“The solution of the Cyprus problem is not a question of time, but it depends on the positions submitted at the negotiating table”
Interview with the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Andros Kyprianou to “HARAVGI” newspaper 25th December 2016
An international conference or just a conference on the Cyprus problem – how do you see it?
AK: What will happen hasn’t been clarified exactly. However, I consider it given that the 12th January meeting in Geneva won’t be the end. There will be a continuation of the procedure. No matter what happens in Geneva there will be a continuation. For us, that is given. It is important that we ensure that in this 12th January Geneva meeting all those circles and forces who have a role to play in the discussion of the security issue will be present there. These forces in our view are the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the EU, which has already stated that it will be present and of course the Republic of Cyprus.
All of these issues must be clarified promptly, as we approach 12th January. On the one hand these are procedural issues, but they also relate to the substance and must be clarified in a satisfactory manner, having in mind of course that a procedural issue should not end up being to the detriment of the discussion of the issue’s essence.
If the Republic of Cyprus is not present, are there risks to which we must say ‘no’ to at the Conference?
AK: You know, we make the big mistake of expressing positions in public that raise the bar very high. I’m not saying that in insisting on the presence of the Republic of Cyprus the bar is set very high. In our view, this is self-evident, but we should not commit ourselves. That’s why I won’t say any grand phrases. I think it’s better to handle the issues silently without a fuss in an attempt to yield results.
Isn’t the active presence of the EU in the Conference enough? Why do you consider the presence of the permanent members of the UN Security Council necessary?
AK: The permanent members of the UN Security Council must be present for a simple reason: they are the ones who will adopt a strong resolution on the implementation of the solution, not the EU. The EU has a role to play because as a member of the Union, the Republic of Cyprus should ensure that what is agreed will comply with the principles upon which the EU is founded. The permanent members of the UN Security Council will be the ones that will approve a strong resolution with regards the implementation of the agreement.
Does the Greece-Turkey summit meeting on the issue of guarantees constitute a prerequisite for the convening of the Conference?
AK: I said previously that these issues should be handled without making a fuss. This issue concerns both Greece and Turkey. The international conference will deal solely with security issues and what arises from them, that is the issue of the guarantees, demilitarization etc. What we are interested is that we should act according to the principles of International Law and based on logic. We are in 2017 and an EU member. This fact can’t be ignored when talking about these issues. Yes, there are issues and feelings of insecurity in both communities and an answer should be found. We consider that the proposal that has been submitted by Mr. Anastasiades can be a good basis for conducting the discussion.
Must all the outstanding issues be agreed before going to the Conference or can their discussion continue after the Conference?
AK: As I said, the 12th January meeting is not the end of the road, but it would be good if we could get within range of an agreement and both sides should make an intense effort to do so before going to Geneva on 12th January.
When do you estimate we will have a final text of an agreement?
AK: This will depend if and provided that there will be an agreement. It is not a question of time, but it depends on the positions submitted at the negotiating table and I have reiterated this many times.
Do you think that by summer there will be a solution?
AK: I can’t answer this either. If you do not reach an agreement, no one can hope of holding any referendums. Mr. Anastasiades has made it clear – and we too support this in an adamant way – that if there is no conclusion at an agreement which he himself doesn’t accept, then he will not put it before the people in referenda. This is also our own strong view.
Do you consider that mistakes have been committed by the President of the Republic during this procedure, up to and including the dinner of 1st December?
AK: Each and every one can have an opinion about the issues that could have been handled differently. However, it is wrong right now to waste our time on looking to apportion responsibilities on one or the other issue. We must focus on not making mistakes in the procedure before us and at the same time to act in a united and collective way. Certainly the President of the Republic has the first responsibility in this respect, but we the political parties also have a role to play.
It is important not to undermine the negotiator of the Greek Cypriot side with public statements. Let’s have patience. Let the content be formed and we can subsequently judge how each of us will express our position, insisting of course at the same time that the President must be consistent to the long-standing positions upheld by the National Council.
Do you believe that the President is respecting these principles so far?
AK: We believe that he has not deviated in a way that causes concern, which some circles and forces are invoking.
In a front page article the newspaper “Alithia” last Tuesday characterized as innovative and unprecedented your statement two days before the municipal elections in which you addressed a call to political parties not to undermine the negotiator. What is your comment?
AK: The position of AKEL was always patriotic. AKEL puts the country’s interests over and above everything else. We do not take these positions to receive praise from anyone. We do so because we want to serve the best well-intentioned interests of Cyprus. From there onwards, the various articles written do not concern us.
As regards the undermining of the negotiator, certain circles and forces reply that the voicing of disagreement does not mean undermining…
AK: It depends how the opposite view is expressed of course. An opposite view is also the disagreement with a bizonal, bicommunal solution and the view that we must abandon what we have agreed with the international community and assert a much better solution that we haven’t achieved so far.
