A/46/PV.35 General Assembly

23.  (untinuep) HETURN OR RESTITUTION OF CULTURAL PROPERTY TO THE COUNTRIES OP ORIGIN (a) REPORT OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL (A/46/497) (b) DRAFT RESOLUIION (A/46/~.11) Mr. BATIOUR (Ukraine) (interpretation from Russian): Recent events have shown that the United Nations is rapidly becoming an effective centre where States can take joint aad agreed measures to maintain international peace and security and to develop world cooperation in many areas of human endeavour. The time ir now approaching when people’s vital needs, including their cultural and @pi ritual needa, can now move from the periphery to the centre of attention in the United Ration8 ryrtem. Ukraine welcomes this turn of eventr.* * Mr. Flores Bermudez (Honduras), Vice-President, t.ook the Chair. (l!iL_BntFnua,VkEsis) The proclalnation. on 24 Auqurt thir year by an exttsordiaary serrion of the Ukrainian p~rliamrmt. of Ukraino’r independence wan, among other thingm, o powerful rtimulum towardr enhancing the intoreat of it8 people in itr historical and cultural heritage. Thir process has affected all group8 of the population, including the rrprrrentstivea of the national ainoritier; in Ukraine. In the circuamtancea, the Government and parliament of our republic moo their tark as one of providing support for the desire of its people to get to know, premervo and propagate its cultural treasures. For the first time in many years, our State ir asowning the role of guarantor of the preservation and developraent of our national culture. This is needed. the more so because, during the decades of its incorporation in the USSR, the cultures of Ukraine developed in a one-sided manner . The all-encompassing inculcation of a pseudo-internationa!ist, class approach did enormous damage to the development of the national culture of the peoples of Ukraine. Many of the cultural treasure8 of t!ba Ukrainian and other peoples w@re annihilated; others were preserved only because there were individual people who emigrated in time. The Chairman of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, Mr. Leonid Kravchuk. clearly marking the watershed in our people’s affairs, stated in this Assembly on 30 September this year that independent Ukraine would never allow its citizens - Ukrainians, Russians, Jews, Tatars, Poles, Hungarians - to live in fear of persecution because of their natural and understandable love for their own culture, language or nation. He said further that independent and democratic Ukraine called upon all our compatriots in Ukraine and elsewhere to set aside old feuds and old grievances, and, instead, to work together for the noble cause of reviving the language, culture and statehood of its people. (b/46/PV.l4. op. 31-32) (nE.BatiouL,) Not only the followerm of every religion, but also tho repremeatativem of every people have their own Mecca. The Mecca of all Ukrainians im Ukraine, the bankm of the legendary Dnepr. Today, Ukrainians, wherever they may live, cm freely realise their natural yearning for their himtorical h-land, their yearning to matimfy thejr cultural, religious and rpiritual neoda. Only Ukraine can be the true centre tor the revival of Ukrainian culture; therefore. for ersmple. there is nothing unusual in the fact that, while it began abroad, the international nssociation of Ukrainicists should be primarily based in Ukraine. Therefore, for example, we consider it quite natural that Ukrainians who are citizens of other countries and have preserved the separate national treasures of their peoples oftea express the desire to return then to the bosom of the active spiritual life of their own poop e. Of course, Ukraine itself cannot be indifferent to its own cultural heritage, which, at various times, has been either illegally or forcibly removed beyond tho bound0 of its own territory. Pursuant tc the declaration on State sovereignty adopted on 1G July last year, Ukraine has the right to return to the ownership of the people of Ukraine the national cultural and historical Property which is outside the frontiers of the republic. This flows from the natural right of every people to the historical and cultural property of its camtry created on its own territory. Of course, exhibitions of the best artistic works can and must travel around the world and thus acquaint the peoples of the world with these national treasures. However, we also know that the cultural and historical achievements of Ukraine - literature, painting, whole collections of artists’ outputs, the literary heritage of many writers - have, because of the unfortunate past, been scattered throughout the world. They can and must be t-B) returned to our country. Of C0Ufm.r thla III not the uork of a mlnglo day or even of a ring10 year, but we continue to hope that the national tresrures that have left the country will, with the active cooperation of other States, ultimately return to Ukraine. We welcome the active role of the Unitod Nations and its specialised agencier in the return or restitution of cultural property to their countries of origin. The effort8 of the United Nations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Orgsnization (UNESCO) in promoting bilateral and multilateral negotiations for the return or restitution of cultural, artistic or archival property and in compiling descriptions of them, limiting the illegal trade in them and in publicising them warrant all our support and approval. Our State affirms its readiness not only to work for the return of property belonging tc its people, but also actively to promote the re-establishment of historical justice with regard to the rights of other peoples to their cultural heritages. We are prepared to cooperate on these issues with other countries, and are stepping up our cooperation with our neighbours in this respect. The most recent example of this is the signing of an agreement between Ukraine and the Republic of Hungary on cultural cooperation. The coordination of this activity in Ukraine will be carried cut by the recently established commission on the search for the historical and cultural property of the Ukrainian people. The major task of the conrnisaion in the early stages will be to gather together all possible information on the national treasures of Ukraine which are now outside the country so that it can subsequently work for them to be returned. (Hr.1 Of groat rignificaaco for the work of tho cmirmloa will be the docirions and rocomndatlonr of the Interpovornsnental Coanittee for Promoting the Roturn of Cultural Propotty to ita Couatriea of Origin or ita Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation, and the Ukrainian cultural fund and other public organirations and asrociations in our country will alro have to have their say in this noble caumo. The succersful restoration, preservation and protection of a cultural heritage is possible only on the basis of conscientious international cooperation, good will and mutual respect. This is precisely the goal of the draft resolution (A/46/L.l1) on this subject which is before the General Assembly. Mx. Sm (Syrian Arab Republic) (interpretation from Arabic): It is no wonder that my country, Syria, should have a rich archaeological heritage: it was the meeting-place of civilisations by virtue of its geographical position in the heart of the ancient world. The archaeological discoveries that follow upon each other day after day are testimony to the archaeological wealth of Syria, whoae ancient treasures stand witness to the fact that the anciink civilirations which developed and flourished in my country have greatly contributed to the development of humanity at large. (nr.hti) By why of example, a l et of clay modelr of rhip rtlucturer which data beck to the second hslf of the fifth millonium B.C. har boon diecovered in the Khabur region. There Is no doubt thst Invasions, uarm end coloaisllam have caused the dertructioa or 1068 of greet qusntitler of archeological relic@ of ancient civilisations in different parta of the world. Thore very tsctorm have led also to the plunder and transfer of very precious objects from their places