On Tuesday, I published part of my interview with our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Hüseyin Özgürgün. He said he found it amusing that he was being criticized for holding meetings in Turkey, and noted that at the summit held during his visit to Ankara, there had been critical discussions about which issues could be made flexible, apart from the fundamental principles.
He also said that if the Annan Plan had been approved, it would have amounted to a solution that left the problem unresolved. I then told him that Mr. Talat thought the exact opposite and asked how the Government and the Presidency could work together in that case. It was at precisely this point that we had to cut the interview short because of limited space. I’ll now continue with the answer to that question.
“The solution won’t be right for Mr. Talat and wrong for me!”
Mr. Özgürgün practically offered a formula for how the Government and the Presidency could work together: “For that to happen, the solution must not give rise to debates like the Annan Plan, where it was right for Mr. Talat and wrong for me! The solution has to be right for everyone… Even if 65 percent say yes to the plan that emerges, it could come back to haunt us one day and cause very serious problems!” I’m aware that the figure Mr. Özgürgün gave is very high and that his formula is a very difficult one. This awareness of mine, however, brought up the question, “Will there be a solution?” Mr. Özgürgün said, “Yes, a solution can be achieved if certain guarantees are provided,” adding that people’s concerns had to be dispelled and that those guarantees had been removed in the Annan Plan.
Mr. Özgürgün also commented on the current process in connection with the issue of land and the map: “If the issue of land and the map is discussed in the current process, there will be a much bigger uproar. They haven’t been discussed at all yet, and there’s no way they can be discussed! They’re not issues that can be discussed…” After hearing the Minister’s position, my first thought was, “I suppose they’ll be discussed during the give-and-take process.” When I said this, Mr. Özgürgün’s position did not change: “I don’t think that can be discussed. I think it can be discussed on the day the agreement is discussed. Everyone on the ground will agree, and tell the politicians, ‘Go ahead’; then it can be discussed. When everyone is uneasy, trying to discuss land and the map is not something a politician can do either! I wouldn’t dare.”
“The chance of a ‘yes’ vote in Güzelyurt in a referendum is zero.”
I had learned from Mr. Özgürgün when the issue of land might be discussed. But when I reminded the Minister that Mr. Talat had previously dared to raise it and had even given a figure, he commented: “He mentioned it, but even the ‘29+’ he talked about isn’t concrete! Let them put it on the table now, and we’ll see. Which places, which areas are we giving up? The moment you discuss this, it will cause a very serious outcry and the economy will grind to a halt. Think about the psychology of the people living in those areas…” The example of Güzelyurt was obvious, and the Minister was very emphatic on this point too: “The chance of a ‘yes’ vote in Güzelyurt in a referendum is zero.” He even added, “You’re a journalist; go and talk to the people there about it.” When I said, “It may be like that today, but the people of Güzelyurt voted ‘yes’ to the Annan Plan,” the Minister was quick to reply: “It became clear that the plan was artificial. The moment people said yes, they turned back. The opening of the crossings brought disappointment. There won’t be a ‘yes’ vote from there now.”
Have you ever thought about taking part in bicommunal events?
I had long been wondering what the UBP thought about the opening of the crossings. Had they, too, seen it as a positive step? When I asked this, the Minister replied, “It’s positive, but people need to be patient. You can’t create interaction by force. We hold bicommunal events, but it’s not right to accuse the other side of things just because we’ve held a bicommunal event!” I was pleased that we had turned to a subject I was very curious about. Would Mr. Özgürgün, as a UBP minister, ever consider taking part in bicommunal events? The Minister answered me very calmly and clearly: “I would. There’s no problem!” I have to admit, I was surprised. I continued with my question: Had he ever been invited? He answered in a reproachful tone and continued: “I haven’t received an invitation, but I have many friends on the Greek Cypriot side, both among politicians and ordinary people. I have no problem with that! But it’s impossible to discuss the Cyprus issue! There is a lot of pressure on the Greek Cypriot side.”
“I’m not afraid of anything”
As is well known, both during the Annan Plan period and now, when developments in the negotiation process are discussed, UBP officials often make statements along the lines of, “It will lead to the disappearance of the Turkish people.” The counterargument to this is that such fear is unfounded when there is a powerful country like Turkey. I put this to the Minister and asked what he thought about it. Furrowing his brows, Mr. Özgürgün said, “I’m not afraid of anything!” and continued: “By ‘disappearance,’ we mean the Turkish identity. I’m not saying it would make me cease to exist as a person. This is about assimilation! That’s what will happen if there isn’t a sound solution. This will create problems. I mean exclusion from governance here. If you live here but have no say, you can’t speak of an existence or an identity.”
