Excerpts from the speech of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Andros Kyprianou to the 26th Limassol District Conference of AKEL
AKEL C.C. Press Office, Sunday, 14th May 2017, Nicosia
On behalf of the C.C. of AKEL, I address a warm greeting to the 26th AKEL Limassol District Conference. Limassol is the district that gave birth to our Party and your District Conference must contribute to its rejuvenation.
It is true that the results Limassol has recorded in the various electoral battles over the last decade have not satisfied us. The possibilities of the District organization are infinite. If they are used efficiently they will bring great success, provided that we work together, in a collective, methodical and focused way on a political and organizational level; provided that we put personal aspirations and egoism to one side, subordinating them to the general interest. This is imperative because we have big and crucial struggles to wage ahead of us. Turkey’s provocations, aggression and intransigence have always made our efforts to achieve a just, workable and viable solution difficult.
Unfortunately, however, Mr. Anastasiades’ tactics are diminishing the hope for a solution of the Cyprus problem and the reunification of our country.
In the beginning, Mr. Anastasiades was trapped in the policy he had promised to follow to the other parties.
He refused to continue the negotiations from where they had left off.
He refused to reaffirm the convergences agreed by Christofias-Talat.
What was the result? No substantive negotiations were held. While justice was on our side, we received one of the worst reports from the United Nations since 2004. At the same time the Turkish vessel “Barbaros” roamed about freely on the southern coasts of Cyprus, while the international community not only did not support us, but remained completely indifferent. Mr. Anastasiades had chosen to follow the strategy of the so-called “intermediate space” parties. His policy harmed the cause of Cyprus. To proceed to substantive conversations, we suffered losses as a result of the Anastasiades-Eroglu Joint Declaration.
The notorious “new strategy” – as advertised today by DIKO President Mr. Nicholas Papadopoulos – was subsequently tested and had failed. It turned out to be ineffective. It turned out to be the classic strategy which anyone can follow if he/she wants to be led to a dead end.
When Mr. Anastasiades was forced by developments themselves to listen to AKEL’s views, progress began to be recorded on the Cyprus problem. Many of the Christofias-Talat convergences were reaffirmed, while some changes were made to others.
The people’s expectations for an agreement rose with the talks in Mont Peleran. Although as AKEL we had the view that we went there in haste and without preconditions, we supported the procedure, given that that’s what Mr. Anastasiades decided.
While the main responsibility for the lack of progress lies with the Turkish side the withdrawal from the first meeting and the zero result of the latter, signaled the beginning of the regression on the Cyprus problem. The perfect pretext was given to the Turkish Cypriot side to shirk and lead developments to an extensive stagnation and regression.
As if that wasn’t enough, Mr. Anastasiades tolerated and subsequently regenerated an enormous political crisis on the domestic front.
He could have referred from the outset to the Supreme Court ELAM’s amendment on the Enosis Referendum. He did not do so.
He could have asked for the Attorney General’s opinion on the DISY bill, since there were reactions. He did not do so.
He could have sent a bill to the House of Representatives to correct the mistake made as a result of the approval on ELAM’s amendment. He did not do so.
He could have exercised his right to refer the bill to the Supreme Court. He did not do so.
He allowed a vicious and intense confrontation to be waged on the domestic front simply because he did not want to clash with a section of his own electorate. He chose to serve pre-election expediencies instead of adopting a responsible stand.
Regrettably, pre-election expediencies continue to guide him. I could say a lot more. I’ll just say a few words on this issue.
Those forces and circles who advised others not to clash with the United Nations, and indeed in public, made pompous statements by announcing the sending of a letter to the UN Secretary-General. To impress public opinion more they referred to its content, violating the diplomatic norm. Although they were saying that they would denounce UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative to Cyprus Mr. Eide, press reports imply they did not.
It is now clear that Mr. Anastasiades has set sail for the 2018 Presidential elections. He subordinates everything to this ambition. He will not hesitate once again to sacrifice the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem to serve his pre-election considerations.
