A discussion with Stavri Kalopsidiotou of the Cyprus Problem Office of the C.C. of AKEL, on developments surrounding the negotiation procedure and the possibility of an overall solution of the Cyprus problem.
●”Only the resumption of substantive negotiations and the opening of the prospect for a solution can confront effectively the fast-track creation of partitionist fait accompli”
Q: How do you assess Erdogan’s moves on Varosha, in terms of their significance, on the course of the Cyprus problem?
SK: The era of illusions on the Cyprus problem – for those who were cultivating them – has passed irretrievably. As has become clear, the Turkish announcements made in the past about a partial “opening” of the enclosed region of Famagusta were anything but some trick serving communication purposes. On the contrary, the declassification from a military to an urban zone of part of the area in question for the return of properties of former lawful inhabitants and beneficiaries leads to the complete nullification of UN Security Council resolutions 550 (1984) and 789 (1992), which call for the return of the lawful residents under the provisional administration of the United Nations.
These moves represent another step in altering the situation on the ground and as such serves to consolidate the de facto partition of the island. It is given that even if the rightful owners acquire and exercise the possibility of returning to their properties, this will be done under an occupation regime.
The Turkish plans in effect nullify the settlement of the territorial issue and contradict the 30 June 2017 Framework of the Secretary General of the UN. In other words, they undermine important aspects of the content of the solution and severely damage the prospect of the resumption of any negotiation procedure and the overall solution of the Cyprus problem.
Q: Is Turkey creating new irreversible facts as to its position on Cyprus – two states solution etc – or is it part of, on a second level, a further strengthening of its negotiating position?
SK: No one can make safe predictions about Turkish intentions. The absence of negotiations over the last four years, together with the UN Secretary General’s exoneration of Turkey for the collapse of the Crans Montana procedure, has been exploited by Turkey. The culmination of Turkish audacity is its turn towards the two state “solution”.
At the same time, we are witnessing an initiative which is developing on the part of various third parties whose main characteristic records a shift towards the unacceptable Turkish positions under the pretext of bridging the gap.
Under the current circumstances and regardless of what Turkey is aspiring to, we do not have a plethora of options. We must proceed to take convincing initiatives to test the possibility of a resumption of the negotiations from where they had remained in 2017, that is to say on the basis of the agreed framework of the solution, with full respect for the convergences recorded and the Guterres Framework. There is no other option. There is no intermediate solution between one and two states.
Q: Are there any moves on the part of the Republic of Cyprus AKEL would propose that could change the unfavorable climate and respond in a convincing manner to the question of trust raised by the Turkish President?
SK: Only the resumption of substantive negotiations and the opening of a prospect for a solution can confront effectively the escalating creation of partitionist fait accompli. The leadership of the Greek Cypriot side must seek a change in the terms of the game so that if the procedure cannot be resumed from where it had remained at Crans Montana, then Turkey should be exposed as the sole culprit for the deadlock.
To make what we are saying clearer, I will refer to what a continuation of the procedure means specifically for Varosha. At the Geneva conference in January 2017, the Turkish Cypriot side presented a territorial map that returned the enclosed town and many other occupied areas under Greek Cypriot administration. After the collapse of Crans Montana, and after the Greek Cypriot side had previously withdrawn significant convergences, the Turkish Cypriot side withdrew the map on territory. It goes without saying that if the talks resume from this point, the Turkish Cypriot side will bring back the map and end the illegal machinations in the enclosed city.
Last December AKEL submitted to Mr. Anastasiades a comprehensive proposal on what should be done – a proposal which is in line with recommendations we saw outlined in the recent Report tabled by the Secretary General. We underlined the importance of the Greek Cypriot side demonstrating its full and unwavering commitment to the convergences registered up to the collapse of the Crans Montana Conference and of negotiating only the pending issues of the Guterres Framework.
In addition, AKEL pointed out to the President of the Republic that in order to effectively counter the Turkish position for sovereign equality, promoted on the pretext that the Greek Cypriots do not respect the political equality of the Turkish Cypriots, and to counter various “new ideas” of foreign actors that are dangerously close to the Turkish positions, the President must explicitly reaffirm the convergence for a single positive vote on all decisions of the Council of Ministers. At the same time, we proposed the utilization of natural gas as an incentive for the solution, not without preconditions, to the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey. Unfortunately, so far we have not been listened to.
Q: Both the Republic of Cyprus and Greece have been engaged in a marathon of diplomatic contacts currently. How effective do you consider these contacts to be?
SK: As these lines are being written, efforts are underway for the UN Security Council to adopt a strong and condemnatory Presidential Statement with regards the violation of Resolutions 550 (1984) and 789 (1992). Various countries have already issued statements, the intensity of which ranges from lukewarm to quite severe. Apart from Mr. Borel’s statements, the EU has so far decided not to convene an extraordinary EU session, a development that would be commensurate with the seriousness of the Turkish illegal actions.
If the international community really wants a solution to the Cyprus problem, it cannot overlook the Turkish announcements, let alone that, beyond whatever statements, there is always the possibility of measures being taken that should seek to prevent their implementation. Based on its own decisions and the implementation of international law, the international community must react immediately, decisively and effectively – in this direction.
We as AKEL are also conducting numerous contacts. Having said that, we are fully aware that whatever measures are decided today, what must succeed in the medium term to counter Turkish partitionist machinations and to finally rid ourselves of the occupation is the effort to resume substantive negotiations.
Q: The criticism made (especially by the Cypriot left) of the President of the Republic of Cyprus regarding the abandonment of the Geneva talks, the inaction of the years that followed, not utilizing the presence of Mustafa Akinci in the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community, the fact that President Anastasiades even flirted with the idea of a two states solution, is well known. Did all these contribute to the current impasse?
SK: Every policy is judged by its end result. For approximately four years, addressing Mr. Anastasiades and the ruling DISY party, AKEL was issuing warnings that the worst fait accompli on the Cyprus problem take place during periods where there is an absence in negotiations. Based on the history of the Cyprus problem, we warned of the dangers stemming from certain choices made by the President. For a long time he had been indulging in questioning important convergences that had been recorded, a stance he has not abandoned even today. The President’s own attempt to change important agreements such as with regards the political/government system, the single positive vote in the Council of Ministers and the federal competences was fully exploited by the Turkish side to make new unacceptable demands of its own.
At the same time, the Turkish side has not halted its efforts to consolidate partition on the ground. The result of the policy followed is what we all see before us today. That is to say, provocative actions and the questioning of the sovereign rights in the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus, a formal shift towards a two state solution in Geneva and the acceleration of the machinations for the colonalisation of Varosha. Worse of all, while all this is happening, the Secretary General of the UN still does not assign responsibility for the negotiating deadlock solely on the Turkish side.
Q: The mass media did not cover at all the strong reactions of the Turkish Cypriot community and especially of the left-wing parties.
SK: It would indeed be unfair if no specific references were made to the stand taken by the Turkish Cypriots. The reaction of the progressive forces in the Turkish Cypriot community against Tatar and in favour of the solution of federation is manifesting itself on a daily basis, both through participation in bicommunal events and through joint declarations issued with Greek Cypriot organisations and, of course, with AKEL. Particularly important was the mass mobilisation organised last April in the run-up to the Geneva conference. And of course, no one can underestimate the gravity of the refusal by the Left parties to attend the so-called ‘parliament’ in the presence of the Turkish President there.
The era of illusions on the Cyprus problem has passed irreversibly
