A/32/PV.60 General Assembly

28.  Question of Cyprus: report of the Secretary-General L Mr. CHRISTOPHIDES (Cyprus): Before I speak on the question of Cyprus I wish to join other speakers who have preceded me at this rostrum in offering the sincere conglatulations of the Government and people of Cyprus to the Governments and peoples of the USSR, the Byelo- rossian SSR and the Ukrainian SSR on th~ occasion of the sixtieth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolu- tion. The Soviet Union has increasingly become a major factor in world affairs, espedally in promoting policies of peaceful coexistence and co-operation among States in acoordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The Republic of Cyprus, which, ever since it achieved independence, has maintained excellent relations with the Soviet Union, fully recognizes and appreciates the just pride of the Government and peoples of the USSR in their achievements. ... 2. This is the fourth consecutive year in which the General Assembly has debated the situation in Cyprus, which, as very aptly observed by the Secretary-General in his report on the work ofthe Organization, is not only serious in itself but also has very special implications for international peace and security[seeA/32/1, sect. IlL) NEW YOlK 3. I address you today in order to apprise the Assembly of the continuing crisis in Cyprus and to seek its support for a just and lasting solution of the Cyprus problem, the tragic dimensions of which, as they continuously expand, aggra- vate further the already critical situation in the =.sland. The absence of hostilities in Cyprus does not mean the presence of peace, for under the apparent quietness of the situation lurk the grave dangers involved in any armed aggression and continuing uneasin~ss for the future of a non-aligned State Member of the United Nations which a militarily powerful neighbouring country is trying to destroy by the use of force. 4. Beyond these dangers, the situation in Cyprus and its implications pose a grave challenge to the effectiveness of the United Nations and r.dse fundamental questions regard- ing the values and the basic principlas on which the continued existence of the Organization depends. 5. Since the Turkish aggression against the Republic of Cyprus in July and August 1974, and the continuing occupation of 40 per cent of its territory by the Turkish forces, the General Assembly and the Security Council haV(} repeatedly dealt with the Cyprus problem. Both the Assembly and the Council l:ave established, tlrrough the adoption of a series of resolut1Jns, the framework for the just settlement of the Cypms problem. The ~n~ral Assembly adopted resolution 3212 (XXIX) by unanumty, and resolutions 3395 (XXX) and 3 01/12 by near unanimity, with only Turkey casting a negative vote. The Security Council, among other resolutions, adopted, also unani- mously, resolution 365 (1974), by which it endorsed resolution 3212 (XXIX), thus rendering its implementation mandatory, and resolution 367 (1975) by which it estab- lished the process of a negotiating procedure between the representatives of the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot communities in Cyprus-the Greek majority of 80 per cent and the Turkish minority of 18 per cent. 6. These and other United Nations resolutions call on all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic ofCyprus; call for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs and demand the withdrawal, without delay, of all foreign troops and the urgent return of all refugees to their homes in safety. These provisions are clearly directed at Ankara and their implementation concerns Turkey exclusively. The resolutions also provide for substantive and meaningful negotiations, under the auspices and personal direction of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, between the representatives of the two communities, with a view to reaching freely a mutually acceptable political settlement based on their fundamental and legitimate rights. 7. The attitude of AnkJi'a towards the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus has been one of conternptuJus 8. Of all the provisions of the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus, Ankara has chosen seemingly to show respect, but in reality to pay lip service only, to the one which refers to the intercommunal negotiations. Events have demonstrated that Ankara's professed support for this provision has been dictated only by ulterior motives. Turkey has' been trying to downgrade and obscure the prime provisions of the resolutions, which are directed at it and at it alone, by claiming that the withdrawal of its troops and the return of the refugees to their homes are subject to the outcome of the negotiations. 9. The purpose of the intercommunal negotiations, how- ever, is clearly and unambiguously stated in the resolutions. These negotiations are concerned only with the internal aspect of the problem, and not with the withdrawal of the foreign troops and the return of the refugees to their homes which, in accordance with the resolutions, should precede and not follow the talks. For how could the people of Cyprus bring about the cessation of the aggression and the occupation of their country by. a foreign military Power, and in what way could they be expected to negIJtiate their future freely, as provided in the relevant United Nations resolutions, in the presence of a powerful army of occupaticn on their territory and faced with the agonizing problem of 200,000 refugees, one third of the island's total population? 