|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Το πλήρες κείμενο της Συνέντευξης του Προέδρου της Δημοκρατίας
στο περιοδικό L΄Express
09/05/2006 |
Question: I would like to know your very personal approach, your very personal view on the situation today because from our point of view in W. Europe everything seems completely blocked; maybe it is, maybe it is not. Nevertheless, you are talking, you have exchanges, you have talks with them, negotiations maybe you can tell us about; help us to understand better what is happening now. My first question will be, Mr President, after you joined the European Union, after the rejection of the Annan Plan, the situation seems completely blocked. Is it true or not?
Answer: I hope it is not so. Before I explain that, as you say, it is a personal assessment of the situation. You must remember that the question of Cyprus is basically a question of invasion and occupation. Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, we think illegally, by using various pretexts which we think are not valid. Turkey occupied 37% of the land area of the island. In Cyprus 18% of the population is Turkish Cypriots and 82% Greek Cypriots. Another important factor is that of the land ownership in Cyprus or the privately owned land (forgetting forests and Government land) 88% belongs to the Greek Cypriots and 12% belongs to the Turkish Cypriots. Third, before the invasion there was no area in Cyprus where the Turkish Cypriots were in majority; everywhere you would draw a circle with a compass with a radial of 5 km it will be with a population ratio 82 to 18%. This makes it, in practical terms, let alone political ones, impossible to partition in two parts. So I come back to the first question. What is it that Turkey really wants in Cyprus. We speak of Turkey because Turkish Cypriots do exactly what Turkey is telling them to do. It is Turkey that dictates what will be the attitude of the Turkish Cypriots. I posed this question once to Mr Erdogan. I met him in an unscheduled meeting. I said: Mr Erdogan, the question is, do you want one state in Cyprus or two states in Cyprus? Do you want one legal entity to be Cyprus with one sovereignty, with one international personality and one nationality? Or do you want two, which will be very loosely connected at the top solely for the purpose of the EU, because Europe would not have two states in Cyprus; Cyprus could not have two Commissioners …. So that is the (crucial) question. When you tell me, is everything blocked, then I answer, has Turkey changed its policy? Because I think the policy of Turkey is to establish two separate entities in Cyprus.
According to me, the policy of Turkey has not changed yet. The second question which I cannot assess: Will Turkey consider its European orientation important enough as to accept a solution in Cyprus which will make it possible for Turkey to join the European Union? At least as far as Cyprus is concerned? Now these two questions I cannot assess. I think it is in the interest of Turkey and of course of the region to find a solution on the Cyprus question. What type of solution? I know that many people in Europe felt disappointment because we rejected the Plan proposed to us, the Annan Plan. That is very understandable to me, because for years, by my predecessor and others, the view was spread “we expect a plan from negotiations with the help of the Secretary - General which will be a fair plan, a viable plan, and when people hear about this Plan, by the Secretary - General of the United Nations, automatically it bears the mark of an objective Plan, or a fair Plan. People do not realize that in our case, the Plan proposed was not the result of negotiations, it was not a negotiated agreement which the Secretary - General by (making) suggestions tried to find a common ground. The Plan was the decision of an arbitrator because the Secretary - General, in the case of Cyprus acted as an arbitrator. And everybody knows the Permanent Representative of France to the U.N. said it several times in his speeches: the mission of Good offices of the Secretary - General - that is what is called Good Offices mission – does not include arbitration. We allowed him – both sides – to act as an arbitrator but there were certain conditions attached in him exercising this arbitration. One was that he would limit his arbitration to very few cases of persistent deadlock; secondly he would exercise his arbitration after substantive talks between the parties and when the deadlock remained on several issues and thirdly that any decision he would take would be within the parameters of his previous Plans, because this was the fifth version of the Plan. None of these three conditions were observed. First, he did not leave in his arbitration only a few issues; on the contrary he decided on every issue that was discussed and some others which were not even discussed during the talks. Secondly …..
Question: Could you give an example?