of origin to countrias which have no title to such objects. This, in turn, has led to the cultural impoverishment of people who ere the real ownera of such treasures. The plundering and smuggling of ert objectr and monuments represent one of the most serious problems that have faced countries such aa Syria since the beginning of the twentieth century. This can be attributed to many factors such as the eagerness of museums, scientific and artistic establia:~ments and individual collectors to purchase such objects. This has led to the appearance of hordes of middlemen, traffickers, clandestine excavators as well 0s groups and agencies that monitor the availability of cultural property, archeological finds and even unexcavated treasures. In the context of this trafficking, countries have come to be classified into three categories. First, exporting countries that, for the moat part arti developing countries which were the cradle of civilixation, such as my own country, Syria. as well a8 other Arab and foreign States. Secondly, importing countries which, for the most part, are rich nations that have the benefit of highly qualified experts in the evaluation of art and archeological objects and the financisl ability to pay for the acquisitions regardless of cost. Thirdly, middle countries, which may be called countries of trsnait, whooe circumstances or laws facilitate and allow the illicit paoaage of smuggled i temo . In view of all this, there is a great deal of heightened international concern with regard to the problem of the illicit traffic in archeological objects and the need to curb or even put paid to this activ this problem led to the adoption by the General Conference Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( ninth session in December 1956, in New Delhi, of general recommendations the international principles that must govern the field of archeological excavations end which aimed for the most part at organizing archeologica and prohibiting illicit excavations. The General Conference of UNESCO at its thirteenth session in November 1964 in Paris agreed on recommendations on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. The General Conference of UNESCO adopted at its sixteenth session on 14 November 1970 in Paris the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which was acceded to by my country, Syria, on 21 May 1975. We have studied carefully the report of the Secretany-Gen ral in document A/46/497 in which he transmitted the report of the Dirertor-General of UNESCO on the efforts made to promote the return or restitution of cultural property to countries of origin. The report pays particular attention to implementing the recommendations made by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the ( Mr +. .li.hahnsP. .sY r6 Q-0 AK rah.WUlr 1 ity. Concern with of the United UNESCO) at its on 1 digs Return Of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. The report describes the action taken on the recommendations adopted by the Intergovernmental Committee at its sixth session and the vork done by the Committee at its seventh eeanion. Th8 report makea it clear that A great deal of work remains to be done due to the fact that the prevalent principle of right with regard to the ownership of cultural property, protects whoever acquires such prOpertieB, irrespective of the manner in which the acquisition was obtained. This ia why we deem it neceBBary to exert efforts at the international level for the adoption of international legislation that forces countries responsible to reatitute the archeological treasurea to their original owners and to put an end to the plundering of those archeoloqicJ1 treasures. This legislation should be retroactive so that items that were plundered, stolen or given au gifts, would be reatituted as well. Such 1eqiBlatiOrl should put an end to the international illicit traffic in historic treasure5 because the perpetrator would not be able to promote his wares. In this respect, the archeological experts question the following: if it is inadmissible for a simple picture that is stolen from a maqazina to be used in another country, regardless of how simple it is, how is it possible that an archeological item more than 1,000 years old can be stolen and used in a foreign museum under the pretext of acquisition, or even purchase? If artistic production companies in rloveloped Western countries 8ue any country that uses, for example, a record or a tape, claiming copyright dues, then why would not a country whose archeological items have been plundered have the same right when it comes to very precious archeological items which belong to one of these nations? some archeological experta believe that human rights, people’s righta, and cultural property rights, that provide very aublime new contents, must include people’s rights to maintain their treoaurea and artistic wealth, which constitute an important element of their culture, and that such concepts muat. be developed to include the right of these archeological objecta to be freed from oxilo in foreign countries and to be returned to the countries of or igin. The cultural life of any country is an intagral part of ita daily life and an expression of it8 national and historic identity. For this reason, we believe that what has happened. and still continues to happc!n, is not only detrimental to the countries that own the artistic and archeo!xrical items. but la detrimental also to all countries, to world culture and tti human civi liration in general. It ia also detrimental to our reading of history, to its study and chronology. It could alao lead to a premeditated fabrication of history. We know very well that some countries try to use these items to support their claims that they are not strangers to the region where they now are. This is why we believe it to be very necessary that the art objects and artistic treasures be brought back to their places of historic origin, regardless of the reasons for which these properties were transfer red to their present places, so that the world’s genuine historic features may be restored. Syr in, being a party to the Convention on the Ueans of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, urges the States that have not done so yet to accede to the Convention. The draft resolution submitted in document A1461L.11 is not new. It was discussed by the General Assem))ly for the first ti 18 at its twenty-eighth session, in 1973. WR support the draft resolution, as we supported all previous resolutions relating to this item. We hope that it will be adopta? by consensus. I should like, in this regard, to place on record Syria’s keen interest in maintaining its right to recover its cultural property acquired by the Israeli occupation authorities, some of which was recorded in archaeological records contrary to international law. I should like also to place on record that my country, Syria, reserves the right to claim the return of its cultural property which was transferred from its territory, museums and archaeological institutions during the periods of foreign occupation and the mandate. ThOSf? items go back many centuries and reflect our national cultural heritage. Mr ..