Speech by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou to the Ambassadors and diplomatic corps accredited to the Republic of Cyprus
Hilton Hotel, 16th January 2019, Nicosia
On behalf of the Central Committee of AKEL I would like to welcome you all to our meeting today, which has already become a custom. I wish you all the very best for the New Year with health and family happiness. Above all, I wish 2019 to be the beginning of a new era for humanity. May the days to come be days of progress, prosperity and peace. May humanity’s wounds heal one by one: the destruction of the environment, poverty and the ongoing wars that are creating millions of refugees. May the days to come bring with them the prospect of the dawn of the future: a society of peace, democracy and social justice.
May the days to come bring peace to Cyprus too. Developments surrounding the Cyprus problem will determine to a great extent the future and prospects of our country and people, the lives of our children and grandchildren. AKEL as a patriotic and responsible force cannot and has no right to be indifferent in the face of such critical and decisive developments.
For AKEL, the liberation and reunification of our homeland and people as a whole has been and continues to be our unnegotiable and timeless goal. The only feasible way we can achieve this goal is our insistence on the agreed framework for one state, with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship; our insistence on a solution of bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality, as defined in a series of resolutions of the UN Security Council. A united state that will be a continuation of the Republic of Cyprus; a state that will rid itself from the occupation, guarantee and intervention rights and the foreign and local armies.
That’s the only way we, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and Latins, can look to the future with optimism. That’s the only way we will be able to build our common future that will be characterized by progress, peace and prosperity for the Cypriot people as a whole.
Lately a public debate has begun about abandoning the agreed basis for a solution. This is being heard from the Turkish side, but also from some forces and circles in the Turkish Cypriot, but from within the Greek Cypriot community as well.
It is a fact that for nearly 45 years we haven’t managed to solve the Cyprus problem on the previously mentioned agreed basis. Certain forces and circles put forth this argument to argue that the goal for a bicommunal, bizonal federal solution is unfeasible; that we should be seeking the solution of a unitary state. We consider this to be unrealistic. If the goal of a federal solution is unfeasible, how can a much more ambitious and as a result extremely difficult goal such as a unitary state solution be feasible?
Particularly following the latest developments and discussions that have followed, it is clearly evident that the real dilemma we face is not between federation and a unitary state, but unfortunately between federation and partition. Now that the idea of abandoning federation has been put in the public debate the alternative option that is being discussed is certainly not a unitary state, but a form of partition.
We, having drawn lessons from the past, especially from the period before the treacherous coup d’état and the Turkish invasion, do not want to repeat the same mistakes. We will not sacrifice the feasible for the “ideal”.
We consider that the rejection of the solution of federation will only lead to partition. There are two ways we will be driven to partition. One way is to enter into negotiations with the aim of agreeing to it. The other way is to allow time to pass by without substantive negotiations, leading us to slide into it.
But what does partition mean? Does it mean that things will remain as they are today and that life will go on as usual? It’s dangerously naive to presume that. The Turkish Cypriots themselves, with whom AKEL is discussing on an ongoing basis, consider that if the current situation continues, the Turkish Cypriot community will be completely absorbed by Turkey and will disappear as an entity.
Partition means conceding almost 40% of the territory and 60% of the coastline, hence a corresponding percentage of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus to Turkey. It means a 180 km long border with Turkey. It means the staying of all the settlers and uncontrolled further colonialisation of the occupied areas. It means the permanent stay of the occupying troops. It means that we won’t take back not a single inch of land, nor a single property. Partition ultimately means that the Sword of Damocles of the whole of Cyprus being seized by Turkey will forever be hanging over our heads.
After the collapse of the Crans Montana conference, the Secretary General of the UN referred to a period of reflection. The stalemate is unfortunately continuing to this day. What has Mr. Guterres asked for so that negotiations can be resumed? He called for meaningful talks, as well as the demonstration of the necessary political will so that we can reach an agreement. He did not cling to this general conclusion. In essence, he called for a continuation of the negotiation procedure from the point where it had remained at Crans Montana, that is to say, with the safeguarding of the convergences achieved to date, the Guterres framework and the mechanism for implementing the solution.
As far as the procedure is concerned, he called for a cross-negotiation of six core issues which he indeed defined should be discussed at two tables. On one table the international aspects of the Cyprus problem should be discussed, with the participation of the guarantor powers and the European Union as an observer. On the other table, the internal aspects between the two communities should be discussed as was always the case. If a convergence is recorded on these six issues, we subsequently will have reached a strategic understanding – and not an interim agreement as certain forces and circles wrongly imply. This will facilitate enormously the subsequent discussion of the remaining outstanding issues.
