Speech of Stavri Kalopsidiotou, Member of C.C. AKEL Cyprus at the seminar organized by the Portuguese Communist Party and GUE/NGL “The crisis in the European Union – the economic crisis, refugees and terrorism”
14th October 2016, Lisbon, Portugal
Dear comrades,
Allow me to begin my intervention by congratulating the Portuguese Communist Party and GUE/NGL for hosting this event. It is an important political initiative, which comes at a time when the peoples of the EU member states and of third countries experience unfortunately the devastating consequences of the EU’s conservative neoliberal path and aggressive foreign policy. The economic crisis, the migration crisis and the curbing of fundamental human rights and civil liberties in the name of the so- called ‘war on terror’, issues that we are discussing today, are all expressions of the multifaceted, systemic crisis of the EU as a political and institutional construction.
In 1845, under very different social circumstances, though also within a context of intense class struggle between the capitalist forces and workers, the British politician and later Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had stated that ‘a conservative government is an orchestrated hypocrisy’. Today, more than 150 years later, his words depict the political reality both at the EU level and within our countries at the national level. The rhetoric for the EU’s ‘social agenda, has effectively been crashed as it has given its place to the austerity measures imposed upon Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus, Greece and the structural changes blackmailed through the Memorandums of Understanding with Troika. Which aim at the privatization of social services, the selling out of national wealth to private investors, the limitation of the welfare state and effect a violent attack against workers’ rights and prior gains.
Nevertheless, the main question remains: has the EU ever been an expression of a truly social agenda? The long process of EU integration is not a recent experiment and its more systematic enhancement with the establishment of the Economic Communities at the time of the Cold War was a project aiming to counter the socialist paradigm; hence, it was conceived as the shield and the sword for the empowerment of the socioeconomic philosophy of Western Europe. It is therefore completely logical that since then and ever after, the EU has been the arena for the promotion and deepening of neoliberal policies opposing the welfare state and every form of social control over the market and wealth. The current crisis of the EU model of economic development is an integral expression of this philosophy: the interests of the most powerful- who are the few-, prevail over the benefits of the masses. In as much as this is true for the national environment, it is also the sad reality at the EU level, where the most powerful states set the agenda for decision- making. It is thus self- explanatory why the right wing policies imposed from the EU and its national collaborators have exacerbated the economic crisis; and of course, this is also the reason why the memorandums, since their inception and genesis, could not had addressed the needs of the people nor provide the impetus for the development of their real economy.
In Cyprus, the mainstream media and the government constantly bombard us with the same pretentious story. A fabricated story of gained growth and stabilization achieved through the measures of the Memorandum, thanks to the ‘constructive’ concessions of the workers and the tightening of the public spending, the decrease of social benefits and subsidies. Yet, this story of glory repeatedly promoted by the right wing government silences the realities on the ground. In fact, the reality of Cyprus today consists, inter alia, of the inhuman working hours of the people- of the ones who still have a job- the return to an anachronistic and uncontrolled labor environment with individual contracts instead of collective agreements, the increasing migration of Cypriots and especially of younger generations, the growth of long- term unemployment and the limiting of the people able to apply and receive state subsidy, that is set at 480 euros. If one takes into consideration that the public health institutions are collapsing due to unjustified budgetary cuts (and some right- wing aspirations for its future privatization) one can easily understand that the amount of social subsidies especially for the unemployed and the pensioners cannot provide them with an adequate standard of living and pushes them towards the limit of poverty. Inevitably, this picture, which we know is not only Cypriot, and it is European, is another revelation of the failure of the neoliberal model for economic development and real prosperity for the people.
Unfortunately, the negative role of the EU does not exhaust in the economic policies adopted and promoted vis-a-vis our countries and our people. In addition to the devastating circumstances of our economies, the holding back of real development and the collapse of our social and workers’ rights, the impact of the EU policy choices on the regression of civil liberties, other fundamental rights and freedoms inside and outside the EU has been immense. In the name of the so-called war on terror, mass surveillance has become the norm; the soil of EU member states was used for the rendition flights of CIA and unlawful detention. In the UK still, the pre-charge period for detention of suspected terrorists is 14 days, two times the limit for someone suspected of murder. At the same time, our freedom of movement is monitored through the presentation of our biometrics at the boarders of member states and the freedom of expression is qualified against the biased and ideologically loaded concept of radicalization, aiming at the equation of Communism with Nazism, Fascism and extreme fundamentalism and the revision of history. The adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights through the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, although presented as an improvement of the constitutive instruments of the EU and a step towards the enhancement of a progressive and humane Union, has not prevented the restriction of civil liberties for the sake of more security. Nevertheless, we do recognize that due to the economic crisis people tend to ignore the tormenting drawbacks in the field of civil liberties, a factor that makes their limitation not unnoticeable, but evidently less resisted.
In addition to the disparities of EU policies internally, one cannot ignore the rude export of its policy choices in third countries and their bold facilitation; for example, through the requirements of the accession process or the interlinking of visa liberalization with readmission agreements the legitimacy of which is contested especially in light of the non- refoulement principle. According to which, migrants cannot be returned to countries where their life is threatened or they risk persecution. In light of the severe migration crisis, the EU proved once more incapable of delivering solutions respecting such principles. For example, from a human rights perspective, isn’t it incomprehensible that the EU conceded to an agreement with Turkey on visa liberalization and financial support in order to secure that Turkey would take back migrants and provide protection to them, knowing of the low human rights record of that country?
