Statements by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, Andros Kyprianou on developments on the Cyprus problem

AKEL C.C. Press Office, 14^th January 2017, Nicosia

1. When we received the invitation from the President of the Republic to accompany him to Geneva, we knew that this was a difficult, critical and decisive meeting on the Cyprus problem. We knew that the gap that existed in the positions of the two sides would cause additional difficulties. We decided to go to Geneva with the aim of operating positively and constructively so as to contribute to the difficult effort of Mr. Anastasiades. This is what our patriotic duty demands. We acted with a sense of responsibility towards our homeland and people within this precise context from the first up to the final day.
2. As expected the negotiations were difficult, arduous and strenuous. Our own role was through expressing our thoughts and proposals to assist the President in the formulation of the Greek Cypriot side’s positions. We did so insisting on positions of principle, on positions that could contribute towards overcoming problems, both with regards the substance and the procedure of the negotiations. At the same time we tried, through our contacts with Turkish Cypriot political parties, to contribute so that there would be an understanding of our positions on the part of the Turkish Cypriot community’s leadership.
3. Despite the difficulties, with the negotiation it became possible for the procedure to advance. More specifically:
4. Maps on the territorial issue were submitted by both communities. It is a fact that the initial proposal tabled by the Turkish Cypriot side is not satisfactory, although it provides for the return of large percentage of territories under Greek Cypriot administration. With the submission of maps the prospect of hard negotiations is opened up to achieve the goals we set out.
5. The substantive discussion on the Security issues, which include the issue of guarantees and demilitarization, is beginning. It is very well known that the starting positions of the sides are diametrically opposed on this issue. The fact that Turkey agrees to discuss the matter and with the declared position of many EU Member States and the UN Security Council that the current guarantee system is an anachronism, raises cautious optimism for a positive outcome. This can be achieved through hard work and by utilizing every support that is provided towards this end.

III. Progress was achieved also on the chapter of Governance, even though it concerns secondary issues.

4. The fact that the various forecasts spreading concern among the people were dashed is important. The rhetoric that the Geneva procedure will result in the derecognition of the Republic of Cyprus and the upgrading of the Turkish Cypriot community collapsed like a house of cards. The UN Secretary General, Mr. Gutierrez repeatedly made reference to the Republic of Cyprus and the two communities. No matter how many times this scaremongering is repeated in the future, the more will it become believable by increasingly fewer people.
5. The decision to continue the dialogue on issues of security, based on the specific procedure, is a positive development. At the same time it demands good preparation by us and harmonious cooperation with the Greek Government. In addition, it demands continuing the briefing and enlightenment of the international community about the content of our proposal.
6. For the dialogue to have chances of success it is essential that significant “players” in this effort should avoid inflammatory statements.
7. The path towards achieving an agreement that will lead to the reunification of our country will be full of difficulties and obstacles. To maximize our possibility of moving forward on this path until the end successfully, it is imperative that we operate with adherence to the principles of the solution, with flexibility with regards the procedure, collectivity, responsibility and with unity on the domestic front. AKEL guided by these principles will work with patriotism and far from petty-party considerations and prejudices, contributing to the efforts underway.
8. AKEL calls on the Cypriot people to support the effort to reach a solution, to rally around the long-standing positions of the National Council, rejecting demagogic, unfounded and damaging rhetoric, to understand that a non-solution does not mean the preservation of the Republic of Cyprus. On the contrary, the perpetuation of not reaching a just, functional and viable solution, will act as a quicksand, posing enormous dangers for the prospects and future of Cyprus and the Cypriot people.
9. AKEL will continue with responsibility, seriousness and patriotism to support the negotiation procedure and the effort to achieve a solution. This is what AKEL will seek, in cooperation with all those within the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities who share the same vision for our common homeland, a free and reunited homeland, in which Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will march together on their common path in conditions of lasting security, peace and cooperation.

Replies of the General Secretary of AKEL Andros Kyprianou to journalist’s questions on the Cyprus problem – Geneva talks

AKEL C.C. Press Office, 14^th January 2017, Nicosia

What is your comment on Erdogan’s statements?

AK: First of all let me say that it is very important that statements should be transmitted in their original wording. I saw the first press reports that were conveying a completely different content than the one Erdogan’s statements had.

We aren’t satisfied with Mr. Erdogan’s statements. But I must say that compared to other statements he has made, they are much more advanced in the sense that for the first time, he leaves open the possibility of the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus, which I consider is extremely important. The other issues he referred to, and I refer mainly to the issues of governance are issues that are on the negotiating table. I therefore consider that everything will be judged at the negotiating table. This is why we as AKEL strongly believe that at this critical juncture the statements made should be limited to the greatest possible extent, both by us, as well as by the Turkish Cypriots and Turkey and by others as well who are playing an important role in the discussions.

Based on what you have learnt in Geneva, is there a real possibility of this procedure succeeding?

AK: If we did not believe there is a possibility of this procedure succeeding we wouldn’t have entered into it. My view is that, no matter how small the room is we need to explore the possibility. We need to be at ease with our conscience and responsibility towards the future generations of this country that we have made every effort to solve the Cyprus problem, if there are possibilities. I believe that there is such a scope. Of course a great deal of difficulties exist. We don’t underestimate them, and it is important that we take this difficult path. And we will know what the outcome will be at the end. No one can predetermine what the result will be.

What do you have to say about Erdogan’s references about Kokkina and Morphou (Note: Kokkina is an enclave and Morphou a town, both in the occupied areas)?

AK: I will not negotiate publicly with Mr. Erdogan. I have stated that some of his references do not satisfy us at all. We consider them unrealistic. But I repeat and insist that what is said in public is one thing and where the issues will be judged something else. They will be judged at the negotiating table. As far as the territorial issue is concerned two maps have been submitted. One by the Greek Cypriot community and one by the Turkish Cypriot community. This is the basis. The Turkish Cypriot proposal according to the general information that we have doesn’t satisfy us. We will need to make efforts to bring things to a point that will be satisfactory for us and for the Turkish Cypriot community as well.

Is the map submitted by the Turkish Cypriot community consistent with Mr. Erdogan’s statements?

AK: I won’t follow this logic. I reiterate that these issues must be discussed at the negotiating table and not in public.