How worrying is the situation that has been created in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and in our region in general?

Interview with the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A.Kyprianou
25 February 2018 “FILELEFTHEROS” daily newspaper
– How worrying is the situation that has been created in the Cypriot Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and in our region in general?
AK: The situation is very worrying indeed. I believe that our goal should be to de-escalate the tension and create those preconditions that will prevent it from happening again. Why am I saying this? Because I hear opinions that aim to further escalate the tension; opinions at the same time that aren’t drawing the necessary lessons from what has happened.
We have been stating something very simple all through this period. We stressed that with the Cyprus problem unresolved, it is very difficult for us to make use of the natural wealth we have. We have been saying this as simply as we can so as to not be accused of being preachers of doom. I regret to note that this is what is actually happening today. What we are observing today is only a small sample of what will happen if and provided that the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. With what I’m saying, I’m not suggesting that we have to accept any proposal or any demand that the Turkish side puts forth. On the contrary, I insist that we need to promote the long-standing decisions of the National Council and remain consistent to the agreed principles of the solution of the Cyprus problem.
You previously referred to preconditions that have caused tension, but also to the need to avoid measures that will increase tension. Do you want to be more specific?
AK: I’m referring to some things that are being proposed from different sides.
Do you mean from the President of the Republic as well?
AK: I don’t want to mention any names. They themselves should first state in public the proposals they have submitted to the National Council and we will subsequently express our own position. We don’t disagree with diplomatic initiatives being taken by President Anastasiades in the direction of deescalating tension and not in the direction of the further escalation of tension. At the same time, of course, we state that we will not have any delusions about how much certain actions can yield results. And that brings us to what I have stressed before, that is, we need to draw the necessary lessons from the developments in the Exclusive Economic Zone.
You are constantly extremely critical of President Anastasiades. At this stage what should be done that hasn’t been done in your view?
AK: You know when something happens, they ask us, “What should be done in your view to overcome it”? Yes, but we proposed things that could have prevented this development from happening. It is not possible for someone who pursues a specific tactic that does not take into account what we have been saying and when this tactic leads us to some result to then say: “Stop criticizing me and tell us what else I should do now.” Now the President of the Republic can’t do anything different. Now he has to work behind-the-scenes and diplomatically in an attempt to expire the NAVTEX on 10th March and at the same time to push for substantive negotiations on the Cyprus problem to resume.
We have been saying this for some months that the priority should have been the immediate resumption of substantive negotiations on the Cyprus problem without terms and preconditions based on the UN Secretary-General’s proposal. The President of the Republic hasn’t taken AKEL’s views into account. We have stressed throughout this time that whenever there was a deadlock and there were no negotiations underway, whenever the international community believed that we also had a responsibility for negotiations not being conducted, we had negative developments that were detrimental to us. This is what is happening now.
The government and ruling forces didn’t take our views into account and they are now telling us not to criticize them if we want to be constructive and that we should just to say what needs to be done. Well, now that things have reached to the point they are now, there aren’t many things we can do.
How can the dialogue be resumed bearing in mind the current circumstances with what is taking place in the Cypriot EEZ?
AK: If the NAVTEX doesn’t expire, the dialogue can’t resume. That is why I say that behind-the-scenes consultations must start as of today that will aim to send out a clear message. That’s to say, the NAVTEX should expire, negotiations should resume because it is only through the solution of the Cyprus problem that all these issues will be addressed.
The proposals that are being submitted by Mr. Akinci and Mr. Nami cannot be accepted, however they will constantly gain ground amongst the international community with the Cyprus problem unresolved. We must understand this. Under no circumstances can these proposals be accepted by our side. There is the Republic of Cyprus, it has sovereign rights, it must exercise them, no one recognizes the illegal pseudo-state and we should all focus our efforts on the solution of the Cyprus problem.
If we continue on this path (being pursued), the pressure will increase on us to accept unreasonable demands such as those put forth by Mr. Akinci and Mr. Nami and at the same time Turkey will prevent us from utilizing our natural wealth, with actions such as those taking place in our EEZ. If we do not understand this and if we believe we will inflict political cost on Turkey by pompous actions and behaviour, I think we will have negative developments. I know that what I’m saying staggers. I know the people at this moment feel angry and indignant about Turkey’s stand and want to react strongly, but I want to reiterate that in political life and struggle you don’t react with the anger and indignation; you react with logic and wisdom in my opinion that leads to the conclusions I have noted.
Reports say you were particularly severe (in your criticism) during the meeting of the Council of Political Leaders…
AK: Not at all. I was very calm, very composed and expressed my views. If my views annoy, then that’s quite another matter.
Did you table views regarding this context which you mentioned here too?
AK: What I’m expressing now are AKEL’s positions.
How far do you believe Turkey’s escalation of the tension can go?
AK: You know I have heard with surprise certain forces and circles say that we didn’t expect this reaction from Turkey and that it was an exaggerated reaction. I consider that Turkey has recently given samples of how it reacts.
For AKEL, Turkey’s reaction was to be expected. It was only a matter of time when all these things would happen. That is why I cannot put a limit on how the Turkish side will react. And I am not scaremongering. One should be prepared for all possibilities.
I repeat that the best way to get out of this situation is to make behind the scenes efforts so that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots understand that they will not succeed in their blackmailing methods and that the only way for the Turkish Cypriot community to attain its rights is with the solution to the Cyprus problem.
“The Akinci I knew would have insisted on the solution”
What are your comments on the fact that this line of provocations and tension is adopted by the Turkish Cypriot side?