-.t MOHJ@tM~ (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation wishes to affirm that, in addressing this item, we are dealing with an issue that, by its very nature, differs from the other items on the agenda of this Assembly whose business you conduct quite successfully. This question, from both aspects of ethics and principle, reflects in an exceptional manner the close relationship that binds peoples to their cherished heritage and their culturai achievements over the ages, in addit-ion to the fact that a people’s cultural heritage reaffirms important aspects of that people’s national identity and continuity. My country’s delegation cannot lose sight of the high importance of this question even under the circumstances created by the brutal and irmnoral siege imposed on the Iraqi people with the aim of starving them. That siege which has been going on for more than a year would appear to make such a question a marginal issue at the very bottom of the scale of priorities. Such a perception may appear to be logical at first right. However, i f we consider the question in depth and relate it to Iraq’s history and its major cultural achievements from time immemorial to the present, we shall become aware of the significance of the imnortal relics of the civiliration of Mesopotamia and shall realize that the resistance and patience of the Iraqi people in the face of the inhuman siege imposed by the United States and its allies are only part of the pride and dignity of this people who ar * proud of having contributed effectively to the creation of civilisation. Therefore, our interest in this item at this session, even under the exceptional circumstances which deprive our children of food and medicine, attests to our attachment to our eternal cultural heritage, and highlights our deep belief in the fact that this heritage vhich embodies the lofty values and principles of humanity is the source of our determination not to surrender or submit and our resolve to live only in dignity and freedom. The var waged on the Iraqi people and the killing of their children in this savage manner, can mean nothing else but the intent to expose future Iraqi generations to extermination. By the same token, it means also the attempted assassination of the history of this noble people, a history which goes back for millennia, to the very roots of humanity’s history. Here it is necessary for me to stress one important thing: namely, that this is a question that relates to history. Objectively speaking, therefore, this is a question that relates to the future. It is not only a question of returning works of art or cultural property that were stolen or moved to another country under certain circumstances. Rather, it is a question of a national cause. It concerns the spirit of a people and the process whereby that people develop and create their national identity. Hence, what is at stake here is the historical fountainhead that enriches that people’s striving after progress and prosperity. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to return cultural property and the testimonials of the past to the countries of origin. The international recognition of the importance of this aspect must involve also the distinguishing between works of art or archaeological works, including manuscripts, from other commercial commodities. This distinction should not relate only to the cultural or national value of those objects and treasures, but should include the manner in which they are dealt with. They are not like ordina:,y goods such as motor cars or spare parts or even agricultural produce and rugs. Those objects form an integral living part of the heritage of the peoples to which the cultural property belongs. The point I am trying to stress here is the legitimacy of the demands for the restitution of such objects to the countries of origin. It must also he stated that restitution would be a noble measure on the human and cultural levels. It is also a moral measure that would promote international cooperation in other areas and wotild constitute a positive factor in relations between States. Of course, it im only aatural that my country should be intererted in a question of this nature which relater to its profound and privileged ties to the past. Iraq’s gloriour part is too well knovn even to refer to. Hence, it ia only natural that we wish to retrieve the monuments, works of art and rare objects and invaluable manuscripts which were stolen from our country’s treasure house of history. Our claim ir strong and legitimate. (l!P rn._ltaq) He view what happened in this connection aa one of the nisdrratla of colonial domination which ware inflicted upon countries of prestigious civilisations. That is why the restitution of such property represents, by the same token, an essential phase towards completing decolonisation and eliminating the consequences of the colonialist era. In and of itself, this i. ,n important cultural step of great human significance. Of course it also involves rectification and redress of the distortion of history and the moral damnge dons to the national identity of countries. Today, it is a well known fact in sociology and in law that historic monuments complement the natural environment in which they were created, and that uprooting them from their environment can only mean the uprooting of a natural and essential component of a nation’s very soil and thereby depriving it of its identity and national character. This is an inhuman act that cancels out an essential source of the inspiration and the motivation so necessary co any nation’s artistic and literary creativity that symholize its identity throughout the successive stages of development. This is compounded by several other lnctors which arise from the actual existence of the monument or ob]ect. on its historic site at its place of origin. Those factors include the benefits accruing from tourism, culture, information, development and environment. That is why my country has devoted a great part of its potential to the preservation, development and highlighting of evidence of the human civilization that flourisfied in Mesopotamia. We have made persistent efforts to n*‘ouild these old cities a.nd restore their characteristic features through modern scientific methods, One of the qreat Iraqi traditions at the international leve; is the annual Festival of BahylOn, which is generally atter:ded by a great number of intellectuals, literary personages, archeologists, sociologists an& renowned artists who participate in the ritual of veneration of ancient civilitations. Here I must point out that the brutal aggression by the United States against Iraq that barbarously and vengefully destroyed everything has also left negative tracss in this area. But we have confidence in the fact that Iraq, which wan the cradle of great civilitations and whose name has been surrounded with brilliance from the very dawn of history, will always retain its integral vigour despite all the thousands of bombs dropped and the inhlunan siege aimed at starving its people. There is no doubt that examination and evaluation of vhat has been done in relation to this item from 1973 to the present throws into relief two essential factors that must be taken into account. The first relates to the cultural alienation practised by colonial States against third world countries through dominance of the media. The second relates to the obligation to observe rules of procedure and the recommendations concerning return or restitution of cultural property to their countries of vrigin and the reed to accede to the agreements on this issue, especially bhe 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit In.pL,rt, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. the legit.imacy of the restitution of cultural property is to be linked t0 iI ..redihle form of international cooperation that really works, there is a need to eliminate every discriminatory perception that would limit the right of any State to demand restitution of its cultural property under the pretext that it is not rapable of preservjnq such cultural property. ( k!!.+ i!bhmQd, 1 E ag 1 There is no doubt that the peoples who own those objectn are the very peoples who created and made that cultural heritage and all its artifactr in the course of their history. They are the very peoples who possess the creative ability to make the cultural achievements embodied in the monuments, art object8 and manuscripts that testify to the contribution made by them to mankind’s patrimony and its successive civilizationa. That is why we assert here that it rould promote international cooperation if the developed States were to make a serious contribution to projects for the building and development of museums in developing countries, train museum personnel and publish archeological studies and reports concerning those museums. This has to be done objectively without any political bias. Having taken note of the valuable report of UNESCO’s Director-General (A/46/497), my country’s delegation wishes to reassert its firm support of the efforts of that organization to promote bilateral negotiations between States f:)r the restitution of cultural property to their countries of origin. We also support the efforts of the Intergovernmental Committee created for this pur’pose and all the initiatives it. has takec with a view towards achiovi.ng these noble objectives. My delegation also wishes to reiterate its conviction that it is necessary to strengthen and expand all forms of cooperation between the United Nations and UNESCO, inter.