Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL, Head of the Bureau on the Cyprus Problem of the Party, International Law expert and former member of the Negotiation Team during the Presidency of Demetris Christofias 2008-2013
Sunday 12th April 2016, “Fileleftheros” newspaper
F: I’ll begin with the Cyprus problem where both sides and the United Nations are looking at how the whole process will move ahead from now on. The initial enthusiasm has faded and they are currently looking at what steps should be taken.
TT: It is true that the initial enthusiasm has begun to fade somewhat. Several factors have contributed to this, including the public statements that were and are still being made, and the fact that we are heading towards parliamentary elections in May. It’s natural that this does contribute to causing some disappointment, always when compared with the initial hope that existed. This has created an atmosphere of relative pessimism among the people.
F: How do you interpret the fact that the talks have not stopped, in contrast to the past?
TT: This hasn’t always been the case in the past. However, everyone has accepted the idea that we shouldn’t expect any developments before the elections. This is the reality.
F: You said that public statements do not help. Does this apply to both sides because there is an impression that Mr. Akinci’s statements don’t help.
TT: Undeniably Mr. Akinci’s statements do not help. However, since we see it from our side, we have the impression that our own statements do not create a negative climate among the Turkish Cypriot community. I assure you the impressions are mutual. Public statements undermine citizen’s belief in a solution on both sides.
F: Are you referring to public statements made by the leadership of the Greek Cypriot community or political parties?
TT: By leaderships and political parties on both sides.
F: As the leader of the Greek Cypriot community is often accused of being excessively tolerant, that he consents to whatever the other side requests, that he is submissive and so on, someone could say that the Turkish Cypriot side shouldn’t have any complaints.
TT: For sure our cause is just. But both sides have complaints.
On the issue of submissiveness or not, you know what our position is: the talks should have continued from where they had left off. For five consecutive years we were the only ones supporting this position.
From the end of 2009 until the adoption of the Joint Declaration, all the other political parties disagreed with our position. We defied the political cost and remained faithful to our position, not because we consider we are flawless, but because we believed that this is the correct position. I consider every objective observer understands that today, as AKEL, we feel vindicated because the policy that had been implemented by the Anastasiades government led to deadlocks and an impasse.
At the same time as the Turkish vessel “Barbaros” roamed in the southern part of our Exclusive Economic Zone, opposite to the free shores of the Republic of Cyprus, in a designated zone and in licensed plots, a Report was submitted by the UN Secretary-General that was the worst report since 2004. You realize that something had to change and indeed did change, without this meaning that we agree on everything. We believe that the correct line was and remains to safeguard the convergences and to proceed further on.
F: AKEL says that back then it was on its own on the Cyprus problem – now it is being accused that it is collusion with Anastasiades and DISY…
TT: Who is accusing AKEL? It is being accused by those forces and circles who for five years were in collusion with DISY. They were together hand in hand and we didn’t tell them “you are in collusion with DISY party.” We only said that that policy being pursued was wrong.
They are “entitled” to go along with DISY. When the President of the Republic, realizing what the correct policy is, began to move in the right direction, should we have abandoned our own line so as not to be accused of collusion?
We didn’t change our policy. It is not an issue about an AKEL-DISY collusion or DISY with other parties. This isn’t inherently objectionable. The question is whether the policy being implemented is correct or not. AKEL does not determine its political position depending on who agrees or disagrees with it.
F: Apart from the current procedure, is there any other way to solve the Cyprus problem?
TT: Of course not. The only way to solve the Cyprus problem is through talks between the two communities under the auspices of the United Nations. And naturally with regards the international aspects of the Cyprus problem, this is where Turkey is primarily involved in.
However with regards the internal aspects, this is the only way to solve the Cyprus problem. It is not accidental that all the Presidents of the Republic – without exception – have followed this path, regardless of what they themselves and their parties were declaring during election periods. When they assumed the responsibility and were in power, they always followed the path of bi-communal talks.
The alternative path is to continue with the current status quo, which is changing daily to our detriment.
F: Does Turkey want to solve the Cyprus problem? Is it sincere?
TT: Our own assessment is that it is in Turkey’s best interests to solve the Cyprus problem, for many reasons.
Currently Turkey is on a war footing with all its neighboring states. It is engaged in a civil war with the Kurds. It has managed to come into a very serious confrontation with Russia.
Turkey has designs for the natural gas in the region and wants to play a role. It knows that for the Turkish Cypriots to benefit from the natural gas, and probably Turkey itself, the only path is through the solution of the Cyprus problem.
For all these reasons we believe that Turkey has an interest in the Cyprus problem being solved. Of course, Turkey itself is the most competent to define its own interests and not us.
