Statements by the General Secretary of AKEL Andros Kyprianou after the meeting with the British High Commissioner Mr. Matthew Kidd
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 23rd February 2017, Nicosia
We exchanged views with the British High Commissioner in Cyprus on the situation as it stands following Mr. Akinci’s decision not to attend the negotiations, but also after the decision approved by the House of Representatives.
The appeal I address to the two leaders is that they should avoid making any statements for a few days. Things need to calm down and we should all think very seriously about what the interest of our country and people demands. Our own belief is that the interest of our country and people is not served by the collapse of the negotiations. We have an obligation to exhaust all possibilities, no matter how minimal these may be, to drive developments towards the direction of a solution, otherwise the consequences for our country will be extremely negative. It would be a matter of time for things to develop in a negative way.
Consequently AKEL’s appeal to both leaders of the two communities, but also I repeat again to the leaders of the political parties, is that we all understand what the alternative option to the start of negotiations is. We should all reflect on where the country is being driven if and provided that we fail to have a resumption of the talks. We should put above all else the interest of the country and people and not any petty-party interests and whatever ambitions anyone may possibly have with regards the coming Presidential elections.
I want to clarify that as AKEL we will not stop our efforts for the resumption of the negotiations. I believe we need to keep the hope for a solution of the Cyprus problem alive, otherwise we will each and every one of us have made the worst service to Cyprus and our people.
Question: The decision approved by Parliament may have been a very good pretext, many including the President characterized it as wrong, but many others say that if it wasn’t this issue the Turkish side would have found another matter and I wonder if AKEL believes that there may have been a deeper cause.
AK: My view is that this issue alone cannot constitute sufficient justification for Mr. Akinci’s behaviour and attitude. For sure there are underlying causes. Underlying causes exist not only on the side of the Turkish Cypriot community, but also are among Greek Cypriots. It is no secret that some circles and forces wanted the collapse of the negotiations at all costs. All their actions were aimed in this direction. Mr. Akinci’s position was exaggerated and unacceptable. Undoubtedly there are underlying causes I repeat, but surely our side is not devoid of responsibility for all these developments.
There are problems at the negotiating table and anyone who doesn’t admit it is either turning a blind eye or is not telling the truth. This is the reason why we had proposed a specific procedure which in our view could help towards overcoming the problems at the negotiating table. Of course, today developments have surpassed that proposal. What is important now is to find a way to resume the negotiations. That is also why the appeal we addressed from the outset to Mr. Akinci and the discussions that we are having with the Turkish Cypriot political parties, are aimed precisely in this direction. Namely, to send messages to the two leaders that, regardless of the share of responsibilities that everyone has about how things have evolved, they should both try to overcome this situation and resume negotiations. We can then focus on how they can overcome the problems that exist at the negotiating table.
Question: AKEL is under fierce attack that you apportion almost the same responsibilities to both on our side and the other side.
AK: I should say that we did not in any way get into a blame game and neither will we play this game. I will however reiterate it so that there is no doubt. We do not believe that the Greek Cypriot side and the President of the Republic do not have any responsibility whatsoever for how developments have evolved. Now isn’t the time for these discussions, however. I repeat that now the priority must be to create the preconditions for the resumption of the dialogue.
Question: What did Mr. Kitt say to you about the situation? How does Britain view the current situation, given that the conference on Cyprus cannot continue as things stand?
AK: You understand I can’t speak on behalf of the British High Commissioner. Its better you address this question to him. For sure they aren’t at all happy about how things have evolved.
Question: Do you consider the President’s responsibilities on the handling of the issue are only with regards what the House voted?
AK: I said previously that I will not play this blame game at this moment. We believe we should focus our attention on how the dialogue is resumed. This is where we must all focus on, those who sincerely and genuinely want a solution to the Cyprus problem. And I say this applies to everyone without exception, for me personally and for everybody else as well, for the President of the Republic and for the other leaders of the political parties.
Question: Do you believe that the President of the Republic is thinking about the next Presidential Elections?
AK: It is evident that the President of the Republic has launched his election campaign, as well as the governing Democratic Rally party. Now if this will influence him on how he handles the Cyprus problem this will be made apparent as developments evolve.
I will say this, since I know that I will come under attack about what I say. Ask ordinary people on the street to tell you what their feeling is, that is whether some political figures, including Mr. Anastasiades as well, have started their election campaign. I think their answers are quite revealing about developments.
Question: There is a view arguing that because of the latest developments in Geneva, Turkey has remained isolated on the issue of security, guarantees, etc., and that’s why – according to what Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias said yesterday – it has raised the issue of the four freedoms for Turkish citizens, etc. in an attempt to get out of the corner. Do you share the view that the Parliament’s decision helped Turkey get out of the corner?
First I’d like say that we didn’t wait for the meeting in Geneva to assess that Turkey is not in a strong position as regards the issue of guarantees. There isn’t a country and political figures which logically and objectively can support the Turkish position on the issue of guarantees. We have experienced this in recent years, not just after Geneva. It was always the case. And it is for this reason that we insist that we should not get frustrated and want to have papers in our hands when we discuss security issues. We have many arguments on this issue to convince of the correctness of our own position. Now from there onwards what the Turkish side’s expediencies are, or what any other considerations serve I think everyone can draw their own conclusions. It is obvious that each side sought if and provided there wouldn’t be any dialogue to blame the other side for the interruption or collapse of the dialogue. I consider it is too early to get into this game. First we should try to breathe new life into the procedure again and if we don’t manage to do so then we will have time to engage in a blame game.
