Opening Statement by the President of the Republic, Mr Demetris Christofias, at the Press Conference οn the Completion of Two Years of Administration
Cyprus problem
I welcome you to this Press Conference concerning the Cyprus problem, its developments and the efforts to reach a solution.
The efforts for the solution to the Cyprus problem were initiated by us with the implementation of all that was envisaged in the 8 July 2006 Agreement, with the setting up of Working Groups and Technical Committees to discuss the substantial aspects of the Cyprus problem as well as the confidence building measures.
Through this procedure we prepared the ground with Mr Talat and, with the agreement of the majority of the members of the National Council, we decided to proceed to direct negotiations.
An important element of the whole preparation was the broadening of the basis of the solution, which is a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality as described in the relevant Resolutions of the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation. For one state with one and only sovereignty, one nationality and one international personality.
It was agreed that the negotiations will end in a mutually accepted agreement, which will be put to the two communities for approval in simultaneous and separate referenda. We have convinced the international community that the ownership of the procedure is Cypriot and in this way we have excluded the possibility of imposing artificial timetables and arbitration as well as the imposing of outside plans.
We have agreed with the UN Secretary General that the UN role, under the auspices of which these negotiations are taking place, will be that of a facilitator. This was ratified by the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation.
The solution of a bizonal, bicommunal federation is the painful compromise which was made by our side in order to end the occupation and prevent the permanent partition of our country. This solution has constituted the strategic goal of the Greek Cypriot community since 1977, when Archbishop Makarios signed the High Level Agreement with Rauf Denktash. This commitment of ours was reaffirmed in the 1979 High Level Agreement, by the President at the time Spyros Kyprianou and Rauf Denktash, as well as in the 8 July 2006 Agreement, which was concluded by the late President Tassos Papadopoulos and Mr. Talat. It was also reaffirmed in both declarations issued jointly with Mr. Talat on May 23rd and July 1st 2008. A solution on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation continues to constitute our strategic goal, and this fact is reaffirmed in the unanimous statement of the National Council in September 2009.
Since 1975, when the effort to find a solution commenced, the procedure of the bicommunal dialogue under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General has been followed. Since then, all Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus, as negotiators of the Greek Cypriot side, have followed this procedure.
I would like to point out that both the strategic goal of the bizonal, bicommunal federation and the intercommunal dialogue, as method for the solution of the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem, have been adopted in various Resolutions of the United Nations Organization.
It is for this reason that we are surprised to hear statements to the effect that we ought to alter our strategy. Does this mean abandoning our side’s commitment to a bizonal, bicommunal federation? Such an eventuality would be a disastrous mistake and would constitute the greatest gift for Turkey. It would be equally wrong for us to abandon the intercommunal dialogue because - as some people claim - it downgrades the Cyprus problem from a problem of invasion and occupation to an intercommunal one. We will continue the negotiations always bound by the principle that “nothing is considered to be agreed unless everything has been agreed”.
The Cyprus problem is an international one, a problem of invasion, occupation and colonization. Turkey’s responsibility is clear and recorded. Our policy as well as the intense and targeted international campaign which we follow in close co-operation and co-ordination with Greece, apart from making good use of the possibilities stemming from the EU and from the collective action taken by the Permanent Members of the Security Council, continually highlights Turkey’s violation in Cyprus of international law and of the UN Charter. It highlights the need for the international community to move in the direction of Turkey in order to convince her to alter her negative stance. With this opportunity I would like to say that during these two years we have traveled abroad 48 times. The main issue of our trips was, of course, the Cyprus problem as well as, in many occasions, our bilateral relations with the states we visit.
The Conclusions of the European Council last December as well as the powerful Resolution of the European Parliament point out Turkey’s responsibilities, calling upon her to take action towards a solution of the Cyprus problem based on the UN Resolutions. These two examples are sufficiently cogent as regards the efficiency of our policy in the international arena. Turkey has not been absolved of blame and she cannot apply her communication strategy unhampered. Turkey finds the Cyprus problem constantly in her way, particularly in her accession process. This is repeatedly admitted by Turkish officials at the highest level.
Of course, we do not ignore nor underestimate the communication policy developed by Turkey. That would be a huge mistake. We analyze and evaluate the statements made by the Turkish side as well as the actions it undertakes.
It is with satisfaction that we have heard the recent statements made by Turkey’s Prime Minister, Mr Erdogan, for the acceptance of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. If this statement does not form part of a communications game on Turkey’s side then, with the hope that the negotiations will continue on the basis agreed with Mr Talat, I consider that a perspective for the solution of the Cyprus problem will shortly open up.
