“Fileleftheros” newspaper, Sunday 11th December 2016
After the session of the National Council and all that you’ve heard, what is your conclusion regarding the course of the Cyprus problem?
AK: We are at a very critical and perhaps the most crucial phase after 2004 with regards the discussions on the Cyprus problem. Clearly there is a prospect of arriving at an agreement, but there are also many concerns that there may be a collapse of the procedure. This is due to the fact that we have not seen, at least so far, the Turkish side move from its positions to the extent that we would like on the core issues before us. Precisely because we are at a very crucial and critical stage I think we all should behave with the corresponding responsibility and seriousness. And I regret to note that this is not the case.
Where do you see behaviors that are either not helpful or cause problems?
AK: We also have concerns about the procedure as it has been set out. We are concerned because of concrete reasons. The fact that an international conference has been set without being sure that we will have come to an agreement on the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem and that it is not clear what the participation will be in the international conference are matters of concern for us and this does raise questions.
This is one thing, and it’s quite another thing to start an effort to devalue and undermine by anyone with a different point of view from their own. And I am referring to a political leader who says that our stance in the National Council (and I state our position as AKEL) was characterized by defeatism and fear. AKEL has never been afraid and has never acted with defeatism. On the contrary, AKEL has been stating its very clear positions for 42 years as regards the solution of the Cyprus problem.
Let me point out that AKEL was putting forth its positions even before 1974. Unfortunately, if there is one political force whose positions have been vindicated over time on the Cyprus problem then this force is AKEL and not other forces and circles who are saying that they are being vindicated. I say so because I hear opinions, posturing and bravado from various sides, political parties, journalists and so on whose policy has indeed been tested.
This policy has not only failed miserably but has caused unimaginable harm to our efforts to find a solution of the Cyprus problem. I will repeat once again for the umpteenth time: the bravado and posturing is good for telling people what they want to hear in a populist sense, but it doesn’t bring any results. And this is something that is continuously being confirmed on the international scene.
One source of disagreement or misunderstanding is the impression that exists in general and which says that the President of the Republic has satisfied all that the Turkish side’s requests, culminating on the issue of the international conference on which there is disagreement, given that the Turkish side is talking about a five-party conference.
AK: Our position with regards the International Conference is clear. The permanent members of the UN Security Council must be present. If the European Union is interested it is welcome. As I understand, it has already expressed an interest and of course the permanent members of the UN Security Council members have also expressed their interest too in attending the conference.
From that point onwards there remains the question of the presence of the Republic of Cyprus. We strongly the view that it must be present and consider this is the correct position. But there is a problem because of the Turkish side’s stance. What we must do is to discuss in order to find the way to overcome the problem that exists. That should be our role and not to play an aphoristic role by issuing public positions in all directions. Some forces and circles say that – and they are speaking with absolute certainty – we are heading for a five-party conference. The only one who states this position is Mr. Akinci, who returning from his journey to the European Union as I understand is speaking about an EU presence as well. Some on the Greek Cypriot side persist in saying that we are going for a five-party conference. By behaving in such a manner certain circles and forces are restricting the ability to achieve our goal.
Our own effort must be to ensure the presence of all the permanent members of the UN Security Council. I believe we are already in a good direction. I said previously that the procedure as decided also causes concerns for us as well for many reasons. How must we react? Should we begin a destructive public debate between us? Or we should see how we convene and discuss in the National Council and prepare ourselves in the best possible way on all the outstanding issues, but also as regards procedural issues that may arise.
I say this knowing at the same time that we will not reach an agreement and that there are different and substantial differences between us. There are political parties who disagree with a federal solution. We cannot agree. But through this dialogue, ideas can spring up that will help us in how to deal both with the issues of substance and procedural issues. This is the reason why during the last session of the National Council I proposed that we convene and exchange views freely about these matters to see how we can move forward. Certain forces instead of working constructively and positively are trying to demolish even the minimal possibilities for an understanding that exist. We say that we need to maximize the prospects and minimize the dangers. Others are trying to maximize the dangers and minimize the prospects. This is precisely the big difference and disagreement between us about how political parties act.
Given this atmosphere and conditions there is a question mark about the usefulness of the political leadership being present in Geneva.
AK: There have always been different approaches from political parties. There was however a different level of behavior than the present. My view is that the political parties must accompany the President of the Republic in Geneva. All the parties except ELAM demanded it. Everyone else issued a call to go to Geneva, except the Ecologists who have have said they will decide depending on how developments will have evolved. I therefore say that the political parties should go, but will have to behave in a constructive way and not the way they are acting now here in Cyprus. I repeat that disagreements and differences have always existed between the political parties with regards the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem. There was a level of political culture about how these disagreements and differences were expressed. I think today we have gone beyond all limits – not every political force, some.
A new security system for a transitional period
With regards the security aspect of the Cyprus problem, at least at this phase we are talking about, there seems to be a different approach between Greece and Turkey. Do you assess that a compromise will be sought somewhere in the middle?