“Cypriot identity cannot be an overarching identity” When the Minister said “assimilation,” the issue of “Cypriot identity” inevitably came up. Mr. Özgürgün described the attempt to assimilate Turkish people as Cypriot identity, and he had a lot to say on the subject. His first remark was, “Cypriot identity cannot really be an overarching identity, can it?” Naturally, I asked why: “Because there is no Cypriot people, Cypriot language, or Cypriot nationality! Someone who says they are Cypriot can’t talk about a national anthem, a flag, a language, a religion, or traditions! There’s no such thing!”
That was what the Minister said, but some people would say it is entirely possible. I explained this to the Minister as follows: “The United States is given as an example here. An American can say, ‘I’m American, but I’m of German descent.’ Could there be something like that with Cypriot identity?” Mr. Özgürgün interrupted and explained the issue at length: “The United States is a different example. It is a structure established centuries ago, with a constitution adopted in 1787. Trying to compare it with Cyprus would be like comparing apples and pears. Besides, as you say, people still say, ‘I’m American, but I came from Germany.’ Yes, a shared religion, flag, anthem, and language have come into being, but even that has not prevented people from feeling the need to state their origins. And nearly 250 years have passed. So here, too, a shared language, flag, anthem, customs, and traditions—and a unity of origins—would have to emerge before one could speak of a Cypriot people. When none of these things exist, trying to talk about Cypriot identity serves Greek Cypriot policy, in my view.”
“UBP says, ‘This is confederation!’”
As our conversation with the Minister focused on “Cypriot identity,” I asked him a very direct question. What does UBP want? Federation? Confederation? The Minister replied: “Once we have the parameters we’re talking about, the name doesn’t matter. A new state, a new partnership will be established.” But at this point I felt I had to remind him—as you can probably guess—of UBP’s decision in favor of confederation. I asked why UBP did not withdraw that decision. Mr. Özgürgün answered clearly: “Federation or confederation should not be our fundamental argument. We have fundamental parameters. Looking at these fundamental parameters, confederation actually seems to be the most realistic solution. Because what we are saying is that the two founding states should have equal status in a confederation. Let’s make that happen, and then we can debate whether it is a confederation or a federation. In a situation where the equal status of the two founding states is adopted as state policy, it can be called either confederation or federation. One person can say this is a federation, another can say it’s a confederation; UBP says this is confederation.”
“There is a serious disagreement with the President.”
We were nearing the end of our interview, and it was inevitable that I would bring up an issue everyone was undoubtedly curious about. The question was this: Why had UBP still not appointed anyone to the negotiating team, even though the President had agreed to it? Why was UBP silent while the opposition kept raising the matter? Mr. Özgürgün answered, somewhat surprised: “Where are they getting the idea that the President agreed to this? According to what the Prime Minister told me, yes, the President said we could discuss it, but he didn’t accept any of the names that were proposed.” Now it was my turn to be surprised. I had been so sure that the President had agreed that I hadn’t expected this answer. But the issue of names was important, so I pressed him on it. When I asked, “Did the Government propose names?” Mr. Özgürgün clarified the matter: “Not names as such, but the discussions about what kind of person it should be led to the conclusion that it wouldn’t be someone the Prime Minister had in mind. In other words, they’re saying, ‘Give us someone with no influence or authority, let them come and sit there and stay there, and they can’t even take part in a one-on-one meeting with me.’ So there are already people from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs there. What was wanted here was someone who could also take part in meetings with the President and, moreover, could have a political identity—that is, someone elected. It could have been a member of parliament, perhaps a permanent secretary. We can say that the President was not very receptive to this. They criticize us by saying he agreed, but the Prime Minister says that no such agreement was reached. UBP is still at that point: there is a serious disagreement with the President about having someone representing the Government on the negotiating team. The Presidency has not agreed to this! Statements claiming that it did are based on a lack of information.”
We had come to the end of an interview that I personally enjoyed very much and found informative. Mr. Özgürgün and his assistants, as always, courteously saw me and my team out. I would like to thank them again.
I hope to see you on Tuesday…
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be respectful on the road…