Anastasiades speaks out on Cyprus solution, corruption, and political ties

In one of his most candid interviews to date, former President Nicos Anastasiades sat down with Marina Economides of "K" to discuss several contentious topics. Anastasiades firmly rejected allegations that he supported a two-state solution during the Crans-Montana talks, emphasizing his consistent stance on a federal solution for Cyprus, which he believes is crucial for the island's reunification and international acceptance. He criticized deviations from this framework, warning they could lead to permanent division, and urged current President Nicos Christodoulides and other leaders to remain committed to a federal solution for lasting peace.

Anastasiades also addressed corruption allegations, including his controversial use of a Saudi private jet and the golden passport scandal. He acknowledged that his actions provided fodder for criticism but denied any wrongdoing or conflict of interest. He attributed the tarnishing of Cyprus's reputation to the criminal behavior of certain passport providers, not his administration. Anastasiades stressed the importance of prioritizing social benefits over political gains and called for continued dialogue and cooperation with international stakeholders to ensure a peaceful coexistence of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

Regarding his relationship with current President Nicos Christodoulides, Anastasiades expressed his hope that Christodoulides would maintain a steadfast pursuit of a federal solution and avoid short-term political maneuvers that could compromise the island's future. He emphasized the need for the government to prioritize the long-term stability and unity of Cyprus over immediate political advantages.

Here are some highlights from the former President's interview, published in last Sunday's printed edition of Kathimerini.

**On the alleged 2-state solution discussion in Crans Montana

Q:  In recent days, the debate on what happened in Crans-Montana has resurfaced. What finally happened at the Peninsula Hotel with Mr. Cavusoglu?

A:  What saddens me is how easily perversion and lies help some people reappear in the limelight. I want to state categorically for the umpteenth time that I have never discussed the possibility of a two-state solution with Cavusoglu. On the contrary, what I put to him is the position that I have been expressing since 2010, namely, the decentralization of powers, with the central government limited to a number of competencies that would ensure one sovereignty, citizenship, international personality, and issues relating to the European Union, energy, the environment, and whatever else the two sides might agree on. My aim was to minimize friction so that the state could be functional with the concerns of both sides safeguarded, provided, of course, that the guarantee regime was also terminated and the withdrawal of occupying troops was effectively regulated. I would have to be politically ignorant to propose a two-state solution, which the international community would not accept either because it would open the door to dozens of secessionist movements in various states.

Q:  AKEL Secretary General Andros Kyprianou said that Mr. Cavusoglu told him that he was calling for two states.

A:  The irrefutable evidence is the interview of Cavusoglu himself in Politis newspaper on 25/11/2018. When asked if our (Greek) side sent a message that it would accept solutions outside the framework of the IOA, he replied, "Anastasiades was very clear about his position and said publicly, as I read in your press, what he said with me about a looser federation and new ideas. We said we don't rule it out, we don't reject it, and that's why I met with Andros Kyprianou..." If the false allegations, which were subsequently put forward, were true, what was it that he discussed with Andros Kyprianou? Why did Mr. Kyprianou, on his return to Cyprus, if Cavusoglu told him that Anastasiades had spoken of two states, not then denounce me publicly?

Q:  What did Mr. Cavusoglu then reply to you, and how do you explain why he started telling everyone that you discussed a two-state solution?

A:  Turkey's long-standing position has always been that the only feasible solution is a two-state solution, as demonstrated by the declaration of the 'TRNC' on 15 November 1983. This is still inscribed on the logo today as the date of the establishment of the pseudo-state. What I know, and it is the only truth, is what Mr. Cavusoglu said in the interview I mentioned earlier. But why are we looking for what Cavusoglu might have said after the fact when the narrative was developed by Greek Cypriot politicians?

Q:  Exactly. Individuals such as Archbishop Chrysostomos and negotiator Andreas Mavroyiannis have revealed that they have been privy to this proposal for a two-state solution. Even Ioannis Kasoulides has publicly admitted to having such a discussion in a meeting. Did everyone misinterpret your statements?

