Intervention of Andros Kyprianou, General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, at the Hearing “The Cyprus problem: recent developments and the way ahead” organized by the AKEL Delegation in the European Parliament and GUE/NGL
“The efforts to reach a solution of the Cyprus problem”
Wednesday, 1st March 2017, European Parliament, Brussels
The current discussion is taking place in the light of the recent serious developments with regards the course of the solution of the Cyprus problem. I would like to thank all those attending this event. Your presence is indicative of the interest with which the Cyprus problem is perceived. It is a problem with a strong international character and internal aspects which for 43 years we have been trying to solve. I would like to start by thanking the Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left which at all times and consistently supports the struggle of the Cypriot people. Such initiatives are not represent a routine briefing procedure. Rather, it is our belief that the solidarity of the peoples of Europe, of the progressive, left organized groups but also others, provides important support to the efforts we are making for the liberation and reunification of our homeland and people; support in the effort we are waging to rid ourselves of the Turkish occupation and to secure for the Cypriot people as a whole, promising prospects for the future.
At what point therefore are the efforts being made today and how close or far are we from a possible solution to the Cyprus problem?
What are the basic preconditions that must be met?
What is Ankara’s role in this effort?
How can the member-states of the European Union and the international community in general contribute to the effort underway?
Starting with the first question, no one doubts that today we are at the climax of a procedure that began in 2008 between the former President of the Republic of Cyprus Demetris Christofias and the then leader of the Turkish Cypriot community Mehmet Ali Talat; a procedure which passed through the stage of the substantive negotiation of Christofias – Talat. They managed to agree on a number of important convergences, mainly on three of the main chapters of the Cyprus problem (Governance, European Affairs and Economy). Subsequently it was brought to a stalemate when Eroglou assumed the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community. It intensified again when the current leaders, Anastasiades and Akinci, came to the leadership of the two communities. During this long negotiation procedure, AKEL supported the efforts for a solution and became the target of all those who tried, albeit temporarily, to give their credence to the vehemence of “national-mindedness” in order to serve petty-party considerations and experiences. Despite all these developments and actions, AKEL remained and remains steadfast and consistent to the aspirations and objectives which have guided us for nine decades: to rid ourselves from the occupation and the possibility of anyone interfering in our internal affairs, the liberation of Cyprus from any foreign yoke, the restoration and protection of the human rights of all Cypriots and the strengthening of the working people’s social and political struggles, regardless of community origin, ethnicity, language or religion. Because the history of Cyprus, and of the world in general, to use a phrase of Engels, should be “none other than the progress of the consciousness of freedom”. How else will we move forward towards this universal freedom envisioned by the Left if previously the current partitionist status quo is not terminated, if our people do not coexist in conditions of peace, if our people are not permitted to be the true masters of its country without barbed wires, foreign armies, foreign guarantors and “guardians”?
Today as I have already said, the negotiations are at a critical stage. It is the moment of truth: of genuine intentions, of sincere will and the difficult political decision for a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem. It is the time that we think in what direction the negotiating procedure is heading towards will soon be clarified. That is, whether it will lead to the achievement of an agreement, or whether this effort too will end in failure, with all that this entails. I point his out because there are landmarks which while on the one hand not constituting a strict and artificial timetable, but certainly do have an impact on the discussions. Already, the holding of the constitutional referendum in Turkey in April may have contributed to Ankara’s unproductive attitude in the discussions. Accordingly, we believe that the forthcoming Presidential elections in Cyprus due to take place in February 2018 will influence the discussions. At the same time no one can ignore the fragility prevailing in the neighborhood of the eastern Mediterranean, particularly concerning the sharp geostrategic contradictions which are developing daily, with Turkey playing a significant role. Our desire on the other hand, our aspiration and the reason why we as AKEL are struggling, is for this process to come to a positive conclusion. I do not in any way mean that we would support any solution, but that we are working for a comprehensive solution that will be based on the agreed framework, respect International Law and the principles governing the functioning of the European Union.
The steadfast position of AKEL and of the Greek Cypriot side in general was always that first all the chapters of the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem (Governance and Power-sharing, the Economy, European Union affairs, Property and Territory) must be agreed, or at least, to be within range of an agreement. Subsequently a representative international conference should be convened in order to reach an agreement on the chapter of Security and Guarantees. On the other hand, the Turkish Cypriot side always had the following disagreements: that the territorial issue should be transferred for debate in the final stage and given that this was agreed a five-party conference should follow exclusively devoted to the chapter on security and the guarantees.
