By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Last year, marking the 50th anniversary of the Turkish invasion, the Anadolu news agency reported that the final communiqué of Turkey’s National Security Council (MGK) issued during those days contained developments in Cyprus, the Aegean and the Eastern Mediterranean.
The communiqué stated the following regarding Cyprus: “It is noted that the peace, tranquillity and security environment prevailing across the entire island for half a century, thanks to Turkey’s peace operation in Cyprus conducted within the framework of international treaties and as a guarantor power, has unquestionably confirmed the legitimacy and success of the operation before history. It was emphasised that a decisive stance will be maintained for resolving the Cyprus issue, which is our national cause, on the basis of a two-state solution, based on the sovereign equality and equal international status of the Turkish Cypriot people and recognition of the TRNC as an equal member of the international community.”
This was hardly news, given that Turkish leadership has repeated this stance from Crans-Montana to the present day. However, there is a difference between the Turkish political leadership promoting a policy and that policy being adopted by the MGK. Worse still is not the MGK position itself, but the fact that the Turkish Grand National Assembly has also adopted the two-state solution stance. The Turkish Cypriot newspaper Kıbrıs (26.07.24), under the headline “Historic Event”, carried statements from former “special representative of the presidency” and former Turkish Cypriot negotiator Ergün Olgun, as well as former negotiator Osman Ertuğ, who described the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s decision as “a very significant historic event”. Evaluating the resolution, Olgun said: “The fact that such a decision was taken on the 50th anniversary of the peace operation and voted on by the Grand Turkish National Assembly was a historic moment, a historic decision and a historic document that seals 20 July for us.”
As noted above, there is a distinction between the policy pursued by Turkish leadership and a policy decided by the Turkish National Assembly and supported by the National Security Council.
Today, we find ourselves managing the stagnation of the Cyprus issue. Rather than attending the expanded conference and finally setting out clearly and convincingly his acceptance of the Guterres Framework without preconditions, terms or footnotes, President Christodoulides sought to meet Turkey’s Foreign Minister secretly and whisper in his ear – so that Ersin Tatar would not hear – that he would give him an EU visa and passport. Instead of honestly affirming the acceptance of the political equality that Turkish Cypriots are entitled to within a federation, and instead of declaring readiness to negotiate with a timetable based on UN arbitration, he thought Fidan would defect from Turkey’s MGK decisions.
Did he really believe Fidan would abandon Turkey’s MGK resolutions?
This article was first published in the Alithia newspaper on 20.07.2025
