President Tufan Erhürman returns to the Island: The UN is following the Cyprus issue at the highest-level

“We once again conveyed the will of the Turkish Cypriot people for a solution directly to the UN Secretary-General.”

“We focused on the crossing points. . .we explained in detail the traffic congestion at the Metehan crossing and the failure to fulfil the commitments undertaken.”

President Tufan Erhürman held a press conference at Ercan Airport on Thursday evening upon his return from New York, where he held a bilateral meeting with António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, regarding the Cyprus issue.

The statement is as follows:

On 2 February, we had requested an appointment with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Despite his rather busy schedule, we received a response within a very short time and were informed that 11 February would be suitable.  Accordingly, although our bilateral meeting in New York had initially been envisaged to last half an hour, it continued for approximately 1 hour and 10 minutes. This is a concrete indication of the importance the Secretary-General attaches to the matter.

In this first bilateral meeting, we focused on three main headings:

1.      We conveyed directly to the Secretary-General the political will of the Turkish Cypriot people for a solution.

2.      We explained in detail our four-point methodology proposal, which we had shared with the public and the international community prior to the election period. We are aware that this proposal has at times been misinterpreted. Therefore, it was important for us to have the opportunity to explain face to face to the Secretary-General what we mean. We observed that the Secretary-General clearly understood this framework.

3.      We discussed the issue of confidence-building measures. In addition to the headings discussed in Geneva and New York and subsequently assumed by us, we also put forward our new proposals.

As we have previously stated, we do not consider the 5+1 format meeting to constitute an appropriate basis for confidence-building measures. We maintain that these issues should be concluded primarily in Nicosia between the two leaders, and we once again reiterated our position to the Secretary-General.

We focused on the issue of the crossing points. Within the scope of this heading, which was also emphasised in the statement of the UN Spokesperson, we explained in detail the traffic congestion at Metehan and the failure to fulfil the commitments made.  Despite assurances that steps would be taken by 31 January, no improvement has been observed at the Metehan crossing.  The arrangements at Derinya and Bostancı crossings have not been completed either. Furthermore, there has been no progress in the process regarding the authorisation of Bureau Veritas in relation to hellim (halloumi).

We also conveyed during the bilateral meeting that our proposal for friendly sports matches for Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot children under 14 has been misunderstood. We explained with examples that our aim is not an organisation at the level of national teams, but rather to bring Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot children together to engage in sport, to interact and to get to know one another.

We also presented in detail the proposals we have developed regarding new crossing points. We conveyed that we have been working on various alternatives, including Haspolat, Akıncılar and the Kiracıköy-Athienou route, and that we have developed phased proposals addressing the concerns of the Greek Cypriot side.  We would have no discomfort whatsoever with Greek Cypriots also benefiting from these crossings — on the contrary, we support easing access for both sides.

During the meeting, we further stated that the stagnation experienced over the last  approximately nine-year period, since 2017,   has weakened trust between the two sides. In addition, we noted that agreements concluded by the Greek Cypriot side in the fields of security, energy, maritime jurisdiction areas and trade routes, which exclude Turkish Cypriots, have also been a factor diminishing trust.

The Secretary-General, for his part, stressed that a lasting solution in Cyprus is critical not only for the island but also for regional stability and peace. His statements that his interest in the Cyprus issue has not diminished, that he is closely following developments, and that contacts will continue more frequently are indeed significant from our perspective.

In conclusion, we observed that the United Nations is closely following the process at the highest level, at the level of the Secretary-General. We, too, are determined to maintain contacts and cooperation at every level.

The second point of our methodology proposal entails the preservation of the achievements of past negotiation processes.  It envisages the principled acceptance of the convergences reached in the negotiation process up to Crans-Montana. The purpose of this item is clear: to prevent the process from starting from scratch.  We have experienced this before. When Mr. Talat and Mr. Christofias sat at the negotiating table, it was argued that the UN Comprehensive Settlement (Annan) Plan had been prepared externally and that the two Cypriot leaders could achieve a better outcome by starting from scratch. The process was launched anew, and considerable time was spent.  However, we know first-hand that the convergences that emerged did not, in essence, go beyond the framework of the Annan Plan. In other words, the process began from zero, time was lost, and the point reached did not change.

When we put forward the new methodology proposal, this is precisely what we sought to prevent. The convergences reached up to Crans-Montana should be accepted in principle. This is not to initiate a debate of “your convergences versus my convergences” -- on the contrary, it is to prevent such a debate, as it would effectively mean reopening all issues for negotiation from scratch, and the process would become endless.

At the last trilateral meeting, as members of the press may have noticed, Mr. Christodoulides arrived with a thick file. He stated that, according to his own assessment, it contained “convergences” and put forward the approach of “you bring your documents as well, and let us compare our convergences.” This is exactly what we seek to avoid. If one says, “your convergences, my convergences,” there will be no convergences left. Every heading would be reopened for negotiation. This would, in effect, mean the process starting again from scratch and becoming intractable. However, our position is not in favour of any side.  It is in favour of the process. We do not seek negotiations for the sake of negotiations, we seek negotiations for a solution.

The time-framed included in the third point of our methodology has been proposed for this reason as well. We aim to prevent the new process from turning into an open-ended and endless negotiation.

I also clearly stated at the trilateral meeting: It is not possible to proceed to the second step of our methodology proposal without clarity on fundamental headings, such as rotating presidency. However, once the second stage is reached, the convergences should not be reopened and discussed one by one. Otherwise, the process will once again return to the beginning.

Some news items suggested that Türkiye was blocking the process. Let me be clear: if an “obstacle” is to be identified, it is me. This is because the second point of our methodology is specifically designed to prevent the reopening of convergences for debate. I explained this approach directly to the Secretary-General in New York. The issue is not related to Türkiye. 

Certain news items in the South claimed that Türkiye was blocking progress on this matter. Let me be clear: if an “obstacle” is to be identified, it is me. This is because the second point of our methodology is specifically designed to prevent the reopening of convergences for debate — a step that could turn the negotiation process back to square one. In previous negotiations, agreements reached on specific issues were recorded in a document in black text, whilst unresolved points were marked in red for the Turkish Cypriot side and blue for the Greek Cypriot side. Once a convergence was reached, the text turned black. Our concern is that if negotiations start by reopening these “black text” convergences, it will effectively undo past progress. I explained this approach directly to the Secretary-General in New York. The issue is not related to Türkiye.

I have great respect for the Turkish Cypriot press as well as for the Greek Cypriot press. However, in order to contribute to the process, I consider it important that our views also be sought when reports are published. It is not appropriate to respond immediately to every report appearing in every newspaper -- otherwise we would constantly find ourselves in a position of responding to reports in the press of the other side. However, when asked, we will certainly provide a response.