Our long-standing insistence on the state in which the international aspects of the Cyprus problem should be discussed, and I mean given that we would be at least within range of an agreement on all the internal aspects, was confirmed as being correct by the difficulty of the conference in Geneva. We had anticipated that the conditions were not ripe precisely because there were – and regretfully still remain — significant disagreements on the internal aspects of the problem. Consequently there weren’t any objective preconditions so that this procedure would arrive at a definitive conclusion. Although significant pending matters remained in relation to core issues, the convening of the Conference on Security issues was decided.
That being said, I want to stress that in the roughly two years of talks of Anastasiades – Akinci undoubtedly significant steps forward have been recorded. However disagreements still remain on key issues such as territory, property, the rotating presidency and effective participation in governance; disagreements emanating from existing long-standing disagreements which weren’t so far able to be bridged, but also from both sides’ regressions regarding substantive convergences that had been agreed between Christofias and Talat. Indeed it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that back then not only had significant progress been recorded on the chapters of governance and power sharing, the Economy and the European Union, but was from that time within range of a convergence. I particularly point out the progress registered on the chapter of Governance, which is extremely complex and consists of approximately twenty sub-chapters. It was a significant achievement, considering the bi-communality, bi-zonality and political equality that demanded delicate balances, as well as ensuring the functionality, without at the same time departing and deviating from the principles of the solution and the aforementioned guidelines.
During the first meeting of the leaders in Mont Peleran it was agreed to devote three days to the discussion of the outstanding issues on the internal aspects to be followed by a two day discussion of the territorial issue. Furthermore it was agreed that there would have to be a range of convergence on criteria existing before Maps would be submitted. Indeed, during the first three days further progress was achieved on some outstanding issues. So at long last the discussion of the territorial issue also began. In the course of events it was apparent that a range of convergence were achieved on the ostensibly most important criterion, namely the percentage of territory that will remain under Turkish Cypriot administration after the solution of the Cyprus solution (28.2% according to the Greek Cypriot side, 29.2% to the Turkish Cypriot side). It also became apparent that room for an understanding existed with regards the second criterion too, namely the percentage of coastline under Turkish Cypriot administration. However there still exits a significant difference with regards the third criterion, namely the return of territories to how many Greek Cypriots will possibly return to their properties under Greek Cypriot administration. I clarify that this third criterion in reality also concerns territory, given that regions to be returned are highlighted. Somewhere at this point the negotiations were interrupted, with an agreement to continue them one week later, again at Mont Peleran.
The interruption of the procedure had negative consequences. The momentum was lost, while it was now clear that the prospects were not the best in view of the continuation. AKEL did everything it could for the effort to continue keeping hope alive. We proposed to the two leaders not to insist on a range of convergence also on the third criterion, but that they should submit and discuss Maps. We were not heeded and Mont Peleran 2 ended without a result.
Even after the disappointing turn developments took, we insisted that the negotiations must continue, with correct evaluations however about the causes that led us to the unproductive end of the two leaders meetings in Mont Peleran. We therefore forwarded to the President of the Republic our position that the negotiations should be resumed as soon as possible, without of course concessions on principles, but with realism. We warned that a potential prolonged stalemate harboured serious dangers for the future of the negotiation procedure. An additional danger was the well-known threat issued by Erdogan that if there was no progress by the end of 2016, he would insist on the “naturalization” of a large number of settlers. This would constitute a blow to the talks, given that he would annul the very significant convergence regarding the demographic ratio of 4: 1 at the time of the solution.
Our view was only partially taken into account. The negotiations continued, but the procedure decided by Anastasiades and Akinci did not foresee getting within range of an agreement before the convening of the Geneva Conference. While the effort to achieve convergences on the internal aspects continued in Cyprus, Anastasiades and Akinci took the decision that their discussion would continue in Geneva, where the submission of Maps would follow and they would conclude with the Conference on Security. As I have already mentioned, for AKEL the agreed procedure was not the appropriate one, precisely because we assessed that unless important outstanding issues regarding property, territory and governance issues are resolved, whatever conference would take place in the shadow of these disagreements. Despite this, from the moment the President took his decisions, with the risk of problems being provoked had we disagreed, as a serious and responsible Party we didn’t not oppose them.
Both during the talks in Cyprus, as well as during the negotiation of the outstanding issues on the internal aspect in Geneva, a minor further progress was achieved. This led to the stage of the submission of a Map by both sides. The Maps that were submitted meet the agreed criterion of the territorial percentage under the administration of each community but, as expected, from there onwards each side submitted the best Map for its own community. Therefore, there still exists a distance on the rest of the criteria. However, the fact that we will now have a discussion of the territorial issue on the specific maps rather than generally and vaguely is important.
