TRNC Minister of Foreign Affairs Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu spoke to Harici. Stating that the improvement between Türkiye and Greece should not be exaggerated, Ertuğruloğlu said that “the TRNC issue was not on the table, if it was, this positive atmosphere could not have been created” regarding President Erdoğan’s visit to Athens.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Greece was one of the most important steps towards the normalisation of bilateral relations after a long period of tension. After Erdoğan’s meeting with Greek Prime Minister Kiryakos Mitsotakis, the two leaders pointed to new co-operations.

President Erdoğan said, “There is no issue between Türkiye and Greece that cannot be resolved”, while Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis said, “We have to act together”.

In his statement, Erdoğan stated that he and Mitsotakis also discussed the Cyprus issue and said, “It will be in the interest of the entire region to reach a just, lasting and sustainable solution to Cyprus issue based on realities on the island.”

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu answered the questions of journalist Esra Karahindiba on President Erdoğan’s visit to Athens, relations with Greece and the Cyprus issue.

*Relations between Türkiye and Greece appear to be improving. During President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s visit to Greece with his cabinet, the Athens Declaration was signed by Erdoğan and Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis. In the picture given at the meeting, everyone at the table was happy and smiling. Of course, the meeting was between Türkiye and Greece. There is no doubt that the focus was on solving the problems of the two countries such as territorial waters and airspace, but do you expect positive developments from this rapprochement towards the two-state solution and TRNC? How do you see the declaration?

We should not exaggerate the issues too much. There is nothing more natural than the improvement of relations between Türkiye and Greece. They are already two neighboring countries; two NATO member countries. Naturally, they should have made an effort to normalize their relations, and they did. But what I see, does not deserve an interpretation that would lead to a conclusion that this or that will happen regarding Cyprus, apart from its real dimensions. In order for this to happen, the Greek Cypriots must come to the point that there is no such entity as the Republic of Cyprus and its government. If we are going to solve the so-called Cyprus problem in Cyprus, the beginning of this can be achieved by defining what the Cyprus problem is and answering the question “What is the Cyprus problem?” sincerely and if both parties reach an agreement on this issue. I did not hear such an issue being discussed during Erdoğan’s meeting with Mitsotakis, and I do not think it was discussed.

*Did you ask Hakan Fidan, “Was there anything about us on the table?”

No, I know very well that there was no such talks. Because if they talked, this positive atmosphere could not be created.

*Was the TRNC issue never brought to Athens?

As far as I know, there isn’t. Nothing like that was taken. Because what is the Cyprus problem? If an agreement is not reached on the definition of the Cyprus problem by the two sides, what solution will we talk about? If you ask Greeks and Greeks, the Cyprus problem is the Turkish invasion that started in 1974 and the ongoing Turkish occupation. We need to ask those who say this why there have been UN peacekeepers on the island since 1964. They have no answers. If the problem started in 1974, there were still peacekeepers on the island from 1964 to 1974, what is the explanation for this? Therefore, the Cyprus problem is not a problem of the Turkish invasion and ongoing occupation that started in 1974. But according to Greeks, it is like that. In our opinion, the Cyprus problem is the recognition of the Greek side as the Government and Republic of Cyprus. Unless this recognition is eliminated and Southern Cyprus is recognized only as a Greek state, you cannot talk about a solution to the Cyprus problem. Again, nothing could be more natural than this, as two NATO member neighboring countries, for Türkiye and Greece to make an effort to resolve their issues, whether it be the Aegean issue or other problems. As Turkish Cypriots, we are not people who are disturbed by this. But this should not lead to interpretations such as the Turkish side will step back on the Cyprus issue, the point of abandoning the point of two sovereign and equal states, and how a policy will be adopted to consolidate the Turks into the so-called Republic of Cyprus. Because this has nothing to do with reality. This approach to the Cyprus issue is a guarantee of failure. It’s been like this for 60 years already.

*Aren’t you a little pessimistic?

I prefer to be realistic. If anyone wants to interpret realism as pessimism, do so. I’m talking about realism. Turkish Cypriots will never accept the Greek side as the representative of the Republic of Cyprus. TRNC will never accept the status of a Greek state called the Republic of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots are not a society. Turkish Cypriots are a people with a sovereign state. As long as this status is not accepted and if a negotiation process for the reconciliation of the Cyprus issue is to be brought to the agenda, unless a process based on the existence of two sovereign and equal states comes to the agenda, the fact of the matter is that there will be no negotiation process. No matter how they look at it, whether they call it pessimistic or realistic. This is not my problem. As a Turkish Cypriot, I speak clearly in this way because I know that we are not a people who will step back from the position of a state-owning people and accept the status of a society within a Greek state. Those who want to look at the Cyprus issue by drawing rosy scenarios with their imagination can look at it however they want. I prefer to look realistically.

