Summary

The British overseas territories of Akrotiri and Dhekelia on the island of Cyprus have generated a buzz online in recent days, after a social media post by a French politician claimed that the UK was "occupying" Cyprus. The X post by French MEP Manon Aubry, of the far-left France Unbowed party, was originally published in February but resurfaced after being reposted and quoted by social media users last week. Aubry's post contains a video of herself in Akrotiri — known officially as the Sovereign Base Area of Akrotiri — in which she says its presence in Cyprus, as well as that of Dhekelia, shows that part of the country is still "occupied by the British Army". She adds that the bases are being used to provide intelligence about the Gaza Strip to Israel and that, as NATO bases, they are ultimately under the command of US President Donald Trump. "Stop colonialism!" Aubry says in the text of her X post. In response, social media users attached a community note to the post, explaining that Akrotiri and Dhekelia are covered by the 1960 treaty that Cyprus signed to establish its independence from the UK. They added that this is unlike the north of the country, which the vast majority of the international community considers to be under Turkish military occupation in an issue known as "the Cyprus problem". Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, ultimately dividing the island with Turkish forces controlling the north of the island, about 36% of its territory, to this day. Self-proclaimed "Northern Cyprus" is recognised only by Turkey. The Cube, Euronews' fact-checking team, spoke to experts to break down some of the nuance surrounding the British bases in Cyprus, whether they bear any similarities to the Turkish occupation, and whether Aubry's claims hold any weight. Simply put, the question about the status of the bases is a complex one, according to scholars. They said that, legally speaking, the UK is not "occupying" Cyprus, because the base areas are recognised under international law, including by Cyprus itself. "We can look at the definition of occupation, which includes the presence of a military force without a territory's consent," said Peter Clegg, professor of politics and international relations with a specialisation in British Overseas Territories, at the University of the West of England. "In this case, there is consent," he said. "There is agreement from the Cypriot government that the bases can exist." Clegg pointed to the vast aspects of civilian daily life that are overseen in the base areas by the Cypriot government, such as education and social welfare, and the fact that the government has not challenged the legality of the independence treaty since it was drawn up. Under the terms of the agreement, the UK promises "not to develop the Sovereign Base Areas for other than military purposes" and "not to set up and administer 'colonies'" there. It also says that Cypriots have full access to the area surrounding the bases, that their rights will be fully protected, and that laws applicable to the Cypriot population who live there "will be as far as possible the same as the laws of the Republic [of Cyprus]". The importance of consent was also noted by Costas M Constantinou, professor of international relations at the University of Cyprus, although he highlighted that the situation is not so clear-cut. "I wouldn't call it occupation, but rather an ingenious development of colonialism," he told The Cube. "The main difference from occupation is that Cypriots formally agreed to it when they signed the Treaty of Establishment in 1960, which also established the bases." "But they were basically coerced, as decolonisation of the island was made conditional on accepting the 'sovereign bases'," he added. "This raises questions about the legality of the bases today." Neophytos Loizides, professor of international conflict analysis at the University of Warwick, said that the Cypriot people were not consulted when Akrotiri and Dhekelia were left behind as part of the independence deal and that the UK, as the colonial power, used its leverage to hold on to the territories. "The agreement was signed under duress," he said. "Cypriot leaders did not have the same power as the UK, so the UK could impose its will." Responding to Manon Aubry's use of language directly, he said that it's more accurate to call the bases a "colonial remnant" rather than an "occupation", which is an "emotive use of words". "This is different to the occupation happening in the north of Cyprus," he said. "A Cypriot person is unlikely to say the British are occupiers, but they wouldn't necessarily say they're there legitimately either." For Constantinou, the key word is "ambivalence". "Greek Cypriots and certainly the Cypriot government don't view the bases as something that is equivalent to the Turkish occupation in the north," he said. "Those Cypriots who live inside the base areas and may still consider it a colonial remnant don't necessarily or always see it negatively, as many economically benefit from working in the bases and some also feel that the British army