Statements by General Secretary of AKEL Stefanos Stefanou after the National Council meeting

 

1 September 2021, AKEL C.C. Press Office, Nicosia

There is no doubt whatsoever that the situation on the Cyprus problem is really critical and that the permanent partition is extremely visible and represents an immediate danger. Turkey is paving the way for the final partition of Cyprus and is trying to enforce it with its illegal actions by violating the resolutions of the UN and attempting to deviate from the agreed basis for a solution, that is the solution of Bi-zonal, Bicommunal Federation, by formally tabling the two states for discussion. There is no doubt at all about this.

The question is how do we, as the Greek Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus in general, act ourselves to confront the machinations of Turkey and, of course, of the Turkish Cypriot leadership under Mr. Tatar.

Today during the National Council meeting (Note: advisory body to the given President on the Cyprus problem with the participation of all parliamentary political parties) we expressed our disagreement with the government’s policy, which is characterised by contradictions and conflicting approaches and policies.

You know very well that AKEL disagreed and continues to disagree with the President’s proposal to return to the 1960 Constitution. This proposal was made by the President in writing on 25 August in response to Mr. Tatar.

For four whole days the Government Spokesman tried to explain this proposal and then five days later, on 30 August, we heard from the Foreign Secretary that the President’s statement was a “figure of speech”. Today we have found out – after asking – whether the President of the Republic’s specific statement is indeed a proposal. And we received a positive answer. We believe that with this proposal, the President will put the Greek Cypriot side in danger of being held co-responsible for the deadlock on the Cyprus problem and at the same time, in this way, the President enables Turkey to continue its efforts to deviate from the agreed basis for a solution.

The answer to these attempts by Turkey is to adhere to both the High-Level Agreements and the Resolutions of the UN. The President’s proposal to return to the 1960 constitution deviates us from the resolutions and ultimately nullifies the High-Level Agreements as well.

Today we have once again submitted to the President AKEL’s view on how he should proceed. And in our view, which we have also tabled in a proposal since last December, two things must be done.

Firstly, the Greek Cypriot side, without submitting “new ideas” that annul basic convergences that have been recorded and without any backtracking, must insist on resuming negotiations from the point where they had remained at Crans Montana, preserving the convergences recorded and to negotiate on the Guterres Framework.

Secondly, AKEL submitted a proposal to the President of the Republic, which we made public in December, on how the position of the UN Secretary General, as expressed in his latest Report, should be implemented in order to turn the natural gas factor into a catalyst for creating momentum for the resumption of negotiations. We didn’t talk about any concessions, nor do we have positions that go beyond the “red lines” of the Greek Cypriot side.

In this way, we believe that this will restore the Greek Cypriot side’s damaged credibility among the international community and convince of its political will that we want, are seeking and working for a solution as set out in the resolutions of the UN. This is the way either to force Turkey to come into line, respond positively and resume negotiations or to expose Turkey for its intransigence and negativity and apportion it responsibility for the deadlock and absence of negotiations.

I point out that the international organization in its latest Reports by the Secretary-General since 2017 and onwards has been blaming the stalemate and the absence of negotiations on both sides.

I want to say one more thing because I have seen various reports in the press that the National Council has pretty much resembled the situation in Kabul, that is to say it has been a battleground, about things that have been done and not done. I want to say that, yes, there have been disagreements, we have discussed, but the National Council is an arena for discussion and debate includes disagreements.

AKEL’s disagreements are quite clear, I have just stated them. But as far as AKEL is concerned, we never behave in a way that goes beyond the bounds of political culture. The same was the case now during today’s National Council meeting. There were disagreements, there were debates, but it certainly was not a battleground resembling Kabul… I think it would be important to point that out so that people do not get the impression that people get together in a room and all they do is argue. AKEL considers the National Council as an arena for discussion, as a forum for the submission of opinions and proposals, and of course, I repeat, as such an arena, disagreements cannot but also be expressed besides agreements.

So wasn’t the President’s proposal a figure of speech?

