On the Negative Proposal of the Central Committee of AKEL
A Uzun
The Central Committee of AKEL met in plenary session on 9 and 10 April 2004.
General Secretary Christofias made the introductory speech. Subsequently the recommendation of the Politburo, held a short while before the CC plenum, was read. The Politburo had voted in favour of the Annan Plan with a majority of ten votes to four, with the General Secretary abstaining. Following a “debate”, the CC made a proposal consisting of 12 points to be submitted to the Pancyprean Conference to be held on 14-15 April 2004.
The proposal of the CC states that they have been unable to convey the plan to the public; as a consequence the wind of nationalism is blowing stronger than that of the left. Under the circumstances the referendum should be postponed. They would also, in the interim, put forward several amendments to improve the security of the Greeks and the functionality of the new state.
The important point is that, the request for a postponement of the referendum is not accompanied by a request for the postponement of joining the European Union on the first of May. As the request is for a postponement of the order of months, this proposal can only be interpreted as a wish for the Southern part of Cyprus to join the EU representing the whole of the island, rather than uniting the sections. Although not stated explicitly, this is the true aim of the CC of AKEL.
The proposal by the CC of AKEL shows that Cypriot Greek communists have chosen to follow a nationalistic line instead of defending the interests of the workers and toiling masses. This stance should be criticised in the strongest possible way. The fact that the line taken by certain opportunistically inclined “patriotic and nationalistic” elements in Turkey and Greece somewhat coincides with this approach is not enough
to cover up AKEL’s opportunism and nationalism. The criticisms we direct below at AKEL are equally valid for patriotic-nationalistic communists all over the world.
The CC of AKEL did not make the choice of calling on the entire Cypriot population to vote “yes”, stressing that the Annan Plan is only an “interim solution”, and that the true solution lies only in establishing the rule of the working class.
It would have taken the correct stance had it stated that the Annan Plan was an interim solution, that it represented advancement on the status-quo, that a permanent solution could only be reached through the rule of the working class, and called for a “yes” vote in the referendum.
Instead, the CC of AKEL chose, with two thirds majority, to recommend to the Conference a “No” vote in a threatening manner, perpetuating the division of the island.
Thus it chose to say “No” to a proposal for a solution, reached through negotiations by the “leaders” of the two communities in secret negotiations, endorsed by the Party, with the final document prepared on the basis of proposals by the respective parties, and agreed to be presented to a referendum before the 1st of May, at the very start of the negotiations.
It chose to oppose the forces supporting a solution in both the Northern and Southern parts of Cyprus, and chose to stand together with the fascist, reactionary and hegemonic forces in the Northern and Southern parts of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece.
The CC did not take into consideration that the Annan plan did not demolish the status-quo, but the fact that it could create unforeseen conditions for change and its dissolution. It failed to see that the acceptance of the Plan would enhance the struggle for democracy and broaden its horizon. It ignored that the plan gave rise to new opportunities to strengthen the unity of the people and class brotherhood.
This proposal is against the general interests of the working class. It also vindicates that it has not learnt the lessons from the fundamental political mistakes through supporting a short while ago, in the 1950s and 1960s first “Enosis’ then Makarios, the mouthpiece of the Cypriot ruling class. It also shows that the expectation that the party had learnt its lessons were in vain.
Let us now take a closer look at the individual points in the proposal:
1. AKEL, being a serious party, that wishes to honour its history and struggles, has pledged to the Cypriot people that it would dwell with sobriety, responsibly, calmly and in depth on the developments that concern the solution of the Cyprus problem.
It is clear that the party has indeed “honoured its history and struggles” in composing its proposals on the Cyprus question. The main question here is whose glasses has it used in analyzing the proposals for a solution?: that of the working class or those of the Cypriot ruling classes? The proposal they have reached indicates that this “in-depth analysis” was made on behalf of the working class, alas through the glasses of another class.
