Interview with Mr.Nicos Anastasiades for 2018 Presidential Elections

1. Mr President, if you are reelected president of the Republic, how will you proceed with the Cyprus problem?

As I have already conveyed to the Secretary-General by various means including through personal contacts, I am ready to return to the negotiating table, at least as far as the internal aspects are concerned, because while convergences exist there are also differences, so that we can create an even better climate and better preconditions to enable us to set up a state that will be functional, that will last and where both communities will feel secure.

As regards the conference on Cyprus, I repeat what I told the UN Secretary-General and all my interlocutors, it must be well prepared so that we aren’t disappointed once again as we were in Geneva and Crans Montana. And this is totally in line with what the UN Secretary-General’s has set out in his framework regarding the international aspect. Because without a solution on security issues there cannot be a solution to the Cyprus problem. As he says in his framework, he specifies that the existing system must be replaced by another effective one, taking into account that Cyprus is a member of the UN as well as the European Union. In our proposals that we submitted on 6 July, we clearly set out a number of provisions that not only provide security to one but to both communities, in an effective way. I therefore repeat that my intention is immediately after the elections to ask for the intercommunal dialogue to begin again. At the same time, I will call on the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council to become active so as to prepare such a conference on Cyprus so that if we reach the proper convergences in the internal aspect, we will be ready, once we Greek and Turkish Cypriots feel totally independent and able to take our decisions jointly, so that we can succeed in our aim.

2. Do you accept the Guterrez framework, Mr President, and the non-paper on the implementation of a solution?

Of course, and I have submitted proposals on this for which I am being wrongly accused, on the one hand, of having given everything, and on the other, that I should have given more.

3. Those who don’t want a solution, of course, are bound to criticise your stance. However, in order for us to reach a viable solution there must be a give and take.

Of course, what one gives must be within the framework of creating a state that is functional, that will last, and that will not collapse the day after it is established.

4. That’s the position of the so-called middle ground parties.

No, no that’s also mine, and everyone’s position, Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike. Our concern must be that the solution must be durable, must stand the test of time, the new state of affairs. Otherwise, if both sides feel insecure, and if you try to get it through a referendum, thanks to a climate of mistrust that will have been created between us vis-a-vis Turkey and between the Turkish Cypriots vis-à-vis the Greek Cypriots, then it wouldn’t get through. The leaders of the two communities must take this into account. That’s why I say that a solution that is based on mutual respect, based on the recognition of the concerns of the two communities, that would respond, balance and overcome the concerns of each side, while at the same time creating prospect for the future, then there is no doubt that it would be approved by both sides.

5. In 2004 you took on your shoulders the entire YES campaign and paid a price for it. In Crans Montana you were almost there, and yet the talks failed. Why should the Cypriot people trust you that we will get to a solution if the talks start again?

If it was up to me to reach a solution, and if I were the obstacle then you are absolutely right to ask me why indeed should I be trusted. The question is why did we not reach a solution at a truly historic moment?

6. As the UN Secretary-General said, it was a historic opportunity.

Yes but I would like to add something here because I hear criticism. The UN Secretary-General praised the two leaders for having succeeded in bringing things up to that historic moment so as to give hope that a solution was possible. Therefore the courage that the leaders showed should not be overlooked. Which is why I cannot accept the allocation of blame to the leaders. What was the factor that wasn’t satisfied according to the S-G’s framework? The security issue – the guarantees, the rights of intervention, and Turkey’s insistence on maintaining troops on the basis of a review clause. That which creates the greatest feelings of insecurity for the one community, namely the Greek Cypriot community, is the creation of a Turkish base on the island and the maintenance of Turkish troops on the island for ever, not at the level of 1960, which was the UN S-G’s position, but numbering closer to 2000, in fact 1,800 to be exact, with the creation of a Turkish base and the permanent stationing of troops here.

7. Had the prime ministers become involved, perhaps this position would have changed?

The issue would have gone to the level of prime ministers had we solved the security issue. In other words, what we were expecting during those critical hours was the promised surprise on the part of the Turkish government that would have allowed us to proceed with the next stage, namely setting the date, or terminating the presence of the least possible number of Turkish troops.

8. The fact that the talks collapsed, as opposed to being broken off for a month or so allowing consultations etc to take place, meant that much was lost as a result.

Indeed, but unfortunately that was the position of the Secretary-General.

9. And yet he did not blame Turkey in his report.

It was not possible…Nor did he blame us. Or the Turkish Cypriots.

10. They were obliged to find a solution to the question of security.

Look here, the UN Secretary-General was obliged to leave the doors open. From the moment you apportion blame, that means that certain doors will close. The role of the UN Secretary-General is not to create deadlocks, but to create prospects. And that’s what he did with his report.

11. You could have objected, of course.

Why should I?

12. You could have said, we were ok, it was the others…

I have already conveyed this to the Secretary-General because I also submitted proposals on 5 July in which I responded point by point to his framework and this is where I am criticised of having given everything, or not having given enough. It is not just up to the Greek Cypriot side alone. It must be understood that the Turkish Cypriot side also has demands such as for political equality, or things in the name of protecting the rights of the Turkish Cypriot community, such as a positive vote for every decision, wherever the Turkish Cypriot community is affected. If you remember, in the joint statement issued on 11 February 2014 with Mr Eroglu, we had agreed that the central government could not interfere in the internal affairs of either constituent state, but nor could either constituent interfere in the affairs of the central government or those of the other constituent state. This was a basic principle saying that neither community’s interests would be negatively affected. The Turkish Cypriot community wanted to have this positive vote and I suggested that instead of this being universal for every decision, why not limit this to wherever one or other community is negatively affected, in other words to each constituent state. In any case the principle is safeguarded, that of non-encroachment. But as I said, there should be some kind of mechanism for effectively solving differences so as not to paralyse the state.

