Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, AKEL Political Bureau member and Head of the Cyprus Problem Bureau of AKEL
Sunday 18th October 2020, “Haravgi” newspaper
The President should go to the talks and refute Cavusoglou
Despite the mediations, the conclusions of the European Council and the comings and goings of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, Turkey insists on playing the game of provocations and illegal actions. Some say Turkey wants to enforce what it itself considers as right and just. What do you say?
TT: It really does want to impose justice, as Turkey itself perceives it, that is to say a peculiar from of international law that applies only to Turkey. However, we must understand that everything that is happening is the consequence of the breakdown at Crans Montana. As AKEL, we had promptly advised the President of the Republic that a way should have been found for the resumption of the negotiation procedure as soon as possible. But the Secretary General of the UN demands that the negotiation should continue from where it had remained, with the convergences recorded and the Guterres Framework. These are of course proclaimed by the President, but then he annuls them through his rhetoric and deeds. This explains precisely why there has been no negotiation procedure for more than three years now.
The worst fait accompli are created during periods when there is no ongoing negotiation procedure. Hence, there is a way to get rid of the evil at its root: to convince the Secretary General of the UN that we mean what we say about resuming the negotiation from where it had remained. All the government’s related actions and representations – in the EU, in the Security Council of the UN and elsewhere – are forced, but without the resumption of talks, Turkey will continue to provoke tensions and create fait accompli.
At this particular moment we are obliged to wait for the result of the voting procedure in the occupied territories…Today we will already know the result.
TT: The procedure for resuming the talks will be set in motion anyway, regardless of who the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community will be as of tomorrow. If this is Mr. Tatar, then this effort too will not have any prospects either. Unfortunately, we are hostages of the voting procedure in the occupied territories, given that three and a half years were lost, at the same time as we had Mr. Akinci as our interlocutor.
Some forces and circles argue that whoever is elected it’s the same thing. Their narrative is that there’s no difference between Akinci and Tatar…
TT: The claim that whoever is elected is the same is refuted by life itself. We know how many attacks Mr. Akinci came under from Turkey with regards the Cyprus problem, but also for his positions on other issues too. I assure you from my own experience that it isn’t the same thing at all to have Denktash and Eroglu before you instead of Talat or Akinci. Of course, I’m not suggesting that if Mr. Akinci is elected, we will not be facing any difficulties, but the noticeable difference is that Akinci is seeking a federal solution, while Tatar is seeking a final partition.
Some are claiming that at Crans Montana, Mr. Akinci wasn’t speaking at all and that Turkey was dominant with Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglou.
TT: What we are experiencing today refutes this narrative.
In his interview to the state channel a week ago, the President of the Republic acknowledged that for the first time a map was submitted by the Turkish side that included the return of Famagusta, as well as most of Morphou. Will this map be on the table if we manage to get back to the talks from where they had remained at Crans Montana?
TT: I have the impression that the UN Secretary General will not proceed beyond an informal conference unless he is convinced that all parties are ready to continue with his Framework and from where we had remained at Crans Montana. This means that the map that had been submitted by the Turkish Cypriot side, which actually included the return of Famagusta, will have to be brought back (on the table) provided that substantive talks resume.
The President of the Republic, on the other hand, is constantly conveying the message (even from the podium of the UN General Assembly as well) that he is not ready to accept the one positive vote in the absence of trust towards the Turkish Cypriots. Can this be interpreted as a bargaining tactic to gain something on other issues at the table, such as on guarantees and security?
TT: The one positive vote in the Ministerial Council replaced the veto in the 1960 Constitution. This was achieved by comrade Demetris Christofias. He succeeded and we replaced it with the one positive vote. It was agreed that we will have a Ministerial Council with a 7: 4 ratio that will take the decisions (not the President of the Republic). Political equality means effective participation in institutions and in decision-making. If they do not have the one positive vote in the Ministerial Cabinet, there will be no effective participation in decision-making, but a majority-minority relationship.
President Anastasiades has annulled this convergence and Turkey has found an unexpected pretext, given that it demands political equality to accept the termination of guarantees, intervention rights and the withdrawal of troops. Of course, we do not accept the position that they should have one positive vote everywhere. We are of course talking about the Council of Ministers, the executive body of our state.
As regards low-policy bodies, the Framework of the Secretary General of the UN provides for one positive vote in some of them only.
The President of the Republic, when he was referring to this issue at the UN General Assembly, posed the question “where else have you seen such things occurring?”
TT: There are plenty of examples in the modern world with variations, of course, but the substance is that with individual rights alone, which of course must be respected, not a single seat, neither in Parliament nor in government, is safeguarded. Is it ever possible from the bicommunalism of the Constitution of the 1960’s to go to a majority-minority relationship? Indicatively, in Belgium there is an equal number of Walloon-Flemish Ministers. In the US, Trump was elected with 3 million votes less than Hillary Clinton. These are just two of the many examples of regulations that guarantee not only individual, but also collective rights.
Doesn’t this position of the President and many others vindicate Cavusoglou’s position that the Greek Cypriots are not ready to share power with the Turkish Cypriots?
TT: The President of the Republic must go to the talks and refute Mr. Cavusoglou. And at the same time to respect the convergence that had been recorded on the issue of political equality. As long as this isn’t the case, Mr. Cavusoglou will be saying whatever he wants.
Was Turkey’s political decision to open the Famagusta coastal front simply taken to help the election of its chosen candidate, Ersin Tatar, as head of the Turkish Cypriot community, or do you see a strategic purpose?
TT: It is obvious, judging from the moment it chose to do this move, Turkey wanted to help Mr. Tatar. However, this is an action that is a crack in the status quo and we have no doubt that at the first opportunity Turkey will proceed further.
Is our side sufficiently prepared for the conference to be convened by the UN Secretary General?
TT: I have no relevant information whatsoever. Proper preparation is indeed required, but only for the pending issues. The UN Secretary General knows very well what issues were agreed upon. So long as they are pending, with a flexible and prudent negotiating tactic we can reach a conclusion in a way that – in my view – makes the Framework of the UN Secretary General even better.
Public opinion is not at all prepared for the possibility that the new effort will lead to a strategic agreement.
TT: Not only is it not prepared for this, but it is being prepared for the opposite. The UN Secretary General in his Reports tirelessly reiterates that the advantages of the solution of the Cyprus problem must be explained to the people and not demonized. We as AKEL have much more limited possibilities, since we do not govern, however we do everything we can to inform citizens correctly and objectively.
What will happen if this attempt to solve the Cyprus problem also fails?
TT: I consider that it will be several years before someone makes another attempt to solve the Cyprus problem. A solution can always be found if there is mutual will on the part of Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and Turkey, but what will be the quality content of the solution after some years have passed? Just look at what has happened in recent years with the absence of any negotiations. There are issues where the status quo will not stay as it is. For example, on the property issue, the issue of the settlers and consequently with regards the territorial issue.