-al.ip, in the framework of the International Decade for Cultural Development. We hope that international efforts will hear positive fruit and that talk of a new international order will not turn out t.u be just talk whose sole pilrpose is to serve ti;e ::olonialist ir1terest.s of some developed countries while the altuatloa deterioratm8 in tho developing countrler. Therefore. my delegation riahes to declare that it supports the draft resolution admitted on this agenda item. or. EXARCHO~ (Greece): We are called upon again this year to consider under item 23 of our agenda the most important question of the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin. Greece, a5 in the past, is a sponsor of the draft resolution which, following the conmendable initiative of Zaire. is presented regularly to the Member States. I would recommend tbat draft resolution A/46/L.l1 be adopted by consensus. If this appears not to be possible, I trust that some time in the not very distant future the difficulties that some Member States are confronted with in this draft will be overcome. For I am sure that we all share the view that the illicit removal of unique works of art must cease, that all necessary measures must be taken to curb this illicit traffic in cultural property and that international as well as bilateral cooperation must be strengthened, with the aim of solving pending problems. The question of protecting tbe cultural property of all nations is even more relevant now than in the past. Respect for each nation's unique character, most prominently expressed by its cultural heritage, would undoubtedly contribute to the strengthening of international cooperation. It is encouraging that these concerns are shared by the ever-increasing number of countries that are adhering to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Indeed, six additional Member States have ratified this Convention, bringing the number of States parties to the Convention to 71. The report of the Secretary-Geaeral contained in document A/46/497 s:~t,llnes the activities undertaken by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to promote the return or restitution of cultural property to their countries of origin. I wish to corrunsnd the Director-General of UNESCO and the Intergovernmrntal Cornnittee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to ite Countriea of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation for the work they have done in this respect. Ws wore particularly pleasad to host ths seventh aesaion of that Committee in Athena from 22 to 25 April this ysar. International an well as bilateral cooperation LIJ necessary if we are to have any succo88 in our efforts to curb the illicit traffic in cultural property and to protect the cultural heritage of each nation. There can be no doubt that accession to the 1970 Convention, the conclusion of bilateral agreements and the adoption of national legislation provide the indispensable leqal framework in this regard. Greece has already signed Ruth bilat era1 agreements and looks forward to extending such cooperation to other countries. However, the implementation of these proviniorls require5 active cooperation among police forces, customs authorities, museums and other involved. A significant step in this direction would be the establishment of computerized data base8 relating to stolen cultural property, a8 wafr recommended by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime. I have particularly in mind the computerization of the International Criminal Police Organizatinn’s (INTERPOL) impressive file of stolen vorks of art; as mentioned at the seventh session of the Intergovernmental Committee, this computerization will soon be completed. Moreover I the establishment of links hetween national and international organisations that have already or are about to set up data banks in this field would facilitate the coordination of the activities of all the competent authorities. I would he remiss if I failed to mention particularly, among the efforts related to the implementation of the 1970 Convention, the preparation of a preliminary draft ConveIlticJn on r;t.olen or illegally cxport.ed cultural objects (Mr. EfRlChQR. GCOOCO) drawn up by a study group established by the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT). Uy Government considers this exercise to be complementary to the Convention and aimed at facilitating its implementation, thus rendering the Convention more effective. I hope th?t a spirit of cooperation will prevail in the meetings of the study group and that the draft will be finalised as soon as possible. May I note that no country is illUnUn8 from illicit traffic in its cultural property. Therefore, it is in everybody's interest that the draft convention deprive all involved in the illicit traffic in cultural property of the possibility of gaining any benefit from the products of their illegal activities, taking especially into account the interests of the countries with a rich history which have suffered, end continue to suffer, from the increased illicit removal of their cultural heritage. In this context, it would be useful to introduce the element of retroactivity. We consider that this would be fully justified in this case by the very nature of the convention. Recomnendation 1 adopted by the Intergovernmental Committee of UNESCO regarding the restitution of the Pant&anon Marbles states: "Recommends that the secretariat, with the advice and assistance of the International Council of Museums. seek the opinion of a panel of independent experts of international repute which, after studying conditions in their present location and those specified in the plans for the new Acropolis museum . . . . will advise the Committee as to the place where the Parthenon Marbles could best be situated". (A/46/497, appendix ii It is well known that the Greek Government has focused its efforts on the construction of a new museum in Athen? which should, in time, house the Parthenon Marbles. I should like to inform the Assembly that the international (Mr. Exarchos, Greece) architectural competition announced in May 1989 by the Ministry of Culture of t-he Hellenic Republic has been cc,mplet.ad. The first. prize wan awarded to a team of Italian architects who chose the Makryanni site for the museum to he bui 1t. Therefore, at this time, all necessary documentation ia now available t.o the secretariat of t.he Committee. Of course, the substantive aspect. of the matter remains in the framework of bilateral negotiations between Greece and the United Kingdom, a country with which we ent.ert.ain close, friendly relat ions. The claim for the recovery of the Parthenon Marbles resides in the fact., among ot.her s, that they were always considered to be inseparable from t-he monument, a temple of unique ortiatic value, the most prominent expression of the Hellenic civiliration and a treasure to humanity on its own merits. I should like to commend the British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles for having contributed to a better understanding of the whole problem by the international community. If protection from the illicit transfer of national art is the object of our concerns, our preoccupation is certainly more profounfl when such illicit transfer is made under compulsion arising directly or indirectly from the occupation of a country by a foreign Power. I am referring particularly to the case of Cyprus. Althouqh losses through the illicit removal of cultural property at various times prior to the independence of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 were not negligible, the most damaging blow to the cultural heritage of that island State occurred after the 1974 invasion. It is not my purpose to list all the cases of damaged monuments. I shall mention only the well-known c;lse of the stolen Kanakaria mosaics, which were found in the hands of an Indianapolis dealer. More details on this can be fnunf in the Secretary-General’s report. The activitior of URltSCO and the Intoryovmrnmontal Comrrittoe have rignificautly contributed over the yearm to the onhancament of international cooperation through nultilatoral and bilateral negotiationm or agraemant8. t note with ratiefaction that, a8 mmntionad in the report of the Secretary-Denoral, tharo have boon ca8.8 whet. work8 of art have bo6n returned to their lawful ownora. Thir trend rhould be further encouraged 80 that mistru8t may be replaced by Iscognition of the ju8tice of claim8, 9oodw~ll and mutual respect. The draft rea,lutloa before u8 8erves thi8 purport an8 that is why I con8nend it for approval at this session. (Ht.