Referring to the UN’s attempt to gauge interest in a tripartite meeting, Erhürman criticised Christodoulides for publicly discussing it prematurely, potentially derailing the process. He questioned Christodoulides’ motives, suggesting it might be a tactic to distract from domestic issues or a reckless sharing of supposedly favourable confidential information.
Erhürman emphasised that Tatar’s approach, which avoids diplomacy and dialogue, distances Turkish Cypriots further from the world. This, despite Turkish Cypriots’ demonstrated desire for a solution, undeservedly positions Christodoulides as the pro solution party. Erhürman also pointed out that the Greek Cypriot leader’s sincerity and reliability are questionable, similar to former leader Tassos Papadopoulos.
Erhürman noted the scepticism shared by international communities, and recent events with the UN Secretary-General’s invite confirmed these doubts. Christodoulides, being an experienced diplomat, likely knew the risks of making such information public prematurely, leading to suspicions about his true intentions.
Furthermore, while Christodoulides claims to seek a solution, his actions, like interfering in mixed marriages, property issues, and higher education matters, undermine trust and harm relations between the communities. He has also been criticised in UN reports for blocking Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) due to fears it might imply recognition of North Cyprus.
Amidst various issues, such as sports and direct flights, Erhürman argues for active diplomacy to highlight the Turkish Cypriots’ commitment to a solution and their equal rights in Cyprus. Instead of rejecting dialogue, he urges consistent efforts to engage diplomatically to protect their interests, assert their equal status, and connect with the world.