Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, Head of the Cyprus Problem Bureau of AKEL

IN THE DECEMBER ISSUE OF “YOUTH”, THE MAGAZINE OF EDON

 Toumazos Tsielepis, Head of the Specialised Office of the Central Committee of AKEL on the Cyprus problem, International Law expert, former member of the Negotiating Team for the Cyprus problem and Special Advisor on the Cyprus problem to former President Christofias gave the following interview to the monthly magazine “NEOLEA”-“YOUTH”, the voice of EDON, the youth organisation aligned to AKEL. The interview touched on various aspects of the Cyprus problem, the efforts to resume negotiations, the role played by the EU and the US, the question of Famagusta and other issues.

Let me start by posing the following question: In which direction do you think developments are heading with regards the efforts to issue a Joint Communiqué? I put this question because AKEL is expressing its concern about the handling of this issue by the President of the Republic. You yourself, as a member of the Negotiating Team for 5 years during the Christofias administration, are the most fitting person to reply to this question.

The need to issue a joint statement arose from the fact that the Christofias – Talat joint communiques have been discarded and have not been included in the latest UN Security Council resolution. The efforts have been continuing for more than two months now. So far there hasn’t been any result and you realize that this causes concern. If a message were to be conveyed to the international community and domestically that we cannot issue a joint communiqué on the very basis of the negotiations and the solution of the Cyprus problem, a basis which in fact is already agreed for many years, we will then find it difficult to convince that the Cyprus problem can be solved. We believe that there was absolutely no reason for the Christofias – Talat joint communiques to be discarded and abandoned. Of course, it is the President of the Republic’s right to do what he considers to be correct. If he manages to agree on a better or similar joint communique, we will not hesitate to support him and welcome it.

It is rumoured that the issuing of a Joint Communiqué is being delayed due to the elections to be held in the Democratic Party (Note: DIKO, the governing coalition partner of the right-wing Democratic Rally DISY party). We also had the initiative of President Anastasiades to meet with the Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Eroglu on Monday. Where do you think developments are leading to in the coming weeks?

I am not in a position to know whether the difficulty in issuing a joint communiqué is delayed because of the upcoming elections in DIKO. What I do understand is that there are fundamental problems. More specifically, the main problem is the refusal so far of the Turkish Cypriot side to accept a single sovereignty, which was included in the resolutions of the UN Security Council and in the Christofias-Talat joint communiqués. Consequently, there is no excuse whatsoever for the Turkish Cypriot side not to accept this provision. I think this is the most important of these problems. Beyond that, the Turkish Cypriot side is also putting forth additional conditions for the issuing a joint communiqué. It wants to include in the communique provisions that are either unacceptable or are not related to the basis of the solution, but instead secondary issues, that will be discussed at the talks.

I believe that to arrive at a joint communique for the resumption of talks, the Turkish Cypriot side must unequivocally accept a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship. From there on, of course, the key is that no unacceptable provision should intrude in the joint communiqué.

Do you consider that there is an issue of an upgrading of the pseudo-state as a result of the possible contacts of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot negotiator with the Foreign Minister of Turkey and Greece respectively?

Regarding the appointment of a negotiator, the position of AKEL has nothing to do with the person appointed, but with the idea itself. AKEL disagreed with this idea because it is the President of the Republic of Cyprus himself, in his capacity as leader of the Greek Cypriot community, who should conduct the negotiations. For years the idea has been promoted that this leads to the recognition of the pseudo-state. This phobia has never been confirmed in practice. Nobody raised the issue of de-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus or the recognition of the pseudo-state. Besides, I repeat that it in his capacity as leader of the Greek Cypriot community that the President goes to the negotiations and not as President of the Republic. Furthermore, the elected President has the responsibility of making the decisions and his absence from the negotiating table somehow degrades the whole process. From whatever experience I have gained, I strongly` believe that if the leader is not in the negotiating room, he/she cannot really know about the climate and the spirit of the talks just by receiving messages and messengers, about what is going on there and what should be done.

The argument, of course, was that the negotiator is able to talk directly with Turkey which is the occupying power. This was the position of President Anastasiades. However, I must say that from the moment the question would be raised of negotiator of the Greek Cypriot community going in Ankara, we should have known that in line with the approach of the Turkish Cypriot side, but also based on previous experience, it inevitably would lead to a corresponding visit of the Turkish Cypriot negotiator to Athens. I say this to conclude that those who agreed with the idea of a negotiator somehow knew where this would lead to. AKEL disagreed from the outset. I do not think that the presence of the negotiator in Ankara would result in anything significant for our side, in the sense that that Ankara knows our positions very well. Besides, Ankara takes part in the talks also in a physical sense, but also due to the fact that the Turkish Cypriot side’s positions are always elaborated ​​in consultation with Turkey. Neither, however, will dramatic results be achieved as some circles and forces are claiming. None of this will happen. I do not have any particular expectations from these meetings. I do not believe they will affect the course of the talks, either in a positive or a negative direction.

Was such a matter raised during the Christofias Presidency?

Yes, a hint was also made during the Christofias administration to the Turkish Cypriot side when President Christofias was pressing for a meeting with Erdogan. The reply was that the Turkish Cypriot leader should likewise meet the Prime Minister of Greece. The Greek Cypriot side did not accept this and the issue was left at that.

The EU’s official response to the Anastasiades proposal for its active involvement in the Cyprus talks did not yield the expected results. Do you think this development is a personal failure of the President?

I judge this as expected. For me it is not a surprise that the EU wants to be more involved. This was always its long-standing position. Furthermore, I must say that the EU with its presence at the talks whatever it may have had, but also through its positions, always conveyed the following message: you find the solution and we will accept it. It never accepted that it should replace and substitute the United Nations.

