 |
08.12.06
Statement of the Secretariat of the C.C. of AKEL on the
Turkish proposal for the opening of one port and one airport subject
The Turkish proposal for the
opening of one port and one airport subject to conditions and terms
constitutes an ungraceful, unacceptable and provocative diversion and
manoeuvre which is aiming to bypass the obligations Turkey has undertaken
towards the European Union and its member states. Ankara not only continues
to refuse in essence to implement its obligations, but is also setting forth
conditions and terms so that in exchange it can gain rewards in Cyprus.
The obligations of Turkey
towards the European Union are self-evident, very concrete and cannot be
subjected to the logic of give and take. Under these circumstances the
European Union should have rejected outright the so-called Turkish
proposals. However instead of this, Oli Ren's spokesperson and the Foreign
Minister of Finland holding the Presidency of the EU have described them as
"a positive step", whilst the President of the European Commission Barosso
characterised them in turn as "an important step". It is obvious that the
leadership of the EU would like to open a dialogue with Ankara on the basis
of the unacceptable Turkish proposals. Instead of rejecting they seem to be
accepting the Turkish manoeuvre and are ready to project Turkey as allegedly
exhibiting a spirit of conciliation.
We expect that the Committee
of Permanent Representatives will reject the Turkish proposal.
Unfortunately there are many
examples, and not only regarding the Cyprus problem, which demonstrate that
the EU does not operate on the basis of principles but rather on the basis
of expediencies which seek to promote imperialist interests.
The Republic of Cyprus has
no other alternative than to defend its interests and the rule of law. By
remaining firm on positions of principle we are fighting for our rights and
waging this struggle with determination. |
|
|
03.12.06
Press statement of the C.C. of AKEL
on
the last Kofi Annan's Report to the Security Council before the end of his
term of office regarding the operation of the United Nations in Cyprus
In his last
Report to the Security Council before the end of his term of office
regarding the operation of the United Nations in Cyprus Kofi Annan expresses
regret at his failure to end the long lasting conflict in Cyprus during the
ten year period of his term of office. Of course the Cypriot people are the
first who are distressed because the current unacceptable situation in
Cyprus continues to exist. If in the efforts undertaken by the United
Nations and especially by the General Secretary a deviation from the letter
and spirit of the resolutions of the International Organization regarding
Cyprus did not take place and if the concerns of the Greek Cypriot community
had been taken more into account then perhaps the situation today would have
been different.
The General
Secretary recalls that the 8th of July agreement recognizes that
the status quo is unacceptable and that a comprehensive settlement is
desirable and feasible if the necessary good will is exhibited and the blame
game is ended which does not serve the interests of no one.
In referring
to the different interpretations of the 8th of July agreement
which resulted in the delay of the approval of the procedure, the G.S.
underlines that the agreement provides for the establishment of Technical
Committees concerning day-to-day matters as well as Working Groups to
discuss core issues. The G.S. considers that both can contribute to the
comprehensive settlement.
AKEL considers
as positive elements of the report the references that the status quo is
unacceptable and that the discussion not only on day-to-day matters but also
on core issues can contribute to the effort for the resumption of the
procedure of substantial negotiations aiming at a comprehensive settlement.
The holding of a position of equal distance with regards the blame for the
continuous deadlock does not contribute to the promotion of the goal which
the G.S. himself sets for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
On the contrary it nurtures the intransigence of Ankara.
In the current
phase it is imperative that the obstacles need to be overcome, that the
Turkish Cypriot side understands that the discussion also of the essence of
the Cyprus problem in the working committees contributes to the preparation
of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement and by having this goal
negotiations on the level of technical committees and working groups should
begin as soon as possible.
|
|
|
01.12.06
Statements made by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL comrade
Demetris Christofias at a press conference.
The General Secretary of
AKEL and the President of the House of Representatives Demetris Christofias
held a press conference and replied to a number of questions, most of which
dealt with the developments in the European Union in relation to the
accession course of Turkey and the position of the Republic of Cyprus.
- Unfortunately quite a lot
of warnings made by AKEL through its General Secretary have been vindicated.
I remind you that from the very beginning of the start of the discussions on
the issue of the implementation of Turkey's obligations and the summit
meeting that will be held in December, I had stressed many times that we
expect the EU to honour the principles on which it declares that it is based
on. I also stated that we shall be going through some difficult times
because certain forces instead of putting pressure on Turkey, at the end of
the day will try to corner Cyprus and to assure that the pressure will be
directed towards us. This scheming has been going on for some time now by
the very well-known friends of Turkey and our own sworn enemies.
Consequently the proposal of the European Committee does not surprise us
anyhow. I am not saying this with a sense of self-satisfaction. It is with
sadness that I say this because what Mr. Anastasiades (the leader of the
Right-wing Democratic Rally party) says as being self-evident and a
matter-of-course should really be self-evident and not need to be fought
for. However the fact is that we have a European Union that is still
struggling to find its way regarding foreign policy matters, is searching
for answers and trying to define its identity. That is why one can also see
a great reaction from the USA. The USA sent an official envoy to Brussels.
In my opinion it constituted a challenge for the EU: on the one hand to
receive these people but on the other hand to stand firm on its own
independent line. Unfortunately the influence from across the Atlantic is
still very powerful and I say that this should not surprise us but that this
should not mean that we should give in and accept our fate being determined
by others. What meaning then would our stand have that we agree that Turkey
proceeds in its accession course when we will not be in a position to wage
battles inside the EU so that Turkey can gradually change its position and
comply with the stated principles of the EU, transforming this process into
a catalyst for the solution of the Cyprus problem? We will constantly have
to wage struggles. This is more than clear. A hard struggle will be waged up
to December and many tough battles lie ahead of us. As a consequence the
fact that we are asking that a serious warning be sent out to Turkey is I
believe a correct line. It is an effort which must be combined with what I
have said before: Turkey must be put under pressure and through its
accession course it should act in a logical way, respect the stated
principles of the EU, the resolutions of the United Nations and
international law.
- When one sets strategic
goals you cannot abandon them when faced by the first difficulty. And indeed
to even make self-criticism that you have made a mistake. I do not discount
the holding of a discussion on this question (if that is to say mistakes
were committed in our consent for Turkey to take the road to join the EU).
