Speech by the General Secretary of AKEL Andros Kyprianou to brief the diplomatic missions in the Republic of Cyprus on developments regarding the Cyprus problem
Monday, 23rd April 2018, “Hilton” Hotel, Nicosia
On behalf of the Central Committee of AKEL, I welcome you all to our customary annual meeting. We thank you warmly for accepting our invitation. The institutionalized contact we have been developing for several years gives us the opportunity to explain our positions, primarily on the Cyprus problem, but also on other topical important issues. At the same time, we want to hear your own views and approaches that will help us to complete our reflections and thoughts.
The region of the Eastern Mediterranean is today an active volcano. Syria is just 105 kilometers away from our island. According to a wise old Cypriot saying, when your neighbor’s house is burning, your own house is in immediate danger too. All the more so as Turkey, the occupying country in Cyprus, is taking an active part in the bloodshed being committed in Syria. In fact it was only recently that it illegally invaded and occupied the area of Afrin in Syria. We are not indifferent to the recent missile attack carried out on the pretext of the use of chemical weapons. We are of course opposed to any use of chemical weapons. However, this hasn’t been proved, as well as who are responsible if it indeed took place.
We also must deal with, and it does concern us, the refugee issue. We in Cyprus are genuinely moved by this issue; an issue that is yet another tragic consequence of the military war activity in our region and which must concern the entire international community more intensely and substantially.
At the same time, I cannot but refer to the Palestinian problem as well. This is a problem that remains an active volcano. We are adamant that this problem must be resolved on the basis of what has been agreed, to the benefit of both Palestinians and Israelis. We consider that any attempt to create new fait accompli on the ground and the aggressiveness which Israel is developing harms the prospects of achieving lasting peace.
Our long-standing position is that the wider region of the Eastern Mediterranean deserves better treatment. Turkey’s recent provocation in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus, which, in violation of the Law of the Sea, prevented through the threat to use force the exploration by ENI for hydrocarbons in Block 3 of the Republic of Cyprus’ EEZ. This should not have been tolerated by the international community. Such actions escalate tensions and can lead to dangerous and uncontrolled adventures.
At our previous meeting on October 19th of last year, I had informed you in detail about what happened at Crans Montana and AKEL’s position. I will not tire you with any repetitions. I will just say that we agree with the Secretary-General of the UN that at the Swiss resort a historic opportunity to solve the Cyprus problem was missed.
What’s important right now is what we do from now onwards. The historical experience of the Cyprus problem since 1974 shows that in periods where there is no ongoing negotiation procedure the situation deteriorates and new fait accompli are attempted by Turkey. I indicatively point out that the so-called “TRNC” was proclaimed in 1983 following the rejection of the Cuellar indicators initiative, which constituted a very general outline for negotiation. The official turn of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership from federation to confederation took place in 1997, when there was again a gap in the negotiations and when the S300 missile crisis and “active volcano theory” rhetoric was at its peak. Strong efforts to promote a direct trade of the illegal pseudo-state with the outside world were undertaken after the well-known outcome of the 2004 referenda.
After the break down of the Crans Montana conference, we had the submission of the UN Secretary-General’s Report which not only exempted Turkey from any responsibility, but in fact commended it for its stand on the crucial issue of security and guarantees, while the responsibilities for a lack of political will are assigned equally on both leaders of the two communities. Unfortunately, recently the EU High Representative F. Mogherini, though denouncing Turkey on various issues, as regards the Cyprus problem she praised Turkey’s stand, saying that at Crans Montana they worked very intensely together to find a solution.
In these conditions, Turkey acted with audacity to a point where it prevented ENI’s drilling in the Republic of Cyprus’ EEZ with the threat of the use of force. I draw your attention to the fact that the incident did not take place in an area which – wrongly – Turkey is asserting as part of its own EEZ.
Unfortunately, the collapse of the Crans Montana conference also had other ramifications. The confidence and chemistry between the two leaders was lost completely, who subsequently engaged in a rhetoric that anything but helps to overcome the crisis. The belief of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots that the solution is feasible has also been lost. In both communities, this situation favours the rise of nationalism and of the forces that do not want a solution, as well those forces that are flirting more and more intensely with the idea of a definitive partition.
Turkey is threatening openly the Republic of Cyprus, while Erdogan, with his whole stand and behaviour, is creating feelings of fear among Greek Cypriots who are wondering whether it is with this Turkey that we are seeking to find a viable solution which if nothing else should be guaranteeing their security.
It was in these extremely adverse conditions that the presidential elections took place last February. All through this period and regardless of the adverse conditions and the fact that we were in a pre-election campaign period, AKEL consistently supported the solution of the Cyprus problem. We did this despite the fact that we were desperately alone in adhering to this policy. We have come under and continue to face merciless and destructive criticism, but we have held our ground and are withstanding these attacks. We believe that we must continue to act in a patriotic and responsible manner, irrespective of political cost. We set above anything else the good of our country and people as a whole, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and Latins.
