The Cyprus problem: Messy handlings serving expediencies
Article by Aristos Damianou, AKEL Political Bureau member
Sunday, 6th September 2020, HARAVGI newspaper
“We have nothing to worry about Turkey’s actions or statements”, Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides, 2018
“We have established effective mechanisms that will address Turkey’s provocative actions”, FM Nikos Christodoulides, 2019
“The support from Cyprus’ EU partners towards the Republic of Cyprus is universal”, President of the Republic Nikos Anastasiades, 2019
“The European Union cannot remain indifferent in the face of Turkey’s aggressive stance”, President Nikos Anastasiades, 2020
For years, AKEL has been warning President Anastasiades that the handling of the Cyprus problem to serve communication purposes, instead of focusing on the substance, is dangerous. The above statements are indicative of the sloppiness and expediencies (because they are such) that characterize the handling of the Cyprus problem on the part of the Anastasiades-ruling DISY party government. If one searches, one will find similar statements that were made with regards issues relating to natural gas; statements that Turkey will not find a drilling vessel to rent for carrying out explorations, let alone buy (in fact today Turkey has acquired four drilling vessels of its own), and that “we (the government) have shielded the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus” and others.
However, what is at stake is far greater than any criticism of a government that, with its longstanding handlings on the Cyprus problem, is causing damage and providing pretexts to Turkey’s provocative actions. In our view, it is very clear that the passive monitoring of the (non) developments surrounding the Cyprus problem evidently serves Turkey, which is comfortable with the partitionist status quo. The question is: who else is comfortable with the so-called second best solution?
More than three years have passed since the double breakdown of the two conferences that took place on Cyprus in 2017, in Geneva and Crans Montana. Unfortunately, the time for the solution of the Cyprus problem is running out. Turkey’s illegal actions in the maritime zones and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus, the ongoing threats issued by the Turkish side with regards fenced off Varosha are consolidating the occupation facts on the ground and rendering the prospect of a solution more distant.
The recent Reports submitted by the Secretary General of the United Nations on his good services and the renewal of the mandate of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), show us the way. Without ignoring the difficulties and obstacles raised by Turkey’s stance, Mr. Anastasiades must convince the international community on the one hand that we are ready, provided that conditions permit it, to return to a dialogue on the Cyprus problem. At the same time, instead of engaging in rhetoric and handlings that refer to the militarization of the Cyprus problem, the President of the Republic must prepare himself properly to continue the talks from where they had remained at the Crans Montana conference, based on the convergences that have been recorded and on the Framework tabled by the UN Secretary General – always based on the agreed basis of the solution of the Cyprus problem, namely the solution of bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. The flirt with ideas “outside of the box” ideas is dangerous.
As regards the argument that to arrive at a solution with such a Turkey is difficult, this is answered with the conclusion that if we do not assert a solution with a sense of urgency, not only will the balance of power not be reversed in our favor – as it is naively claimed – but – inevitably – we will end up with partition. We don’t have the luxury of waiting for “another Turkey” to emerge. It is obvious that Turkey has a plan, which it is seeking to fulfill. Our duty is to fight struggle to prevent its implementation. And this presupposes steadfastness/consistency in our positions, assertiveness and seriousness. These are all elements that Mr. Anastasiades’ handling of the Cyprus problem must acquire – albeit belatedly.
