The Cyprus problem

AKEL General Secretary replies to journalists’ questions on the Cyprus problem
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 11 December 2018, Nicosia
You had a meeting with the Ambassador of the Russian Federation in Cyprus, in the wake of the positions expressed by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova concerning the militarization of Cyprus. What emerges from this issue?
AK: Let me first say that yesterday I saw the United States Ambassador, and once again we didn’t make any statements together, as was the case also today with the Ambassador of the Russian Federation Stanislav Osadchiy. Our meeting was focused more on developments surrounding the Cyprus problem and the forthcoming visit by the Russian Federation Deputy Foreign Minister to Cyprus. Of course, you understand that we also exchanged views on the issue that has arisen, but I have nothing more to say on this matter.
On the domestic front, in the midst an exchange of attacks in relation to the allegations on the Cyprus problem, such as the President’s claim of some circles supporting “any solution”. We would like to know your position about what we have been hearing over the last few days.
AK: AKEL doesn’t engage in exchanging shots. We put forward arguments. It seems that for certain circles and forces, words have lost their meaning. Mr. Anastasiades, who is flirting for some time with the idea of two states and with the idea of confederation, is trying to accuse AKEL of supporting “any solution”.
As they have allowed this accusation to be lingering from time to time against AKEL, I provoked him (about this issue) during the recent session of the National Council, “I want you to tell me when AKEL called on you to make concessions on the Cyprus problem”. His reply was that “But I never said any such thing…”. This was his reply in the National Council.
Now, because he is in a tight corner and given that he doesn’t know how to deal with the whole situation as it has evolved, he said exactly the opposite in public. His misfortune is that what he said has been recorded in the minutes of the National Council with regards to what he actually said. And I sincerely regret that because the President of the Republic, the most important institution in Cyprus, accepts to behave in such a way. I truly regret it.
With regards the suspension of AKEL’s participation, but also of other members as well (in the support groups set up by the President for the talks), how do you see the situation evolving? When will you be able to come back to the negotiating team?
AK: First of all, let’s make it quite clear that we are not concerned with the participation or suspension of the participation of anyone else. I’ll point out that, to my knowledge, Mr. Markides (Note: former Attorney General and leading official of DISY) hasn’t participated in the meetings of the negotiating team for over two years.
As far as AKEL is concerned, I expected that both the Presidential Palace, but also all the others would welcome the consistent stand that we have taken. Since we disagree first and foremost with the goal that Mr. Anastasiades has set out in recent times in relation to the solution. I repeat that we have a well-founded suspicion that he wants to abandon the solution of Bi-Zonal, Bi-communal Federation; suspicions that are based on concrete facts.
The Deputy Chairman of the “Citizens Alliance” party said that between the first and second round of the 2018 presidential elections, Mr. Anastasiades told them that he wanted to abandon the solution of federation and seek a solution that would have elements of both a two-state solution and confederation. The President didn’t feel the need to reply to this assertion. The Government Spokesman Prodromos Prodromou said that it is a fact that the President in discussions with foreign diplomats, leaders of foreign states, told them that “Turkey wants a two-state solution – what do you think?” If one disagrees with the two-state solution, when such issues arise, one reacts strongly and says “I will never accept such a solution”. You don’t pose the question “What you think about this issue?”
Furthermore, there are numerous other incidents that confirm our concerns about Mr. Anastasiades’ reorientation. It is, of course, also the more general rhetoric he is expressing.
It would be to say the least paradoxical from the moment we disagree with the sought goal for us to be participating in the negotiating team. If and provided that we conclude beyond any doubt, that is to say, if Mr. Anastasiades convinces us that after all these regressions he returns to the solution of Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation with consistency and focused on working hard to seek such a solution on that basis, then AKEL will be there and will support the effort as it had supported it in the past to its political cost.
One might say that you are jumping the gun. Mr. Anastasiades, whenever he has been asked about this issue, says that he adheres to the UN resolutions and also invokes Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation. And as another effort is underway that has not finally been formulated, with the attempt by the UN Secretary- General’s Special envoy on Cyprus Mrs. Lute’s to shape the terms of reference, for the resumption of the dialogue, maybe it was a bit hasty for AKEL to be absent as of now from whatever consultations are being made on the Greek Cypriot side?