AK: It’s regrettable because Mr. Akinci agrees to approach the issues in this way. He himself says he is disappointed in the Greek Cypriot side’s attitude in Crans Montana, and that is why he is obliged to behave like this. I cannot accept this argument from Mr. Akinci’s side. I repeat that Mr. Akinci, whom I personally knew many years ago, would be insisting now as well that the first priority must be the solution to the Cyprus problem and that the solution to the Cyprus problem will give a solution to all the other problems as well.
Besides, there are the two convergences agreed between Christofias and Talat. One convergence is the one on natural resources that sets out that the Turkish Cypriots will participate in the management of natural wealth by participating in the central government and secondly there is the convergence on the sharing of the revenues clarifying what the revenues of each constituent entity will be from the natural wealth we have and not only that.
“I have talked with some of the leaders of Turkish Cypriot parties”
Have you had any contacts with Turkish Cypriot politicians?
AK: Within the context of the anniversary event that the Turkish Cypriot newspaper “Havantis” held last week, I had the opportunity to talk for a while with some party leaders, with Tufan Ehrhuman (leader of the Republican Turkish Party CTP), Cemal Özyiğit (leader of the Communal Democracy Party TDP) and the new President of the so-called Parliament Teberuken Uluzay. Furthermore, we have stated that we shall try to have meetings to see how we intervene in all these negative developments.
Many accuse you that the wording you use in your criticism of the government, is the same as the one the Turkish Cypriot community is using…
AK: I think that I have just now proven that it isn’t the same. I have strongly criticized the Turkish Cypriot community as well for the irrational demands it is putting forward. But you know, this approach doesn’t lead us anywhere. AKEL has long-standing principled views and supports them. End of story.
I also want to say the following because I see various things being written. When Ezekias Papaioannou was the General Secretary of AKEL and expressing these views – because the views that were being expressed by Ezekias Papaioannou are similar to those being expressed today as well by AKEL – the war that was waged against it was similar to the one being conducted against the leadership of AKEL today. Today certain circles and forces are trying to present it as different, and that if Ezekias were alive he would be expressing different views, but if they study what he was actually saying, they would conclude that he was saying exactly the same views.
“The stand of the intermediate spectrum was in contradiction with everything they were declaring”
What do you think was to blame and Stavros Malas didn’t win the elections?
AK: I think that from the moment we didn’t manage to forge cooperations it was to be expected that we would have difficulties in fulfilling our goal of winning the presidential election. Unfortunately, the stand adopted by the parties in the so-called intermediate political spectrum in the second round of the presidential election was in contradiction with what was being proclaimed by it during the whole of the election campaign. That is, their declared goal was to remove Anastasiades from the Presidency. I think that this was key to the electoral outcome.
There was also a confrontation on this specific issue immediately after the elections with the President of the Social democratic party EDEK. Mr. Sizopoulos essentially accused you of wanting to lose the elections and then trying to put the blame on the parties of the intermediate spectrum.
AK: We hear this fairytale from time to time by all those forces that either indirectly or directly support Anastasiades and even accuse us that we elected Anastasiades.
I have said many times that we didn’t vote for Anastasiades, nor will we ever vote for Anastasiades, neither for any other representative of DISY. Those forces and circles who either directly or indirectly contribute to the election of DISY’s candidate, let them assume their responsibilities.
From there onwards, I have said it many times, I will say it now as well. Developments must be approached by logic, not by slogans.
Many people say that with the candidacy of Stavros Mala, but also his success in the first round, saved AKEL’s lot in general and in particular that you as a leadership “saved your heads”. How do you have to say?
AK: Everyone can say what he/she wants. We aren’t going to impose fines on anyone’s statements.
Did you decide how your cooperation with Stavros Mala will continue?
AK: We have exchanged some views. We will consider the issues as they evolve.
What will the day after the presidential elections be for AKEL? Are you going to make your own “perestroika”? Will you make some changes as to how your Party functions?
AK: We aren’t complacent. We have exchanged some initial thoughts in the Political Bureau of the Party. We have prepared the documents on the assessment of the elections, but above all exchanged views on how we will proceed further. All of these matters will be discussed in the period ahead of us in the Party’s bodies, culminating in the debate in the plenary of the Central Committee.
We will not be complacent. Our intention is to discuss now more specifically and in a specialized way, many issues that are open for us, whether they concern our relationship with society, namely how we broaden our influence in society, whether they concern the Party itself and how it is strengthened so that it can play its role more effectively, whether they concern the elaboration of policy.
All these issues will concern us very seriously, and of course the first thing we will attempt to do is to conduct a study on the structure of Cypriot society in order to know which people we are addressing.
How will this study be utilized?
AK: It will be used for the formulation of political positions/policies and possibly for openings too that should be made towards society, etc.
You recently stated that you will not seek re-election to the position of General Secretary of AKEL. Have you also thought about how you will subsequently be active afterwards?
AK: There is a Party statutory provision stating that at 65 we have to retire (form the full-time mechanism). I will not be exactly 65 years old at the next Congress, but I think there are numerous cadres in AKEL who could competently function as the new General Secretary of the Party. We shall discuss these issues collectively when the time comes. As far as I am personally concerned, I haven’t thought about it. I will be an active citizen and if the Party wants to utilize my services I will then be at its disposal.
Does the issue of your successor concern you?
-Definitely not. What I want to make absolutely clear is that we shall discuss these issues in a comradely and collective way, and decisions will be taken.
Will the Katsourides issue be discussed eventually and when?
AK: I had stated in the pre-election period that it will be definitely be discussed. It hasn’t been specified when. The next plenary session of the Central Committee to be held in early March will deal with the assessment of the election results. So it will probably be discussed after the next C.C. plenary.