provides security vis-a-vis the Turkish army, in areas such as the Achna Forest village in the Dhekelia base." As for Aubry's claims that the UK was using the bases in Cyprus to assist Israel, Clegg said they were incorrect. "There have been some surveillance flights in and around Gaza, but the UK has made clear, and it's likely true, that the flights were unarmed and were used to help identify the location of the hostages following the 7 October attacks," he said. He added that there was limited or no information sharing with Israel or the US, but there were humanitarian aid flights from the bases to Gaza. "There's a discussion to be had about how the bases are being used, but I don't think everything being thrown at them is entirely true and fair," he told The Cube. "It's likely somewhere in between." The UK government insists that the surveillance flights over Gaza were conducted solely for hostage location, that it maintained strict control over the information it gathered and that only data directly related to the whereabouts of any hostages was given to Israel. However, certain investigative outlets have cast doubt on whether this intelligence sharing extended into broader Israeli military operations, accusing the government of a lack of transparency for refusing to reveal exactly what information was shared and potential complicity in Israel's war. Akrotiri and Dhekelia made headlines earlier this year when a drone hit the former in March during the wider war between Iran and both Israel and the US. More drones launched in the following days were intercepted. The strikes reignited the debate about the bases' future in Cyprus, which, unlike the UK, is not a NATO member. Protesters argued that ordinary Cypriots would pay the price if anything bad happened to them, while President Nikos Christodoulides demanded talks with London about the future of the "colonial" military bases. Rather than directly challenging British sovereignty, however, Nicosia has shifted towards a phased, technical approach, proposing joint committees on how both sides can work together and launching high-level diplomatic dialogue. "From the Cypriot perspective, the return of the territory would be welcome, but they'd also like to see a better functional relationship," Loizides said. "The British bases cannot perpetually put at risk the Cypriot population on the island." "In the future, it may be that the British maintain the bases but under a protection framework, so that Cyprus benefits from it, and the colonial status changes into a more modern security framework," he added, noting that the relationship between both sides has "improved dramatically" in recent decades. Any such change is unlikely to happen anytime soon, though, according to Clegg, who described the recent comments from Cyprus as "genuine concern, but more rhetorical than trying to bring about real change." The UK briefly considered whether it was beneficial to keep the bases amid the Turkish invasion in the 70s, but pressure from the US pushed London to keep the status quo. "The bases are British, there's close cooperation with Cyprus, but there's a US interest too; there's a triangular relationship," Clegg said. "This has been at the heart of how they've been administered." A change in status could come as part of a wider peace settlement regarding the Cyprus problem, according to Loizides, explaining that the British bases could factor into the equation as part of a security framework in the region. "If the Cyprus problem were fixed, there'd be an opportunity to further develop the European defence mechanisms in the Middle East and east Mediterranean," Loizides said. "The entire region could benefit from the British bases; they could provide security to Cyprus and the EU, so there's a basis for a good agreement for the Brits here too." The future of the bases came under legal scrutiny after the International Court of Justice handed down an advisory opinion in 2019, in which it said that the UK's detachment of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius during decolonisation in the 1960s violated the right to self-determination and territorial integrity. Some Cypriot officials and legal experts say that this is similar to how the UK carved out Akrotiri and Dhekelia during Cyprus' transition to independence, although other analysts say the cases are distinct, because while the indigenous population of Chagos was expelled, the British bases in Cyprus were baked into the 1960 treaty, with formal recognition from the new republic. London has since agreed to hand over sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but the necessary legislation has stalled following pushback from Trump. Nevertheless, in the Cypriot case, the UK has consistently maintained its commitment to and sovereignty over Akrotiri and Dhekelia under the 1960 agreement. Al Carns, former armed forces minister, told The Telegraph in April that their legal status is "non-negotiable", dismissing any suggestion of transferring control of them. The government of Cyprus did not respond to a request for comment as of the time of publication.