During the election period, we came under fierce criticism from two directions: From the so-called “intermediate” spectrum, but also from the government camp. The representatives of the “intermediate” spectrum were accusing AKEL of supposedly supporting submissive positions, while this political spectrum characterized the elections as representing a referendum on the Cyprus problem.
On the other hand, the Presidential Palace and the governing DISY party were talking about two extreme approaches, namely that of the “intermediate spectrum” and that of AKEL. They were persistently misinforming the people by alleging that AKEL was exerting pressure on the President to proceed with unacceptable concessions at the same time when Turkey had the sole responsibility for the collapse at Crans Montana. This was, unfortunately, their response to AKEL’s responsible stand; a stand which consistently supported the negotiating procedure, in defiance of any political costs. AKEL did not act with a vengeance bearing in mind the policy ruling DISY had pursued during the presidency of Demetris Christofias which changed its positions during the elections in order to serve electoral considerations and expediencies.
The presidential election was won by Mr. Anastasiades. The point now is to find a way to resume the negotiation procedure with a view to reaching a solution as soon as possible on the basis of the agreed framework for a single united state, which will represent a continuation of the Republic of Cyprus, with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship, with a state structure of a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation and the political equality of the two communities, as defined in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.
The Secretary-General of the UN in his Report to the Security Council last September shows the way for the resumption of the negotiations aiming at the solution of the Cyprus problem. He calls on the two leaders to decide together that they will proceed with the necessary political will in a procedure that will be meaningful. He does not remain on this general position, but also sets out what a procedure that will have a purpose should mean: namely, to continue the effort from where it had remained at Crans Montana. That is to say, in its substantive part, that the convergences that had been achieved so far all through these years, the Guterres framework and the mechanism for implementing the solution should be reaffirmed. As far as the procedural aspect is concerned, a package approach of the negotiation of the six main pending issues should be made, which he also defines: Security and guarantees (at the table of the conference), territory, property, the effective participation in the bodies and decisions at a federal level, the equal treatment of Greek and Turkish citizens (at the second table, the negotiation between the leaders of the two communities).
AKEL fully agrees with the approach outlined above, not just because it is proposed by the UN Secretary-General, but because we are firmly convinced that at the point where we have reached, this is the correct course so as to arrive at a successful outcome, and indeed in a short period of time. Months before the UN Secretary-General expressed this position and more specifically since the first conference was held in Geneva, AKEL proposed to the President of the Republic to proceed in a similar way. Namely, to proceed with an informal discussion with Mr. Akinci on all these issues, and to explore whether there was ground for an understanding. If such a development was indeed ascertained, then they should have finalized the talks under the auspices of the UN so that they could complete them.
The reason why we support this position is simple. All the chapters of the Cyprus problem are now at an advanced stage of convergence. Only two or three core issues remain in each of the six chapters. The UN Secretary-General is correct who in his Report underlines that even these issues are essentially solved, with the exception of property, where issues remain to be resolved. Of course, we clarify that if the six chapters are agreed there are still a few issues of lesser importance which will be easier afterwards to be agreed upon.
This is precisely the reason why a package approach negotiation is now imperative. The separate negotiation of each chapter has now reached its limits. The cross negotiation of remaining ones provides a better chance of a successful conclusion. In addition, with the debate in the form of a package approach the problem we also constantly face before us, namely what we discuss first and what we leave behind, is bypassed. For example, President Anastasiades left the issue of executive power to the end, while Mr. Akinci did the same with regards the issue of Morphou. At some point, the President of the Republic projected the chapter on security and territory before discussing the rest. Mr. Akinci is calling for a timeframe with a conclusion and so on. It is evident, therefore, that the only effective way to go the last mile and the most difficult part is through a package approach negotiation.
Of course, each leader blames the other for the fact that for almost a year afterwards it was not possible to resume the effort. The UN Secretary-General, however, obviously has not yet been convinced that the two leaders are genuinely ready to move forward. Given these facts, he himself does not show a willingness for the resumption of the negotiations.
President Anastasiades declares his readiness to proceed on the basis of the Guterres framework and without any terms and preconditions. At the same time, he wants to start the procedure with a discussion of the internal aspects and with a good preparation before going to a conference, whatever that means. This, in AKEL’s opinion, does not convince the UN Secretary-General that the President of the Republic is indeed ready for meaningful substantive talks. Neither does Mustafa Akinci convince him either, who fears that in this way we will begin a new never-ending procedure.
On the other hand, Mr. Akinci specifically calls for timetables. Sometimes he goes as far as demanding a predetermination of the Turkish Cypriot’s status quo in the event of a new failure. These positions cannot be accepted by the Greek Cypriot side. The bitter experience of the past demonstrates that artificial timetables are doomed to failure, while they can lead to arbitration which was one of the main reasons for the Annan plan’s rejection, both due to its content and the fact that it provided for a plan to be submitted to a referendum that each leader had the possibility of rejecting instead of working for its approval. Therefore, instead of the Turkish Cypriot side insisting on a strict timetable, it must keep to the essence of the issue. It is evident that the procedure, as proposed by the UN Secretary-General, will have a beginning and an end in a short period of time. If we conclude with a strategic understanding on the six core issues, we will basically enter in a countdown to the solution.
