Excerpts from an interview with the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A.Kyprianou
Sunday 6th September 2020, “Haravgi” newspaper
- “Packaging” the Cyprus problem with other issues is a red line
- Cooperation where and when a minimal agreement exists on fundamental issues
The US Ambassador argued that the partial lifting of the arms embargo on Cyprus isn’t directed against Turkey, but Russia, which is attributed with playing a destabilizing role in the region. The Cypriot government replies that it is not tied to either the West or to Russia. What’s your view?
AK: The decision to partially lift the arms embargo is a small step forward with regards an unacceptable decision that was taken by the US in 1987. Back then, instead of punishing Turkey for its invasion in Cyprus, the US punished Cyprus with the embargo. Today we are talking about a lifting of the arms embargo for one year on “non-lethal weapons”, whatever that may mean. At the same time, this decision is accompanied by unacceptable preconditions which we have been persistently pointing out for some time. Both the US Undersecretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the US Ambassador to Cyprus have made it clear that for the decision to proceed, Nicosia must sever its ties with the Russian Federation. Permit me to say that for the Cypriot government to say that it isn’t going to do so is like mocking us because if it doesn’t, then the US decision won’t be implemented. So they can’t be rejoicing over something that may not be implemented if they do not follow the guidelines set out by the US.
Secondly, an attempt was made by the Foreign Minister and the government to convey the message that the message supposedly being sent to Turkey is of great importance at this juncture. Both the US Undersecretaries and the US Ambassador have made it abundantly clear that their action is not directed against Turkey. Besides, just last week US President Trump himself praised Erdogan, characterising him as an important player on the international political chessboard. That is why I say that the government is rejoicing over issues that don’t take on these dimensions.
The President of ruling DISY party Averof Neofytou is confident of “significant developments” in autumn on national issues and even stated that he isn’t worried about possible provocative actions surrounding Varosha, precisely because of the upcoming developments on the Cyprus problem. Why is AKEL worried?
AK: If only it turns out that he is right in the end, but I don’t share Mr. Neofytous’ optimism for many and various reasons. First and foremost because no one knows what the outcome of the voting process will be for the new leader of the Turkish Cypriot community. If either Mr. Akinci or Mr. Erhiurman is “elected” we can hope for the resumption of substantive negotiations. If Mr. Tatar is “elected”, however, under what conditions and with what prospects will a meaningful dialogue resume? Mr. Tatar speaks openly in public – as does Turkey too – about a two-state solution.
Secondly, Mr. Anastasiades’ position so far isn’t clear. No matter what he says verbally, in practice we conclude that he does not respond to all that the UN Secretary General is calling for in order for him to take the initiative to resume substantive negotiations. On the contrary, we consider that Mr. Anastasiades is wavering, regressing and saying one thing and doing another, as a result of which numerous questions are being raised among the international community about the real intentions of the Republic of Cyprus. Let us not be told again that “bad” AKEL is conveying negative messages to the international community. Negative messages are indeed being transmitted because of the government’s own actions and not because they are being highlighted by AKEL.
Thirdly, we are very worried about what the possible developments on Famagusta will be. Let me remind you that a year and a half ago AKEL had warned of negative developments on Famagusta. Back then, the Foreign Minister told us that Turkey was engaging in communication games. Today, it is obvious that Turkey not only intends to take concrete action surrounding Famagusta, but it also appears to have proceeded to elaborate a concrete plan. The government mustn’t think that Turkey is naive and that it will proceed to take actions that will bring it into direct conflict with the international community. Turkey will act cunningly. It will tell the lawful owners (of Varosha) “return to your property”, not under the auspices of the UN – as the relevant resolutions of the United Nations provide for – but under Turkish Cypriot administration.
Consequently such a development will provoke clashes within the Greek Cypriot community, particularly among the lawful inhabitants of Varosha…
AK: This will provoke serious problems among the Greek Cypriot community. Some will want to go back, the rest will call them traitors and we will enter into an internal conflict between us. Worst of all is that those who will not allow them will be told by the Turkish Cypriot community that in such a case they will give their properties to others…
Is the proposal put forward by the prominent lawyer Achilleas Demetriades for appeals to the “compensation committee” a solution?
AK: We believe that this proposal also harbors dangers. The issue is not a legal one, it is a predominantly political issue and will only be resolved through political means. The only way to put an end to the plans of Turkey, Mr. Tatar and Mr. Ozersay on Famagusta is the resumption of substantive negotiations on the Cyprus problem and a specific plan to proceed as soon as possible, if there is a positive response from the Turkish side, to an agreement for a solution (of the Cyprus problem).
The return to the talks from the point where they had remained at Crans Montana has now become a “slogan”. Can the talks resume from where they had remained?
AK: We considered that if there is no movement towards a solution things go steadily worse and decline. Unfortunately life and developments themselves will vindicate us yet again. President Anastasiades left the talks saying that the Turkish side blew the talks to pieces, something that the UN Secretary General and the EU do not accept. Now there is an attempt and it will be a success if we do manage to go to talks and continue from the point where we left off.
There have been a great many provocative actions on the part of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean during this period and a diplomatic effort is now underway for a Greek-Turkish dialogue. Do you see the possibility of a possible “packaging” of the Cyprus problem (with other issues) in this dialogue?
AK: The first thing I would like to say is that Turkey has become provocatively aggressive and represents a danger to the wider region and the international community needs to address it decisively. Unfortunately, we do not see this determination so far on the part of the international community. At the same time, we don’t see any action being taken for the de-escalation of the crisis.
We are hearing contradictory messages from the government. On the one hand, it is expressing the view that only effective sanctions can solve the problem, and at the same time it is aiming to add five more people and some subsidiaries of the Turkish state hydrocarbon company to the EU blacklist. These are not effective sanctions.
