Interview with Georgos Loucaides, member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL

“Fileleftheros” daily newspaper, Sunday 14th February 2016

 

We are entering a pre-election period, while at the same time talks are also underway on the Cyprus problem. Can this combination create problems to the procedure because of the public debates that will take place?

GL: To the extent that pre-existing expediencies and considerations on the Cyprus problem will appear stronger in view of the elections, as well to the degree that negative phenomena already exist because of the elections, such a development will certainly create additional problems to the efforts to find a solution and lead to a deterioration of the political climate.

 

Discussions and criticism are part of democratic debate…

GL: If discussions take place within the context of a democratic dialogue based on mutual respect, if the criticism is creative and accompanied by concrete counterproposals, as long as we do not use slanderous attacks and other considerations do not prevail, then, yes, it is legitimate and necessary to develop this dialogue and criticism. Unfortunately what we conclude is that in reality public debate isn’t developing within this context, instead its moving in the opposite direction than the one described.

As AKEL we have repeatedly denounced the complete distortion of our positions and arguments, as well as the destructive approaches by certain circles and forces. We have pointed out on many occasions that it seems those political forces that either directly or indirectly disagree with the goal of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution are doing all they can to undermine and obstruct this perspective. They by no means want the ongoing negotiations to arrive at such a result.

Consequently, how creative or constructive a stand can one expect from those political forces who disagree with this goal we are seeking? I think that this is how the phenomena of rampant alarmism, the spreading of doomsday scenarios and maximalist demands, to which we are all daily witnesses, can be explained.

 

Is this the reason why AKEL called on these forces to come out and openly say when has their policy succeeded in exposing and cornering Turkey?

GL: Yes, precisely so in that context. It’s always easy for someone to appear with a demagogic patriotic rhetoric and promote maximalist demands which exploit and play to people’s feelings. Ultimately, however, what must be judged is what results this policy leads to. Events in Cyprus’ history demonstrate that whenever these approaches and policies have prevailed, we saw Turkish plans being facilitated and fait accompli being created to the detriment of our homeland.

The most characteristic example of such an approach is the stand taken by those who before the coup d’état and invasion were adopting a similar rhetoric. They weren’t satisfied and did not accept the unitary independent Cyprus state. They were not accepting the Republic of Cyprus. They believed that we had to proceed to Enosis, namely the union of Cyprus with Greece. What did Cyprus achieve when these forces attempted to fulfil their demagogic rhetoric and maximalist goals?

Instead of bringing the union with Greece, they brought Turkey to Cyprus and gave away – sold off – 37% of our country with all the subsequent consequences and the fait accomplis that we until today have been living through. Should I continue by giving corresponding examples in Cyprus’ history?

When was the Turkish side facilitated to proceed with the proclamation of the pseudo state (in the occupied areas)? This occurred when the Greek Cypriot side rejected the UN Cuellar “indicators” and internationally we were considered stigmatized, blamed for the non-achievement of progress and the impasse on the Cyprus problem. Was it when the “everything is on the table” policy was being pursued? Was it during and after the attempt to do away with the Ghali set of ideas and or when the Clerides government subsequently promoted the fiasco of the S300 missiles, the theory of an “active volcano” etc. Cyprus again found itself isolated internationally, which resulted in a cost for the Greek Cypriot side also with regards the cause of the solution. One could cite other examples as well. It is therefore crucial and important to follow an assertive policy that should defend principles.

We shouldn’t pursue a policy which devotes its time to adventurist posturing, maximalist rhetoric and nationalist-extremist approaches which at the end of the day not only do not help towards achieving anything, not only do not help achieve our liberation from the occupation and partition, but instead lead to defeats and to facilitating Turkish plans against Cyprus.

 

On the other hand however, AKEL is being accused of adopting logics with “offers” and “gifts” to the other side.

GL: We claim, and this is being proved by events themselves, that AKEL remains consistent to what has been agreed unanimously in the National Council (Note: an advisory body on the Cyprus problem to the given President of the Republic set up after the coup d’état and Turkish invasion, composed of all the parliamentary parties and former Presidents) and which provide both for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution and also on how the various aspects of the Cyprus problem should be solved. It is other forces who should look in the mirror to realize their inconsistency to what has been agreed and which are recorded as unanimous decisions of the National Council, the last being the September 2009 decision.

I said previously that all those who did not want the independent Republic of Cyprus, instead of Enosis eventually brought the partition and occupation. In the same way, all those circles and forces who today, in opposition to the National Council decisions, do not want bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, which has agreed to from 1977 onwards by all the Presidents of the Republic without exception, will have to give a reply: Do they or do they not understand that what they will bring is not a better solution of the Cyprus problem, but the finalization of partition? We hope that one day they will realize this.

 

However, some of them you are implying present themselves as the defenders of the continuation and existence of the Republic of Cyprus.

 GL: Good on them to appear as defenders…

 

This is contrary to what you support…

GL: We don’t accuse them about positions they never expressed. We note facts and events. It’s good they consider that the Republic of Cyprus must continue. This is our own position as well, but also the position of the National Council: that is to say, the safeguarding of the continuation of the Republic of Cyprus and its transformation from a unitary to a federal state. This is the position agreed at the National Council.

The question therefore is again addressed to those it concerns: Do they perhaps want a Republic of Cyprus to be homogeneously Greek, even though it will only be half? Have we perhaps compromised with the occupation and partition and we are satisfied with half a country?

