Interview with Stefanos Stefanou, General Secretary of AKEL on the major Cyprus problems

Interview with Stefanos Stefanou, General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL
Sunday 1 August 2021, “Fileleftheros” newspaper
● Attention is focused on the issue of Famagusta. The President said that he is considering taking unilateral measures in response to the Turkish machinations. What is your position as AKEL?
SS: We stated our position clearly during the session of the National Council (Note: advisory body to the President specifically on the Cyprus problem with the participation of all the parliamentary parties). When discussing measures, you have to assess whether they serve the objective you have set. The goal should not be to play to an audience, but to strengthen, as much as you can, your legal and diplomatic arsenal in an effort to counter the Turkish side’s methods. They should be measures that convince the international community and do not have (negative) consequences. So we said that it is through this perception that we should judge any actions.
The idea was discussed, which the Government had put forward, that we should close the Deryneia checkpoint. We told them that any talk of closing checkpoints would be to our detriment. We would not convince neither the Europeans, nor the United Nations. Furthermore, we will further alienate the Turkish Cypriots. We will disappoint them, pushing them once and for all into the arms of Turkey and come out a loser.
In relation to the withdrawal of travel documents, we should discuss this matter too, to see what the cost of depriving whatever Mr. Tatar of his travel documents will ultimately be and to measure what benefit we would gain from such an action. Will this Government at long last decide to promote a policy that will convince the international community or will it be content with simply engaging in populism to satisfy certain forces and circles?
● For you, what would the appropriate course of action be that would have costs for Turkey, end the realisation of its plans and bring everyone back to the negotiating table?
SS: The only way to confront effectively Turkey’s efforts to consolidate partition step by step is to focus on the effort to resume the negotiations. What is happening today was completely predictable. The history of the Cyprus problem is full of such periods with negotiating deadlocks and Turkey exonerated proceeding with its goal of partitioning Cyprus. It was to be expected that this would happen after the failure at Crans Montana, especially since the UN Secretary General praised Turkey for its stance and blamed both sides for the failure.
Consequently, what is happening today shouldn’t surprise anyone. It was totally predictable and we have since then told the President that there is no other way forward than the effort to exert pressure in the direction of resuming negotiations. Thus, this was not something general and vague but specific, because the Secretary General was talking about resuming the negotiations from the point where they were interrupted at Crans Montana, about preserving the convergences that had been recorded.
The President was rambling on about other things and did not do what he should have done when Mr. Akinci was the interlocutor. In the end, Turkey engineered Mr. Akinci’s removal from the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community and promoted one of its puppets to do what it wants. The President is trying to convince for the resumption of negotiations, but he is not convincing so long as he does also take the necessary steps towards this end.
● What steps should be take?
SS: Firstly. For Mr. Anastasiades’ credibility to be restored, he must bring back the convergences he agreed to and subsequently he himself withdrew. And the most important convergence is on the issue of political equality. It is no coincidence that during his illegal visit to the occupied territories the Turkish President addressing the pseudo-parliament raised the issue for the umpteenth time, stating that the Greek Cypriots does not accept political equality. Erdogan knows that his statement has some resonance among the international community because he made sure that the way Mr. Anastasiades handled political equality was not convincing.
What was the convergence on political equality? The convergence, which also expresses effective participation as the most important part of political equality as defined by the UN Security Council, is the single positive vote in the Council of Ministers. Anastasiades reaffirmed the convergence with Akinci. Afterwards, Anastasiades rejected it. Akinci reacting withdrew the map he submitted on territory in Geneva, which provided for the return under Greek Cypriot administration of not only the enclosed area of Varosha, but also other areas of Famagusta and the occupied territories. The map was lost.
AKEL told the President to bring back the convergence on political equality so that he could, among other things, ask for the map back from the Turkish Cypriot side. In addition, when he goes back to the convergence, Turkey will not be able to claim and be convincing that the Greek Cypriot side does not want political equality. Instead, the President says: “But am I going to let Turkey decide for us?” He says he accepts political equality and the single positive vote, but only on issues of vital importance to the Turkish Cypriots. But there the following question arises: Who will decide what issues are of vital importance for the Turkish Cypriots, when he himself, with the examples he gave, excluded natural gas?
Certain forces and circles on the domestic front may like to hear this, but when will this pathogenesis of politics, of simply saying what some people would like to hear at home, finally come to an end?
When will we stop not taking into account what the international community we are asking to help us solve the Cyprus problem thinks of us?
Therefore, the first thing the President should do is to call for the resumption of negotiations exactly as the UN Secretary General himself is doing, with no tails and preconditions.
