“The destructive path towards partition must be terminated”

Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, member of the Political Bureau of AKEL, Head of the Cyprus Problem Office of the C.C. of AKEL and International Law expert

Sunday 21st April 2019, “Haravgi” newspaper

• The UN Secretary General’s Report contains indirect criticism and sends out messages to all sides
• Regardless of whether the negotiation procedure resumes or not, the status quo will change
• The President of the Republic is subject to criticism because he has reopened a key convergence: that of executive power

In the report submitted by the UN Secretary General, about which the government has expressed its general satisfaction, references such as that endless talks cannot continue are included. This has been perceived as a position supported by the Turkish Cypriot side. What are your comments in general?

TT: It has been known for some months now that there would be an extension (of the effort aiming at the resumption of talks) up until the European elections. For that very reason, from the moment the UN Secretary General did not intend to announce a deadlock, but would continue the procedure, the Report he submitted quite naturally is low key. However, it does contain indirect criticism and sends out messages to all sides.

Without a doubt, the UN Secretary General reiterates that the period of endless talks is definitely a thing of the past and that the status quo is not a viable option. These two elements together mean that whether or not the negotiation procedure can be resumed, the status quo will change. And we all know in which direction it will change, it will change towards variations of partition.

The UN Secretary General also underlines that both sides support in words his Framework, but in practice no steps whatsoever have been taken forward. Of course, he considers the fact that some Confidence Building Measures – which in essence have been agreed to since 2015 – have been reaffirmed now as a positive development. But he subsequently goes on to point out that the most essential thing is to be able to reach a convergence on the issue of the so-called terms of reference, because without this the talks for a comprehensive solution cannot be resumed. In addition, he concludes that expectations for reaching an agreement on them are low.

Not at all by chance does the Secretary General stress that for decades the UN Security Council has adopted the solution of Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation with political equality, and that the Framework he had submitted at Crans Montana is in line with this logic.

All these are messages conveyed that we must soon arrive at a conclusion on the terms of reference for a meaningful negotiation to be able to resume. Otherwise, the effort will not continue for much longer, it will come to an end with all the ensuing consequences.

At the Crans Montana conference from our side, it appeared that the obstacle was Turkey’s insistence on guarantees. How can this issue be overcome?

At Crans Montana the position of the Secretary General, but also of the EU and Britain – it goes without saying Greece as well – was the termination of the Treaty of Guarantee and the intervention rights from the first day of the solution, the speedy withdrawal of the troops, with the only issue remaining open to be discussed at the level of Prime Ministers the matter of the presence of ELDYK (the Greek Force in Cyprus) and TOURDYK (the Turkish Force in Cyprus) – that is to say, the contingent of 950 Greek and 650 Turkish soldiers respectively that are stationed on the island according to the Treaty of Alliance in 1960.

Furthermore the UN Secretary General goes one step further, arguing that all three guarantor powers were cooperating on this issue. Consequently, if the talks resume, two things can happen with regards the issue of security: either it will be confirmed by the Secretary General that Turkey cooperated with the result that a decisive step towards a solution would be made or Turkey will be irreparably exposed (to the international community). In any case, we have nothing to lose, we can only benefit.

All of a sudden we are now discussing about political equality. Who in the end raised this issue?

TT: If one reads the Framework of the UN Secretary General and the Report he had submitted in September 2017 carefully, one will easily conclude that this issue towards the end of the Crans Montana conference was in essence agreed upon. For that reason how and why this issue has been reopened raises questions. The issue of the main bodies, of executive-legislative-judicial power and some others were agreed. Where there was disagreement on the so-called low politics bodies, about which the Turkish Cypriot side was demanding a vote on everything in order for a decision to be approved. The Secretary General did not adopt this position in his Framework.

Consequently, the President is subject to criticism in that he has reopened a fundamental convergence: that of executive power and because it was agreed with regards this convergence that instead of the vetoes they had according to the 1960 Constitution, they would have at least one single positive vote on every decision. That is to say, of the four Turkish Cypriot Ministers we would have at least one vote to secure in order to take the decision. Mr. Anastasiades’ regression, which goes steps backwards further even from the Zurich agreements, revives the worst nightmares of the Turkish Cypriots, namely that the Greek Cypriots are trying to annul their political equality and turn them into a minority.

And it is not the only convergence that the President of the Republic has reopened. It was preceded by the issue of decentralized federation that essentially re-opens the convergence reached as to what the competences of the central government will be. He has also opened the issue of a parliamentary democracy system, while a presidential system was agreed for reasons of substance and functionality according to the concrete conditions of Cyprus.

All of this goes beyond and deviates from the Guterres Framework. This is precisely the reason why the Secretary General says that at the same time as the two sides declare in words that they accept the Framework, in practice we can’t proceed.

However, the President and his negotiating team are presenting the new ideas as attempts to breach the deadlock, as Mr. Guterres himself had asked.

After the Crans Montana conference, the Secretary General granted a period of reflection. To be able to resume meaningful talks, as he himself stressed, they must be continued from where they had remained. That is to say, with the agreed convergences, the Guterres Framework and the mechanism for implementing the solution that had been proposed by the UN Secretary General, which dispelled the fears that it would constitute a Treaty of Guarantee but with a different name, given that it only provides for a consultative role to the guarantor powers.

From there onwards, the Secretary General calls on us to continue with the discussion of the six issues as a package, at different tables, of course. The issue of security and guarantees at the conference, the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem between the two leaders, but as a package, whose philosophy is that it includes the most important issues that remain to be resolved, and if they are agreed upon then we would have a strategic understanding that would enable us much more easily to address all the other outstanding issues.

It is in the course of events that the issue regarding the terms of reference and the President’s “new ideas” had emerged. That is to say, when the President opened the issue of decentralized federation. That’s where the whole story began. And from the moment the Turkish Cypriot side despite all its reservations did not reject this idea, the UN Secretary General said “okay, you discuss it, reach an agreement, but with the sense of urgency.” Since then, no progress whatsoever has been registered. When the Secretary General says that his Framework is accepted in words, but in practice we can’t arrive at a conclusion, that is precisely what he is implying

If all that is being done at governmental level is adventurism, can pressure be put on the government? How can the people seeking the solution of the Cyprus problem act?

TT: We aren’t in government. We are the biggest party of the opposition. I would like to remind you that when Mr. Anastasiades took office in 2013, during the first year of his administration we were the only force that was opposing him. Everybody else sided with him, because the President’s efforts aimed at the resumption of talks from scratch, something we disagreed with.

In the course of developments, and with Mr. Akinci assuming the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community, who reaffirmed the Christofias-Talat convergences, some mobility was recorded. For that reason we lowered the tones and were encouraging Mr. Anastasiades to move ahead. That was what we had to do. However, after the first Mont Peleran conference, the President of the Republic again changed course and so we again found ourselves opposing him. We are, therefore, consistent and steadfast in our policy.

I must indeed say that the policy we are pursuing is being vindicated day by day by developments themselves. Consequently, we will continue to act in an unwavering way on to the Cyprus problem, remaining committed to the strategic goal without engaging in any opportunistic regressions. Besides, perhaps at this moment in time, for their own reasons, our positions may not coincide with those of other political forces, but a large portion of society does agree with them. Drawing strength from the wider resonance our positions have among both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, we shall continue to work with the hope that at some point the disastrous path towards the final partition, which the erroneous policies and tactical games being pursued, will come to an end.