Answer: For example, common monetary policy. The issue of the Economy was raised by me, when we agreed for his arbitration as a new issue. Nobody considered in the previous plans the financial repercussions of this scheme; how much the scheme would cost; how it will be paid; and after our complaint he established a financial committee – as they call it – which met for a total of seven meetings. This is a huge subject, and only in the Fifth Plan there is an issue about the financial issues – and not all of them. Secondly, there were no …… there were only negotiations in a time span of 42 days. Why? Because, to my mind a reason without any justification, they set the 1st May as being the cut-off –date. Why 1st of May? Because Cyprus, on 1st May would join the EU and they were all concerned what would they do about Turkey’s – application which would come later. So, 1st May was very hurriedly pressed. I say unreasonable, because in the very agreement itself there is Annex 10 (there are certain … in the Treaty of Accession of Cyprus) (which) says: whenever there is a solution to the Cyprus problem it will be incorporated automatically in this treaty. So even if it was 1st of June, December next year, whenever we reached an agreement, this would have been incorporated. But from 1st May we would be members, so they thought once we become members we would lose interest in the solution and when Turkey would make its application we might block it. Thirdly, when I say he took decisions as an arbitrator outside his parameters of his previous plans, I give you an example again. In the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Annan Plan there was a provision: Turkish troops would be withdrawn from Cyprus within 15 years, or when Turkey joins the EU whichever occurs first; if Turkey joins before 15 years the troops would be withdrawn; if there was an agreement before that, under the Annan Plan, the troops would be withdrawn in accordance with that agreement. But 15 years was the limit and therefore all troops would be withdrawn. Without even discussing this with us, because that was done in Bόrgenstock, the eventual sections says: Turkish troops will keep being reduced in these 15 years but in the end a number of Turkish troops, 650 plus equipment, artillery tanks will remain for ever. Even after Turkey joins the EU. It΄s not the number of troops which is the most important, of course it is important, but the most important is the alleged right of Turkey to militarily intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus. Security …. in the observation of the agreement. So finally, the issue was put to the referendum and the Greek Cypriots rejected the Plan by 76%. Now I lose no opportunity in stressing Greek Cypriots did not reject the Plan because they do not want a solution; they rejected it because it did not provided for reunification of the country; on the contrary it perpetuated all the partitionist, separatist provisions. When we say we need reunification of the territory, people to be free and allowed to settle; secondly, reunification of the Society not everything being done separately; in duality – one Turkish – one Greek; reunification of the Economy and possibly joined Economic activity in investment and all this. Finally, reunification of the Institutions. Of all the Institutions of the State. None of these exists in the Annan Plan. So the Greek Cypriots rejected that particular Plan, not a solution of bizonal, bicommunal federation to which we still remain committed. But each one of these terms, Federal – there are various types of federation – Bizonal – what does bizonal mean? Ethnically cleansed areas? When all over Cyprus 82% were Greek Cypriots? Are we talking about pushing them out for ever and prohibiting them from returning? And bicommunal; Bicommunal does not mean duality in everything. I say sometimes when I am asked: We shall have a Federation which will be bicommunal and there are many countries in the world, Canada, Belgium - so that no one community can impose its will on political matters on the other, but at the same time no community should be able to bring the state to paralysis, to deadlock, because from deadlock then you have partition. So this is the outline of the issues we now have to face. Why did I say before to you: I don’t agree that everything seems blocked. We passed a long and difficult period to convince an angry Europe that we did not reject the plan because we do not want a solution. But because there were valid grounds, we think, that this particular solution would not function. It would have broken down within three months. If either of the two sides were not willing to see the plan implemented. After that we had to convince the Secretary - General to start a new initiative. But of course a new initiative which would not include the previous authorities which we think the Secretary - General did not observe. No arbitration again of course. It will be a loose ended negotiation but the time limits should be set by the progress of the negotiations themselves, not by the course of Turkey towards Europe. Secondly, that the talks should be well prepared this time without the time limits of the previous type and thirdly that only an agreed solution should be put to the referendum so the two leaders, representatives of the communities, would go out and support it. This time I was not obliged to support the Plan because I did not agree with it; so I did not support it in the referendum. So that took another nine months to convince the Secretary - General to do so, (start a new initiative). So when he agreed that these were valid grounds, I sent immediately, within 3 days, representatives of mine to New York. They had a week long talks, morning and afternoon, with Mr Prendergast who was Deputy Secretary General – he retired now – an Irish man and at the end of the meetings they said that our side gave in detail all the points of our concern. Specific issues … this we do not like, we suggest something else … this we do no like, so …
Question: So this has been done?