Te important point is that AKEL is owning up to the very same political mistakes it committed in its struggle in the past, which it had said were left in the past. The “No” stance taken to the temporary solution proposed by the Annan Plan does not converge neither with the short-term or the long-term interests of the working class.
2. It has taken very seriously into account the balance of forces internationally, the international factor and its views, particularly the views of the European Union member-states, including of Greece
The assertion by the CC that it has taken into consideration the “balance of forces internationally” and the “international factor and its views” is truly bewildering. Will the existing reality in Cyprus alter when the international balance of forces and views change? Is this what AKEL has learnt from Marxism-Leninism? Is it the task of communists to decide their stance on the basis of the balance of forces in the redivision of the world by imperialists?
Through this stance AKEL is using the same racist, fascist and reactionary bourgeois language which, while raising an iron curtain around an expanded EU, purports to defend the wages and living standards of the working class.
Perhaps the very dark, indeed black (like fascists’ uniforms) glasses they are wearing has obliterated their view. Otherwise how can AKEL stand side by side with the nationalistic forces that support the status-quo and represent reaction, are against the tearing down of borders and the internationalization of the working class?
3. We have dwelled in depth on the situation that prevails in the internal scene and the split that characterizes it, at the time when the largest possible concession and unity is needed.
Words like “unity, togetherness (from the Turkish text), split in the internal scene” may only appear in the vocabulary of those who intend to link the Cypriot working class to the bourgeoisie. These words do not represent an internationalist stance but are those of condemnable nationalism, opportunism embedded in national unity, and chauvinist oppression.
If AKEL is referring to a split in the ruling class in the Southern part of Cyprus, this too represents an equally grave error. Communists have a duty to try to use splits in the bourgeoisie to their advantage. The task of the working class does not lie in repairing the cracks for the benefit of the bourgeoisie on the basis of national unity. We must approach the division of the ruling class for the benefit of the revolutionary politics of the working class. The existence of a divided ruling class is not something to feel sorry about. On the contrary it means conditions are more favourable for the chances of success of the struggle of the working class.
Communists do not shed tears for divisions among the bourgeoisie. What should worry communists is not the divisions among the bourgeoisie, but the fact that the unity of the working class has not yet been established.
AKEL has really and truly mislaid its “class spectacles”. The stand that the CC of AKEL has taken on co-operation with its own bourgeoisie indicates why the importance it attaches to joint-organisations with various sections of the bourgeoisie (e.g. the Cypriot National Council) in the Southern part of Cyprus is much more significant than that attached to the unity of the Greek and Turkish working class. The search for “unity” of the CC signifies not the unity of the working class, but rather collaboration with others.
This stand has nothing to do with communism or revolutionary Marxism. In the vocabulary of communists and revolutionary Marxists, this stand can only be interpreted as bourgeois tailism. All communists are duty bound to express their analysis in the appropriate manner, and voice their unreserved criticism in an unambiguous fashion of the warped views of the CC of AKEL, at such a critical time in its history, and on such an important matter. This stand cannot be swept aside by ambiguous verbosity.
4. Above all, however, it has taken seriously into account the people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, from which the Party originates and exclusively serves.
The CC of AKEL states that “it has taken seriously into account the people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots…” Is it possible for a Communist party to ignore the interests of the working class and the toiling people? Certainly not. However is it not equally evident from the proposal to the Conference that the determining factor is not the interests of the Cypriot Greek and Turkish working class and toiling people?
Is it possible to hide behind these words when opportunism, bourgeois tailism, nationalism and collaborationism are self-evident? No-one can be expected to believe this. These are not but crocodile tears shed by those who want to mislead the working class and toiling people.
Saying “No” to the Annan plan, a plan, which is far ahead of the existing situation from the point of view of the working class and toiling people, cannot purport to embody a response which keeps keep their interests at heart. The “No” stance of the CC is diametrically opposed to the long term interests of the working class and the toiling people.
The essence and deeds of communist politics should overlap. The alternative is nothing but opportunism. Communists cannot defend the interests of “national forces” and those of the workers. What is hidden in their verbosity is the fact that AKEL has chosen to stand behind the interests of the “national forces” and not the working class.
