On the Cyprus problem and the government reshuffle

Transcript of the statements of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of AKEL, St. Stefanou on the Morning program of the state-owned RIK station

 

9 January 2024

On the Cyprus problem:

We are at a deadlock on the Cyprus problem.

María Angela Holguín Cuéllaras as the UN Secretary General’s personal envoy on Cyprus is coming to Cyprus seeking to explore the possibilities and prospects for breaking the deadlock and to this end she will report to the Secretary General of the UN who will prepare his Report to be submitted to the UN Security Council.

What will happen remains to be seen.

It is what to do that we need to discuss.

We wrote a letter asking for the National Council to convene on 30 November and highlighted a number of reasons why a session of the National Council should be convened. The President of the Republic was stating that there weren’t any serious reasons to convene a session of the National Council. Since then to date nothing has changed to convene a National Council.

If the President needs help from the parties, we at least as AKEL want to help, then he must brief us and listen to our views – even if he doesn’t adopt them.

Yesterday [at the National Council] we were given the opportunity to outline our views on how we should move forward to use every tool and opportunity we have at our disposal to create a momentum to break the deadlock. We submitted our proposals, we had submitted them before, and we will submit a document again because we believe that the passage of time without a solution, as the history of the Cyprus problem has demonstrated, whenever there is a deadlock with Turkey exonerated, this situation permits Turkey to exploit the situation and impose new occupational fait accompli on the ground, as it is doing now.

Secondly, because the passage of time without a solution consolidates the de facto partition.

Thirdly, because it is not enough to simply denounce Turkey for what it is provocatively and illegally doing on the ground in Cyprus. We need to take specific initiatives.

We have reiterated our proposal to make use of energy developments in the region and we believe that because of the energy crisis that exists and because Turkish officials often refer to the energy factor, this shows that energy can be at the heart of the positive agenda that the President once said he would put forward but is no longer making a reference to. The aim is to create incentives to move towards dynamics that will enable the resumption of the negotiations from the point where they were interrupted in 2017 at Crans Montana.

We do not consider our proposal to be infallible. We told the President, asking at the same time both the previous President and the current President to discuss the issue of energy as a potential tool without going beyond our “red lines” to create dynamics for the resumption of the negotiations.

Unfortunately, neither the previous, nor the current President of the Republic agreed to discuss our proposal. I note that in an interview the day before yesterday the Foreign Minister said that the Republic of Cyprus is ready to discuss energy. AKEL has tabled a specific proposal since 2020. Let’s at long last discuss it.

On the government reshuffle:

From what we have ascertained so far, I wouldn’t say that expectations should be high. After all, that is why the President was forced within ten months of taking office to proceed to a government reshuffle, in addition to the resignations that were submitted previously.

The government’s work has been poor. It is no coincidence that society is disappointed, even some people who had voted for Nikos Christodoulides with high expectations and were ultimately disappointed.

The President of the Republic managed to shoot himself in the foot with leaks to the press, then with his interview and he subsequently tried to clean up the mess. This revealed a disorganization and an inability to handle issues. This showed an incompetence that follows the series of failures and blunders of this government.

We will see how the government proceeds. We do not gloat when a government fails to handle problems society is facing. We will continue to fulfill our duties creatively, where we disagree we shall try to correct things right as the sole opposition force.

The President contradicted himself with regards the criteria he himself set during the election. He violated those criteria both in the first appointments and now.

He chose [to appoint] leading party officials. We have nothing to say when party officials are appointed, but the President had himself set as a criterion that he wouldn’t appoint any party officials.

There is no equal balance in the appointment of men and women [to the government]. He didn’t do so.

He said he wouldn’t use people who have held posts in a previous government, he eventually did so.

The essence is the ability to handle issues. Focusing one’s attention on the government’s image and engaging in communication games isn’t enough.

The President overemphasizes communication considerations, so less communication and more substance are demanded I would say.

The people will judge whether these Ministers were rightly reshuffled, while the President and the government will be judged as a whole.

However, we haven’t seen any “new spirit” and “new processes” that the President was advocating.

The government has shown neither reflexes, nor the ability to deal with the problems that exist.