“The time has come for everyone to take a stand: Federation or partition?”
Interview with Toumazos Tsielepis, International Law expert, Head of the Cyprus Problem Bureau of AKEL and member of the Secretariat and Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL
DISY President Averof Neophytou said that a good summer would be to have developments on the Cyprus problem…Furthermore, the Presidential Palace has been constantly referring to talks after May, presenting the guarantor powers as having difficulties for the negotiations to begin. What is your own assessment?
TT: An extension does indeed appear to have been given and whatever efforts will reach a climax probably in May. This is not so much due to the difficulties of the guarantor powers, but to the fact that after the breakdown at Crans Montana in reality no use was made whatsoever of the period of one and a half years that has elapsed since then. Neither has any preparation been made at all aiming at the resumption of the talks, which has resulted in reaching the point today where developments have become complicated. The UN Secretary General had specific proposals on both as regards the substance and the procedure of the negotiations. There have been different approaches expressed by both sides, which is precisely the reason why the effort has become a great deal more complicated given that the so-called terms of reference must be drawn up.
I have the impression that nobody knows exactly what these terms of reference are, and there is a risk that they won’t be agreed.
In any event, the UN Secretary General had made an attempt to handle this matter too by saying that any “new ideas” must be agreed jointly by the two leaders with a sense of urgency.
We are going to a third round of consultations by the UN Secretary General Special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute with the various parties involved. Is this development, which is located before the UN Security Council meeting for the renewal of the mandate of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus UNFICYP, encouraging for what will subsequently follow?
TT: As for Mrs. Lute’s next visit to Cyprus, I am not entirely sure that it will take place before the session of the Security Council. It seems, however, that it will take place by the end of January.
The question is what will happen with the renewal of the UNFICYP mandate. As for the Security Council, 4 of its 5 permanent members want a renewal of the UNFICYP’s mandate, while it’s not certain what the US will do. In any case, we will again have this issue before us in the event that no substantial progress has been recorded in the direction of the resumption of the talks by the summer.
“The more responsibilities are given to the constituent states, the more functional the state will be”. Do you agree with this position put forth by Mr. Neophytou?
TT: Personally, I declare that I am confused as to what President Anastasiades is seeking with decentralized federation. Decentralized or centralized federation does indeed have to do with the central government’s competences and of course this is not a matter of principle. Both types of federation exist. It all depends on the reasons and ways of establishing a federal state.
The President of the Republic links decentralization with various secondary-policy bodies that will be created in the federal state, saying that in this way the single Turkish Cypriot vote will be avoided and thus dysfunctionality won’t be created. I do not understand what the President really means. Decentralized federation does indeed have to do with competencies and not with effective participation, and it can reach up to a point. There is a fine “red line”, which if you cross, then you will not have a federal structure, but something else – either a confederal formation or two completely separate states. I say this because there are competences that cannot under any circumstances be decentralized (foreign policy, defense policy, Exclusive Economic Zone, single economy issues, and so on).
In each case, no matter how many competences of the central government may remain they will again be an effective participation of the Turkish Cypriot community. This effective participation cannot be avoided come what may. I say this because the President of the Republic is developing a rhetoric that is creating the impression that he is trying to avoid political equality and effective participation even in central bodies (for example, executive power). If that is what he means, I believe that they won’t be able to agree even on the terms of reference.
If this is the case, shouldn’t the President have shared his thoughts with the National Council?
TT: I cannot know why the President isn’t sharing these thoughts of his, something which he should do, given that he himself is the one who has introduced the idea of decentralized federation. I would like to believe that this hasn’t anything to do with the decentralization of such competences which universally and in every case belong to the central state and never to the regions of a federation.
However, the issue of political equality is also a crucial issue, and if the President wants to avoid it, it means there will be no agreement on the terms of reference…
TT: With regards the issue of political equality and effective participation, as the UN Secretary-General himself says in the two reports he submitted after Crans Montana, we actually got very close (to an agreement). All the main bodies (executive, legislative and judicial power, quasi-judicial bodies, regulatory bodies, independent officials) were agreed or almost agreed. Whatever disagreements existed were about secondary-policy bodies where the Turkish Cypriot side demanded at least one vote on everything for a decision to be approved. This is a position that has not been accepted by the UN Secretary-General, who in his Framework says that a positive vote must only exist where vital interests are affected. That is to say he adopts our side’s position and if we had proceeded with his Framework, the Turkish Cypriot side would have had the problem.
I reiterate that these are secondary-policy bodies in which regardless of whether they have or don’t have a positive vote the state will not collapse. For example, whether they will or not have a vote in the Meteorological Service, or in the Consumers’ Association, the Environment Protection Agency or the Council of Art and Culture, will the state collapse? You understand that this issue has been overstated by both sides.
