“Illusions and reality” by Stefanos Stefanou, member of the Political Bureau of AKEL

 

16th November 2014, “HARAVGI” newspaper

 

Some very important conclusions can be drawn from developments, as these are evolving, after Turkey’s illegal and provocative actions in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus.

First conclusion: The view that Cyprus’ accession to the European Union and the finding of hydrocarbons will automatically strengthen our country’s geo-strategic position is an illusion. The upgrading of Cyprus’ geo-strategic role can be achieved by pursuing a concrete plan and through appropriate political handling that will utilise properly the two previously mentioned developments.

Second conclusion: The abandonment of the multifaceted foreign policy of the Republic of Cyprus and its reorientation in the direction of the US and NATO have not enhanced Cyprus’ international position as the government is claiming, but instead has weakened it. All the statements about “strategic partners” made by the US Vice-President Biden during his visit to Cyprus and which the Government repeatedly highlighted so as to justify its own foreign policy, also proved to be an illusion, given that the US reacted in a very lukewarm way to Turkey’s provocations.

Third conclusion: The government’s belief that Cyprus’ accession to the NATO programme “Partnership for Peace” and to its perspective membership of NATO will render Cyprus a powerful ally of the North Atlantic Alliance and the US, have collapsed like a house of cards. Apart from the US, important NATO countries chose to remain silent or issue unclear and vague statements with regards Turkey’s provocations. The recent unequivocal statements made by the new NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Ankara leave no room at all for any misinterpretations. He stated that Turkey is a strategically important country for NATO, both with regards the stability and the Alliance’s role in the region. Consequently, the Western powers deliberately choose to support Turkey, as indeed they have been doing for decades.

Fourth conclusion: These statements issued by the NATO Secretary-General in relation to Turkey must force the government to abandon its illusion that by making concessions and providing facilities to the US and NATO Cyprus will replace Turkey’s role in the region. No matter how many fronts Turkey may have opened – and it does indeed have many pending fronts – its strategic significance for NATO continues to be great.

Firth conclusion: The only course for Cyprus to be able to play a substantive role in the region is Cyprus’ return to the multifaceted foreign policy that was being pursued by the previous government. This policy utilised our country’s status as an EU member, as well as the traditionally very friendly relations it has with the Arab states. At the same time, it developed very good relations with Israel, as well as with all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The policy which is being implemented now by the Anastasiades government for cooperation with states in the region we hope will not be temporary, but will represent a real change of course and policy. We hope the same also with regards its attempt to revitalize its relations with the Russian Federation that have been damaged by the government’s turn towards the West.

Sixth conclusion: Not only does the status quo not solve any of Cyprus’ basic problems. but it is a vehicle for Turkey to put forth more and more demands, as it is doing so now by claiming an EEZ and natural gas. The theory that over the passage of time Cyprus becomes more powerful proves to be an illusion. Cyprus can fully safeguard its sovereign rights through the solution of the Cyprus problem, as this is set out in the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the High-Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979, which provide for a bi-zonal bi-communal federal solution.

The attempt to disengage Cyprus from them will nullify the resolutions and lead directly to partition.