As AKEL, we proposed to the President of the Republic the acceptance of what the UN Secretary General proposed without appendixes, footnotes and preconditions. We do not support this position just because Mr. Guterres has asked for it. The proposal of the UN Secretary-General in our view was not at all accidental. It is the most effective way for a continuation of the process. Permit me to explain what I mean. All the chapters of the Cyprus problem without exception are now at an advanced stage of convergence. This is what the Secretary General concludes in the Report he had submitted after the collapse at Crans Montana in September 2017. In reality, only a few differences had remained on each chapter; differences that demanded the taking of political decisions. This now enables cross negotiation. Cross and simultaneous negotiation does not permit the from time to time projection of “protaxis” policies (Note: the policy of setting “preconditions” that predetermine the results of negotiations), namely what must to be discussed first and afterwards. Lastly, the negotiation of the six key issues eliminates the danger of getting bogged down in details and wasting unnecessary time, as was often the case.
Is there a debate underway within the Greek Cypriot community whether we should accept or reject such a move? To reply to this question, we must previously reply to another.
Does the Guterres framework protect us or should we be concerned about its provisions? Mr. Anastasiades said at a recent press conference that it would be insane if he were to reject it. We agree with him. The framework abolishes the guarantees and any intervention rights from day one. It calls for their replacement with something else. It provides for a mechanism for implementing the solution, in which it restricts the guarantor powers to just a consultative role.
It provides for a drastic reduction of the occupation troops, also from the first day (of the solution), as well as for the speedy withdrawal of the rest. It leaves the issue of the ELDYK and TOURDYK contingents (950 and 650 soldiers respectively) open for further discussion, with Turkey calling for a review clause in 15 years and our own side calling for a clause for the termination of their presence in far less years. The above considerations constitute a significant improvement even with regards the Zurich agreements: The big thorny issue, namely the Guarantee Treaty, is terminated, while even in the worst case for us scenario, the Treaty of Alliance is transformed from indefinite to a specific timeframe.
As far as territory is concerned, the Guterres framework calls for the return of Morphou. This means that the Turkish Cypriot side must not only bring back the map it withdrew, but add Morphou to it as well.
On the issue of the equal treatment of Greek and Turkish citizens, the framework simply refers to equal treatment, which leaves room for negotiation, with the Christofias – Talat convergence for a 4: 1 population ratio as our significant weapon.
On the issue of effective participation, the framework covers us, given that the main bodies were agreed. With regard to the bodies dealing with secondary-policy, the framework refers to a positive Turkish-Cypriot vote, with a mechanism for solving deadlocks, only on issues pertaining to the vital interests of the two communities.
As regards the property issue, the Secretary General proposes two different regimes, something that was the objective of the Greek Cypriot side. In the areas to be returned under Greek Cypriot administration, priority will be given to the displaced owners. As to the other areas, priority will be given to users. Of course this is something which doesn’t satisfy us, but at least the framework explicitly offers the possibility of further negotiation.
This evidently is related to the European Court of Human Rights Demopoulos ruling, which, unfortunately, does indeed give priority to users. Regarding the issue of property, the convergence according to which even in the areas that won’t be returned priority will be given to those owners who have an emotional connection to their property must also be utilised.
Of course, no UN framework can satisfy our own positions 100%. The evaluation must be overall. The balance weighs heavily towards the positive elements, bearing in mind that the Treaty of Guarantee and intervention rights are abolished, the occupying troops will withdraw with a credible implementation mechanism, Morphou is returned and the Greek Cypriot position for the single positive vote is satisfied. Consequently, the Guterres framework shields us in view of a final negotiation.
If we had proceeded with the framework, there would have been two possible scenarios: Either Turkey cooperates, resulting in a significant step being made in the direction of the solution, or it would insist on unacceptable positions and thus be exposed in the eyes of the Secretary General and the international community.
On the eve of the submission of the report of the Secretary General to the Security Council last September, Mr. Anastasiades raised the issue of decentralized federation. We do not disagree in principle with this issue. However to put forth our position on the issue raised we need to know what Mr. Anastasiades actually means.
Unfortunately, after two sessions of the National Council, a public debate and a televised Proclamation by the President himself, we still do not know what he means. This issue is not included in the framework of the Secretary General of the UN for the simple reason that it is resolved, given that the federal competences have essentially been agreed.
The issue for us, as I have stated before, is not decentralized federation itself. In the modern world there are both decentralized and centralized federations. These depend on the reasons and ways of establishing a federation. But there are a number of questions that concern us.
Does bi-communal, bizonal federation with political equality and residual power belonging to the constituent states constitute a centralized federation? What purpose does the dismantling of an existing convergence serve when an attempt is underway to resume the negotiation procedure? Why one wonders is the President stubbornly insisting on not sharing any of his thoughts with us? He should do so because there are competences that if they were to be transferred to the constituent states then we will not be talking about a federation, but about a confederation or to say the least, about strong confederal elements (for example, defence and defence policy, a single economy, EEZ, immigration). Why didn’t the President leave the issue to discuss it in the negotiations, given that this is what the Guterres es framework provides for, with the possibility indeed of even being able to exchange it with something else? In any case, even if he had reached a conclusion on this issue, the six chapters of the Guterres framework would have remained open.