However, if it is ascertained that statements like this one form part of a communications game, then it will become obvious that, unfortunately, Turkey at the moment does not include in her agenda the Cyprus problem as a priority and that she is merely striving to win points by blaming the Greek Cypriot side for the lack of a solution. In any case the proposals submitted by Mr. Talat, in absolute agreement with Ankara, before the start of the intensive negotiations do not constitute a positive message.
Moreover, the Turkish leadership makes statements on convening a four or five or six party international conference on the Cyprus question. On our part we propose an international conference with the participation of the Permanent Members of the Security Council of the UNO, the European Union, Greece, Turkey, the Republic of Cyprus and representatives of the two communities.
The objective of this conference would be to discuss and resolve the international aspects of the Cyprus problem related to the illegal presence of 40.000 occupation troops, the presence of tens of thousands of settlers, the guarantees and the issue of security in general. If Mr. Erdogan’s statements on an international conference are not made in order to create a certain impression, let him take a positive stance towards our proposal. Besides, it is not a proposal put forward by us now but it is one of the past and I wish to renew this proposal by giving an answer to the statement made by Mr Erdogan concerning the convening of an international conference. What is the difference? The difference is that we place at the centre of such a conference the Republic of Cyprus as a state entity, as a state but, at the same time, the Cyprus problem does not escape the framework set by the UN Organisation neither directly nor indirectly.
The most effective way to confront Turkey’s communication policy is to continue our sincere and consistent efforts to reach a solution the soonest possible. We feel the urgency for a solution. With our constructive proposals and our overall conduct in the negotiations we have proved, through actions, that we mean what we say when we declare that we want a solution as soon as possible. Because we know only too well that as time passes by the solution to the Cyprus problem becomes all the more difficult.
With our initiatives we have managed to upgrade internationally the credibility of the Greek Cypriot side. It is clear that the international community credits us with honesty and goodwill for a solution.
We stress once again that we are not seeking to create problems for Turkey through the Cyprus problem. The problems Turkey is facing have been created by Turkey herself, through her political actions and her stance. It is up to her to take the right decisions and act as indicated by a number of UN resolutions and EU decisions. It is essential that Turkey make moves in the direction of fulfilling her obligations towards the EU regarding Cyprus and the Cyprus problem.
Developments in the negotiations
Until the commencement of the intensive negotiations, there had been 68 meetings between the leaders of the two communities either tete-a-tete or together with their negotiation teams. All the aspects of the Cyprus question were discussed in these meetings. It is not right to say that during all this time we have only discussed the issue of governance and power-sharing.
In particular:
Governance and power-sharing were discussed in 20 meetings. The property issue was discussed in 18 meetings. The chapter of citizenship, immigration and aliens, focusing in effect on the issue of settlers, was discussed in seven meetings. In another seven meetings we have dealt with the economy, in six other meetings the issue of territory was discussed, in three others the relations with the EU and security/guarantees were discussed and in four other meetings various other issues were discussed.
The objective is, once all the aspects have been discussed and convergence has been reached on a number of issues, to have an overall picture of the situation and establish a common ground with the fewest disagreements possible.
The direct negotiations have not so far produced the result we had anticipated, which was convergence in all the chapters discussed. Most convergences have been achieved in the governance chapter and fewer in the economy and European affairs chapters. Even fewer steps forward have been made in the property issue. Convergence so far achieved constitutes progress and steps forward which we appreciate, but we are not sufficiently satisfied. With hard work and strenuous efforts the intensive talks during last January produced convergences in the chapter of governance.
Why has greater progress not been achieved in the negotiations so far? Could progress have been greater if the meetings were more frequent?
The determining factor for progress is not the frequency of the meetings. The determining factor is the content of the proposals submitted in the negotiations. If the proposals are grounded in the logic of one functional state, the conditions are established to achieve convergences. If the proposals do not pursue this prospect, then problems are caused and the efforts are jeopardized.
The fact that no impressive progress has been achieved is due to the gap between the positions of the two sides and not due to the fact that there weren’t an adequate number of meetings. Whenever the Turkish Cypriot side demonstrated willingness commensurate to ours, there was convergence. Unfortunately, in most of its proposals the Turkish Cypriot side, undoubtedly with Ankara’s support, remained intransigent in its positions.
Nevertheless, we have never presented obstacles regarding the frequency of meetings. Last October we actually doubled the number of meetings and later on we decided to intensify the negotiations.
Despite Mr. Talat’s initial position, immediately following the UN Secretary General’s visit to Cyprus, in favour of a break in the negotiations, we responded, yet again, positively when he changed his position and asked for the continuation of the negotiations.
It is therefore unjust to be making accusations that we are supposedly stalling, expecting that Mr. Eroglou will be elected, and that this will be the last hope for our plans. That to my mind is, truly, an affront and an insult.
I emphatically stress that nothing else guides my thoughts and efforts but my concern to achieve a just, under the circumstances, viable and functional solution as soon as possible.
