● Developments on Varosha are pressing. Will it become the “tombstone “of the Cyprus problem?
SS: The ongoing developments are bound to further complicate the solution of the Cyprus problem. President Anastasiades should have reflected on all what UN Secretary General A. Guterres is saying and focus his attention on the efforts to solve the Cyprus problem. The negative developments around the Cyprus problem are the result of the deadlock and absence of any negotiations, as Mr. Guterres himself correctly points out.
● Did you see where things were heading towards?
SS: Developments were entirely predictable. The only feasible way to end the fait accompli in Famagusta and elsewhere, such as in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Republic of Cyprus, is to push for the resumption of the negotiations. Otherwise, at some point, the final nail in the coffin will come.
– What are President Anastasiades’ intentions for a return to negotiations?
S: There was a long discussion in the National Council meeting and primarily between AKEL and the President. Our position is clear and we have submitted a written proposal in this regard. Unfortunately, the President refuses to even discuss AKEL’s proposal. His actions will be judged by their result. He must at long last ask himself who is comfortable with this ongoing situation, apart, of course, from Turkey and all those forces/circles who are seeking to partition the country.
● Is Turkey demanding “sovereign equality”?
SS: This demand must not under any circumstances be accepted. It will mean two states. In the face of this demand, however, the President must not impose terms and preconditions. Mr. Guterres has pulled back somewhat, listening to what both sides and Turkey have to say. We, the Greek Cypriot side, must create the momentum for a solution. The President must respond to what Guterres has long been calling for: that negotiations should resume from the point where they were interrupted in 2017 at Crans Montana, safeguarding the convergences recorded and the Framework of the Secretary General of 30 June 2017.
● Is not the President saying so, even if after four years?
SS: That’s what he tells us. But he says one thing and does another. He withdrew the key convergences that were recorded. One major convergence that makes the Greek Cypriot side vulnerable to Turkey’s propaganda and has damaged President Anastasiades’ credibility with everyone is the convergence agreed on political equality. He had adopted the single positive vote in the Council of Ministers, which had been agreed between Christofias and Talat, replacing the vetoes of the 1960s Constitution. Now he has reversed this convergence.
● Is it not convincing and feeding Turkish propaganda?
SS: Erdogan claimed that the Greek Cypriots do not accept political equality. The UN and the international community, third parties, judge developments and actions based on what the two sides had agreed and who revoked agreed convergences. We say the President should demand that all convergences should be restored: on security, the withdrawal of troops, maps on territory. Akinci’s map includes not only the enclosed area of Famagusta, but also the whole of lower Varosha, villages of the plain of Mesaoria, the city of Morphou under Greek Cypriot administration and other areas.
This would strengthen our position against the new fait accompli in Varosha. Instead of taking a clear political initiative, the President says he wants Confidence Building Measures (CBM’s) for Varosha and complains that the UN is ignoring him. Can he not get the message they are sending him? The route of CBM’s for Varosha has been tried back in the Clerides era in 1993. Does the President not remember that’s precisely how everything was brought to a standstill and the effort for a solution was stalled for years?
● You say you have proposed a different strategy?
SS: AKEL says that we need to create momentum for a comprehensive solution, and I told you how: by taking a clear position on political equality and the demand for the restoration of all the convergences of the Guterres Framework. We should listen carefully to what the UN Secretary General says on other issues as well. He says about the natural gas issue that we should turn it from a problem of confrontation into a catalyst for the solution. We have given our specific proposal, which is precisely why we have made it public.
● What is AKEL’s proposal?
SS: First, we should address the Turkish Cypriot community and call on it to continue the negotiations from where they had remained, expressing our readiness to submit bridging proposals solely on the outstanding issues of the Guterres Framework, with a view towards reaching a strategic understanding, as the Secretary General himself requests. Once a strategic agreement has been reached, namely that the six points of the Guterres Framework have been agreed, then we can subsequently discuss the participation of Turkish Cypriots in the co-management of the natural gas.
● Joint planning and exploitation?
SS: With the signing of a strategic agreement, I stress, otherwise it will be a counter-incentive to the solution. Turkish Cypriots will expect to get co-management. And they will have an incentive to come to the strategic understanding, which means counting down to a solution of the Cyprus problem, because that is the only way they will get co-management. This will also complement the convergences already achieved with regards the ownership and sharing of revenues from the natural resources.
● Will Turkey accept this?
SS: We say that it should agree to resume the negotiations. Once a solution to the Cyprus problem is agreed, the Federal Republic of Cyprus should enter into a dialogue with Turkey on the delimitation of maritime zones based on the United Nations Law of the Sea. Turkey can understand this very well. It will be made clear that we do not aim to isolate it. With the Cyprus problem resolved, Cyprus will be able to cooperate with Turkey.
● What about the issue of the pipelines?
SS: AKEL also argues that we must tell Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots that provided that it is economically viable, we should put a pipeline through Turkey. It is already an energy hub, we will co-manage the natural gas with the Turkish Cypriots. With these moves, we are nullifying all of Turkey’s arguments about a supposed blockade and we are also removing its pretexts, from Crans Montana onwards. In this way, we will stop the downward spiral of new fait accompli being imposed, putting pressure on the international community to act.
