Statement by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou on his meeting with the President of the Republic
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 29 November 2018, Nicosia
As far as the meeting with the President of the Republic is concerned, it was held in a very frank atmosphere I have to say, and in a good climate in general. I briefed him about the discussion the delegation of AKEL had with Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Cavusoglou and you understand that we also discussed other issues that are being discussed all through this period.
I have made it clear to the President that I will reply to what he said over the last two days, because I consider his statements as extremely insulting towards AKEL, especially when they have been made by Mr. Anastasiades who knows what the truth is. Mr. Anastasiades called on us – speaking of course in general – to put our homeland over petty interests. I will reply to him that AKEL has proved in practice that that is precisely how it acts, that it is a patriotic party, which relegates petty-party interests to a secondary place and our country’s interests above all else.
Despite the fact that they themselves did not behave correctly towards Demetris Christofias when he was President of the Republic of Cyprus, and I am referring to the national issue, I am not referring to anything else. Despite the fact that back then they were accusing him and negating positions that he had submitted at the negotiating table and which they subsequently came to adopt with the convergences that had been achieved with Mr. Akinci.
Despite all this, when Mr. Anastasiades began negotiating with a view to reaching a solution on the basis of a Bi-communal Bilateral Federation, AKEL selflessly supported the whole procedure, even though it had suffered political costs, precisely because it places our homeland over and above any petty interests and expediencies.
I will repeat that Mr. Anastasiades himself should reflect on how he himself operated and how he is acting today. I will simply tell him that when we were supporting precisely the same positions as we are doing today, he was calling us patriots, and today he is trying to give us lessons on patriotism and ethos. We don’t need any such lessons. I want to make that clear. I repeat, we have proven our patriotism in practice. And I will also say that we have not moved on our positions. We continue to support the same positions today as we were doing so back then. You should ask Mr. Anastasiades who is the one who has moved on his positions for him to say what he is telling us today.
The second thing I would like to mention is Mr. Anastasiades’ reference yesterday, as well as the references from time to time by the Presidential Palace and DISY officials, that AKEL has supposedly called on the President to make unacceptable concessions, particularly on the issues related to security and guarantees, and which have been reiterated by Mr. Anastasiades himself and others.
I will challenge him to say in public when did AKEL call on him to do so. And I will remind him that I put this question to him also at a meeting of the National Council, and he replied – and his reply is recorded in the minutes of the National Council. I remind him to say the same things that are recorded in these minutes.
I want to clarify for the umpteenth time that AKEL has never called for any unacceptable concessions to be made. On the contrary. Demetris Christofias, when he was the General Secretary of AKEL, was the first one to raise urgently the need for the abolition of Turkey’s guarantees and intervention rights. And this is the position supported by AKEL to date and AKEL will not accept a solution that won’t ensure these positions.
I will reiterate what I said to Mr. Anastasiades as a conclusion to our meeting. AKEL has nothing personal with anyone. Neither with Mr. Anastasiades, nor with anyone else. AKEL places above all else the interests of Cyprus and the Cypriot people. What guides AKEL as to how it formulates a position is how these interests are best served.
We repeat that the only way to liberate and reunite our homeland is the one we have been committed to for over 41 years. Namely, the solution of a Bizonal, Bi-communal Federation that will lead to one state, a continuation of the Republic of Cyprus, with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship, with political equality as set out by the United Nations; a solution that will rid us of the occupation and of the right of anyone to intervene in our own internal affairs. We have always supported these positions, and we will continue to do so.
If, therefore, Mr. Anastasiades is going to move in this direction when UN Secretary-General’s Special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute comes to Cyprus he should be sure that AKEL will once again be at the forefront supporting the procedure in an effort to lead our country to its redemption. If anything else is attempted, he should also be certain once again that AKEL will be at the forefront of the resistance to any approaches leading us to a two-state solution, or to confederation.
I consider that frank discussions are the very important in our lives, and I think that in politics that’s how things should be. These are the clear positions I have conveyed today to the President of the Republic too.
Replies by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou to journalists questions
We expected to hear what Mr. Cavusoglou actually said that Mr. Anastasiades told him and has made you today leave question marks hanging by saying that you won’t accept any discussions on a two states solution or confederation.
