Statements by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou after the National Council session and replies to reporters
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 18th July 2017, Nicosia
AK: Let me first say that today we have been able to listen to Greek Foreign Minster Mr. Kotzias’ experiences of the negotiations in Crans Montana and we want to thank him for that. Of course, we mainly want to thank Greece, the Greek Government, Greek Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, the political parties, the Greek people as a whole, for their support towards the liberation and reunification of our homeland.
We had the opportunity yesterday to put across our point of view and also with regards what happened in Crans Montana, but primarily on how we are going to proceed further; about how we should address the given situation as it is has evolved, and how we should deal with the issues.
It is a fact that the negotiations in Crans Montana, have not only not brought the Cypriot problem closer to its solution, but have distanced it. And that is something that worries and concerns us.
We therefore believe that the first task is to keep the hope for a solution of the Cyprus problem alive, and to do that, we must work together with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. If we fail to understand their own concerns, I believe that we will cause enormous damage to Cyprus this time.
As far as further moves are concerned, I want to make it clear that for us the framework for the solution of the Cyprus problem remains the framework as set out by the UN and which has been reaffirmed by all successive Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus. That is, the framework of the Bi-communal, Bi-zonal Federation with political equality as it is contained in the relevant United Nations resolutions; a framework that will lead to a united state with a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality. We must insist on this framework.
Regarding tactics, we are ready to discuss ideas, views and thoughts that can strengthen our efforts and yield better results. At the same time we believe that we have to deal with the situation as it stands in a united and collective manner, above all, with regards the Turkish threats issued that they will proceed to a plan B or C.
We also have to see how we will tackle Turkish provocativeness in relation to the drilling issues. AKEL’s view is that there isn’t a possibility of any incident occurring, that is to say some crisis breaking out in our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). What the Turkish side will attempt on the basis of the situation as it exists at the moment is probably to proceed with its own drilling in the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus.
Of course, it is extremely important that we ensure that if and provided that a deadlock has been declared and a report is prepared by the UN Secretariat, it should record events/developments as they are in their proper dimensions. That is, we have the right/justice on our side, and that it is Turkey which is in the wrong, and that the the desire to continue the negotiations so that a solution can be found must be noted.
It’s one thing how we ourselves perceive developments in Crans Montana to be and how the international community interprets them is something else. We should take care of this fact and collectively – all of us – act in a way that does not permit any negative references to be recorded against us.
Who will apportion responsibilities? Because here in Cyprus we hear that the President of the Republic also bears responsibilities.
AK: We have no hesitation in saying that the Turkish side bears the main responsibility because of the positions it expressed at the last minute.
We strongly believe, however, that wrong handlings were made.
First and foremost, we should have diagnosed better and correctly how the situation in Crans Montana would have evolved.
Several stages preceded. We knew Crans Montana was the culmination of the procedure. Therefore, we would either have achieved a solution to the Cyprus issue, or we would have been led to a deadlock with all that this would entail.
We should have gone to Crans Montana sufficiently prepared and taken such initiatives that would have forced the Turkish side to discuss on the basis of our own proposals and initiatives. Instead, we wasted a whole week waiting for each other to make the first move, and as has been admitted today as well, there was little time to negotiate, although we had stayed there for 10 days.
The result was that we went the final night, and while positions had been expressed to the UN Secretary-General which, in my opinion, should have satisfied us with regards Security issues, zero rights of intervention and zero guarantees from the moment we would have reached an agreement, and a discussion on the question of when the small contingent of the army would withdraw.
We didn’t manage to achieve this, although it was set by the UN Secretary-General, not of our own responsibility, of course. The side that retreated at the last minute was the Turkish side. This must be made clear. However, we believe that we have not been able to exploit this initiative undertaken by the UN Secretary-General. Mr. Guterres had set out the framework as of Friday. We did not exploit it. We went to dinner the following Thursday and we did not manage to achieve that framework which for us was very good.
Did you propose timeframes to the President of the Republic?
AK: I have never proposed a timeframe to the President of the Republic. What AKEL insisted from the outset – and we culminated the expression of our position – was that the President of the Republic with the concrete proposals he would have submitted should have had the initiative of moves.
On Friday evening, the UN Secretary-General put forth a framework which our side in its first reaction had stated was very satisfactory. We did not make use of this framework, I insist. If we were to do so with the correct handlings, then Turkey would either have been forced to consent to all that Mr. Guterres said or it would have been held responsible for the stand it adopted. We weren’t able to reach an agreement.
I don’t see any responsibility being apportioned on Turkey so far. I hope and wish the assessment which the Greek Cypriot side states that the Turkish side bears the sole responsibility is reflected in the texts of the United Nations. They are the ones that matter.
What’s your comment on what is being heard about Mr. Kotzias’ influence over the President of the Republic?
AK: I think the President of the Republic forms his political positions on his own.