Interview of Stefanos Stefanou, member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL

 

“FILELEFTHEROS” newspaper, Sunday 30th August 2015

– Based on developments so far, do you believe an accepted formula can be found that could lead to a solution of the Cyprus problem?

SS: The negotiations themselves will show whether we can reach a comprehensive and mutually agreed solution of the Cyprus problem. Mr. Akinci’s presence in the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community represents a positive development, but everything and everyone will be judged in the negotiations. They will not be judged neither by statements, nor by assumptions or assessments made, but by the positions submitted at the negotiating table. From the information and briefing we have, so far the two sides have not begun discussing the details of the negotiations. They have set out the framework of certain aspects, such as for example the property issue, but have not started the substantive discussion of the various aspects.

We as the Greek Cypriot side must always seek to exhaust all the possibilities and prospects in order to reach a solution, undertaking initiatives in various directions. Our policy must always be based on principles -and we have defined these principles on the Cyprus problem over many years- and we should act according precisely to these principles with realism. Besides, the solution which since 1977 we have agreed to – that is to say the solution of a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation- is the result of a realistic assessment of the given conditions as these have evolved since the Turkish invasion, aiming of course at the termination of the Turkish occupation and the restoration of the territorial integrity and unity of the state and the people, the restoration of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of our people.

 

-Which in your opinion are the “red lines” that the Greek Cypriot side considers are of crucial importance?

SS: The first thing I want to clarify is that AKEL is not seeking any solution to the Cyprus problem. It is seeking a solution that has concrete qualative characteristics and requirements. If these qualative characteristics and requirements are not met, we will not consent to the solution. This is a message we want to send to all directions.

The solution of the Cyprus problem must ensure the continuation of the Republic of Cyprus with the transformation of the unitary into a federal state. The solution of the Cyprus problem must safeguard that the state is strong and not loose, that it will be a single state, and that to achieve this goal it is imperative that the sovereignty will be single and indivisible. It is imperative that the state has a single citizenship and a single international personality. For us it is extremely important that human rights and basic freedoms will be exercised freely and without restrictions.

At this point I would like to point out that the steadfastness and dedication Demetris Christofias showed to these principles was the cornerstone for the achievement of very important convergences with the then leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, Mr. Talat, such as the convergences regarding the implementation of the three freedoms (movement, settlement, property), as well as regarding the four freedoms enshrined in the European acquis communautaire (movement of persons, goods, services and capital). For AKEL, it is extremely important that the solution of the Cyprus problem will terminate the occupation and de facto division, that the solution reunites the country and the people who must be the true rulers in its own country, a solution with no rights of external intervention in our state’s internal affairs.

 

-As AKEL what worries you most? Where should we focus our attention on to avoid any transgressions?

SS: Look, in order to achieve all the above, to achieve a solution that is workable and viable and deliver under the circumstances justice, we need to submit concrete positions at the negotiating table that will on the one hand be guided by realism, but will also be based on principles. More specifically, the issues that determine the content of the solution must not deviate from the principles the Greek Cypriot side has formulated collectively.

 

– Your position that you prioritize so highly the issue of our country’s accession to NATO provoked astonishment. You warned the government not to expect any support if it were to apply for Cyprus’ membership to NATO. You give the impression that you agree on the major issues and disagree just to disagree on secondary issues so as not to be identified with the government and ruling forces. How do you reply to all of these claims?

SS: To begin with I want to clarify that for AKEL the question of Cyprus’ accession or not to NATO is not some minor issue. It is a key issue and for us it is a very high priority, we therefore do not raise this issue just for the sake of it. Besides, we have not taken this position today. This is AKEL’s consistent and long-standing position that we have never hidden, even when we were the only political party supporting it.

Let me remind you that in February 2011 all the political parties except AKEL that is – I believe with the abstention of the Greens, not to be unfair to them – approved a resolution in the House of Representatives in favour of Cyprus’ accession to the NATO program “Partnership for Peace”. We as a party did not hesitate, even though we were alone on this issue, to express our strong disagreement. Our disagreement was total and unequivocal. AKEL considers the matter as extremely important. It is capable of leading us to reject the solution, if this solution provides either for Cyprus’ accession to NATO or to the imposition of NATO guarantees. We therefore do not react to such a proposal in order to satisfy any expediencies and considerations. For AKEL this is a matter of principle.

 

– Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs response that armies do not guarantee a solution satisfy you? Is there a need today for guarantees?