AK: Did you expect Mr. Cavusoglou to say anything and to discuss issues we have been discussing over the last few months? Since last March I have begun criticizing Mr. Anastasiades for moving from the long-standing positions of the National Council. I saw Mr. Cavusoglou last week. Why do you expect me to say something about the meeting with Mr. Cavusoglou? There have been many things said here in Cyprus. There is no need to say anything else from abroad. The statements made by Mr. Panagiotis Savvides, Deputy President of the “Citizens’ Alliance” have been recorded, There is also the statement of the Government Spokesman on the state radio RIK, as well as the article written by Andreas Paraschos. All this I think points in one direction. Worst of all is that the government has never denied them. So why do you expect me to say something about the meeting with Mr. Cavusoglou?
Cavusoglou didn’t eventually tell you what he discussed with Mr. Anastasiades?
AK: I will not say what we discussed with Mr. Cavusoglou. I have said what I believe should be said in public. From there onwards, there are indeed issues that can’t be said in public.
Has he told you what his position is on guarantees and how negotiations will be resumed again?
AK: Mr. Cavusoglou gave an interview to “Politis” newspaper last Sunday. He expressed his views. He said that at Crans Montana he was ready to go up to the fourth stage of the concessions and that he went only to the second stage because he wasn’t given the possibility to go to the fourth stage. He subsequently mentioned some things in public.
Our view is that, in order to know exactly what Turkey means, we have to go into negotiations. We ourselves must be consistent to the positions of principle which we have agreed in the National Council and that’s precisely where Turkey will be forced to reveal its positions. It will either cooperate and we will arrive at an agreement, or it will be exposed. If it is exposed, of course, it doesn’t solve us the problem, but it puts us in a stronger position as to any discussions that will follow. That’s exactly what I told Mr. Anastasiades too.
Mr. Akinci has said that the President of the Republic spoke about a two state solution to the Turkish Foreign Minister at Crans Montana and New York,
AK: I have heard Mr. Akinci’s statements. Mr. Akinci has said some things publicly. You should ask him if they are true. I am telling you that these denunciations about discussions about a two-state solution or references if you want -I won’t say denunciations – have been made by political figures on the Greek Cypriot side and by close associates of the President of the Republic. What are we searching for now?
Have you drawn a line on this issue today?
AK: As far as we are concerned, this issue is pending. We will keep track of developments and discussions and we will judge accordingly. We are still worried about where developments might lead to. I said beforehand that we will never accept such a development.
As there is a procedure underway, according to what you heard from Mr. Cavusoglou and the President of the Republic what is your assessment? Can this procedure move forward?
AK: Things are extremely difficult. If we really want the procedure to go ahead, at least we on our part must act correctly. And when I say act correctly I mean to show commitment to the long-standing positions and decisions of the National Council, to be consistent, not to move with the greatest ease from one point to another and not to flirt with any other ideas. In front of us we only have one plan: the solution of the Cyprus problem. If we start talking about any other plans we have in mind, we will have lost the game.
But Mr. Cavusoglou spoke about new ideas…
AK: I repeat that the most effective way to address this situation is to persist on the longstanding decisions both of the UN Security Council and the High-Level Agreements and to what we have been discussing for the last 41 years. If we accept to enter into discussions that will distance us from this framework, we will have lost the game.
As you are focusing on our side, if our side insists on what has already been agreed within the UN parameters, do you consider that the other side from what you have heard from Mr. Cavusoglou…
AK: I honestly wonder. Don’t I speak good Greek? I told you beforehand that things are extremely difficult and that we should play our own role correctly in order to put the other side in a tight corner. We will only find out whether Turkey will cooperate or not at the talks. Mr. Cavusoglou was revealing in his interview. “What do you want me to say right now?” he says. “Negotiations aren’t going on and you want me to start making concessions on the Cyprus problem? Let’s go to negotiations and we’ll see.” Is Turkey ready to move and reach the point identified by the relevant UN resolutions? If it is indeed ready we will find out at the negotiating table. If it is not ready, it will remain exposed and I repeat, such a possibility will enhance our position in the discussion that will follow because there will be continuity. I don’t know how to say it otherwise for you to understand what I mean.
Mr. Cavusoglou in his interview with “Politis” newspaper says that at Crans Montana, he didn’t leave no sign whatsoever to anyone that he was willing to go back on the issue of Turkey’s unilateral intervention rights. Having this position in mind, given that the United Nations are also calling for the terms of reference to be defined, what are we asking for and within what context and through which procedure? Can negotiations begin?
AK: I consider that if we have the non-resumption of negotiations as an option, we will inevitably be led to the final partition of Cyprus. If this is an option for certain forces and circles they should it bravely to the Cypriot people. I repeat that those who think that our option should be never to resume negotiations, because Turkey is what it is, they should come out and say it bravely to the people of Cyprus and take the responsibility for any developments that will follow. They should have the courage to say it and not hide behind sophistry and tactics.
