PRESS RELEASES /INTERVIEWS /ANNOUNCEMENTS 2007

26.04.07 Article of Nikos Katsourides, Head of the AKEL Parliamentary Group, on Cyprus and the "Partnership for Peace".

17.03.07 Resolution on the US threats against Iran

18.03.07 Resolution on the Unity of The Government in Palestine

18.03.07 The participants in the Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, having discussed the Cyprus problem, concluded the following Resolution on the CYPRUS PROBLEM

16.03.07 Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, 17-18th of March 2007, Nicosia Preliminary List of Partcipants

16.03.07 Programme of the Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, 17-18^th of March 2007, Nicosia.

12.03.07 Statement by  GUE/NGL President welcoming the demolition of the wall in Ledra Street in Nicosia

090307 AKEL greets the decision taken by the government of the Republic of Cyprus to demolish the wall at the military observation post of the National Guard in Ledra Street. Statement of the Secretariat of the C.C. of AKEL.

Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, 17-18^th of March 2007, Nicosia.

21.02.07 Plenum of the Central Commitees of AKEL Assessment of the elections for local self-administration and school boards

21.02.07 Decision of the plenary session of the Central Committee of AKEL

03.02.07 Press Spokesman of the C.C. of AKEL com. Andros Kyprianou,  welcomes the European Commission's statement on Republic of Cyprus's sovereign right to use its natural resources at its own discretion.

30.01.07 Statements of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL com. Demitris Christofias."Turkey is behaving like a policeman of the region"

12.01.07 Statement of the Political Bureau of the C.C. of AKEL,about the developments in relation to the opening of the Ledra Street crossing point.

Yesterday on the 8^th of July the internal-party procedure for the formulation of the position of AKEL in view of the Presidential elections of February 2008 was completed.

AKEL in implementing a fully democratic internal-party procedure, in which the party membership had become actively involved, proved once again what a democratic, serious and responsible Party it is: a Party in which the close ties and mutual respect between the leadership and the party grass roots are continuously being strengthened.

The internal-party procedure came to a climax with the holding of the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference in which all the elected comrades in the Party from the Secretaries and Bureaus of the Local Party Organizations to the members of the Central Committee had the right to participate in the Conference. A total of 1,626 Party cadres attended the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference, which as a rule express not only the Party membership but also the broader sections of the people of the Left.

The Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference of AKEL dealt with the proposal of the C.C. of the Party. It heard attentively the introductory speech of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL. It discussed in a completely comradely atmosphere and with a sense of responsibility the issue of the Presidential elections and took its decisions through a secret ballot.

As far as the Cyprus problem is concerned, the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference of AKEL reaffirmed the decisions of the 20^th Congress of the Party, which took place in November 2005. It reaffirmed the adherence of the Party to the peaceful solution of the Cyprus problem which should be based on the decisions and resolutions of the United Nations, the High-Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979, international and European law. For a solution that will liberate Cyprus from the Turkish occupation and settlers and that will reunify the state, people, institutions and the economy. For a bi-zonal bi-communal solution on the basis of the political equality of the two communities as this is defined by the resolutions of the United Nations. For a solution which will restore the fundamental freedoms and human rights of our people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, including the right of return and property.

The Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference also ascertained the following:

1.   On the Cyprus problem there is inertia and a stalemate. The Turkish side, Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot side are responsible for this inertia. They obstruct the implementation of the 8^th of July agreement of 2006, which could have opened the road to the solution. They set as a priority the international upgrading of the pseudo-state and are clearly conveying the message that in order to consent to a solution this must be based on the Annan Plan. Even if the responsibility for the inertia lies with the Turkish side, the perpetuation of the problem and the consolidation of the fait accomplis of the invasion and occupation harbor great dangers for the future of the Republic of Cyprus and our people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

2.   Fierce battles were waged to reverse the climate which had been created after the referenda of 2004. In these struggles AKEL and the General Secretary of the C.C. of the Party and President of the House of Representatives had an active and decisive participation. The climate has undoubtedly improved. However, the position of the Greek Cypriot side continues to be difficult. The blame is still being put on our shoulders. We are still facing mistrust and a negative disposition on behalf of Cyprus’ partners within the EU and in the international scene in general. The need to continuously argue and convince that we are sincerely searching for the solution of the Cyprus problem is real. The questioning, to one degree or another, by certain forces on the domestic front of the bi-zonal bi-communal federal solution offers additional excuses to all those abroad, on the pretext of the lifting of the so-called isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, who are promoting the upgrading of the pseudo-state and the acceptance of its structures.