Having raised the self- motivated policy choices of the EU, I would like to emphasize that the migration crisis, in as much as terrorism, can only be contained if the EU recognizes and addresses their root causes. And inevitably the violent enforcement of a western vision of the world, the aggressive interference within the internal affairs of third states and the militarization of international relations, enhanced by the CFSP and the structured cooperation of the EU with NATO, are not the means to combat terrorism, nor to eradicate social injustice and poverty which create conflicts and lead people to migration or extremist and criminal acts.
In Syria for example, the EU has coordinated with the US and the Gulf monarchies, and tolerates Turkey’s aggressive involvement and support of ISIS, because from the very beginning the main objective has been the overthrow of the Assad government and the installation of a pro- Western regime; that would be willing to assist their geo-political and energy plans for a ‘New Middle East’. In that way, and in combination with the previous interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya the EU has negatively contributed to the consolidation of the horrific monstrosity of the ISIS. Even regarding the refugee crisis that followed the war, the EU has anew revealed its true character; the cynicism behind all the slogans and talk about European principles and values. The uprooted refugees did not encounter the humanism and solidarity of the EU. They either drowned in the Mediterranean Sea or had to face electrified walls, fences, NATO and FRONTEX patrols, police repression, tear gas and racism. AKEL, from the very beginning spoke about the foreign plans and interests that were behind the unrest that broke out in Syria and we stressed that the struggle for democracy and the choice of government in each country is the exclusive right and responsibility of its own people and not of any foreign powers. Unfortunately, the right wing government of Anastasiades in Cyprus did not take a different position from the EU prevailing views neither on the refugee issue nor on the substance of the Syrian crisis. Nevertheless, we will continue to support and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria, against the plans for its partition that would generate another cycle of instability in our neighborhood and the world.
Before concluding my intervention, allow me to exceed my time limit and say a few words on the peace negotiations in Cyprus, which are at a crucial juncture. To the question of how close or how far are we from the solution of the Cyprus problem, the reply is that the moment of truth is actually approaching. Out of the six core chapters of the Cyprus problem, three of them (Governance and Power Sharing, EU and the Economy) have more or less been agreed. Thus, during the last few meetings the two leaders sought to discuss and try to overcome differences on the issue of property. The issues of territory and security have not been discussed in detail so far, since the Turkish Cypriot side had been insisting that they should both be discussed at what they call, the final stage. Nevertheless, a recent positive development has been the agreement between the two leaders to discuss the territorial aspect of the solution before then. Progress on the property and territory issues will determine whether we will move to the direction of the solution, or in the direction of the collapse of the current negotiation procedure. Having said that, we cannot ignore that differences still remain both on the property issue, and from what we are being informed on the territorial aspect. And of course on the security issue; the discussion of which though depends upon the positive outcome of the negotiations on the two other issues.
Unquestionably, the territory and security issues are subject to major political decisions which Turkey itself primarily is called upon to take. Whether Turkey will adopt a constructive and positive approach or remain stack on its traditional intransigent stance, is not something that we can predict. The internal situation in Turkey, the politics of Erdogan in the region, the rapprochement of Turkey with Russia and the peculiar relationship with the USA, do not allow us to draw any clear conclusions neither as to what Turkey will do, nor as to how much pressure international actors can exert on it. Yet, we believe that it is in Turkey’s interest to resolve the Cyprus problem, including in order to benefit from the natural gas resources found in our region. Indeed, foreign actors convey the message that Turkey is ready for a solution; what kind of a solution, that remains to be tested especially in view of the territory and security issues.
For us, things are crystal clear. After 42 years of occupation and human rights violations, we are ready for a solution. We want to see our country being freed and having the opportunity to develop in community with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. However, this provides that the Turkish occupation forces must be withdrawn, the anachronistic system of 1960 guarantees be abolished and the island must be demilitarized. The involvement of NATO or other military organizations in our security is therefore fully rejected. Additionally, the continuity of the Republic of Cyprus, the functionality of the new constitution and of the overall arrangements must be attained. Thus, a strong central authority of the bicommunal bizonal federal state must exist, with all the necessary competences that will safeguard the unity of the state, the single sovereignty, the single international personality and single citizenship of the state. Furthermore, the uninhibited implementation of basic freedoms and human rights for all Cypriot citizens shall be provided, and we shall not concede to permanent derogations from the acquis communautaire. Regarding territory, there must be substantive territorial adjustments which, inter alia, will include Famagusta and Morphou under Greek Cypriot administration.
Returning to the initial question of my intervention, this was whether the EU has ever been the expression of a truly social agenda. Allow me to conclude that it has not. However, as a renowned artist had once said, you can only change the beast if you recognize it- and I add, if we as the Left forces in Europe further our struggles and convince the people that there is a different future, which is possible. Today, we remain not only relevant but necessary; our collaboration and comradely cooperation is imperative; the world needs a vision and the people in our EU countries, migrants and locals, need hope. And this can only come from a united and not fragmented Left.
Thanks again for the invitation and for your patience.