Those who perhaps propose something different or who today make criticism
regarding the strategic choices must propose what the alternative policy
should have been. If the alternative would simply have been for us to say No
to Turkey we would also have received our own No's. I would like to remind
you of Helsinki. Unfortunately the European Union is an institution of great
compromises. This was well known from the very beginning. The decision of
the European Council taken in Helsinki December 1999 gave us a present, if
of course we can put it that way: a possibility to promote the accession of
Cyprus to the EU without the prior solution to the Cyprus problem. This
however was only one side of the coin because this also meant that something
else was "given" in return. We did not just receive or gain something. I
want to remind you that AKEL from that precise moment criticised the
Helsinki decision stating that at the same time this decision offered the
opportunity to Turkey not to link its accession course with the solution of
the Cyprus problem. Let's be honest and absolutely clear. Even those who
criticize today because Turkey's accession course is not linked to the
solution of the Cyprus problem are the very same people who in celebratory
manner had accepted and welcomed the Helsinki decision. Because nearly all
Cypriots are sometimes short of memory I believe that we must recall a few
things to freshen up our memory. Consequently when one sets strategic goals
one does not abandon them and defer them when faced by the first
difficulties. It should have been clear to all that Turkey would not
"sacrifice" its strategy on the Cyprus problem on the first pressure it
could have encountered within the framework of its course for accession to
the EU. Unfortunately, Turkey has the backing of powerful friends. It is
here that we can witness the advantage or the capabilities Turkey has. It
has the unjust backing and support of its powerful allies who want by any
means possible to move forward Turkey's accession course without any
problems or obstacles.
- Has the EU ever accepted
the Cyprus problem to be brought under its own responsibility or aegis? Is
it really in our interest to see the Cyprus problem handled solely and
exclusively by the EU? Especially when we observe the compromises being made
and the violations of principle of the Union one can imagine what would have
happened if the Cyprus problem was put under the sole jurisdiction of the EU.
- Despite the fact that they
are trying to take the United Nations under their control I want to remind
you that things are not as you are saying (that is to say that the United
Nations are run completely under the control of the United States and Great
Britain). We had the plan of the General Secretary and some forces in Cyprus
also contributed to formulation of the plan as it was presented - let's not
disregard the realities. The plan was put before us and the Cypriot people
with all its wisdom rejected it. It had the implicit right to do so, a fact
that was recognised by the plan itself and the Security Council. Despite all
of this, the verdict of the Cypriot people was not respected and the General
Secretary drew up a Report which condemned us. This Report was not however
accepted by the Security Council. A similar Report might have been accepted
perhaps by the EU and up till now the General Secretary is trying to
resurrect and bring back elements of this report. However the Security
Council has not adopted this report. This is why the Republic of Cyprus
exists as it also exists today and it constitutes our main weapon in
tackling and facing whatever machinations are promoted. Consequently, once
more with all the difficulties we are facing, let us not minimise and
undermine the United Nations and its existence. The struggle should be
waged, not only by us but also by the forces of humanity which continue to
respect international law as the way to tackle international problems but
also through which the independence, integrity and sovereignty of states are
respected, so that what is wrong can be put right and that the United
Nations can become a powerful organisation that will also respect itself and
the principles it is based on. Therefore, yes, there are difficulties before
us regarding the functioning of the UN, but once again it is an arena of
struggle so that the United Nations can be improved and enhanced.
- I would not like at this
present time to take a position on this issue (whether we are going to
utilise the procedure of vetoes on specific chapters). What I want to say is
that the procedure of specific vetoes can function up till now so that
chapters will not be opened till the 14th of the month, but on the 14th the
veto we will exercise if we decide to do so will not be a "small" one and if
we will be in a position to exercise it. It would constitute a veto of huge
dimensions which I do not know if the powerful forces of the planet would
allow us to exercise such a veto. I believe that all of these questions
should be discussed in the National Council where everyone should be present
at the session and let us not hurry in taking a position rather clumsily by
raising the bar at a high level so that we will not be exposed and
vulnerable. I think that we should discuss the matter carefully and with a
great deal of thought without excluding anything. But without excluding
anything we must analyse all its parameters and dimensions.
- (In reply to question of a
journalist if they would ban us from exercising a sacred and inalienable
right): Why - do they ban you up till now to be truly independent? Why
despite our wishes are there British bases in Cyprus? Why is the occupation
continuing? We should answer these innocent questions by ourselves, because
they are put by some people and of course they also exploited our own crimes
and mistakes.
- Of course Nicosia should
insist (on timetables for the revaluation of the stand taken by Turkey). It
is one of the issues which do not even constitute a specific "small" veto.
It is a self-evident right. Turkey's accession course cannot be left
entirely free and unchecked. On this matter I believe that allies can be
sought so that this position can be adopted.
- We do not have an
objection for Turkish Cypriots to conduct trade as everyone knows. As a
matter of fact the Cyprus Government has also taken measures concerning the
green line regulation. But the lifting of the so-called isolation of the
Turkish Cypriots cannot be done in a way that will downgrade the Republic of
Cyprus and enhance another state in the occupied area. This is a fundamental
principle which we adhere to. If Mr. Mbeglitis (a MEP of the Socialist PASOK
Party in Greece) accepts this then we are on the same side. If Mr. Mbeglitis
or any one else supports the lifting of the so-called isolation of the
Turkish Cypriots at any cost we have a disagreement in our views.
- Our own position
(concerning casinos) is crystal clear. The argument that some people go to
the occupied areas and spend their money in casinos therefore we should also
open casinos are flimsy in our opinion. It also lacks any moral basis. We
consider that casinos are a phenomenon of decay and corruption. This is our
own position. Along with the crisis in institutions and values faced by
Cypriot society we cannot add one more factor that will deepen the crisis
just because next to us in the occupied areas, irrespective and quite apart
from our wishes, these establishments called casinos are operating.
