By This post is also available in: ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ (GREEK) TÜRKÇE (TURKISH)
Reaching his 100th day in office, President Tufan Erhürman outlined his first actions in a lengthy press conference held yesterday.
In the first part of the meeting, which lasted about 2.5 hours, Erhürman talked about his first 100 days, and in the second part, he answered questions from the press.
There was nothing new in what he said in the first part. Generally recounting his adventures with his counterpart Nicos Christodoulidis, the President may not have used an accusatory language, but it is possible to claim that the essence of what he said was something like, “I suggested a lot of things, but he is not coming around.”
Erhürman spoke candidly about the new check points, stating that it was not ‘a positive move’ on the part of the Greek Cypriot leader to bring up the issue of Kokkina, although the check points at Louroujina– Athienou- Aglandjia (mostly upon the desire and need of Greek Cypriots commuting from Limassol to Nicosia) and a new pedestrian crossing in Mia Milia and Nicosia were part of a package deal.
He said that there is a map currently being worked on in that area, that they have made multiple proposals, that Turkey and the EU have covered the costs of road works, but that this time Christodoulidis said, “The road should pass through the buffer zone rather than the Turkish territory so that our citizens can feel safe,” which is not a reasonable argument since thousands of Greek Cypriots already use the roads in the north every day. I don’t think his complaints are entirely unjustified.
Yet, this is precisely the fate of the quagmire you call the confidence-building measures.
The point of all this ridiculous act of haggling is always clear: the Greek Cypriot’s fear of the ‘recognition of the TRNC’ and the Turkish Cypriot’s insistence that ‘we are sovereign’!
Returning to the press conference, Tufan Erhürman, referring to Maria Holguin’s interview over the weekend, stated that Holguin had said, in essence, “Without progress on confidence-building measures, the 5+1 conference will not convene,” which is what he himself has been saying for a long time, emphasizing that he and the UN are on the same page.
I couldn’t attend the meeting, but if I had, I would have asked what the purpose of convening the 5+1, which is said to meet after progress is made on confidence-building measures, would be.
Because, as he himself said, “There is no need to go to New York to open check-points; we can do that in Nicosia.”
In that case, if a check-point is opened in Nicosia, why would the 5+1 meet? To discuss a federal solution, for example?
Now, in the five-point proposal package that the Greek Cypriot leader brought to the last tripartite meeting, he describes this summit as official, not unofficial, and in the relevant article, he says, “Let the official conference date be announced.”
However, here we are faced with preconditions again because, as you know, Erhürman says he will not sit at the table unless his four-point methodology is accepted.
Before being elected, he continued his rhetoric on political equality without alarming those around him too much, but after being elected, he even insisted on the point that “it cannot be done without rotating presidency.”
Even his supporters, who gave him the most support during the election period, are reacting to this demand.
This is because one of the six points in the Guterres document, under the heading ‘governance and power sharing’, states “acceptance of a 2:1 ratio of rotating presidency and effective participation.” This is the subject of negotiation.
This is where Crans Montana was left off.
Now, how right is it for you to say, “I will never return to Crans Montana,” and then put a heading that was up for negotiation on the table as a ‘precondition’?
Christodoulidis, whom we met in Strasbourg a few weeks ago, said he had no problem with political equality, but emphasized that rotating presidency was a matter for negotiation and that he rejected it being brought to the table as a precondition.
Christodoulidis continued, “For me, the most important topics are security and guarantees. I want the withdrawal of troops and the abolition of the guarantor status, which grants unilateral intervention rights. What if I say I won’t sit at the table without this? Then, we won’t sit at the table at all.”
Indeed, it was Erhürman himself who reacted to such a statement by Christodoulidis in his early days in office, saying, “We will not give up on the issue of guarantees.”
There will be guarantees in the new partnership to be established, but linking and mixing everything together ultimately results in sentences that lose their meaning.
