S/PV.2498 Security Council

In accordance with the decisions taken at the 2497th meeting I invite the representatives of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey to take a seat at the Council table; I invite the representatives of Australia, Canada. India, Romania, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, and Yugoslavia to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Iacovou (Cyprus), Mr. Haralambopoulos (Greece) and Mr. Kirca (Turkey) took places at the Council table; Mr. Woolcott ,(Australia), Mr. Pelletier (Canada), Mr. Krishnan (India), Mr. Marinescu (Romania), Ms. Gonthier (Seychelles), Mr. Fonseka (Sri Lanka) and Mr. Golob (Yugoslavia) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber.

I should like to inform members of the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Algeria, Cuba and Democratic Yemen, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the (The President) discussion without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Sahnoun (Algeria), Mr. Roa Kouri jCuba).and,Mr. Al-Ashtal (Democratic Yemen) took the places reserved for them at the side of the Council table.

I should like to remind members that in the course of the Council's consultations members of the Council agreed that an invitation should be extended to Mr. Denktash, in accordance with rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. Unless I hear any objection, I shall take it that the Council decides to invite Mr. Denktash, in accordance with rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided. At the appropriate moment, I shall invite Mr. Denktash to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. The Security Council will now resume its consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is Mr. Rauf Denktash, .to whom the Council has extended an invitation in accordance with rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. At .the 'invitation of the President, Mr. Denktash took a place at the Council table. ,Mr. DENKTASH: Mr. President, I thank you and members of the Council for this invitation to speak for and on behalf of my people. I came here in the hope of being able to contribute to your efforts in search of a way out of the difficulties which we all face. I did not come here as a man guilty of any failing, to apologize for the action of my people who, after waiting patiently for 20 years, deprived of all their rights, ignored, ridiculed and treated with (Mr. Denktash) contempt by the Cypriot leaders, have decided to put the.roof of statehood over their heads in order to find the dignity which is the due of all men. I came here not to answer unjust accusations but to explain the reasons which . have prompted my people, after 20 years of .waiting, to exercise their undeniable : _. right of self-determination, not only in order to restructure the$r 20-year-old . .’ ~ administrative set up, which passed through different stages, and’thus be able to . live in dignity, but also in,,order to,find.out whether there was *any sign of .* understanding, of what injustice was .being done to the Turkish .people of,Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot‘side, as well as, at their instigation, at one-sided hearings by the international world. I am at the President’s and Council’s disposal for facilitating the resumption of negotiations within the agreed procedure. On this issue my declaration of independence, which I made on 15 November, is guite’explicit. We are for the. continuation of the negotiations under the good offices of the Secretary-General. We feel that the declaration of our statehood will help the negotiating process as it underlines the eguality of the parties to the negotiations, a fact which has been denied, ignored, ridiculed’or forgotten by therGreek Cypriot side, with their one-sided presentation of the facts of Cyprus in most international bodies. I was, I must admit, disappointed to see a deliberate attempt this morning to distort all facts about my people’s equality and its. partnership status in the sovereignty and independence of Cyprus, It is.this:distortionand denial of our status which has prevented a solution,of,the problem within the agreed formula. . t* ! :. 1. ‘. ‘; J : ” ’ _ (Mr. Denktash) In fact, the Cyprus problem arose because of the armed attempt. back in 1963; to destroy the.Turkish Cypriot people's -vested partnership rights in the Republic 1 of cypL-us.