A:  I never, I will repeat, spoke about two states; decentralization of powers was my constant position, which was called by others a loose federation. I will not deal with those who, through misinterpretation or for their reasons, invoke what they heterodoxly claim. The report of the United Nations Secretary-General on 28 September 2017 recorded that: "The key outstanding issues related to governance and power-sharing remained few" to then add: "By the close of the Conference, the parties had effectively resolved the key issue of effective participation." These, of course, did not apply to the two states. Moreover, as I have mentioned above, Cavusoglu, who was my interlocutor, was clear in his statements to Politis. What was the subject of the conversation was the decentralization of powers or loose federation, as he called it. Let me remind you that the meeting in New York was aimed at resuming the talks from the point where they were interrupted in Crans-Montana. At last, let some people stop adopting narratives that not only do not correspond to the truth, but the only one they are defusing is Turkey.

Q:  Given the stalemate in Cyprus, do you think we should start putting other ideas on the table?

A:  My positions remain unchanged; the only new ideas that can address the stalemate are the decentralization of powers, with more autonomy and competencies to the states, in order to address the concerns of both communities about the viability and sustainability of the solution and the sense of security, so that neither guarantees nor the presence of an army is required. The answer to guarantees and security is provided by our membership of the European Union, but also by the alternative proposals that we put forward in Crans-Montana.

Q:  You accuse Turkey, however, of being ready in Crans-Montana to give up its guarantee rights, and because of our mistakes, it did not happen.

A:  I wish that were the reality, but the UN minutes and those held by Mr. Mavroyiannis during the dinner bear witness to the contrary. Moreover, Mr. Cavusoglu's statements in Crans-Montana before and after the shipwreck are on record and sufficiently illuminating. He stated the same in his interview with Politis on 25/11/2018, when it was put to him that he indicated that Turkey was ready to give up the right of unilateral intervention! (not abolition). The response was "Who is saying this. We didn't give anything". I would like to remind you that for the first time, the issue of lifting guarantees was put on the table and it was one of the six points of the UN Secretary General's framework. If Turkey, as some claim, were to accept something similar, I would only be insane if I were not to use it to reach a strategic agreement on the whole six points of the Guterres framework.

Q:  There has been much talk about your loss of composure at the notorious dinner. What exactly happened?

A:  You know what upsets me? Some petty claim by some that the tragic outcome in Crans-Montana was due to my leaving the negotiations because my concern was my re-election in 2018. And what I wonder about those who invoke it is: don't they realize that what they are saying is as if they are admitting that the solution I would achieve would be so bad that the people would not re-elect me? If there is anyone who feels unhappy about the failure in Crans-Montana, it is Anastasiades, because with the significant improvement of provisions of the Annan plan, the abolition of anachronistic guarantees, the submission for the first time by the TC side of a map on the territorial issue within the radius of agreement, and the involvement of the EU in the talks, the hope was to find a solution that would ensure the functionality and viability of a truly European state. Why did we fail, why was Turkey supposedly ready, but Anastasiades' only concern was the 2018 elections? And what could be more honorable for a leader than the reunification and liberation of his country from occupation? Let some people finally realize that if there is one thing that distinguished me throughout my political career, it was the courage to make decisions regardless of political cost, as long as they were in the best interests of my country and my fellow citizens. What saddens me is that none of the people making these claims were present. Only Mr. Mavroyiannis and I know how painful the effort was to confront Turkey's steady intransigence with the ultimate goal of ending, that night, the most promising initiative for a Cyprus settlement.

Q:  Do you think you could have done something different with Akinci, given what followed in terms of succession?

A:  If Mr. Akinci had been in charge of the decisions, I do not doubt that today we would be living in a country that would be a model of peaceful coexistence and a country like all other federal states. Mr. Akinci was a Cypriot patriot who, while vigorously defending the interests of Turkish Cypriots, never ceased to share the concerns of the Greek Cypriot community, which is why significant steps forward were taken. Unfortunately for Turkey, its interests took precedence, hence the inglorious end of the most promising effort for a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Q:  However, after Crans-Montana, he asked you to sign the Guterres framework as an agreement. Was it a mistake not to do so, given the current state of affairs?