Now, shall will we go to a resumption of the negotiations given that Turkey will never retreat on the issues of guarantees and security? I don’t think that will be recorded in any of the terms of reference. Our concern and disagreement with Mr. Anastasiades’ handlings is focused on this issue too.
What did the Secretary-General say previously? “Go and resume negotiations on the basis of my framework”. The Secretary General’s Framework was very clear about the issue of guarantees. We will now go to terms of reference. I don’t know what the terms of reference will include. That’s a big question mark.
We had the opportunity to go with a Framework which, in our view, safeguarded our positions. We should have stood firmly behind the positions of the Secretary-General and demanded the immediate resumption of negotiations. Instead of doing so, we wasted time in discussions that led us to where we are now. We are going to discuss terms of reference about which we don’t know how we shall emerge. We are worried that there is a risk of a collapse of the negotiations on procedural issues and I don’t know who will be held responsible for such a possibility.
Will the Secretary General’s Special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute only be discussing terms of reference?
AK: I don’t know. From what we have been told at the National Council, the purpose of the visit is to discuss the terms of reference and when she says terms of reference, of course, she means the political basis upon which any discussion will take place. From what I understand, she wants to know if we all agree where we are at the moment, where we want to go and how we will get there. That is what Mrs. Lute wants to know in my own opinion.
Is the Guterres Framework part of the terms of reference?
AK: In our view, it is essential that the Framework is part of the terms of reference.
Is your position changing on the terms or is your concern the same?
AK: I don’t know what else will be included in the terms. Our worry is the danger that we will not agree on the terms of reference, while things were much simpler previously as to what the Secretary-General was demanding. Now, unfortunately, things have become a great deal more complex, much more demanding, and we don’t know what the outcome will be.
Why aren’t you proceeding to make any reference to what Mr. Cavusoglou told you?
AK: He told me what he has said in his interview to “Politis”, along with 3-4 other things. I don’t understand, when Mr. Anastasiades meets with the UN Secretary-General, or with Mr. Cavusoglou in New York, do you demand that he should tell you everything that was discussed during these meetings to the mass media?
I have the impression that if we really want to put the interest of Cyprus over and above any petty interests and the need to discuss various issues, we must act responsibly and seriously.
According to what you’ve heard Mr. Cavusoglou say and read in his interview with “Politis”, but also from Mr. Akinci’s statements, do you consider that the Turkish Cypriot leader has a different approach from Turkey and secondly can Akinci make moves without Ankara’s approval for us to have a positive outcome, either as regards the resumption of the procedure or the outcome of the proceedings?
AK: Mr. Akinci has taken a stand in the past in a way that didn’t satisfy Ankara, and these things have been made public. For example, the submission of the map on the issue of territory, with a percentage of territory below the 30% that Turkey was demanding, was not done with Turkey’s consent. This was done by Mr. Akinci. As to the proposal he made last April, I don’t know if he had Turkey’s approval to submit it.
It is therefore clear that Mr. Akinci is taking actions which are not necessarily identical to Turkey’s positions. If we go to the negotiating table and Mr. Akinci upholds these positions who will be damaged? If the Turkish side insists otherwise and Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots reach an agreement who will be adversely affected? Will it be us or Turkey? Who will come out worst from such a development? Why should we be afraid of this fact? Why do we have to say “Ok, Mr. Akinci may these things, but what is Turkey going to say?” That’s precisely how Mr. Anastasiades replied in April 2018 to Mr. Akinci. And my question is very simple. If we are going to the negotiations and Mr. Akinci agrees with us, who will remain exposed? Will it be us or Turkey?
Does Mr. Akinci agree with us about the Framework? Because I heard him in the interview say that “zero army, zero guarantees” is not his position, and that he was in fact annoyed…
AK: I have referred to some issues. Mr. Akinci said what you said, but he also said some other things that you deliberately choose not to mention. He said the issue of guarantees must be solved in such a way that the concerns of one community should not be met at the expense of the other community’s concerns.
The second thing that Mr. Akinci said is that he accepts the position of the Secretary-General as recorded in the Guterres Framework What the Guterres Framework records about guarantees is that the existing system of guarantees is anachronistic, that it cannot continue and that it must be replaced. This is what the Secretary-General said and Mr. Akinci said he accepts it. Does that mean he will agree with us when we go to the negotiating table? I don’t know. I say let’s go to the negotiating table. If Akinci agrees with us, very well, if Turkey agrees with us even better, if we disagree, our protective shield is now the Secretary-General of the United Nations. And they will be the ones that will left exposed.
