Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL
Sunday, 25th December “Politis” daily newspaper
Toumazos Tsielepis. International Law expert, gave a very clear reply to the current main question in the news, namely whether the Republic of Cyprus must be present at the conference on Cyprus due to be held in Geneva. “The Republic of Cyprus must be present at the conference, because the international aspect of the Cyprus problem will now be discussed and more specifically the security issue. Given that there is the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which should, in our opinion, be abolished as it is anachronistic, the Republic of Cyprus – which is a part of that Treaty, the other part is the three guarantor powers – must be present,” notes Mr. Tsielepis, who is Head of the Cyprus Problem Office of the C.C. of AKEL and a member of the negotiating teams on the Cyprus problem of various governments. Asked as to how the Republic of Cyprus will be present at the conference on Cyprus, Mr. Tsielepis replied that it is useful not to go into details at this time, while adding that “our side does not accept that the Republic of Cyprus shouldn’t be there, it does not accept a procedure that leads to the derecognition of our statehood.” This is something completely reasonable and fair, he added. “However there is this point too: Turkey will not recognize de jure the Republic of Cyprus before the solution of the Cyprus problem. Consequently, our position must be respected, but in a way that won’t eventually lead to the procedure not being able even to commence,” he said.
And how will this be achieved?
TT: Where there is political will, ways can also be found. Now is not the time, nor does it serve any purpose to go into details, but certainly the Republic of Cyprus must be present.
The danger
Doesn’t the danger exist of the Republic of Cyprus becoming “defunct”? Where does the political approach end and the legal posturing begin?
TT: All the talk about a “defunct” Republic of Cyprus is not recent. The Republic of Cyprus has been considered as “defunct” by various circles of the Greek Cypriot side and, indeed, quite often. Every day we hear that such and such development has happened which is leading to the abolition/de-recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. However, the Republic of Cyprus is alive and well and no one has challenged our statehood. We must stop abolishing our state through our own actions, so easily and going into issues with political implications, which can’t be substantiated from an International Law perspective. The derecognition of a state and hence – as in this specific case – of an EU Member State, and indeed with all its territories, is no easy and simple matter. I think there is a great deal of exaggeration on this matter. None of us accepts the abolition of the Republic of Cyprus, this is the essence.
And if we go to Geneva and at the end of the day we stumble in the procedure?
TT: No, it’s inconceivable that we shall go there and won’t be able even get into the discussion of the security issue on which Turkey is called upon to take decisions. Turkey is now being called upon to prove what it is declaring, that is that it wants a solution of the Cyprus problem and that it will always be one step ahead. If we stick to some positions that will not be accepted by the other side, and we know this, the result would be a dreadlock. We must think about whether this is to our benefit.
That being said, I emphasize that for us the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus is a “red line”. I am not accustomed to using such expressions, but on this specific issue I will say it. And I will put a question too: Has anyone come out to state that after the Bürgenstock talks in 2004 the Republic of Cyprus was derecognized?
Was Bürgenstock a conference?
TT: The Republic of Cyprus, the leaders of the two communities, the three guarantor powers and the permanent members of the UN Security Council were present there. I remember that together with Demetris Christofias we had a meeting with the Russian delegation, who were there. Did anybody question the Republic of Cyprus after that procedure? There certainly were efforts to upgrade the unrecognized illegal regime in the north, as a consequential result of the referendum, but no one dared to challenge the Republic of Cyprus.
This story goes back to 1964. Resolution 186 of the UN Security Council clarifies a basic principle of International Law, that is any internal changes, anomalies and constitutional upheavals do not affect the continuity of the state. This is true today. Unilaterally they proclaimed independence and 42 years have passed since the Turkish invasion; it’s been 33 years since this illegal proclamation, but no one has recognized the regime. Why, then, do we think that we’re going to Geneva and will leave from there without a state?
The Treaty of Establishment
Won’t the abolition of the Treaty of Guarantee affect the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus too?
TT: No. The establishment of the Republic of Cyprus was formally done through the Treaty of Establishment. Given that the Treaty of Establishment will continue to exist, you realize that it would be an absurdity for someone to interpret that the Treaty establishing the state is in force, but the Republic is absent. There is not a more tangible evidence of the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus than this Treaty.
With the solution of the Cyprus problem will all the Turkish troops leave immediately?
TT: No, a large number of Turkish troops will leave immediately. The remaining troops will have to leave over a set time frame that must not be in the far future. It is an issue subject to negotiation. That is, we have the Turkish soldiers in Cyprus for 42 years. If you do not find a solution, I don’t know how many more years we will have them, and what concerns us right now is whether all of them will leave on the day of the solution or whether there is a timetable agreed under the supervision by the United Nations, through which they will withdraw? Is this the question?
Nonetheless, Mr. Akinci told us yesterday that without guarantees, the Turkish army staying and a rotating presidency, there will be no solution.
