Speech of Andros Kyprianou, General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, on the Cyprus problem

 

Kultur University, Istanbul, Turkey

 

I would first like to thank the Research Centre of Kultur University Istanbul for the invitation to attend and speak at this roundtable discussion. I consider the need to begin a debate in Turkey itself for the achievement of a just under the circumstances, functional and viable solution of the Cyprus problem as extremely important. It is also important so that Turkey itself also understands that with the correct solution of the Cyprus problem Turkey itself will also have to gain, besides the Cypriots themselves.

Today’s debate is very timely as for almost four months ​​persistent but for the time being unsuccessful efforts are being made to issue a joint communiqué that will enable the resumption of the talks aimed at the comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem. Our wish and goal is that the issuing a joint communique is eventually made feasible so as to resume the negotiations that will this time arrive at a solution.

To understand the current situation surrounding the Cyprus problem it is necessary to outline a brief review of the recent past.

After the tragic events of 1974 and the anomalous situation that was created then and is still continuing today, in the 1977 a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation was agreed as the historic compromise between the two main communities on the island, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. All these years we have had successive rounds of talks to resolve the problem on the above basis which, unfortunately, so far have not brought the desired result.

I will consciously not mention the reasons why the Cyprus problem remains unresolved for many decades because my intention here is not to apportion blame, but to reflect on how we shall at last manage to achieve a mutually acceptable solution that will respect the rights and dignity of both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

It is true that in 2004 we even held separate referenda for a comprehensive solution, but the overwhelming majority of the Greek Cypriots rejected the proposed solution because they considered that this was not a result of free talks, but an outcome of one-sided arbitration that did not satisfy their reasonable concerns. There followed a barren period that lasted until the 2008 presidential elections. In those elections, Demetris Christofias, former General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL, was elected to the highest State Office.

Faithful to his pre-election commitment to do whatever depended on him to achieve a just solution, Demetris Christofias, immediately after his election, sought and agreed with Mr. Talat to setting up of Working Groups to discuss the core aspects of the Cyprus problem, as well as  Technical Committees on day-to-day issues. The aim was to prepare the ground for direct talks between the leaders of the two communities, all under the auspices of the United Nations and within the framework of the good offices of the UB Secretary-General.

When the Working Groups and Technical Committees completed their work, the basis of talks was reaffirmed with the two joint communiqués of D. Christofias and the former Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Talat: a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality as defined in the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, with a single international personality and a Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot constituent state of equal status (joint statement 23rd May 2008). An agreement in principle for a single sovereignty and citizenship and discussion of the details of their implementation during the negotiations that would follow (joint communiqué 1st July 2008). Subsequently, the necessary preparation was completed and direct talks began in September 2008.

The talks lasted until April 2012 and are divided into two main periods. As long as Mr. Talat was in the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community, despite the difficulties that did not allow as much progress we would have liked, significant convergences were achieved on three chapters: Governance and Power Sharing (the largest and most complex chapter, with nearly twenty sub-chapters), the Economy and the European Union. These three chapters were in essence ready for a final horizontal negotiation between chapters, a fact which in itself raised hopes for a successful final conclusion.

Among the significant convergences that had been achieved then is also that concerning sovereignty: As I have previously mentioned, in the 1st July joint communique it was agreed that there will be a single sovereignty; the details of its implementation would be discussed subsequently. This was done and it was further agreed that a single sovereignty will be indivisible and will equally derive from the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. I do not mention this accidentally as it is directly related to the difficulties encountered today in issuing a joint communiqué.

In the remaining three chapters (property, territorial, security and guarantees) significant progress was not achieved. The reason was that the Turkish Cypriot side was extremely hesitant to discuss the territorial issue before the final phase, a fact which put a break on any substantial progress on the property issue given that the two chapters are inextricably connected. At the same time the Turkish Cypriot side referred the chapter on security to a discussion with the guarantor powers.

Indeed, the issue of security can be finally resolved with the participation of the guarantor powers at an enlarged international conference with the participation of the UN Security Council and the EU and given that it has been preceded by the solution of the internal aspects. However, this is far from excludes the discussion also of the security issue at the negotiating table between the two communities. It could be beneficial if a convergence is achieved in such a discussion, since it would the ground would thus be prepared suitably and consequently the possibilities of a successful conclusion of the conference would increase.

When Mr.Eroglou assumed the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community in April 2010, the situation changed radically. The Secretary-General of the UN himself in his meeting with the two leaders called for a reaffirmation of the basis of the talks and their continuation from where they had left with the Mr.Talat. Demetris Christofias unequivocally accepted both of these two conditions, and he did so despite the unbearable internal pressures exerted to withdraw his supposedly unacceptable proposals. Mr.Eroglou did not make a clear commitment regarding the agreed basis of the negotiation and verbally accepted the second condition, namely to continue from where we had left. Subsequently, however, he broke his promise. Not only did he not respect the agreed basis, but also negated all the substantial converges that were not to his liking on the pretext that nothing is agreed unless everything is agreed.

I will not tire you by listing the endless inconsistencies of Mr.Eroglou. I will mention just a few characteristic examples. After two years of tough negotiations, we concluded with the Mr.Talat that with respect to the crucial issue of executive power, while the Greek Cypriot side will accept a rotating presidency in a presidential system, and the Turkish Cypriot side will accept the cross – and consequently weighted – vote, that is to say the election of a rotating President and Vice-President directly by the people as a whole instead of a separate election. It was a compromise that rendered the election of the President dependant on both communities.