Answer: It has been done in 2005. Ever since we are asking the Secretary - General to send a UN envoy to Cyprus to help bring the two sides to the negotiating table, which I think will be done pretty soon.
Question: So that will make more than one year.
Answer: But I was in Paris. He invited me to Paris last February. I told him I am ready to discuss the various issues. His present envoy who is here, Mr Moller, is his representative concerning UNFICYP and … matters. We are asking from him to send an envoy, like Mr de Soto; so I said I am interested to discuss anew core issues of the Cyprus problem, not just day to day problems. And I listed indicatively several subjects that I want to talk about, not necessarily the most important. What will happen about the taxation in the new country, will the one side have the right to abolish taxes and we will have taxes here? Since we will be subsidizing the Turkish Cypriots, it does not cost them anything to say “No taxes” - All industries will go there. I am saying extremes to show that there are points which need to be discussed. The question of the settlers. How many are these people? But more important, what category are they? Have they been born here? Are they married here? Do they have children? Do they have roots, established business or are they seasonal workers? If we know which class, then we may decide sensibly who can stay and the rest how they can be attracted to leave by subsidy by giving them money, by whatever. This is the type of talks I had with the Secretary - General.
Also there are problems of improving the climate, necessary however. Take Nicosia, you went around. We said, we suggest disengagement of the military forces within the old city of Nicosia. Because there, the streets are very narrow; some areas there are Greek Cypriots and ten meters away there are Turkish Cypriots. Now this is also dangerous because soldiers first exchange cigarettes and they exchange …and they insult each other; somebody may shoot and then you have an escalation … So I have a plan of disengagement. It is the question of demining. We lifted all mine fields on our side, unilaterally, in accordance with the Ottawa Agreement. There are more mine fields in the so called Buffer zone, the zone between the two sides and we will be happy to see Cyprus as the first country free from all mines. And there are other matters which will improve the climate; the so called Confidence Building Measures but as I told Mr Annan, I am not interested in how to learn to live apart by lifting whatever obstacles the Turkish Cypriots,,, have because then you take away from them the incentive to reach an agreement on the substance. We must learn how to live together, not how to be separated.
Question: That was in the Annan Plan …. How to live separately ….? It was very striking.
Answer: I was invited once in Brussels in this annual meeting they have to talk about Federalism. There were three speakers; one from Nigeria, one from Canada and myself, And of course I referred also to the Cyprus Problem. I said those who drafted the plan – the solution to the Cyprus problem had one simple recipe, taking the views of the two sides and cutting them in two. As I said King Solomon told us “Cutting the baby in two is not always the best solution”. Certainly it is not for the baby. That is what they did. It is not how to cut every point or difference.
Question: Don’t you think Annan who has, everybody knows, a lot of problems with the Americans, did all this under American pressure? Or do you think it is his personal bad approach?
Answer: I do not only think, I am certain about it. First of all I am not so sure how much Mr. Annan himself was involved. He had his negotiating team; he had Mr de Soto who has helped very much – because I was meeting them, had talks with them – by Lord Hannay from Great Britain and by Mr Tom Weston from the United States. These were the two envoys who in the brief span of negotiations we had during these 42 days, they were day-in day-out in my office making suggestions, telling proposals. By the way, ever since we started for a new effort, I made it a condition, which he accepted, that we do not want certain members of the Security Council, permanent members to monopolize the talks about the Cyprus problem. I mean England, the USA. I said to him: You carry out your mission, your mandate by the 5 Permanent Members. So we want equal treatment – France, Russia and China as well. And I make a point whenever there is any development such as this meeting in Paris, I spoke about it only to the French, Russian and the Chinese Ambassador but to give a message to the other two that you are no longer the protagonists. Of course they have great influence towards Turkey, they can influence Turkey but in formulating a solution they should not be the only two active. Because they have vested interests of their own. The British have the bases, the Americans have Turkey, Europe, Cyprus…. All five members are involved, and I think this is accepted now both by the Secretary - General and by the Five Permanent Members.
