Konstantinos Kombos arrived in Bishkek just hours after Kyrgyzstan had secured a seat on the UN Security Council for the 2027-28 term. Kyrgyzstan was the final stop on the Foreign Minister’s tour of Central Asian countries — a region Turkey regards as its own sphere of influence, making any visit by a Cypriot Foreign Minister something close to a mission impossible.
Clearly, many of his predecessors saw it that way too. With a handful of exceptions — among them Nikos Christodoulides’s visit to Kazakhstan when he himself was Foreign Minister.
Central Asia is a region where Ankara does not merely maintain fraternal ties — it exercises serious influence. A glance at the reactions that followed the presidential visit to Kazakhstan is enough to understand what is at stake. Turkey has not simply penetrated these countries diplomatically, politically, and economically — it expects them to fall in line behind its foreign policy positions. And when dependence runs deep across multiple dimensions, following instructions becomes the path of least resistance.
Kazakhstan, however, offers a clear demonstration that in diplomacy and foreign policy, zero-sum thinking is not the only option available. It is a mindset we know all too well in our region — the permanent axis of “either you’re with us or you’re our enemy.” Or, if you prefer: “if you’re with us we’ll talk to you; if you’re not, we won’t.”
But if you won’t talk to someone, how can you expect them to take your positions into account? Unless, of course, you have already decided that nothing can be done — that you will throw your hands up and leave things to chance. Not because you don’t want to try, but simply because you don’t believe trying is worth the effort.
Even in cases where the other side — in this instance Turkey — has far more to offer than you do, you still need to make moves. After all: impossible is nothing.
Countries like those of Central Asia cannot be expected to operate in Cyprus’s favour on a zero-sum basis. But through communication and the development of diplomatic ties, they can be helped toward a position where they are not simply exploited one-sidedly by the other side.
From January 1, 2027, Kyrgyzstan will be one of the ten non-permanent members of the UN Security Council for a two-year term.
The five permanent members may dominate the body, but non-permanent members have produced surprises on more than a few occasions. Cast your mind back to last January, and the events leading up to the adoption of the resolution renewing UNFICYP’s mandate.
Just when everyone expected the “silent procedure” to pass without a hitch — Pakistan broke it, pushing forward a set of comments. Not because Pakistan had any direct interest in Cyprus, but because it had taken on the job of doing Turkey’s bidding.
In the vote, the Security Council adopted the resolution with 13 votes in favour and two abstentions — Pakistan and Somalia. The first sits firmly in Turkey’s sphere of influence; the second is entirely under Ankara’s thumb.
That is just one example of why these diplomatic openings matter. To some they may look like missions without purpose or payoff.
But payoff in diplomacy does not always take the form you want to hear. Sometimes it is deterrence. Sometimes it is simply being in the right place, at the right time, with the right quiet word.