Secondly, the President declares he wants to resume negotiations, but he says that we must first implement a series of Confidence Building Measures (CBM’s) that he has submitted to the UN Secretary General to create the proper climate for the resumption of negotiations. At the meeting of the National Council, the President told us that the UN Secretary-General in his report makes no reference whatsoever to CBM’s. Does this fact not concern the President? Instead, the Secretary General says that we need to see how we turn the hydrocarbon issue into a catalyst for a solution.
The President should have taken guidance from that and responded with a concrete initiative by telling him that he has a concrete proposal on how we can turn hydrocarbons into a catalyst. In such a case, the UN Secretary General will also turn to Turkey and say that the Greek Cypriots are taking a step forward. Turkey would have a problem and would either agree to negotiations or insist on sovereign equality and thus it would be obvious who is the credible side and is seeking a solution and who is the side playing games with time and does not want a solution.
The President believes that his proposal is satisfactory and that the Christofias-Talat convergences are satisfactory. They are of course extremely important, they are a legacy left to us and are very important, and the UN Secretary-General is constantly stressing the need to safeguard the convergences that have been reached, but we need to add something to create incentives and common interests. To solve a problem, it is not enough to say I will do ‘a’, ‘b’ or ‘c’. You need to create incentives to move stakeholders towards the realisation of the goal you set.
We believe that AKEL’s proposal is in this direction. The President does not accept it. We cannot oblige him. Policies are not judged neither by intentions, nor by announcements. They are judged by the end results, which are very bad for Cyprus, and this must give the President cause for concern.
● The President said in his interview to our newspaper last week that natural gas is part of the convergences recorded and that he has proposed the creation of the special fund from which the Turkish Cypriots can receive revenues before the solution provided that Turkey recognizes the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus…
SS: The President knows very well that Turkey will not recognise the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus before the solution. He knows very well that Turkey is not going to do so and he also knows very well that if he sticks to this position, Turkey will stick to its position as well. In this case, it is Turkey that is the one that is comfortable with the luxury of time passing by in its favor. Furthermore, the convergences are important, but they do not cover some points.
● What is the one step you would like the President to take?
SS: The Turkish Cypriots and Turkey claim that the Greek Cypriots are keeping hold of the natural gas and do not want a solution, and that they themselves want to co-manage this wealth, which under the convergence recorded is shared. We said that because we must have a balance of incentives, our proposal was about the timing of reaching a strategic agreement which is an agreement on the six issues that the UN Secretary General has set out in the Framework he has submitted to the two sides. And this is precisely what Mr. Akinci asked to be agreed, but Mr. Anastasiades rejected it. The Turkish Cypriots will get what they are asking for, it will be discussed if they come to the negotiations and if we agree on the six issues we will arrive at a strategic agreement.
The strategic agreement is the step that will bring the Cyprus problem to a phase of no return. That is to say, heading towards a solution. The basics are agreed and the details are pending. In this phase they will be able to have in a concrete way what they are asking for on natural gas. We don’t know whether the Turkish Cypriots and Mr. Tatar, who will take orders from Turkey, will accept it. But without doubt the international community will consider it as a logical proposal, which on the one hand demonstrates willingness on the part of the Greek Cypriot side and on the other hand they will expect the Turkish Cypriot side to reciprocate. We would gain credibility and on the other hand the focus will be on the Turkish Cypriots who would also have to take a step.
● It is Turkey that sets the terms…
SS: Turkey says that the Greek Cypriots want to exclude it from energy developments in the region and that it has the right to react as a big state with interests and rights. It does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus. AKEL says that the President should submit a proposal that after the Cyprus problem is resolved, the Republic of Cyprus will enter into discussions with Turkey, as recorded in the convergences on the delimitation of the EEZ. And that this will be a commitment, without necessarily meaning, of course, that we will come to an agreement on the delimitation. For years Greece and Turkey have been discussing delimitation and have not reached an agreement.
From there onwards, the possibility is open that they will agree as they will be discussing. Turkey will not enter into a dialogue with the Republic of Cyprus without a solution because it does not recognise it. We are saying to Turkey to commit to being part of the energy plans of the region after the solution of the Cyprus problem.
On natural gas, we are saying that we are ready, provided that that it is economically and commercially viable, to have a pipeline to transport natural gas to Turkey, either for internal consumption, or to trade it, or both. This is the proposal that we are making and that turns, in our view, natural gas into a catalyst for a solution. We do not know if Turkey will accept it, but we have to put this proposal forward and also address the international community, so that its attention is turned towards Turkey so that it responds.
