Extract from the speech of General Secretary of AKEL on the latest developments on the Cyprus problem at a meeting of expatriate Cypriots in London, Tuesday 16 October 2018

AKEL C.C. Press Office, Nicosia

The General Secretary of AKEL Andros Kyprianou was the keynote speaker on Tuesday evening at a gathering of expatriate Cypriots in Britain. We publish an extract from his speech.

“…The UN Secretary-General’s report highlights some important things and tries to keep an equal distance.

At the same time, however, the Secretary-General does say certain truths that are important and should guide us as in our subsequent steps.

He says that unfortunately, although 15 months have elapsed since the breakdown at the Crans Montana conference, there hasn’t been any progress whatsoever recorded.

He says that we should proceed on the basis of the Guterres Framework, even if any other ideas will be put on the table for discussion.

He says that dangers loom, especially from the moment drillings will begin in Cyprus’ Exclusive Economic Zone. He makes it clear that our country’s natural wealth belongs to all its inhabitants, Greek Cypriot, and Turkish Cypriots and that a careful handling should be made of the issue so that hydrocarbons will be an incentive to solve the Cyprus problem, not an obstacle.

Finally, the UN Secretary-General points out that the time limits are expiring; that we don’t have a lot of time to solve the Cyprus problem, and that everyone, and particularly the leaders (of the two communities) and Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, must understand this.

We know that Turkey is a difficult and impulsive opponent. This makes the necessity for us to be extremely careful even more imperative. That is to say, to act with consistency, remain focused on our specific goal, to manage to make it difficult for Turkey so as to compel it to cooperate with us to solve the Cyprus problem.

Unfortunately, Mr. Anastasiades isn’t operating in this way. On the contrary, in recent years he has acted with contradictions, regressions and abundant inconsistency. Unfortunately, it is obvious that Mr. Anastasiades, from one point onwards, moved on from those positions he supported. It’s enough for someone to cite his statements about how he expressed positions on important issues 3-4 years ago and to compare them with his statements today on the same issues. You will find that his statements clash and are at variance with his current statements.

I want to make it clear that as far as AKEL is concerned we are repeating in precisely the same way the same positions today we were putting forth in the past as well. Back then, Mr. Anastasiades was stating that AKEL is a patriotic, responsible and serious force. Today, he is trying to persuade us too that we are a force that is serving Turkey’s needs and aspirations. We say that he should look at his arguments in the past and then he will conclude who is correct and who is wrong.

What does AKEL say about how we should proceed?

If the Guterres framework is indeed his great achievement, why isn’t he trying to ensure that this Framework forms the basis on which negotiations will continue?

Why doesn’t he take initiatives so that at least the Greek Cypriot side is constantly conveying the message precisely as regards to what the UN Secretary-General is calling for, namely that we reply in a fully positive way without any add-ons, preconditions and footnotes?

This is the only way we will put Turkey in a tight spot. We will either force Turkey to cooperate or it will remain exposed in the eyes of the international community.

Instead, Mr. Anastasiades attempted about 10 days ago at the session of the National Council to put forward the idea of a decentralized – as he now calls it – federation. In the past he was calling it a “loose” federation. We disagreed with this approach for very specific reasons.

First and foremost, I repeat that the Secretary-General states that we must proceed on the basis of the Guterres framework. The powers and responsibilities of the central government aren’t incorporated in the Guterres Framework for a very simple reason. Namely that the UN Secretary General considers that the powers and responsibilities of the central government have been agreed. There are only two issues that remain pending and there are very few, not big disagreements on them.

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 earlier, is closed and the agreement we have concluded is not questioned – either by Turkey or by the Turkish Cypriot community. In doing so time will be wasted on minor issues, while we would be abandoning the core issues.

The other question that is raised naturally 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 it help solve the issue of territory, property, rotating presidency, equal treatment of Turkish and Greek citizens.

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

Apart from this being an issue that was the subject of much debate, it was raised by Mr. Clerides in the 1990’s and was rejected by all other political parties. Mr. Anastasiades raised it in 2010 as well and in 2012 at the session of the National Council – it was again rejected by all the other political parties. Let me say on this issue that he didn’t outline in any specific form this idea.

The question was put to Anastasiades in 2010 and 2012 what does he man by a decentralized federation, what are the powers and competences that he wants to transfer to constituent states. He replied that he is still working on and elaborating the idea…

We believe that such important initiatives should not be taken unless first and foremost you are very clear in your own mind about what you want; unless you know what the framework is you are going to move so that you can yield results. I regret to say that this reflection, because that’s what it precisely was, was raised in a very amateur, very frivolous manner that not only did not help create preconditions for the resumption of negotiations, but instead provoked a great upheaval in society, a fierce confrontation between the political parties on the one hand and the government on the other and at the same time it provoked a reflection on what the Anastasiades government’s intentions really are.

Since 1974, all the political parties have unanimously decided, and I think that at least until today a different view hasn’t been expressed, that the only way to achieve the solution of the Cyprus problem is through substantive negotiations. If there are no negotiations, then the possibility is given to anyone to bring ideas to the negotiating table that go deviate from the agreed framework. This is what Turkey is trying to do today, and this is extremely dangerous, namely to put forth a two-state solution. Unfortunately it has been written in the media and not being denied by the government that at a presidential meeting with close associates of the President, Mr.Anastasiades put this reflection on the table.

A newspaper last Sunday wrote and the government hasn’t so far denied it, that the reflection about a two-state solution was put forth at a meeting that took place at the Presidential Palace after the Crans Montana conference.

AKEL is a patriotic, responsible and serious Party. We will therefore continue the struggle for the liberation and reunification of our homeland with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. We will wage this struggle with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots to reunite Cyprus and turn it into a country where peace, security and stability will prevail and all its citizens will enjoy a better life.”