Question: So you don’t think Annan was under American pressure, not really.
Answer: No I think in agreement with the Americans.
Question: And you don’t think he had a personal challenge in that issue?
Answer: Let me say this. I find Mr Annan a very nice man; very nice to speak to. Our relationship was always very nice. He treats me exceptionally well, friendly. I think he is well –meaning as well. But as you said, he has many things on his head and rightly or wrongly, I think wrongly, he chose a negotiator who was also under the influence of certain countries remaining … And I don’t believe he took a very active role, that’s my impression. I have good reason to believe that. So it’s not fair to blame him.
Question: When your are talking about your last proposals, these famous confidence measures …
Answer: Actually before I went to Paris, Mr Moller came to me and said : Its about time we start talking. I said: Yes of course. He said: “I scribbled down a few subjects, that might be the beginning. And I chose the easiest” and he gave me the list. He said “Do you agree to discuss these points?” And I said: “Of course, I agree but, the condition is that the discussions will not be limited to those but will also be expanded to cover core issues of the Cyprus problem, in the preparation.
Question: That is to say the Turkish army or things like these.
Answer: Several things . The Turkish army must … Here I am talking about the core issues of the Cyprus problem. Refugees, return of land…
Question: And this was not on the paper.
Answer: It was a piece of paper like this but this was not an agreed list. I said “of course I am going to discuss these provided that we will also discuss these ... and I went further. I said: Not first these and then the others. Together. But parallel. Then he said to me: “Well, if you say parallel you make it sound as two parallel lines which never meet … There will not be a committee dealing with these only. There will other committees, more than one, dealing with as I said settlers, or economy, or properties or legislation. That’s what I stressed when we met with Mr Annan. We were there for 70 minutes; I must have told him in the minutes we kept four times “provided that we also discuss the core issues”. But of course in order to discuss the core issues you need the agreement of the other side, obviously. And without their agreement how are we going to do a census of the settlers. They must agree so that we can have joint Committees going there and doing the censes. That is what some of our Press here is confused with. They say “the one list was agreed, the other was not agreed”. No, nothing was agreed, until everything is agreed.
Question: Excellent! Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Yes, absolutely. So you think the method is the bad one. The European – American method is not the good one, to separate the problems.
Answer: Nobody told me that yet. I have no such proposals. Mr. Prendergast did not say that. Mr Annan did not say that to me. Not even the British Ambassador who came here said that to me. Only he said: OK, I agree with you but let’s discuss them in consequence.” I said: “What do you mean in consequence? You finish these first and then we start the others. No, I do not accept it. If you mean in consequence, one day these, the second day the others, yes. And when these committees are termed technical committees. It is at technical level and we use this tem to distinguish from the political level. So these committees let’s say I΄ Il use again the example of the settlers, will find all these facts, let’s call them fact-finding committees, then the political leaders will come and take the decisions but having the input, all the facts, so they can take educated decisions not arbitrary. It’s easy for me to say let’s have 50,000 settlers stay and Mr. Talat says 100,000 and then we agree to 75,000, that is arbitrary. They should be classified by class; married here, living here for 20 years, 30 years, having children or whatever will be the criteria. The criteria will be a political decision to take in political talks. The facts will be established at a technical level.
Question: What about the method that will be to sit you and Mr Talat on the same table, like the Camp David system? Do you think it will work?
Answer: No, no, unless there is preparation. I think on that Mr Annan agrees as well. If there is no preparation what will happen? We will meet Camp David like; he will insist on his views, I will insist on mine. Within two months or two weeks the talks will break down. And maybe, Turkey would might (like) very much if the talks break down but for us what will be the message to the world? The Cyprus problem is insoluble. Only partition is the solution or the status quo remaining as it is. That is why I am insisting and I am grateful that Mr. Annan also adopts the views there must be good preparation of the talks. We can give you the Paris communiquι. The second paragraph refers to talking on a number of subjects which will be for the benefit of all Cypriots and prepare by bridging the gap. How do you bridge the gap unless you talk about the issues. You do not bridge the gap by talking about the avian flu or the birds.
