Statements by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou after the National Council and replies to journalist’s questions
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 22nd May 2017, Nicosia
We have been briefed by the President of the Republic and explained comprehensively our reflections and positions on how developments are evolving.
I will not hide our concern about the risk and responsibility assumed by the President of the Republic and his colleagues with the proposal they have submitted.
It is our view that Turkey should be tested on the difficult issues and the issue on which it will be tested and demonstrated whether it genuinely wants a solution to the Cyprus problem is with regards the issue of security. However, to explore whether Turkey wants a solution or not, we should focus on the substance.
It will be tragic if the procedure collapses because of procedural issues, indeed with the danger of responsibilities being apportioned on us for possible developments.
We therefore insist that every effort must be made for a solution to the Cyprus problem. If by any chance the procedure collapses, I think it is political naive to believe that we are going to go in March 2018 after the presidential elections and the discussions on the Cyprus problem will continue from where they left off.
So the appeal that we are addressing to the President of the Republic is with an open mind he should discuss whether the whole issue will be discussed in the next few days with the United Nations and not let the procedure stand in the way of a solution to the Cyprus problem.
Is what the President is proposing touching on the substance, that is to say, must security and guarantees be discussed?
It is a simple procedure in our opinion. Security and guarantees will be discussed and that’s precisely where what Turkey really wants will be actually determined.
Given that the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem will first be closed?
For forty years, the Greek Cypriot side’s position was that the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem should first be “closed”, or at least we should get within range of a convergence on the internal aspect, and only then enter into the discussion of the international aspect. It is a fact that certain political parties in recent years have suggested reversing this. Namely, that we should first solve the issue of security and then the rest. Mr. Anastasiades had explained with arguments why this approach was wrong. Today he is adopting it.
I will not say anything more because I understand that an attempt is in progress to reach, if possible, a consensus on how the procedure will move ahead, because I repeat and insist that what is being discussed now is not the substance, but procedural issues. I will therefore give an opportunity to see how things are going over the next couple of days, but I can only express our deep concern about all these developments.
I would like to repeat something that we have repeatedly been saying recently.
Whenever we thought we had room to toughen our stance and to demand things which we thought were right, and some of them might have been right, in the end it backfired on Cyprus and the Cypriot people. I hope this does not happen this time because the consequences will be incalculable both for Cyprus and the Cypriot people.
Yesterday, however, you attacked the President for putting the Presidential chair over Cyprus, while stating that you will give him an opportunity?
I still hold this view.
There is an effort underway by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Cyprus Mr. Eide to see if the procedure could be agreed, so I don’t want to expand on things at this stage.
Do you think it would be better for the President before submitting his proposal to consult either within the framework of a National Council session or in private with the parties and then submit this proposal? What is the difference between your own proposal – a proposal that you submitted to the President a few months ago – and what the President has just tabled?
The first thing I want to say is that the President of the Republic in many cases proceeded unilaterally without taking into account the views of the political parties. I will not list right now what those cases are. This is one such case, the 1st December or the other. It is the handling he made in our opinion at Mont Peleran 1 and 2, but let’s leave those issues for later.
Currently there is a specific issue in progress and I repeat I will wait until we see how the consultations will evolve, if indeed they do, I don’t know, and we can subsequently say a lot more.
Now, with regards the difference between our proposal with the President’s, there is a big difference.
We put forth our own proposal from Geneva. Since then we have repeated it several times. We are talking about an informal debate to be conducted on the issues of the internal aspect, so that we can bring them within range of a convergence. This will be an informal discussion. If we manage to arrive at a conclusion then very well; if not, then this informal discussion will be considered as null and void. We will then proceed to discuss security issues.
And since I am constantly asked whether we will go to discuss security without having a chip in hand, this view is expressed at the same time that we say there is no one in the international community that supports the Turkish positions because they are unacceptable, and indeed they are unacceptable.
Turkey will not persuade anyone if it insists on seeking guarantees and rights of intervention. No one is going to follow Turkey in these unreasonable demands. That is why I say that we should not be overly concerned about these issues, since the assessment of all of us is that Turkey isn’t persuading anyone because its demands are irrational.
Your own assessment is as I understand it that, if the internal aspect issues are agreed, such as the rotating presidency that Turkish Foreign Minister Cavousoglou is calling for, and effective participation, then Turkey will change its stand on the issue of guarantees?
I will not rush to make a prediction. What I am saying is that Turkey will then be obliged to take a position on security issues. And if it continues to insist on its unacceptable positions, then no one in the international community will understand its stance, and everyone will hold Turkey responsible for the deadlock that will be provoked on the Cyprus problem.
This is what we are saying, namely that it is on the substance of the Cyprus problem that Turkey will be judged whether it really wants a solution rather and not one procedural issues.
If, in the meantime, we accept what Turkey is asking for what will we do afterwards? Will we take them back?
Why accept them? I really wonder, why do you take it for granted that we must accept Turkey’s unreasonable demands for a dialogue to proceed? We have arguments.
Do you think the rotating presidency proposal is absurd, because that’s what I’m talking about.
Then we are talking on another basis. I do not think that a rotating presidency with a cross-weighted vote is an absurd proposal. I believe that this is the only way out of the issues regarding executive power and it will be apparent in the course of developments what the real possibilities for the various issues are.
You said “if there are consultations”. Hasn’t the President briefed you about whether there are consultations going on?
As I understand it, he is expecting something, I don’t know what he is expecting. Specific things haven’t been said and he has asked us not to expand further. I will respect what he has said. I will not say more in anticipation of the final outcome of this proposal that he has submitted.
