Interview with Yiorgos Loucaides, member of the Political Bureau of AKEL, to “Cyprus Times” 18 September 2018
How do you see developments evolving on the Cyprus problem after the contacts of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute? Do you think the preconditions exist for a resumption of the procedure?
YL: This will depend on whether all sides have acted within the framework set out by the Secretary-General, and in particular whether they have taken a position and responded to the questions put by Mrs. Lute in a way that convinces the UN Secretary-General that he can restart the procedure from the point where it had remained and that will lead to a positive result. In our view, those dynamics still exist that led us to the historical opportunity, according to the UN Secretary-General, for a solution to the Cyprus problem at Crans Montana. Consequently, if the sides demonstrate the necessary will, as the UN Secretary-General means and asks for from all sides, then yes, the procedure can be resumed, but also arrive at a positive conclusion.
AKEL is critical of the President of the Republic and urges him to show in practice that he is calling for an immediate resumption of negotiations. The government’s reply is that the President has sent the message clearly that he is ready to return to the table from the point at which it had been interrupted at Crans Montana, but he is calling for sufficient and proper preparation.
YL: President Anastasiades after the Crans Montana conference has set some preconditions for resuming the negotiations, outside the framework set by the UN Secretary-General Mr. Guterres. It is true that the Greek Cypriot negotiator Mr. Mavroyiannis, but the Foreign Minister Mr. Christodoulides to a lesser extent, have recently been expressing the Greek Cypriot side’s readiness to continue from the point where the talks had remained without any preconditions beyond and outside the framework established by the UN Secretary General.
Beyond that, we wish and hope that this time what Mr. Anastasiades said to Mrs. Lute, but also all of Mr. Anastasiades’ actions on the attempt to resume negotiations, will indeed move within this context, which is being proclaimed in public recently. We wish and hope that Mr. Anastasiades will this time with his stand choose to be beneficial. Otherwise, we have no doubt as to the negative consequences that our side and country will subsequently face.
After Mrs. Lute’s contacts in Nicosia, Foreign Minister Nikos Christodoulides spoke of perhaps the most critical period for the Cyprus problem, while Mr. Mavroyiannis, the Greek Cypriot negotiator, referred to the possibility of an end to an era as regards the Cyprus problem as we know it. Do you share these references?
YL: As I have said already, we consider that the statements made recently by Mr. Mavroyiannis and Mr. Christodoulides are moving in the right direction. This also answers your question, because it is true that we are in a particularly critical period on the Cyprus problem. Mrs. Lute’s report to be submitted to the UN Secretary-General and the decisions the UN Secretary-General will take in relation to a procedure that has been underway for the last ten years will to a great extent determine the future of our national cause, but also of our country and people.
I have previously talked about negative consequences, if and provided that the procedure cannot resume, and primarily if it doesn’t resume with the responsibility being apportioned, either entirely or partially, on the Greek Cypriot side. Such a development will, in our view, have disastrous consequences on different levels.
One of these consequences may be in relation to what Mr. Mavroyiannis referred to. Namely the end of an era for the Cyprus problem as we know it, particularly from the moment it appears that the international community doesn’t accept the current status quo, then if and provided that this status quo cannot be reversed through a just, viable and workable solution in the form of a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation, it is likely that the international community, but also Cyprus’ partners within the EU will look for other ways to overcome the status quo. This, unfortunately, also includes the possibility once again of facing scenarios, for example, for the reactivation of the direct trade regulation or other similar developments that will point precisely to a very different solution to that we have been struggling to achieve for a number of decades.
Do you consider the issue with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) to be real or is it perhaps a means of putting pressure on the Greek Cypriot side?
YL: The issue with UNFICYP is another one of the negative consequences I have already referred to. It is clear in our view, and no one should have any doubts that if we have a negative conclusion to the new initiative of the UN Secretary-General via Mrs. Lute, and even more so if the responsibility for this negative development were to be apportioned on our side or even on our side too, then we will be facing this coming January either the complete abolition and withdrawal of UNFICYP from Cyprus, or the possibility of a drastic reduction in its force. Everyone can comprehend how many consequences and what impact such a development might have on the likelihood of a crisis or crises being provoked centred on the buffer-zone, as a result of aggressive actions that Turkey might take, which we have experienced in the past and which can even lead to bloodshed too.
