Interview with Chrysanthos Zanettos, AKEL Famagusta District Secretary and AKEL Political Bureau member
Sunday, 11th October 2020, ‘Haravgi’ newspaper
“I want to believe that the President and his government underestimated the dangers of a prolonged stagnation and wasn’t seeking it”
Were you surprised by the decision to open the coastal front of Varosha? What are your feelings?
It didn’t surprise us because for a long time now Turkey has been warning by issuing threats that it would proceed with the opening and colonalisation of Varosha. Of course in this case Turkey did not proceed to open the city and colonalise it. They opened a section of the beach to the public and cleared the road leading to the beach, which gave Erdogan the “right” to portray Turkey’s move with a semblance of legitimacy. More specifically, Turkey said that no intervention was made as regards the property status in Varosha, implying that its action is compatible with the resolutions, since it does not change the status quo in the region at all.
The truth is that this action is another step in the efforts to fully open and colonize the enclosed area, within the framework of a broader plan that Turkey certainly has for the region. Furthermore, the timing of Turkey’s threats to implement its threats was by no means accidental. It was yet another attempt to intervene by promoting the candidacy of its chosen one, Ersin Tatar.
Is it not a tragic irony that the President of the Republic expressed his satisfaction with the European Council Conclusions on Turkey?
Of course, it is a tragic irony that the President and his government were celebrating the European Council Conclusions on Turkey, as just a few twenty-four hours later Turkey proceeded to take its action on Varosha. It was clear that the President and the government had not taken seriously the messages that were being conveyed by Ankara, considering the statements made by Turkish officials and Turkish Cypriot politicians as bluffs and statements for internal consumption purposes.
In reality, on the one hand, they analyzed developments and the situation they faced in a very superficial way and on the other hand, they underestimated the dangers. When relevant statements were being made by Turkish officials last summer, the government characterised them as “communication tricks”, while the ruling DISY party declared a few months ago that it wasn’t worried about the possibility of any Turkish moves in Famagusta. Unfortunately, there wasn’t the required seriousness shown…
Do you consider that the government and the President underestimated the dangers of the three-year stagnation on the Cyprus problem?
The recent negative developments in Famagusta I believe are not at all unrelated to the stagnation surrounding the Cyprus problem for more than three years. If our side had made specific moves in time after Crans Montana, as we as AKEL have proposed countless times, not only would we not be where we are today in relation to Famagusta, but the whole effort to resolve the Cyprus problem would possibly have been on a positive course and not at a point of stagnation.
Today, unfortunately, we are at the point of pleading for the election of a leader in the Turkish Cypriot community who believes in the principles of the solution to the Cyprus problem and in the correct framework of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, and not someone who will be seeking a two-state solution and to torpedo any new effort. I want to believe that the President and the government simply underestimated the dangers of this prolonged stagnation and that they weren’t seeking to deliberately drive developments to where they are today.
Apart from appealing to the UN Security Council, what do you think should be our next steps to prevent any further fait accompli?
From the very beginning, we said that a recourse to the UN Security Council was a move in the right direction. In addition, we said that Turkey must be denounced in all international fora/bodies, the UN, the EU and elsewhere, both by the government and the Municipality of Famagusta. I also believe that the recent mass mobilization of the the lawful inhabitants of Famagusta, which was organized by the Municipality of Famagusta, was very supportive in our efforts, as it provided the opportunity to demonstrate our determination to prevent the new crime being committed against Famagusta and the whole of Cyprus.
For there to be a tangible result, however, the need for a resumption of the negotiation procedure must be projected as soon as possible, with the aim of reaching a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem within the agreed framework and from the point where we had remained at Crans Montana. Let me also remind you of something extremely important: The continuation from where we had remained, with regards Famagusta, means the bringing back by the Turkish side of the map with Famagusta under Greek Cypriot administration. This is the only way to save Famagusta, to save Cyprus.
