Statement by Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Political Bureau of AKEL and Head of the Cyprus problem Bureau, on the talks due to take place at Crans-Montana on the Cyprus problem

“Fileleftheros” newspaper, Wednesday 21st June 2017

The Head of the Cyprus problem Bureau of the Central Committee of AKEL and member of the support group to the Negotiating Team Toumazos Tsielepis noted that “now is the time when Turkey will be tested on the issue of security and guarantees.” We shall see, he said, what position it will adopt in Geneva.

The key, Mr. Tsielepis continued, lies with Turkey and whether it will change its policy on the issue of security and guarantees, adding that the most fundamental dimension is the issue of the anachronistic 1960 system of guarantees, the issue of the rights of intervention and the question of the withdrawal of the troops. “The rest of the issues will indeed be determined by the outcome of this discussion”, stressed the leading official of AKEL.

At another point in his statements, Mr. Tsielepis pointed out that in Crans-Montana there will be two negotiating tables. On one table the issues of security will be discussed and on the other the issues relating to the internal aspect of the Cyprus problem. According to Mr. Tsielepis, “when security will be discussed at one table, Turkey will also be looking towards the other table. If progress is recorded at one table it will indeed have a positive influence on developments at the second table. Otherwise we will have a second breakdown which will possibly lead to the termination of the current procedure that has been continuing for some ten years now.

According to Toumazos Tsielepis, the Mont Peleran 3 negotiations were conducted to prepare the continuation of the Geneva conference when it was concluded that the two sides weren’t ready for such an exercise, that there wasn’t a set agenda and that there was no clear subject of the negotiations. At Mont Peleran, he clarified, each side expressed its concerns, outlined its thoughts about how the concerns could be met, given that each side’s questions to one another were answered. All this, he said, might represent the material of the much-discussed document, together perhaps with an effort to set out an agenda.