The UN Secretary General will no longer lift a finger if we propose a return to the 1960 Constitution

Sunday, 12 September 2021, ‘Haravgi’ daily newspaper

• The hopes for resuming a meaningful negotiating procedure are diminishing further
• In the event of a return to the 1960 Constitution, Tatar would be Vice-president of the Cyprus Republic with the right of veto, whilst at the same time retaining the pseudo-state, because it is under occupation that anyone would return
• There are convergences recorded and they cannot be taking apart, and in the worst possible way, to the benefit of the Turkish side
• We should have left the other side exposed over its insistence on two states, the fait accompli in the EEZ and Varosha…

Q: After the President’s latest explanations regarding his proposal to return to the 1960 Constitution, some people are wondering why AKEL continues criticising the President, claiming that the President is trying to break the deadlock.

TT: In this way, not only is he not breaking the deadlock, but the hopes of resuming a meaningful negotiating procedure are diminishing further. While Turkey and Mr. Tatar are promoting the unacceptable position of a two states solution, at the same time the Greek Cypriot side is creating the impression that it is seeking a unitary state solution. No matter what we say, no matter how we justify it, this is the impression that the international community is getting. Which of course is not in line with the repeated calls issued by the UN Secretary General for an end to the negative rhetoric and for the two leaders to try to find a common ground in order to resume the talks.

Consequently, the President’s new position not only does not help to break the deadlock, but on the contrary, it contributes towards widening the gap and undermining any effort for a resumption of the talks.

Q: If this proposal could be viewed as a counterweight to the proposal put forward by Tatar, why was it not presented in Geneva immediately after the proposal for a two state solution was tabled?

TT: Indeed and fortunately it was not submitted in Geneva and no previous President of the Republic since 1974 has ever submitted such a proposal. This is not by chance. They knew that by tabling such a position the Greek Cypriot side would for sure be held equally responsible for the non-solution of the Cyprus problem and that with such positions we would be driven to permanent partition.

Q: One excuse is that there is nothing on the table at the moment and this proposal is being put forward to break the deadlock…

TT: Let me remind you that after the collapse at Crans Montana, the consequences of which we as AKEL had been warning about and proposing what must be done, the Secretary General of the UN in his repeated Reports has shown the way on how we can get back to meaningful talks. Namely that the talks must continue from where they left off at Crans Montana. He judged that there wasn’t any response to his request because, despite its verbal acceptance, the President of the Republic anything but demonstrated that he was indeed prepared to go to discuss from where we had remained.

I don’t discuss Tatar’s position for a two state solution. However, he must be held solely responsible for that position – both he and Turkey. The only way to put pressure on Turkey and Tatar was if the Greek Cypriot side was consistent to this call issued by the Secretary General. Instead, the President’s so-called “new ideas” are reopening convergences that have been agreed with the icing on the cake being this latest proposal he has submitted (for a return to the 1960 constitution).

Therefore, the reply cannot be “since you (the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot side) are talking about a two state solution, I am talking about a return to the 1960 Constitution”. There are convergences recorded and that’s precisely where we must continue from. That is what puts Tatar and Turkey in a corner – nothing else.

Q: Why shouldn’t the Turkish Cypriots accept it since their presence in power was stronger under the 1960 Constitution?

TT: There is no way the Turkish Cypriots will recognize the Republic of Cyprus without a solution of the Cyprus problem. On the other hand, let’s say they do return. This means that Tatar will be Vice-president of the Republic of Cyprus with the right to veto, while at the same time maintaining the pseudo-state, because it is under occupation that there will be any return to the 1960 Constitution.

It would mean putting Turkish Cypriot MP’s in parliament with separate majorities on a number of issues, including the budget. It would mean replacing the National Guard with a mixed army, disbanding the Ministry of Education and returning to community assemblies. It would mean returning Turkish Cypriots to the civil service to their share of positions. It means returning to the Treaty of Guarantee, which everyone at Crans Montana agreed must be abolished. And it will not simply be a Treaty, it will be a fundamental article of the Constitution, which supposedly cannot be changed.

All this in conditions of the existence of the pseudo-state. Who can understand the logic and meaning of this proposal?

Q: Certain forces and circles view the return to the 1960 Constitution as transitional until the new Constitution is prepared…

TT: Do we expect the other side to accept this? Is this a serious proposal that convinces the Secretary General of the United Nations that we really do have the will for a solution?

This proposal achieves exactly the opposite, when we should have left the other side completely exposed for their insistence on a two state solution, on the fait accompli in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone, on its illegal actions in Varosha and not to be talking about a return to the 1960 Constitution, which means equating responsibilities with the former violating the agreed framework by insisting on a two states solution and the latter also violating it by insisting on a unitary state.

Q: Nevertheless, the President says he will inform the UN Secretary General of this “substantive” proposal.

TT: If the President submits such a proposal, the Secretary General of the UN will probably no longer lift a finger and both sides will be assigned equal responsibilities. All this creates a toxic climate which does not permit negotiations to resume where they had remained at Crans Montana. Instead, the vacuum created is being filled with so-called “new ideas” (from the domestic front and abroad), which will only succeed in getting us into a new endless procedure.

Q: Is it perhaps time for the President of the Republic to look seriously into AKEL’s proposal and try it out precisely on the pretext of the resurgence of energy issues?

TT: Even the day before yesterday, the President of the Republic repeated the claim that AKEL is calling for concessions to be made without getting anything in return. I could refer to a lot of quotes made about concessions without getting anything in exchange, but I will refrain from doing so for the time being.

So what is the exchange that AKEL’s proposal is asking for? For the Turkish Cypriots to get the incentives we are offering them, without ever crossing “red lines”, we must first arrive at a conclusion on the 6 points of the Guterres Framework. If not, then they get absolutely nothing in return. And Turkey will only get something if the Cyprus problem is resolved. Is there a more serious reward? Unless certain forces and circles are not interested in arriving at a strategic agreement that will make a solution inevitable.