‘ It is‘because Greek Cypriot leaders 'thought they &uldby f&e of arms make Cyprus their &?n at our expense, -'relegate us to the position'of a minority within a Greek Cyprus, that 'the problem:arose, and if it continues, it is because they have not receded from that policy. r' s '. If in the twentie~th year of the problem we have had to deElare our statehood, it is because of these facts about the.Greek Cypriot side. It would be very unfortunate if, in the twentieth year of this problem, and in spite of our protection of our vested rights in the sovereignty and independence of Cyprusat great cost of life, the international family of nations should refuse to look at the facts objectively. It,would be very 'unfortunate if the mistakes of the past should be repeated and one of the two contestants should receive backing against the other, in complete disregard of the facts which make up the problem of ' Cyprus. _. %‘I , Today I listened to the a$pe@l of the Greek Cypriot representative for a ' condemnation of my people for having putover their heads the 'roof of statehood - of which they were deprived by force of arms for.20 years, and, in order to have which, they were-asked, and are.sti.11 being asked, to surrender.their vested rights in the sovereignty.and independence.of Cyprus. '. I repeat: ‘no man'can live without the roof of statehood over his.head; no'man can live in dignity,. in security and in justice without that roof over his head. We have been striving,for rehabilitation in a bicommunal State, in a partnership State, which Greek Cypriot .arms with the help of 'Greece destroyed, and to which they have newer allowed.us to return. But we have not succeeded in obtaining that rehabilitation. (Ms. Denktash) ' Today I listened to the Greek Cypriot“representative saying so vehemently that the roof'of his statehood existed in Cyprus'but, because ofthe presence of Turkish troops, the Greek Cypriots could not give us its protection. That presentation was a fearful dne. and I say: Thank God Turkish troops are *:. there and they cannot extend their statehood over us, because we know how they tried to cover us in that statehood. My pe&le lie buried in common graves as a. result of events in Aghios Vasilios in 1963.. The whole population of three villages - from 16-day-old babies to 90-year-old people - lie buried in common graves as a result of events in 1974. HundG,hs of other people were similarly destroyed by Greek Cypriots. That was their'understanding of statehood. That is what we fought against and struggled against for years. No one seems to understand that the problem of Cyprus began when the , Greek Cypriot wing of a bicommunal Government, the'Greek Cypriot wing of a bicommunal State, armed itself, prepared secretly: and then attacked the Turkish Cypriot wing in order to destroy the bico&unality of the State and of the Government, and take over that State and that Govi&nent as a Greek Cypriot State and then unite it with Greece. No one seems to s&p and ask how and why the Cyprus problem started. It started because of this big ;;'&n of making Cyprus a bicommunal land, a Greek Cypriot land - at least at the fir&“$tage. Therefore, the moment the Turkish Cypriot wing was pushed out by force of arms from the bicommunal State and Government, the Greek Cypriot wing, which took on itself the right to be the Government of Cyprus, ceased to be the legitimate Government of Cyprus. And to that Greek Cypriot wing, which started sailing under the name of the "Government of Cyprus”, the Turkish Cypriot people never owed, does not owe and never will owe any allegiance whatever. Legitimate government is by the people and for the people, a government in which people participate. (Mr. Denktash) For 20 years Turkish Cypriots have not participated in the so-called Government of Cyprus, and it is my complaint that members of international forums did not look into these facts and decided, in spite of our protestations, that the Greek Cypriot wing of the bicommunal Govermerxt.of Cyprus was the legitimate Government of the land. That is why the Cyprus problem has not been solved; that is why it cannot be solved - because Greek Cypriots feel that they have achieved what they set out to achieve from the beginning, namely, to take over Cyprus. They could not do it by force of arms because our resistance continued, but the international body handed it ever to them on a piece of paper; and on that basis they think they have got Cyprus for themselves. * It is our resistance to this illegitimacy, to this illegality, which is at issue today. And I ask the representative of Cyprus here under what authority he is ,occupying the seat of my Government. Where is my Turkish Cypriot representative sitting with him? Who has signed the paper giving him the mandate to represent Cyprus as a whole? How can he use that seat in order to attack the Turkish Cypriots and their rights and liberties and make us feel that we are their subjects - a little minority, an ethnic group, a nonentity in our own island within our own State, which with our signatures we helped to create on the basis of equality? From A to 2 their stand is illegal; it cannot be upheld in any court of law and it should not be upheld in this forum. But, unfortunately, here they are alone and in the General Assembly they and they only can speak. We are not listened to; we are condemned. And today occupying that seat, from which he has no legal mandate to speak for the whole of Cyprus and in which he sits without the consent or signature of even one Turkish Cypriot, he has been able to ask the Council not only to condemn us for existing in Cyprus, for asserting our rights, (Mr. Denktash) for preventing the destruction of the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus - in the name of union with Greece - and for preventing an ocmgation by the Greek army hand in hand with the unconstitutional National Guard, which was created in order to destroy