Ustel has expressed surprise and regret at the European Parliament’s latest report on Turkey, particularly regarding its implications for Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot ‘prime minister’ highlighted that the report called on Turkey to provide the Turkish Cypriot community with the necessary space to define its own political future.
“This statement contains a clear implication that Turkey is interfering with the will of the Turkish Cypriot people. This approach neither aligns with historical facts, nor is it acceptable,” Ustel stated. He emphasised that the Turkish Cypriot community possesses its own state, democratic institutions, and free will, asserting that their choices are made without external pressure.
Ustel further clarified that the support from Turkey should not be viewed as an intervention but rather as a natural extension of their historical and cultural ties, alongside Turkey’s responsibilities as a guarantor power. He underscored that the report’s references to resolving the Cyprus issue were made without acknowledging the Turkish Cypriot perspective, which he believes is based on the principle of sovereign equality and equal international status.
Despite Ustel’s firm stance, there is a divergence between his views and those of the Turkish Cypriot community’s elected leader, Tufan Erhurman, who advocates for a federal solution to the Cyprus problem. Ustel noted that the report’s positive mentions of Erhurman’s election indicate a disconnect from respecting the will of the people.
He critiqued the report’s portrayal of violations in the buffer zone, which he argued unfairly places blame solely on Turkey. “This portrayal of alleged events in the buffer zone through a one-sided narrative casts a shadow on the principle of reality,” he remarked. Ustel pointed out that the responsibilities concerning the mutual understanding of bicommunal projects in the buffer zone village of Pyla are not unilateral.
Addressing the call for Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus, Ustel rejected the notion of ‘occupation’ as it neglects the security needs of the Turkish Cypriot community, which have been paramount since the intercommunal strife that began in 1963. He stated, “The security of the Turkish Cypriot people is not a matter of debate for us.”
Ustel also referenced past instances where he felt the European Union acted in a biased manner regarding Cyprus. He recalled how the Turkish Cypriots demonstrated their willingness for a solution during the Annan Plan process, while the Greek Cypriot side’s rejection effectively dashed hopes for a resolution. He pointed out that the EU’s acceptance of the Greek Cypriot administration as the legitimate government of the island in 2004 fundamentally disrupted the balance needed for a solution.
By allowing the Greek Cypriot-led Republic of Cyprus to join the EU without Turkish Cypriot representation, Ustel argued that it diminished the urgency for a solution that the Greek Cypriot side might have otherwise pursued. This move, according to him, has fostered a maximalist approach in negotiations and significantly weakened the prospects for a comprehensive resolution in Cyprus.