Erhürman emphasized at yesterday’s press conference that, as a matter of principle, he is against a structure in which Turkish Cypriots cannot be a president indefinitely.
Erhürman quoted former Greek Cypriot leader Anastasiadis’ statement at Crans Montana, “I am categorically against political equality.” If you ask me, the reason he keeps repeating this is nothing more than a reductionist argument that “all Greek Cypriot leaders are against it.” Incidentally, I don’t recall anything like this from Crans Montana, but it was indeed a much-debated topic.
In fact, in a statement on February 10, 2020, Anastasiadis said, “We accept political equality; what we do not accept is political inequality.”
Here is the issue: For Turkish Cypriots, the most important topic is governance and power sharing.
For Greek Cypriots, it is security and guarantees, which began with 1974. These two topics, during the big negotions, were put on the table, just as they were in Crans Montana, and were included in the Guterres document.
Therefore, Turkey also comes into play at this point.
Serhat İncirli, who raised the best question at yesterday’s meeting, asked the President, “What is the nuance between you and Turkey in the context of the Cyprus issue?”
Serhat, recalling that the Turkish and TRNC Foreign Ministries made a joint statement on the extension of the UN Peacekeeping Force’s mandate for another year, emphasizing the two-state solution formula, asked a question to which the answer was quite meaningful.
Commenting on the statements made on the Peacekeeping Force as ‘reciprocity’, he said, “The Turkish Presidency did not issue a statement and neither did I.” Erhürman, who dismissed the issue by saying, “Tahsin handles border issues for us,” said that there were only ‘nuances in terminology’ between Turkey and TRNC regarding the solution.
This sentence is precisely what prompted me to write this article on a dusty day.
We have enough experience to see that the ‘nuances’ in question are not merely terminological differences.
Turkey and the anti-solution circles on the island advocate a two-state solution. That is, the thesis of separate states on the island.
Tufan Erhürman, who served as the chairperson for 10 years and then became the leader of the party that won the election, CTP, advocates a federal solution, that is, ‘reunification’.
Just as separation and reunification are opposites, the ‘nuances’ between Tufan Erhürman and Turkey are also opposites.
This is because Turkey insists, regularly and consistently, that “the federation is dead; the two-state solution is the most realistic solution.”
Tufan Erhürman, although he avoids being too clear, puts forward the federal solution when we talk about his four-point methodology. I criticize him for not being clear on this point, but when Christodulidis says, “Come on, I’ve accepted everything,” what will be discussed is federation.
I’m speaking in good faith; I don’t know if he’ll come up with other conditions when that day comes!
However, my understanding is that the ‘nuances’ between him and Turkey are not terminological.
Moreover, to describe these nuances as ‘terminological’ would be unfortunate, to say the least, because in political terminology, a federation is called a federation, and a separate state is called a separate state; there is no ‘Süleyman’ in between!
However, at this point, based on the fact that the Cyprus issue is an international problem, it would be naive to think that Tufan Erhürman alone could be a game changer.
The leader of the Turkish Cypriots, the smallest and politically weakest part of the equation, does not have a magic wand either.
However, I believe he must be aware that the attitude he displays, the steps he takes, and the views he puts forward as one of the two sides at the heart of the matter could have a kind of ‘multiplier’ effect, which pave way for important benefits.
To do this, I think he needs more self-confidence, a little more courage, and a good team. We will follow how the committees he announced at this press conference will work.
Long story short, we cannot say that Tufan Erhürman had a very successful first 100 days. Nor can we say that he was very unsuccessful. It is a period of adjustment, a period of getting things up and running, and it must be said that this is a transition period.
However, it is certain that Erhürman is a Turkish Cypriot leader whose stature is growing not only in the north but also in the south, at a time when Christodoulidis is dealing with scandals and the troubles of the EU presidency.
Therefore, I see many benefits in his visibility there, his visits, and his statements to the press.
I hope we will be in a much better position at the second 100-day meeting…
This article was originally published on 03.02.2026