When the AKEL delegation was in Turkey we concluded that the reason it had invited us was precisely to convince us that it wants a solution. They stressed emphatically that the solution is to the benefit of everyone and Turkey itself. They were arguing that they want a solution. There is a great distance from making this declaration to reaching a solution. It depends on what Turkey really has in mind when it is talking about a solution. This can only be demonstrated at the negotiating table. This is the reason why we say that Turkey’s declaration that it wants solution is one thing and what kind of a solution it is seeking is another, as well as if the solution Turkey is seeking can reach a point where it will meet our own positions. No one can give an answer to this question. We will know the answer only at the negotiating table.
F: How do you feel when you hear political figures or parties accusing AKEL for its contacts in Turkey and when they are mainly implying that you went there to return to transmit Turkish propaganda?
TT: For us these reactions were totally to be expected and do not surprise us.
Why did we go? We went to Turkey because we wanted to put forth our own positions directly. We believe the achievement of a solution is in everyone’s interests, including Turkey’s. However, the solution must respect principles and be based on the agreed framework.
It was important to convey this position to Turkey, namely that the big party of the opposition AKEL, which backs the negotiation procedure, does not support this procedure carte blanche, but sets principles and frameworks.
From there on, those forces and circles who talk about some supposed “transmission of Turkish propaganda’ forget what we had stressed, that is to say that Turkey’s declarations must be proven in practice.
Many held the long-standing position that we must be holding talks with Turkey and not with the Turkish Cypriots. When the opportunity came up to talk with Turkey, shouldn’t we have grasped it? Such reactions form the impression that certain circles fear every move, which may represent even one small step to reaching somewhere.
F: How do you feel when you hear political parties and politicians appearing as defenders of the Republic of Cyprus and practically accusing AKEL that in one way or another it is plotting its dissolution?
TT: We have always tried to protect the Republic of Cyprus and its symbols. You recall that many of those who today, correctly, are concerned about the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus had a completely different view prior to what actually took place in 1974.
Let’s look at the substance of the issue. Without question the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus is a necessary condition without whicha necessary condition without which something is not possible a necessary condition without which something is not possible: a necessary condition without which something is not possible: a necessary condition without which something is not possible: the solution of the Cyprus problem is not possible. This is our position, it is a “red line” and we cannot infringe it for many reasons. The issue is not only symbolic; it is matter of substance. The continuity of the Republic of Cyprus must be ensured with the content of the solution. And this is what we should all be seeking. But the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus must be safeguarded in a manner that does not cause problems to the procedure of the talks because if we are led to the collapse of the negotiation procedure that’s precisely where the Republic of Cyprus will be in danger as a result of the prolongation and perpetuation of the status quo.
My own assessment is that both Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side have realized that they cannot dissolve the Republic of Cyprus. The pseudo-state has been declared since 1983 and no country recognizes it except Turkey. They therefore know that this goal is unattainable and unfeasible.
How will they now come to abolish the Republic of Cyprus through the solution, when the Republic of Cyprus is a Member state of the United Nations and the European Union with all its territories? When participation in these international organizations will continue, given that we will not need to apply for membership again? When all the international treaties of the Republic of Cyprus from 1960 onwards will be safeguarded in the solution? This is the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus and not some symbolisms that will merely satisfy the prestige and only the prestige of the other side.
F: How important are these elections for AKEL?
TT: We are all conscious of how critical these elections are, precisely because of the prevailing situation on the Cyprus problem and the economy. As far as the Cyprus problem is concerned, we are at a point where we are trying to get within range of a convergence on the property issue and if we manage to do so we will subsequently enter into the final stage. This is where Turkey will be tested, that is to say whether Turkey really means all it says about wanting a solution.
AKEL has demonstrated that it is a consistent political force which is fighting for a solution of the Cyprus problem. We have declared and adhere to it faithfully, that we will not do anything to harm the Cyprus problem during the pre-election campaign. Other forces are engaging in pre-election actions that create problems.
With regards the economy. Fine, we have exited the Memorandum. We all knew from the very beginning that we would exit the Memorandum. The real issue is what happens with the Memoranda policies. We know that the Troika will be here for many more years to come. They will not come every three months, but every six months until we pay off 75% of the debt.
However, the fact that they won’t now be able to blackmail us that if we do not comply with their instructions the installment will not be paid gives us an option to launch an effort to return to a path of growth and gradual recovery of working people’s rights.
F: Concerning AKEL, do you believe that these elections will show whether the people of the Left have overcome whatever dissatisfaction they had with their party in previous years?
TT: You appreciate that in recent years as AKEL we have gone through tough times. We have experienced a lot of extremely difficult situations. I will not claim that we were flawless –only those who do nothing do not commit any mistakes – but it is a fact that they blamed and shifted responsibilities on us that we never had. A lot of AKEL voters were also affected by all these actions, something we felt very much right up to the European elections.
Today the situation is much better. The truth has started to come out and I can say that the difficult times are behind us. Three years have already passed that we are not in government and they can’t blame everything on AKEL and Christofias.
Therefore, we are on a path of recovery. We are waging our big battle against abstention, because this is where the problem lies, particularly among young people and we are trying to win this battle.