-~~htm..E~m.cm) Mr. ELXADES (Cyprus): The richskess an& variety of the Cypriot cultural heritage is one of the great attributes of rpp country. As a consequeace, it has been, and still is, tbe focal point of meny renowned historians and archaeologists. The subsoil of Cyprus never ceases to reveal further testimony to the millennia-old passage of bistorp from this vital crossroads of three continents. Either by chance discovery or through meticulous archaeological excavation, an impressive diversity of an even more impressive cultural heritage is yielded with frequency. The wealth of our cultural heritage, however, did not attract only well-meaning historians and archaeologists but also uuscrupulous collectors, who, undes the guise of historical research or even artistic interest, removed, illegally, priceless cultural treasures of Cyprus to foreign museums and overseas private collections. For obvious reasons the question of tbe return or restitution of cultural property to the country of origin is of particular importance to Cyprus, aa my delegation is pleased to support the draft resolution introduced by Zaire - document W46IL.11 - whose constructive reconmwndations we welcome. My delegation wishes also to express its aatiafaction with the report of the Secretary-General on the return or restitution of cultural property to tbe countries of origin - document A/46/497 - which contain8 the Beport of the Director-General of the United Nations Educational. Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on the implementation of resolution 44118 of 6 November 1989. Although some progress has been achieved in this respect, we consider that much remains to be done. This, of course, does not detract from a sincere expression of appreciation to UNESCO and its Int.eryovernmentol Committee for Promoting the Ret-urn of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Ref#titution in Case of Illicit Appropriation for the work they have done. It is crucial that we do our utmost., jointly and individually, to yrot.cct artifacts in their original shape and context - restoring them, where nncesaary, to those worlds t-hat created, utilized, loved and found immeasurable meaning in them. In this respect I am particularly pleased to refer to the now-famous Kanakaria mosaics of Cyprus, which are me,ltioned in paragraph 9 of the report before us. As members know, the Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus brought legal action in the United States for the recovery of four invaluable Byzantine mosaics, hacked crudely from the apse of the sixth-century church of Panagia Kanakaria, which is situated in the occupied part of Cyprus, and eventually sold to an American art dealer, who brought them to the State of Indiana. After a lengthy judicial process the United States Court of Appeals, confirming the judqement of the District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, ruled that “The mosaics before 11s 4~62 of great- intrinsic beauty. They are the virtually unique remnants of an earlier artistic period and should be returned to their homeland and the riqhtful ovner. This is the case not only because the mosaics belong there, but as a reminder that greed and callous disregard for the propert.y, history and culture of others cannot be countenanced by the war Id community or by t-his Court.“. (Mr. Eliadea, Cyprus) The decision was covezed widely in the press an a precedent-setting case for the return of stolen antiqrlities to the countries of origin. It. is not common that a judge's important decision can be, at the same time, an exceptionally eloquent - almost literary - atatement. Consitleriny, therefore, the aignific.!nce of this decision - not only for Cyprus but aiso for all those who are striving, against difficult odds, for the r-eturn or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin - permit me, to quote certain passages from it. It opena with a quotation from Lord Byron’s poem “The Siege of Corinth”, whose verses speak about the ruins of an ancient temple. Chief Judge William Bauer is reminding us, through this poem, what this case is all about - plunder. The poem's setting is the year 1715, when Ottoman forces, seeking control of the Peloponnese in Greece, invaded Corinth. I quote: "There is a temple in ruin stands, Fashion'd by long fcrgotten hands: Two or three columns, and many a stone, Marble and granite, with grass o'er-grown! Out upon Time! it will leave no more Of the tb;ngs to come than the things befor-o! Out upon Time! who for ever will leave But enough of the past and the future to grieve O'er that which hath been and o'er that which must be: What we have seen, our sons shall see, Remnants of things that have pass'd away, Fragments of stone, rear'd by creatures of clay!” The decision of Chief Judge Bauer continues: "Byron, writing here of the Turkish invasion of Corinth in 1715, could as well have been describing the many churches and monuments that ,oday lie in ruins on Cyprus, a small war-torn island in the eastern corner of the Mediterranean Sea. In this appeal we consider the fate of several tangible victims of Cyprus’5 turbulent history: specifically, four Byxantine mosaics created over 1,400 year5 ago. The district court awarded possession of these extremely valuable mosaics to plaintiff-appellee, the Autocephalous Greek-Orthodox Church of Cyprus. Defendants-appallants, Peg Goldberg and Goldberg S Feldman Pine Arts, Inc. (collectively ‘Goldberg’), claim that, in so doing, the court coxsnitted various reversible errors. Wo affirm.” Then there follow 30-odd pages hefore the conclusion, which says: “As Byron’5 poem laments, war can reduce our grandest and most sacred temples to mere ‘fragments of stone’. Only the lowest of scoundrels attempt to reap personal gain from this collective loss. Those who plundered the churchem and monuments of war-torn Cyprus, hoarded their relic5 away, and are now smuggling and selling them for large sums are just such blackguards. The Republic of Cyprus, with diligent effort and the help of friends like Dr. True, has been able to locate several of these stolen antiquities; items of vast cultural, religious - and, a5 this cc demonstrates, monetary - value. Among such finds are piece5 of the Kanakaria mosaic at issue in this case. Unfortunately, when these mosaic5 surfaced they were in the hands not of the most guilty parties, but of Peg GlJldberg and her gallery. Correctly applying Indiana law, the district court determined that Goldberg must return the mosaics to their rightful owner: the Church of Cyprus. Goldberg’5 tireless attacks have not established reversible error in the determination, and thus, for the reasons discussel above, the district court’s judgment is affirmed.” (Mr I-. ~Uabor., Cyor ud 1 Notwithatandlng the tremendously encouraging outcome of this cam, my Government rem&ins deeply concerned about the eeriour losses that the cultural heritage of Cyprus has been aufferlng since 1974. Numerour centuries-old churches and other national monuments were plundered, looted, or even destroyed. News reports published as recently a8 two weeks ago refer to the destruction