3.   Focusing on the effort to implement the 8^th of July agreement it is a pressing need that the Greek Cypriot side takes the initiative. It is imperative that a flexible policy should be followed which, whilst it would not negotiate the principles of the solution of the Cyprus problem and the rights of Cyprus, will at the same time convey the messages of political will for the solution of the problem. A flexible active policy will enable either the overcoming of the current stalemates depending of course on whether Turkey will change its position; or it will expose the responsibilities of the Turkish side regarding the intransigent policy it is following.

As far as the internal governance and socio-economic policy is concerned, the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference of AKEL reaffirmed its assessment that the government of the cooperating parties has produced a positive work. It has promoted to an extent policies and reforms in the popular interest in various fields, as well as also tidying up to an extent the public finances. The Conference underlined that, whatever positive work has been achieved by the government of the cooperating parties also bears the mark of AKEL, which through its participation in the administration of the country, through its struggles and influence, worked with consistency and dedication for the implementation of the government programme.

At the same time the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference also ascertained the following:

1.   The aspirations the people had from the Change of 2003 have not been met to the extent they should have. The speed of implementation of the government programme was not the one anticipated, which resulted at the end of the five year government term without various and important provisions of the government programme having been implemented. Indeed, in some cases policies which have been implemented are in conflict with the letter and spirit of the government programme.

2.   The impact of the neo-liberal approach concerning the socio-economic policy of the government is particularly evident in the past eighteen months. A simple comparison of the social cohesion packages which were granted by the government I n the first years of its term with the cohesion package of December 2006 shows a significant reversal. The sacrifices made by the people in order to improve the indicators of the economy were not appreciated to the extent they should have with the relevant response of the government.

3.   It is imperative to implement all that the cooperating parties had promised to the people. In addition new policies in favour of the people’s interests must be set in motion and implemented which should tackle the great problems life itself brings: to tackle the difficulties caused by the accession to the European Union, and also to create better preconditions to utilize the prospects of Cyprus’ accession to the EU.

The Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference of AKEL, taking into account all that has been mentioned beforehand, considers that the continuation of the cooperation of the democratic and progressive forces will be in the interests of Cyprus and our people. The return of the DISY party to power would constitute a serious step backwards in all spheres of life. The duty of all the democratic and progressive forces is not to permit such a reversal.

At the same time the Conference considers that a new start should be made that will fully meet the aspirations for change and that will rejuvenate the hopes for a better tomorrow. Consequently the Extraordinary Pancyprian Conference of AKEL, bearing also seriously in mind the vote conducted in the Local Party Organizations, has decided:

Firstly, to authorize the C.C. of the Party to continue to work for the renewal of the cooperation of the democratic and progressive forces on the basis also of a renewed and agreed progressive democratic government programme in favour of the people’s interests.

Secondly, to propose to the President of the Republic, to the cooperating parties and to the Cypriot people in general the candidature of the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL Dimitris Christofias, as the joint candidate of the democratic and progressive forces of the country.

Thirdly, if there is no response to our proposal from the President, the Democratic Party DHKO and the Socialist Party EDEK, AKEL will advance with the candidature of Dimitris Christofias.

AKEL, as the biggest political and social force of the country, with its more than 80 year old services to Cyprus and our people, with its struggles for freedom, democracy and social progress has every right to call on the other democratic and progressive forces to support the candidature of the G.S. of the C.C. of the Party.

AKEL, faithful to the policy of alliances since the decade of the 1940’s, has always honored its cooperations and partners. Since the time of the declaration of the Republic of Cyprus and thereof it has consistently and sincerely supported Presidents from the broader democratic and progressive sector, contributing to the unity of the people and strengthening its struggle for freedom, democracy and prosperity. The votes and the consistent support of the members and cadres of AKEL and more broadly of the people of the Left have proven to be of decisive importance in the election of Presidents from the democratic political sector, in the elaboration of a correct policy on the Cyprus problem and in the promotion of democratic policies in the people’s interests.