Yes, it does satisfy us and we have stated this publicly, provided that the government and ruling forces remain consistent to this position till the very end. Armies can’t provide guarantees. They didn’t in Cyprus, they didn’t in Afghanistan, and they didn’t in Iraq. They never have, wherever interventions and invasions take place.

Our timeless position is that the solution of the Cyprus problem must provide for the demilitarization of the United Republic of Cyprus. I must recall that this is also the official position of the Greek Cypriot side and is included in the unanimous statement approved by the session of National Council in 2009[1]. With regards the guarantees we have on many occasions stated that European Cyprus does not need guarantees.

 

– Are we to understand that you do not agree on other issues, such as the property issue which for the other political forces provokes fierce reactions?

SS: If you mean the framework that has been agreed between Anastasiades and Akinci for the discussion of the property issue, no, we do not disagree, we agree. This framework is to be found in the Christofias-Talat convergences and it has now been reaffirmed. Be careful though, we do not agree because this was achieved by Christofias. No! We agree because, in our view, it represents a satisfactory framework to back the negotiation on specific aspects of the property issue that must be addressed. Consequently, the work that must be done is before us and it will not be easy. This is precisely where it will be confirmed whether a correct negotiation is being conducted and that the various aspects of the property issue are being properly addressed.

First of all it must be safeguarded that the owner will have the first say. The criteria must be agreed, and properties should be categorized. The principles and criteria governing the property committee should be established. A number of other issues should be clarified. These should be discussed between the President of the Republic and the political forces before the President proceeds to the negotiations.

It is at the negotiating table where the President will be judged. This is AKEL’s position and approach. We do not give a free hand/”carte blanche” to the President, but neither do we shout and criticize about things that have still not even been discussed. The discussion on non-existent issues is counterproductive and does not help.

 

– What are AKEL’s “red lines” that would force it to say that it will not support an agreement for a solution?

SS: We have already said a lot about what issues AKEL considers as extremely important. For example, AKEL cannot support a solution that would provide for membership of NATO or NATO guarantees. AKEL could not support a solution if the central government will not be strong and workable. It could not support a solution that will provide for unilateral rights of intervention or which would give foreign powers the possibility of interfering in the internal affairs of Cyprus. For us, a solution that would not safeguard the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the people is not a solution. One can say that these are our “red lines”, without of course having exhausted all the issues.

 

– As AKEL you are in a constant dialogue with the Turkish Cypriot community. What feedback do you have today – is there a will to achieve a solution and based on what elements?

SS: It is a fact is that we are engaged in a constant dialogue and contact with the Turkish Cypriot community. AKEL is the only party that always maintains relations with the Turkish Cypriot community and this relationship helps it to understand how the Turkish Cypriot community feels and acts, but also how we can exert an influence on how to promote the prospect of a solution. Through our contacts we ascertain the will of the majority of the Turkish Cypriots in favour of a solution and reunification. Besides, this will was also expressed by the assumption by Akinci of the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Turkish Cypriots set as their priorities political equality in the handling of the common Cypriot state and issues with regards security. There are other issues as well, which depending on the agenda become priority issues for the Turkish Cypriots, as is now the case with the debate that has opened on the property issue.

 

– Turkey has still has not shown its cards at the table. What do you expect from Ankara, given that it too is in the midst of an election campaign?

SS: It is a fact that questions are being raised about the liquidity that exists due to the absence of a government and the holding of elections. So far the Turkish leadership limits itself to making statements and issuing vague declarations. Turkey’s intentions will be revealed at the negotiating table and through the concrete behavior that it will show in view of the developments surrounding the Cyprus problem.

It is therefore important for the negotiations to proceed so it will be made clear whether Turkey has indeed decided to agree to the solution of the Cyprus problem, but also as regards to what kind of solution Turkey is seeking. If it has decided to consent to a solution, as set out in the relevant UN resolutions, then it is very likely we will have a solution, if not, then at least let Turkey pay the cost of the non-solution of the Cyprus problem.

 

– Collusion with the government and DISY party with regards the Cyprus problem, disagreements on the economy and internal governance. What is your reply to all those who accuse you of misleading the people because the important issue is the solution of the Cyprus problem?

SS: First, I want to comment on AKEL’s supposed collusion with the government and DISY party about which various political forces are propagating in their attempt to create the impression that there is a common front of AKEL – DISY and that something is being prepared behind the scenes. There is no such collusion or common front.

AKEL, as the responsible party it is, judges and evaluates positions and developments on the basis of its own positions. If the positions of the President of the Republic coincide with those of AKEL, it would be irresponsible and adventurist to state that we disagree because we are in opposition. We do not follow this stand only with regards the Cyprus problem, but on all matters. AKEL does not disagree for the sake of disagreeing and in order to serve opposition purposes. Where we agree, we agree. Where we disagree, we disagree and declare our views and positions. This is what being a responsible, serious and a coherent political force means.

