Cyprus Problem

,,,Interview with Aristos Damianou, member of the Political Bureau of AKEL and Cyprus Problem Office of the C.C.

‘We must return to the agreed framework of the solution as soon as possible’

‘With his proposal, the President is essentially putting the Greek Cypriot side on roughly the same footing as the Turkish side’

Sunday 5 September 2021, ‘Haravgi’ newspaper

1.      How pragmatic do you consider President Anastasiades’ proposal for a return to the 1960 Constitution and talks on the territorial issue on the basis of the UN resolutions?

AD: This is an unrealistic and dangerous proposal. Unfounded because – as we all know – Federation as a form of state structure gives the entities broad autonomy, at the level of local government and institutions, always ensuring the so-called ‘three singles’ with a strong central government. That is to say, a single sovereignty, a single citizenship and a single international personality, with such central powers so as to safeguard the unity of the state.

If the Turkish side refuses to accept Federation, as developments – unfortunately – seem to indicate, it is not logically feasible to expect it to accept a return to the unitary state, which is a clearly more centralized constitutional structure. Let alone that from 1963 to 1974 there were mass and – certainly – enforced population movements to separate regions, thus creating de facto conditions for federalisation.

At the same time, the President’s proposal is also dangerous because, even from different starting points, it achieves the same result as the Turkish positions for ‘sovereign equality’ and a two state solution, given that both positions, for a unitary state or two states, are outside the agreed framework of the solution, which provides for the evolution of the partitioned unitary state of the 1960s into a bicommunal, bizonal federation.

2. Does the basis of the solution of the Cyprus problem under discussion change or not when one side through its leader proposes to the international community sovereign equality and the other a return to the 1960 Constitution? What is your assessment of the outcome of such an action?

AD: It is obvious that in the eyes of the international community, after Anastasiades’ unprecedented proposals and positions (because after the fiasco he made it clear that they are indeed positions and not a “figure of speech”), both sides are outside the agreed basis for a solution. Essentially – now – with the President’s proposal he is putting the Greek Cypriot side on roughly the same footing as the Turkish side. And this is unfair for our side because it offers an alibi to unacceptable Turkish positions. It is as if it is helping Turkey, which remains relieved of any responsibility since the Crans Montana conference and onwards.

I consider that inevitably, unless the proposal is withdrawn and the Turkish side moves away from its well-known unacceptable positions, we will again enter a prolonged deadlock on the Cyprus problem. The UN Secretary General’s special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute has already informed us that she will not come to Cyprus, while the UN Secretary General appears particularly hesitant, given the gulf in the starting positions of the two sides.

3. If the ultimate goal is to return to the talks from where they had remained at Crans Montana, on the basis of the agreed framework of the UN, how is the course of developments corrected? What should the Greek Cypriot side’s first step and initiative be to get the other side to respond and for a “common ground” to be found for the resumption of talks?

AD: It is obvious that for the Turkish side, what is at stake is the consolidation and consequently rendering the de facto partition of Cyprus permanent. We do not know what Mr. Anastasiades’ goal is. What is inevitably and inescapably recorded is our assessment is that under his presidency we are heading towards permanent partition. I stress that while the President is repeating his own bad self, with experimentations, a lack of a collective handling of the Cyprus problem and regressions, Turkey is engaging in illegal and provocative actions in Famagusta and tightening its suffocating grip and control of the Turkish Cypriot community.

I regret to say this bluntly, but if it is not already too late, unless the President withdraws his dangerous experimentations, given the Turkish positions, we will be left with partition. Mr. Anastasiades must get in line with everything we have agreed with the international community and the Turkish Cypriots, otherwise his non-existent credibility will now lead us to international disrepute.

We believe that AKEL’s proposal can – under certain preconditions – lead to overcoming the stalemate. However, the President is focusing on other things. If it is not going to be too late, only a credible new President of the Republic who believes strongly in the solution, liberation and reunification can possibly bring back the hope.