● Do you trust Erdogan’s Turkey? And can you be more specific about the international community? Is it the English who are positive?
SS: As far as the first question is concerned, the answer is no. We don’t trust Erdogan. Who trusts Erdogan as things stand today with a de facto partition that he wants to turn into a hard border? Therefore, it is not a question of whether or not you trust Erdogan. We shall continue our effort and consider there is no problem.
We must also reflect on what is actually happening on the ground 47 years later. When the UN Secretary General for four years now has been pointing out in his Reports that the status quo is not sustainable, it means that he says that if this situation continues, at some point he will raise the issue that the Cyprus problem can’t be solved and therefore we have to manage what we have on the ground. Is that what we want? We as AKEL do not want that. I do not know whether they realise the danger of partition with the kind of Turkey we are up against.
● Who from the international community considers AKEL’s proposal as positive?
SS: I will make a general comment because I can’t speak for others, but it is certainly a much wider circle than what you mentioned with regards the British. The British drawing up other ideas and are also promoting other things. We reacted correctly to the idea of self-governing areas being discussed. But isn’t this a concern? I don’t believe this is considered a worrying development as it should be.
That is precisely why we have not stopped and will continue to declare that it is not enough to make representations and to ask for the support of the international community. To put it in football terms somewhat, playing defence all the time doesn’t win you a game. At some point you’re going to concede a goal. And we’ve already conceded enough goals.
I repeat that the President is the one handling the Cyprus problem. But AKEL is not avoiding its responsibilities. It is not only criticising, but also elaborating and putting forward proposals as to what the President should do. Of course, the President interprets the criticism via various people, that AKEL doesn’t see what Turkey is doing. We see very well what Turkey is doing and we denounce it. But we are also concerned about what Turkey will do if the situation continues and remains as it is. Isn’t he himself worried about that?
● Do your positions have a resonance in the National Council and with other political forces with whom we from time to time hear that you are seeking to forge a front with a view to the 2023 presidential election?
SS: This hasn’t been discussed in the National Council, at least in the last two sessions I have participated in. The focus was on Famagusta. But there was no discussion. The discussion was between AKEL and the President. We disagreed as usual.
● Didn’t the other parties take a position on the substance?
SS: No, there was no discussion. The debate was about the various measures that the government was discussing to put in place in the event that Turkey made announcements (on Famagusta). We began from the position that the Cyprus problem is not a legal one, it is primarily a political one and that each measure must be assessed in its political dimensions. For example, it is the right of every UN member state to appeal to the UN, but making an appeal is not a simple matter. It is a tool that you have in your hands that you have to measure whether you can exercise it and what ramifications you will have to get what you want. You shouldn’t pin all your hopes in one basket and end up coming off worse…
● Before the elections various polls pointed to a disparity in the political positions of parties in relation to their grass roots membership. Are you concerned about this disharmony? Have you received such messages from your own party’s grassroots with regards the sought goal of the solution?
SS: We do not consider that there is a serious problem in AKEL regarding the agreed solution, which is bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as set out by the resolutions of the UN. Of course, there are opinions too among our ranks in the broadest sense of the term, but I am sure that you have noticed, regardless of the way the question is posed and the timing, that AKEL has the highest degree of cohesion among its ranks and the highest percentages of acceptance in relation to the agreed solution.
This is the result of the consistency to the timeliness positions that AKEL has supported with regards the agreed solution and secondly, due to the fact that AKEL is working, primarily among its people on what bizonal, bicommunal federation means – so that it shouldn’t appear as something vague – but also more broadly within society as well. In reality, only AKEL is doing this work. The only government that tried to inform the people – in the three languages – about what Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation is was the government of Demetris Christofias. We had invited the parties to obtain the prepared materials (on what federation means) and distribute them among their members, but only AKEL and the people’s movement of the Left did so.
● Up to the parliamentary elections, the sum of the two major parties’ was that there was a recorded solid will in favour of a solution of bizonal, bicommunal federation. Does the fall in the percentage recorded worry you? Does it tell you something?
SS: In relation to the Cyprus problem, the first thing that worries us is the non-solution. The second thing is that if a problem is not solved, fatigue and abandonment of the struggle will follow. And of course we too are concerned that with the non-solution, the generations that have lived vivid experiences in the occupied territories, have an emotional bond that is extremely important, not only for the content of the solution, but also for the fact that it is one thing to have lived in the occupied territories and to want to go home, and it’s another thing to have not lived there and simply have the experiences of one’s parents and grandparents. So time leaves its mark on you.
