“The perspectives of the EU and the Cyprus problem”

Speech by the General Secretary of AKEL A.Kyprianou

Tuesday 23 October 2018, Hilton Park Hotel, Nicosia

On behalf of AKEL, I welcome you all to today’s event. I particularly would like to welcome Martin Schulz, former President of the European Parliament, to Cyprus and our event. Martin Schulz from the position of President of the European Parliament cooperated with the given Presidents and other officials of the Republic of Cyprus for the promotion and solution of the Cyprus problem.

Martin Schulz acknowledged and was stressing at every opportunity the importance the achievement of a solution of the Cyprus problem has, both for our country, as well as for the European Union and our wider region too. Both I personally, as well as comrade Demetris Christofias, had the opportunity to cooperate with him. I would like to thank him for this cooperation, as well as for accepting our invitation to attend and talk at our meeting.

As AKEL, we have always sought to highlight the issues of the European Union in Cyprus. Decisions taken in Brussels affect our lives. It is our duty to inform the people about them so that they have a correct view of European affairs. Within this context, we organize various events; events to brief citizens and also for conducting a dialogue and an exchange of views with forces and personalities of Europe that do not necessarily belong to our political spectrum. This of course, does not include the ultra-right. We believe that this is what the need for a solution of the Cyprus problem demands. We also consider that public debate on the perspectives of the European Union can only be beneficial because it makes citizens aware of the major issues that are troubling the European Union’s structure today.

The discussion on Europe’s present and future must, in our view, be opened up in a broad and substantive way within European societies, especially in view of the upcoming European elections. At least on AKEL’s part, this is what we are going to seek to do here in Cyprus, through numerous events and activities, such as the one we are holding today. I would like once again to thank Martin Schultz for his presence here today and for his contribution to our discussion today.

For several years now, discussions on European issues have been dominated by one question: “What kind of Europe do we want?” This question is absolutely correct and timely. Nonetheless, this question hides a crucial admission: If today we are talking about what kind of Europe we want, this means that something has gone wrong with the Europe that we already have.

Without a doubt, as AKEL we believe that the current European unification is very far removed from its own proclamations and first and foremost from the expectations and needs of the peoples of the EU Member States themselves. When during the mid-1990’s AKEL decided, under preconditions and having the cause of the Cyprus problem at heart, to consent to Cyprus’ accession to the EU, it declared that this was the result of the dramatic change in the international conditions and not to the change in the European Union’s character. At that time, the views and warnings issued by AKEL, as well as of a large section of the Left in Europe about the capitalist nature, development and policies of the EU were ignored or even denigrated. Today, however, it is evident that these views and warnings are being vindicated.

– Can we really carry on today implementing the same policies of neoliberalism when their results have led to millions of unemployed, poor, under-employed and even homeless? When even the President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker himself also admits that the EU is in danger of turning into a Wild West of social dumping and that the standard of living of young people is worse than their parents had when they were young?

– On the critical issue of our times, namely the refugee and migration issue, where do the EU’s proclaimed values ​​apply when the principles of solidarity are replaced by the dogma of “Fortress Europe”, with the Right and ultra-right logic of repression, the militarization of the EU’s external borders or the routed refugee detention centres outside European territory? How “European” is the xenophobic stand of governments such as Orbán’s in Hungary or Kurt’s in Austria – governments of the European People’s Party? These governments refuse to participate in a system to host refugees throughout the member states, according to the capabilities of each one. It is these force’s stand that is leading states such as Greece to undertake a disproportionate share of responsibility in hosting refugees, despite the fact that this constitutes a legal and moral obligation of all member states without exception. In particular, we believe that the progressive forces of Europe on this burning issue must convey the powerful message that – however much we know the issue of immigration is a complex one and that there are no easy solutions – racism and hatred are not the solution, but a part of the problem.

