As the facts on the Cyprus problem have evolved, the presidential elections of next February assume an increased importance

Let’s speak clearly then
Article by the member of the Political Bureau of AKEL Aristos Damianou and MP
Sunday 23 October 2022, “Haravgi” newspaper
As the facts on the Cyprus problem have evolved, the presidential elections of next February assume an increased importance. On the one hand, the hardening of Turkey’s stance and on the other, the geopolitical dynamics that are – unfortunately – upgrading its role, demand that the next President of the Republic take initiatives on the Cyprus problem in order to prevent permanent partition. If there is a real last chance for a solution that will liberate and reunite our country and people, the political system, but first and foremost citizens themselves, must answer one specific question: how can we break the entrenched deadlocks and assert another chance for a solution to the Cyprus problem?
AKEL believes that the era of illusions and grandiose declarations/sloganeering – bordering on the deliberate exploitation of patriotic sentiments – is long gone. As these lines are being written, the occupying forces are preparing to colonise, commercially exploit and re-colonise the enclosed area of Varosha, Famagusta. They eventually found drilling ships [contrary to what the government was claiming in the past], effectively cancelling the drilling programme and planning of the Republic of Cyprus.
Furthermore, the supposed imposition of sanctions by Cyprus’ European partners that would hurt Turkey have been translated into two or three employees being put on a non-existent blacklist. If we compare the EU’s provocative preferential treatment of the occupying power, Turkey, with the sanctions that have been imposed on the Russian Federation for its invasion of Ukraine, then we can comprehend the extent of our problem.
We therefore need assertiveness, we need realism. But first and foremost we need stability of purpose [on the sought goal]. The only agreed goal, the only framework agreed by all the Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus and leaders of the Greek Cypriot community without exception, is that of a bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality, as interpreted by the Resolutions of the UN. Whenever we have gone astray and deviated (for example, the President of the Republic’s flirtation with a two state solution), we have paid a heavy price.
It is therefore imperative that we speak clearly. The three main candidates must take a clear position [on this issue] because the dilemma before us is quite simple: either federation or partition.
This is precisely where the lack of a clear political position on the part of one of the three main candidates lies. Andreas Mavroyiannis is committed to continuing the effort for a solution of the Cyprus problem, building on the body of work [acquis] of the talks. Averof Neophytou states a similar position but with the important observation that his position on the need for Cyprus’ membership of NATO contradicts the long-standing positions of the National Council and the body of work of the talks itself. Recently, under pressure from a journalist, Nicos Christodoulides also accepted the Guterres Framework as a basis for discussion because nowhere in his programme did he make any similar commitment in writing.
The question therefore arises effortlessly whether N.Christodoulides means it or, more importantly, if citizens elect him to the Presidential Palace, whether the forces supporting Mr. Christodoulides will stand by him in an attempt to resume the dialogue or whether they will abandon him, rendering him a President with zero political support. Unless that is all – none excluded – of the parties supporting Christodoulides have changed their proclaimed positions.
In truth, can the social democratic EDEK party abandon its Party Congress position that a bi-communal, bizonal federation is the worst form of legitimizing partition?
Can the ‘Solidarity’ party headed by Eleni Theocharous abandon its position for a unitary state and a “European solution”?
Can the Democratic Party DIKO abandon its rejection of the Guterres Framework, which it considers anathema?
How can they – all together – support Mr. Christodoulides, who states that the Guterres Framework is a basis for discussion and finding a solution?
So we therefore should speak clearly. Either Mr. Christodoulides does not mean what he says about making use of the Guterres Framework, or the parties supporting him will impose their political position on a President of the Republic who will be vulnerable, without substantial support in the National Council and without a parliamentary majority to be able to govern. Both cannot be true. Unless that is certain forces are intimately flirting with the “second best solution” of perpetuating the partitionist status quo, which is dangerous.
Mr. Christodoulides must for that reason make his position clear because our national problem, at its current juncture, cannot bear new experimentations at a time when we are in danger of crossing the threshold of the permanent partition, thanks to Turkey.