Consequently we believe sincerely that whatever economic profit and income
can be gained it cannot be compared to the huge damage our social fabric
will face with the functioning of casinos in Cyprus. On the one hand we are
living in a semi-occupied society which we want to be based on principles
and on the other hand all the more we are falling into the precipice of
crisis through the various "institutions" which various profit - seeking
speculators have created so that we can even try to give the appearance of
some kind of a contemporary society. We consider that this is not the way to
consolidate institutions and values. We are not puritanical as everybody
knows. However we cannot in the name of some so-called modernisation or the
copying of institutions which have imposed by various profit speculators
slide down into this situation
- The position of AKEL on
the issue of retirement at 63 in the Education sector is different from the
position of the government. We believe that due to the continuous renewal of
knowledge it is right that teachers should retire at 60.This is of course
also right due to the peculiarities and youth today. Contemporary youth are
different to the young people of our times. Today the work of teachers and
primary school teachers is very demanding and this should be recognised by
the state and society. When we discussed the issue with the President we
projected all of these and many other issues, underlining that teachers in
secondary and primary schools should retire at the age of 60 and that an
extension should not be granted. We had a discussion on the matter and it
was agreed that it should be left on the teachers themselves to decide. The
teachers have made their decision and they have decided to retire at 60. We
respect their decision. We do not see a connection in not accepting the
retirement age at 60 and therefore calling for more working hours.
|
|
|
29.11.06
Statement of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL
The Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL
in its session today dealt with the developments in Tampere in Finland. It
considers that the failure to reach a deal was an expected but
simultaneously also a regrettable development. From the very beginning
Turkey took a negative position and did not show any positive response
whatsoever.
The essence of the issue is simple. Turkey
refuses to fulfil and implement its contractual obligations which it has
undertaken towards the European Union. The European Commission itself in its
last Progress Report on Turkey's accession process stressed that the
implementation of the Additional Protocol constitutes an autonomous legal
obligation which cannot be linked to the situation of the Turkish Cypriot
community. Consequently it is wrong that Turkey is linking the fulfilment of
its obligations in exchange for rewards on the Cyprus problem.
However whilst such a link does not exist,
the government of the Republic of Cyprus nonetheless showed its good will by
responding positively to the attempt of the Finish Presidency for a
compromise which would allow the opening of the port of Famagusta for common
use with the simultaneous handing over of the city to the United Nations
with the goal of the return of its lawful inhabitants to the city.
It is obvious to every well-intentioned
observer that Turkey has not exhibited the corresponding spirit of
compromise nor has it shown good will which made the deadlock inevitable.
Turkey cannot, and indeed should not, be
allowed to get away with the continuous violation of its legal obligations
to the EU. The European Union ought to impose the corresponding sanctions by
remaining committed to its principles and by contributing in this way to the
effort to create the conditions which will allow the promoting of a
comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.
In view of the expected conclusions at the
European Council AKEL considers that the National Council should be convened
with the aim to draw a common line to tackle the developments.
|
|
|
22.11.06
Press Statement of comrade Andros Kyprianou Press
Spokesman of the C.C. of AKEL, Nicosia on the
attack made against Turkish Cypriot school students by Greek
Cypriots at the English School in Nicosia.
AKEL
vehemently condemns the attack made against Turkish Cypriot school students
by Greek Cypriots at the English School in Nicosia. At the same time we wish
to express our great concern regarding the phenomena of nationalism and
chauvinism which have reared their heads among the Greek Cypriot community,
indeed corresponding phenomena also exist among the Turkish Cypriot
community and which unfortunately it seems some forces and people are
instigating.
During this
period of time what we need is a good climate, calm in order to handle in
the best possible way the developments underway both with regards to the
Cyprus problem, but also regarding the issues concerning the European Union,
especially Turkey’s accession course.
What no one of
us wishes is that apart from the other problems which exist in our
long-suffering island the phenomenon of religious fanaticism and
confrontation on religious matters will also begin to appear. Therefore we
call on all the responsible authorities to take all the necessary measures
so that the root of the evil can be combated. Everyone together the Board,
teachers and the Parents Association of the English School must rise to the
occasion and function in a catalytic way so that the repetition of any
similar events at the school can be avoided.
At the same
time we call on everyone to realize that nationalism and chauvinism are the
worst counselors. They are the evils that have contributed to the greatest
possible extent to the contemporary tragedy of the Cypriot people and
everyone together as one must confront and combat them. What we should
cultivate is the friendship, mutual respect and trust with the Turkish
Cypriot community and not bigotry and hatred, chauvinism and fanaticism.
|
|
|
22.11.06
General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL comrade Demetris
Christofias's Greeting at the memorial meeting in honour of Ozger
Ozgur.
We have all gathered here
today to express our respect and esteem towards Ozger Ozgur and to honour
his struggles and great services to Cyprus and its people.
One year has already gone by
since we all lost our comrade, fellow-fighter and friend Ozger Ozgur. His
passing away is a great loss for our people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish
Cypriots, because Ozger Ozgur was a consistent patriot and fighter for his
community but also for our common homeland Cyprus. He was a consistent and
dedicated fighter for a truly independent homeland, liberated from foreign
dependence and military bases. He was a fighter for the political equality
of the two Cypriot communities and for the reunification of Cyprus within
the framework of a bi-zonal bi-communal federal solution which will be based
on the High-Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979, the UN resolutions and the
principles of international law. Ozger Ozgur categorically rejected
partition and double-enosis (union of Cyprus with Greece and Turkey),
underlining that such divisionist solutions will lead to new disasters.
He has never hidden these
convictions. He courageously declared and defended them without fear and
passionately, irrespective of the times and conditions. It is a fact that
Ozger Ozgur lived a great part of his life in very difficult conditions but
he was never a coward, he never retreated and never gave up on the cause of
peace, democracy and universal human rights of which he was a fevered
supporter and servant.
Ozger Ozgur never divided
Cypriots on the basis of their ethnic origin. He was one and the same a
fighter for the rights of the Turkish Cypriots as he was for the rights of
the Greek Cypriots. For him over and above anything else was the
well-intentioned interest of Cyprus and he deeply believed that this
interest could be best served only when Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots
are united. He turned this conviction into practise and struggle by
vigorously combating nationalism and chauvinism, fanaticism and bigotry,
which have caused so much harm and so many disasters to our people and he
contributed a great deal to the rapprochement and the building of confidence
between the two communities. He fought against imperialism in the same
vigorous way during his whole life, which he considered as the main culprit
of the tragedy of Cyprus.
If Ozger Ozgur did make a
one division this was a division based on class which objectively is born
and reproduced by the socio-economic system in which we all live; the
division between wealth and poverty, between big business and labour. A
person with sensitivities and deeply humanistic, Ozger Ozgur formulated his
class consciousness and ideology in the difficult social and political
conditions of Cyprus. In this process he came into contact with the ideology
of the Left of which he was such a faithful and courageous companion
throughout the whole of his life.