of a church in Pano Dhikomo, while, several months ago, there emerged evidence that a fourtes?nth--century Byzantine Church - that of Panayia Avgasida - had been demolished. Let me stress that the Government of Cyprus, the Autocephalua Greek Orthodox Church and other institution8 have spared no effort or money in their quest to recover - even by buying them back - whatever Cypriot antiquities <ould be salvaged. They have undertaken a uorldwide campaign, which continues unabated at many levels, for the discovery and return of many significant cultural treasures, and the Kanakaria mosaics are an apt example. #evertheleaa, Cyprus ia a small country with limited resources. Fortunately, it has had, in varying degress, the assistance of many organitations an0 individuals, including UNESCO, the International Council of hfU8eUfll8 and Site8, Europa lkatra, the Council of Europe and the foremost musewna, curators and 8ChOlar8 throughout the world. The people of Cyprus are indeed indebted to these institutions and individuals who have contributed towards the recovery and protection of our cultural heritage and are continuing to do so. My Government will continue and intensify its efforts, in close cooperation with other countries and international organixations, to repossess stolen treasures, which belong not only to Cyprus, but also to mankind as a whole. As I said earlier, however, and as I stress again now, it is of primary importance, for the sake of mankind’8 cultural heritage, that we protect and preserve artefacts in their original form, shape and context, restoring them, where necessary, to those worlds that created, utilized, loved and found them immeasurably meaningful. Countries of origin have a right to keep within nati.onal boundaries their important cultural treasures, illustrating their distinguished history. Mrst__~.~.~r_ED-~.PATI~Q (Bolivia) (interpretation from Spanish): The efforts that have been made regarding the item before us - the return or restitution of cultural property to the countries of origin - already have a long history in the United Nations, and I believe it is appropriate to draw attention to some of the principles of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of :a*;hip of Cultural Property, adopted on 14 November 1970 by the UNESCO 5 e n e r a 1 C 0 n f e r e I? c e . The States Parties to the Convention recognize that the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultura! property is one of the main causes of the impoverishment of the cultural heritage of countries. They undertake to take the necessary measures, consistent with national legislation, to prevent the acquisition of cultural property originating in another State party to the Convention: to prohibit the import of cultural property stolen from museums, monuments or institutions located in the territory of another State party: at the request of the State party of origin, to take appropriate St0D3 to recover and return any such cultural property imported: and not to impose customs duties or other charges upon cultural property returned pursuant to article 7 of the Convention. I am referring to these main points because several years have passed since this important Convention was adopted. Bolivia notes with deep concern the lack of any adequate juridical and leqal basis for dealing with specific cases of the illicit removal of cultural property that really belongs to the people. My country, Bolivia, is located in the cradle of one of the richest cultures in the Americas. and we Bolivians are proud of our cultural heritage. Our peasant communities possess sacred tapestries and objects that speak of their ancestral origin. Many of these items are even used today in religious and family rites. Bolivia is a vast depositary of the continent’s colonial heritage. Xn this context, Bolivia has seen its ethnic and folklL-;l’ objects, textiles, paintings and silverwork sytematically plunderad and, particularly in recent years, foreign merchants have begun t.o ;*isit communities in search of much artefact8, taking adwantago of locsl fsirm uhera they ware diaplnynd. In one comunity alone thero UOI’O official report0 of tho loss of 114 anclrnt tapestries of extraordinary quality, which dated back to the nineteenth century. The Government of Bolivia im currently involved, iatar alis, in two court actions in the United States and in Canada in order to recover objrctm from its precious cultural heritage. In the United States, special customs agents confiscated 930 pre-Colombian articles. including textiles, ceramics and silver, that had bocn tracked down in San ?rancisco, California on 22 ?ebruary 1988. The authorities of the United States are now involved in legal proceedings againat the responsible parties. In Halifax, Canada, in July 1988, Canadian customs authorities seized 6,000 Bolivian artefacts. The possibilities of recovering them are very real, oving to the cooperatiou of the Canadian authorities and its domestic regulations that comply with the cultural heritage laws. Bolivia is grateful for the cooperation extended by the authorities of those countries. However, in view of the points I have raised, it is *.:ill deeply concerned about the high extrnbudgetmry operations1 costs involved in the return of cultural property. We have to face the legal expenses of gathering evidaoce of experts’ travel and, in the case of articles seized by the customs authorities, of possession by auction. We must consider ways of regulating more precisely the legal measures and proceedings concerning what is in reality the offence of plunder, condemned under domestic and international law. (Mrs. Csnrfl~ Patiiio. Bvlivis) UOr@OV@r, bilnteral agreements should he concluded between countrier to enauro the protectloa, recovery and raturn of unlawfully acquired archaeological, hir<oricsl and cultural property. I urge the parties to the Convention to work togethor in order to presorvo our reepectivs cultural heritagea, which are not only of hirtoric and ancestral value, but alao the intellectual and moral trearurea of future generations. Bolivia has co-sponsored the draft resolution beforo ue, because we are convinced that it represents an important step forward in the implementation of the Convention on the protection of cultural property. We hope it will be adopted by consensus. ( t4c.L-mdPBki.aP..liYib ) te-m&&m(Llr ( PO 1 and ) : Since 1973 the Grnersl Assembly of the United Nstion8 ham been considering the question of the restitution of works of art to countries that have been victims of appropriation The Secretary-General, in cooperation with the Director-General of the United Ncltions Ezducat ioaal, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), submitted to the General Assembly at its forty-fourth session a report (A/44/4l35) on the implementation of resolution 4217 of 22 October 1987. Through that report, dated 13 September 1989, the Director-General of UNESCO provided an exhaustive study in which he described what had been achieved by the Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Cbr;ntriea of Origin or its Restitution in Case of Illicit Appropriation. My country ratified the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventjng the Illicit lmport, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, ad pted in Paris on 14 November 1970, and the Convention on the Protection of the World’s Cultural and Natural Heritage, adopted in Paris on 16 November 1972. Together with 31 other European States, the United States and Canada, Poland signed the Paris Charter for a New Europe in November 1990. According to its provisions, the signatories “recognize tLe essential contribution of our cormnon European culture and our shared values in overcoming the division of the continent. Therefore, we underline our attachment to creative freedom and to the protection and promotion of our culttiral and spiritual heritage, in al! its richness and diversity.” (A/43/859, -bmz~p..