Question: Now it΄s over. We have new student riots. They have solved the avian flu (laugh…)
Answer: I heard today on the BBC that they are starting talks by the ….
Question: I think the Government will be obliged to get back necessarily and I say this, unfortunately ….
(ακολουθεί συζήτηση για τη Γαλλία και Ιταλία)
Question: Mr President, do you think that if Talat was alone to talk with you it will be different? Do you think that he is more linked to Ankara than previously?
Answer: Mr Talat is tele-guided from Ankara.
Question: O.K. you assume the same word.
Answer: No, I have a rule. I never comment on Mr. Talat or his policy ….. Sooner or later we are going to meet. I can say that Ankara΄s influence is dominant in the policies of the T/C.
Question: So why this Ankara΄s role? Because they are going … playing against themselves somehow in a way. They want to join Europe and as you said at the beginning of our conversation, they are not sure.
Answer: It is a combination of things. First they are not sure if they will get along … even with the talks with Europe. So they think why should we give anything in Cyprus before we are sure we get into Europe. That is number one. Number two: It is strange for somebody to realize how little they know how Europe works. Maybe they have assurances from friends that they can have both. That they can negotiate their own way into the EU. I heard that from officials also in the EU. They think they can negotiate the Primary Law whilst with the EU, with member states, we were applicants and I know. I was Chairman of the European Affairs Committee of the House when Cyprus΄ accession was discussed. EU does not negotiate the acquis communautaire with you. They negotiate how and when you are going to implement it, not what is the acquis communautaire. Turks and T/C, the Turkish side … and thirdly they may still believe they can leave this until the end because may be several countries do not want Turkey to join but I do not believe there are many who want Turkey to stop the talks.
Journalist: No, none.
President: So Turkey makes the assessment they are not going to break off the talks because of Cyprus, maybe.
Question: So they carry on the talks here, the talks in Brussels, the two files at the same time.
Answer: No, they do something different. They have these review clause … in which they will review how much progress Turkey has made in implementing the obligations it has undertaken on 21 September concerning Cyprus. So this will be done by a Report of the Commission of the EU.
Question: Next September?
Answer: Well, the usual annual report the Commission issues is in October. Of course it circulates before. I think the strategy of Turkey is to have talks here, run them along, so when the review will come Turkey will say “Please, do not poison the atmosphere. We are talking in Cyprus, so do not press on us to comply now with these matters because we are closing, getting near”. That is why they are not interested now in returning to the negotiating table for substantive talks. They want to drag it out until that time. I hope I΄ m wrong. That is how it seems. But Europe until now, in all states, all the Heads of States and the Commissioners keep telling Turkey: “You cannot want an exchange for implementing your obligations like Turkey is doing now about the Ankara protocol.” Ankara said: I am not going to open my ports and airspace to G/C shipping. (It is not only G/C shipping…) unless all embargo against all the T/C is lifted. Europe is replying: These are obligations of you towards Europe, you must perform. What you do in Cyprus is another thing. You cannot connect the two and ask this in exchange. I said it is not G/C shipping only. You know we have the second biggest commercial fleet in the EU. Greece, Cyprus and then it’s Malta. The …. applies to any Greek Cypriot owned ship, any ships in which any Greek Cypriot interest exists even in portion, any ships of any flag which are serviced in Cyprus – because we have ship management section – mostly German by the way, Columbia etc. or any ship of any flag which touches to a Cyprus port, even its books when it goes to Turkey it shows that it has touched a Cypriot port, they are not allowed to enter.
Question: They cannot enter any Turkish port.
Answer: Turkish. As long as they do not go to the occupied port of Famagusta. I think Europe will be very fair asking Turkey to comply with its 21 of September obligations. To what extent …
Question: Do you feel personally, you as President, American pressure on the Cyprus issue?
Answer: I asked once a friend of mine who talked to me about pressures. What do they actually do by pressures? Do they cut off financial aid? We do not get any from them. Do they stop sending us arms? They do not send us arms. Do they block us from any international fora? No. So, pressure is effective if you are willing to accept it. So what are they going to do? Send the marines? I read this book “Bush at war”, I do not know if you read it. After the third day he was demanding targets to be hit by the American airplanes. His Generals said: There are no other targets. So bomb ……… I do not believe that American attitude is such towards Cyprus, of course. The pressure they exert on us is by upgrading the status of the T/C side.