Dear compatriots,
The vision and purpose of
Ozger Ozgur's life was to see Cyprus free and its people united.
Unfortunately, he did not manage to live to see this vision becoming a
reality. Maybe Ozger Ozgur is not amongst us today - and his absence is very
evident - but his vision, purpose of his life and his struggles are alive in
our hearts; they inspire, guide and strengthen the resolve of the struggle
for the solution of the Cyprus problem and reunification of Cyprus.
For us Ozger Ozgur was and
remains a consistent comrade and fellow fighter whose life represents a
shining example of the common struggle of Greek Cypriots and Turkish
Cypriots for a free, united common homeland, in which its children can live
in conditions of permanent peace and cooperation and build their future
together.
In honouring the memory of
comrade Ozger Ozgur and on the occasion of the first anniversary since his
death AKEL has decided to offer in cooperation with Intercollege Larnaca a
scholarship every year to a young man or woman from the Turkish Cypriot
community. Details of the relative examination which is to be proclaimed as
well as regarding the special committee that will handle the whole matter
will be announced later on.
|
|
|
16.11.06
Press Statement of the C.C. of AKEL on the
Bolkenstein Directive Nicosia
The vote in the European
Parliament on the second reading of the directive for the liberalisation of
the services sector in the European Union, known as the Bolkenstein
directive, was completed yesterday.
The directive was supported
by the parties of the conservative Right, the Socialists and the Liberals.
On the contrary, the Political Group of the European United Left, which AKEL
is a member of, voted against the directive as it had finally been
formulated given that the amendments which the Left had proposed were
rejected.
This directive, which is
against the interests of the working people, stipulates that:
- The Member-States must not
put any "obstacles" to the activity of the multinational companies but on
the contrary that they should safeguard the setting up and conduction of
business activity of foreign companies providing services in their
territory. These companies will be able to conduct their business in a broad
range of services with minimal restrictions, a fact which damages the social
and public character of vital services.
- The multinational
companies will not need to have any kind of certification of their country
of origin (occupational competence and proficiency, credibility and solvency
or other). The directive characterises these as constituting "bureaucracy".
- The position remains in
the text that the Directive does not affect domestic labour law in general.
However the amendments of the Group of the United Left were rejected by the
parties of the Right and the Social Democrats which explicitly clarified
that in every member-state the labour laws of their country is supreme so
that the rights of working people to some degree would be safeguarded.
- Also, no mechanism
whatsoever has been secured that will enable in practise the states to fully
monitor and control in fact that the multinational companies will not
implement working conditions like in Estonia, that is to say working
conditions characterised by low wages, arbitrary dismissal, the exclusion of
trade unions and of the right to organise etc.
AKEL, within the framework
of the Group of the European United Left-Nordic Green Left, with its
consistent stand for the defence and support of the working people and their
rights, voted against the anti-popular Bolkenstein directive. On the
contrary, the DHSY Rally Party by voting in favour of the Directive along
with the Group of the European People's Party showed once again that on
crucial issues of social content it sides with big business and the
multinational companies.
The conservative political
camp in Europe together with the Social Democrats is attempting to present
the Directive as a landmark for the working people and development. If
however it is truly interested in the working people of Europe it would not
have voted against the amendments proposed by the Group of the Left. The
Conservatives and Social Democrats must also explain to small and
middle-sized enterprises why they consider that it is in their interest the
call to the multinational companies to overrun the countries of Europe, also
including Cyprus, where the small and middle-sized enterprises constitute
the back-bone of the economy.
We will study in depth the
new reality which is being created from today up till 2009, the year when
the member-states have to fully comply with the Directive, aiming to propose
strict control and monitor mechanisms which will safeguard as much as
possible the interests of working people.
In every case AKEL and the
broader Popular Movement will continue the struggles against the neo-liberal
policies, which are drawn up either in Brussels or from any other centres.
The strengthening of the organisation of working people and the
intensification of their struggles is the only way to resolutely combat
neo-liberalism.
|
|
|
11.11.06
INTERVENTION OF COMRADE GIANNAKIS COLOCASIDES,
MEMBER OF THE POLITICAL BUREAU OF AKEL, IN THE DISCUSSION ORGANISED BY
GUE-NGL ON "THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE END OF PARTITION".
Dear friends,
One of the main reasons why
AKEL supported the accession of Cyprus to the European Union was our
evaluation that the accession perspective and the accession itself could
have functioned as a catalyst for the solution of the Cyprus problem.
Indeed, before accession an
intense mobility had been created regarding the Cyprus problem, which led
even to the holding of referenda. Consequently the European perspective did
indeed play a supporting role in the procedures for the solution of the
Cyprus problem. It did not however also operate in a useful way as far as
the content of the solution of the Cyprus problem itself is concerned,
something which AKEL had warned about for a long time.
Thus, serious negative
elements were included in the Annan Plan, some of which constitute a source
of great concern for all the Greek Cypriots. I should mention here that we
are not aiming at taking away any rights, even of privileges which the plan
had conceded to our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. For us the disproportionate
representation of the Turkish Cypriots in relation to the balance of the
populations in all the bodies and decisions of the federal state does not
constitute a problem. We are not disturbed by the fact that the federation
will be made up of two equal component states with wide-ranging powers and
jurisdictions. Our basic concerns are centred elsewhere.
The Annan Plan permits a
huge number of settlers to remain in Cyprus in relation to the demographic
state of affairs of the island, roughly equal, if not even more, than the
number of Turkish Cypriots. We understand that humanitarian cases do exist
and we are ready to discuss the remaining of a reasonable number of
settlers. However, we cannot accept the dramatic altering of the demographic
balance on the island.
Another serious source of
concern for us is the issue of the rights of intervention. I would like to
remind you that the Turkish invasion of 1974 invoked the alleged right of
military intervention which supposedly was conceded to Turkey according to
the Treaty of Guarantor in 1960. Given that this Treaty would have remained
intact, we are justifiably worried by the fact that the crucial issue of the
rights of intervention is not clarified at all in the plan.
Furthermore, an extremely
long timetable was set concerning the withdrawal of the Turkish occupation
troops, whilst in the end all the troops will not be withdrawn. The
timetables regarding the handing back of the properties of even those that
would have been allowed to return to their homes and properties is also
extremely indefensibly long.