It happens that on the Cyprus problem we agree with several positions of the DISY party and the President. We also have disagreements. Would it be serious of us to focus only on the disagreements? We judge the sum total and state that regardless of our disagreements, we support the negotiation procedure. On socio-economic policy a huge divide separates the government-DISY party and AKEL, which is the reason why we also have strong disagreements. Should we remain silent?

And one last point for those circles and forces who speak about a supposed collusion and common front. AKEL disagreed with a whole series of decisions and actions of the President on the Cyprus problem. We disagreed with the start of negotiations from scratch. We disagreed with the President’s attempt to draw up and agree to a new joint communique with the Turkish Cypriot side. We disagreed with the annulment of the Christofias – Talat convergences and called on the President of the Republic to reaffirm them. The President followed another path. Valuable time was lost and we also recorded regressions on issues of substance. Back then, those who today are accusing us of collusion were the ones warmly applauding the President. Should I assume that, according to their own logic, by standing shoulder to shoulder with the President and DISY party they were therefore serving considerations?

We only want to serve a single goal: namely, to achieve a solution as soon as possible which meets the long-standing “demand” of the Greek Cypriot side – a workable solution that will be lasting. I repeat that we do not give a blank check to the President. Our support is not given. We will judge him depending on his handling and decisions on the Cyprus problem.

 

– We are in a pre-election period, I would say. All the parties are preparing for the parliamentary elections next year. What is AKEL’s goal in this campaign?

SS: To reaffirm AKEL as a powerful political force, with a strong presence in the House of Representatives that would give it the possibility to intervene effectively in the political arena; to be able to demand and assert for the working people and the non-privileged strata of Cypriot society.

 

– What messages do you get from the party grass roots? Why is abstention a fundamental message revealed in opinion polls?

SS: That there is a problem of deprecation and denigration of the political system and political parties by a fairly high percentage of citizens is a fact. This also affects AKEL too. The latest opinion polls, both our own and others by political forces, show that AKEL is slowly regaining strength and increasingly rallying its forces. This does not make us complacent and leads us to believe that we do not have a problem. The phenomena of depreciation and denigration are combated by showing responsibility and seriousness, consistency between words and deeds. We are in an age when you cannot conduct political struggle with slogans. You must persuade through your actions, deeds and arguments. This is what we are trying to do as AKEL. AKEL’s standing and perception among the people is improving, but there is still work to be done so that we can restore the relations of trust with society to the extent and at the level that existed in previous years.

 

– Don’t you confuse public opinion and your party membership when you convey the message that you cooperate with the Presidential of the Republic on the Cyprus problem at the same time as you are calling on forces to form a front against privatizations?

SS: I explained in a reply to an earlier question how AKEL is approaching developments. Our agreements and disagreements are determined by the positions we have and not on the basis of serving any expediencies and considerations. We seek to serve the interests of Cyprus and our people as we ourselves consider best, not whether this will promote our opposition policy. We do not sacrifice the Cyprus problem for our positions on socio-economic issues, but neither however do we sacrifice and abandon our socio-economic positions and the character of the party, as the party of the working and common people for the sake of the Cyprus problem. I believe that the people understand this approach and in any case this is an issue that we will continually have to explain.

 

– With regards developments in Greece, you are in a difficult position at this stage. You supported Tsipras, he agreed to the third memorandum, SYRIZA split and the country is going to have elections. Which political spectrum does AKEL support? Who are you aligned with now – with Tsipras or with Lafazanis?

SS: AKEL did not rally behind any party. It supported and supports the struggle of the Greek people to defend its interests against the austerity policies imposed by Brussels and the so-called lenders who have promoted themselves into modern moneylenders. We did not adhere to the logic “SYRIZA or KKE”, nor will we follow the logic “SYRIZA or Lafazanis”. Besides, it is the Greek people who will decide in the elections and this must be respected by all. This does not mean that we are not interested in what is happening in various countries and in the European Union and the whole world in general. We want to see the strengthening of the forces of the Left. AKEL adheres to its long-standing position that the Left must find ways to forge and promote unity in action even in diversity and taking into account the disagreements that exist. There is no other way to combat the ever increasing onslaught of big capital and the right-wing forces that support it.

 

[1] An advisory body to the given President of the Republic established after the Turkish invasion on the Cyprus problem composed of all the parliamentary parties and formers Presidents of the Republic.