Dimitris Christofias, first among equals, heads AKEL, the Party which through its policy and struggles on the Cyprus problem and on issues relating to internal governance, has given invaluable services to Cyprus and its cause, to the Cypriot people as a whole and especially to the popular strata.

His term at the Presidency of the House of Representatives has shown that he can operate successfully from the highest posts of the Republic of Cyprus. As President of the House of Representatives he has worked and promoted the dialogue, mutual respect and consensus between the political forces of the country. His partners in whatever political ground they may belong to recognize him as an honest and sincere politician. His election to the Presidency of the Republic will constitute a guarantee for a democratic consensus administration without authoritarianism and favoritism.

Tens of public opinion polls in the past few years have shown the acceptance and prestige he enjoys among the people, who trust his political thought, his capabilities as a political leader and his virtues as a person.

Dimitris Christofias is a fighter for the solution of the Cyprus problem. He has proved that he defends with consistency and determination the principles for the solution of the Cyprus problem. He repels any attempts for the imposition of unacceptable solutions that will be to the detriment of Cyprus and our people. At the same he is distinguished by flexibility and political will, essential elements in order to find the goal of an acceptable compromise that will lead to the solution of the Cyprus problem.

He enjoys the respect and trust of the broader strata of the Turkish Cypriots, another essential element for rapprochement and cooperation of the two communities.

As President of the House of Representatives he promoted parliamentary diplomacy. The experience he has gained all through these years during his term of office in the Presidency of the Parliament is an additional element that will help him in successfully carrying out his duties as President of the Republic.

Dimitris Christofias is accepted as a prestigious, reliable and respected interlocutor by the United Nations, the European Union and more broadly by the international factor.

The political field of the Left from which he comes from and to which he belongs, but also his very well known personal social sensitiveness, are a reliable guarantee that democratic policies in the people’s interests will be implemented and that daring changes and reforms will be made.

In the current crucial phase the Cyprus problem finds itself in, but also in view of the many and great problems facing the country and the people, Dimitris Christofias with the support of the democratic and progressive forces is the person who can lead a new beginning and work for a better tomorrow. His candidature is a candidature of renewal and modernization, hope and opens up perspectives.  

21.05.07 Press Statement of the Central Committee of AKEL

The Plenum of the Central Committee of AKEL met today 21st of May 2007 to deal with the issue of the Presidential elections which are due to be held in February 2008.

The Plenum was informed by the General Secretary of the C.C Demetris Christofias about the meetings and contacts which have been held up till now regarding the Presidential elections. The procedure with which AKEL will proceed was discussed and decided. The document which will be put before the Party Local Organisations was also discussed and adopted.

The document makes an assessment of the situation that has been formulated on the Cyprus problem and the internal administration always in relation to the decisions of the 20th Congress of AKEL and the programme of governance. The document puts forth the analysis concerning the issues which must be answered in view of the formulation of the position of the Party regarding the Presidential elections. All of the possibilities with all the parameters for each case are presented. At the end the document underlines the need for the Party to wage the battle for the Presidential elections with all its forces united and rallied together whatever the final decision that will be decided will be.

The procedure which has been decided is according to the statues and rules of functioning of the Party. The Party Local Organisations will immediately meet which will discuss the document that has been prepared. An open and democratic exchange of opinion will be conducted. The view of the Party grass roots will be ascertained by secret ballot and will be forwarded to the Central Committee, whose plenary session will meet again at the end of June. The Central Committee, bearing seriously into account the position of the Party membership, which will be advisory in character, as well as all of the facts surrounding the Presidential elections as they will have been formulated until then, will discuss the issue at length and will formulate a proposal on the position of the Party to be submitted at the Pancyprian Party Conference. The Pancyprian Party Conference of AKEL will meet at the beginning of July and will decide the final position of the Party regarding the Presidential elections.      

26.04.07 Article of Nikos Katsourides, Head of the AKEL Parliamentary Group, on Cyprus and the "Partnership for Peace".

In our opinion some of the inaccuracies put forward as arguments in favour of Cyprus joining "Partnership for Peace" PFP should be examined in their proper context. AKEL from the very beginning had referred to provisions in the Constitution of the "Partnership" of a reactionary and anti-democratic character. Apart from this we are also dealing with basic political and appraisal differences regarding the principles governing the operation of the North Atlantic Alliance with which AKEL cannot consent to Cyprus' accession or participation in an organisation that has evidently proved its aggressive appetite.