– With regards foreign policy and defence issues, we raise the following questions: How can the EU be a “force of peace” as it is claiming, when it is proceeding to a “shift in investment” towards the war and arms industry or when its powerful member states are engaged in an extensive arms trade with authoritarian regimes and warring countries of the Middle East? When the European Union is continually deepening its coupling with NATO? Or when the EU opts for the continuous escalation of confrontation with Russia instead of opting for dialogue and cooperation?

– The issues of democratic functioning, transparency and substantial equality of member states within the EU structure represent one of the most discussed European issues. In our view, the “democratic deficit of the EU” doesn’t just concern its functioning and procedures. It is a structural issue. The EU has a class character, given that the elites and powerful interests dominate to the detriment of the peoples, citizens, trade unions and movements. This is characteristically expressed by the enormous influence yielded by the lobbies of multinational conglomerates on the EU’s decision-making bodies.

Someone might respond that it is not possible not to acknowledge that, despite all these points, the European Union has positives and achievements to show. Indeed, it would be wrong for one not to acknowledge that in areas such as, for example, the legal framework regarding the combating of discriminations and environmental legislation – areas which we consider as very important – there are elements where the EU clearly outperforms in comparison to other countries or other regions of the world.

Nonetheless, the economic policies that have dominated have annulled, in people’s day-to-day life and in practice, such achievements and gains which until recently we considered as given when, for example, since unemployment and poverty are rising sharply, women and other social groups that are being discriminated against are doubly affected. Consequently what the laws enshrine remain in theory on paper. The same is true with environmental legislation as well, which – as the Diesel Gate scandal revealed – the European Union’s bodies shut their eyes to big capital’s arbitrariness.

The answer to these enormous deadlocks cannot be the nationalist “Euro-skepticism” of the ultra-right. The very forces that are threatening to drag Europe back to the darkest times of its history can’t be the answer. The situation is more worrying than many people think. On the political horizon of Europe there is now a terrible threat to democracy, peace, the rights and gains of our peoples. The ultra-right forces already participate in governments and have entered parliaments in a number of member states. They bring with them xenophobia and racism, extreme anti-communism and anti-Semitism, sexism and homophobia, even hymns to Hitler and Mussolini. For some years now the ultra-right forces are being legitimized in the eyes of citizens as a result of the tolerance or/and approach shown by parties of the European People’s Party. They are now being encouraged by the US Trump Government. They are now coordinating their actions and getting organized in view of the upcoming European elections. All of these forces not only do not constitute an “anti-systemic alternative” force, but represent the most barbaric and reactionary version of the system. Every democrat and progressive citizen of Cyprus and Europe must rise up against this threat. That is why, as AKEL, we strongly feel the need in these conditions to address every one of our democratic citizens who, even if he/she does not agree with us on everything, shares the need to block the path to the ultra-right.

As AKEL, we of course don’t seek to stand out just for our consistent opposition to all that we disagree with. We are first and foremost seeking to engage in creative action, to put forth proposals, project demands and assertions and advance the struggle and our vision; assertions for a different model of socio- economic development in Europe; to promote investment programs in order to create permanent and dignified jobs; to support social policies and the battle against poverty; to effectively protect collective agreements and the right of trade union organization. We are seeking to achieve a common sum of minimum social rights for all the peoples, starting with the EU’s inclusion in the European Social Charter; to bring more democracy, participation and transparency with measures that will make EU institutions truly open and accountable to people. We are struggling for a Europe that will reject militarization, interventionism and double-standards polices in its international relations, that will pursue a foreign policy based on principles, peace, the respect for international law and solidarity. We want to talk about all these issues – and we shall do so – to Cypriot society not only because the European elections are approaching, but because the path and future of the EU has a decisive influence on the future and course of Cyprus, on the daily affairs and lives of Cypriots.