And it is certainly not correct what the Turkish Cypriot side is saying that if they do not have a positive vote on everything, then this isn’t a federation.
Let me remind you that even with the Annan plan as well the bodies were 30-35 and it is a matter if they had a positive vote on 4-5. As to all the rest, the participation of 1/3 was considered effective. Of course, the 30-35 bodies have become 143, while other than that the President is now seeking decentralized federation.
On the other hand, the President gets annoyed when you charge him that he may end up as being the President of partition and that AKEL is to blame…
TT: The President, at the same time as he is annoyed, does not clarify whether the framework that he wants to negotiate is Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation with political equality as provided for in the United Nations resolutions. Recently, in the European Parliament he mumbled something about a “federal state”. The government spokesman just last Wednesday told “Astra” radio station that federation was agreed since 1977 and should have been implemented back then at that time, while now other thoughts are being made. We wonder, what are these thoughts?
When they themselves say these things, how is our information one-sided (as AKEL is being accused of)? Our own information drawn from diverse sources and one of our sources of information is the President of the Republic himself and the government spokesman, and indeed their very public statements.
Now that something other than Federation is being discussed, nobody is referring to a unitary state. When we talk about a non-federal solution, all the discussions, both domestically and internationally, among those who determine developments, turn to partitionist directions.
What we have always said that the real dilemma we face is between federation and partition is not accidental. The idea of abandoning Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation is now being discussed and nobody refers to a unitary state. The time has come for all of us to take a clear stand: Federation or partition?
Is there any indication that Turkey’s stand may change given the repeated statement by Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Cavusoglou that we must “wake up from the dream about zero guarantees and zero army”?
TT: I recall that there are two quite different narratives about the break down at Crans Montana, namely one put forth by the Presidential narrative and the other of the UN Secretary General, who praised Turkey for its attitude on security and guarantees. It is natural for Mr. Cavusoglou to say what he is saying. We aren’t waiting for any commitments to be reaffirmed outside the negotiation procedure, while all the four issues on the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem are also pending.
The key is to be able to reach a resumption of the negotiation procedure. We can only learn what Turkey intends to do through a negotiation process. And that’s precisely where we are not going to lose out, because: Either Turkey will say what it says in public and hence it will be exposed, or what the UN Secretary-General himself said will apply, namely that Turkey had cooperated on these issues, so consequently we be taking a decisive step towards the solution of the Cyprus problem.
Do Cavusoglou and Turkey comprehend that the solution of the Cyprus problem will be to Turkey’s benefit?
TT: They realize it, but in public they say they are open to all scenarios: They are ready to discuss federation, confederation or a two states solution. Why, one wonders, do they put this in this way? Furthermore, why doesn’t the President make it clear that he only discusses the solution of Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation?
Terms of reference
There is a confusion even among politicians about which terms of reference we are talking about…
TT: Only assumptions can be made about what we mean by terms of reference.
From the moment that the UN Secretary-General had a concrete proposal to move forward both as regards the procedure and the substance and has never received a clear answer and from the moment that decentralized federation is being put forth as a new idea, while the other side discusses but is reflecting on things as to why this issue has been opened again, the UN Secretary-General said, “you have discussions and clarify what the new ideas are and how they are incorporated in the negotiation.”
Another issue is that we should move forward from where we have remained (at Crans Montana). Is the issue of where we had remained being raised now? Does the Framework apply? Are there any convergences?
The procedure and sought goal must be clarified.
Whereas things were quite clear and we were very close (to an agreement), now they have been incredibly complicated. We shall see whether they manage to agree on the terms of reference. We will see what they have incorporated as a new element of the negotiation. If not, developments will remain stuck.
AKEL’s withdrawal from the negotiating team is not irrevocable
There have been two kinds of reactions with regards AKEL’s withdrawal from the negotiating team. One reaction is the one arguing that it was a wrong for AKEL to withdraw because you could have restrained Mr. Anastasiades from regressing further. The other reaction is that AKEL’s decision to abandon the President at the most critical moment is a mistake. And another view states that you should have withdrawn from the negotiating team earlier on. What is your opinion?
TT: It was a difficult decision. There was a reflection about one and the other point. What you say about those reacting have also made us reflect on matters, but we weighed the pros and cons of the decision, and the scale weighed in favour of AKEL’s withdrawal for the simple reason that we are not certain at all that our own strategic goal is identical to that of the President’s goal.
If you disagree with the goal then it is of no use to stay there. It was certainly not a definitive and irrevocable withdrawal. It was a suspension of our participation in the negotiating team. If the President resumes talks with the goal of achieving the solution of the Cyprus problem on the basis of the agreed framework, the doors are open and he knows where to find us.