Question: Exactly, I mean the way they support Ankara for instance.
Answer: Yes. But they will support Ankara anyway.
Question: I met last week Assist. Secretary of State, working with Condoleezza Rice.
Answer: Mr Fried?
Question: Exactly, and it΄s published in L΄ Express today. He said something about Cyprus and he said: I was very happy personally about the Annan Plan and I΄ m trying to push it again. I said but it was rejected by the Cypriot people. He said : “Well, we can change the words, play the game a second time. I think he is really very far from Europe.
Answer: I know. I will tell you something about it. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs met with an American gentleman and he said to him. We are not going to permit you to create problems for Turkey in its course towards Europe. To be correct, our Minister got up and left. He said “Thank you very much. I am not here to listen to such kind of words. Neither American nor British are …. Nor Mr. Annan … I said during my 75 minute meeting with him the word Annan was not mentioned. I did not even call him Mr Annan naturally. I called him Mr Secretary General. I am not saying that he has abandoned the Plan but probably everybody realizes that just the name “Annan Plan” ….. what shall I say …?
Question: Do you think something has changed since you are fully European? Don’t you feel stronger in the negotiations? Does that give you more strength, or not?
Answer: Definitely. First of all we are not a monothematic country in Europe. It΄s not only Cyprus. We are very actively involved in all concerns of Europe: In the financial perspective, small though we are, we have views on the Bolkestein directive; on the VAT types …. And of course we have obligations being in Europe, but of course we also have rights. Cyprus is the only country that received no pre-accession aid, none of all. Secondly, Cyprus is still a net contributor; we pay more than we receive from the EU. So we have financed all of our accession to the tune of 18 month budget. But as much as it is our total budget for one year and a half, that is what it cost us to adopt the acquis communautaire. Therefore, I think we have the right to say this is in the vital interest of Cyprus…. We are not contempt that since we are in Europe, we do no care about Cyprus.
I hear some people saying “Greek Cypriots got what they wanted. They entered the EU so they lost interest about solving the Cyprus problem. There is no greater concern to me, I think to the G/C΄s than solving the Cyprus problem if possible, yesterday. But not just any solution, a viable solution.
Question: Do you think something is possible about Famagusta? Does it have to be a first step, according to you?
Answer: Two years ago, yes. It’s not only a first step but when we had this deadlock about so called direct trade with Europe, the two regulations, I said : The matter is not economic. The total exports of T/C΄s form Cyprus all over the year is 60 million only. Thirty million of this are citrus which neither the T/C΄s nor the G/C΄s export to Europe. Europe has plenty of oranges, Spain, France, Italy, Greece, with containers or cars, vehicles without adding the cost of transporting them by boat, so we do not send them. So thirty million euros … is that the embargo, the restriction we impose on the Turks? And they are free to export to the world from Limassol. I made the offer; either they can export them from one of our ports, only T/C΄s to work, their own functionaries to come and leave; I΄ ll give them a section of the port to do that but it will be a port operated under the Republic of Cyprus and export anything they want. Or let them have exports from Famagusta harbour, if they wish, which will be run by the EU which will make sure that the tariffs, security, hygiene, all these regulations of Europe for which we are responsible will be applied. T/C΄s will be working there, but the harbour will only become viable if, through the Famagusta harbour, we import all materials we need for rebuilding the city of Famagusta, which we estimate will cost 4 billion pounds. Only in this way the harbour will be able to function and I repeat to function under the EU, not under the illegal …
Question: What did Talat say to this proposal?
Answer: They tell me the question of Famagusta must come with the end of the solution of the Cyprus problem. I said so does the opening of the …. Famagusta city is empty. It is uninhabited
Question: I have seen it.
Answer: It will need three years for the first inhabitants to go there, you do not even lose face because not before three years anybody will be able to go in.
Question: ………………………..
Answer: It is another subject which I hope to discuss. You leave a city there to go to ruin, which was totally Greek, 100% Greek, not a single Turk used to live there. Not even as a tenant because they had their own section within the walled city.
Journalist : OK |
|
|
|