10. Despite the constrcints im;"lQsed by the oppressive presence of the Turkish army of occup.ation and the paralysing problems of the refugees, the Greek Cypriot side, with the full concurrence of the Cyprus Government, entered iIito the talks, which began two and a half years ago, within the framework of the said resolutions, with the reasonable expectation that Turkey, in compliance with these resolutions, would, in a parallel action, set in motion measures for the progressive implementation of those provisions of the resolutions directed solely at Ankara. 11. The Government placed many hopes in the talks and the Greek Cypriot side "":~proached them with goodwill and in a constructive manner, believing that through a well- meaning dialogue opposing views can be bridged and differences settled. Contrastingly different, however, has been the Turkish attitude towards the talks. Ankara, which dictated the Turkish Cypriot stand in the intercommunal negotiations, not only did not allow a constructive dialogue - to develoll but also turned whatever limited agreements were reached at the talks, such as the humanitarian agreement of August 1975, into a painful travesty, through bad faith and broken promises. 12. Last February, a climate of ::')me optimism for a break-through in the intercommunal talks Was created follOWing two meetings between the President of the Republic, the late Archbishop Makarios, and the Turkish Cypriot l~ader, Mr. Denkta~. At the meetings, agreement 13. Mter receiving assurances from Ankara, through third parties, that the Turkish Cypriot side would respond positively and clearly to proposals for a federal solution of the constitutional aspect and a bi-zonal settlement of the territorial aspect of the problem, the Greek Cypriot side took the far-reaching decision to submit at Vienna proposals, together with a map, on the basis of a bi-zonal federation. In this respect, I remind the Assembly that the Turkish side has always proclaimed that the main obstacle to progress in the uegotiations is the Greek Cypriot side's refusal to accept a bi-zonaIJederation. 14. However, the goodwill and moderation shown by the Greek Cypriot side foundered on Turkish intransigence. Not only did the Turkish Cypriot negotiator, in breach of the guidelines, reject a federal system and insist on the creation of two separate, loosely connected states in Cyprus but also, contrary to the prior assurances given by Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, he failed to give any indication al. all of his side's views on the territorial aspect of the problem. Bluntly, but vety revealingly, the Turkish Cypriot negotiator stated: "I have not come to Vienna either to give-anything back or to indicate what we intend to give" 15. Such a reply should not be surpllsing nor should be the fact hat the talks, two and a half years after their commencemeqt and despite the very ~mmendable efforts of h'le Secretary-General, have demonstrably failed to produce any positive results. The reasons are too apparent. Ankara which, as already stated, dictates t.h.e Turkish Cypriot position in the talks, has never allowed a construc- tive dialogue to develop since it does not aspire to a just solution of the Cyprus problem through the talks. It only fmds convenient a semblance of negotiation. In this way, Ankara is enabled to evade its obligations under the resolutions and head off pressures and international efforts for-a just solution, by misleading the world into thinking that it is genuinely seeking a solution to the Cyprus problem through the intercommunal talks. Still worse, Ankara exploits the time occupied in the talks for the creation of faits accomplis and ,the consolidation of its position in the occupied area. 16. Since the commencement of the intercommunal talks, Ankara and its army of occupation, through the instru- mentality of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, has proceeded to an illegal declaration purporting to establish what it calls the "Federated Turkish State of Cyprus" and to the introduction of a so-called "constitution" under which Greek Cypriot~ are considered as aliens while Turkish colonizers are considered citizens of the bogus "State" During the same period, the army of occupation through actions and tactics of deprivation, humiliation, -harassment and physical violence, has expelled from the area under its 17. Of all the faits accomplis and the continuing actions of Ankara against Cyprus and its people, the ~ost damning for a solution of the Cyprus problem and at the same time the most cruel are the expulsions of the indigenous population from their homes, those actions directed against the refugees and those promoting the colonization of the occupied area through the importation of an alien popula- tion from Turkey. For, through them, Ankara is laying the foundations for the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus while at the same time grossly violating human rights and causing immense human suffering to the people of Cyprus-Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot alike. 