ST. KITTS, OR SÜLEYMAN AS A FEDERAL MODEL…
Isn’t the title funny? It cracked me up, but I swear I’ll explain even if it might end up being too long!
Last night, I attended a television programme where CTP leader and presidential candidate Tufan Erhürman was a guest, and journalists asked questions.
During the programme, which took place in the pleasant surroundings of Kumarcılar Han, I had the opportunity to ask Tufan various questions.
As we are experiencing an election campaign in which the Cyprus issue is hardly discussed, and instead the same old rhetorics are flying around, I did not miss this opportunity and tried to ask questions that would lead him to explain how a federal solution could work, rather than questions that would lead him to explain how it would not work.
For example, when I asked him about decentralised federation and loose federation models, he told me that the two models were almost the same.
While this statement is correct, it is also marked by certain nuances.
For instance, while the central government is much stronger in the decentralised model, the constituent structures behave almost as if they were separate states in the loose model.
Although there is no such thing as a right to secede in loose federations, there are some exceptions to this.
The state of St. Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean is one such example.
The state, which declared its independence from the United Kingdom in 1983, established a federal partnership.
Accordingly, while the central government is located in St. Kitts, the island of Nevis gained autonomy, including the right to secede.
The most important powers of the central government are fundamental elements such as foreign policy, defence, national economy, and citizenship.
In Nevis, such matters as education, health, and agriculture are under the control of the local parliament over there and the prime minister.
However, the key point in this example is the 1998 referendum in Nevis, which failed to secure independence despite receiving 62 per cent of the vote in favour.
This is because, according to the Constitution, a two-thirds majority (66.6 per cent) was required for this decision, and as the required threshold was not reached, the island of Nevis remained as part of St. Kitts.
So, how does this relate with our topic?
Actually, it relates quite a bit.
As you know, various models have been mentioned and comparisons have been drawn between these and TRNC for years.
Taiwan, Nakhchivan, Monaco and Singapore are some of these models.
However, the central issue here is the debate over which state would be the supreme authority in any of these models.
There are two sides to this.
The first is the path to annexation, politically speaking, or unification with the north, i.e. Turkey.
In other words, there has been talk of us becoming Turkey’s Taiwan or Nakhchivan, or even Monaco, as Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu once suggested.
However, it is also a reality that such a step would not be accepted by the world and is prohibited by international law.
The main reason for prohibiting the recognition of the TRNC under Resolutions 541 and 550 is to prevent the structure that would gain recognition from being annexed to Turkey through a possible referendum. (See 1939-Hatay)
So what about the second?
That is to the south. Let me explain.
Resolution 186 of 4 March 1964 establishes that the Republic of Cyprus is the sole authority that is recognized on the island. That resolution is also undersigned by Turkey’s then Prime Minister, İsmet İnönü.
With that resolution, the point reached many years later by the Turkish Cypriots, led by Rauf Denktaş—who had been fantasising about establishing a separate state on the island from the very beginning—is the point of an ‘illegal separatist structure’.
However, what I have just described evolved from the Provisional Turkish Administration on 27 December 1967, to the Autonomous Cypriot Administration on 1 October 1974, and then to the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (KTFD) established on 13 February 1975.
There is no UN resolution, or sanction prohibiting any of these structures. This is because none of them constitute a declaration of independence.
Turkish Cypriots, who were even able to play international football games during the KTFD era, found themselves in a straitjacket with the banning of the TRNC, declared on 15 November 1983, and the main reason for this is the issue of joining Turkey, as I wrote above.
Indeed, in the past 42 years, the TRNC has not gained any recognition.
When you look at it, the insistence on the idea of the TRNC, which is a huge political defeat, has not only ensured that Turkish Cypriots were locked in a cage, but has also poisoned Turkey’s 200-year-old ideal of Westernisation and brought it to an end.
Listen, Turks are a nation with a high sense of loyalty to the state, and I can understand that to a certain extent. However, insisting on this model, which lacks political pragmatism, will not bring any benefits.
It seems that Turkey is also aware of this situation. Recent discussions on the reintroduction of the TRNC to the world by changing its name are, in my opinion, can be considered as a result of this awareness.