13. Let’s move on to the present day, Mr President. You say that you support bizonal, bicommunal federation. Yet some of your actions create doubts in the minds of people who want a solution. For example, when the Archbishop comes out in favour of two states, we didn’t hear you come out and comment about it.

Did you ever hear me come out and comment on any of the statements of the other presidential candidates, who shamelessly and groundlessly twist my words around and criticise me?

14. But we’re a secular state, a European state.

He’s allowed to have an opinion.

15. An opinion but on a matter that is not his business.

Should we forbid him from having an opinion?

16. An opinion, sure, but his role...

Does he have a role in decision-making?

17. But he may have an influence on something that does not concern him.

It is true there is a separation of church and state. But I don’t believe he attempted to intervene in the decision-making processes. He’s just stating his opinion.

18. But he influences.

I don’t believe he has any influence on the talks, for example. Look, what matters is the opinion of the political leadership and not that of either religious leadership. The archbishop has an opinion just as anyone may have an opinion. What matters is what decisions the political leadership takes.

19. Another thing that creates division is the holding of certain ceremonies, two in fact, for those who fought in the events of 62-63. Clearly, those events were something that divides the two communities. Each side has its narrative, and in a way, this was the first partition, Mr President.

The first attempt at partition.

20. Well the Green line was created. In any case, what was the thinking behind the holding of these ceremonies?

I wasn’t honouring the first partition. I was honouring those who stood up against those forces amongst the Turkish Cypriots who wanted partition. The Greek Cypriot side, never wanted partition, let’s be fair.

21. But paramilitary organisations were created…

Yes, it’s true that Archbishop Makarios submitted proposals to change the constitution, unfortunately without the approval or cooperation of the Greek government, encouraged and misled by the British government, with the aim of making the state more functional. And these are the things we want to avoid, because by giving certain privileges to one side or another, you create feelings of injustice which when they are exercised are viewed as provocations. When he realised that the functioning of the state, as you may recall, were being blocked, he put forward certain proposals.

22. The story is well known. Let’s not go into it now.

Allow me, though. There were two organisations, one in the Turkish Cypriot community, one in the Greek Cypriot side. At one point, and as a result of being led by the motherlands which in those days played an important role... And I have often said that today’s headaches stem from then… Fortunately though ever since 1974 the Greek government respects the elected Cypriot governments. But this was not so, before 1974. In any case the people who were honoured in these ceremonies were people who had resisted the attempt by the other side to impose their will. There were clashes, some people fought. This group did not attack the Turkish Cypriots. Unfortunately the Turkish Cypriots together with TMT were ready… these were sins of the past.

23. You yourself said this was the result of nationalism on both sides.

We were not trying to honour people who had tried to achieve partition, but people who had tried to maintain unity.

24. But the result was partition.

The mistakes were mutual, and the mistakes were on the part of the leaderships on both sides, not on the part of ordinary Greek and Turkish Cypriots who gave their lives.

25. The UN Secretary-General said that for talks to resume certain things must happen. That there must be political will on both sides, that there should be certain confidence building measures, that society, the people, should be involved. Not a lot has happened in this direction. And a basic issue is that the people, Mr President, barely know what federation means. This has become evident in various opinion polls that have been made. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done.

I don’t disagree with you. But as regards people not knowing what federation means, a referendum was held in 2004. A whole … of course, there was an intense misinformation campaign.

26. And yet now we have a much improved plan.

No doubt about that. The question is that if there is sufficient progress to allow us freely to present the pros and cons … and I have done this many times, saying that no solution is not a solution … but the issue is to be allowed finally to do so. I have asked from Mustafa Akinci, my friend, for us to hold a press conference and state what we have achieved, what convergences we have achieved, what small differences remain, and what large differences remain. I had suggested this in January after Geneva, and in February. In fact I had suggested that the Cyprus meeting should continue after Mont Pelerin so that there would be mutual understanding and so we could overcome the concerns regarding security – the guarantees, the rights of intervention, the presence of troops. Unfortunately I wasn’t heeded, at the time there was the referendum in Turkey, twice this was refused. People should finally understand what the convergences are, so as not to allow people who don’t want a solution to misconstrue what is being discussed and what has been agreed.

27. In any case the outcome is that once again we are without a solution and time is against us.

I don’t disagree at all. I’ve said it many times. Without a solution de facto things become permanent that cannot be changed. The question is whether on the basis of this argument, one decides to overlook certain other things that do not lead to a solution that would be acceptable to the Cypriot people.

28. Thank you Mr President.

I wish you the best and that 2018 will be the year when through mutual understanding and an intense dialogue we manage to achieve peace in our country for the benefit of all its inhabitants, Greek and Turkish Cypriots. We have lived together many years. I believe the possibilities exist for us to experience the same phenomena we did in the past, if the solution is not such that it will provoke anyone, either Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots. We must all feel that we are living in a European state, in conditions of security and with prospects for a future, not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren.

Link to the interview in Greek language with Turkish subtitles:

Source: unite Cyprus Now