The termination of the Turkish occupation and the reunification of our people - Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots – is for us a vision and a lifetime goal.
Let me underline very clearly: if by the conclusion of my term of office a solution to the Cyprus problem has not been achieved, I will not seek a second term. The present term will be my first and last. I have made this very clear before and after the elections. A few people, though, insist that, supposedly, I follow a tactics policy with a view to the 2013 elections. I view 2013 only in light of the solution to the Cyprus problem. I have said it before and I will say it again, it is the purpose of my life. I have made no decision and there is no way I will make a decision to change this stand, this position of mine.
With regard to the so-called concessions on the Cyprus problem
There has been very much discussion on the domestic front about the so-called concessions made by the President of the Republic on the Cyprus issue. There is reference to the issues of the rotating presidency, the weighted voting and the continued presence of a number of settlers after the solution of the Cyprus problem.
If the three issues mentioned above are considered to be concessions on the part of the Greek Cypriot side, then these concessions were not made by Demetris Christofias.
Both the rotating presidency and the presence, for humanitarian reasons, of a number of settlers after the solution were proposed years ago and were discussed by the Greek Cypriot side which made proposals for their improvement. They were not rejected! This reference is not meant as a criticism for former Presidents nor is it an effort to transfer responsibility to them. On the contrary. I respect all the former Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus and I acknowledge their efforts to achieve a solution, just as I respect the commitments they undertook.
My reference to the past is merely made in order to clearly set the historical record straight. The truth is that we have not submitted anything entirely new at the negotiating table. Our proposals are based on former positions which were submitted by the Greek Cypriot side, were accepted or at times were negotiated. What we have done was to ameliorate the positions of our side.
The following question is often posed: Why do we return to the past when we negotiate on the Cyprus issue?
This question has been posed many times both recently and in the past. The answer is simple. The negotiation of the Cyprus problem is not a tabula rasa. On this table there are the positions and plans that we have discussed and negotiated as a political aquis that cannot be easily erased, especially when it concerns issues relating to power sharing and provisions that have not been questioned at the actual time.
I would like to remind you that the late Tassos Papadopoulos had repeatedly recalled this axiom both before and after the referenda of 2004 and the rejection of the Annan Plan.
As I have already said the rotating presidency is not my own proposal. It has a long history given that it started appearing in United Nations documents since the 1980s. Later on, it was discussed by former President Clerides during his unofficial talks with Mr. Denktash. It is also included in all five versions of the Annan Plan, from the first to the last one. When the late President Tassos Papadopoulos, immediately before the submission of the last Annan Plan at Burgenstock, submitted the demands of the Greek Cypriot side, he did not include the throwing out of the rotating presidency. Neither was the deletion of the rotating presidency requested during the codification of the positions of the Greek Cypriot side as they were submitted to Mr. Prendergast at the UN headquarters.
It is obvious that the rotating presidency had already been entrenched to such a degree, that any effort to discard or change it would have been condemned to failure and a deadlock for which our side would have been blamed. There is a lot of evidence in proof of that as regards the positions of former Presidents of the Republic of Cyprus. This is even more pertinent since we have demanded to do away with the system of the Presidential Council, something that was necessary to be done for a number of reasons.
The proposal for the executive power that we have submitted constitutes an improvement over previous proposals that we had discussed and negotiated. It even improves provisions of the 1960 Constitution. A simple comparison of the basic parameters of the proposal with the provisions of the Constitution, but also with previous Plans, is, in my view, sufficiently persuasive.
· The 1960 Constitution provides for the separate election of the President exclusively by the Greek Cypriot community and of the Vice-President exclusively by the Turkish Cypriot community. This provision is clear and it is obvious that it consolidates the division of the two communities. Our proposal provides for cross voting, in other words for the election of both by the entire population, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, overcoming the division that exists in the 1960 Constitution.
· The 1960 Constitution provides for a veto of the Vice-President both on the decisions of the Council of Ministers as well as on the laws of the House of Representatives in a whole series of issues, which in reality renders the Vice President a Co-President as regards these issues. Our proposal abolishes the vetoes.
If we compare the rotating presidency, as it was provided for in the Annan Plan, with the one we have proposed, then the advantages of our proposal become apparent.
The President and Vice-President of the rotating Presidency, according to the Annan Plan, would be elected by four Greek Cypriots and two Turkish Cypriots - members of the Presidential Council. The members of the Presidential Council would be elected by the Senate, which would be elected separately by the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot community and with an equal number of Senators. The direct participation of the people is absent. In our proposal, the President and the Vice- President are elected directly by the people by joint ballot and they, in turn, appoint the members of the Council of Ministers.