AK: The security issue is the most important of all the remaining outstanding issues. This is because it has to do with the feelings of security and insecurity felt by both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. It must be addressed in line with some principles. First and foremost one side’s view must not be imposed on the other side whether we are talking about Turkey or anyone else. One side must try to understand the concerns of the other and take them seriously into account. We must also take International Law into account and the fact that Cyprus is a member of the European Union. Logic and reason must prevail.
Turkey cannot continue to demand the continuation of Turkish guarantees in Cyprus. A security system is needed for a transitional period in order to allay the concerns of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. What shall this security system be? We need to talk about it. President Anastasiades has put forth a proposal which we consider is a good proposal and can represent a basis for a dialogue. That is how we approach to security issue. This is precisely what we said in the National Council too. And I am really feel sorry that a political supported the view argued that our stance was characterized by defeatism and fear.
Serious political behavior has ended up a relic of the past
Someone listening to you would say that we have “Trump phenomena” in Cyprus as well…
AK: I would say that we do have populist phenomena in Cyprus as well; phenomena which do not take into account the actual concrete situation that exists on the island. We have many examples.
Do you see these populist phenomena in Parliament as well?
AK: I think we are plunging towards it. Each year the situation as regards the level of political culture and our political discourse is deteriorating, especially concerning the content of political discourse. Our view is that we should look to previous political generations for examples. They may have been disagreements and differences which often were very intense, but they had a level of political discourse which we tend to miss.
How easy is that?
AK: It is not easy, we must all draw lessons. At the same time the people must also draw lessons and make informed correct choices.
Isn’t the fact that today many politicians favour their personal promotion through social network sites an influence?
AK: I agree that all of these phenomena do have an influence. This is the very reason why we should be much more serious. We have reached the point, in Cypriot society, where a serious politician is considered old-fashioned. He/she is deemed as not meeting the models/standards of today’s society. This is what we must change. It is seriousness and responsibility and not the opposite that should be considered an asset for political engagement.
AKEL is characterized by patriotism, not defeatism
You complained and expressed discontent about those circles accusing AKEL of defeatism and fear. Who is the political leader who made this accusation?
Mr. Papadopoulos the President of DIKO. Our stance is not characterized neither by defeatism, nor by fear. AKEL is characterized by patriotism and at the same time by responsibility and seriousness. I have stated previously where bravado and posturing have led us to.
Let me give you some examples:
In 1992 the late President of the DISY party Clerides, when Denktash was in the corner as a result of the UN Secretary General’s report who demanded a response from the Turkish Cypriot side by mid-March, put him out of the corner he was in so that he would be elected President of the Republic. Clerides promised to “bury” the Ghali plan. He buried them and pulled Denktash out of the corner he was in. For five years we couldn’t have a substantive discussion on the Cyprus problem.
On the eve of the 1998 Presidential elections Clerides evoked the theory of “active volcano” on the Cyprus problem and we witnessed the S-300 missile crisis. The result was that on 31st August 1997 Denktash put on the negotiating table his demand for confederation and won the elections, but Cyprus had suffered damage. UN Resolution 1250 included the adoption of Denktash’s demand for “all issues on the negotiating table”.
I shall refer to Mr. Papadopoulos. We had the 8th July 2006 agreement, where Mr. Papadopoulos put forth numerous conditions for the resumption of negotiations after the Gambari letter in September 2006, demanding the discussion of 132 issues. In effect he demanded that the discussion on the Cyprus problem begin from scratch, resulting in one and a half years and 60 meetings between Tassos Tzionis with Asif Pertef, thus it was not feasible to start negotiations.
At that time the side that was under pressure was us. For direct trade with the occupied areas the annual allocation of 259 million Euros to the Turkish Cypriot community was granted which are still being granted today.
– I should also mention Mr. Anastasiades, who won the Presidency of the Republic promising the stars to DIKO to win the elections. He won the 2013 presidential elections. For a whole year we didn’t manage to talks becau7se we had raised the bar very high with regards the procedural and substantive issues. The result was that Turkey sent the Turkish vessel “Barbaros” to roam unhindered in our territorial waters. We had the worst report ever tabled by the UN Secretary-General. The Anastasiades government then agreed to the joint communique of February 2014 with some losses kin terms of the content.
It is evident that each time we indulge in bravado we are forced to go into talks with losses. That’s why they can’t give AKEL any lessons about patriotism because I consider our whole history is full of patriotism, but also responsibility.
Some circles and forces, and you will have heard it, portray Nicos Anastasiades as the continuer of the policy pursued by Christofias on the Cyprus problem
AK: Some circle s and forces have been convinced by their public relations team that the more extreme positions they adopt, the more persuasive they will be to a section of society. They do not care if Cyprus and the Cypriot people will be harmed. I will simply say the following:
Nicos Anastasiades began by implementing the policy which all the other parties – except AKEL – had proposed.
For a time he was pursuing his non-coherent and inconsistent policy and was unable to take any step forward. When he realized that this policy was hopeless and didn’t lead nowhere, he made the big turn on the Cyprus problem.
He adopted the Christofias-Talat convergences and has negotiated on this basis, managing to record progress. This progress is of course not sufficient to solve the Cyprus problem.
As far as we are concerned, we are not bothered by the fact that Mr. Anastasiades realized that the advice of others led him to a dead-end path and that he had to follow a different policy.