*Russia’s decision to open a diplomatic representation in TRNC caused good mood in Türkiye at first. Discussions were held such as “I wonder if Russia will recognize the TRNC, is this move a sign?” What are the details of this issue? Also, is there any progress in terms of the member states of the Organization of Turkic States regarding the recognition of the TRNC? For example, there was a problem such as the Karabakh issue, which was said to be used as a trump card by the EU in preventing Azerbaijan from recognizing the TRNC. What is the latest situation in your diplomatic initiatives on this issue?

The issue has been reflected incorrectly from day one. It wasn’t an unusual issue either. Because the US Embassy in the south has a liaison office in northern Nicosia. The British have it. None of these are called consulates or consulates general. Russia also has an Embassy in the south. They opened a liaison office in the north, as did the Americans, British, French and Germans. The reason for this is an increasing Russian population in our north. They cannot pass to Southern Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot community does not allow them to pass to Southern Cyprus because they came to the island from TRNC. According to Greek Cypriots, the person coming from TRNC is described as “a person who entered our island illegitimately”. Russians opens such an office and provide consular services to Russian citizens in the north. But this should not be interpreted as meaning that TRNC is recognized. An extension of their embassy in the south, accredited to the south. It is not accredited to us. Not the Americans, not the British. But they work with us unofficially.

‘Azerbaijan’s initiative may lead to final recognition of TRNC’

Don’t be too hasty when it comes to recognition. Look, our recognition policy came to the fore after 2017. We have pursued a policy of demanding recognition for years and it is not like we failed. We have opponents who criticize this way. But it’s not true. We did not bring up the recognition policy during the 60-year long UN negotiations on Cyprus. Because it was not consistent to demand recognition when negotiating to establish a partnership. Since the negotiation process collapsed in Crans-Montana in 2017, we subsequently entered into a policy of sovereign equal state and equal international status. Therefore, it is rather a new policy. We already know that this is not an easy process that will yield results today or tomorrow. We did not enter this process by dreaming. Yes, we became an observer member of the Organization of Turkic States, thanks to Türkiye and President Erdoğan; for the first time with our constitutional name and flag… But of course, we do not have a claim to have everything we want in that organization. Our most favorable relations are currently with Azerbaijan; After the Karabakh incident ended, Azerbaijan’s initiative came to the agenda. And Ilham Aliyev declared at a meeting held there, “The TRNC flag will always wave here.” After the Karabakh incident took place, we see that Azerbaijan has entered into a serious expansion in its relations with us. No one is in a position to say anything clear about how long this next period of time will be, but it is possible to comment that this will lead to final recognition. Nobody should forget this either. It is as if the Greek Cypriot side is making serious efforts to sabotage our relations by using its relations with the Turkish states, the member countries of the Organization of Turkic States, the countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, especially with the European Union, as a weapon. For example, Kazakhstan did not invite TRNC to the last leaders’ summit held there. Ersin Tatar could not go there because TRNC was not invited. We did not receive an invitation from Kazakhstan for the Leaders’ Summit. The reason for this is that the Greek side uses EU relations to put pressure on Kazakhstan by using its commercial relations, EU’s projects, programs in Kazakhstan, and the issues it provides financing for.

And of course, they use the decisions taken by the UN Security Council on Cyprus against us as if these decisions were binding decisions. As you know, when the TRNC was established, the UN Security Council passed resolutions criticizing it and calling for no assistance to this state. By using these, these countries’ relations with us are being sabotaged. Now this point is ignored: None of the resolutions passed by the Security Council on Cyprus are binding decisions; It is a recommendation. It is not possible for the UN to impose sanctions on countries that do not comply with these. The most typical and unique example of this is Türkiye. Türkiye does not act in accordance with those decisions. It does not recognize the Greek side; it recognizes TRNC and sends ambassadors there. He accepts ambassadors from TRNC. Therefore, it implements policies contrary to the resolutions passed by the UNSC regarding Cyprus. No one can say that the UN has ever imposed penalties or sanctions on Türkiye. Because no, it can’t be. All of these decisions are recommendations. That’s why they are trying to block the TRNC with such games. We are determined to shape our future by protecting our state and facing all difficulties together with our homeland.

‘Un gave land to the Greeks in the buffer zone’

*Speaking of the UN, there was a serious crisis regarding the Pile – Yiğitler road. There was tension between UN Peacekeeping Force soldiers and Turkish soldiers and police. There was a double standard there too. While the Greeks living in the villages in the region could reach the center without going through customs, the same right was not provided to the Turks. Did the tension at that time damage the relationship between the TRNC and the UN? What is the latest stage of the road project?

We have never had a proper relationship with the UN anyway. The UN has always rewarded the Greek side. The violence was also caused by the indifference of UN soldiers. It was not a planned event. I know the situation very well. Because I am the person who negotiated the Pyla road with the UN, from the beginning, and who still knows about the incident today. I was the one who negotiated with UN Peace Force Special Representative and Chief of Mission Colin Stewart and made the agreement possible.