Unfortunately, the Conference on Cyprus which followed, as expected did not lead to a solution of the chapter on Security and the Guarantees, not even to the start of a substantive discussion on the issue. This disappointed the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots who want a solution and who were hoping for steps forward. In view of the difficulties emerging, a meeting between experts was decided in order to prepare the next Conference. At this new meeting, the two leaders set out their concerns on the specific issue. Relevant questions were raised and replied and the tools which each side considers necessary were defined to address the issue of Security and the Guarantees. The continuation of the Conference will take place on a political level, as already announced during the second half of March.
Taking into account the current situation in the negotiations as I have described it, the question that arises is: what must be done from here onwards so that we can fulfill the sought goal of a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem? We still believe that the best procedure would be first to arrive within range of an agreement on all the internal aspects, including the territorial issue, and then to convene a representative international conference on Security with the participation of the Republic of Cyprus, of both communities, the guarantor powers, the other permanent of the UN Security Council members and the European Union. Regarding the security issues, we consider that a preparation could be made and that the International Conference should convene at the very last stage.
The worrying messages concerning a possible negative development began from the meetings in Mont Peleran. Although further progress was made there on the outstanding issues and, most importantly, they got within range of a convergence with regards the most basic criterion of the territorial issue, namely the percentage of territories under the administration of each component state, nonetheless, we had a failure. There are several reasons that led to that distressing development, but the most important reason was, in our view, the tactics of both sides to leave the issues of the internal aspect to the end for them to have, as they believe, room to negotiate. This approach has proved to be a dead-end. For example, when the Turkish Cypriot side leaves the territorial issue to the end, the Greek Cypriot side does the same with the issue of executive power, or/and vice versa. The important thing is not who started this tactic, but rather where this leads to. It only leads to a blockage, bearing particularly in mind also the Turkish stance on Security. Ankara has already stated that it will not to say its final word on the specific issue if it does not previously see how the issues of executive power, effective participation of the Turkish Cypriot side in federal organs and decisions and the issue of the four freedoms for Turkish citizens (the latter is a recent demand) will be resolved.
Therefore, if the two sides continue the same tactic, the inevitable result will be all efforts will fail. Instead, they should work so that they get within range of an agreement on the main issues of the internal aspects before the next meeting within the framework of the Conference on Cyprus, which we consider an important precondition for its success. If something doesn’t change, we fear that the new session of the Conference for Cyprus will have the fate of the previous one. By doing so, we will soon arrive at a deadlock, with all the resulting negative consequences for our country and people.
Everything I have said regarding the evolution of the negotiations indicate that the current negotiating procedure is at this moment blocked, a situation to which the weakness so far of the two leaders to instantly and decisively combat the pressures deviously being exerted by the nationalist groups on both sides have regrettably also contributed towards. The obvious goal of these forces and circles is to harm the negotiation procedure. Unfortunately, a wrong decision approved by the House of Representatives, with AKEL the only party voting against, to honor the anniversary of the 1950 Enosis Referendum, an amendment tabled by the ultra-right fascist party of ELAM, led as AKEL had warned, to fierce and overreactions in the Turkish Cypriot community and to new adventures of the negotiations. This occurred precisely because, as history teaches us, the nationalism of one community is cited by the nationalism of the other, and both of them meet at the point of preventing any attempt for reunification. It is the two leader’s responsibility at this critical juncture to overcome the difficulties that have been provoked, resume the substantive dialogue and close their ears to the sirens of the devotees of a deceptive patriotism or petty-political expediencies. They must lead the procedure forward right to the end, precisely to the point where the result of the effort for a just under the circumstances and functional solution will be judged, so that it will withstand the difficulties it will encounter in the course of its implementation.
AKEL has a clear view of what needs to be done. If specific moves are not taken in the immediate period ahead, we fear that the talks will possibly end in deadlock. If the two leaders do not return to the negotiating table soon and with a sincere willingness for dialogue and convergences, developments might catch us on the hop – with consequences and costs for the future generations.
So hoping that the procedure will be put back on track of a substantive negotiation, what must be done is targeted and up to the next phase of the Conference on Cyprus we should focus on certain key issues, the solution of which will have a positive effect on the Conference. I am referring to the issues of executive power, effective participation of the four freedoms, territory and property and security. On this last point preparation is required, knowing that on the discussion on security the participation of the three guarantor powers, the European Union and the UN Security Council is also demanded. The above issues must now be discussed together and any convergences on these should only apply if all the issues are resolved. Otherwise the whole exercise should be considered as void and no relevant convergence whatsoever should apply.
