foreign domination and unified Italy in the nineteenth century, did something similar when he participated, albeit minimally, in the Crimean War of 1853, fortunately on the side of the winning coalition. His bold decision secured him a seat at the negotiating table, where he managed to successfully present his demands regarding Italian unification before the Great Powers. Whether we like it or not, the foreign policy we may also need to follow can be summarised in his words: “If we did for ourselves what we do for our country, what scoundrels we should be.”
*Yale Peace Fellow, Member of the EMI-Eastern Mediterranean Initiative run jointly by Geneva Centre for Security and Swisspeace, President of Politeia Centre for Socio-Political Thinking.