But I want to say this: Emotion and perceptions, you build them. You don’t just say I have a position, which you’ve already agreed to and leave it at that. It is the political leadership’s duty to renew the pledge that we have signed not only with the Turkish Cypriot side, but the international community too, which it has adopted in a number of resolutions, which we invoke every time Turkey violates them to hold it to account.
For that reason, we should be renewing constantly our relationship with bizonal, bicommunal federation. We should not let it fade away with the passage of time.
● What are your goals and priorities as the new General S4ecretary of AKEL?
SS: We have clearly set out the framework as to the day after (the Congress) starting from the problematic situation that exists, as expressed with the failure recorded in the election result in 2016 and 2021. No one can ignore this fact and the reflection was highlighted in the discussion that took place, both before and during the Party Congress. Two issues emerge from this discussion. The first is the problematic picture that exists in the entire political and party scene which affects all “traditional” parties. All parties – except the far-right party ELAM – lost percentages and this should be of concern. So AKEL, as part of what is termed the ‘traditional’ political party scene, has to confront this situation too.
The second is that we also have to confront the particular issues that affect us. It is clear that an image has been formed among a large section of society which, in our view, does us an injustice. We will have to prove in practice that this impression is unfair so they can trust us. However to achieve this, a number of things need to be done.
One: We need to improve ourselves as a party to become more efficient, productive and quicker in our reflexes/reactions so that we can defend society and especially those sections that concern us directly. It is the workers, the popular strata, the small and medium-sized businesses, the farmers and all those who primarily need support from a social party and whom we must protect from the anti-social policies implemented by the government. It is clear that a part of these strata does not trust us.
Second: It is clear that for various reasons which are not our subject right now, the party’s main source of strength has been weakened over the decades. Namely, the Party’s strong relations with society. The reasons are both objective and subjective. But regardless of this, it is not enough to identify the problem, we must also solve it. That is precisely why we have said that we will make changes in the party so that we can operate faster and more efficiently and so that we can develop concrete links and ties through an interactive relationship with significant sections of society, with sections of it that have a progressive and left-wing agenda, but are also sensitive to issues that we are too. This will bring us closer to them and build relations based on trust.
AKEL has been building a structure for decades which is important, but it is not enough. We will make changes and improvements, but we will also see what structural aspects we need to add and what other methods we need to introduce in our work so that we can address these groups convincingly.
We have decided to convene a statutory Congress on these changes. We are already having preliminary discussions and will soon be able to say more. We will certainly need to do some serious groundwork, to evaluate the views and proposals that were put forward at the Congress, so that after they have been thoroughly discussed, we can go to a statutory Congress and make any statutory or operational changes, we will decide.
● Is the direct election of the General Secretary from the membership one of the issues you will be discussing?
SS: A priori we are not rejecting anything. Everything that is raised or will be raised for discussion will be discussed. We have procedures in the party, we will follow them, approve decisions and move forward.
● With your election, you spoke of opening up AKEL to society. In the electoral procedures that followed, we observed a paradox. The AKEL Secretary of the Nicosia-Kerynia District organisation, which is the biggest party organisation, was left out because of certain positions he has expressed from time to time.
SS: The first thing I want to say is that no one has been left out because of any positions he/she has expressed, far from us such practices. In this election procedure there was no proposal submitted. I, as the Secretary who had the responsibility as the first among equals in the presidency, had said that we are not going to submit a proposal as was the case in the past as we are making a fresh start. The second thing is that the election to the Central Committee was done without any guidance. The third is that one could say that the District secretary of the biggest provincial organisation would normally have also been elected to the Political Bureau. However, this is what the Central Committee decided through the democratic procedure of a secret ballot. What I want to say is that Christos Christofides, a competent militant, remains a frontline cadre and his role in the party and the tasks he has undertaken are given and very important.
● What I hear is that there is also a criticism of you. You could have made a proposal as the new General Secretary, but you avoided doing so…
SS: I have said that it was my choice not to make a proposal. From there onwards, everyone can have their own opinion on whether or not I should have made a proposal. I considered that in this new beginning we are making some things have to change. Opinions are respected, but decisions must be taken
● All through this dialogue that you are going to start, is the issue raised of opening up the Left to begin a new left progressive proposal that will also cover the spectrum that is not covered today by left structures that exist in Cypriot society?
SS: Of course we must also look at the vision we express for today’s society, beyond the ultimate vision we have. That is why AKEL is not only a party that acts as a vehicle for realising an ultimate vision. It is a party that also acts as a carrier of progress in today’s conditions as well.
