Our View: Erhurman’s election challenges president’s Cyprob narrative

For the last five years, thanks to the inflexibility of the Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar the Greek Cypriot side was in control of the Cyprus problem narrative. This was even more evident after the election of Nikos Christodoulides whose talent for the political communications game and gesture politics is indisputable.

As president, Christodoulides made a lot of noise about securing the involvement of the EU in the Cyprus talks, demanded the appointment of a Cyprus envoy by the UN secretary-general and once this happened called for an immediate resumption of talks, which he claimed, for added effect, that he was ready for ‘tomorrow’. There was no possibility of this happening thanks to Tatar’s insistence, fully backed by Turkey, that the only settlement he was prepared to discuss was two states.

Nobody could criticise Christodoulides for flatly ruling this out, while at the same time urging the UN to undertake an initiative for the resumption of talks on a federal settlement. Maria Angela Holguin, the personal envoy appointed by the UNSG, unsuccessfully tried to find common ground and eventually gave up, her efforts crashing against Tatar’s uncompromising position.

Despite this failure, UNSG Antonio Guterres for unknown reasons called extended meetings to which Greece and Turkey were also invited that came to nothing. Even the commitment to implement confidence-building measures never really got off the ground, with the two sides unable to agree on how more crossings would be opened, a failure that could not be exclusively attributed to Tatar’s inflexibility.

Within a few weeks of the election of Tufan Erhurman, a politician who does not support the two-state solution and has made no secret of his wish to see all of Cyprus in the EU, the situation appears to be changing. Holguin was back in Cyprus this week, met Erhurman on Friday, Christodoulides on Saturday and will meet with both on Thursday. Meanwhile, the Turkish government has somewhat toned down its Cyprus rhetoric.

Erhurman has come across as reasonable and much more flexible than Tatar. In his first interview with Turkish Cypriot media, he said he did not believe in Cyprus talks “just for the sake of talks”, which was directed at Christodoulides who has zealously demanded the resumption of talks without ever suggesting ways of achieving actual results. His suggestion that there must be a timeframe for talks is sensible. Erhurman also stated the obvious about the broader format (five plus one) conferences in New York and Geneva, justifiably describing them as “pointless”. To have another such conference, it should be to announce agreement on something of substance such as the crossings, he said.

In short, Erhurman is challenging the Christodoulides’ narrative about Greek Cypriot commitment to a resumption of talks being blocked by Turkish intransigence. He is being constructive, backing not just a resumption of talks but also proposing ways of ensuring the process is successful. Perhaps this is why journalists who champion the president’s positions have turned on the new Turkish Cypriot leader, accusing him of intransigence and of setting conditions for talks and trying to pre-determine their outcome.

Christodoulides seems uncomfortable now that he is faced with a Turkish Cypriot leader who does not support a two-state solution but wants some form of reunification, someone who is not setting unacceptable conditions for a resumption of talks. It is the realisation that he will no longer have a free ride in setting the Cyprus problem narrative to the outside world as he has done since his election.

For our president, the Cyprus problem is about the narrative rather than the outcome, which is why the primary concern is preventing Erhurman from challenging this narrative by demanding a result-oriented process. There are ways of preventing a result-oriented process by setting new conditions for talks, which Christodoulides has begun doing, by seeking abolition of guarantees and the withdrawal of troops before negotiations have even begun.

Of course, he should seek the abolition of guarantees and withdrawal of troops at the talks, but surely this is something that can only be secured through negotiations, as part of the give and take. And if we fail to secure this at talks, we would be perfectly justified not to sign a settlement. But demanding Erhurman accepts this, before the process begins, can only be seen as an attempt to prevent resumption of talks and makes a mockery of the president’s narrative.