The argument that the accession to the "Partnership" is included in the obligations the Republic of Cyprus has within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy CFSP is inaccurate, as is the deceptive argument that by not joining we shall remain excluded from CFSP. The PFP is not an EU structure. The agreements in question establish a special relationship with NATO on the basis of bi-literal separate agreements where the fields regarding cooperation are determined by the will and capability of the Member-States to undertake any further obligations.

The PFP is an apparent way of countries joining who for various reasons are not participating in NATO, but with which the Organisation wishes to institutionalise much closer ties. An indirect goal is the satisfaction of the geo-strategic interests of Washington and as a result of the USA, as well as the gradual military dependence of the Member-States on NATO structures. This is evidently the case of Russia where through its accession to the PFP during Yeltsin's administration the Americans found the way of penetrating in to states of the former Eastern bloc.

Participation in the PFP does indeed constitute the entry post for accession to NATO, despite the fact that some forces in Cyprus are trying in a discreet manner to by-pass this aspect. To prove the case in point one simply needs to refer to the founding declaration of the PFP: "the active participation in the Partnership for Peace will play an important role in the gradual process of the enlargement of NATO".

These bi-lateral agreements are governed by very concrete goals. They are inspired by the general spirit which characterises the political culture of conducting international relations based on the American model. The ultimate goal within the framework of this special relationship is the adoption of NATO standards/models in the way the armed forces operate in these countries. In addition, we cannot be indifferent to the reference made to the war against terrorism. Today in the name of this "war" fundamental and civil rights are being violated and basic principles of International Law are being violated. Furthermore, with regard to participation in "humanitarian operations", which are included among the obligations of Partnership-States, we cannot be convinced by the naive political analyses that suggest that they will indeed be of "humanitarian" character. The PFP is a branch and structure of NATO, whose aggressiveness has been proved in the recent past, whether in Yugoslavia or in Afghanistan etc.

Among the most important commitments Partnership-States have to undertake is the political commitment for the "preservation of democracy", as this is perceived by the NATO circles, the strengthening of political and military cooperation in Europe and the consolidation of stability. Other obligations include the elimination of the threat to peace, the creation of reinforced relations through the promotion of cooperation and the commitment to the democratic principles governing the alliance. However, leaving aside the verbal declarations, the essence that the PFP aims at the military - political dependence and the imposition of specific ways in the functioning of defence policy of every state remains unchanged.

Apart from these responsibilities Partnership states are specifically obliged to send their national defence planning, programmes and budgets to NATO, a fact which means that all of this information will be at the disposal of Turkey, which is one of the cornerstones of NATO and the policies of the Anglo-Americans. Therefore why is the argument that our participation will promote our political and negotiating position being put forward with such ease whilst those adhering to this position ignore this fundamental aspect?

In connection to this, it is also difficult for someone to follow  the logic of the argument that if Turkey were to exercise a veto then our political and negotiating position would be enhanced. Turkey already vetoes the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to another nine international organisations; however the reactions of the international community do not prove the correctness of this argument. Furthermore, in case of a solution to the Cyprus problem, the participation of Cyprus in the PFP will be contrary to the basic principle of demilitarisation, which dictates the solution of the Cyprus problem.

The political problem of NATO cannot with such ease be used to promote every kind of compromise which some forces and people are ready to do by gradually surrendering fundamental rights of the Republic of Cyprus. Consequently the argument that our participation in all the pillars of the EE is imperative because of the foreign military occupation cannot be used. The diplomatic and political position of Cyprus with regard to the aggressive stand of Turkey, besides the United Nations Resolutions, on the level of the EU, is safeguarded up to a point by the Negotiating Framework, the Additional Protocol and the Conclusions of the Helsinki Summit Meeting, through which Turkey's conventional obligations regarding Cyprus are defined. Our assessment is that these types of opportunistic compromises have nothing to offer to the cause of the solution of the Cyprus problem. On the contrary, the very day after the solution it will bring to Cyprus and its people to a de facto situation.

Let us bear in mind the weight of such an important political decision and with insight and visions assess the repercussions involved. How is it possible for Cyprus to submit an application to join an international organisation that evidently breaches and violates International Law in order to serve American-NATO interests, at the same time when Cyprus is addressing the UN to implement International Law in its very own case? Finally, let the fact that Cyprus and its people are being denied real freedom and independence due to the plans elaborated by NATO for the division of our island not escape our thoughts.      