We do not have any illusions
and we are fully aware that the historical compromise also involves the
approval of non-acceptable elements. However, the indicative and
demonstrative elements I have referred to should convince you that there
were justifiable concerns that were not taken into account and met. The
result was the rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots and
therefore unfortunately the accession into the European Union did not find
Cyprus reunited.
Despite the fact that the
efforts to solve the Cyprus problem before the accession did not materialise
we are looking forward to the future and we remain firmly and unwaveringly
committed to the cause of the solution. As the Declaration of the Central
Committee of AKEL on the occasion of Cyprus' accession characteristically
states, "the accession in no way is a substitute for our strategic goal
which is none other than the peaceful reunification of our country and
people within the framework of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.
In relation to this question
the accession course of Turkey towards the direction of the solution of the
Cyprus problem must be continuously utilised. I would like to underline from
this podium in the most categorical way that we, the Cypriots, want perhaps
more than any body else to see the accession negotiations of Turkey move
forward uninhibited and to come to a successful conclusion. This is so
because we are firmly convinced that a European Turkey will be to the
interest not only of the country and the Turkish people itself but also to
Cyprus and its people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
Hence we are striving to
overcome the current obstacles. On our part we are doing everything possible
to achieve this goal. However, the key is being held by Turkey itself. It is
I believe evident that in order for the accession course of Turkey to
proceed uninhibited the neighbour country must implement and carry out what
all the other member-countries without exception had to do before they
joined the European Union. That is to say, to conform to its contractual
obligations regarding the European Union. The opening of the ports,
aerospace and airports of Turkey to the ships and aeroplanes of all the
member-states of the European Union, including the Republic of Cyprus, is
among these obligations.
A possible refusal to comply
with the above-mentioned obligations would constitute a violation of the
Association Agreement, the Customs Union and of the Additional Protocol.
Those kinds of interpretations which support that the Customs Union does not
include the free and uninhibited provision of services and that as a
consequence Turkey is not obliged to open its ports and airports to Cyprus
are completely out of place and out of order. This is a clear case of an
insane approach which is rejected by the European Union itself. How can one
talk about the free and uninhibited movement of goods from Cyprus to Turkey
without access to the ports and airports of our neighbouring country? I
hereby remind that both the Association Agreement and the Customs Union
Agreement are full of provisions which do permit any kind of discrimination
regarding the implementation of these agreements.
Consequently, even if Turkey
was eligible to close off the ports and airports it would have had to close
them to all the member-states and not just to Cyprus. But Turkey is not
eligible to do that, since the Association and Customs Union Agreements
include provisions that impose the implementation of the rules of the
Establishment Treaty of the Community regarding transport.
Precisely because the
above-mentioned constitute contractual obligations of Turkey towards the
European Union and not just to Cyprus, it is wrong to link them with aspects
of the Cyprus problem.
Whilst however such a link
does not exist, nonetheless the proposal of the Cyprus government for the
common use of the port of Famagusta under the aegis of the United Nations
and with the monitoring by the European Commission, in combination with the
return of the legal inhabitants of the city, can become the common
denominator which will help to break the seemingly imminent and extremely
undesirable deadlock. I believe it is worthwhile for Turkey to study
seriously this proposal which can prove to be beneficial to everyone.
Therefore, Turkey, which in any case must open its ports and airports to
Cyprus, will be satisfied in its call for the lifting of the so-called
isolation of the Turkish Cypriots and will overcome successfully any
immediate complications in its accession course. The Turkish Cypriots,
whilst they do not lose anything at all with the handing over of the city of
Famagusta that has been deserted for 32 years to its lawful inhabitants,
gain direct trade through the port. Finally, the Greek Cypriots would take
back the city and at last be able to use Turkish ports and airports.
Having said all these, I do
not disregard the most essential and basic matter, which is the solution of
the Cyprus problem. However the obstacles must be overcome without delay and
the technical committees and working groups must begin their work so that
the daily life on the island could be facilitated, confidence-building
measures be promoted and, the most fundamental issue of all, the ground for
a new initiative within the framework and under the aegis of the UN could be
prepared aiming at a comprehensive settlement.
In conclusion, I want to
reaffirm that we do not wish to put any obstacles to the accession process
of Turkey. Of course this does not mean that we can consent to the violation
of Turkey's contractual obligations towards the European Union and to the
detriment of Cyprus. If everyone rises to the occasion and reason prevails,
I am cautiously optimistic that the seemingly imminent complication will be
tackled successfully.
|
|
|
08.11.06
Statement of the Press Office of the C.C. of
AKEL about the
Israeli's military attack against the Palestinian city of
Beit Hanoun.
Once again the Israeli army has conducted a
bloody military attack against the Palestinian city of Beit Hanoun in the
northern part of the Gaza strip. AKEL condemns vehemently the indefensible
Israeli attacks during the past seven days which have resulted in the death
of at least 68 civilians and a Palestinian soldier.
The
events during the summer have shown that a military solution to the Middle
East problem cannot be imposed. The democratic gains of humanity, the
struggles for peace, freedom and human rights cannot be erased in the name
of the war against terrorism and through the imposition of the "right of the
powerful". Israel must stop this merciless war, the continuous violation of
international law and human rights which are undermining peace and stability
in the Middle East.
AKEL
calls on the international community and the European Union to insist on the
return to the negotiating table of all of the interested parties and the
waging of a peaceful dialogue. They should demand from Israel that it must
comply with the relative resolutions of the United Nations and to respect
the principles of territorial integrity and national sovereignty. As long as
the international community does not resolutely tackle the causes of the
crisis, that is to say the aggressive policy of Israel and the occupation of
the Palestinian territories, the peoples of the Middle East will continue to
suffer and bear the tragic consequences of this policy. It is long overdue
to promote an overall and final solution to the Palestinian problem with the
establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to the state of
Israel with East Jerusalem its capital. This is the only way to achieve
lasting peace in the Palestinian territories but also throughout the whole
region.
|
|
|
22.10.06
Extract from an interview given by comrade
Demetris Christofias, General Secretary of the C.C of AKEL and President of
the House of Representatives, to the Sunday Edition of "Phileleftheros".
Question: The issue of
Turkey is once again at the centre of attention and it seems that Cyprus
will once again come under pressure to accept things which it does not
itself agree with. Has Cyprus the strength that is required so that it can
face up to other European countries that view the question of Turkey in a
very different light?
