Concerns over motion for resolution regarding Commission’s Progress Report on Turkey

 

Statement of Georgos Loucaides, AKEL C.C. Spokesperson

AKEL C.C. Press Office, 19th January 2015, Nicosia

 

AKEL, having studied in detail the motion for resolution on the European Commission’s Progress Report on Turkey, expresses its deep concern about the deterioration being noted in most of the references concerning the Cyprus problem when compared to previous resolutions of the European Parliament.

In particular, inter alia, we point out the following negative changes:

– The references to a bi-zonal bi-communal federal solution, to a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship, the withdrawal of the Turkish troops and to the transfer of Famagusta on the basis of Resolution 550 of the UN Security Council are all absent from the resolution.

– The references to the issues relating to the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus and to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea are weaker.

– The demand – call for the opening five new chapters, besides chapters 23 and 24, is introduced, while the ground is being prepared for a new call for the opening of the chapter on energy.

– The reference demanding Turkey’s categorical compliance with the Ankara Additional Protocol is absent.

– The issue of the missing persons, but also of the settlers in the occupied areas is also completely absent from the resolution.

As a positive change, we point out the absence of a reference to the direct trade of the Turkish Cypriots, an aspect of increased importance given the bringing back on part of the UN, after many years, of the issue concerning the lifting of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

The deterioration in the content of the references with regards the Cyprus problem in the resolution on Turkey’s Progress Report, which is in addition to the recent biased UN Secretary-General’s Report for the renewal of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), in effect, illustrates the international isolation our side has gotten into. Instead of Turkey being on trial for its growing provocativeness against the sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus, but also for Mr. Eroglu’s well-known intransigence, the exact opposite has unfortunately happened. As a result of the contradictory and erratic policy pursued by the government of Anastasiades and the DISY Rally party, the Turkish plans have been facilitated by the pressure exerted by the international and European factor on the Greek Cypriot side.

AKEL will not stop warning, as it has been doing over the past two years without however its voice being heard, that a reorientation of Cyprus’ foreign policy is demanded so that it will recover its multidimensional character. In addition, the timely undertaking of initiatives is required which should be based on principles and not on belated actions, under the weight of the negative developments, that have even breached the “red lines” we had correctly set.

In conclusion, even at this stage, the collective handling and abandonment of any expediencies and considerations is demanded, since now developments have reached a crucial point, both with regards the perspective of the Cyprus problem and of the management of the issue of natural gas.