For AKEL the really progressive answer to the great number of challenges of our times is the struggle for an alternative Europe. We never had any doubt that the idea of ​​the unification of our continent into a common home where peoples, nations, languages, religions and cultures coexist represents a step forward in history. The crucial question is what kind of Europe do we want and who should it serve. We reply clearly that we want a Europe that will serve the working people, citizens and the peoples; a Europe of peace, social equality, democracy, equal co-operation and open multicultural societies, the Europe of the Peoples.

This is the kind of Europe we want for Cyprus. We want Cyprus to be present in the EU, not with the millstones of division and the occupation. We want a free, united and independent Cyprus. For us, this is our struggle’s principal goal. We are devoting all our efforts to realize this goal.

As you all know, the Report of the UN Secretary-General was published recently, which I would say rings the warning bell about our country’s future and perspective.

The Secretary-General’s report is descriptive. It points out some important things and tries to keep equal distances.

At the same time, however, the report says some truths that are also important and should guide us as regards our next steps.

It says that unfortunately, although 15 months have elapsed since the collapse of the Crans Montana conference, there has been no progress whatsoever.

It says we should proceed on the basis of the Guterres Framework, even if any other ideas will be put on the table to be discussed.

It says there are dangers looming, particularly from the moment the drillings will begin in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone. It clarifies that our country’s natural wealth belongs to all its inhabitants, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and that a careful handling must be made so that the hydrocarbons should represent an incentive for the solution of the Cyprus problem and not an obstacle.

Finally, the UN Secretary-General points out that the time limits are coming to an end. We don’t have much time at our disposal to solve the Cyprus problem. This must be understood by everyone and, of course, especially by the leaders of both the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, but also by all involved parties.

We know that Turkey is a difficult and peculiar opponent. This makes the need for us to be extremely careful even more imperative. That is to say we should act with consistency, focusing on the specific objective of a Bi-zonal Bi-communal Federation, to put Turkey in a tight spot and force it to either co-operate with us for the solution of the Cyprus problem or to expose it.

What is our position on how we should move forward?

Mr. Anastasiades says that the Guterres framework is a great achievement. In fact, he characterized it as his personal success. If it is a great success, we must seek to continue the negotiations on its basis. Mr. Anastasiades needs to take initiatives in this direction, without appendixes, footnotes or preconditions.

Only in this way will we put Turkey in a tight spot. Either we will force Turkey to cooperate or it will remain exposed in the eyes of the international community.

Instead of doing so, Mr. Anastasiades attempted some 10 days ago at the National Council to put forward the idea of a decentralized or loose federation. We disagreed with this approach for certain very specific reasons.

First and foremost, I reiterate that the UN Secretary-General says that we must proceed on the basis of the Guterres framework. The powers and responsibilities of the central government are not incorporated in the Guterres Framework. The powers and competences of the central government are not incorporated in the Guterres framework. The Secretary-General of the UN considers that the powers and competences of the central government have been agreed. Only two issues remain pending and there are very few disagreements on these issues.

The second reason is that by putting this issue on the table, we are essentially shifting the discussion from the important problems the Cypriot people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, face, to an issue which, as I said previously, is closed and the agreement which we have concluded is not questioned neither by Turkey, nor by the Turkish Cypriot community. In doing so we will consume our time on minor issues, while we will abandon the important issues.

The other question that naturally arises is how will decentralized federation, that is to say the transfer of powers from the central government to the constituent states, help solve the issues that the Guterres Framework deals with.

How will it help us solve the issue of security and guarantees?

How will we help solve the issue of territory, property, rotating presidency, the equal treatment of Turkish and Greek citizens.

How will it help us solve the issue of the effective participation of the Turkish Cypriots in governance?

We consider that such type of important initiatives should not be taken unless first and foremost you yourself are very clear about what you want; unless you know the framework you are going to move in order to yield results.

Since 1974, all political parties have unanimously decided that the only way to achieve the solution of the Cyprus problem is through substantive negotiations. If negotiations are not ongoing, then the possibility is given to anyone to put ideas on the negotiating table that deviate from the agreed framework. This is what Turkey is trying to do today.