The very simple and naive, as I would describe it, question which these circles and forces must explain to us is this: We have been asserting a submissive solution, as they consider the solution of bizonal, bicommunal solution to be, for 39 years without achieving it. Can they show us how to achieve something better?
How we will achieve a unitary state and with what support when the entire international community insists that we must continue on the basis of the agreed framework of bizonal, bicommunal federation?
Whenever we have pursued this policy only damage was caused to our country and we only suffered setbacks in the negotiation procedure. There are many such examples. I will not repeat them.
________________________________________
“Annexation means Turkey absorbing the occupied territories…”
The specter and threat, as some circles and forces characterize it, surrounding the possible annexation of the occupied territories to Turkey, in the event of a non-solution is projected by DISY and AKEL. What is your reply?
AK: If only this specter and threat is and will remain just that. May this concern we express is not realized in practice.
AKEL will not accept a bad solution no matter and regardless of any threats that may be made by various sides.
The second thing I want to say is that the discussions surrounding the possibility of the annexation of the occupied areas began in Turkey and are being transferred here by various sides. When I first raised this issue in the National Council other party leaders had also stated that they have received such information, namely leaders of parties that probably may disagree with AKEL’s positions. I do not want to name anyone. Consequently, it’s not just AKEL that is voicing these concerns.
I wonder, though, if they realize what annexation entails and means.
It means Turkey absorbing the occupied part of Cyprus.
It means turning the occupied areas into a province of Turkey.
This means we will lose a large part of our country to Turkey.
It will mean that we would have a 180 kilometers border with Turkey and Turkey doing whatever it wants in the occupied territories.
It means the termination of any discussions on a bizonal, bicommunal federal solution. There will be one part in the north that will be part of Turkey and will shall be left with the part of the south.
It is wrong to think that we will have a Greek Cypriot state and that as result we wouldn’t have any consequences at all. The situation would be a quagmire with unpredictable consequences.
AKEL not only supports the procedure, but is working towards a solution together with Turkish Cypriot parties. Can you give us some examples of the fruits of this effort you are undertaking?
AK: First permit me to say that AKEL has concerns too, as have other parties about possible developments. But when you have concerns you do not simply express these concerns and just exert destructive and levelling criticism. You get involved and try to help as to how these concerns will be addressed. This is how AKEL acts, through discussions with the President of the Republic, either individually or within the framework of the National Council, through contacts with the Greek Government and contacts with the Turkish Cypriot political parties. We have set up three Working Groups with corresponding Turkish Cypriot parties -the Republican Turkish Party (CTP), the Communal Democracy Party (TDP) from which Mr. Akinci comes from and the United Cyprus Party (BKP).
We talk to them about the outstanding remaining issues with very good results. And they are also discussing with Mr. Akinci. So we try to make our own contribution towards the efforts the two leaders are making.
Are you concerned about the political cost that AKEL may suffer if something goes wrong in all this effort, in one way or another, for one reason or another?
AK: It is certainly something that we are reflecting on. However shouldn’t each and every one of us be concerned about what will happen with Cyprus if we fail to reach a solution? What should be foremost in everyone’s mind is what the future of our country and people will be. This must guide us. For sure everyone reflects and one can insist on his/her positions, but the future of our children, the future of our people cannot be sacrificed simply because we are concerned about the possible political cost.
I have frequently stated that what should guide us in our actions is the future generations and not the next election. I regret to note that what some people who portray themselves publicly as “analysts” of the Cyprus problem have in their mind is how their ambitions will be fulfilled in the coming presidential elections. This is not what guides AKEL. AKEL will make every effort to reach a solution. If a solution is not reached, then it will start thinking about the next presidential elections.
“If AKEL had won the municipalities of Limassol, Famagusta and Strovolos we would be talking about an electoral triumph”
After the proclamation of local authority heads, what is AKEL’s reading of the election results more broadly?
AK: We are satisfied with the election result. If we had also won in Limassol, Famagusta and Strovolos, we would be talking about the biggest electoral victory that AKEL has ever achieved in municipal elections.
However this result we achieved was also very satisfactory. It wasn’t achieved by chance. We worked very systematically and were in touch with local communities who we said after the parliamentary election results will be taken very seriously into consideration as regards the formulation of our candidates. We had a very open dialogue with local communities and submitted very attractive proposals, even where we lost.
We reversed the downward trend. There was a recovery and I believe that through our constant efforts and correct policies this recovery will continue.
“Whether reform is conservative or progressive is determined by its very content”
After the rejection of the government bills on the reform of the Public Service, the Secretary to the President said that rejecting proposals without putting forward concrete counterproposals only serves conservatism. How do you respond to that?
AK: I could reverse the argument of Mr. Petrides. The direction of the government’s reform is conservative.
The word reform by itself means nothing. Whether reform is conservative or progressive is determined by its very content.