5. It has also taken into account the feelings of insecurity that possess the majority of our Greek Cypriot compatriots, whether these derive from the long presence of the occupation troops and the de facto partition, or are cultivated by certain circles.
The main culprit for the “feelings of mistrust of the Greek citizens of Cyprus” is the Greek bourgeoisie, who supported EOKA for Enosis, regarded the Turkish people as second class citizens for years, and appropriated the Republic of Cyprus in 1963 through the unrolling of events (e.g. Denktash). Alas, among the reasons for the spread of the feeling of mistrust by the bourgeoisie has been the contribution of bourgeois-tailist elements within AKEL who have nothing to do with communism. AKEL should seriously criticize its own policies before looking for the culprit for the feeling of mistrust among the Greek people.
Statements by a number of prominent AKEL leaders on demonstrations in the North to the effect that: “AKEL does not need mass actions. Against what? We all are for Solution” while commenting on mass demonstrations over the past one-and-a-half years, by the Turkish Cypriot people who revolted against the status-quo, clearly demonstrated how much they had regressed in working class policies. AKEL must shoulder the responsibility of having rejected the united action of the Cypriot working class at every corner on the island.
When the people from the Northern part of Cyprus demanded the opening of the borders with mass demonstrations on the 23rd of April 2003, the Greek ruling circles called on Cypriot Greek people not to go to the Northern part of Cyprus, and refrain from shopping if they did. AKEL also heeded this call. But the people rejected it outright. Two thirds of the entire Greek population crossed over at least once with tens of thousands crossing over dozens of times.
Is it not obvious that mistrust is created not by the people, but by the ruling classes or those who collaborate with or tail their policies? Is it not conceivable that the Cypriot Greek and Turkish population will respond to the negative call for the referendum in the way they responded to the calls when the borders were opened? Is it inconceivable that the increased trust built among the peoples over the past one-and-a-half years will commit the foot-dragging clergy ,the fascists, and the nationalist –hegemonists to the dustbin of history at the ballot box? What is the source of the mistrust in the working people? AKEL has to answer this.
6. It has taken into account the fact that in the recent period the Annan Plan was presented before the people with its negative elements stressed and with its positive elements undergrated.
Reference is made here to the tearful speech on television by President Papadopoulos, who stressed the negative aspects of the plan while hiding the positive. AKEL’s statement makes it sound as if AKEL believes the positive aspects of the plan weigh more heavily than the negative. And yet AKEL will vote “No” if the referendum is held on the appointed date.
Then why this point? The above point states that certain elements are conducting propaganda promoting the negative aspects of the plan while ignoring the positive. Is this a criticism of this political line? But alas no. AKEL, too, is in the No camp. Is this a simple contradiction? Again no.
The biggest worry that Papadopoulos had during his tearful speech was the transformation of the “Republic of Cyprus”, recognized as a sovereign state throughout the world, into one based on partnership. That is to say the Annan Plan would postpone, at least for a short while, the plans of the imperialist Greek bourgeoisie to establish sovereignty over the whole of the island, and having to share sovereignty with the Turkish bourgeoisie in a new state. For this very reason, Papadopoulos covered up all the positive aspects of the plan and took his place in the “No” camp.
Appearing not to support the views of the representatives of the Greek bourgeoisie, the CC of AKEL is confusing the workers and the people. And yet by taking the same political stance as Papadopoulos it ties the working class to the cart of the bourgeoisie. This is not a simple error of judgement or a simple contradiction. There is no doubt that an attempt is being made to fraudulently mislead the working class.
7. AKEL, through its life and action, has consolidated in the conscience of the people the understanding that it is in favour of a compromise solution, never concealing that this would be sorrowful, as a result of the fascist coup d’etat and the Turkish invasion that followed.