us* but he has also asked the,Council not to recognize our existence Cyprus as a.State or as a community. (Mr. Denktash) We are just the people of Cyprus. Self-determination is the right of the people; but the people are, of ,course-, by a majority vote, Greek Cypriots. It was this presentation of facts, it was thismentality, it was this policy, that created the troubles of 1963. In or&r to make Cyprus this, they attacked us. It is against this policy that we have put everything we have on the soil of Cyprus;and sacrificed our children, and finally Turkey had to sacrifice its children, in or&r to prevent this policy from taking root and the .independence, sovereignty and non-aligned status of Cyprus from being destroyed. Today the &me mentality,, after all that has happened in Cyprus, is present here. They are +sking the Security Council to ignore our existence, to ignore our rights, to ignore the right of self-determination of a people that has decided to live in statehood because it has been deprived of it for 20 years. And then they will go back to what? To continue the present policy of not having us accepted as a community in Cmrus. If the Security Council decides not only,that.we should be - condemned but that we should not be recognized at all, who is going to benefit from that? Will the Council be helping the negotiation process by coming'out with such a declaration? Do members think that we shall negotiate with'people who have called themselves the Government of Cyprus for 20 years without our participation in any of the organs of the State, who robbed us of all our rights and of all our liberties, who tried to destroy us in Cyprus? Do members think that they can give them the mandate to continue the slaughter and then we will meet around the table and negotiate? The Turkish Cypriot people have asserted their rights and have come to certain conclusions about themselves. Whether the Council accepts it or not, this is a fact of life. We have not divided Cyprus. Cyprus was divided the moment we were thrown out of the Government. Cyprus was divided when we were forced to live in (Mr. Denktash) open-air prison camps called "the Turkish areas"... The Secretary-Generalwas there representing the then Secretary-General and he knows.&& we suffered and the treatmentwe receivedfromth.eGreekCypriots; IMernational bodies may choose ta disregard all these facts, but I plead, in the name.of negotiations and peace, that you should not ask, you cannot ask and you cannot expect, my communi ty to reverse the decison, a decision taken 20 years late, in order to protect its identity and what is due to it under the Republic of Cyprus. In my declaration I have left the door wide open to the negotiating process. I have asked the Secretary-General to be kind enough to continue his good offices, to help us not only with the summit but with the real negotiations within the agreed procedures, so that we may come to a conclusion and settle the Cyprus problem within its correct perspective, by re-establishing the partnership State in a bizonal federal form which I agreed with Archbishop Makarios. I repeat that if the negotiations have not yielded results to this it is because one of the contestants has been given, as a gift, unjustly, what he should have achieved through negotiations in a partnership situation. By declaring that Greek Cypriots are the Government of Cyprus when they are morally, legally and constitutionally not, but are merely the Greek Cypriot wing of a bicommunal State, all the incentive, all the necessity, for re-establishing a bicommunal State has been removed. Therefore they simply continue to go round the world making propaganda for themselves, getting more and more seals of approval from international forums to the effect that they are the legitimate Government; and finally in May 1983 they get the terrible seal to the effect that not only are they the legitimate Government of Cyprus but they are entitled to extend their legitimacy and their rule to the north, over my people. This is giving the butcher the knife and putting him in charge of-the lambs to slaughter at will. But no one (Mr. Denktash) understands this, and no one will.understand it as long as Cyprus is looked at through the eyes of a Cyprus Government. Now we hope, having established our own State, that people who look at Cyprus will see a Cyprus Government - we cannot destroy it, it appears, it is there - but they will also see an unrecognized or semi-recognized Government with another people in it. So this presentation, this continuous propaganda - "we, the Cyprus Government", and "the minority" and "the occupation" - will, we hope, lose its effect, and people will have a better sense, a better comprehension, of the problem of Cyprus. This is how we hope the problem will be helped. As long as they feel that they can get away with this murder, the murder of the identity of the Turkish Cypriot people, the murder of their communal existence and of their rights, and that they can get away with the idea that Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot land in which there exists a minority, the Cyprus problem will not be solved and my community's