They did the same in 1993.
They repeated the same in 1998 and 2013, and they are doing it again today.
Mr. Anastasiades, noting our intense reaction, listening to the popular outcry, is now trying to be more careful. No matter what he does, his petty- considerations have been exposed, and his credibility has been dealt heavy blows.
I have been asked many times lately whether “AKEL regrets the stand it took on the Cyprus problem during the Anastasiades administration”.
Our answer is very simple. AKEL did not change its policy on the Cyprus problem. We maintain our long-standing and timeless positions for its solution. We stick to the principles of the solution and to the proposals put on the negotiating table since 2008. Based on these principles and proposals, and acting patriotically and responsibly, we have supported the negotiation procedure with all our strength. This is the only way forward for a solution to the Cyprus problem.
We therefore supported the procedure, not Mr. Anastasiades.
If developments are allowed to evolve as they are proceeding lately, continuity will be extremely difficult. There is a danger of the interruption or/and the collapse of the procedure.
We address an appeal and at the same time a warning to Mr. Anastasiades: He needs to exhaust all the possibilities for a solution. With insistence on principles and flexibility in tactics he should make every effort to reach an understanding. If not, the responsibility should be borne by the other side. Otherwise, Cyprus will enter into terrible adventures. We will find ourselves on a moving sand that we won’t know where it will eventually lead us to.
One thing is certain: Mr. Anastasiades’ mutations and transformations are gaining being applauded and cheered by the so-called “centre” space. Very soon they will be competing with each other as to who expresses this spectrum better.
As far as the cooperation forged between the parties DIKO, EDEK, “Solidarity” cooperation is concerned, I will underline the following obvious fact.
What policy will N. Papadopoulos be pursuing?
Will it be the policy of DIKO which wants a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with the “correct content”?
Or that of EDEK which has formally renounced bi-zonal bi-communal federation, both its very name and content?
Or that of “Solidarity” which is seeking a unitary state?
If this co-operation isn’t merely a cooperation serving expediencies and considerations with the sole objective of gaining power, what else is it?
I also want to reply to a view that has been put forth for some years about alleged unacceptable and treacherous concessions; about the promise some circles and forces are making to the people that they can achieve a unitary state solution.
If we have made supposed unacceptable concessions why haven’t we reached an agreement then?
How will Turkey – which does not accept a solution on the basis of these concessions – accept an ideal for us solution?
Who will put pressure on Turkey?
Who will pressure Turkey to accept such a solution?
Wasn’t it the same slogans and irredentist concept of the “Great Idea” that led us to the treacherous coup d’état that brought the 1974 disaster?
Slogans are good for caressing ears and inflating feelings of pride; but they do not unfortunately solve problems.
In our 90-year history, we have more than proved that we do not engage in a policy of sloganeering and empty rhetoric from balconies; we do not indulge in a policy of “discounts” or discounts in our policy. That is why I want to assure everyone that the candidate we shall support in the presidential elections will be based first and foremost on a framework of political principles. The policy that is based on principles is the most honest, Lenin said. We are not going to divert from this tenet. First, we agree on the political context, principles and policy positions and afterwards on the person/candidate. The candidate we will support will be a candidate who will project, believe and be able to defend principles; not petty-party aspirations, not petty-political interests. He/she will be untainted, honest and sincere.
If the factor of honesty is discussed in the pre-election debate, it is true that both Mr. Anastasiades and Mr., Papadopoulos will have a very hard time convincing the people.
As far as internal governance is concerned, Mr. Anastasiades has broken his “pledges” from the very beginning with the disastrous decision for the haircut on bank deposits in March 2013.
He was elected under the slogan “the crisis needs a leader,” and all he did for years was to say “Yes” to all the demands put forth by the Troika. He was elected with the pledge to bring “a new day” and he did eventually did so but for the privileged few, condemning the majority of the people to dark days.