A:  The Guterres framework was the six points to be negotiated to reach a strategic agreement, which I never refused. After all, it is something that, following the appointment of Ms. Lute as Mr. Guterres' special envoy, was agreed and announced in September 2019 as the package of parameters as the basis for the resumption of talks. Let me recall that the other two were the joint communiqué of 11/2/2014 and the convergences reached so far. This was reiterated in the UN Secretary-General's communiqué in November in Berlin. It was therefore never rejected as the negotiating framework. Here I should point out that what was agreed in 2019 or later in Berlin with the Secretary General was the framework and the basis for resuming the dialogue. However, due to Turkey's refusal, it became impossible to resume the talks, which led to the April 2021 Geneva meeting, where the Turkish side set the basis for a two-state solution.

**On corruption allegations, his use of a Saudi private jet and the Golden passport scandal:

Q:  Why have you not taken a stand for so long on what is attributed to you in the three books of Makarios Drushiotis, given that they affect both your image and your governance?

A: You may be right, but how serious would I be if, instead of carrying out the duties of the President, I spent my time reading rhapsodies? After the end of my term of office, having leisure time, I read Mr. Drusiotis's retrospective fabrications and decided that I could not let the lies, malicious and slanderous allegations, and the undocumented and arbitrary conclusions he cites in his books go unanswered.

Q:  But writing a book solely about this is the answer?

A:  Besides the legal action I took, I felt that a written restoration of the truth with documentation was imperative. Regrettably, an honest and upright fighter for the rule of law should have experienced corruption, as he writes, having "even recorded it in his diary," and yet not have had the courage to resign immediately or to denounce what he experienced immediately after his posting in Brussels, or when he disagreed with my handling of Crans Montana, or before the 2018 presidential elections, to prevent my re-election. He did not print his fabrications in 2020 when Mr. Christos Stylianides...

Q:  The issue that concerns society is not the motives of Mr. Drusiotis but the evidence cited linking you to corruption scandals. Will you give answers to this?

A: That is why I felt that the judicial measures were not enough. The book I am writing not only provides documented answers but also highlights the malicious intent of my former "collaborator" through the malicious lies, and self-contradictions, between allegations he makes in the book "The Gang" about what he writes in "State Mafia," and the arbitrary and undocumented conclusions, the distortion and falsification of practices or texts or even facts to be consistent with his inventions, the refutation of allegations proving his bad faith, and a host of other alchemies, always to pervert the discredited narratives. The worst thing about him is that heaps of studies, letters, and memos he sent me have been preserved to demonstrate what he wrote up to June 2017 about a "corrupt" and what he subsequently quotes in his pontifications. What should worry Mr. Drusiotis is the provisions of the law establishing the Anti-Corruption Authority which, among other things, provide that anyone who fraudulently attempts to mislead the Authority by attributing acts of corruption to a controlled person commits an offense which carries a penalty of three years imprisonment or a fine of €50,000 - or both.

Q:  Of course, long before Mr. Drusiotis' books, the issue of golden passports was a major stain on the country's image and internationally.

A:  Another distorted image as a result of a nihilistic opposition that was unfortunately also adopted by journalists and columnists - and not only. In order not to be vague, I am referring to the belief created that the investment program, the naturalizations, was the creation of Nicos Anastasiades, forgetting or many times concealing that the program was adopted in 2007 under the presidency of Tassos Papadopoulos and continued with modifications by the government of Demetris Christofias. What many people today forget is the state in which I received the country. They forget that Cyprus was on the verge of bankruptcy and that it had cash available for the salaries of civil servants for a month. They forget that unemployment had reached 17%, that there were dozens of social grocery stores, and that most of the shops had suspended their operations. They still miss that the country's investment grade was in the "junk" category, that there were billions of euros in red loans, and that the banks were at risk of bankruptcy. Before this tragic situation and after consultations with scientific and professional associations, economic operators, and trade unions, a series of measures were decided and announced to restart the economy, including the diversification of the investment program.

Q:  Of course what became questionable is that both the law firm that bears your name and Cabinet members' offices benefited from it. Doesn't that in itself raise ethical issues?