~..II) Subsequently, the representatives of the States that participated in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) met in Krakow in Play 1991 and sdopted by consensus 8 document. of the Krakow Gympoaium on the Cultural Iharitoqe. The participat inq state8 expressed their conviction that they shared common values forged by hirrt.ory rind reaffirmed t-heir belief t.hat respect. for cultural diversity promoted underotandinq and tolerance 4mnrkq individuals and yroups. They considered that the preservation and protection of regional cultural diversity would contribute to building a democratic, peaceful and united Europe. It is important to stress t*hat the participating States will endeavour to protect the cultural herit.age in compliance wit-h relevant international agreement8 and their domestic legislation. Poland promotes a policy of takinq concerted measures to protect the common cultural heritage from environmental damage. We are in favour of a future Europe where borders will become more and more transparent but where strong cultural factors t>f an ethnic, natioul or religious nature will have an even greater possibility for development. In accordance with the Paris Chart-er, the International Centre of Culture was inaugurated in Krakow. The Polish delegation proposed to create its own syster. of coordination in Europe, for the stuly and preservat.ion of cultural values. This system vould allow us t-o draw up the long-term European st.rateyy for the protection, preservation and manayement of these values, with the guidance of highly qualified experts. Following an agreement reached by Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hcngary in Visegrad, the Conference on Central European Cooperation took place in Krakow on 2 June 1991. The task of this Conference was to explore the main dimensions of the cooperation between these three countries. It focused on political secur it-y and ec fjnomic jssucs, as well as cultural issues. (MIF * Wluowica, Polenb) Resrin9 in mind that an ever-growing number of countries are adhering to the 1970 Convent.ion. which conatituter a legal instrument for +.he protection of nations against illicit trade in cultural treasures and objects identified with their civilisation, the Polish delagation believes that bilateral negotiations, international cooperation and specific meslurel to restrict illicit transferr should be promoted. We strongly condemn illicit traffic in cultural property while just as strongly cormrending adherence to the principle of the restitution of such objecta in caeea of their illegal acquisition. We reiterate our doubts, however, aa to whether such a principle should be extellded beyond that. Poland again appeals ita sppeal to countries that have not yet acceded to the 1970 Convention to do SO without delay. Tb.a.PBGsIp.QQ (interpretation from Spanish): I wish to announce that Angola. Costa Rica, Gabon and Peru have joined the list of sponsors of draft resolution A/46/L.11. The General Asaemb2y will 110~1 take a decision on draft resolution A/46/L. 11. A recorded vote has btten requested. (Ml, WlQIIVW?ICZ, Poland) A recorded vote was tahyb . Enfavout: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Dar-Salam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, C&e d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Kgypt, Sl Salvador, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti. Honduras. Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libyan Arab Jamabiriya, Lithuania, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico. Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Morocco. Mozambique, Myanmar. Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Pbilippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and tbe Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaxiland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Taneania, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venexueba, Viet Nam, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zaire. Zimbabwe Aaainsf: None Abstaininq: Austria, Belgium, Bulqaria, Csechoslovakia, Denmark, France, Germany. Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Panama, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Draft resolution A/QB/L.ll vas adouted bv 134 votes to none. with abstentions (resolution 46/10).+ * Subsequently, the delegations of Niger and Panama advised the Secretariat that they had intended to vote in favour. The PRESIDEWT (interpretation from Spaniahlr I shall now call on those representatives who wish to explain their VQte. Way I a%mind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in explanation of vote should be limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. RICBABDSO~ (United Kingdom): Ky delegation abstained in the vote on the draft r%solutioe which the Assembly has just adopted. We are sympathetic to the aspirations of those countries that wish to develop and improve tlreir collections of cultural property, but we cannot accept the principle that cultural property that has been freely and legitimately acquired should be returned to the country of origin. We are always willing to discuss specific cultural property questions bilaterally with other Governments. My delegation strongly condemns illicit traffic in cultural property and we can support much of the draft resolution which the Assembly has just adopted. But there are no grounds in law on which the British Government can order the return of items that were legitimately acguired by British museums. Other elements of the resolution also present us with some difficulties. Operative paragraph 2 runs counter to our belief that the great international collections of uorks of art constitute a unique resource for the benefit of both the public and the international academic community. Support for operative paragraphs 5 and 6 would imply that my delegation favoured the establishment of a systematic inventory of cultural property in the United Kingdom. A% we have explained in previous debates on this subject, this would pose great practical difficulties. Operative paragrapha 10, 11 and 12 refer to the 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Tranafer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Ratification of this Convention would present considerable problems for my Government. But, as the Assembly will know, many of the underlying requirements of the Convention are already part of our own approach to this problem. The Rritiah Museum and Art Trade interests have subscribed to two voluntary codes of practice, in 1977 and 1984, on the handling of items of dubious provenance, which uphold the spir!t of the 1970 Convention. We take thpse codes seriously and investiqate any reports of their contravention. In addition the Metropolitan Police Art and Antiques Squad has recently been reconstituted and maintains close links with the International Criminal Police Orqanization (INTERPOL). The United Kingdom views the draft International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (IJNIDROITJ convention on the restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural property as an innovative attempt ,o address the problems raised by the UNESCO Convention. The United Kingdom participated in the meeting of national gcJVerrlment experts held in Rome in May to consider the convention and welcomes UNIDROIT’s intention to work further on the draft convention in the liqht of the conclusions of that meeting. In conclusion, I should comment briefly on the remarks made by the Permanent Representative of Greece about the works of art known as the Elqin Marbles. These works of art were acquired legally in the early years of the nineteenth century. We cannot accept the principle of the return of objects to their country of origin except in the case of illegal i quisition. Blut ue remain ready to discuss the matter further with the Government. of Greece on a bilatersl baair, in the spirit of the close and friendly relations to which the Permanent Representative of Greece rightly referred a short while ago. Mrs. RQaU&R (United States of America)! The United States hns played a constructive role on this issue since it first arose in the IJnited Rations. To that end the United States became a party in 1983 to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, and we actively