Since its foundation, AKEL has never ceased to work for today’s tasks and goals. It is important for a society to be governed by the rule of law, to develop progress and prosperity for the people, to produce wealth which is distributed as fairly as possible to society within the present system, because we are interested in the people’s prosperity and well-being. AKEL’s stamp on all this is indelible.
● This is what we should see in the new conditions as well.
SS: There are two issues we need to pay attention to. The first is that we need to specify and clarify some things in detail so that our positions to the whole people and society are quite clear. Second: Of course we need to look again at various issues that arise and which are contemporary. They are difficult issues and affect people’s lives and we need to see if what we are saying actually works in the direction of benefiting society. I should stress in response to those who say that we do not have proposals that we have elaborated many specific proposals. I must also say that I was surprised, even during the Congress, to hear people say that we did not submit any proposals in the parliamentary elections. This is perhaps the first time that AKEL has campaigned with a comprehensive positive agenda, with proposals on all the important chapters. We also had 15 pioneering proposals for the parliamentary work immediately ahead. But they went virtually unnoticed and we have to see what is to blame for that.
● You obviously didn’t manage to communicate them to the people…
SS: I would say that the perception had prevailed, which was also being cultivated by the government too with its strong position and superior means in the communications spectrum that AKEL and DIKO do nothing but exert criticism.
But I won’t dwell on that. We have to do our own self-criticism and see how despite the unfavorable circumstances we didn’t manage to get our proposal across to the people.
● The government did not win, you were simply defeated. While there was a terribly bad image for the government, you failed to capitalize on it as an opposition…
SS: We don’t want to take the approach that we all suffered losses. We said that for us the election result is a failure. This does not mean that we do not take into account the general context so that we can understand the magnitude of the problem we are facing because we do not only have our own problems to address. We also have to deal with a problematic public perception of the political system in general.
However, we should never cease to ask ourselves why society has not listened to us and why we have not been able to get our messages across. By posing these questions before us, we shall also find the solutions. If we simply record the fact that society is not listening to us, we will simply record the problems. I am a believer in the theory that identifying problems must be done to find solutions.
● For the first time, you did not announce the number of votes received by every member of the Central Committee, nor the total number of people who voted. Does this have anything to do with the fact that some delegates did not attend and others left at the time of voting?
SS: What we did not announce was the number of votes specifically that each member of the Central Committee received. But we did announce the order of ranking. The number of votes could have been made public, as was the case in the previous Congress; it is not an essential issue.
I want to say that nobody has the democratic procedures that AKEL has. We began a procedure months in advance, opinions are made public because we believe in transparency and criticism. The Congress was also open and strong criticism were also heard. We want people to feel comfortable to express their views. Through our creative criticism, we want to become better.
As to the attendance issue, I must say that we were pleasantly surprised, especially in the special circumstance the Congress had convened. The attendance was around 950 to 970 people out of a total of 1200, which was a very significant number.
● The chapter on presidential elections and alliances was missing from your political proposal…
SS: As for the issue of cooperation/alliances, there is a references in the political resolution. The political framework is included because at the previous Congress and at the preceding Programmatic Congress we discussed this issue, we made specific references in order to make our position more specific and to clarify certain issues concerning the framework of alliances on the basis of the rich experience that AKEL has accumulated on cooperation and alliances. What was decided at the Congress is that we should continue our determination and intensify our effort in the direction of creating the preconditions to achieve progressive change in the country.
● The party composition of the Congress is changing. In the past, farmers and the working class were prevalent. Does this say something about AKEL?
SS: We are part of society and a reflection of it. We live in a society which has characteristics of a classical capitalist society, but also peculiar features of Cypriot society. The petty bourgeois middle strata represent a large section of society. A large part of society is made up of small and medium-sized businesses. For that reason, the diversification is a reflection of the diversification of society itself. But working people continue to make up the overwhelming majority of the social and party membership/grass roots.
● With an increased presence of party militants, party functionaries or party-dependent businesses. There is this aspect too…
SS: I think that is not the case. There is a myth being cultivated that says that the leadership in question secures its legitimacy from the party apparatus. But the greatest criticism and pressure is exerted by the party mechanism. The myth about “soldiers of the leadership” is not true. I note that Party delegates are elected by secret ballot by the grassroots party groups and it is they who decide by secret ballot on the composition of the Central Committee. Moreover, no one including even the General Secretary can be a candidate for the Central Committee unless he or she is first approved by a majority of the grassroots party group to which he or she belongs to.
● Will the proposal for 50%-50% representation, i.e. half from within the party machinery and half from beyond it, be discussed during the party dialogue?
SS: It is just one of the many opinions that have been heard. Not to prejudge anything, we will discuss all this and you will judge us.