We sincerely wonder what the government’s goal is. The government must clarify what it wants. We are facing a provocative, aggressive and uncompromising Turkey. What are our goals? We want to resolve the Cyprus problem in a way that liberates us from the Turkish occupation and does not give it the right to intervene in our internal affairs. We want to make use of the natural wealth we have in our Exclusive Economic Zone. All our actions must serve this goal and its implementation. Can the escalation of tension lead to a solution to the Cyprus problem? No, it doesn’t. Only de-escalation and the resumption of substantive negotiations can solve the Cyprus problem. That is precisely why AKEL is adamant that the government’s actions must be in line with the goals we set. I regret to note that unfortunately this isn’t the case.
We are extremely concerned about the general issue you are raising. We are worried about the possibility of a serious incident occurring. The consequences for the wider region will be incalculable. War has never solved problems, on the contrary it always causes much more problems.
Secondly, we are worried, yes, about the possibility of a Greek-Turkish dialogue being conducted and the Cyprus problem being left to take on a secondary importance. However, I believe that no Greek government will proceed to solve its own problems with Turkey by offering rewards in exchange in Cyprus. First of all, they (Greek governments) do not have such a right, but I consider that neither can any Greek government have the intention to act in such a way.
However, pressure may be exerted by third parties…
AK: We must have no doubt whatsoever that pressure will be exerted on everyone. However, I think it is a “red line” that no one can cross.
I repeat that no one has the right to speak on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus regarding the solution of the Cyprus problem.
The situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, as it stands, is dangerous. What can be done?
AK: I will reiterate AKEL’s view: If Turkey complies with international law, with the demands of the EU and if it seeks to solve the problems it has with its neighboring countries – and for us the solution of the Cyprus problem is extremely important – then a dialogue can begin to become part of the broader discussions surrounding the use of natural gas in the wider Eastern Mediterranean basin. Let Turkey think about all this and let us convey the correct messages so that its reflection be made on the correct basis.
__________________________________________
Cooperation where and when there is minimal agreement on fundamental issues
AKEL has never hidden that change in the governance of the country is one of its priorities. On the other hand, is cooperation with other political forces an end in itself?
AK: I am honestly astonished when I hear DISY being surprised when it hears AKEL’s criticism of the government. They were against the Christofias government as we didn’t expect them to be in favor. We expected them to act with a more political culture. If one were to judge the way they treated Demetris Christofias, then one will conclude that there is no comparison with the way we are acting. We act with a political culture while they accuse us of being destructive in our criticism. They were far more than destructive in opposition and there was no harm, no foul.
The second thing I want to say is that cooperation is imperative to remove the DISY government from power. At the Party’s Programmatic Conference that took place in 2014 we approved decisions regarding when alliances will take place. Cooperation will be forged when and where there is a political framework and platform, that is to say, political positions around which a minimum agreement will exist and provided that there will be agreement on the persons who will represent the candidates in this case. We will evaluate all this when the time comes.
It is obvious that as far as AKEL is concerned we will seek cooperation with social movements that share the same priorities as us, as well as with political parties, with which we may have disagreements on certain issues, but which are ready to support a minimal political framework, on which we will base any cooperation.
Apart from ruling DISY party, the government is also references to AKEL’s priorities for a change in government as an argument to discredit or nullify the opposition’s criticism.
AK: AKEL has repeatedly proved that it correctly ranks the priorities that have to do with the interests of the Cypriot people and Cyprus. When Mr. Anastasiades was negotiating on the correct basis for the Cyprus problem, the only political party that backed the negotiating procedure and received praise both from the government and Mr. Neophytou was AKEL. When the pandemic broke out, the only political party that was submitted numerous proposals was AKEL and they were praising it. Therefore, let them abandon the childish attitudes and arguments about AKEL undermining the President.
AKEL is not going to be silenced. It will express his views openly on all the issues of concern to the people.
They shouldn’t expect that AKEL will be silent.
Will the political framework be formulated at the Party’s scheduled Congress?
AK: No. The Congress will decide AKEL’s political positions for the next five years. When you attempt to forge a cooperation you do not go with the maximum of your positions. You do not demand from others that they must agree with your positions so that you can cooperate. You will put forth a number of issues upon which there can be cooperation. Among these issues will for sure be the most important ones: Such as the Cyprus problem, the economy, issues related to corruption and interwoven interests that are evolving into major issues for Cypriot society…
There are strong views that for example with DIKO there are differences as to positions on the Cyprus problem and the economy which cannot be bridged…
AK: Let’s leave these issues until the time comes.
Will the AKEL Congress take place as planned?
AK: Health protocols are causing problems. We have written to the Ministry of Health and asked for clarifications so that we can convene our Congress. The holding of the Congress is of great importance to us. We are waiting for answers and shall discuss with the Ministry of Health.
How will AKEL react to the possibility of working people being called upon yet again to foot the bill of the crisis?
AK: Our reaction will be strong, both inside and outside Parliament. Working people have already paid a heavy price. When the 2012 crisis broke out, the Christofias government made an effort for the heavy burden not to be shouldered solely by working people. The Anastasiades government came to power and with its erroneous decisions and handlings made working people pay for all the consequences of the crisis, as a result of which there was a widening gap between the few rich and all the rest of the people in the Cypriot society, with the result that the middle strata disappeared. When things started to improve the pandemic crisis came.
If the consequences are loaded on to the working people’s backs they will not be able to cope. The privileged few will increase their wealth again. And we saw this happening all over the world. Jeff Bezos increased his incomes by 80 billion, while Bill Gates his by 20 billion…This is happening at a time when people are really starving. We believe that government policies should aim at a fair distribution of the impacts of the crisis. Those in need must be supported and must take from those who can afford to contribute.