Answer: Whether we
like it or not Turkey has been and is at the centre of attention during the
past few months. Whether Turkey likes it or not the Report on its progress
will be published and it is not achieving the best results in the tests it
is continuously taking. Turkey should have been put under scrutiny and put
under pressure. The European Union declares that it is based on principles
which it does not retract from and which it wants to implement in a
consistent manner. If that is the case then Turkey should not be in a
position to conduct negotiations by exploiting the Cyprus question at this
time. It should rather be held accountable regarding how it implements the
reforms that it has to carry out. It is Turkey's duty, as well as all the
duty of all the countries that want to join the EE, to move forward and
implement the customs union with the European Union. This is what the Ankara
protocol stipulates. Turkey still refuses for over a year now to implement
this obligation it has towards Cyprus. This is the first obligation which
the EU should demand from Turkey to implement.
Question: Without any
reference made to the Cyprus problem at all?
Answer: There should
not have been and there must not be any link made whatsoever between the
Cyprus problem, and any other issues which arise in the course of events,
with the implementation of Turkey's obligations. This should have been made
clear. Turkey has powerful friends inside and outside of the EU. It has
supporters which by any and whatever means want to help it in its accession
course, whether it implements its obligations or not. This is precisely the
essence of the matter. Perhaps there are some, who would like to scheme
events once again, so that the answer as to whether Turkey will proceed or
not in its course to join the EU will depend only on Cyprus. This is unfair.
This apart from anything else is incompatible with how the EU itself
functions. Turkey is accountable to the 25 member states. It is not only
accountable to Cyprus. Despite all of this however events are being
manipulated. I have said all along for a few months now that this scheming
is aiming to drive us into a corner. This is my own opinion regarding the
events taking place. Unjust on the one hand, but these developments are
being schemed in a methodical manner.
Question: Is the
situation reversible?
Answer: We are waging
our struggle. And it is right that we are doing so, given that they have
linked the question of the implementation of the protocol or the positive
response of Turkey to its obligation with the issue of direct trade by the
Turkish Cypriots. We stand firm on the proposal made by the Cyprus
government: the opening of the port of Famagusta under the supervision of
the EU, the return of the enclosed region of Varosha to the United Nations
and as a consequence to its inhabitants. This is Turkey's responsibility. It
is not Mr. Talat's responsibility as some are trying to suggest now. The one
responsible for the fate of Varosha is none other than Turkey, also
according to the unanimous resolution of the United Nations. Since that is
the case, it is right and correct that the Cypriot government has
re-emphasised the importance of the implementation of the relative decision
of the Security Council of the United Nations. The Luxembourg Presidency has
accepted, welcomed and tried to promote this position. The British
Presidency followed, and as we predicted attempted to overturn this
position. It managed in the six months it held the Presidency to
overcomplicate matters by also exercising pressure on the Republic of
Cyprus, to be followed by the Austrian Presidency which also viewed the
matter positively. Presently the current Presidency, in our assessment, once
again is trying to confuse matters in the way it is proceeding.
Despite the fact that we do
not have - and we should stress this point - a final written proposal and
that these are ideas, nonetheless what is being vaguely floated around sends
out the message that once again attempts are being made to confuse the
issue. A pertinent clear link of the Turkish obligations with the question
of direct trade and the return of Famagusta is being made.
Question: Will our
side lay down its own "red lines" in all this procedure?
Answer: I wouldn't
like to refer right now to any "red lines". In my opinion, the more we raise
publicly the stakes the more difficult it is to negotiate. Our goal is the
one I have stated. I believe we have already discussed how this goal is to
be implemented. If we remain firmly dedicated to this goal I believe that we
will open up a good perspective and have a strong negotiating weapon. I am
not in favour of entering into a kind of bidding war by making excessive or
low claims on this issue. If we state publicly our "red lines" I believe
that we would be making a mistake. We are negotiating and rightly so. There
is no other way forward.
Question: Bearing in
mind how the EU operates, do you see any prospects for the formation of the
necessary alliances so that the positions of the Republic of Cyprus can be
approved without Nicosia shouldering all of the cost and burden of
management?
Answer: I believe that
first of all we should wage the struggle to convince the 25 member states
that this question is not an issue between Cyprus and Turkey. It is a matter
between Turkey and the EU. This is the most fundamental question. If we
manage to convince then alliances will also be formed automatically without
any particular problems. This is the struggle we are all waging, the
President of the Republic and the Foreign Minister and which we ourselves
are waging our own fronts through the contacts and meetings we are
holding.
|
|
|
22.09.06
Statement of the Central Committee of AKEL
The Plenum of
the Central Committee convened in its session today 22nd of September 2006,
which dealt with the developments surrounding the Cyprus problem, the
formation of the tripartite cooperation for the Municipal elections, the
elections for a new Archbishop and the situation regarding the domestic
front. The G.S. of the C.C. of AKEL and President of the House of
Representatives Demetris Christofias presented a report on all the matters.
1. The C.C. of
AKEL underlines once again that the Turkish side must terminate its policy
of stalling and playing for time and consent to the setting up of the
technical committees as provided for by the 8th of July agreement. The
technical committees must be set up and deal with day-to-day issues but also
with core issues in a serious effort to prepare the ground for the
resumption of official negotiations between the two communities, aiming at
the solution of the Cyprus problem. The persistence on the holding of
immediate talks without prior preparation and the continuous effort for the
international upgrading of the pseudo-state constitute a policy that
sustains the impasse on the Cyprus problem.
2.
Irrespective of the developments on the Cyprus problem, Turkey must
implement the obligations which it has undertaken towards the European Union
and consequently towards the Republic of Cyprus. The governments of Britain
and the United States, but also several of the leaders of the European
Union, instead of attempting to find ways so that Turkey can avoid
fulfilling its obligations, should exercise their influence and prestige on
Ankara to honour these obligations. The credibility of the European Union
itself is being tested in the process of the relations between Turkey and
the European Union.
