Akel general secretary Stefanos Stefanou outlined his party’s main positions on the Cyprus issue at a meeting he had with ambassadors of the EU member-states. His main message was that the convergences achieved over the years should be safeguarded and that the mooted introduction of new ideas about the form of a settlement would create new areas of confrontation rather than facilitating an agreement of the two sides.

In theory, he had a point, but nine years have passed since then, and it would be foolish to give up on the resumption of talks because we do not like the idea of a loose federation in which most power would be with the constituent states. One Stefanou red line, conveyed to the ambassadors, defied belief. Referring to the idea of replacing the system of guarantees of 1960 with a new system in which Nato would participate, he said this was an unacceptable approach, as it clashed with the Guterres framework that envisaged the scrapping of guarantees and the unilateral right of intervention.

This was not the limit of his irrational hostility to Nato. In the event there was an agreement that envisaged the involvement of Nato, Akel would not support it, he said. Are we to assume that Akel would support the continuation of the presence of Turkish occupation troops in Cyprus rather than have a Nato involvement after a troop withdrawal? Is Nato such an evil grouping of states that Akel would rather the northern part of the island stay under Turkish occupation than have a settlement that was in some way guaranteed by the alliance?

The Cold War may have ended 36 years ago, and the Warsaw Pact collapsed, but the Akel leadership has still not been able to move on. It remains stuck in the 1970s still repeating the anti-Nato propaganda of the Kremlin and it is even prepared to vote against a Cyprus settlement, which it claims to be the number one priority, if there was some Nato involvement. Stefanou went as far as to say that “a settlement without the support of Akel cannot go through,” which could have been taken as something of a threat, if it were not so absurd.

Akel still bases its political positions on emotion and prejudice, cultivated at the time of the Soviet Union. Rationality and pragmatism are not permitted to intrude on the party’s political outlook which sees everything in black or white – there are no shades of grey in Akel’s dogmatic mindset. And a Cyprus settlement with any form of Nato involvement can never be accepted by the sentimental socialists of Akel, who cannot possibly betray the anti-West values of the Soviet Union.