In a joint written statement, Güven Bengihan, the President of KTMS, The Cyprus Turkish Public Servants Union, and Burak Maviş, Secretary-General of KTÖS, The Cyprus Turkish Teachers' Union, have openly criticized President Ersin Tatar's refusal to discuss and negotiate Holguin's proposals.

They called for President Tatar's resignation, urging unions, political parties, chambers, and associations committed to the solution and peace to oppose Tatar's approach.

The stance on the Cyprus issue held by President Ersin Tatar, which staunchly advocates for the recognition of the TRNC before entering any negotiations, has ignited significant debate. This debate not only mirrors the current political tensions but also reflects the deep-seated historical grievances that the Turkish Cypriot community has long endured.

Understanding the historical context is essential to grasp the nuances of the current political discourse. For decades, Turkish Cypriots have been subjected to international embargoes and a lack of recognition, hampering their economic development and international relations. Despite the declaration of independence in 1983, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus remains unrecognized by the global community, except by Türkiye. This lack of recognition leads to severe economic and diplomatic constraints, including restrictions on direct flights and extensive trade embargoes.

The recent demands by trade unions and some political figures for President Tatar’s resignation underscore the challenges in the current political climate. These demands, accompanied by accusations that President Tatar’s policies are obstructive to peace, neglect the necessity of his conditions for sovereign equality as a basis for fair and effective negotiations. These critics do not represent the entire sentiment of the Turkish Cypriot community, many of whom support the President’s stance as a critical step toward achieving legitimate statehood and international respect.

Furthermore, the opposition of the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) and its leader, Tufan Erhürman, to a two-state solution complicates the narrative. By aligning themselves against this policy, they advocate returning to discussions of a federative solution, which historically has failed to ensure equal rights and representation for Turkish Cypriots. Such positions may seem to aim at maintaining a status quo that disadvantages the Turkish Cypriot community, disregarding the asymmetrical power dynamics that have characterized previous negotiations.

In contesting the calls for federalism, it is vital to highlight that past attempts at establishing a federative union have not been successful in resolving the island's long-standing issues for decades. These failed attempts have often left Turkish Cypriots marginalized, highlighting the necessity for a new approach that truly addresses the inequities and historical grievances faced by the community.

President Tatar’s insistence on the recognition of sovereign equality is not merely a political stance but a legitimate and clear demand grounded in decades of unequal treatment and broken promises. In conclusion, the path forward for Cyprus must involve a realistic appraisal of the historical injustices faced by Turkish Cypriots.

The insistence on a two-state solution emerges not from a desire to perpetuate division but from an urgent need for equitable and sustainable peace based on mutual recognition and respect. Critics should consider these factors and engage with the Turkish Cypriot leadership’s demands not as obstacles but as essential prerequisites for meaningful and lasting reconciliation. The pursuit of sovereign equality by the Turkish Cypriot community must be recognized as a foundational step towards ending decades of political deadlock and fostering a future where both communities can coexist with dignity and mutual respect.