Today, unfortunately, things have become much more complex and demanding. The terms of reference terms must now be agreed for the negotiation procedure to resume. While we had before us a clear framework both with regards the content and the procedure, we are now discussing about terms of reference. Why is there this new terminology?
Our own interpretation is that this is due to the fact that since Crans Montana we have witnessed many developments: The withdrawal of the Anastasiades proposals, the subsequent withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot map, disagreements as to whether the Guterres framework is that of 30th June or 4th July, the President’s intention for a withdrawal of the convergence for a Turkish Cypriot vote in the Ministerial Cabinet except on issues of crucial importance and, of course, the proposal for decentralized federation. From the moment the Turkish Cypriot side, despite the reservations it expressed, discusses it, it was natural that the UN Secretary General wouldn’t reject it, but call for joint ways to incorporate it into the terms of reference. He stresses, however, how urgent the issue is. It is all of these issues that have to be cleared up with the terms of reference, as well as with regards the procedure to be followed. For sure, however, the Secretary General wants to be convinced that the procedure will be meaningful, otherwise the danger looms that he will not consent to its resumption.
A public debate has already been conducted on the possible solution of the Cyprus problem with NATO guarantees. As AKEL we have made it clear from the very outset that we are opposed to this. Demilitarization is a fundamental principle for the solution of the Cyprus problem and we believe that we must remain committed to it for many reasons, mainly because we, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, will all feel security only when foreign troops will not be casting their shadow over Cyprus, nor if our country becomes prey to antagonisms and conflicts. Nor would we ever want Cyprus to be used as a launching pad for waging attacks against neighboring countries. Finally, we know that NATO cannot protect us from any attack by one of its member countries.
Unfortunately, we have received no official briefing on Mrs. Lute’s latest contacts with Mr. Anastasiades, Cavusoglou, Akinci and Katroungalos. However, we do not hide the fact that we are worried because it is obvious that at least until May we will not have a resumption of the talks. We understand that on the UNFICYP issue we may have an extension until July, but we are very worried about the developments within the Turkish Cypriot community, which are rapid.
There has always been the military control of Turkey, due to the presence of the occupation troops in the northern part of Cyprus. There is the economic control exercised by Turkey and this also leads to an exertion of political control as you understand. Recently, a large part of the economic activity in the Turkish Cypriot community has been acquired by Turkish interests, notably by leading members of the ruling Justice and Development Party and by friends of Tayyip Erdogan himself. For example, the water sector is under the full control of Turkey. An attempt is underway to gain full control of the energy sector too. The Tymbou airport has been bought by Turkish interests, while many hotel units and tourist complexes are being bought which are the largest source of revenue for the Turkish Cypriot community. It goes without saying that the policy of absorbing the Turkish Cypriot community by Ankara threatens the very existence of the community.
Although we are in opposition as AKEL, we are constantly taking initiatives on the Cyprus problem both on a local, but also international level. We had quite recently contacts with the UN Deputy Secretary-General for Political Affairs Mrs. DiCarlo and with the Permanent Members of the UN Security Council. Our priority at the moment is to reaffirm that the framework of the solution is Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation and the resumption of negotiations as soon as possible within the framework that the UN Secretary-General himself outlines in his successive reports. We had meetings in the European Union with Political Groups, as well as with the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Mrs. Mogherini, with whom we have developed a very good debate.
We have developed a long-standing and very close cooperation with the Greek Government, especially with the Greek Prime Minister and the Greek political parties. We also met recently in Turkey with Mr. Cavusoglou, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the country. Of course, we also meet systematically with Turkish Cypriot political parties that are in favour of resolving the Cyprus problem on the basis of federation, in favour of the peaceful coexistence of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. In an understanding with these forces, we organize meetings where we explain to the people in the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot community, how important it is to solve the Cyprus problem as soon as possible.
In all of these contacts, but also through our public statements, we repeat with consistency our very clear and long-standing positions on the solution of the Cyprus problem. We do not change our positions according to the audience we address and do not transform them according to domestic political developments.
AKEL as a patriotic force will never compromise with partition, which was the vision and unwavering goal of Rauf Denktash. AKEL will continue to struggle with all its forces for liberation and reunification. The only way to achieve this goal is through bi-communal, bizonal federation. A solution based on the relevant UN resolutions, the High-Level Agreements, the principles of International Law and the UN Charter and on the principles upon which the European Union is founded on. That’s how a reunited federal Cyprus will become a beacon and an example for the whole world. It will be a modern model of the harmonious coexistence of two communities of different ethnicities, languages and religions that will be co-managing their common state. It will be a country that will have managed to drive out the armies and channel all its forces and resources to social investment and economic development. We are seeking to make this vision a reality together with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. That is why we call on all of you dear friends to exert your influence on Turkey to cooperate in good faith so that we can at long last solve a problem that has been pending and whose solution will open a window to the future for Cyprus the wider region and Turkey itself.