There is serious doubt about the sincerity of the contents of this paragraph. It fails to mention the occupation by force of the Cypriot state by force by the Greek bourgeoisie from 1963, for one. It sounds as if the Cyprus question started with the 1974 fascist coup and the subsequent occupation.
It is true that the problem for the ruling Greek bourgeoisie started in 1974 in that sense. However the problem dates back much further for the Greek and Turkish Cypriot working people.
If AKEL’s assertion among the people that a solution can only be reached through a compromise in the post 1974 period, and further that all compromises have some painful elements are true, we can expect the people to vote “Yes” in the referendum. If this is the case what are the reasons for this negative stance?
8. Today our Party is before a plan the positive elements of which, with its possible acceptance, could have, despite the dangers, created a promising perspective for a peaceful living-together of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We do not share evaluations of the of the Republic regarding provisions of the Annan Plan and particularly the evaluation that this “does not do away with the de facto partition, but on the contrary legitimizes and deepens it.” The Party leadership will open a dialogue on these issues with the President in the framework of our cooperation.
The CC of AKEL is knocking on the wrong door for dialogue. The dialogue should be established not with a President with roots in EOKA, but with the Turkish Cypriot working-toiling people, who have been regarded as a minority and whose rights have been trampled on while AKEL has kept tacit silence. The dialogue should be established with the Greek Cypriot working-toiling people who have been poisoned with chauvinism under the yoke of the dominant culture of the ruling class.
Dialogue should not serve the purpose of class co-operation with the bourgeoisie, but for the internationalist unity of the working class from different national roots. It is inconceivable that the truth can be resisted to this extent. However, opportunism, chauvinism and nationalist collaboration raise their ugly heads at critical points in history and act as a blindfold in order to facilitate the tailing of the bourgeoisie. This also signifies the beginning of its end.
9. The central Committee ascertains that the situation created in the internal scene leads to the rejection of the plan, even as a basis for negotiation. And while this situation fortifies nationalism and chauvinism, it lessens the possibilities of improvement mainly on the issues that concern security and the certainty of its implementation.
Does AKEL never question itself? Doesn’t the nationalist and tailist stand put forward by AKEL in recommending a “No” vote reinforce nationalism and chauvinism in the “internal scene”?
The Cyprus National Council and every individual member bear the brunt of the present situation. AKEL cannot shirk its responsibility. AKEL has been bosom pals with fascists with blood on their hands, with a blood thirsty church and with other representatives of the ruling class on the basis of “national interests”. It is not surprising that so much rubbing of shoulders has led AKEL itself becoming part of this “internal scene” – a scene which can only be described as the enemy of the Turkish and Greek working class and people.
10. Counting in all the objective facts that are today before us, AKEL calls on the United Nations and the international factor to postpone the referenda for a few months, in order to have before the holding of the referenda the possibility to present it objectively to the people, to give the possibility to negotiate on the basis we have mentioned above and cover the existing blanks in order to make its adoption by the majority of the people, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, possible.
The reason for the call to postpone the referendum is not material. It must not be forgotten that the plan has been on the table for one-and-a-half years, that it was the Mass Action by the People of the Northern part of Cyprus that forced the coming together of the sides around the table, and kept the issue alive despite the efforts of elements on both sides who wanted the continuation of the status-quo.
Both AKEL and their friends on the “internal scene” knew that the plan would be put to a referendum before the 1st of May 2004. They were aware of this when they started the negotiations. Why did the CC of AKEL not raise its voice to support a solution based on the political equality of two peoples in the past months? Why did it not raise a finger for the acceptance of the plan?
What does requesting a postponement mean two weeks before the poll, with the argument that the plan is not known to the public, when it has been on the table for one-and-a-half years? if not the admission of the Southern part of Cyprus to The EU on behalf of the island as a whole, that the people of the Northern part of Cyprus relinquish equal political rights in favour of the ruling class of the Southern part of Cyprus.
How can the CC of AKEL assume that they can hide behind this veil with no-one noticing the agenda hidden behind this tour-de-force?
