Press Conference Secretary of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Andros Kyprianou on the positions expressed by opposing Presidential candidates in favour of the accession of Cyprus to “Partnership for Peace” and NATO

Presidential candidates Mr. Anastasiades (Note: the leader of the right-wing Democratic Rally party DHSY, member of the EPP) and Mr. Lillikas (Note: Presidential candidate supported mainly by the social democratic EDEK party, member of the Socialist Group) have taken a clear position in favour of Cyprus becoming a member of the “Partnership for Peace”. Mr. Anastasiades elaborated on his position by arguing that we should also discuss in a “non-dogmatic” way Cyprus’ accession to NATO.

 

Mr. Anastasiades has said the truth for the first time on the issue, connecting Cyprus’ accession to the so-called Partnership for Peace with the accession to NATO. We all remember that Mr. Anastasiades and DISY, along with all the other political parties, were spreading in a suffocating way among the Cypriot people the false argument that the “Partnership for Peace” (PfP) is supposedly a “pillar of European security.” We all remember that when AKEL pointed out to them in the debate in the House of Representatives that this was in fact a NATO program, we were accused.

 

They deliberately chose to falsify the texts which document that the establishment of the “Partnership” was an initiative undertaken by the U.S. government and that the PfP was and remains an “entryway” for accession to NATO. They sought by using false data to deceive the people of Cyprus, to convince it that our participation in a NATO program was a consequence of our participation in the European Union.

 

Today this lie has been completely exposed. However, both Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Lillikas insist that Cyprus must join the “entryway” of NATO.

 

We therefore call on them to state their position on a series of questions concerning the accession of Cyprus to the “Partnership for Peace” but also to NATO, a position supported by Mr. Anastasiades. We hope that this time they will manage to reply to our questions, given that whenever AKEL has set various questions on this issue, they have never responded on the substance, but were content to accuse us of ideological obsession and dogmatism.

 

– How do they think that Cyprus’ possible application for membership to the Partnership or/and NATO and the certain veto Turkey will exercise for Cyprus´ accession will expose Turkey internationally? Turkey has been vetoing the accession of Cyprus to other international organizations as well for years without this causing it any problems whatsoever.

 

– Do they endorse the obligations and commitments undertaken by each state with its participation in the “Partnership for Peace”, as set out in the “PfP Framework Document”? Do they subsequently accept the joint participation in NATO operations? Many member-states of the “Partnership” have already been involved in military operations of dubious legality. Why do they want to drag Cyprus into such operations?

 

– Why do they claim that in any way the accession of Cyprus to the “Partnership” will provide it with security? A document of the Bureau of Public Affairs of the United States Department of State also notes that the PfP “enables PFP members to consult with NATO when faced with a direct threat to its security but does not extend NATO security guarantees.”

 

– Doesn’t it concern Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Lillikas that they will provide NATO – therefore to Turkey – with information on the defence budgets and plans of the Republic of Cyprus?

 

– Are they so willing to endorse the Agreement signed by the Member States of the “Partnership” relating to the Status of the Armed Forces which is subordinated exclusively under the control of the US government? This provides for the deployment of foreign troops on the territory of a sovereign state, if this is deemed to be in the interest of NATO. It also foresees that the troops would not be subject to passport control, nor will they need a visa.

 

– Doesn’t it bother them that officers and soldiers of the National Guard of the Republic of Cyprus would be sent to the PfP Training Centre in Ankara, which is run and commanded by a Colonel of the Turkish Army? This particular Colonel served “in the 28th Mobile Infantry Division in the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” as the Head of Information and Political Affairs “.

 

– Have they ever studied what Cyprus´ participation in NATO and the “Partnership for Peace” would mean to Cyprus also from an economic point of view?

 

– Why is Mr. Anastasiades shedding hypocritical tears about the cuts in social benefits at the same time when if elected he is willing “non-dogmatically” to give millions of Euros taken from the Cypriot people so as its contribution to the expenditures of NATO? Wasn’t he informed about the fact that although its people have been driven into poverty, Greece continues to spend 22 to 28 million Euros towards NATO´s Budget?

 

– Does Mr. Anastasiades agree with the new strategy of NATO, which obliges its members to confront and manage crises also “beyond the borders of NATO”? In other words, does he agree fully with overt blood-stained NATO operations in every corner of the world?

 

– On what precise basis does Mr. Anastasiades uphold his position that there is scope in NATO for the forging alliances that will give an impetus to the solution of the Cyprus problem? We recall the statement made by the Secretary-General of NATO in his reply to a question put to him regarding the Cyprus problem, where he didn’t express any position whatsoever on the matter. On the contrary in that very same reference he defended Turkey’s request for a special relationship with the European Defence Agency.

 

– We recall the statement made by the Secretary-General of NATO on 4th December 2012 in which he expressed NATO´s support of and strong solidarity with Turkey. Furthermore, we recall that he also expressed his determination to defend in his own words Turkey and the Turkish people, even sending a message to those who want to attack Turkey “not to even think about.” Let’s see what is happening in Greece, which is a member of NATO. In view of the continuous violations of its airspace and borders by Turkey, the questioning of Greek sovereignty in the Aegean, the questioning of the Greek character of islands in the Aegean Sea, NATO does not defend either the law, or the interests or the security of Greece too.

 

– Finally, the advocates of Cyprus’ accession to the PfP and NATO must answer another question that arises: Is there perhaps anyone who wants Cypriot soldiers as well to participate in the next war to be waged by America and NATO, as a contribution of Cyprus to the “Partnership for Peace” and NATO?

 

NATO and its branches are not a charity organisation, nor a peace loving association. They are seeking to impose their political and military “guardianship”, especially with regards their relations with small states. NATO does not take into account International Law when promoting its imperialist designs. This was demonstrated in the case of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Libya. NATO´s interventions completely lacking any legitimacy are baptized as “peacekeeping” or “humanitarian interventions” and flagrantly violate the Charter of the United Nations. These interventions resulted in the attacks against civilian targets, the destruction of the sovereignty of independent states, the occupation and division of States in violation of international norms.

 

Wasn’t the crime committed against Cyprus in 1974 also the work of NATO itself?