07.04.07 com.Andros Kyprianou, Member of the Political Bureau of AKEL and Secretary of the International Relations Department, on the Programme "Partnership for Peace" and Cyprus, "CHARAVGI" newspaper

AKEL has for several years thoroughly analysed the constitution of the Programme "Partnership for Peace" and does not harbour any illusions concerning its real purpose. It is a programme that has been promoted by NATO in order to accommodate countries which for various reasons do not participate in NATO. It represents the entrance point or the long arm of NATO. Provisions of the constitution of the "Partnership for Peace" are particularly negative for the interests of the Republic of Cyprus. For example, there is a provision which states that the countries participating in the Programme "Partnership for Peace" have the responsibility and indeed the obligation to send to NATO their plans regarding their armaments programmes, military budgets, as well as their military plans knowing fully well that Turkey is a member of NATO and all of this information will also be at the disposal of the Turkish government. There is an important issue which we must answer: would we like Turkey to know our military programmes bearing in mind the continued Turkish occupation?

Apart from this, as far as AKEL is concerned, matters of principles also arise. NATO is an aggressive organisation and it has not only proven this in the past but also very recently. NATO attacked Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and Iraq and is planning to launch a new war operation against Iran. These aggressions are conducted in a way in which international but also European law is being violated. Are we as Cyprus ready to accept the breach of international and European law just because this is what the interests of the countries heading NATO dictate? AKEL will never consent to such aggressive activities. Those forces who put forward the argument that it is up to us whether we would like to take part in these operations we believe are making a mistake, in that from the moment you will be a member of an Organisation which is on the attack there is no penance by taking a neutral stand, but there is an obligation to withdraw from this Organisation.

Regarding the argument that Cyprus will gain a political advantage in the case that Turkey will exercise a veto to our application, I really find it difficult to follow the logic that states that we must submit an application in order to force Turkey to reject it and thus Turkey will be exposed. Turkey is rejecting a whole series of applications made by Cyprus for our accession to international organisations, but the international community does not react to this unacceptable political behaviour of Turkey.

I would also like finally to refute the argument which seems to be put forward by the supporters of the accession to the "Partnership for Peace" that this organisation is nothing more than a structure of the European Union. Nothing is further from the truth. This programme has been drawn up and prepared by NATO and has no relation with the structures of the EE but is completely tied to NATO.

AKEL finally does not forget that Cyprus today is divided due to the plans which were elaborated and prepared at NATO Headquarters.  

17.03.07 Resolution on the US threats against Iran

The Participants of the Euro-Mediterranean meeting of Left Parties, meeting in Nicosia, Cyprus on 17^th-18^th March 2007, express their grave concern over the heightening tensions in the Persian Gulf region emanating from the US militaristic and hegemonic stance in its conflict with Iran.

The US led pressures against Iran on the question of that country’s expressed wish to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, is only a cover for the US attempts to secure US control over an area of the Middle East that is best situated to control the production and export of energy resources from this part of the world.

We also express our concern over the provocative and unacceptable statements from the Iranian president. These statements have provided the US and its allies, in particular the Israeli government, with the excuse to continue their provocations against Iran. The Iranian regime is exploiting the current situation to extend its suppression of progressive forces, trade unions, youth and student movements as well as women’s movements.

We express our full solidarity with the people and progressive forces of Iran, with trade unions, women, youth and student movements that are campaigning for peace, democracy and social progress.

We strongly and unconditionally express our total opposition to any military attack or intervention against Iran by the US, the EU or Israel. We resolve to support all genuine efforts directed at the resolution of the current differences between the US and the Islamic Republic of Iran through peaceful and diplomatic means.

We call for the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the Middle East, strict observance of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and declaring the region a nuclear weapons free zone.

The future direction of developments in Iran should be decided only by the people of Iran and no one else.

