Decision of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL on the government’s recent announcements on the Cyprus problem

 

The President and DISY must be ready to take on his own and his party’s grave historical responsibilities for their policies that are rapidly leading to the permanent partition of Cyprus

28 August 2021, AKEL C.C. Press Office, Nicosia

During its session yesterday, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of AKEL discussed, among other things, the developments surrounding the Cyprus problem, focusing on the recent actions and statements of the President of the Republic, including regarding the filing of the 5th Inter-State recourse to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the return to the 1960 Constitution. Two fundamental issues arise from Mr. Anastasiades’ announcements. First, how do these decisions and actions serve the Greek Cypriot side’s declared objective for a resumption of the negotiations from where they had remained at Crans-Montana as soon as possible. And secondly, whether the President of the Republic at long last intends to take substantive initiatives in this direction or whether he will continue to be content with taking actions and making announcements for internal consumption purposes that neither cause substantial costs to Turkey, nor do they free us from the partitionist status quo and occupation.

The government’s intention to proceed with a 5th Inter-State Recourse against Turkey at the ECHR has been announced that will have as its sole object Turkey’s illegal actions in the enclosed area of Famagusta. AKEL’s principled position is that every state governed by the rule of law must demand and assert the full respect of its rights that stem from international law, including those rights enshrined in international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights.

In our understanding, such serious actions must be attempted in such a way so as to ensure increased chances of success and to exert real pressure on the occupying power Turkey, to serve the objective of the overall solution of the Cyprus problem and should not to be taken with a view to serving petty political considerations. It is the responsibility of the government to assess the chances of success of the project and to act in a due responsible manner.

The facts we have before us are concrete. The ECHR has jurisdiction to hear allegations only of violations of rights that are protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and not violations of Resolutions of the Security Council of the UN. The property rights of legal owners and their continuous violations by Turkey were part of the positive decision of the ECHR for the Republic of Cyprus in the 4th Inter-State Recourse. Despite the very important political significance of this decision, it has become clear that legal means alone will not free us from the occupation or force Turkey to end the creation of new partitionist fait accompli.

In addition, the jurisprudential developments of the ECtHR itself, and in particular the Demopoulos decision, make the content of its judgement in such a proceeding uncertain. All the more so since the Turkish side’s declassification of part of the enclosed area from a military to an urban zone was accompanied by a call for the legal owners to appeal to the so-called Immovable Property Commission, which the ECHR recognises as an effective domestic legal remedy, without being concerned about the kind of therapy that will be awarded to the legal owners (restitution, compensation, exchange) or under what administration they will return.

Regarding the President’s commitment to seek a return to the 1960 Zurich Constitution with the invalid claim that this is consistent with the Resolutions of the Security Council, the High-Level Agreements and convergences recorded, we note that no previous President of the Republic of Cyprus has ever sought such a return. The reason is simple. The identification with the positions of the most extreme political forces certainly does not lead to a unitary state, but to permanent partition, which is in line with Turkey’s aspirations. And because the government spokesman has accused AKEL of putting pressure on the President for supposedly unacceptable concessions, we must point out the self-evident. The last stage of retreat on the Cyprus problem is none other than to compromise with the idea of permanent partition, whether this is presented explicitly or under the guise of manipulating patriotic sentiment.

As far as the government spokesman’s claim that AKEL is supposedly calling for further concessions to be made on the Cyprus problem, we urge him to read more carefully the proposal submitted by AKEL, which only offers a way out and creates momentum for the resumption of negotiations in the manner requested by the Secretary General of the UN. What AKEL proposes should be given to the Turkish Cypriots in the form of incentives to consent to a return to the Guterres Framework sets as a precondition the prior adoption of the Framework of the UN Secretary General as a strategic co-understanding. As for the incentives towards Turkey, these are only given provided that the Cyprus problem has been resolved. Nothing that AKEL is proposing violates any ‘red lines’ of the Greek Cypriot side. After all, it is not AKEL that proposed that Turkey should limit itself to drilling in the northern part of our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). Nor is it AKEL that proposed giving natural gas revenues to Turkish Cypriots even before the solution of the Cyprus problem. Nor is it AKEL that shared with many figures, including the Archbishop, the President’s thoughts of a two-state solution.

The President’s position that he is adamant on a return to the 1960 Constitution is self-evidently on a head-on collision with the Resolutions of the Security Council, the High-Level Agreements and the convergences registered, with all the resulting disastrous consequences. How much underestimation of common sense is needed to make such a claim when the 1960 Constitution provides for a unitary state while the High-Level Agreements, the resolutions and convergences provide for a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. We consider it useful to remind the President that the 1960 Constitution provides for a veto in the executive branch, as well as for separate majorities in Parliament, without any mechanism for resolving deadlocks. Moreover, the 1960 Constitution contains the Treaty of Guarantee in its entirety. All these had been effectively addressed through the convergences that had been recorded, the Guterres Framework and the mechanism for implementing the solution as proposed by the Secretary General of the UN.

President Anastasiades’ latest announcements and actions reveal his inability to manage the consequences of his failed policy on the Cyprus problem. Every policy is judged by its results and not through communication proclamations. The unproductive passage of time over the last four years has led the Cyprus problem to an unprecedented quagmire with negative developments on the ground. What has happened in the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus, what is happening in Famagusta and the dangerous course of discussions that are taking place with regard the content of the solution are irrefutable evidence of an extremely dangerous course towards permanent partition. It is the duty of the President of the Republic, even belatedly, to stop engaging in moves whose sole aim is to please party audiences, to abandon experimentations, to stop questioning the agreed basis for a solution and the core convergences that have been recorded and to take convincing initiatives that should restore the credibility of the Greek Cypriot side.

After all, this is the basis of the comprehensive political proposal that AKEL had in good time submitted to the President. If he adopts even the spirit of it, either Turkey will be forced to return to the negotiations from where we had remained, or he will be held solely responsible for the stalemate, something which is far from being the case today. If, however, the President insists on acting in the same way, he must be prepared to take on his own and his party’s grave historical responsibilities for their policies that are rapidly leading to the permanent partition of Cyprus