TT: Mr. Akinci says his opinions in view of the Geneva meeting on 12th January, which of course does not help the effort underway. We must focus on what we intend to do there. Turkey, for the first time, has shifted from the guarantees of 1960 and this is half a step. And it has brought a completely to be expected, although unacceptable proposal: that is Turkey will guarantee the Turkish Cypriot constituent state and intervene upon the request of the latter. What Turkey has accustomed us to – and I say this from my own experience rather than theoretically – is that it will say its last word at the time of negotiation. We therefore don’t exclude the possibility that in Geneva Turkey will at the end of the procedure put forth a different proposal. We must be prepared, both to maintain our position that we do not accept rights of intervention of Turkey, Turkish troops or a Turkish base, and secondly to give convincing answers to the genuine concerns of Turkish Cypriots. Whether or not these concerns are valid, it is important that the Turkish Cypriots feel threatened by the Greek Cypriots through a solution. We are afraid of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriots fear us. We can meet the second part of their concern, but not however in the way Turkey wants.
It is therefore not enough to set our own “red lines”, hence we must also respond to the concerns of the other community in a way that does not undermine our own positions. If Turkey is ready for a solution, it is called upon to prove it in Geneva. If it is not ready, then at least it should be clearly seen why the Cyprus problem wasn’t solved. That is to say, because Turkey does not cooperate on the issue of security; because an occupying power demands to have rights of intervention, troops or bases in Cyprus, and not for any other reason.
The fear of Turkey
After the solution of the Cyprus problem, will Turkey govern through the equal participation of the Turkish Cypriots in all bodies and institutions of the state, as certain circles and forces are claiming?
TT: There will be no equal participation in all the institutions/bodies of the state. The definition of the United Nations with regards political equality states that this does not mean equal participation in all institutions. Some circles in the Greek Cypriot community misinterpret this. They stop at “it does not mean equal numerical participation” and fail to read the subsequent definition, which goes on to state that there is no equal participation everywhere. So, there will be in some institutions and bodies.
What are these “some” institutions and bodies?
TT: There will be equal representation in the Senate and in the Supreme Court too, as the existing Constitution stipulates. There will also be equal numerical participation in several other institutions. But in most of them there will not be equal participation.
How will our state function when for every decision at least one vote, for example of a Turkish Cypriot Minister, will be needed for Cabinet decisions?
TT: It isn’t true that a Turkish Cypriot vote will also always be needed. They had this position, but it has been reversed. At some point the director of the given public service will decide (the ratio will be 2: 1). Somewhere they will have equal participation, and there the Turkish Cypriot vote will not be required, while in most cases in the federal bodies we Greek Cypriots will be the majority. In some of them you will also need the Turkish Cypriot vote, but, in most cases, decisions will be taken by majority vote.
In the Ministerial Council it is unavoidable that one Turkish Cypriot vote will be needed, otherwise Turkish Cypriots will become a minority. Which is the best? That they have one vote in the Cabinet or a veto and separate majorities in parliament as in the London-Zurich Agreements? Sometimes we forget what we have today. Do we want to turn the Turkish Cypriots into a minority? We should have the guts to say it openly and above all show the way by which we will do it. We say that this is unfeasible and therefore, yes, there will be one vote of theirs as well. If no decision is taken, life goes on. In fact today issues go to the Ministerial Council and House of Representatives on which there is no successful conclusion. On critical issues, there are 2-3 categories that have been defined where there will be a mechanism in place.
You mean the method of a “draw”…
TT: The “draw” has been agreed, but not with regards the Judiciary. It was not our own idea (of AKEL). And the draw will not concern the decision. It will be about how a majority will be formed that will take the decision. What some circles and forces forget is that a potential deadlock will exist where the political equality of the Turkish Cypriots is expressed either through equal participation, or through their own vote. We cannot be naive and believe that we will take them to the level of a deadlock resolution mechanism and there we will have a majority. You realize that this would mean that what you give them with one hand, you take with the other. So, in fact there is no perfect mechanism. Let us therefore focus on the most important.
What is the most important?
TT: That there won’t be deadlocks and that the state will function. With the 1960 Constitution there was no answer as to what happens if a deadlock emerged. There weren’t any mechanisms. This too is an improvement but this is not the best procedure.
Will even a single settler leave with the solution of the Cyprus problem?
TT: It is agreed that the population ratio, at the time of the solution will be 4: 1, as it was at the time of the invasion – with a small deviation. And this proportion will be maintained with respect to the flow of Greek and Turkish citizens. Of course, there are still pending issues regarding those who go beyond the 4: 1 population ratio. We say that if they get a visa to remain as a labour force (not citizenship), this must be granted by the federal government. They have another point of view, at least with regards the first renewal of the visa. I note, that there won’t be a restriction set concerning the Greeks, and neither can there be, because Greece is an EU member. The 4: 1 ratio will apply for those who will simply reside in Cyprus, not only for those who will get citizenship. This is the convergence that has been agreed.
Can a non-refugee go to live, work, acquire property and open a business in Kyrenia, for example, which is under Turkish Cypriot administration?
TT: Of course. On the first day of the solution he/she will be free to do so. Basic freedoms are a convergence and this was agreed between Christofias and Talat. There will be no restriction, there will simply be a “ceiling” in the manner political rights are exercised, not in having political rights, but how you will exercise them. As regards fundamental freedoms, there will be no restriction.