The reform proposal prepared by the government was very conservative and I would say at least incomplete, since it didn’t address very important structural issues. It didn’t touch on issues such as whether the structure of Ministries and Departments is correct, whether their staffing is sufficient or if restructuring is required. It didn’t address the issue of how productivity, which is a disadvantage of the Public Service, is checked and increased?
AK: What the government has sought on the issue of salaries was done in a completely anachronistic way, reminiscent of other centuries, not decades. Even on the issue of mobility, the government proposal had many gaps and raised doubts which created the concerns expressed by the parties. We have submitted a host of proposals, but the government had closed its ears and did not want to hear anything as it was insisting on its positions. This in my opinion is nothing more than a dialogue of the deaf.
If the government tables its own proposal on the grounds that all the political parties must approve it, we say that this is not how issues are addressed. The government’s proposal was rejected by all the political parties expect the governing DISY party and even by the Democratic Party DIKO which votes in favour of numerous legislations DISY tables. Shouldn’t this fact alone oblige them reflect on why their bills were rejected?
“Semi-governmental organizations constitute a fundamental vehicle in the implementation of government policy”
Funds on privatization in the 2017 State Budget were rejected and cut. What’s next? Are there any proposals for the modernization of the Semi-governmental organizations?
AK: We managed to cut these funds as part of our policy against privatizations and we were not guided by oppositionist expediencies. It is clear that the government proceeded with the privatization of Semi-governmental organizations purely on ideological grounds, when both the Minister of Finance and international lenders told us that privatizations are not necessary for the purposes of the Memorandum. The government’s ideological position is that because privatizations are being imposed in most countries this should also apply to Cyprus. Permit me to say that this position is dogmatic.
From the moment that the majority of people disagree with privatizations the minority can’t impose its position on others. AKEL is clear that these organizations need to be modernized and that is why it has taken the initiative to discuss this issue with other parties. We will renew our initiative.
First of all, the legislative framework governing the operation of Semi-governmental organizations needs modernizing. They should be much more flexible in relation to decision making, given that these organizations constitute a fundamental vehicle in the implementation of government policy.
What’s more, the criteria and procedures by which the Administrative Councils of these Organizations are staffed must be examined. It must be ensured that people who have the relevant knowledge, but are also willing to offer their services should participate in these bodies. It is inconceivable that those participating in these Councils do so to gain personal and party benefits, or any other needs.
AKEL has prepared its own proposals and will seek to discuss them with the other parties. We have already discussed our proposals with the trade unions of the semi-public sector, and I consider there is a great understanding between us.
“The implementation process of the General Health Scheme should be in parallel with the process of autonomy of hospitals”
The Minister of Finance has publicly come out against a general health scheme based on a single-insurance system. How worried are you by this path of reform?
AK: The reason why an inconsistent policy has been pursued over the last four years is because the government and DISY disagreed with a single-insurance health scheme, even though the Troika itself insisted that this is the only model that can be applied in Cyprus.
For three and a half years the government didn’t have a clear policy, in an adventurist I would say way, in its effort to promote a multi-insurance system. They didn’t manage it. They subsequently didn’t respect the decisions taken at the President Palace meeting held last July on health issues and are insisting on a multi-insurance system. If we want to move towards autonomy, we must be specific. We need to staff and support hospitals by creating the necessary departments in all the districts.
That an additional 3 million Euros will be allocated to cover needs in medical and paramedical staff is a positive development, but I fear that this is not enough. At the same time, AKEL is adamant that the implementation process of the General Health Scheme should be in parallel with the process of autonomy of hospitals. We will study the content of the government bills to be tabled in the House of Representatives in a constructive spirit, based on our long-standing positions.
“10% of Cypriots has seen their revenues grow, while the remaining 90% have seen theirs reduced. In many cases these reductions were more than 35%”
How do you judge the decision of the Supreme Court to lift judge’s voluntary contribution at the same time as benefits and working people’s wages are shrinking?
AK: I would say that it is wrong to isolate this issue from the broader general situation. It’s not just the judges who have proceeded to take such actions. Cyprus is the country with the biggest increase in inequality in recent years. Over the last four years, 10% of Cypriots has seen their revenues grow, while the remaining 90% have seen theirs reduced. In many cases these reductions were more than 35%.
28% of our compatriots live below the poverty line and many are forced to emigrate, while pensioners are living in deplorable conditions due to the State’s policy. This should worry everyone, as no state that respects itself should behave like that to those who have toiled and worked so hard over so many years.
All this is the result of the policies imposed by the Troika and DISY party’s government. We need to change policies. The question you are raising concerning the judges is a particular issue that should concern us. But we need to see again what policies are being implemented.
I must tell you that when we set before the Troika the figures I mentioned previously about the great inequality that has increased because of the measures implemented, the reaction of the creditors was apologetic. We were told that the government must deal with the given situation. Unfortunately we don’t see the government taking any measures promoting a redistribution of wealth to the benefit of low and middle income groups and this worries us.
