Excerpts from the interview given by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Andros Kyprianou to “Politis” newspaper
Sunday 14th May 2017
Do you have an idea of what is going on in the talks, at which point the negotiations are on the Cyprus problem?
We do not have an overall picture because the President of the Republic has not informed us of what has happened during the last meetings between the negotiators. But unofficially, we learn that they have moved forward on some important issues concerning the property issue, but also on the issues with regards the effective participation in the executive power. There seems to be progress recorded at the negotiating table.
At the same time as this progress is underway, I regret to note that the public behavior of the President of the Republic transmits exactly the opposite impression and raises numerous questions because the President is expressing positions in public in the way he does so, while things are different at the negotiating table.
What do you mean? What is the President’s public image conveying?
You know, because I hear the President wondering “why are they accusing me – is it because I’m defending my homeland?” Well, is he implying that we aren’t defending our country?
Did Mr. Anastasiades suddenly discover that this consistent stance that we have been adopting in recent years was a demand to retreat from positions of principle?
I had warned him during the last session of the National Council, because I had begun to detect his transformations, not to consider even suggesting that AKEL had put pressure on him to make concessions on issues of principle. Whatever AKEL had to say, it did so publicly. It has no problem whatsoever to express its position boldly and courageously in front of the Cypriot people. We have said nothing more to Mr. Anastasiades. Furthermore, I hope and wish that he won’t force me to say what we discussed in some of our face-to-face meetings.
I will say once again to Mr. Anastasiades, ask anyone on the street whether Nikos Anastasiades today, is the same Nikos Anastasiades six months ago. I do not have to answer this question, ask anybody in the street. And he will get an answer as to what has occurred and why AKEL is criticizing him.
Has the President’s references about those wanting to solve the Cyprus problem in a hurry and who are ready to accept any solution annoyed you?
These statements do not concern us – we do not want any solution, we do not want to solve the Cyprus problem in a hurry. We, repeatedly and over time, have set out the principles on which basis we want a solution to be achieved.
What we observe today is that Anastasiades has abandoned the positions he had supported up until recently. Today he is expressing positions with the phraseology of Nicolas Papadopoulos, Marinos Sizopoulos, and all the rest of the so-called intermediate space.
Is there still time for a solution to the Cyprus problem?
There is time, I believe there isn’t a will.
And I want to make it clear so that there is no misunderstanding at all.
The big obstacle to the solution of the Cyprus problem is Turkish intransigent positions. These positions are given. We have known them for decades. For 43 years, Turkey has been intransigent, aggressive and provocative. Turkey isn’t expressing these positions in this way only today.
The crucial question, however, is what we do to be able to overcome this intransigence; how we can force Turkey to state its position, to get to the point of dealing with the substance. That’s precisely where we’ll ascertain, whether Turkey will help towards achieving a solution within the framework agreed since 1977 and which has been reaffirmed many times to date, or whether it remains exposed. That is what we are saying to Mr. Anastasiades to do.
That is, you’re telling him to go to a new Geneva conference?
That’s not what I said. I say that we have to go into negotiations with a political will and a willingness to work hard to achieve those convergences, which will permit us, yes, to go to an international conference.
However, the President believes that Mr. Akinci doesn’t know what a federation means within the European context.
Well, he’s been talking to Mr. Akinci for so many years, and now, suddenly today, he has discovered that the Turkish Cypriot leader doesn’t know what federation means?
He urged him to tell him one federation of those that exist in the world which contains what the Turkish side wants.
First and foremost, an essential element that Mr. Anastasiades should know is that all federations have certain common features and characteristics, but they also have many differences. There is no federation in the world that is the same as another.
Secondly, that is concerning his role, namely where Mr. Akinci’s positions deviate from the correct framework, he should point this out to him. In practice, that is, to prove that where and whenever positions are expressed by Mr. Akinci that are outside the framework of the federation he should point it out to him. However, the way that Mr. Anastasiades is behaving in public, I think he not only does not expose Mr. Akinci, but exposes himself.
When did you conclude that President Anastasiades doesn’t have a will to solve the Cyprus problem?
I must say that we have begun to pose many questions about the real intentions of President Anastasiades since the Mont Peleran meetings. In Geneva, where I had a much closer contact with the talks, I was really surprised at the way the negotiations were being conducted. Instead of focusing on the important and substantive issues, they were dealing with details. And it wasn’t just that precious time was being wasted in discussing details, but confrontations were being provoked over details, which didn’t permit a substantive discussion on the important issues.