● Will Turkey respond?
SS: Nobody knows. But, if it does not, it will be the one who will be solely exposed and not us, as the Secretary General records in his reports.
● What did you agree on in the National Council, what is the perception of the other parties?
SS: As far as the substance of the Cyprus problem is concerned, there was generally a…non-position expressed. We were discussing the issues of Famagusta. Of course we shall make representations, protests, we are all trying where we can to exert influence, but that is not enough. When your policy is just defensive, you don’t win and at some point you will lose.
● And where did the discussion on Varosha lead to?
SS: There was talk of taking action. We disagreed with the measures put forward by the government.
● There were ideas heard calling for the closure checkpoints, to remove identity cards from Turkish Cypriot politicians, to cut European funds for Turkish Cypriots…
SS: All these were presented as thoughts on the part of the government. We were asked “what issues from these ideas are you willing to discuss”. We were adamant: these measures will bring us into conflict with the Turkish Cypriot community. They will also bring us into confrontation with the international community.
● Do you agree to cast a veto in the European debate on Turkey and the ‘positive agenda’?
SS: As you know, the veto is a right that member states do have, but it is not the principal task right now! It is an instrument to be used at the crucial time when you consider it may help to come to a decision that will drastically assist your cause, namely to achieve the goal of a solution of the Cyprus problem
The positive agenda – and this is where we need to work – can help towards realising your goal of reaching a solution
The positive agenda – and this is where we must work – can help towards realising your goal to arrive at the solution. That’s how we need to approach it. Not talking about exercising a veto every now and then. We see big states who don’t cast a veto and do we really believe Cyprus will be able to do so?
● But President Anastasiades has said it many times that he will veto but doesn’t…
SS: The day after he says so, he forgets everything. But let’s not get bogged down on numerous issues. Our position is very clear: President Anastasiades has one duty only. He has a responsibility to take initiatives for the resumption of the negotiations. This becomes even more pressing because we are no longer in the 1980’s. A weary international community on the Cyprus problem is close to telling us that since you can’t solve the Cyprus problem, we should thus manage the de facto situation.
● Do you believe President Anastasiades that he wants to solve the Cyprus problem?
SS: Everyone is judged by the results of his/her policy. I don’t want to discuss whether he wants to or not. We had such a discussion with him. We don’t say to him “you don’t want a solution”. With the policy he is pursuing, he is giving space to Turkey. Instead of putting pressure on Turkey, he is giving it room to act unhindered. He knew what was happening right now, we had warned him of developments, and these developments were completely predictable. Turkey was relieved of responsibilities and exonerated at Crans Montana, there was a negotiating vacuum for 4 years, the Greek Cypriot side had no credibility among the international community, serious fait accompli were imposed by Turkey…
● It’s year nine of the Anastasiades administration, what evidence do you need to draw a conclusion as an opposition party?
SS: We have drawn our conclusion. I repeat. It is the President of the Republic who is responsible for the handling of the Cyprus problem; we believe that our role is to put pressure on him, to push him so that a momentum for a solution is created.
● What will the legacy of Anastasiades’ administration be?
SS: As far as the Cyprus problem is concerned, there were so many contradictions and regressions that he in the end gave Turkey room to engineer developments towards the final partition of Cyprus, which may now become irreversible. It is a serious thing to say, but everyone is judged by the results of their policies. In 2017, at Crans Montana, we were a just breath away from arriving at a solution – everyone admits it. The narrative that suits the government is to blame Turkey. It is not what the Greek Cypriot side says that matters, it is what the UN Secretary General himself records in the reports he submits. The Secretary General praised the guarantor powers. Turkey is a guarantor power and I don’t think Greece and Britain need to be praised. Who wins internationally?
● On “decentralized federation”, did the President tell you what he means?
SS: No, he talks about decentralized federation and he doesn’t explain it. We discussed it at the recent National Council meeting. When did he think of decentralization? Why is he discussing it now when he’s facing Ersin Tatar? When you open up the issue of competences, won’t Tatar open up more issues? I asked him to tell us what competences he has in mind. He still hasn’t told us anything.
● Has he faced any international reaction?
SS: But what does the international community say in reaction to the new fait accompli? They are saying “solve the Cyprus problem”. It says the same with regards the violations in Cyprus’ EEZ. Everyone usually reacts in a lukewarm way, the UN, the Security Council, powerful countries, the EU, and in the very next paragraph they all say: “solve the Cyprus problem”.
That is the real situation, not portrayed in a selectively manner as to what the Greek Cypriot side says to domestic public opinion in order to satisfy ourselves. Erdogan will continue his actions. When he was issuing threats about the EEZ, Foreign Minister Mr. Christodoulides said Turkey wouldn’t even get a drill to be able to drill. Now Turkey has a whole fleet of four drilling rigs. When Turkey was issuing threats about Famagusta, we were told Turkey was engaging in ‘communication tricks’ and bluffing. Turkey implements in practice what it says and does not hesitate to clash with the international community and incur some costs. It has the luxury to do so and can live with it…