It is clear, in our view, that the dangers will increase significantly after a potential withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping force or after a drastic reduction in its numbers, and the dangers will not only concern the possible outbreak of a military crisis and/or the advance of the occupying troops as was the case in the region of Strovilia, but also the impacts spreading to the economy as well – an economy that is based, as it is well known, on services and tourism.
To these dangers we also have to add a third source of dangers, in addition to the ones I have already referred to. This concerns the possibility of a crisis breaking out in our country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). We of course consider it unlikely that Turkey will proceed to taking hostile action against the platforms of EXXON-MOBIL. At the same time, however, we cannot rule out the fact that Turkey, from the moment it owns its own geostrategic drilling platform is proceeding with exploratory drilling on licensed plots in the Cypriot EEZ. In any case, to proceed to actions that we have witnessed in the past, which may also provoke a crisis, the extent and intensity of which we cannot know. Of course, on this level too, the outcome of this procedure and possibility of a failure with the assignment of responsibilities on the Greek Cypriot side will facilitate Turkish provocation and aggression, if and provided that the responsibilities are also apportioned on our side as well.
Your Party always maintains very good relations with the Turkish Cypriot community and has developed good cooperation with political parties on the other side. Do you have any information on how they see developments? Are they ready for a resumption of the dialogue?
YL: Beyond and besides the public statements that have been made since the announcement of Mr. Akinci’s intentions a few weeks ago to continue the procedure based on the Guterres framework, we cannot be sure in our assessment as to what Mr. Akinci has said to Mrs. Lute. That is why we will wait to see all that the Turkish Cypriot side has conveyed to the UN Secretary-General via Mrs. Lute and we will not attempt to pre-determine the final position they have taken.
In any case, besides the Turkish Cypriot leadership and in particular the Turkish Cypriot negotiator Mr. Akinci, through the contacts we maintain with parties who have always been struggling for an honorable compromise on the Cyprus problem within the framework of bizonal, bicommunal federation, and following developments, we should note the readiness which these parties express through their public statements for the continuation of the procedure from the point it had remained and within the framework set out by the UN Secretary-General.
Of course, developments in the Turkish economy complicate this situation, developments that have also affected the occupied territories. At the same time however, even if unfortunately they have a negative impact on the common people, they create among our Turkish Cypriot compatriots an incentive to seek the solution of the Cyprus problem and the safeguarding of this very important aspect with regards the economy.
As to your question, let me add that here we have another fourth aspect of the consequences resulting from a possible failure in a probable final effort by the UN Secretary-General to continue the procedure. This concerns the fact that the Turkish Cypriot community every day that passes is being assimilated to Turkey, as well as the occupied territories as a whole. And the developments in the economy are exerting even more pressure on the Turkish Cypriot community, as regards the imposition not only of the economic terms that Turkey wants to impose in the occupied areas, but also numerous other blackmail policies that it wants to promote within the Turkish Cypriot community, such as the attempt to “Islamize” the occupied areas.
We have said it many times that the passage of time consolidates further the fait accompli of the occupation, and what is happening and which is unquestionable is that every day that goes by is turning the occupied territories even further into a region of Turkey.
Does Turkey have an incentive to make concessions on the Cyprus problem? I would also like your opinion on the unpredictable factor Erdogan in relation to the Cyprus problem.
YL: Our view is that to the extent that the Turkish leadership understands the situation as I will subsequently outline it, yes, it has strong incentives to take action that will lead to an honorable compromise. I am referring in principle to the fact that our country has been incorporated in the energy map of Europe and the world. It is clear that Turkey would greatly benefit from a solution of the Cyprus problem, as it would open the way and the prospect of buying cheap natural gas from our region through a pipeline that will pass through the territory of Cyprus. At the same time, it will open up the prospect of the passage of natural gas from our region via Turkish territory to Europe.
