Anastasiades’ narrative about what happened in Crans Montana has nothing whatsoever to do with what the UN Secretary-General says
Statement by the General Secretary of the C.C. of AKEL A. Kyprianou
AKEL C.C. Press Office, 22nd January 2018, Nicosia
Yesterday, Mr. Anastasiades said in an interview he gave, among many other things, the following about the final moments of the working dinner in Crans Montana:
“… it was ascertained that Turkey’s flexibility was nothing but a misinformation of the UN Secretary-Secretary because it was revealed at the end when the Secretary-General proposed a brief statement (that would state that the guarantee and intervention rights are abolished and replaced with something else and that the Prime Ministers and the guarantor powers should convene to decide on the issues relating to the renewal or termination of the presence of a limited number of troops), Turkey insisted on maintaining guarantee and intervention rights, the permanent presence of the Turkish army. This is precisely where the great disappointment was not only for us, but also for the UN Secretary-General, who said, verbatim, that he was taking responsibility, “it appears that I didn’t sufficiently understand Turkey’s positions.”
This is Mr. Anastasiades’ narrative about what happened in Crans Montana as to why the negotiations have been suspended.
With all due respect, permit me to say that this narrative has nothing whatsoever to do with what the UN Secretary-General himself says. Let me recall that everyone without exception was saying right up to Crans Montana – certain forces and circles are evidently trying to dissociate themselves from those statements – that the UN Secretary-General is a capable, experienced and objective person, some have characterized him also as wise. That is to say, it isn’t easy to deceive him, to misinform him.
What does the UN Secretary-General say about what happened in Crans Montana? He says that an opportunity of historical significance was missed. Why was this opportunity missed? The Secretary-General replies because there was no political will from Mr. Anastasiades and Mr. Akinci. That is what he says.
As far as Turkey’s role is concerned, he says the following in paragraph 18 in the last four lines: “Despite differences in their opening positions and public rhetoric, I could see from my in-depth engagement with the three guarantors (namely I say Turkey too) in Crans-Montana that they had all come to Switzerland committed to seeking mutually acceptable solutions.” The Secretary-General’s assessment about Turkey’s role is positive. My question, therefore, is whether Mr. Guterres would record all that Mr. Anastasiades says happened in his report?
The second question is why didn’t our side react when the UN Secretary-General was recording these things in his draft report? Why didn’t the President of the Republic tell him “Secretary-General these things you are writing don’t correspond to reality, what happened was quite different, Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Cavousoglou insulted you with what he said.” Instead of doing so, the President kept silent.
So somebody has to give us answer as to why the Secretary-General records all of these and why our own government, Mr. Anastasiades, kept their mouth shut about what the Secretary-General says.
I can only make one assessment. That is, what the UN Secretary-General writes corresponds to reality, and our government, so as not to be exposed any further, didn’t dare protest.
Intervention of Georgos Koukoumas, member of the C.C. of AKEL and the International Relations Department, at the Hearing “Palestine: What’s Next?” organized by GUE/NGL2015-07-1
- Feb26 2015-02-26
- Nov13 2014-11-13