The middle class of Cyprus has been crushed.
One-third of the population is threatened by poverty.
Thousands of young people have migrated or aren’t returning to Cyprus after completing their studies.
Unemployment remains high. Employment rates are stuck at the end of 2014 levels.
The government and ruling forces claim they have implemented a radical social reform in social benefits. Indeed they have – by cutting benefits. They took from the poor to give to the poorest.
In pursuing a deliberate policy, the wealthy have become richer and the poorer, poorer. The only tax on wealth, the tax on immovable property has been abolished. This has led to Cyprus recording the worst results as regards the table on the growth of the income gap across the European Union.
The grant for low-income pensioners has been reduced by 64.3 million Euros over the last four years.
Social benefits fell by € 79 million.
All this has taken place at a time when wages have declined to the levels of the early 1990’s, while the cost of living is following a frantic path.
Cyprus has now ended up, due to these policies, being included in UN reports as among the worst treatment of disabled people’s problems. Absence of care, lack of a strategy for de-institutionalization of people with disabilities, an ineffective national disability action plan, deficiencies in accessibility at home and outside environment and unsatisfactory public transport.
All this coupled with the truly tragic conditions existing in the public health sector. If we do not proceed decisively towards the implementation of the General Health Scheme, perhaps the present generations will be the last ones to remember that Cyprus once had public hospitals, public health and a welfare state.
Before the elections, Mr. Anastasiades has begun promising benefits and bonuses. Let him promise them. The people do not forget how easily he abandons his commitments and breaks his pledges.
How will he close the gap in inequality?
During his governance, the value of working people’s wages have fallen to the level they were 20 years ago. The profits of the privileged few have increased significantly, at the same time as working people’s incomes have plummeted.
It will be very difficult for the DIKO leader Mr. Papadopoulos, whatever he says today, to distance himself from these policies imposed. He constantly talks about an alleged “DISY/AKEL” collusion, but he was and is the bastion of support of the ruling DISY party when it sought to implement its economic policy and impose its philosophy. Mr. Papadopoulos was constantly and vigorously defending together as one voice with DISY President Averof Neophytou, the then Governor of the Central Bank Thanasis Orphanides. He strongly accused D. Christofias of not reappointing him to his post. Together with Mr. Averof Neophytou they are hiding behind their finger pretending they don’t remember the criminal inadequate supervision of their hero, who loaded several billions of debt on Cyprus’ back. Together back then, they voted for all the legislation that reduced the revenues of the Christofias Government. Together they did not allow it to pursue its policy bring turmoil to the economy. All this was done deliberately to impose their own policies.
But today as well they agree on almost all the issues concerning the economy in the House of Representatives.
Together they voted against AKEL’s amendment for No-Fees to be charged for Care for families with an Income of 30,000 Euros, for the unemployed not receiving Unemployment or other benefits and for pensioners below the poverty line.
Together they voted against AKEL’s proposal to exempt smallholders from the immovable property taxation.
The DIKO leader also wanted to vote in a haste with Averof Neophytou in favour of the privatization legislation.
Together they voted for all the insolvency bills, accepting the withdrawal of provisions that provided support to owners who were in a bad position, not of their own responsibility.
Together they voted against AKEL’s proposals for the protection of the primary home and small businesses from foreclosures.
Together they voted for the privatization of the port of Limassol, which has proven to be a very big scandal.
Together they voted for the sale of loans to foreign investment funds and much much more.
(…)
So it is up to us whether AKEL will take the next step – if it grows stronger. We have to stand up and take that step forward. We must be ready to fight again with those who thought they have the strength to attack the biggest gain ever won by the working people – their own Party!
We must be ready to confront again those circles and forces who want to condemn our people to their dead-end and anti-social policies.
We must be ready to fight again with our past yesterday to win our own tomorrow!
For Cyprus! For the people!
We have the pride in our presence and service in the country for nine decades.
But history is ahead of us. The test for us is to write this history!