future will be in grave danger. These are the facts which determined the decision of 15 November. I apologize to the SecretaryGeneral because, while he was testing whether the summit could be or could not be held, we realized in Cyprus, through our own tests, through diplomats and others, through information that we gathered, what Mr. Kyprianou was playing at, that he was just playing for time, because I had said to the world that I would do this before the new Turkish Government took over. This was because, whatever happens to us in Cyprus, Turkey is held responsible for and Turkey is punished. We do not like that, because Turkey has done nothing except sacrifice its sons in order to save us from utter catastrophe, in order to protect and save the independence and sovereignty of Cyprus. That again I am not in a position to pass over, because I do not have the propaganda machine which my adversaries have and which they use so effectively. Today f heard the Minister of C&&s - who has.not seen a Turk yet, who has not shaken a Turk's hand for. 20 years..who has been.given the duty of informing the world that Turks are always wrong and have always-been wrong and that Turks have rm right in Cyprus and can only have what is offered them through good will - I heard the Minister tell the Council that Turkey is responsible for every action in the Turkish north. He has cited out of context several opponents. who have written certain things. He has cited even Mr.Veziroglu, who some days-ago wrote in a newspaper: "If Denktash is going to act like an officer or servant of the Turkish Government. he should go back to Turkey." But the Minister forgot to mention to the Council that Mr. Veriroglu wrote that in this context: everybody was attacking me for not declaring independence, for dilly-dallying, for wasting time , .when Greek Cypriot intentions had become so obvious. Mr. Vexiroglu was saying, "We know Turkey is not allowing you, Turkey does not want you, to, declare independence. We kriow this. But you should listen to your people. and not to Turkey.: If you are going to listen to Turkey, then you had better leave us and go and live in Turkey." This very effective article was condensed by the representative of, the Greek Cypriots in order to support his - alleged thesis that we are all ser.vants.of Turkey and a puppet of Turkey.. Who is a puppet and who is not. I am not going to argue here. I am here in defence of my people, as I was here in December 1963, while my countrymen were bleeding to death. The Secretary-General's reports will show that they were put under a virtual siege economically; blood plasma was denied them; Red Crescent food was denied them. We had either to submit and become a minority in a Greek Cyprus or be destroyed. And because I came here, because I'told the truth, for four and a half years I was not allowed to enter.my homeland, and I had to stay in exile in Turkey. Thank God now I have my State; I have my country; I have my people. And they cannot do thatto me again. Achieving this status is wrong, according to them. I should allow them to control all the ports in the north as well, so that they can dictate-who will come in; when, and what for. .."- We have engaged in a struggle for liberty, but withour Cypnts.. We are part of it; we do not want to.break it up. But we want to liKe in security because.we Iprow Greek Cypriot and Greek policy, which is revived every four or five years, aimed at making Cyprus a Hellenistic paradise, and in that paradise Turkish birds are not asked to sing. But we are in that paradise, and it shall not be a Hellenistic paradise. It is a Graeco-Cypriot paradise. But they cannot destroy our identity as the second people in Cyprus which established a partnership State with them and which insisted that this partnership State should be re-established, and not a Greek Cypriot State in which Turkish Cypriots would be a minority and again be treated as they were treated for 11 years - out of the Administration, out of all its organs, out of the budget. The Minister here was able to say that we walked out of the Administration. How can we ever be right? How can a Turk in Cyprus ever find justice, as long as this approach is taken? And the Minister - instead of looking at the facts in Cyprus, at the life he lived, and we lived, for so many years - has been quoting from papers in order to prove, according to him, that pre-1974 Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots were living happily together and working happily together, and there was no problem. If there was no problem, why was DNPICYP sent there? Why is UNPICXP still there after 20 years, if we love each other so much, and if there was no trouble at all in Cyprus? Are we here to deceive each other? I have come here to tell all the members of the Council that we stand by the 1977 summit agreement I made with Archbishop Makarios. We stand by the agreement I made with Mr. Kyprianou. We stand by the 1980 opening statement by the Secretary-General. We stand by the evaluation paper of the Secretary-General. All of those foresee the establishment of a bizonal federal republic. 3ut .