This proposal represents nothing but the tying of the Greek working class and people to the tail of the bourgeoisie and act in the interests of the bourgeoisie in the most reprehensible way, to say nothing of openly opposing the Turkish Cypriot workers and people.
11. In the contrary case AKEL will be obliged not to support the adoption of Annan’s Plan in the referendum.
What lies behind this threat? This threat means going over the critical date without any casualty. It also means that unless a postponement is announced with a view to negating many of the elements of the plan and unless it is agreed to restart negotiations at some future date with unknown proposals for amendments, we too would vote “no” to a plan which has already attracted negative responses from the reactionary forces and the bourgeoisie. The plan would thus be rejected at the polls.
We, communists from Turkey, accept the right of sister communist parties to hold their own different views on every question. However we find such a negative stand combined with a threat, damaging to the struggle of the working class, particularly at a time when there exists the chance of an interim solution, to celebrate the brotherhood of the Turkish and Greek workers, and raise the joint struggle.
Today, to work for the rejection of this interim solution simply means to defend the interests of its ruling class, and act against the long-term interests of its own working class and toiling people.
Under the circumstances the task of the comrades representing the thirty percent who support the interim solution on the basis of the Annan plan is to unite their forces with the democratic forces in the Northern and Southern parts of the island, to exhibit, criticise and condemn the views and stands against the working class.
12. The Central Committee of AKEL calls on our Turkish Cypriot compatriots to show understanding regarding the concerns and thinking of the Greek Cypriots, to continue trusting AKEL and to continue together the struggle of the reunification of our country.
It would be an aberration to expect the support of the workers and people of the Northern part of Cyprus following the class-antagonist and anti-unity stance adopted by the CC of AKEL. This decision has given rise to a negative attitude by the workers and people on the Northern part towards their Greek counterparts and towards those who claim to be their vanguard. It has veered them to the rank of the supporters of Denktash and the status-quo. This has been like present on a platter to the ruling classes on the Turkish side.
Isn’t the CC of AKEL aware that it has also relinquished the trust of the workers and the people of the Southern part as a result of it nationalistic stand? With this decision, it has demoralised the working class and people who were ready to go out to demonstrate for a solution on the basis of the Annan plan. It no longer leads the class. It has muddied the views of hundreds of thousands of our Greek brothers and sisters.
If AKEL wants to regain the hearts and minds of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot workers and people, it has first to draw the line dividing the party and the bourgeoisie; followed by defending consistently the long term interests of the working class and toiling people, and work shoulder to shoulder with the toiling masses in the burning struggle for democracy.
AKEL is duty-bound in this pre-conference period, to revaluate especially the events of the past one-and a-half years through the glasses of the working class and correct the wrong stance adopted by the CC.
While conducting this critical analysis, we recommend
that AKEL listens to the democratic forces seeking a permanent solution and
particularly to voices raised in the Northern part. We would like reiterate
our own views with this belief:
Analysis
A Peoples Movement sprung up in the Northern part of Cyprus in December 2003 calling for a halt to the impasse and to find a solution to the question for the benefit of the workers and toilers. This mass movement occupied the squares in subsequent months and demonstrated to the whole world how a democratic solution could be achieved.
This acts spread fear among the ruling classes in the North as well as the South. The movement destroyed the existing balance on the island and started the cracking of the status-quo. It was this movement which forced the opening of the borders, swung 50+ % of the votes cast to anti-status-quo parties despite interventions by forces supporting the status-quo, and forced the resumption of negotiations.
A “solution” will be reached through the voluntary or non-voluntary participation of the respective parts on the island and other party countries. This process will be punctuated by the accession to the European Union of the whole of the island of Cyprus. The new situation will alter the scale and scope of the class struggle on the island.
The working class struggle will assume a more international character. The struggle of the working class and people of Cyprus will cease to be limited to the borders of Cyprus. It will turn into a struggle to establish an order for the benefit of the workers and toilers throughout Europe.