——————————
Differences after the solution
Turkey – Cyprus on the Exclusive Economic Zone EEZ
Asked if the issue of the Turkish assertions over the Cypriot EEZ will be settled from now, Toumazos Tsielepis recalled that the issue of maritime zones was agreed between Christofias and Talat. “Because we foresaw what complications might occur, we dealt extensively with this pursuit. We managed to reach a convergence on the issue of the maritime zones, but also with regards the distribution of the federal revenues from natural resources. This convergence sets out the framework within which we will move after the solution. And let’s not delude ourselves. We are talking with the Turkish Cypriots right now, and not with Turkey. To solve the issue of the EEZ with Turkey is a matter between the Republic of Cyprus and Turkey. Whoever believes we will solve this issue through intercommunal talks is unrealistic. Nor will Turkey come, before the solution of the Cyprus problem, to discuss this issue, because it would imply a de jure recognition of the Republic of Cyprus. Ankara will simply not do it,” Toumazos Tsielepis said. Therefore, he explained, the issue will remain open and the matter will be resolved between the federal republic and Turkey after the solution of the Cyprus problem. “But this concerns the delimitation of the EEZ with Turkey and nothing beyond that. I note that the coastlines have nothing to do with the EEZ, which will be a federal competency. It does not mean, namely, that because they will have the coastline in the northern part of Cyprus that they will also have the EEZ. The EEZ is a matter for the federal republic”, added Mr. Tsielepis.
———————————–
“These properties belong to the owners and their heirs”
Toumazos Tsielepis stated further that “we have agreed that the properties belong to the lawful owners and their heirs.” This is very important, he said. “The three well-known remedies have also been agreed: compensation, restitution, exchange. Our difference is on who chooses a remedy. Is it the owner or the user? We say that the owner has to decide what he/she wants. If the decision is compensation or exchange, you realize that there is no problem. If, however, the decision is for restitution he/she will have it, provided the criteria are met. Right now there is a battle going on what these criteria are. If you follow the logic some are insisting on pursuing, we should also hand over the two airports we have, namely Larnaca and Paphos. In addition, we will also need to hand over all the refugee self-help housing settlements, and I do not know what else as well”, added the member of the Political Bureau of AKEL.
Consequently, he continued, the owner has the first word, but there is a real possibility of opting for restitution and not being able to have it. “Do not forget the controversial European Court of Human Rights judgment with regards the Dimopoulos case. Whatever we say, that judgment says that there are three remedies. Whichever one you opt for it is a remedy,” added Mr. Tsielepis.
Who will pay for the compensations?
TT: This is an issue that has to do with the cost of the overall solution and more specifically with the property issue. We believe that these issues cannot be delegated to technocrats. Neither the International Monetary Fund (IMF), nor the World Bank can solve these issues. They can conduct studies, but they can’t solve the problem because we are not an EU member country which is facing great economic problems and entering into a new Memorandum.
Ours is a political problem that has been dragging on for half a century. If you pursue the Memorandum logic to solve the Cyprus problem, the solution will collapse. Consequently, the issue that arises is political. We have to do everything possible to find a solution, and if it is found, its precise cost will be made – without this meaning that studies can’t be done now, and indeed there are studies underway. You subsequently need to get out and tell the truth to the international community that we have found the solution, there is no money, and so there are two options: either they finance the solution, or it goes into deep freeze until the money is found. This is where the international community will weigh up its own interests, which are huge in relation to the Cyprus problem. It is natural gas, it has to do with NATO – EU relations, as well as the situation in the region and a whole series of issues. On the one hand they will weigh up all of these factors and on the other they will consider what they may contribute. For them we are talking about peanuts, in absolute numbers. That’s how the issue should be seen and that’s how the issue stands.
We cannot accept a new Memorandum just because the IMF tells us to. Nor can we accept that the value of properties should be calculated far below their actual value so as to reduce the cost of the solution. This will create a huge political problem for us. First and foremost, no one will choose the remedy of compensation and rightly so. Everyone will want restitution. And not everyone can get restitution, and in the end a solution won’t be possible. These are the messages that the international community must take.
Will we be destroyed financially if the Cyprus problem is solved? Some circles and forces argue that it will lead to a disaster, because the Greek Cypriots will start with a debt of 17 billion. And the Turkish Cypriots won’t have a debt and therefore they will be able to borrow at lower interest rates etc.
TT: And then the end of the world will come… Look, we have to ask ourselves one very simple question: do we or do we not want Turkey to write off the debt which the Turkish Cypriots have? Do we want them to also have a debt so that we start from an equal basis and load it on the federal state? It is agreed that the debts each side had, from the time we parted – regardless of what anyone thinks about how we separated – until the time we will reunite, will be undertaken by each side. If we do something otherwise, it means that the Turkish Cypriot’s debt to Turkey will be added to the already existing debt of the Republic of Cyprus. We must decide. Those who now say that we will have a debt and the Turkish Cypriots will not are the very same people who in the past were saying that the Turkish Cypriots will load us with their own debt. Now that they will not load us the debt is recorded in the convergences (Downer), they have discovered that we will owe and they will not….