support its provisions. Neverthelesa, we abstained on draft resolution A1461L.11 because this text keeps open the possibility of retroactive application, which we oppose, and because it addresses restitution to Governments only. As a party to the Convention, the United States has responded favourably to requests for assistance made to it under article 9. Five States parties - Canada, Bolivia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Peru - have asked the United States to ban the importation of endangered artifacts. In response, the United States has imposed emergency import bans on certain pre-Colombian artifacts from El Salvador, Peru and Guatemala and on antique textiles from Bolivia. Canada’s request is under consideration. It ia our understanding that the United States is the only State party that has taken action under article 9 to assist another State party. Furthermore, the United States has been sympathetic when approached by victimised countries asking it to assist in the recovery of cultural property. For example, it has conscientiously implemented the provisions on illicit transfer of cultural property. My Government has established controls prohibiting entry of certain archaeological materials from Peru, El Salvador, 8olIvis and Custemalnr tha 1 olatlon of such controls subjecta the materials to forfeiture and return t.o their countries of origin. In short, we support the Convention but we believe this resolution Jnappropriately leaves open the possJbJlJty of retroactive application. That Jr why YO abstained. ~a_pB~$~U-W (interpretation from Spanish): Ue have just heard the last speaker in explanation of vote. I shall now call on representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to ten minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second and should be made by delegations from their aeats. m. KQRUTURK (Turkey): I a.m sorry I have had to ask to speak, but I must make a few comments on the statement of the representative of the Greek Cypriots, which contained misleading information about the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. My delegation is really disappointed to see Lhat despite all efforts deployed over the past year to bring the two sides in Cyprus into negotiating range the Greek Cypriots are still unable to give up the habit of trying to discredit their Turkish Cypriot counterparts. We find it very difficult to see how the Greek Cypriots will establish a bizonal, bicommunal federal State uith the Turkish Cypriots, as envisaged most recently in Security Council resolution 716 (19911, when they cannot stop themselves from attacking their future partners under any pretext. We would expect them to comply with ( &QL .fi.QS.kQf U.U QK , L!QkQ!l_1F t am4 1 the appeal that the Secretary-General made in his latest report on his mission of good offices in Cyprus. He said: "I must again appeal to both sides to refrain from making statements or taking actions that are counter-productive and only make our effort to find a solution more difficult". (S/23121, p. 5) As to the Greek Cypriot allegations concerning the so-called destruction and pillaging of the art treasures and historical monuments in northern Cyprus, suffice it to say that these allegations have been categorically refuted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (DWESCO) and other interested international bodies. In the past my delegation has had occasion to refer here in the General Assembly. in reply to Greek Cypriot allegations, to a number of the reports of these bodies. I shall not enter into the details of these studies once again. I shall simply refer to the report entitled "Cultural Heritage of Cyprus" prepared by Mr. Van Der Werff, a Member of Parliament from the Netherlands, and Mr. Robin Cormack, a consultant expert who visited the island in June 1989 on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The report, which was published on 2 July 1989, was confirmed by the Committee of Culture and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I shall confine myself to quoting the concluding remarks of that report: "The threats to the cultural heritage in the north and south of Cyprus are in the main the same ones: climate, the risk of earthquake, the need to prevent the deterioration of the fabric and decoration of old buildings, the pressures of tourism and development and the threat of international art thieves." (Mr. Koruturk. Turkey) r!lL-LLIlll)tS (CYPrus) 8 I riah first to clarify that I am not the Greek Cypriot representative: I represent the Republic of Cyprus in this body. I am really surprised and purrrled that the representative of Turkey troubled to raate the time of this bcly in complaining that I made allegations against the Turkish Cypriots. If he had listened attentively to what I said ho would have taken note that I went to a lot of trouble not to mention Turkiah invasion, Turkish occupation or even Turkish Cypriots. The whole world kaowa that Cyprua was invaded by Turkey in 1974; the whole world knows that Turkey still occupies almost 40 per cent of Cyprus to this day, in flagrant violation of numerous United Nations resolutions. To the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey and the continuing occupation of almost 40 per cent of it - its northern part - by Turkish armed forces, the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of J.rmed Conflict is also applicable. The Convention prohibits the destruction or seirure of cultural property during armed conflicts and during periods of belligerent occupation. In this case Turkey cannot evade the sole and heavy responsibility for the plunder, looting and destruction of cultural property in Cyprus by shifting the onus onto the so-calied “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, a regime of Turkey’s own making condemned by Security Council resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Maintaining the occupation of northern Cyprus is costing Turkey - in the words of Yresident Turkut Ozal - the heavy burden of 6430 million per year. Let me remind the representative of Turkey that, only 11 days ago, the Security Council adopted yet another resolution on Cyprus (resolution 716 (1991)), operative paragraph 2 of which reaffirms all the Security Council’s previous resolutions on Cyprus, including resolution 541 (1983), including resolution 550 ( 1984), which demand that nobody recognize the pseudo-State in Cyprus and that they break off relations with it. Turkey maintains an ambassador in occupied Cyprus. Turkey maintains almost 40,000 troops in the northern part of my country. ( ML !mM&sL~~~.Yp_z~ 1 w&w (interpretation from Spanish): I now call on the representative of Turkey, who wishes to speak a second time in exercise of the right of reply. The intervention is limited to five minutes. Hr. (Turkey)! I will confine myself to stating that, instead of distorting the situation in Cyprun, the Creek Cypriot representative should read, attentively. Security Council resolutions 649 (1990) and 716 (1991). M (interpretation from Spanish): I now call on the representative of Cyprus, who wishes to speak a second time in exercise of the right of reply. The intervention is limited to five minutes. PC. ELI)LDES (Cypruslr I trespass once again on your patience to point out that my English is quite good and that I understand full wall the meaning of Security Council resolutions 649 (1990) and 716 (1991). I repeat: the last resolution, resolution 716 (1991), reaffirma all earlier Security Council resolutions on Cyprus, and these demand the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus. I cali on Turkey to explain why they are still violatinc earlier resolutions of the United Nations, earlier resolutions of the Secilrlty Council, which are mandatory: and X challenge them to explain their position on resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984). Turkey is directly responsible for the destruction of the cultural property of Cyprus because the northern part of Cyprus is kept under its military occupation, and the onus of responsibility remains on Turkey: it cannot be shifted by any tactics or words.