18. The world is moved when innocent human beings are rendered homeless as a result of an act of God and it laments its impotence to prevent the suffering, Yet~ paradoxically, the world has been less responsive to the continuing tragedy of the thousands of indigenous Greek Cypriot inhabitants who have been brutally driven out of their ancestral homes, to become refugees in their own country as a result of the deliberate act of man. Day after day, in ever increasing i1umber, the Turkish army of occupation has been relentlessly uprooting these unfor- tunate people from their homes and properties, calculatedly and cruelly in fulfIlment of a plan conceived long ago by the Turkish military. Day after day, Ankara has been colonizing, unimpeded, the occupied part of Cyprus by massively importing an aUen population froo Turkey. Day after day, the drama of the helpless beings rendered homeless has been brought to the attention of the world. But in terms of calling forth effective action to remedy their plight, their voice has been a VOj~f in the wilderness. In an age which rightly prides itself on} avmg won the fight against colonialism and in the era of human rights and fundamental freedoms, it is a sad commentary-indeed a tragedy-that Turkey should be allowed to promote its plans unimpeded, in defiance and contravention of all principles of humanitarian law and of United Nations resolutions. 20. Turkey has also alleged that its forces invaded Cyprus for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots. This allegation has also been proved false by time and events. The Turkish Cypriots have been victims, almost as much as the Greek Cypriots, of the infamous partitionist policies pursued by Ankara in Cyprus, and have suffered a great deal as a result of Ankara's policy of self-segregation and from the influx of the settler-colonizers, who receive preferential treatment from the Turkish occupation forces. The plight of the average Turkish Cypriot is attested to by all objective observers with access to the occupied area, and is grimly and extensively reflected in the darkest colours even in the Turkish Cypriot press. It is our fIrm conviction that the people of Cyprus as a whole can, if left free of external interference, live and prosper together in harmonious co-operation. 21. The facts to which I have referred speak eloquently and reveal the Turkish policy on Cyprus. That policy is aimed at the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus, the partioning of tl}e island and the de facto annexation by Turkey of the occupied area, thus satisfying for the present its geopolitical objectives. All Turkish actions with regard to Cyprus are motivated by this over-all aim. The parti- tionist policy of Ankara is not a new development. Turkey has been advocating it for over 20 years, officially proposing it in 1957 to the British Colonial Government, and in 1964 and 1965 to the United Nations mediators. Since 1963, Turkey has been actively cultivating it on the ground by dictating to the Turkish Cypriots, through their leaders, a policy of self-segregation, unmindful of the deprivations that such a policy caused them for 11 years-the 11 years of suffering, as Turkey unabashedly calls them. In 1974, taking advantage of the pretext prOVided by a criminal coup d'etat perpetrated by the military junta then ruling Greece, Turkey put into full effect its plans for the destruction of the Republic of 23. My Government is of the fll'IIl opinion that there is no room for further delay in the implementation of the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus ifpeace on the island is to be secured.. If further tolerance is shown to the contemptuous disregard by Ankara of the resolutions, and to its illegal and arbitrary actions, the problem of Cyprus could be com- plicated to the extent that it will become insoluble, with dire consequences to peace and security in the sensitive area ofthe eastern Mediterranean. 24. The existing General Assembly and Security Council resolutions provide a valid framework, and contain all the necessary elements for a just and lasting solution of the Cyprus problem. We~herefore believe that, in addition to reafimning these ba::1~ elements, the General Assembly mould also impress upon the Security Council the necessity of taking, as a matter ofurgency, all measures warranted by the situation in order to bring about the long overdue implementation of the Council's resolutions on Cyprus, and especially of resolutions 365 (1974) which endorsed General Assembly resolution 3212 (XXIX). In this respect, I would remind the Assembly of the statement of the Secretary.General, Mr. Waldheim, in the introduction to his report last year on the work of the organization. He said: "The responsibilities of Governments do not cease when a resolution is adopted; indeed, resolutions usually require determined action by Governments, in addition to the parties directly concerned, if they are to be translated into reality"" 25. It is such determined action that we are seeking from this Assembly to give effect to the United Nations commitment to advance a just and lasting solution of the Cyprus problem.