Government spokesman statements a shameless distortion of reality

Statement by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou

AKEL C.C. Press Office, 3 May 2018, Nicosia

Yesterday the Government Spokesman Mr. Prodromou said that AKEL blindly supports the Turkish Cypriot leader’s positions. He is lying and he knows it.

Mr. Prodromou asks us which Guterres Framework AKEL accepts, that of 30th June or that of 4th July. The Framework was presented verbally on 30th June and, as the President of the Republic informed us, it was clarified by the UN Secretary-General himself on 4th July. Consequently, there is a Framework. This is what the President of the Republic himself notes in his statement, and in which the termination of the Treaty of Guarantee and intervention rights and the withdrawal of the occupation troops are included. If the talks will resume, this is the Framework we will find before us.

Is Mr. Anastasiades ready or not to proceed to a resumption of the negotiations on this basis? Or will he continue to call for commitments and set terms and preconditions that are blocking the procedure?

Mr. Prodromou, argues that AKEL’s stand does not help the goal of resuming substantive negotiations.

Was maybe AKEL the one that broke off the negotiation on the territorial issue at Mont Peleran, even when there emerged a range of agreement on the percentage of the territories?

Was it perhaps AKEL that allowed the proposal tabled by ELAM on the Enosis referendum to be approved by the House of Representatives?

Was maybe AKEL the one that referred the corrective Bill on the Enosis referendum to the Supreme Court?

Was it perhaps AKEL that adopted the policy of “protaxis” (Note: the policy of setting “preconditions” that predetermine the results of negotiations) calling for a solution to the issue of Security and Guarantees, and then of the territorial issue, as a precondition for the resumption of the procedure?

Was it maybe AKEL that at Crans Montana failed to make use of the clear position of the UN Secretary-General, the EU, even of Britain, for the termination of the Treaty of Guarantee and intervention rights, as well as for the speedy withdrawal of the occupation troops, resulting in Turkey being relieved of its responsibilities?

Mr. Prodromou argues that Mr. Akinci had clarified that his reference to the Guterres Framework does not concern either the guarantees or the occupation troops and asks us if we agree with that. He should read the contentious reference more carefully. What Mr. Akinci actually said was that the Guterres Framework “was not just about security and guarantees as mentioned by the Greek Cypriot side.” It is well known that the Framework also includes four main issues concerning the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem.

What sense is there in Mr. Anastasiades calling on Mr. Akinci to clarify his positions on the issues of Security and Guarantees when the Framework itself of the UN Secretary-General clears up these issues? To put it simply, Mr. Anastasiades must go to the talks and if Mr. Akinci does indeed say one thing but means something else then he should expose him precisely there, at the negotiating table.

The game of hide-and-seek must stop. If Mr. Anastasiades is indeed seeking the resumption of the negotiation procedure, he must state quite clearly and unequivocally that he is prepared to do so in the way the UN Secretary-General himself proposes. Anything else said and done is evasive and its only effect will be that the responsibilities for the continuing deadlock will be assigned exclusively on the Greek Cypriot side, with all the devastating consequences.

AKEL will continue, with consistency and seriousness, to work against partition that is knocking harder on our door.