Two key issues emerge for Mr. Anastasiades to give a reply to in relation to the document submitted by the UN Secretary-Secretary at the Crans Montana dinner:
First, why did Mr. Anastasiades not insist on its discussion, given that the document concerned the implementation of the solution and the abolition of guarantees and rights of intervention?
The excuse given by Mr. Anastasiades that there was tension during the discussion proves that he didn’t exhaust and exploit every possibility at the dinner either for Turkey to be forced to discuss or to expose Turkey’s intransigence.
Instead, Turkey left Crans Montana without the UN and the EU apportioning any responsibility on it.
The second issue for Mr. Anastasiades is why didn’t he inform the political forces about the content of the Guterres document? Was it because Mr. Anastasiades wanted to hide the fact of the document’s existence with its specific content?
We agree that the Cyprus problem – and in general the governance of the country – demands a responsible attitude. But how responsible is it for the President to be discussing the future of Cyprus without consulting anyone? The responsibility for what will subsequently follow will lie exclusively with Mr. Anastasiades himself.
The UN have made it clear how they themselves approach the day after Crans Montana. They want the continuation of the negotiations from the point where they had been left off, utilizing the acquis that has been formulated. This is AKEL’s position as well.
With the positions supported by both Mr. Lillikas and Mr. N. Papadopoulos, if these were to be adopted, Cyprus would find itself in confrontation with the International Organization, a definitive collapse in the negotiation procedure will be provoked and as a consequence Turkey’s efforts to fulfill its objectives will be facilitated will be facilitated.

Statement by AKEL C.C. Spokesperson Stefanos Stefanou