On the other hand, Turkey has and maintains other incentives too that remain active. Euro-Turkish relations may have gone through a period of serious ordeal, but our assessment is that as Europe needs Turkey, at least Turkey also needs Europe the same. Turkey’s European aspirations will therefore be served through a correct solution of the Cyprus problem.
There is also a third factor that has to do with issues beyond Turkey’s energy ambitions and European ambitions, that is to say Turkey’s ambitions to play a leading role in our region. And in this direction, Turkey can aspire to serve these aspirations in the region, if and provided that it ceases to be an occupying power and a serious factor of anomaly, by still having territory of the EU under its occupation.
Let me clarify once again that it’s not enough for us to ascertain all these assessments, but it is important for the Turkish leadership to understand and be aware of them. As long as it does so and does not stick to its old narrative and approaches about the huge geostrategic importance of Cyprus for Turkish interests, or to other ideas as well that it has adopted in the past, then yes, one can hope that Turkey will cooperate so that we can arrive at a correct and viable solution of the Cyprus problem, which will free and rid us from guarantees, intervention rights, occupying troops and which will restore the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus.
“They serve the privileged”
Six months after assuming power for a second five-year term, how do you assess the performance of the Anastasiades government? We have pending problems in education, the countdown has begun for the implementation of the National Health Scheme and we also had the closure of the Cyprus Cooperative Bank.
YL: Not only AKEL, but also the vast majority of our fellow citizens, believe that the Anastasiades government has continued from where it had been in the past five years. If something is different, and indeed is different, it is that it is continuing to intensify its negative performance. First of all, with regard the further escalation of authoritarianism, arbitrariness and arrogance that characterizes the government, as we have seen it expressed on numerous issues that it has handled over the past few months. For example, the lack of willingness for consensus and consultation with political forces or with social forces. It is always clashing with the public statements and pre and post-election rhetoric of President Anastasiades and the ruling DISY party.
A second characteristic is the continuation and intensity of a policy that serves the few and the privileged to the detriment of society against the interests of the many.
At a third level, the government ruling forces are also continuing from where they had remained as to their attempt to put the state under the control of DISY and to pursue the policy of “jobs for the boys” to serve their own members and supporters.
Can you be more specific?
YL: More specifically, as to the issues raised by your question, we have had the scheming and machinations surrounding the biggest scandal witnessed in the Republic of Cyprus for the closure of the Cyprus Cooperative Bank, for the crime they planned and executed at the expense of society and co-operatives.
The government and ruling forces had the ultimate and exclusive responsibility for the management of the Cooperative Bank from 2013 onwards. When, back then, the Coop with the taxpayers’ money and given that the most extreme scenarios for co-operatives and the banking systems and for the economy were taken into account, it made a new and healthy beginning. Everything, as they were saying, was progressing marvelously and eminently in the Coop until last March, with the government in no way attempting to consult with the political forces on the course and future of the Coop, but rather just led things to fait accompli.
It provoked an unprecedented crisis, in order to be able to impose the blackmails it has promoted in order to fulfill its goals. While according to the government ruling forces everything was progressing wonderfully and outstandingly on the Cyprus economy, as well in the Coop too, they were threatening with new Memoranda if the fait accompli weren’t agreed with the consensus of the House of Representatives; fait accompli which they themselves deliberately provoked. They threatened the banking system and the economy as a whole with collapse if the majority of the House of Representatives did not consent to the completion of the crime that the government planned against the Coop. Hence, this so-called “success story” promoted by the government proved to be extremely fragile, as well as its position that everything was progressing wonderfully and eminently.
The consequences of their decisions are already being felt by the Cypriot people, given that an important social gain for the popular strata has been lost, as the Coop had been. Now that the government ruling forces have achieved their goal, as they have told us, for fewer and more “robust” banks, this has paved the way for even more abusive practices by the banks to the detriment of citizens. With the decisions they took on the pretext of the situation of the Coop Bank so that they could make the framework on foreclosures even stricter to the detriment of the borrowers, they have paved the way even more so that through “express” procedures the main family home and small business premises of the very victims of the banking crisis will be subject to foreclosures.