3. The C.C. of
AKEL greets and welcomes the decisions of the Central Committees of the
Democratic Party (DIKO) and the Socialist Party (EDEK) for the renewal of
the tripartite cooperation in the Municipal elections. AKEL made great
efforts for the renewal of the cooperation. Through its interventions and
proposals it played a constructive and positive role so that the
negotiations between the three parties came finally to a successful
conclusion. The tripartite cooperation during the previous five year period
had produced a substantial amount of work and operated in the interests of
local self-government, local societies and citizens. The local communities
and the popular feeling aspired to the continuation of this cooperation. The
awareness of the need to renew the tripartite cooperation, aiming at the
promotion of the progressive outlook on matters concerning local
self-government, helped in the overcoming of whatever difficulties arose
during the talks between the three parties. The C.C. of AKEL ratifies with
satisfaction the tripartite agreement that has been achieved. This agreement
implements the decision of the 20th Congress of AKEL concerning the
Municipal elections.
4. The three
parties, in renewing their cooperation, took seriously into account the
needs and feelings of local communities. Worthy cadres to contest the post
of Mayor on behalf of the tripartite cooperation can also be found among all
the three parties in all Municipalities. The agreement that has been
achieved has perhaps left some bitterness. However, whatever bitterness
exists and even more so whatever ambitions there are, however noble these
may be, it is not conceivable that they should damage the common effort of
the tripartite cooperation in the municipal elections. The C.C. of AKEL
expresses its conviction that the three parties will honour the agreement
that has been achieved and will work with consistency, exercising their
influence and prestige so that all the Mayor candidates of the tripartite
cooperation will be elected into office. AKEL, as always, will behave in a
responsible manner and will support with consistency, sincerity and
decisiveness all the candidate Mayors of the tripartite cooperation and will
work hard for their election.
5. The
continuation of the discussions surrounding previous positions taken in the
past by cadres of AKEL on political questions does not help in the common
effort of the tripartite cooperation. All the cadres of AKEL are as one in
their support of the unanimous decision of the 20th Congress of the Party
and are working for its implementation. One of the criteria for the election
of candidate Mayors of the tripartite cooperation must be their integrity of
character, honesty and competence, eligibility, the work carried out and the
successful record in the post of Mayor in the cases where re-election is
being sought, knowledge and understanding and the serious involvement with
local self-government.
6. The C.C of
AKEL calls on the District organisations of the Party to complete the
internal party procedures for the election of candidate Mayors and Municipal
Council candidates, as well as for the candidate Presidents and the members
of the Communal Councils of AKEL - Left - New Forces. It strongly underlines
that during the pre-election period we should all work hard for the election
not only of the candidate Mayors of the cooperation but also of the party
election lists of AKEL - Left - New Forces for the Municipal Councils, the
Presidents and the members of the Communal Councils. The powerful presence
of AKEL in local self-government, both in the Municipalities and the local
Communities, is the best guarantee for the promotion and implementation of
progressive programmes and the vision of our Party regarding local
self-government.
7. The C.C.
also calls for the completion as soon as possible of the formulation of the
election programmes on the basis on which we request the people to vote for
the candidates of AKEL - Left - New Forces. The further strengthening of the
administrative and economic autonomy of local self-government, the increase
in the economic aid of the state, the solution of local problems and the
improvement in the quality of life will be at the centre of our efforts also
in the coming five year period. We shall continue to struggle so that
neo-liberal policies will not be imposed in local self-government, which put
the interests of the few over and above the interests of the majority. We
shall continue to fight so that local self-government will remain far
removed from vested interests and shady dealings.
8. We will
also have elections regarding the School Boards. AKEL has waged struggles so
that School Boards can be elected and not appointed. It represents a new
arena of struggle which we should use for the benefit of Education and
school students. We must complete the procedure of formulating our election
lists and pay the necessary attention so that we can achieve the best result
also in the election of School Boards.
9. Next Sunday
the people are called upon to go and vote for the election the new
Archbishop of Cyprus. The role the Church plays and its Head in the affairs
of the country at each given time make the elections for a new Archbishop a
very important event, which concerns every organised group and every
citizen. AKEL taking this fact into account since its foundation takes an
active interest in the elections for the new Archbishop and has formulated a
position which it projects courageously but also with respect to the Church
and the Clergy.
10. AKEL
considers that the Ethnarchic role came to an end with Archbishop Makarios
the Third. In contemporary times the Church of Cyprus and its Head have to
play an important role in the struggle against the occupation, for the
reunification of Cyprus and its people. The Church and the Archbishop should
support the political leadership in the struggle for a peaceful, just and
viable solution of the Cyprus problem, in which the Greek Cypriots and
Turkish Cypriots will once again live together within the framework of a
federation. The Archbishop and the Church also have to play a role in the
efforts for the rapprochement of the two communities. AKEL believes that a
possible slide of the Church towards any medieval cases of fanaticism,
pietism and religious conversionism would constitute a serious regression.
The Church of Cyprus and its Head must be distinguished by their sensitivity
towards the problems facing Cypriot society today and to participate in an
active manner in the alleviation of human suffering. The Archbishop of
Cyprus should be a man of consent who will promote the unity of the people
as well as the dialogue with other dogmas, religions and cultures. On the
basis of all of these criteria AKEL considers that Bishop of Kykkou
Nikiforos is the most suitable to be elected the new Archbishop of Cyprus.
The C.C. of AKEL calls on the people to exercise their electoral right given
to them by the constitutional charter of the Church of Cyprus and to go to
the poll stations en masse for the election of the new Archbishop.
11. The C.C.
of AKEL ascertains that recently the Party has been the target of unfounded
and unprovoked attacks from various quarters. It is clear that the
reaffirmation of AKEL in the results of the parliamentary elections as the
first political and social force of the country has annoyed some forces.
Through their systematic and coordinated attacks, they are trying to harm
the prestige of AKEL, to damage it in the consciousness of the people and to
marginalise it. The C.C. of AKEL calls on the people of the Left to repel
these attacks, to defend the Party and its dignity, to defend its positions
and policies. United all around the unanimous decisions of the 20th Congress
we are called upon to wage the struggle of for the further strengthening of
our Party and Popular Movement, enhancing and deepening continuously the
indestructible ties of AKEL and the working people and the Cypriot people in
general. Those who think that they can marginalise AKEL are harbouring
illusions. The Party of the Left, having the support and trust of the
Cypriot people, will continue to play a decisive role in the developments of
the Cyprus problem, on the domestic front, in the political and
socio-economic affairs of the country.
|
|
|
19.07.06
Statement of the Plenum
of the Central Committee of AKEL
on
the latest developments on the Cyprus problem
The Central Committee of
AKEL in its session held today was informed in detail and discussed the
latest developments on the Cyprus problem. The briefing was made by the
General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Demetris Christofias.
