Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL, International Law expert, Head of the Cyprus Problem Office of AKEL and current member of the Support Team to the Greek Cypriot negotiator at the talks.
“HARAVGI” daily newspaper, Sunday 5th February 2017
Does the Turkish demand for the four freedoms to be granted to Turkish citizens undermine the talks or not?
TT: For sure the Turkish demand cannot be accepted. There is a convergence concerning the four freedoms, which must be respected. I recall that Mr. Akinci, when he took over the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community, brought back the convergences that were rejected by Eroglu. The essence of the convergence cannot be ignored: The 4: 1 population ratio, which was applied since 1960 on the basis of the Treaty of Establishment for naturalization of Greeks and Turks must be extended to cover residency too.
When AKEL says that a good preparation must be made and indeed with experts for the continuity of the Conference, so that it will be successful, what do you have in mind?
TT: The preparation must be done at a political level, primarily between Greece and Turkey. We do not demand from Turkey that it should accept our positions before going to the Conference. Such a development would be a form of “protaxis” policy (Note: the policy of putting preconditions that predetermine the result of negotiations), which whenever it has been implemented has had disastrous consequences for our side. We are talking about preparation. In Geneva it became apparent that the conditions were not ready to discuss the issue of security and this is the reason why it was referred to technocrats to prepare the ground.
However, the most effective preparation would be to address some key aspects of the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem, which are still pending. Our long-standing position was that if we do not arrive within range of an agreement on the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem, we cannot go to a Conference. However, the procedure that was subsequently agreed is known. We must utilize the time until the Conference to resolve some key issues of property, governance, the four freedoms (Turkey should clarify whether it accepts the convergence or not).
So you agree that we are probably not far from a “give and take”.
TT: A negotiation is underway on an agreed framework and based on certain principles. What does negotiation mean? In the broad sense negotiation means searching for a mutually acceptable compromise, but a compromise however that will not deviate from the framework of principles. Negotiation does not mean that you say if the other side doesn’t accept your initial position, nothing will happen.
That is to say its decision making time and political decisions need to be taken by both leaders?
TT: There are no timetables, but we know that this procedure, in one way or another, is nearing its end, either with a deadlock or a solution. The pre-election campaign is also approaching, which does not help a serious negotiation to be waged with a view to arriving at a conclusion somewhere. If anything, we must try to arrive at a substantive discussion on the chapter of security and the guarantees. This is where Turkey and its real intentions will be tested in practice.
And yet we have not got within range of an agreement on important issues such as governance, although their discussion had been moved in Geneva as well. What is changing now?
TT: Both in Mont Peleran and Geneva some further progress on these issues had been achieved. However the chapter that dominated in Geneva was that the one on security and guarantees. The conditions weren’t ready for this issue to be discussed, but some progress was recorded on the rest of the issues.
We must at this stage focus on three or four key issues on the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem, whose solution may also help towards a successful outcome of the Conference.
What are these 3-4 questions?
TT: These issues primarily have to do with executive power, the property and territorial issue. You understand that if the remaining differences on the issue of governance are addressed, perhaps the discussion of the territorial issue would continue under better conditions, something which in turn would help the solution of the property issue. This is what we must try. It does not mean that we are going back and retreating from our positions. This is the way the period leading up the Conference must be used.
Otherwise?
TT: If things do not move forward before the pre-election period begins, possibilities will be reduced significantly. We are talking about a procedure that has been continuing for ten years now. It does not mean that there will not be another opportunity in the future, but our key negotiating positions are being eroded with the passage of time.
What will happen to the property issue?
What will happen with the “legitimized” by the European Court of Human Rights appeals to the “compensation committee”?
Won’t the majority of properties at some stage find themselves in Turkish Cypriot hands in a “lawful” way?
What will happen with the settlers who were born here, the mixed marriages and their children? Won’t the problem exacerbate and the territorial issue also deteriorate, given that the numbers of their population will increase and approach our own?
Therefore, by always being adamant on principles and the agreed framework, the effort must be to move things forward.
What about the key issue of the rotating presidency?
TT: The rotating presidency is on the table since 1993. It was included in the five Annan plans which came under fierce criticism, but not with regards this particular issue. Demetris Christofias made improvements by incorporating it into a presidential system that is much more stable than anything else, and indeed with a direct election by the people with a joint vote, cross-voting, with the decisions taken by the Ministerial Council (7-4 in our favour) and not by the President.
If something better is achieved, we will welcome it. But the time has come to address the issue because by referring it further on, the other side too refers the territorial issue further on or/and vice versa.
On its part, Turkey says it will not open its cards on the issue of security before it sees how these issues will be resolved. It was obvious from Mont Peleran that this tactic leads to a vicious circle. We must try to unblock things.
There must be tangible concrete improvements
Do you think public opinion is ready to vote “Yes” in a new referendum?
TT: No one can guarantee the outcome of a referendum. However, the situation is different from 2004. Back then the so-called arbitration had been invented to bypass Denktash. In the end this arbitration led to being able to refer a plan to a referendum whilst at the same time as a leadership rejecting it. This cannot happen now.
Only an agreed solution will be put before a referendum and – given that it will be agreed – the President will support it with all that this entails.
In addition, the economic situation is not that of 2004. Back then, the force of inertia prevailed – “why should I take a risk as I am doing fine?” Whatever may be said at this moment, the solution of the Cyprus problem in the medium and long term will provide enormous economic benefits.
The main thing, however, is to bring before the people something that the people can accept, which means that what happened in 2004 must be taken very seriously into account. There must be tangible concrete improvements. From there onwards, time will be provided so that everyone can explain their positions.
All these are some preconditions that allow for a cautious optimism that if we arrive at a solution, it can be approved. However a lot of work is demanded, because certain forces are demonizing it before seeing the end result.
It is the people themselves who will ultimately decide through a referendum and no one can ignore this.
Real and guaranteed compensation
Do we have answers as to who will pay the cost of the solution?
TT: Our duty is to try to reach a solution and declare the simple truth to the international community: namely that we have the solution, but we have no resources to implement it. Therefore, either the solution goes into the freezer until we find the resources or the international community must contribute. Whatever we say, as far as their own contribution is concerned we are not talking about large amounts in absolute terms, but…peanuts. The international community has two things to weigh up, the interest it itself has in a solution and the minimal amount it has to give. That’s how the question should be put. And the technocrats of the IMF or the World Bank can make studies, but they can’t solve the problem. If their idea is to impose Memoranda policies on us to implement the solution, I really fear that the solution will collapse.
One example: How will the property issue be solved? Some people will be restituted, but not all. For them to choose compensation, they should know that this will be a real and guaranteed compensation. If this does not exist, everyone will choose restitution and no solution will be found. We must bear all these factors in mind, both we, as well as the international community.