Supported by:

AKEL- Cyprus

Communist Party of Austria

Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia

Party of Belarusian Communists

Communist Party of Britain*

Communist Party of France

Communist Party of Greece

Synaspismos (Coalition of Left and ecology movements)- Greece

Communist Party of Germany

The Left Party- PDS Germany

Hungarian Communist Workers Party

Tudeh Party of Iran

Communist Party of Iraq

Communist Party of Israel

Communist Refoundation Party of Italy

Party of Italian Communists

Socialist Party of Latvia

Party of Progress and Socialism- Morocco

Socialist Left Party of Norway

Palestinian People’s Party

Palestinian Democratic Union- FIDA

Portuguese Communist Party

Communist Party of Russian Federation

Communist Party of Spain

Communist Party of People’s of Spain

Communist Party of Sudan*

Communist Party of Turkey

New Communist Party of Yoguslavia

* CP Britain and CP Sudan were not in attendance at the meeting but communicated their full support for the resolution after the event in Nicosia.

18.03.07 Resolution on the Unity of The Government in Palestine

The participants in the Euro-Mediterranean meeting of left parties in Nicosia 17^th – 18^th March 2007, consider the formation of the Palestinian Unity Government as vital achievement of the Palestinian people, that paves the way, towards breaking the siege that have a big catastrophic effects on the Palestinian Authority and the whole economical and social life in the Palestinian occupied territories.

The left parties call on the international community to support and re-establish its relations with the new Palestinian Government as long as this Government has honored the international resolutions and the international standards.

The Left Parties call for the immediate removal of the sanctions against the Palestinians, and condemn the Israeli dangerous and criminal policies that impede the implementation of the international resolutions in ending the occupation and recognizing the right in self-determination to the Palestinian people.  

18.03.07 The participants in the Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, having discussed the Cyprus problem, concluded the following Resolution on the CYPRUS PROBLEM

The participants in the Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, which took place in Nicosia 17th-18th of March 2007, having discussed the Cyprus problem, concluded the following:

1. Reaffirm their support to a bi-zonal bi-communal federation on the basis of International Law, the Security Council resolutions concerning Cyprus and the acquis communautaire. The solution of the Cyprus problem must be based on a single state with a single sovereignty, a single international personality and nationality, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded and composed of two politically equal communities as provided for by the relative resolutions of the Security Council. The solution must exclude the union of all or part of the island with any other state, as well as any form of partition or secession and provide for the demilitarisation of the island.

2. Consider that the solution of the Cyprus problem must safeguard human rights and fundamental rights, including the right of displaced persons to return to their homes and properties.

3. Consider that the appropriate way to achieve a peaceful, just, mutually acceptable and viable settlement of the Cyprus problem continues to be through substantial negotiations within the framework of the United Nations.

4. Aspire to the implementation of the 8th of July 2006 Agreement between the leaders of the two communities in the presence of the Acting General Secretary of the UN Ibrahim Gambari without further delay. The Working Groups for the discussion of the core issues of the problem, as well as the Technical Committees for the discussion of day-to-day issues must begin to function immediately aiming to prepare the ground for substantial negotiations and a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

5. Ascertain that the Green Line Regulation and the Regulation regarding the Protocol on Financial Aid create the appropriate preconditions for the emersion of the Turkish Cypriot community from economic difficulties and have already contributed in a positive way to improving the living standards of the Turkish Cypriots. The manifold help given by the Cyprus government to the Turkish Cypriots, including the employment of thousands of Turkish Cypriots in the areas controlled by the state, the granting of free medical care, the benefits from the Social Security Funds, scholarships and other policies, all contribute towards the same direction.

Consider that any further relative decision of the European Council must respect International Law and hence trade by the Turkish Cypriot community must be conducted in a way that will not harm the international legal status of the Republic of Cyprus, upgrade the pseudo-state or foster separatist trends.

6. Express their strong concern regarding the continuous flow of settlers from Turkey, as well as the rapidly developing exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied areas. Consider that such actions do not contribute to the creation of a proper climate for the resumption of substantial negotiations and seek to prepossess the content of the solution.

7. Condemn the threats made by Turkey on the pretext of the demarcation of the exclusive economic zone of the Republic of Cyprus with neighbouring countries. The relative actions of the Cyprus government are fully in line with the International Law of the Sea and do not affect in any way the relative rights of Turkey.

8. Express their conviction that an overall settlement of the Cyprus problem is still feasible with the two communities living harmoniously together and jointly building their European future in a united, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal state.        

16.03.07 Euro-Mediterranean Meeting of Left Parties, 17-18th of March 2007, Nicosia Preliminary List of Partcipants