1.
The Central Committee of AKEL
assessed as positive the meeting held on the 8th of July between
President Papadopoulos and the Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat in
the presence of the Under Secretary General of the UN for Political Affairs
Ibrahim Gambari. The meeting and its results constitute a step in the right
direction, which should be utilized so that the preconditions can be created
for opening up the road for the solution of the Cyprus problem.
2.
The recognition of the fact that
the status quo is unacceptable in conjunction with the reaffirmation of the
commitment for a the solution on the basis of a bi-zonal, bi-communal
federation and political equality, as this has been outlined by the relative
resolutions of the United Nations, is of particular importance. In no case
should we compromise with the idea of division and the permanent separation
of our state and people. Such a development would not lead to a solution but
to new adventures. The bi-zonal, bi-communal federation can reunify Cyprus
and exclude solutions that are divisionist in character. AKEL remains
dedicated with consistency to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution. We
consider that not only the President of the Republic but the whole of the
political leadership of the country must continuously convey the message
that they unreservedly support a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution and
are working towards its implementation.
3.
The Central Committee of AKEL
also views as a positive element of the meeting and its results the
commitment of the two leaders for the parallel discussion of both issues of
day-to-day concern as well as of core issues, a fact that will contribute to
the necessary preparation of the ground for the start of substantive
negotiations between the leaders of the two communities aiming at the
solution of the Cyprus problem. We call on the Turkish Cypriot side to
cooperate with good will so that the agenda of the core issues can be set
out by the end of July for the discussion to begin on the technical
committees as it has been agreed upon.
4.
The improvement of the climate is
imperative in order to move ahead. The promotion of confidence building
measures will contribute towards this direction. The Cyprus Government has
already proclaimed and is implementing a series of measures to the benefit
of our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, which could be enriched. Whatever
problems arise in their implementation should be tackled immediately and
resolutely. The commitment of the two leaders to stop the so-called “blaming
game” must also be accompanied by a moratorium in statements made on either
side that could insult or cause problems to the other community.
5.
A great deal of political will
and desire will be needed in order to build on the basis of the results of
the meeting of 8th of July. The Central Committee of AKEL calls
on the two leaders to move ahead with courage, flexibility and vision by
having as the sole criteria the serving of the interests of the Cypriot
people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.
6.
The Central Committee of AKEL
approaches the developments with a sense of cautious optimism. In order for
real progress to be made towards the solution, Turkey must abandon the dogma
which views Cyprus as an extension of Anatolia and to stop demanding rights
of sovereignty over our homeland. On the other hand some statements made by
Ankara and occupied Nicosia cause concern because they exhibit an
obstructive stance and non-compliance with what was agreed upon on 8th
of July.
7.
The C.C. of AKEL condemns the
illegal visit of the Turkish Prime Minister who comes to Cyprus to attend
the “celebrations” for the anniversary of the invasion. If this visit is not
a move that has a public relations character but is an expression of the
stance of the Turkish leadership, then nothing good can be expected.
8.
The government of Turkey is very
likely to strive to exploit the developments in order to achieve its goals
on a national and European level. It is possible that Turkey will strive to
suspend or annul its duties towards the European Union. Some of its allies
are also likely to forge a common front with it in the same effort. The C.C.
of AKEL considers that the approach that the existence of progress on the
Cyprus problem should consequently lead to the easing of the commitments
that Turkey has undertaken towards the European Union is very mistaken. The
commitments that Turkey has undertaken towards the Union must be implemented
to the full since they are conventional and have no relation whatsoever with
the Cyprus problem.
9.
Ankara and the Turkish side in
general continuously refers back to the question of the lifting of the
isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. The C.C. of AKEL states in every
direction that, to the degree that this isolation exists, the sole cause for
this is the continued Turkish occupation and the fait accomplis that it has
created. If the real concern is the economic reconstruction of the Turkish
Cypriots and not the upgrading of the pseudo-state, then the best way to
achieve this is through the acceptance of the proposal of the Cyprus
government regarding Famagusta.
10.The C.C. of AKEL calls on
the international community to support the results of the meeting of 8th
of July and to work in exercising their influence on Turkey so that a
solution as soon as possible can be found on the basis of the resolutions of
the United Nations, the High-Level Agreements and international and European
law.
11.The present set of
circumstances demands as never before the existence of unity on the domestic
front. The major institution which handles the Cyprus problem and in whose
framework unity is built is the National Council. AKEL calls on the
political forces of the country to rise to the occasion and support the
institution of the National Council without terms and preconditions.
12.The aggressive policy of
Israel has led to a new confrontation which threatens to take on the
dimensions of a wider war. The C.C. of AKEL condemns in the most determined
way the attacks of Israel against Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
The raids of the Israeli war machine have led to the death and injury of
unarmed civilians, including many children, the destruction of the
infrastructure, the transformation of masses of people into refugees and the
flagrant violation of every notion of human dignity. AKEL repeats the
position that actions of individual terrorism leading to unarmed victims do
not help the cause of the Palestinian people and of the Arab peoples in
general. On the other hand, the international community cannot close its
eyes to the mass and continuous terror carried out by the state of Israel.
The problems of the region will be tackled only through a just solution of
the Palestinian problem based on the resolutions of the United Nations and
through the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on Palestinian
territory. We consider as unacceptable and condemn the stand taken by the
powerful forces of our world, a position that renders them as accomplices in
the crime being committed in the Middle East. The C.C. of AKEL expresses its
unreserved support and solidarity with the suffering peoples of Lebanon and
Palestine. AKEL stands in solidarity also with those forces in Israel who
are combating Zionism and struggling for peace and justice.
|
|
|
13.07.06 Statement of the Press Office of the
Central Committee of AKEL Condemnation of the attacks on Lebanon
After
the Palestinian territories the Israeli war machine has also attacked
Lebanon. Using the abduction of the two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah as a
pretext, Israel has launched a military attack against the neighbouring
country. The indiscriminate bombardments, whose victims as a rule are
innocent civilians and the destruction of the infrastructure of the country,
show that Israel is implementing against Lebanon the same aggressive plan
which it is |