They of course subsequently loaded 40,000 Euros on the backs of every taxpaying four-person family, not to save the economy, but instead to rescue the bankers once again. Furthermore, while the decisions that were taken by the majority in the House of Representatives burdening 40,000 Euros on four-member families, two days later they decided to take measures to “streamline/rationalize” education to save 20-30 million euros and created and provoked the crisis in education that is still ongoing. But they also provoked the unprecedented mobilization and resistance of educators against the government’s authoritarianism and arbitrariness. These government measures have nothing to do with the quality of the education provided.
Besides, their authoritarianism, arbitrariness, arrogance, the targeting of teachers, which continues to this day, the insulting references made to the thousands of teachers, which are still being made, have led to an unprecedented crisis in education, which currently unfortunately appears to assume more pronounced dimensions and is reaching a climax, because the government hasn’t shown any real intention to find solutions, by adopting what the opposition parties have originally pointed out to the government as a political position: that is to say, to temporarily suspend the measures it has taken and discuss them, as it should have done from the very beginning within the framework of the institutionalized dialogue procedures through the Education Service’s Joint Personnel Committee (MEPEY) and at the same time to engage in a discussion on all the major issues and challenges concerning the quality of the education provided, the content of our education system and the goal for the protection and modernization of the public school.
The government, just like the Minister of Education, scorned the position of the opposition parties and behaved in a way that ultimately didn’t provide any real and meaningful way out of this crisis. On the contrary, it appears from its actions that it sought to perpetuate the crisis in order to serve its own purposes. One could attribute the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on 4 July as serving expediencies, and in particular the effort to shift the debate from the enormous scandal of the Coop Bank to a minor issue that even on the part of the government side or DISY officials was perceived as non-existent.
The crisis in health didn’t begin today. It started and took on mass dimensions in previous years due to the massive cuts imposed in public health spending. We have said many times that the government ruling forces have deprived over half a billion Euros from the public health sector over the last few years, while citizens had turned to the public health sector even more because of the economic crisis. This reality was also confirmed by the statements made by President of the State Health Services Mr. Nilsson in an interview he gave last Sunday, where in the positions he expressed in a clear manner he demands that the budget on the public health sector must be increased significantly so that doctors who are needed are recruited, that there should be investment in the building of infrastructures in order for the public sector to proceed to the purchase of equipment, but also to hire support staff, either secretarial or other auxiliary staff, paramedical personnel who are necessary in order to achieve the upgrading of public health.
We hope that the government ruling forces will listen to what Mr.Nicolson has to say, while all the previous years they didn’t listen to AKEL’s warnings. We reiterate that this is absolutely necessary if we want the smooth implementation of the NHS to proceed, because as everyone admits and underlines, the public health sector will constitute the backbone of the NHS. As long as the backbone of the public health sector is in tatters and the public health sector will continue to barely hang on, it is clear that the NHS will not start, to put it as gently as possible, with the best of omens.
More specifically with regards the Coop, AKEL and other parties are calling for the Finance Minister to taken on his political responsibilities in the proceedings before the Committee of Inquiry. The President of the Republic gave full political cover to the Finance Minister. Therefore the responsibility now falls on the President. Does this position satisfy you?
YL: The truth is that we don’t remember this government, the President of the Republic and his Ministers accepting in any way that they have any political responsibility whatsoever, despite all that has happened as a result of their own actions and which have damaged Cypriot society and the economy, Cypriot political life and institutions.
We are talking about a government that, when it was opposition followed a policy of destructive opposition and demanded the assumption of responsibility and resignations of Ministers and the President of the Republic himself on every occasion and opportunity. The standards of their political sensitivity when they were in opposition were extremely high. From the moment they took power, addicted and dizzy in power, they have lowered this sensitivity to its lowest level.
Of course, people are in a position and can judge the political courage and sensitivity that distinguishes the President, Ministers and the government and to what extent this is being expressed.