The EU also invokes the argument that for it to engage in the process, this must be accepted by both sides, while one side does not accept this under any circumstances. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise. I do not know if the President had other expectations and I’m not at all sure if a more upgraded presence of the EU, which I do not think will occur in practice, will make a significant change to what is taking place currently surrounding the Cyprus problem.

The Cyprus problem is a matter of the political will of the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey to change position, that although they will have a Federal compromise, a bi-zonal federation, but a single state with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship. This is precisely where we face problems. It is not the process that is to blame, but this lack of political will. It is not because the EU is not involved. Besides, we know how and in what way the EU had got involved in the past. We know very well what happened in 2004.

It’s rumoured and reported in the press that the United States intends to appoint an envoy on the Cyprus problem. Do you observe an enhanced interest by the United States on developments on the Cyprus problem?

I do not know whether they will appoint an envoy or not. What I do know is that they are showing a more active interest. We saw this in the recent visit of a delegation of AKEL composed of the General Secretary of AKEL and myself. I gained the impression that this enhanced interest is explained by the discovery of hydrocarbons, but also other reasons related to the changes in the balance of forces in the region. For sure, AKEL stressed something very simple. A more active US interest is to be welcomed, provided and as long as it respects the principles of the solution of the Cyprus problem and the agreed framework.

Permit me to ask something about the proposal for the return of Famagusta.  Is there or will there possibly be any connection of the proposal with the recognition of the illegal airport of Tymbou? Is the Cyprus problem ultimately being turned solely into an issue concerning the return of Famagusta?

As regards the interconnection of the Cyprus problem with the illegal airport of Tymbou, I honestly do not know where the whole issue is at right now. The information is confusing. For sure, reference to it has been made. However, I note what the Government says, namely that it has not for the time being made such an interconnection.

We consider that this issue needs special attention for two reasons. The first reason is that the airport of Tymbou is a very difficult issue in terms of International Law. I do not want to say it’s impossible, but I say that it is extremely difficult to find a legal way to operate the airport that will be acceptable to both sides.

However, there is something more important, namely a political aspect to the issue. Currently there is a de facto situation in the occupied territories, illegal of course. There is the territory, there is the “people”, and there is “power.” They are all illegal of course, but they are there. All these aspects and elements – if they were legal – would have been characteristics of a legal state. If you add to this an unhindered relationship with the outside world – this is what will happen if the airport of Tymbou is opened – the following question arises: Would this be an incentive or operate as a deterrent for the Turkish Cypriot side to seek a solution? I say this because no one can exclude the possibility that the Turkish Cypriots will think in the following way: “We have our land, “people”, “power” (all illegal I stress again), if we also have relations with the outside world then the only thing we do not have is official recognition, let’s not have our flag flying at the United Nations or the European Union and in exchange not to return not even an inch of land apart from the fenced area of Famagusta. We won’t expel not even a single settler, nor return not even a single property.” Does someone exclude that the Turkish Cypriot side may think this way? This is precisely the political issue that arises.

 

I’m not saying that the opening of Tymbou airport is excluded before the solution. I do say, however, that in order for this to occur, we must be sure that we see light at the end of the tunnel. The solution to the Cyprus problem should be visible on the horizon. Otherwise, we face the danger the solution of the Cyprus problem being turned into a question of and focused solely on Famagusta. Of course we want the return of Varosha. We know that this will give a boost to the economy and send a message of rapprochement and the like. But we do not want this to be the solution of the Cyprus problem. The Cyprus problem does not end with Famagusta. This is precisely the whole problem with this proposal. Moreover, for this proposal to be able to be realised, it will be very time consuming. And I do not know if it is worth for one to focus on such a complex project, rather than dealing with the actual solution itself. Therefore, I do not think at this stage it is a good idea to link the return of Famagusta to the recognition of the illegal airport of Tymbou.

 

Besides, let’s not forget that the United Nations Security Council resolutions call for the unconditional return of Famagusta. At this point, we declare that if the port of Famagusta is opened they will be able to trade through the port, therefore they will have rewards. Chapters regarding Turkey’s EU negotiations will inevitably open, because Turkey in this case must open our ports and airports to us, therefore chapters will be unblocked. I think these are enough. It wasn’t necessary to add the airport as well.

To conclude comrade, what must be done from now on? Has the President the unconditional support of AKEL?

First of all, we must finally agree on a joint communiqué, not unconditional; a communique that will respect a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship. To resume the talks and not to start them from zero. A lot of ground has been covered. The talks must continue from where they had been, because today we are facing an economic crisis, which while its necessary to declare that it will not make us yield, we must not be inactive by passively waiting for things to happen for us. For the economic crisis not to make us yield, we must not permit to any well-wishers to impose on us a package “Cyprus problem – natural gas – economy” with a content that cannot be tolerated. This danger is real. You tackle and confront this danger not by removing and side-lining the convergences that were agreed, but by keeping them on the negotiating table, and these convergences achieved must be upheld and defended.

That said, of course, we recognize and respect the inalienable right of the President of the Republic of Cyprus to pursue the policy which he himself considers correct. He will be judged by the results. Our own advice was that he should continue from where the talks had reached so that we can arrive at a solution, which in its turn, besides all the other benefits, will boost the economy. It is not the Memorandum that will give the boost to the economy. If President Anastasiades proceeds in this direction, he will have the support of AKEL. Our support is not unconditional and unqualified. It will be given provided that he will follow a correct policy as we perceive it. Beyond that, I repeat, we will judge him by the result.