The solution of the Cyprus problem on the basis of international law, the resolutions of the Security Council, the High-Level Agreements and on the principles upon which the European Union is founded has been the long-term goal of the Greek Cypriot side. A solution that should ensure a single sovereignty, a single international personality and a single citizenship, the safeguarding of fundamental freedoms and human rights. A bi-communal, bizonal federation with political equality, as set out in the relevant United Nations resolutions. A solution that will lead to a united state, a continuation of the Republic of Cyprus and to a state free from guarantees and intervention rights. The solution can only be reached through direct negotiations between the two communities for the solution of the internal aspects and through the convening of a representative international conference to solve the international aspects. This too is a longstanding position of the Greek Cypriot side.

The resumption of the talks is and should be the goal of all of us. Unfortunately, as developments have shown so far, the UN Secretary-General has not been convinced that we are ready to start again. As AKEL we have already expressed our concerns and anxiety. If the negotiations do not resume the consequences will be disastrous.

The first thing we are concerned about is Turkey’s apparent intention to proceed to drillings within the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone and the tension that will be provoked.

The second is that without talks, the danger of the withdrawal of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force (UNFICYP) is absolutely real. In January, if there is no ongoing negotiating procedure, it is clear that there is a danger that definitive decisions will be taken for a drastic reduction or withdrawal of the Force. We must all realize that such a development entails very serious dangers.

The third and most important consequence is the rapid developments within the Turkish Cypriot community. Turkey is constantly tightening its control over it. The forces that want a solution are getting weaker, while those forces that are opposed to it re growing stronger. If we do not have positive developments in the near future, the possibility of reaching a solution will be removed.

The continuation of the talks from where they had remained, with the goal of reaching an agreement, is the only way to vindicate our homeland, but also for the salvation of our people. We mean what we say when we declare that the solution of the Cyprus problem is a matter of life or death for the people of Cyprus.

The Greek Cypriots, if the Cyprus problem is not solved, will be forced to coexist with an illegal entity in their very homeland, to coexist with thousands of troops, with the threat of colonization expanding bit by bit to all of Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots, apart from the military, political and economic control they are under from Turkey, are in danger of facing complete extinction as a result of the Islamic embrace over a traditionally secular society.

It is the fate of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots to be facing the same dangers – the passage of time that is consolidating the fait accompli on the ground and the danger of partition that will disappear Cyprus as we knew it and as we lived it, once and for all.

For that reason, the real dilemma we face is between federation and partition, namely between the liberation of Cyprus and the continuation of the occupation. There can be no intermediate path. It therefore is not enough to proclaim that we reject partition because partition can be left to develop on its own through a prolonged stalemate on the Cyprus problem. In this case responsibilities will be assigned on those who permitted it.

Partition means conceding and handing over almost 40% of Cypriot territories to Turkey.

It means having a 180-km long border with Turkey, as well as roughly 60% of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus.

Partition means uncontrolled colonization of the occupied territories.

It means not getting absolutely anything back – neither land, nor any property.

Partition means that not a single Turkish soldier will leave.

It means the upgrading of the pseudo-state from an illegal to an unrecognized entity, something which over time transforms the obligation of non-recognition into a right of recognition.

In other words, partition means the possibility of changing the status quo, in a way contrary to what we have always been seeking.

Finally, if Turkey will be established next to us, we must not have any doubt that at some stage it will seek to control the whole of Cyprus.

AKEL will struggle with all its forces so that this scenario will never become a reality. We have always been the patriotic force that rallies and unites Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots together in the struggle for peace and reunification, because we were and are the voice that is raising its voice and fighting for the whole of Cyprus. For us the cause of Cyprus is not a community issue. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will once and for all do away with everything that threatens our survival only when we manage to live together within the framework of a federation; only when we start to once again lay the foundations of a common life, of common social and political action. This policy is our DNA and the essence of our long-standing struggle.

We will not stop fighting until we transform this policy a daily reality for every Cypriot.