The fate of the new entity, which is to be called the Turkish Cypriot State, or the Turkish Cypriot Republic, will not differ from that of the TRNC as long as Resolution 186 remains in place.
There is only one way to trigger change: the repeal of Resolution 186.
There is no doubt that for this to happen, the approval of the international community, primarily the Republic of Cyprus, is required.
So, then?
If a federal structure is not to be established, that is, if the Greek Cypriots do not want to share power with the Turkish Cypriots, and of course, do not allow a separate sovereign state—which is impossible—I see no other option than to establish an autonomous structure affiliated with the Republic of Cyprus.
No, I haven’t lost my mind, I’m just thinking out loud.
Because I want to get to the point where, after last night’s programme, Erkut Şahali told me, “I cannot believe you raised a question about a federal structure where there is also the right to secede.”
Erkut needn’t worry, I don’t consider the professor as someone who has a ‘secessionist mindset’, but I would like to explore whether such a model is possible.
Listen, Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu torpedoed Ersin Tatar’s 3-D formula relating to ‘direct flights’ by simply saying: “I will never accept it, because according to international law, there is only one authority that is responsible from flights on the island, and that is the Republic of Cyprus. Without their permission, this is impossible. Therefore (flights to Ercan in exchange for Maraş), the Greeks also have the right to revoke the permission they have given in this context. What will we do if they cancel the permission after we return Maraş? I don’t trust them.”
Leaving aside the trust issue, what Tahsin said is not wrong.
Indeed, the Direct Trade Regulation, another ‘D’ in the 3-D, has been gathering dust on Brussels’ shelves for the past 21 years because Resolution 186 is the main obstacle.
Consequently, both Ersin Tatar, who put forward 3-D as a precondition for negotiations, and Tufan Erhürman, who desires to gain legal status through 3-D if the Greek Cypriots leave the negotiation table, are doomed to fail under these circumstances.
Politics is not mathematics, but sometimes it is like mathematics, and the situation is as clear as 1+1=2.
So where am I going with all this talk?
Actually, I am not the one beating around the bush. I think the one doing that is Tufan Erhürman.
Note that it is not Ersin Tatar because he is busy saying ‘amen’ to a prayer that will never come true, namely the goal of establishing a separate sovereign state in Cyprus!
Erhürman, on the other hand, is searching for new formulas because of his sensitivity towards not supporting “federalist” formulas, which Turkey opposes within the context of its own domestic political motives (such as the Kurdish Federation that is intended to be established over Iraq-Syria-Turkey). (Of course, this is not the only reason, but I believe this is the main explanation to the resurgence of opposition to a federal solution after 2017.)
That is why, referring to the word federation on last night’s programme, the professor said, “There are many examples of federation in the world, but they could also be called Süleyman instead of federation.” Well, St. Kitts’ federal model is some kind of Süleyman!
In fact, the professor’s idea, which corresponds to a ‘hybrid’ structure as it is popularly called these days, could be some kind of a formula for a provisional ‘Cyprus model’ formula tailored specifically to the island of Cyprus. So, I think he needs to clarify this further.
Last night, when I asked him the question, “What kind of a loose model do you support? Like the federal model of St. Kitts and Nevis, where the states also have the right to secede?’ in response to his words where by he said that he advocates a ‘loose federation’ model, the reason was precisely this. Erkut may have been surprised because he may not have examined this model very closely. But the question is not a wrong one.
I know I sound like I’m fuelling on the fire of jingoist nationalists, ranting, “Will we become a band-aid for Greek Cypriots?”. However, that is not my view at all; I am simply mentioning possibilities.
Because my position is clear: a federal Cyprus based on two zones, two communities and political equality.
Focusing on other interim solutions instead of this will lead us down a path of Modus Vivendi-style solutions, as I wrote in my article last week, rather than a political agreement.
How this path may open up will bind us entirely to the consent of the island’s sole authority, namely the Republic of Cyprus!
This is precisely the reason why the only way forward is a federal Cyprus, and I say this is not a fantasy but a reality.
With the hope that efforts will be made towards this end…
This article was originally published on 03.09.2025