The occupation side wants its demands met up front before it decides whether to join negotiations. That is the approach of the occupier, the side that does not want a solution. And today it is voiced, on behalf of the occupying power, by its placeman, Tufan Erhurman.
He wants, for instance, a rotating presidency and acceptance of the terms and preconditions he sets, yet he considers security not up for discussion at this stage!
Erhurman sells himself as a progressive and, as the supposed leader of a solution, has built a ‘fun club’ in the free areas. Yet in an interview with Andreas Paraschos for Politis, he is rigging the game on orders from the big boss, Erdogan. He accepts that security is important, but he will not discuss it. He discusses only his own terms, and will then decide, depending on how that goes, whether to sit down at the table.
On that stance, it is worth recalling the notorious dinner at Crans-Montana (6 July 2017, 9.15pm). Summing up the discussion on governance and power-sharing, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, said the sides were “practically in full agreement”. He said “there would be a system of rotating presidency on a 2:1 basis, on the understanding that ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’, and that the issue of the rotating presidency is linked to the outcome of the discussions on territory and on security and guarantees…”. The Secretary-General’s assessment was that “the time had come to move ahead with a package approach around the six issues: territory, power-sharing, property, the rights of Turkish nationals, guarantees and foreign troops” (UN minutes).
Erhurman’s fixations lead to one conclusion: he does not want negotiations. All he wants is for the other side, the Greek Cypriot side, to make moves that deliver what is being demanded. And the demands come not from the Turkish Cypriot side, but from Turkey. That is what the ‘progressive’ Tufan Erhurman is doing.
On Famagusta, he reaches for Olgun-style logic to reject Christodoulides’s proposal. In the interview he said: “Is it really possible to believe that two leaders who have not managed to open even a single crossing point in 11 months will be able to resolve such sensitive and important issues in the remaining two and a half months?” Why he talks about himself in the third person probably goes to the heart of the matter: he is not the one who really decides. He is indeed one of the two leaders he mentions, but at the meetings he seems to be there and not there. Because he has to ask before he can take a position. That is the reality, and he should not take offence at being reminded of it.
He had called the Famagusta issue a big step. Why? Because the occupying power would be called upon to give something. That would upset the long-standing formula. Until now it asks and it receives. It does not give. As for his first reaction to the proposal when the President presented it, we will not dwell on it, because we know why he is denying it.
Erhurman said a great deal, about all sorts of things. Clearly, although he poses as a champion of rights, those rights apply only in theory, and not to everyone. They do not apply, for instance, to Greek Cypriots, whose rights he sends to stage-managed mechanisms to be examined. He refers the property issue to the so-called ‘compensation commission’ while defending usurpation in the same breath. Looting and usurpation now go by the name of ‘putting the properties to use’.
Tufan Erhurman does not want negotiations. What he does want is to stroll down Ledra Street with the President, either side of the occupation checkpoint, for coffee and zivania. The Cyprus problem will not be solved at a street party. It will be solved through negotiations, and negotiations alone.