SS: No, the President said it was not a figure of speech. He said it was a proposal.

Is he going to submit it to the UN Secretary General special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute?

SS: I think you should ask the Government Spokesman himself about that. AKEL’s position is quite clear. The President should not go ahead with this proposal, because in doing so we too are evading the UN resolutions and the international community will for that reason accuse us of being equally responsible for the deadlock on the Cyprus problem, indeed at a time when Turkey is attempting to abolish the resolutions and High-Level Agreements with its two state position. Our response must not be to go the opposite way, but to stick to what has been agreed since 1977 and since then and which has been reaffirmed in a series of agreements and is included in the resolutions of the UN.

The President of the Republic replied to you that it was a proposal. The President of the Democratic Party DIKO Mr. Papadopoulos said a moment ago that it was not a proposal. So what happened in the National Council? What answer did you get? What answer did Mr. Papadopoulos get?

SS: We asked (the President) if it was a proposal. The President has said that it is a proposal provided that Mr. Tatar insists on what he says. We are saying that the answer to what Mr. Tatar insists on is not to go back to the 1960 Constitution, but to insist on the resumption of negotiations in the way the international organisation suggests.

AKEL has recently come under attack for taking the road of concessions with regards its proposal for the natural gas issue…

SS: I want to note that we made the proposal public with a press conference by the previous General Secretary of the party Andros Kyprianou in the presence of Toumazos Tsielepis, the Head of the Cyprus Problem Office of the C.C. of AKEL.

What are the basic specifications of this proposal?

To get back on the rails of Crans Montana, but also to address the arguments put forth by both the Turkish Cypriot leadership and Turkey that the Greek Cypriot side, taking advantage of the Republic of Cyprus want on the one hand to stop the Turkish Cypriot community from enjoying whatever benefits from the natural gas, but also that the Greek Cypriot side is ostensibly trying to exclude them out of any energy developments in the region.

Consequently, our proposal has two main parts. The first proposal, as I have told you, has to do with how AKEL approaches the issue of resuming negotiations. The second, which concerns the natural gas and how it can be a catalyst for a solution, is as follows.

AKEL’s position is that as far as the Turkish Cypriot community is concerned, we can declare that if and when the Turkish Cypriot side accepts the resumption of negotiations and on the basis of the Guterres Framework and we reach a strategic understanding – that is, on all six core issues that are pending for discussion of the Cyprus problem are agreed upon – then, at that stage, we can also see how the Turkish Cypriots participate too.

As far as Turkey is concerned, we have made it clear that what we are proposing will only apply after a solution – and I want to say this because from time to time the government has tried to misinterpret or distort AKEL’s proposal that we want to give natural gas to Turkey before the solution. Our proposal is clear. It has been made public and we will make it public again, whatever happens with Turkey will happen after the solution of the Cyprus problem, and I believe you all understand why.

We are all political beings, if you give everything away before, you abolish the incentive to push things towards the solution of the Cyprus problem. When the Republic of Cyprus is at long last united after the solution, it can discuss and negotiate with Turkey on the basis of the United Nations Law of the Sea for the delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) between Cyprus and Turkey and on Turkey’s participation in energy developments in the region. If, of course, it makes economic and commercial sense for us, a pipeline may pass through Turkey so that it can transport Cypriot natural gas either for Turkey’s domestic needs or so that we can trade Cypriot natural gas at the lowest possible price, or both.

This is the proposal that AKEL has made, to give content to what the Secretary General of the UN says in his latest Report, namely to make Natural Gas a catalyst to create momentum for the resumption of negotiations.

What we all need to realise is that if the situation remains as it is now, it is Turkey that benefits, and Turkey has the luxury of allowing time to pass by because, with the fait accompli it is imposing, Turkey is reinforcing the de facto partition, and at some point, which is not far away, we will be left with the permanent partition of Cyprus, and we will be the ones who will lose out.

For that reason, we will have to move in the correct direction by taking specific initiatives which, in our view, must have the content that I have just outlined.