We, to speak on behalf of our Party, will never compromise with the occupation or partition, or with the fait accompli. We will therefore continue to struggle for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution which is the only feasible-realistic goal in order to liberate ourselves from the occupation.

If certain circles and forces have -and evidently they do have – a different view they would do well to explain to us how we will achieve something better than a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. They must tell us first what do they specifically mean by a “much better solution”, but when they do so, they must, at the same time and above all, explain to us how they will achieve this. They must explain why they didn’t impose all these maximalist approaches on Turkey as expressed in their public rhetoric when they themselves were in power? They must also explain why when they were implementing the policy they are proposing we should pursue today, the Greek Cypriot side was constantly suffering setbacks and defeats?

 

Your criticism is directed mainly towards DIKO?

GL: It is directed towards those it concerns. I do not want to refer to any specific party. Our appeal, which I again repeat, is that whatever considerations should be put to one side and that all the political forces should cooperate – and we mean what we say – within the framework of mutual respect aiming to implement what has been decided unanimously by the National Council.

 

Currently, there’s talk branded about supposed cooperation with DISY Democratic Rally party on the Cyprus problem, with a political leader making references to a “DISY-AKEL” alliance so as he can show how far this cooperation has proceeded…

GL: It’s regretful that party leaders have resorted to such public references, when these characterizations were being said in auditoriums during student elections and which has never been part of the political dialogue. This is another example of the depreciation and downgrading of the political dialogue in our country.

I will reply with the words of the brother of the political leader to whom you are referring who referred to his close friend “Averof Papadopoulos of the Orphanides family.” There indeed were and there are alliances that have had devastating results in the economy, whose consequences we are still suffering from because of the robbery committed by the banks which certain forces and circles obscured and camouflaged by shifting the burden of the capitalist and banking crisis on to the people’s backs.

I will just say what we are constantly reiterating: AKEL has not changed even the slightest its policy and positions that it expresses on the Cyprus problem; policies and positions that we put forward and promoted even when we were in total isolation and with our backs against the wall. We did so when all the other political forces were attacking AKEL because we were supporting and insisting on our positions. The current President of the Republic was also among these forces attacking us, who also participated in the demonization process of the Christofias-Talat convergences.

All we are therefore doing is continuing to defend and support what we were saying back then and even before that; continuing to support what was unanimously decided by the National Council.

Should we – at the same time as we are being vindicated – have changed these policies and positions so that certain circles wouldn’t accuse us that these policies coincide on many aspects of the Cyprus problem with the policy the government is pursuing? Yes, we could have changed our policy. Why, to lead the opposition parties, as the largest party, looking towards and with an agenda for the next presidential elections.

How beneficial would such a move have been for our country and the goal of liberating it from the occupation? It would be disastrous. It would be criminal.

It is crystal clear that AKEL will continue to act as it has always acted, that is to say as a responsible patriotic force that puts the interests of our country and people above anything else, not any petty-party and petty-political expediencies and considerations. Our accusers must therefore stop playing games serving considerations in view of elections because all this talk about a supposed “DISYAKEL” collusion has to do with the upcoming electoral process.

Since all this talk about supposed collusion is constantly being propagated, I want to reverse the question: Will those accusing us at last stop becoming justifiers and supporters of the Memoranda anti-social policies being imposed by the DISY leadership and government on our people? As we will soon have the parliamentary elections, we will also ask if they can declare in public that they themselves will not seek to forge an alliance/cooperation with the DISY party for the Presidency of the Parliament, but also for the upcoming municipal and presidential elections. Can they publicly declare that they will not seek to forge such alliances/cooperation? We, on our part, can state that AKEL will not seek such alliances. Consequently, all those forces and circles who, in view of the upcoming parliamentary elections, are trying to play these games serving expediencies must again look in the mirror and give answers as to their own relationships with DISY party.

 

Should we interpret what you say as a message that AKEL will cease being for them the vehicle and means to get into power, that AKEL will follow its own course and whoever wants to can support it?

 GL: We have set out the framework upon which any cooperation and alliance will be forged. When we are referring to major alliances and cooperation, such as those concerning the presidential election, we have set out in our Programmatic Congress a very strict framework so as to avoid any opportunistic circumstantial cooperation/alliances that won’t be based on solid foundations. We’ll see what alliances may emerge in the future. However, for sure we are not going to change the basic principles regarding our policy, either on the economy or on the Cyprus problem. We will not set aside fundamental principles to go into alliances.

On the contrary, substantive details must be clarified in advance for us proceed to cooperation.

 

Why should citizens vote for and support AKEL in the upcoming parliamentary elections?

GL: They should vote and support AKEL to strengthen the political power that best defends their interests; to give more power to the political force that puts above all else the best interests of the country; that represents the hope and prospect of combating the fear and hatred. If it weren’t to remain strong then it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution of the Cyprus problem to be able to exist, but also that could be implemented if and when it is agreed.

They should vote and support AKEL for it to remain a leading political force that can resolutely resist the government’s anti-social Memoranda policies; to be able to effectively protect workers, the youth, pensioners and the vulnerable groups of the population, SME’s, public wealth and in general the many underprivileged people who are being targeted by the government and ruling forces and who are suffering just for large private interests to be served.

Our people, workers and citizens will turn their backs on the philosophy and recipe of submission and inertia which bases itself on aphorisms like “they are all the same” and “nothing can change”. They will choose with their struggles, but also with their vote, to change things, to make a difference. They will choose to make AKEL strong as their best ally so that they can recover what the capitalist and banking crisis and the DISY-Anastasiades government policies took away from them.