If we head towards a collapse we will have continuity, you understand, and our position will be much stronger if through a dialogue the Turkish side remains exposed. That’s what I’m talking about. And when are facing – I will repeat this – a difficult opponent, that we call various terms (provocative, aggressive, unacceptable, intransigent, expansionist), all these terms apply to Turkey when you are facing such an opponent, you have to be very consistent to what you have agreed. You don’t play games or shift positions.
In such a climate that has been created, how can we as the Greek Cypriot side go to talks…?
AK: Are you suggesting we shouldn’t go to talks? If you believe we shouldn’t go, then you should state this view and say that we should never go to talks, and I say, to also take responsibility for developments. Things are that simple. I wonder why you keep repeating the same questions. I’ve told you. “Don’t go to talks”, but tell the Cypriot people clearly and unequivocally that we don’t have to go into negotiations for the moment, that we don’t think there is a climate to go into negotiations, that we consider the Turkish positions to be unacceptable, that any resumption of negotiations will trap and destroy us.
They should say so openly and clearly to the people of Cyprus that right now we shouldn’t go to negotiations and take responsibility for developments. Those who support this view should state it and take responsibility for subsequent developments.
Who are the ones saying that we shouldn’t go to negotiations?
AK: I don’t know. Since you’re asking me, it means that certain forces and circles support these ideas. You ask me. You tell me.
Yesterday Mr. Akinci on the natural gas issue said for the first time that if you drill, I’ll also drill. At the same time as we are trying to see what will happen with the Cyprus problem, the tension around natural gas isn’t being released.
AK: This is not the first time Mr. Akinci has said this. He has said it many times. The tension will not be released on natural gas issues. We shouldn’t have such delusions. This chapter worries us.
Let me repeat once again, we are not calling for an end to the energy program of the Republic of Cyprus. I said at the press conference yesterday that what we demand is that the continuation of the energy program should be accompanied by a corresponding demonstration of political will for the resumption of substantive negotiations for a solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible. Only then will we render Turkey’s threats and extortion unattainable. From there onwards, Turkey will be issuing threats and blackmailing and we shouldn’t have any illusions whatsoever. Everyone will get involved in this game, both Mr. Ozeraysi and Mr. Akinci. Everyone will participate.
In your speech in Ankara you said that your Party can make concessions for the sake of the Turkish Cypriots. What do you mean concessions for the sake of the Turkish Cypriots?
AK: This is not a position AKEL has formulated today. It has repeated this position repeatedly. Namely, that we discuss within the framework of Bizonal, Bi-communal Federation and are ready to make concessions towards the Turkish Cypriots; concessions that, of course, will not change the agreed framework for the solution of the Cyprus problem. We are not ready to make concessions to anybody else, whether it is called Turkey or any other power. With the Turkish Cypriots we should discuss and, if necessary, on specific issues so as to be able to reach an agreement, they should move on issues that don’t affect the philosophy of the solution. We are ready to do so on secondary issues.
Are we confident that, in the event that we are going to a new round of negotiations and bearing in mind Ankara’s public positions to date, if we end up in a new collapse, the Secretary-General will be willing to continue to deal with the Cyprus problem?
AK: You’re now asking me to give you an answer about things that I must have powers to predict. If I’ll make a political evaluation, I will say that, in my opinion, this will be the last chance as regards the Cyprus problem – if there is, of course, going to be a subsequent negotiation because we do not know yet whether there will be any further negotiation.
From there onwards, I repeat and stress the following. If there is a view that we should never start negotiations because Turkey this or Turkey that, because we cannot be sure of the outcome, if there is such a view from any political party, from any politician, then he or she should come out and say so in public, substantiate it, try to convince public opinion about the correctness of this position and take the responsibilities if, eventually, this position will get the support of the majority of the Cypriot people and take responsibility for any subsequent developments.
Is the renewal of the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) considered a normal milestone?
AK: I think it would be a mistake for us to put a Damocles sword hanging over our heads. We certainly need to take this into account, but it is an important development, but provided that Mrs. Lute’s efforts reach a climax, and it seems there are prospects for a resumption of the dialogue, I don’t think that the United States would want the prospect of the resumption of negotiations to be jeopardized or for this possibility to be made more difficult as a result of unnecessary decisions regarding UNFICYP. Let’s address the issue when the time is right.