We can’t go on like this. From Geneva I had told the President of the Republic our opinion about how we should press forward. I told him that priority should be given to the important issues and that we should find a way to conduct a free debate, without the worry – either from one or the other side – that what they would say would be used against them in the evolution of things, so as to explore what the real intentions of the other side were. Only in this way would we be able to move forward. We did not do so, I regret to say.
Wasn’t it Turkish Foreign Minister Cavousoglu and the Turkish position on the four freedoms that destroyed Geneva?
I was not present at the meetings, so I can’t express an opinion. But I know that the Turkish side’s regression on the issue of the four freedoms didn’t emerge in Geneva. The regression from the convergence of Christofias – Talat had been agreed much earlier.
Now, as regards as to what the Turkish side’s real demands are, I must tell you that I don’t know until now. I asked the President of the Republic at the National Council, and in different sessions he gave different versions. That is why our own view, on this issue, is that we should have put very concrete questions to the other side, to find out exactly what the Turkish demand is, and to prove with arguments that it is unacceptable if indeed it is as presented in public. Well, the President even refuses to hear what they have to say.
In Mont Peleran, what were the signs that made you believe that the President did not have the political will to proceed in the talks?
At this stage I don’t want to go into this discussion, given that the negotiations are still underway. We want to give the opportunity and possibility, until the last minute, if possible, to move forward towards the solution of the Cyprus problem. I therefore think we don’t have to waste our energy in a confrontation about what President Anastasiades should have done in Mont Peleran and what he didn’t do.
How do you view things in relation with the drilling planned by the ENI/TOTAL consortium in July, at block 11? Does a real danger exist?
We strongly support the Republic of Cyprus exercising its sovereign rights. We will not accept to retreat on this sovereign right because there threats are being issued.
At the same time, however, we warn Mr. Anastasiades that there are various ways of dealing with these issues. I always cite two examples: When Demetris Christofias proceeded with drilling in 2010-11, Turkey was issuing threats at that time. Because Demetris Christofias was reaffirming every day at the negotiating table his will to proceed with the negotiations, the international community reacted in the correct way. The Russian Federation reacted first, the United States and the United Nations reacted quite strongly, while the United Kingdom reacted more timidly in comparison to others. As a result, Turkey did not carry out its threats.
In 2014, when Mr. Anastasiades was wasting time by indulging in tactical games, when he was following the orders of the other political parties – something that it appears he is attempting to do today as well – not only was the Turkish vessel “Barbaros” roaming freely unhindered on the southern coast of Cyprus, but we also got the worst Report we ever received from the UN Secretary-General since 2004.
So, Mr. Anastasiades must reflect about the dangers that lie ahead if he continues this tactic on the Cyprus problem and goes ahead with a drilling in July.
What do you think about Turkey’s moves in the Cyprus Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and FIR of the Republic of Cyprus?
I think it is politically naive for anyone to believe that Turkey, without a solution of the Cyprus problem, will remain indifferent as we proceed to implement our energy plans in our EEZ. I think that many times Turkey has demonstrated that on such issues, it does not easily go back on its stance. And I’m not saying that to frighten anyone. I simply say this because we need to think about it. We should not go back on exercising our sovereign rights, but how our sovereign rights are exercised is of paramount importance.
And if we do not understand this, let me say that we are politically naïve.
Have you regretted the support AKEL rendered to the efforts of President Anastasiades to solve the Cyprus problem?
Let me make it clear that we did not support Nikos Anastasiades. We supported the negotiation procedure aiming at a solution of the Cyprus problem. This was our obligation towards our homeland and people. I cannot imagine that AKEL could have behaved any differently. We are a patriotic party, which puts the interests of our country and people above all else. It was, therefore, AKEL’s duty to behave in this way and it did so very correctly. To put it simply, Mr. Anastasiades did not manage to do what he should have done, all that he himself was saying he was going to do.
Do you feel the President has tricked you?
He did not trick us, we were fully aware of who Nikos Anastasiades is. But, I reiterate, we had an obligation to our country and people to support the procedure and try to convince Mr. Anastasiades to pursue the correct line with regards the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem. It was our duty to do so, we did it, our conscience is clear, and if necessary, we will act in the same way again.
