By Andros Kyprianou
- Former Secretary-General of AKEL
In politics, one must not be satisfied with what a politician says but must delve deeper into his deeds and actions to judge whether his words are consistent with his actions.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
The Cyprus issue is the most significant problem facing the country and its people, even if not everyone views it as such. Actions taken in recent years have brought us to the brink of partition, which would be catastrophic if it were to occur.
N. Christodoulides assumed the presidency three and a half years ago. In the early stages, he faced off against Tatar, known for his complete alignment with Turkey and his unacceptable stance on a two-state solution. One could justifiably say that it was extremely difficult to restart talks. Nevertheless, Mr. Christodoulides repeatedly emphasized that he was ready to resume negotiations from the point where they had left off at Crans-Montana.
Is it possible that he did not realize that this was impossible given Turkey and the Tatars’ unacceptable demand for two states? Is it possible that he did not realize that this very unacceptable demand was the main obstacle?
Although this had been the main obstacle for three and a half years, Mr. Christodoulides did not seek to find a way to move them away from their unacceptable position. He merely repeated his readiness to participate in a five-party meeting that would lead to the resumption of talks. Was he speaking from a position of safety, knowing that they would not budge from their unacceptable position?
At the same time, low-level confidence-building measures—which had been agreed upon in the presence of the UN Secretary-General—failed to be implemented. On the contrary, the actions and conduct of the President and his government perpetuated and further exacerbated the lack of trust between the two communities.
The continuation of the negative stance on the Turkish side was to be expected, since its goal was to consolidate the status quo. But how should we, who say we want a solution and reunification, behave? As I mentioned above, we needed to develop ideas that would dissuade Turkey from its unacceptable demand for a two-state solution.
When T. Erhurman rose to leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community, a new dynamic and new expectations emerged. Unfortunately, these, too, were dashed early on. Mr. Christodoulides’ rhetoric remained positive; in substance, however, he continued to act in a manner that satisfied the parties and voters who supported him. ELAM, DIKO, and EDEK—parties that either oppose the agreed-upon framework for a solution or advocate a “hard line” on the Cyprus issue.
In fact, to enhance his image of “readiness” for a solution, shortly before the UN Secretary-General’s term ended, he called on him—as he himself said—to take the initiative to restart the talks. Mr. Guterres came to Cyprus, spoke with the leaders, steps were decided upon that needed to be taken to move toward a five-party meeting, and… we’re moving at a snail’s pace. This forced the UN Secretary-General to rule out the possibility of a trilateral or five-party conference. At the same time, the President says that a week or so would be enough for him to resolve the Cyprus issue with Mr. Erhurman. To which the Turkish Cypriot leader replied that, by acting in this way, he is not only failing to facilitate but is actually making it more difficult to resume the talks.
By saying this, I am not “exonerating” T. Erhurman. On the contrary, I believe that his own stance is not at all helpful in restarting the talks. Whether because Turkey is making things difficult for him or for any other reason, the fact remains. And he bears a great deal of responsibility.
I therefore believe that Mr. Christodoulides must be told that problems are not solved with words alone. They are resolved through very specific actions aimed at overcoming the difficulties at the heart of the problem. Unfortunately, he has failed to do so during his time in office.
P.S.: Since it is said that the President must be supported by everyone during this “difficult” phase of the Cyprus issue, I want to clarify two things. First, I do not believe we are facing critical developments. On the contrary, given the way things are being handled, we will remain in a prolonged state of stagnation. Second, you support someone when you believe they are acting in a way that serves your country’s interests. If you believe the opposite, you cannot support them.