*Did you encounter that result even though there was an agreement?

Yes. From Yiğitler village towards the Pile route, there is Çayhan Düzü, which is considered a buffer zone according to the UN and which we consider as our land. This is the upper part of Pile. We also have a military unit there. But at one point, one or one and a half kilometers from Pyla, there is a place that we consider as a buffer zone. That’s the region called Onevler. Therefore, it is a place where we accept the authority of the UN. The authority in the buffer zone lies with the UN. Our road continued, came out of Yiğitler, passed Çayhan Düzü. Then, we stopped where that buffer zone begins. Because this is where the UN made a mistake. While the UN negotiated the road project with us and reached an agreement, they made another agreement with the Greek side on issues on which they did not consult with us. They gave permission to the Greeks for subdivision, right where our road will pass, and the Greeks were to build settlements and houses there.

*How can any land be given to Greeks in the buffer zone?

They gave. This is entirely a case of the UN making a fuss about the incident. It is a huge fiasco. Because we showed them where to build the road by giving them a map. They knew what the route was. They allow the Greek Cypriots to carry out subdivision work, which will affect our route, which we do not approve of in any way. We do not accept it in any way.

*So did they ask you?

They did not. We said, “You are making a deal with the Greek Cypriots.” “Yes,” they said. We said, “Can you give us the agreement?”. “We won’t give it to you,” they said. Then we saw it in action. The road has come till there, was about to continue. We came across with Greek construction works. We also reacted. The soldiers showed up. Then, they stopped.

*So, has the parceling work been canceled or suspended?

No, they withdrew, but we cannot continue on our road because in order to do so, we have to enter the buffer zone. Entering the buffer zone without UN approval means a big problem.

*However, at that time, both TRNC and Turkish authorities spoke very clearly. It was said, “We will finish this road, no matter what anyone says.”

We will do. I say the same thing again. Tension broke out on August 18. Diplomacy was used to resolve that crisis. Meetings were held with the UN delegation many times. We reached an agreement on carrying out the road project on October 9. As a result of the agreement, we continued to build the road to the buffer zone until October 9. But when we came to the buffer zone, we found Greek. This is the insincerity of the UN. Even though the UN knew where our road would pass, they made an agreement with the Greek Cypriots and tried to block our path with settlement projects in a way that would sabotage our project. Currently the project is frozen. Our road construction stopped. There is no construction by the Greeks either. Following our reaction, the parceling stopped. Right now, both sides halt.

*What will happen if the Greeks say, “The UN gave this land to us, we will build it?”

They can’t. No way. They stopped because they knew this was not possible.

‘Cyprus issue can not be compared with Israel-Palestine’

*As Türkiye has been discussing the guarantorship model for a peace deal between Israel and Palestine, the Cyprus model was referred to as an example. In the panel organized by the Strategic Research Center of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the guarantorship of Türkiye in Cyprus was again presented as an example. While some academics discuss this model as possible, others argue that the problem between Isral-Palestine is not similar to what is happening between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus in terms of the disproportionate force Israel uses against Palestinians. Can the Cyprus model really be implemedented in terms of Turkey’s guarantorship? How do you evaluate it?

In my opinion, the guarantor policy put forward by Türkiye should not be confused with the Cyprus model. It’s a very different kind of guarantee. As far as I can see, there is no clear stance in Mr. Hakan Fidan’s statement regarding the guarantorship in question, nor any details about what kind of guarantorship it will be. Will there be a military presence or will there be another guarantee system without a military presence? This is a completely different issue that needs to be clarified. In my opinion, if there is to be a warranty system it will be the one that has nothing to do with the warranty system in Cyprus. What is important for us is that after what happened in Gaza, our opponents who criticized our policies on the Cyprus issue when we said “Türkiye’s guarantee should never be given up, we will not give up”, they said “guarantee systems are now outdated, the European Union guarantee in Cyprus is sufficient, it is out of the question that a EU member Cyprus to be guaranteed by a country that is not a member, that is Türkiye”. And now it has become clear how meaningless and incompatible their criticisms those were and how necessary the guarantee system is. But I do not find it necessary to comment on the same guarantee system on Cyprus or a modality of it on Gaza. That’s a completely different event. I do not think it is right to identify the Greek-Turkish issue in Cyprus with the Israel-Gaza issue. We are talking about a different topic. The Cyprus issue has no similarity with the Israel-Palestine issue because Cyprus is a sui-generis issue. We are talking about the disruption of a partnership state in Cyprus. There is a Turkish side that signed agreements on the establishment of the partnership state. Without our signature, a state called the Republic of Cyprus could not have been established in 1960. That’s a completely different incident. There is a Greek side that broke this partnership. It is the Cyprus problem that the world recognizes the Greek Cypriot as the Republic of Cyprus, even though it is the party that broke the partnership. This has no resemblance to the Palestine-Israel issue.