Excerpts from an interview with Toumazos Tsielepis

 

18th January 2016 “REPORTER”

Toumazos Tsielepis is a member of the Secretariat and the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL, International Law expert, Head of AKEL’s Bureau on the Cyprus Problem and former member of the Negotiating Team of the former President of the Republic Demetris Christofias.

 

 

– Are we indeed close to a solution?

TT: It is true that at this moment in time there is a coincidence that favours the efforts to find a solution. All the international players, more than ever before, have an interest in seeing a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem. This is what Turkey’s well-intentioned interest also dictates, although the current leadership of the country is unpredictable.

From there on, everything and everyone will be judged and depend on the negotiating table. As we know, currently the focus is on the property issue, a particularly difficult chapter. If however the two sides manage to reach an agreement on the property issue, then, yes, it opens the way for the discussion of issues on which Turkey will be judged. I am referring partly to the territorial issue, but mainly to the chapters on security and the guarantees that will follow. You realize of course that if we do not manage to overcome the hurdle of the property issue, the effort is in danger of failing…

 

– In order to overcome any obstacles remaining on the property issue, do you consider that the two sides must take some serious and bold decisions?

TT: There have never in the past been big convergences on the property issue, unlike other chapters. In discussing this issue, we must take into account some crucial factors: First, it is an issue that directly concerns tens of thousands of families who have vested interests. Second, the factor of time, that is to say from 1974 until today 41 years have elapsed, which has created some new given conditions and situations. And, thirdly, that before us there is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (namely, the Dimopoulos case) which – the truth be told – is a bad decision which makes the Greek Cypriot side’s pursuits even more difficult.

Despite the difficulties, in the negotiations between Christofias – Talat we managed to agree on some convergences which after several ups and downs were adopted by both of the current leaders of the two communities. I refer primarily to the acceptance of the position that the properties belong to the owners and not to the users, as well as in the form of therapies that will be offered – resettlement, compensation, exchange and some sub therapies, e.g. alternative property. In addition, it was also agreed to set up a committee which will deal with all these issues, not arbitrarily, but on the basis of criteria subject to discussion. It goes without saying that the owner has the first say, and if he/she decides compensation or exchange, the settlement will be easy, given that some practical obstacles will be overcome. However, if he/she chooses resettlement, the demand will be satisfied only if the resettlement criteria are met. It should be understood that in some cases, particularly where there has been significant development of immovable property (for example, streets, hotels, industrial units etc.), the resettlement will be impossible…

 

– Has further progress been achieved?

TT: You cannot reply to this question with a yes or a no, nor can I tell you if I am optimistic or pessimistic. For sure the whole effort must continue, because in case of failure the consequences for both sides will be extremely negative. For example, in case of a break down, the activities of the Compensation Commission will increase dramatically.

 

– Do you consider that the linking of the property with the territorial issue can open up pathways to overcome obstacles that today seem insurmountable?

TT: Perhaps. Besides, if there are two issues that are inextricably linked, it is these two. In my view, one of the reasons we did not record big convergences in the past was the refusal of the Turkish Cypriot side to discuss simultaneously the two chapters. The connection is however glaring, in the sense that the more regions return under Greek Cypriot administration -where there will be full resettlement – the less will be the problems that remain to be solved. Let me point out here that because the Turkish Cypriot side refuses a parallel negotiation on the two issues, we set as a line of defence the condition that whatever we propose on the property issue is subject to the return of at least 100,000 refugees of 1974 under a Greek Cypriot administration, or 60% of the total number.

 

– And if today’s users want to stay on in the area under Greek Cypriot administration, what will happen?

TT: Our side does not set as a condition Turkish Cypriots moving to their own constituent state, quite the opposite. The important thing in the case you are referring to is that the lawful owner will acquire the right to manage his property as he/she wishes. For example, if he/she does not want to return and the Turkish Cypriot user wants to remain, a settlement can be made in line with the agreed criteria.

 

– Given that recently numbers are being brandished around by many people – has the cost of the solution been estimated?