More specifically, the only key outstanding issues in the chapter of Governance and Power Sharing is the rotating presidency and effective participation. AKEL’s position was and remains that the Christofias – Talat convergence on the issue of executive power must be adopted. That is, a rotating Presidency with cross and weighted voting. This proposal obliges the Parties in both communities to cooperate with together for the election of the President and Vice President. Whatever confrontation is transferred on to a political level, as all the modern states operate and not on an ethnic level. In relation to the issue of effective participation, if the Turkish Cypriot side respects the outcome of the negotiation in the first meeting in Mont Peleran, then we can arrive within range of a convergence, that is a Turkish Cypriot vote won’t be required in all the federal bogies other than the basic ones, but only on a few. If a convergence is recorded on these two issues, we believe that prospects open up for getting within range of convergence on the territorial issue as well, which in turn will assist in solving the two-three main outstanding issues of the property issue.
At the same time, Turkey has also put forth a new demand on the four freedoms for Turkish citizens. On this specific issue, Christofias and Talat have jointly concluded that the four freedoms of the European Union will be implemented for the Greek and Turkish citizens in a way that will not violate the population ratio of 4: 1 respectively. Today Turkey chooses to challenge this convergence by ignoring the justified concerns of the Greek Cypriots who have opposite them a country of 80 million people.
From what I have said, it becomes clear that the solution of these core issues is connected with the political that must be demonstrated by all sides. If this is done we can arrive at a Conference with the sole object of the core issue of Security and the Guarantees. At this Conference aside from any public statements, Ankara will be called upon to submit concrete proposals, make concessions and prove in practice whether it is ready to end its occupation presence in Cyprus. We have no illusions about the difficulties we will face. However, we believe with the other issues resolved, the Turkish side must assume its share naturally attributed to it as an occupying power in the solution of the Cyprus problem. If we do not get to that point, we will never know its real intentions. Underlining our firm position as AKEL in favour of full demilitarization, the abolition of the guarantees and any rights of intervention, we do not underestimate the concerns of any of the two communities on the issues of security. However we are sure that ways can be found so that the security of one community won’t be guaranteed at the expense of the other’s security, an issue which will subsequently be discussed in detail by Toumazos Tsielepis.
Undoubtedly, Turkey’s provocative and contradictory stance, doesn’t leave much room to predict how Ankara will act at a subsequent meeting within the framework of the Conference on Cyprus. Namely, whether after the constitutional referendum the revisionism characteristic of the Justice and Development Party will prevail over the intransigent and provocative attitude that it continues to adopt today on the Cyprus problem or whether it will provoke and seek to exploit a new break down of the effort so as to proceed to new faits accomplis; faits accomplis which in reality will represent a continuation of the unacceptable policies it has been implementing for years against the Turkish Cypriots themselves, through privatizations and the full economic dependence of the occupied areas, as well as through the imposition of policies aiming at cultural assimilation. Nor can we diagnose whether the deterioration in the relations between Greece and Turkey allows room for a substantive discussion between them on the issue of security. However, at this crucial juncture of the Cyprus problem, AKEL will continue to elaborate proposals, acting constructively in every direction and trying to influence developments in the interests of the Cypriot people as a whole.
In this sincere effort we need your help and support. As I also said in my introduction, we are sure of your solidarity. However, we ask for something more. At this critical and decisive juncture we hope that you will exert your influence towards Ankara, given that it is obvious that at this particular stage we are at, the resolution of the security issue will depend essentially on the solution of the internal aspects of the problem as well. I do not think anyone doubts in this room that Turkey and nobody else holds the key of the chapter on security, and not just on this specific chapter.
A correct solution to the Cyprus problem, besides the well-intentioned interests of the Cypriots themselves, also serves both Turkey and Greece, but also of the European Union itself. The liberation and reunification of the island will be a success story for everyone: for our volatile region, Europe and the international community because it will create in a corner of our world after many turbulent decades, peace, security, stability and economic growth in a period marked by war and economic misery. It will also offer everyone the possibility to work together for the commercialization of the natural gas and the construction of the much discussed energy security in our region. And because it will bring back the air of freedom and hope in our people and give the next generations the consciousness of a common country, of one people, with a common future and a common vision for progress and prosperity.