Regarding the way in which decisions will be taken, our proposal envisages that decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers and not the President. Consequently, the allegation that we took a decorative President and turned him into an executive President with excessive powers does not stand.
As regards our proposal for the executive power, every citizen of the Federal Republic of Cyprus will be able to be a presidential candidate and citizens in their entirety will vote for two candidates, one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot. The Greek Cypriot will be president for four years and will be elected on the basis of the principle “one man one vote”. However, the total of the Greek Cypriot votes for the election of the Turkish Cypriot, who will be president for 2 years, will be weighted in such a way that it will have the same collective effect as the total of the Turkish Cypriot votes will have for the election of the Greek Cypriot.
This kind of weighting does not constitute a new idea. It is an exact copy of the relevant provision of the unanimous Greek Cypriot proposals of 1989 regarding the election of the Vice President. Moreover, the weighting of votes is used in a number of ways, all over the world. I repeat that the Greek Cypriot who will be President for double the time of the Turkish Cypriot will be elected without any deviation from the principle “one man one vote”.
On the issue of the settlers, the disagreements expressed are essentially on the level of tactics. There is criticism that we raised the issue of the remaining of settlers prematurely and that we could have done this in the course of the negotiations or even at the end, in order to ask for fair exchanges.
The issue of the remaining of settlers for humanitarian reasons was negotiated and agreed by previous Presidents.
By repeating our position of granting citizenship to a number of settlers from the United Federal Republic we have succeeded in substantiating our sincerity and willingness for a solution in the eyes of the international community. We have enhanced our credibility.
Now, how is it that our positions, which are based on past positions by our side and are actually an improvement of those, have suddenly become undemocratic, for some who previously did not consider them to be undemocratic, is unexplainable.
The situation on the home front
I think that no one is pleased with the situation on the home front. The necessary unity that would support the negotiator of the Greek Cypriot community is absent.
The President of the Republic is correct to say that he is the guarantor of unity. He has his own important share of responsibility. The responsibility, however, does not rest entirely with the President. The political parties have their own share of the responsibility and should contribute to the construction of unity accordingly. Unity can be built with the assumption of mutual responsibility. The President must provide timely information on the course of the negotiations and hold deliberations with the political parties on the positions submitted at the negotiating table.
On the other hand, the political parties should in a timely and clear fashion submit their own positions to enable the President to exercise his duties as negotiator and to avoid delays in the negotiations.
Despite any possible weaknesses and shortcomings that have appeared so far, I believe that there is timely briefing and consultation with the political parties. Eighteen meetings of the National Council, ten personal meetings with the party leaders, three meetings of the Informal Party Leaders Council, the fact that all documents relating to the negotiations are handed to the parties, all these constitute an expression and are the result of our desire for timely briefing and consultation. The President has never impeded any party leader or any member of the National Council accompanying his party leader to express their views. The establishment of subcommittees of the National Council to discuss specific chapters of the Cyprus problem, prior to the negotiations, proves even further the existence of briefing and consultation. All these cannot be invalidated and written off with the claim that the President does not carry out briefings prior to the meetings and consultations before he submits proposals .
One aspect of the unity is the quality of the public political discourse expressed. Unity does not mean consensus nor does it mean support of all policies or positions of the President on the Cyprus problem. We have never asked for anything like that, just as we have never asked for a blank cheque from the political parties. We have never tried to silence anyone, this does not, however, invalidate the President’s right, which is a vested right for everyone, to defend his policies and to answer to any criticism, always, of course, with absolute respect towards all political powers.
The President of the Republic has the first and the final responsibility in the negotiations. For this reason, he must at least be credited with the minimum confidence. The continuous criticism and accusations he has been receiving from a number of political powers, do not give the message that such minimum confidence exists at all. And this makes me sad to observe especially at a time when Turkey applies her well known aggressive communication policy.
Despite the not so satisfactory situation in the domestic front, I declare that I will continue to work towards building unity through pursuing a dialogue and consensus, both within and outside the National Council.
At the same time, I will continue to work towards achieving a solution as soon as possible. I will be consistent in my efforts on the basis of a solution for a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality as this has been specified in the relevant resolutions of the United Nations; for a state with a single sovereignty, a single nationality and a single international personality.
I will continue to depend on the UN Resolutions on Cyprus, the principles of the International and European Law and the 1977 and 1979 High Level Agreements.
I will keep fighting for the termination of the occupation and for the reunification of the island, the people, the institutions and the economy; for the restoration of human rights and the fundamental freedoms of all the people, Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots, Maronites, Armenians and Latins.
I agree that one man only cannot bear the weight of a painful solution to the Cyprus problem, of a painful compromise which has been long decided collectively by the political leadership and it is being reaffirmed time after time before every presidential election. We need collectiveness, we need tolerance and, as I have said, we need to show the least of trust.