Such a development would tear down dividing walls erected between the two communities on the basis of national origin. This development would transfer any confrontation to a political level, as in any modern European state, solving the problem at its roots.

However Mr.Eroglou chose from the package only what was to his liking, namely the rotating presidency and he stubbornly refused the cross vote. Therefore, where we were in range of an agreement on the entire capital of Governance, now it’s all in the air.

The same happened with a number of other important issues. Suffice to say that Mr.Eroglou in reality demands that all the Turkish citizens who have settled on the island from 1974 onwards should stay, the number of which already exceeds that of the Turkish Cypriots. Namely, he is demanding that we accept substantial alteration of the demographic structure. He is calling for a further comprehensive exchange of properties and the minimal restoration of Greek Cypriots to their homes and properties, and so on. Given this whole situation the talks could not proceed and eventually Mr.Eroglou delivered the final blow, ending the discussion of the core issues and restricted himself to only discuss day-to-day issues.

Within the above conditions we arrived at the presidential elections in February. Mr.Anastasiades was elected the new President of the Republic of Cyprus. The election however coincided with the well-known unprecedented decisions of the Eurogroup which brought devastating consequences for the economy of Cyprus. Under the weight of the situations that had evolved the efforts to resume the negotiation process was postponed somewhat. However, the process has already started almost four months now, with meetings of the negotiators on both sides aiming at issuing a joint communiqué.

I cannot conceal from you that some electoral positions of Mr. Anastasiades cause us concern, but we have said we would judge him by his actions. In any case, if the Turkish Cypriot side continues not to respect in practice the long ago agreed basis of the negotiation, as well as the achieved convergences and persists on the logic of a solution with confederal elements, we cannot be optimistic.

This is exactly what is taking place at this current stage and thus explains the difficulty in issuing a joint communiqué which will signal the resumption of the negotiating process. Such a communiqué de facto must reassert the basis of negotiation as defined in the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the Christofias – Talat joint communiques. I repeat that these communiques categorically set out that the solution will be based on one state with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship.

The current disappointing situation must certainly be overcome since it would be a tragic development and convey a highly negative message if we cannot agree on a joint communiqué on the long- agreed basis for negotiations and solution of the Cyprus problem. The single sovereignty, single international personality and single citizenship are properties of each state and cannot be undermined if indeed we are talking about one state rather than two. This must at last be understood by all. The most significant obstacle to the drawing up of a joint communiqué is, as it is universally admitted, the wording for the sovereignty. Our position is clear: The specific issue was discussed for decades until we arrived at the Christofias – Talat agreement. The only feasible way out would be the respect by both sides of this specific convergence, as this is also recorded in informal Downer document “convergences 2008-2012.” It was precisely the disregard this convergence which led to the unnecessary four-month long adventure in search of a joint communiqué. Therefore, it is not enough to have a successful outcome with regards the joint communiqué. The misfortune must be a lesson because we are very afraid that the same will happen also subsequently, every time that the achieved convergences achieved through so much work and efforts will be abandoned.

In conclusion, it would be an omission not to mention the natural gas issue since we are convinced that this can, with a proper and prudent handling, become a serious incentive for a solution for both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. The Republic of Cyprus declared its Exclusive Economic Zone, proceeded to conclude delineation agreements with neighbouring states, as well as to licensing, always as defined not only by conventional but also by the customary law of the sea. Subsequently, it already proceeded to conduct two successful drillings, always within in the framework of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

At the same time we declare that the island’s natural resources, including the hydrocarbons, are the common heritage of all Cypriots and therefore within the framework of the solution our Turkish Cypriot compatriots must be sure that they will enjoy those benefits as of this so valuable asset. And we in our turn have an equally powerful incentive because we know very well that stability is an important factor for success in these cases.

At this point we need to mention that during the talks with Mr Talat, although we not engage the question of hydrocarbons, significant convergences had been achieved which in the event of a solution of the Cyprus problem would constitute a sound foundation and would only leave the details for further regulation regarding the issue of natural gas. This is because when discussing the competences it had been agreed that all maritime zones without exception (territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf) will constitute the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal state and not of the federal units. In addition, the delineation with neighbouring states was agreed as a federal competency and the solution of relevant disputes in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Finally, a convergence was reached that the natural resources, which of course includes natural gas, would constitute a federal competence, whilst it was also agreed how federal revenues would be distributed and consequently the revenues from the natural gas. This highly significant convergence itself demonstrates the need to safeguard the convergences and to continue the negotiations from where they had left off.

Today Mr. Eroglu states that he accepts the convergences and agrees to continue from where we left off. I remind you once again that for three years the former President Christofias was calling on Mr. Eroglu to respect the commitment he had made before the UN Secretary-General for the continuation of the talks from where they had left off and on the agreed basis. And while Mr. Eroglu says he respects the convergences and agreed basis, at the same time he refers to two states and does not accept the one, single and indivisible sovereignty, resulting in the talks still not being able to commence.

It is imperative that the verbal commitment to continue from where we had left is implemented in practice because only in this way can the issuing of a joint communique be made feasible and fully-fledged negotiations for a comprehensive settlement are resumed. Such a development would unquestionably serve the well-intentioned interests of Cyprus and our people as a whole, the two communities of our island, Greece, Turkey and of the European Union itself, as well of peace and stability in the wider and so sensitive region.