Even worse, however, is the second demand put forth. It is not serious for anyone to expect the Greek Cypriot side to accept the prior upgrading of the illegal pseudo-state in the event of failure. In itself, this demand represents a powerful incentive for the Turkish Cypriot side to deliberately lead the effort to a stalemate. We don’t attribute such intentions to Mr. Akinci, but could potentially happen.
The different reading of the Guterres framework by the two leaders must also be added to the above-mentioned difficulties. Of course, the most competent person to give any clarification about the framework is the UN Secretary-General himself. This can only be done if the procedure resumes.
Within the aforementioned unfavourable situations, the two leaders’ dinner was held which did not lead to a satisfactory result. Nobody, of course, expected spectacular results, but the dinner could and should have represented a step in the direction of the resumption of the negotiations. The statement of the UN Secretary-General’s representative after the dinner, that the Secretary-General’s good offices are available, but as in any political issue that remains unresolved, the political will of both sides is necessary to move forward, speaks for itself. It is obvious that even after dinner, Mr. Guterres is still not convinced that there exists a political will for a procedure that will have a purpose as he himself proposes.
Another demand put forth by the Turkish Cypriot leader, which complicates the situation even further, is its demand for a joint committee with regards the natural gas. This of course is a demand that dates back, but has now come back with a particular intensity. The Greek Cypriot side, correctly in our view, has never accepted that the issue of natural gas be put at the negotiating table. The Republic of Cyprus cannot abandon its sovereign rights so long as the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. If it did so, it would open up the Pandora’s Box and would give strong incentives to the Turkish Cypriot side to hinder the solution of our political problem.
At the same time, however, during the Presidency of Demetris Christofias, significant convergences on the issues relating to maritime zones, natural resources and the distribution of federal revenues were achieved. More specifically, it has been agreed that all the maritime zones, including the EEZ, will constitute federal competences, while the same will apply to natural resources. This is a mutually beneficial convergence. The fact that the Exclusive Economic Zone will be one stresses the single sovereignty and single international personality (Greek Cypriot position), while the fact that both the EEZ and natural resources will constitute a federal competence means that the natural gas belongs to both communities regardless of the fact that it was discovered opposite the southern shores of the island (Turkish Cypriot position). If we add the fact that the natural gas according to the relative convergence will be included in the federal revenues, the distribution of which has virtually already been agreed, it is obvious that with the solution of the Cyprus problem, the natural gas issue is also solved and the only pending issue remains the delimitation of the EEZ with Turkey, which of course is not a subject of the intercommunal talks. I note at this point with great satisfaction that the Secretary-General of the UN in his Report makes a specific reference to these convergences, a fact which confirms their importance.
I also want to say a few words about the Turkish Cypriot side’s position that the Greek Cypriot side is acting unilaterally on the natural gas issue. But, how do things stand in practice? Firstly, natural gas revenues will not emerge soon, but after several years, when we will be in a position to make use of it and after we have covered the costs of the companies that amount to several hundred millions. Secondly, the delimitation agreements that have already been signed are all on the median line, that is to say the maximum that could be taken by such a small state as ours. On the other hand, the so-called “continental shelf delimitation agreement” between the illegal regime and Turkey cedes approximately 2/3 of the continental shelf to Turkey.
We are very well aware that Turkey is seeking to play a role in the region’s energy map and that the Turkish Cypriots want their share of the exploitation of natural gas. The simplest and surest way to achieve this is through the solution of the Cyprus problem. If this is achieved, I have already explained that the issue of the Turkish Cypriots’ share will be settled definitively, in a guaranteed and irrevocable way. As for Turkey, we are not opposed to discussing its role, provided of course, that this is not exercised to the detriment of the interests of Cyprus. As AKEL we are ready with the solution of the Cyprus issue to support the opening of talks with Turkey on the construction of a pipeline, both for its own use and for channeling natural gas to Europe. The decisive factor for taking a decision will be the proposal’s economic facts.
At this point, I must refer to one issue that certainly is of interest to us all, namely EU-Turkey relations, the current situation prevailing today surrounding these relations and their perspective. I will just say that we continue to support, for reasons that we can discuss at a subsequent meeting, the Turkey’s European perspective. Without, of course, bypassing everything that must be done in this direction (which aren’t insignificant in number) and, in particular, Cyprus-related Ankara’s obligations.
In conclusion, I want to assure you that AKEL remains firmly committed to a solution of the Cyprus problem on the basis of the agreed framework and we will continue to work hard in this direction. In this difficult struggle for the liberation and reunification of our country and people, we look forward to the continuation of your support and solidarity, and we thank you warmly for that.
We are confident that you share our belief that the solution of the Cyprus problem is in the interests of all: the Cypriot people as a whole, Greece, Turkey, the peoples of our region and the European Union.