It is clear that a “solution” found to the Cyprus problem under the auspices of the main imperialist players will not favour the workers and toilers. The democratic solution within the scope of the struggle against exploitation will be primarily determined by the Cypriot workers and toilers following the accession of the peoples of Cyprus to the European Union. However the active support and stand of the workers and toilers of the European Union to this struggle will play a crucial role.
Our proposal for a Permanent Solution in Cyprus
There are four focal points to a permanent solution in Cyprus. Any solution which does not incorporate these four points is bound to remain a “solution” for the benefit of the bourgeoisie of the world and not for the benefit of the toiling peoples of Cyprus. There are four aspects to a democratic popular solution. The struggle must continue after the interim solution until a permanent solution is reached.
The Acceptance of the Existence of Two Peoples
The first aspect is the acceptance of the existence of two peoples on the island. The main source of the error is the Greek ruling class who accept the existence of a Greek nation and a Turkish minority. The majority of the Greek left and some Turkish Cypriot leftists also support this view.
This denial serves the ruling classes in the final analysis. It harms the feeling of trust between the peoples vital for co-existence. It stands on the way of the voluntary unity of the people and voluntary assimilation (integration).
Political Equality
The second aspect is the acceptance of political equality. This follows on from the premise that two peoples exist in Cyprus. Political equality means the equality of the citizens and the two communities within the state.
Those who do not accept the existence of two peoples do not accept political equality either. The rejection of political equality means defending the hegemony of the majority population on the remaining population and minorities,
This is where the crunch of the matter is. The ruling classes in Cyprus agree on a Federal solution to the problem: “A united Cyprus based on two federated states”. However they disagree when it comes to the question of “Whose sovereignty goes how far?”
It is clear that those who favour the status-quo do not support a united Cyprus based on political equality for the true interests of the two peoples. However we can observe the beginnings of the collapse of the status-quo and views supporting it, both in the Northern and Southern parts of Cyprus.
For example, the mass activities by the Peoples Movement in Northern Cyprus were aiming at a democratic solution. When participation reached eighty thousand, having started with ten thousand, slogans also evolved demanding a democratic solution on the basis of the political equality of the two peoples.
The Peoples Movement in Northern Cyprus defends the partnership and equality of the two peoples at state level, with the sharing of sovereignty. This equality would secure the peaceful coexistence of the people under the new order.
Removal of all Foreign Armed Forces
The third aspect is the removal of all foreign armed forces from the island. This means the removal of all Greek, Turkish and British forces. It means the abolishment of all military bases. One of the major obstacles in the way of Cypriot people’s ability to determine their future freely is the existence of Greek and Turkish armed forces, ever ready to intervene.
Equally important is the evacuation of the Sovereign British bases on the island and their return to the Cypriot Government, which are constantly used to perpetuate the aggressive, expansionist and hegemonistic aims of imperialism.
The Guarantee to the Solution Rests on the Rule of the Working Class
On the basis of the realisation of the above three conditions, the permanency of any solution rests solely on establishing the rule of the working class and the toiling people of Cyprus. This is probably a difficult but not impossible aim under the prevailing conditions in the world.
The fact that the struggle of the progressive forces in Cyprus has over the past years focused on finding a “solution to the Cyprus problem” (i.e. focusing on a solution in sharing the ‘spoils of war’ by the bourgeoisie), rather than focusing on the struggle for gaining political power has been a delaying factor in reaching the final solution. The political movements of the working class and toiling people should first look nowhere other than clarifying their own stance in connection with proletarian internationalism. They should raise the struggle against the fight by the Turkish and Greek bourgeoisie to share the spoils, on the basis of the unity of the Turkish and Greek workers and toiling people.
Finally, the workers and toiling people of the Northern part of Cyprus, who, through mass action, won the right to say “Yes” in a referendum for a better future against the forces who want to keep the status-quo, should reclaim the streets en masse once more to sway their class brothers and sisters in the South away from the influence of nationalist and anti-solution views and force them to take an active stand against those supporting the status-quo and their supporters. The day is the day of struggle, unity and solidarity.