TT: To calculate the cost of the solution you must first have before you the solution itself. For that reason most of what is being heard is speculation. Suffice to say that certain circles and forces, in their efforts to maximize the supposed cost, overlook the value of property that will be transferred to the Property Commission by those who opt for compensation as a form of therapy. Furthermore, when you talk about the cost, one must also bear in mind the benefits of the solution and if it can offset them. Let me assure you that in the long term the economic benefits will be much more than of any cost. Let me give just two examples: As a consequence of the demilitarization – a position to which I hope the President of the Republic will remain consistent to- we shall save several hundred million Euros annually! From the obligatory recognition of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey, Cyprus will benefit as many millions. Not to mention the benefits from tourism, trade, etc. Finally, I believe that some people confuse the cost with the liquidity which must exist in order to implement the solution of the Cyprus problem.

 

– It is obvious that the federal state will require large liquidity reserves. Who will ensure this liquidity?

TT: We must first find the solution. When we find it, we need to make a final costing and subsequently address the international community, requesting assistance in order for this solution to be implemented. The international community should either provide us with this money in the form of donations or through low-interest long-term loans. It goes without saying that in this case the Memoranda logic cannot be accepted, because then the Federal Government will be led inevitably to its collapse!

 

– With all these serious problems it is facing, why should the international community offer financial assistance to Cyprus?

TT: The Cyprus problem is a political problem that has been troubling the international community for 50 years and it should be handled as such: on a political basis and not on economic, Memoranda terms. With the solution of the Cyprus problem big political and economic interests are at stake. Does the EU have no interest in resolving the Cyprus problem? Doesn’t the EU wish, for example, to see the exploitation of the East Mediterranean gas in a way that will end the dependence on Russia? Won’t the solution of the Cyprus problem be to the benefit of NATO’s South-eastern flank? The 10-20 billion Euros that might be required to finance the solution are crumbs for the international community. Instead, the benefits will be infinitely greater.

 

– Will AKEL support the President until the end, or in view of the parliamentary elections will the Party harden its stance, stressing the differences it has with the President on the Cyprus problem?

TT: I can assure you that AKEL under no circumstance will change its positions on the Cyprus problem. Hence, the campaign will not affect the stand that we adopt towards the President on this issue. The positions that we support today, we will also uphold during the pre-election period too. Besides, we defended these positions alone since September 2009. All the other political parties had allied themselves against our positions for a long time. We did not fear being alone in supporting our positions. We remained steadfast to our positions and now feel vindicated! The reason that President Anastasiades today follows a realistic policy is because he realized that the policy pursued by the other, except AKEL, forces had a tragic ending! While the Turkish vessel “Barbaros” was moving undisturbed inside the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus, the UN Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council the worst in decades Report on the Cyprus problem. That policy had to change and the President did the correct thing in adopting a different strategy, which we support. Currently, according to measurements of public opinion, 85% of the voters who in 2011 voted for AKEL support the policy of the Party on the Cyprus problem. So, why would we want to change this policy?

 

– Is the information correct that in view of the possible movement of Mr. Mavrogiannis (Note: chief negotiator of the Greek Cypriot side to the UN-led peace talks) to New York, your participating in the procedure of the talks is being upgraded?

TT: My participation is determined on the basis of the decisions taken by the Party. As AKEL, we clarify that Toumazos Tsielepis is not a member of the negotiating team, is not in the room of negotiations, however, his at the disposal of the President for anything he might request. Whatever and whenever Mr. Anastasiades feels that he needs our help, we are ready and will continue in the future too to be at his disposal.

 

The interview given by Toumazos Tsielepis to “Reporter” is being published just a few days before the meeting of the delegation of AKEL, headed by its General Secretary, with the Turkish Foreign Minister, M. Cavusoglu. We asked Mr. Tsielepis what the goal of the visit is:

TT: At the meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister we will set out the positions of the Greek Cypriot side and we will try to determine Turkey’s real intentions. We are not going there for a meeting of a ceremonial nature, but for a real discussion, in which among other things, we will discuss both the territorial issue, as well as the issue of the guarantees. Let me make it clear that we are in full consultation with the President, but we do not go there either as envoys of Mr. Anastasiades, nor as bearers of some proposals.

 

– How do you respond to the allegations that AKEL is playing Ankara’s game, which wants to create the impression that it is interested in the Cyprus problem and is taking steps to solve it?

TT: These reactions were predictable. However, the utilisation of such invitations is a matter of common sense! Negative impressions against AKEL would be created if we reject the invitation of Cavusoglu and not now that we accepted to go to Turkey to discuss the Cyprus problem. You cannot reject such invitations.