The demonization of the definition of political equality poses a real danger of the Greek Cypriot side being held responsible for a potential failure

Statement by AKEL C.C. Spokesperson Stefanos Stefanou

AKEL C.C. Press Office, 23 September 2019, Nicosia

The outcome of the forthcoming separate meetings of the two leaders with the UN Secretary-General will to a large extent determine whether the negotiation procedure can be resumed. It is precisely for this reason that both leaders have to be extremely careful about what they say and what atmosphere they are creating.

We regret to note that the positions Mr. Anastasiades is expressing in public anything but enhances the effort for a resumption of direct dialogue. The ongoing demonization of the definition of political equality and effective participation constitutes a serious obstacle to the effort underway and there is a real danger of the Greek Cypriot side being held responsible for a potential failure.

It is no coincidence that the UN Security Council in its last resolution considered it necessary to recall the definition of political equality which dates back to 1990. A key aspect of this definition is the effective participation of the two communities in the bodies and decisions of the federal government. What exactly constitutes effective participation has been debated for decades. As a result, a convergence was achieved to replace the rigid veto of Zurich with a positive vote from each community with regards the decisions of the Council of Ministers.

President Anastasiades, for reasons incomprehensible to us, having previously brought back the vetoes, after Crans Montana went to the other extreme demanding the curbing of even the one Turkish Cypriot positive vote. This is something that is not under any circumstances likely to be accepted by the Turkish Cypriot side and will not be understood by the international community.

However, Mr. Akinci is also insisting on a single Turkish Cypriot positive vote in all low-level political bodies, while he knows that this position of his clashes with an informal convergence according to which a positive vote in such bodies will only be demanded where vital interests exist. The UN Secretary-General’s own Framework includes the one positive vote in the Ministerial Cabinet on all matters, whilst as far as low-level bodies is concerned it will only apply where vital interests exists. It is not at all coincidental that the UN Secretary-General in his Report after the collapse of the Crans Montana conference stresses that we had essentially reached a conclusion on the issue of political equality and effective participation.

If the necessary political will is shown by both sides, it is not difficult to satisfy the Secretary-General’s appeal for a swift conclusion on the terms of reference, which are none other than the Joint Declaration, the convergence agreed so far and the Guterres Framework. Otherwise the danger of the new effort also failing with all the subsequent negative consequences for Cyprus and its people are visible. This is what is at stake which the two leaders must take into account when expressing their positions in public, and in particular during their separate meetings with the Secretary-General.