The Unbearable Lightness of Irresponsibility

———————————

Article by Stefanos Stefanou,

General Secretary C.C. AKEL

 

I cannot know what the purpose was, of the President of the Republic’s statement on Cyprus joining NATO, but what is certain is that it does not serve the interests of Cyprus. It does not even serve the political priorities that the President has set.

What are these priorities?

1. On the Cyprus issue, the President’s declared position is to break the deadlock and resume from the point where the negotiations were interrupted in 2017 and to continue them on the basis of the Guterres Framework. The statement on NATO membership invalidates this specific position since it is at odds with what the Framework provides regarding the security aspect. Consequently, the position on NATO membership, weakens the credibility of the Greek Cypriot side, that it means what it states about resuming the negotiations from the point where they were interrupted.
2. The discussion about NATO transfers the discussion about the solution of the Cyprus problem to an arena in which Turkey has complete superiority. The whole discussion gives Turkey the opportunity, given the veto it has, to handle the Cyprus problem on the basis of its own terms and plans. Already, Tatar gave a sample of Turkish intentions by essentially demanding acceptance of the two-state solution in exchange for membership. May I also remind you that in the case of Sweden’s membership to NATO, Turkey set its terms and those terms were met.
3. The plan, (any plan) for a solution to the Cyprus problem must be adopted by the UN Security Council. The President, as well as DISY, which hastily rushed to support the presidential statement on NATO membership, have never explained how a solution that would provide for such a membership could be adopted by the Security Council.
4. The President raised the issue of security and upgrading the deterrent power of the Republic of Cyprus to support his position on NATO. However, he never answered how Cyprus would be shielded against Turkey, when NATO, based on Article 5 of its Statute, does not intervene in conflicts between its member states? It is precisely with this argument that NATO does not protect Greece from Turkey. Regarding the strengthening of the combat capability of the National Guard, I do not think that the President is actually not aware that Cyprus is also supplied with weapon systems from NATO member states. The reason why we do not procure weapon systems from the USA is because since 1987 the US has imposed an arms embargo on Cyprus and not because we are not in NATO.
5. Cyprus, as a small country facing the problem of invasion and occupation, needs strong international support. That is why it should seek to strengthen its relations with as many states as possible, and especially with the five permanent members of the Security Council, two of which are not members of NATO. Therefore, Cyprus’ foreign policy must be multidimensional and the development of its relations with one state must not cause damage to relations with other states. Building international cooperation is one thing, and pledging our country to foreign armies and foreign interests is another, which ultimately makes our country a target.

In conclusion: The discussion the President of the Republic has opened on Cyprus’s accession to NATO – and which the Minister of Foreign Affairs described as “premature” – does not serve the declared objectives of our policy, nor the vital interests of the Republic of Cyprus. The President should have kept this in mind when raising the issue.

The question remains, of course: why did the President raise the issue and then back down? Is there something being prepared in the background? Is the President sacrificing everything on the altar of the need to increase his popularity? Regardless of the reasons that prompted the President to do so, he must finally understand that in politics what matters is the result and not the intentions. Politicians are judged by the results of their policies, which is why they must be careful. Especially when politicians put the fate of the country at stake with their decisions.

And last but not least: why now? Why is the President raising such an issue at a time when, after seven consecutive years of absolute impasse, the UN Secretary General is trying to create conditions for the resumption of the negotiation process? Those who are on the right side of history are the ones who serve the interests of our country and our people, not those who remain stuck in their ideological obsessions. The right side of history is for Cyprus to remain outside NATO and not to become its accessory and tool for its well-known aggressive policies.