AK: Everyone has the right to judge, to assess and evaluate as he/she views certain issues. You say that AKEL is jumping the gun. We say that Mr. Anastasiades at critical and decisive moments, and while there was a big confrontation here in Cyprus about what solution we are seeking, speaking at the General Assembly of the United Nations the President of the Republic did not make a single reference to the solution of Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation. When pressure was put on him and AKEL strongly criticized him, and while in two or three cases he did speak, he didn’t make any reference to the solution of a bizonal, bicommunal federation, he began to refer to it. We are not convinced by rhetorical positions. What we are therefore interested is where the actions that each of us makes leads to.
I will ask you objectively and you can talk as unbiasedly as you can. Is the rhetoric used by Anastasiades over these past few months the same as two years ago? If two years ago someone told him what Mr. Anastasiades is saying today, he would have replied angrily and explained to him/her why these positions are unacceptable and that we must remain committed to the solution of federation and that there is no other option. Today he has adopted rhetoric that Anastasiades was once accusing others of.
The question is: why is he doing it? First of all, as you describe it, it means that he is deceiving the people.
AK: One can draw the conclusions one wants. I’m stating our own assessment and evaluation. And believe me we haven’t arrived at these conclusions without deep thought and reflection.
Let me tell you this. When Mr. Hasikos (Note: former Interior Minister of Anastasiades) comes out in public – one of Mr. Anastasiades’ closest associates, Mr. Hasikos isn’t any chance person – and says at an event organized by the governing DISY party that “we must also clarify as the Presidential Palace and as a Party what we want with regards the solution to the Cyprus problem”; when this reference made by Mr. Hasikos is tweeted by DISY leader Mr. Neophytou and subsequently transmits it to the whole of Cyprus, isn’t everyone therefore entitled to draw conclusions about what is actually going on?
From there onwards, I repeat you are all entitled to have your own views. Leave and permit us, to have our own evaluations which I reiterate are based on a lot of other information and facts as well that we know.
As to the question why the President is doing this?
AK: Why is Mr. Anastasiades doing it? Why don’t you ask him? I could say a lot of things to you. I don’t think I need to say so. You should ask the President himself.
Do you want to give some clarification about what was said or what was not said with Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Cavusoglou?
AK: I informed Mr. Anastasiades about the specific reference I made in New York. I informed him in the private meeting we had. From there onwards, if Mr. Anastasiades doesn’t remember, I repeat, I cannot help him. I had briefed him. And proof of this is the fact that the government was forced to close the matter after my own intervention.
Did your meeting with Mr. Cavusoglou reinforce your concerns about how the Presidential Palace views the period ahead?
AK: There is sufficient evidence here in Cyprus. We do not have to look for any other information from abroad to make our own assessment of where the President was going or where the President has tried to lead developments to. If only the President of the Republic were to realise that the choices he made were a dead-end. If only he understood this, to understand that the only real option for Cyprus to be reunited and liberated on the basis of the agreed Framework is through bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and then it will be apparent who the patriots are and who are the opportunists.
As I see various articles being written, I will say that a patriot is the person who is struggling to liberate and reunite his/her country. The patriot is not the one who wants to divide it or to turn it into a confederation. The latter isn’t a reference to Mr. Anastasiades.
There is a clear difference in you having your information from somewhere else with whether this information has been enforced by the occupying power itself. Now you’re telling us that he tried to, so he promoted, he didn’t only think about it. Is that what you mean?
AK: I think I was quite clear. But I repeat that no matter how many times you may ask me about face-to-face discussions I had with some people, I will not reveal what we discussed in private because it is a matter of credibility and confidentiality.
I repeat that all the information that AKEL has from Cyprus is sufficient to arrive at safe conclusions. Yes, Mr. Anastasiades flirted with ideas outside of the agreed Framework and I say if only he abandons them and returns to the correct basis and then everyone will show who he/she is.
I repeat that we have demonstrated how patriotic AKEL is. When negotiations began in April 2014, AKEL said it was ready to make its own contribution. And despite the stand taken previously by Mr. Anastasiades and DISY party against Demetris Christofias, AKEL selflessly backed the negotiation procedure. AKEL paid a political cost during that period. For us the principal duty was to serve the interests of Cyprus and the Cypriot people, regardless of the political cost. So those forces and circles who put their own petty interests over and above our country’s interest shouldn’t try to deliver any lessons to us. We place our homeland above everything else.
Will you meet Mr. Anastasiades after your visit to New York?
AK: No, I do not think it is necessary. Mr. Anastasiades has systematic contacts with everyone in New York, I do not think I need to tell him what their views are and what is being discussed.