A:  You are talking about great shadows being created as a result of the fact that the law firm bearing my name and also law firms of relatives of ministers forwarded several applications for naturalization. To understand how much the false impressions created have given the dimension of impropriety or even conflict of interest, you should take into account both the number of applications approved and, above all, the procedure followed before approval and how the decisions of the Council of Ministers were taken. Focusing on the response to the malicious allegations that have been made about me, I would like to give you some facts that I am sure you are also aware of. Firstly, I ceased to be involved in the law firm bearing my name in 1997, when I was elected President of DISY since all my time was devoted to my party and political commitments. Secondly, with my election to the Presidency of the Republic, I alienated my shares, transferring them to my two daughters. Thirdly, the total number of applications submitted by this office did not exceed 59, some of them during the administration of my predecessor, and finally, as far as I have been informed, the fee for each application, including the beneficiaries of his family, ranged from €15,000 to €25,000. So the claim that the law firm bearing my name, or as some people maliciously suggest, Anastasiades got rich by "selling" passports if it is not funny, is malicious.

Q:  There is the issue of conflict of interest. For you and members of the cabinet...

A:  The application for naturalization was being examined by the Ministries of Interior and Finance, MOKAS, banks, international specialized agencies, and Interpol or other foreign intelligence agencies. If based on all the investigations and recommendations of the competent officials, the Minister of the Interior considered that the criteria were met, he would submit a report to the Council of Ministers for approval. It should be noted that since the ministerial recommendation concerned only applications for approval, it was included in the agenda items that did not require discussion, so the Council of Ministers did not examine the applications individually. As far as the President is concerned, ignorance of constitutional provisions also allows for benign or malicious connotations. First, the President does not chair the Cabinet only if due to a serious illness, e.g., he is clinically dead or absent abroad. Secondly, he has no voting rights. With what I have quoted it is obvious that the issues that are being raised are the weaknesses in the whole program that have allowed unscrupulous people to exploit it.

Q:  You spoke about the role of the authorities but based on findings it was found that the whole system was flawed and that the various authorities did not do their job properly, exposing the state.

A:  I will not disagree with you, and that is why we have occasionally tightened up the criteria, but the inadequate monitoring and supervision of the program has unfortunately allowed illegal abuses by unscrupulous professionals.

Q:  The feeling that has been cultivated in society, however, is that there has been fraud surrounding this fund to enrich certain circles.

A:  There was certainly fraud by those who exploited and deceived the authorities, but not by ministers.

Q:  Does no moral issue arise? Did the Saudi jet trip seriously damage your image and raise questions?

A:  It is a fact that even if the malicious allegations are not true, the responsibility is nevertheless mine, because I gave the occasion and the right to be judged so harshly, even if unfairly. And I want to explain why I am talking about unfair or even malicious allegations. If the trip I made had been with alleged "quid pro quo" to the Saudi Arabian, it would have been a secret, but instead, while in Seychelles, I requested and had a meeting with the President of the country, which was made public not only in the Cypriot but also in the Greek media. What is equally important is that it was held at my family's expense, with the relevant evidence being cited in my forthcoming book.

Q:  There was, however, a question about the criteria for their naturalization, as well as about the timing of the naturalizations.**

A:  Following the uproar in 2019, I requested information from the Ministry of Interior and the Saudi Arabian's lawyer, and I was informed that the total investments of this applicant and his family exceeded €18 million instead of the €12.5 million required under the collective investment program. In addition to that, the transfer of the company's airline headquarters resulted in the employment of 18 employees, not counting the State's savings in airfares or the donation of half a million euros to the Social Security Agency in 2016 following the naturalization of the applicant and his family. What resulted in the shaming of the Saudi in question was the transfer of the company's aircraft parking headquarters to Saudi Arabia, the loss of jobs for 18 employees, and the renunciation of Cypriot citizenship by him and his siblings.

**On his relationship with President Nikos Christodoulides and the current government:

Q:  How do you assess the government of Nikos Christodoulides?

A:  On most issues, the current policy follows decisions made during my administration, such as the economy, foreign policy, and welfare state. The President should involve himself more in day-to-day problems and base decisions on social benefits rather than political costs. It’s also important to acknowledge the work of predecessors instead of claiming projects or decisions were implemented “for the first time.”

Q:  Do you have contact with him (President Nikos Christodoulides)?

A:  The contact is very sparse, and whether it increases is up to the President.

Q:  Would you like it to be more?

A:  It's up to the President if and when he thinks it would be useful.

[This article was translated and edited by Shemaine Bushnell Kyriakides, highlighting the major points of the interview]