“The President should be ready to face the heaviest historical responsibilities of himself and his party for their policies that lead to rapid steps towards final division,” said the AKEL Politburo, which met yesterday, Friday, in the light of developments in the Cyprus issue and President Anastasiadis' proposal for a return to the 1960 Constitution. its policy on the Cyprus issue “.
As is the announcement of the General Secretary of AKEL:
The Politburo of K.E. of AKEL during yesterday's Session discussed, among other things, the developments in the Cyprus issue focusing on the recent actions and statements of the President of the Republic, including regarding the filing of the 5th transnational appeal to the ECtHR and return to the 1960 Constitution. Mr. Anastasiadis, two main issues arise. First, how these decisions and actions serve the declared goal of the Greek Cypriot side for the resumption of negotiations from the point they had left in Crans Montana as soon as possible. And secondly, whether the President finally intends to take substantial initiatives in this direction or will continue to be content with actions and announcements for internal consumption that neither bring substantial costs to Turkey nor relieve us of the dual status quo and occupation.
The intention of the government to proceed with a 5th Transnational lawsuit against Turkey before the ECtHR has been announced that it will have as its sole object the illegal actions of Turkey in the enclosed area of Famagusta. AKEL's principle position is that every benevolent state must demand and claim full respect for its rights under international law, including those enshrined in international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
In our view, such serious actions must be taken in such a way as to ensure an increased chance of success and to put real pressure on the occupying power, to serve the goal of the overall solution and not to be undertaken in the service of micropolitical needs. It is the responsibility of the government to assess the chances of success of the project and to act with due responsibility.
The data we have before us is specific. The ECtHR only deals with violations of rights protected by the ECHR and not violations of UN Security Council resolutions. The property rights of the rightful owners and their continuous violations by Turkey were part of the positive decision for the Republic of Cyprus of the ECtHR in the 4th Transnational. Despite the weighty political significance of this decision, it has become clear that the legal means alone do not relieve us of the occupation nor do they force Turkey to end the creation of new dichotomies.
In addition, the case law of the ECtHR itself and in particular the Dimopoulos decision make the content of the decision in such an appeal uncertain. Especially since the declassification of part of the enclosed area from a military to an urban area by the Turkish side was accompanied by a call to the rightful owners to contact the so-called real estate committee. Which the ECtHR recognizes as a satisfactory remedy, regardless of which treatment will be given to the rightful owners (restoration, compensation, exchange) or under which administration they will return.
Regarding the President's commitment to seek a return to the Zurich Constitution with the infinitely beautiful claim that it is in line with the Security Council Resolutions, the High Level Agreements and the convergences, we note that no previous President of the Republic of Cyprus has ever done so. The reason is very simple. The identification with the positions of the most extreme political forces certainly does not lead to a single state but to a final division, a fact that meets the aspirations of Turkey. And because the government spokesman accused AKEL of pressuring the President for allegedly unacceptable concessions, we must point to the self-evident. The final retreat to the Cyprus issue is nothing but a compromise with the idea of final division, whether it is explicitly submitted or under the guise of patriotism.
Regarding the claim of the government representative that AKEL is allegedly asking for further concessions on the Cyprus issue, we call on him to read AKEL's proposal more carefully, which only does to offer a way out and create momentum for the resumption of negotiations in the way requested by Secretary-General of the United Nations. What AKEL suggests to be given to the Turkish Cypriots in the form of incentives to agree to a return to the Guterres Framework sets as a precondition the previous adoption of the Framework as a strategic understanding. As for the incentives towards Turkey, these are given only after the Cyprus issue has been resolved. None of what AKEL suggests violates the red lines of the Greek Cypriot side. After all, it is not AKEL that proposed to Turkey to be limited to drilling in the northern part of our EEZ. Nor is it AKEL that proposed to give revenues from natural gas to the Turkish Cypriots even before the solution of the Cyprus problem. Nor is AKEL sharing with many, including the Archbishop, its idea for a two-state solution.
The President's position that he will insist on a return to the 1960 Constitution is self-evidently in direct conflict with the Security Council Resolutions, the High Level Agreements and the convergences, with all the ensuing catastrophic consequences. How much devaluation of common sense is needed to make such a claim when the 1960 Constitution provides for a single state while the High Level Agreements, resolutions and convergences for a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. We find it useful to remind the President that the 1960 Constitution provides for a veto on the executive as well as separate majorities in Parliament, without any deadlock mechanism. In addition, the Guarantee Treaty is included in the 1960 Constitution. All of this had been dealt with effectively through the Convergences, the Guterres Framework and the mechanism for implementing the solution as proposed by the Secretary-General.
The latest announcements and actions of President Anastasiadis reveal his inability to manage the consequences of his failed policy on the Cyprus issue. Every policy is judged by its results and not through communication declarations. The barren passage of time in the last four years has led the Cyprus issue to an unprecedented quagmire with very negative developments on the ground. What has happened in the EEZ of the Republic of Cyprus, what is happening in Famagusta and the dangerous slips that are being wheeled in terms of the content of the solution are irrefutable presumptions of a very dangerous path towards the final division. It is the duty of the President of the Republic, even now, to stop engaging in movements whose sole purpose is to satisfy party audiences, to abandon experimentation, to stop questioning the agreed basis of solution and capitalist convergences, and to take convincing initiatives that the credibility of the Greek Cypriot side.
This, after all, is the background of the comprehensive political proposal submitted to AKEL in a timely manner. If it adopts even its spirit, either Turkey will be forced to return to the negotiations from where we left off, or it will be blamed solely for the impasse, which is anything but happening today. If, however, the President insists on governing in the same way, he must be prepared to face the heaviest historical responsibilities of himself and his party for their policies that are rapidly leading to final division.
