Reply to the Government Spokesman’s statements on AKEL’s criticism of the President on the Cyprus problem

Statement by AKEL C.C. Spokesperson Stefanos Stefanou

On the claim that AKEL’s criticism strengths Turkish propaganda

Whenever the Presidential Palace finds itself in a difficult position and has no replies to the criticism exercised against it, it reverts to the notorious and obscene assertion that criticism of the President strengthens Turkish propaganda.

If Turkish propaganda was indeed strengthened in this way, we wonder how much the accusation made in the past by Anastasiades in Europe against the late President Tassos Papadopoulos that democracy in Cyprus is deficient had enhanced it. We won’t even refer to the attacks Mr. Anastasiades and DISY have from time to time waged on almost all the Presidents in relation to the Cyprus problem.

 

On the 4th July Minutes question

But let us focus on the substance, which the President, his close circle and communication team evidently do not want to discuss.

We once again ask the following:

1. What is the purpose and what does the opening all of a sudden by the President of the issue of the 4^th July minutes serve, indeed when the government is now admitting that there are no minutes, but notes that the participants took down?
2. How is the cause of the resumption of negotiations being served, when the President is making insinuations about and indirectly criticising the UN General Secretariat?
3. Doesn’t the President realise that by acting in this way on the Minutes matter, he is creating the impression among the international community that he is simply time-wasting and setting new conditions for the agreement on the terms of reference?

On the basis of the solution

As to the basis of solution of the Cyprus problem, AKEL points out that in the government spokesman’s reply as to whether the President is discussing other solutions as well other than bizonal, bicommunal federation, yet again there is no reference whatsoever to this specific solution. The first time this was done may have been a mistake, but the phenomenon being repeated cannot in any way be considered accidental.

What does the position being promoted by the President mean when discussing the basis of the solution that “we need to reflect on what we will do if things end up in a deadlock.” The simple logic naturally leads to the conclusion that the President is discussing other solutions, a fact of course which even the government spokesman himself has publicly admitted.

We point out that beyond federation there is nothing other than partition.

Is the President ready to accept partition regardless of the form it will take?

We await very clear answers, not double talk and false deceiving arguments!