$0&y, seventoday, members must. have seen in The New York Times Mr. Kypriano~~quoted as saying that Mr. Denktash wants bizonal setElement whereas a unitaryState is,what Cyprus needs. Is this not sufficient proof of why interc ommunal talks never yielded a result and never will yield a resuU,as long as Mr. Kyprianou is treated as the legitimate head of a unitary State, not as the head of the Greek Cypriot wing of a bicommunal State? There is the obstacle; that is why we are not progressing. But I am telling the members of this Council, with deference, with respect, that we stand by those agreements, and we are all for establishing a bizonal federal system, and we are all for the continuation of the good offices of the Secretary-General. Our move’of 15 November has broken a vicious circle. I beg the Council to allow it to be so. Give Cyprus a chance to establish bizonal, bicommunal federalism by not heeding the Greek Cypriot demand that the Council not only condemn us but order all the world to ignore us and not to recoqnize us. It is when the world starts to -recognise us.that>Greek-Cypriots willfeel the'need to' 1-1 '- come to the table. They have accused us of destroying the territorial integrity of Cyprus. It seems to be a very curious territorial integrity which is not broken when Turkish Cypriots are fragmented all over Cyprus, confined to their own zones by armed Greeks. It is not broken, this territorial integrity. But when the fragmented Turks, after so many years of waiting, unite in one area and agree with the Greek Cypriots to establish a bizonal federal system, it is divisionist, and it is breaking up the territorial integrity of Cyprus. I beg the Council to look at the facts and not to swallow the hook that is being presented to the non-aligned in saying that imperialists will take advantage of the situation if the Turks succeed, and to the others, other stories - all the way, just for one reason: to make Cyprus Greek Cypriot. (Mr. Denktash) dirprus is not:Greak:Cypiot: We have bow made it .very visible, a&w& are pJToudof it. Vie have:not..broken upCyprus;. we+are defending its bicomnunal character, and we intend to do so. And we again ask the Greek,Cypriots.to come to the ne&iating,tabIe in order to establish unity by accepting the duality of the nation. Finally, this,morning I made an offer, an open declaration, .which I should r . like to repeat,here for the purpose of the record. It relates to Varosha and to .> ~ " '. the international~airport. It reads as follows: : **In its desire to promote an atmosphere of good will, establish mutual . . :: confidence and thus facilitate progress towards a final comprehensive solution to the Cyprus question through intercommunal talks on the existing mutually agreed basis under the auspices of the United Nations'Secretary-General, the Turkish Cypriot side declares its readiness to engage immediately in negotiations with the Greek Cypriot Efide within the framework of the good offices mission of the United Nation< Secretary-General on the following subjects: "A. The establishment of an interim administration in Varosha under the auspices of the United Nations, withqut any prejudice to the final political status of the area. "The parties may enter into discussions promptly to plan for the development of the interim administration's structure. "There shall be no numerical limitations for the number of Greek Cypriots to be resettled in the area. "The area of resettlement will be the same as was defined on the Turkish Cypriot map of 5 August 1981. "The United Nations would provide such technical assistance as may be necessary to survey and rehabilitate the city's infrastructure and buildings and to facilitate the process of resettlement. "B. The reopening of Nicosia international airport for civilian traffic under an interim United Nations administration, to the mutual benefit of the two sides in Cyprys". Peace can be found by the two peoples in Cyprus only through negotiations. We believe that and we want to continue to believe that,. But for this to happen, irrespective of the bat which the sides have put on their heads, the talks must continue. It should not be for the Security Council or for any other forum at all to grab the hat of one of the sides and throw it into the waste paper basket, telling that side that it should sit at the table with this uniform, under this name, under this title. In Cyprus, Greek Cypriots, relying on the force of arms, called themselves the Government of Cyprus when they were not the legitimate Government. We have been sitting at the table talking with them, and we have come to the conclusion that no solution will be available so long as we have not got the same hat on our heads. We took an action. It is my people's action. The Security Council is a forum ., where the rights of the peoples are respected, where peoples are allowed to evolve into a better status, rather than being deprived of the status which they give themselves. My people, a co-founder partner people, one of the two equal peoples in Cyprus that co-founded the partnership State of Cyprus, today stand in the North in their own State and extend their hand of friendship to the Greek Cypriot side, saying, "Come, let us negotiate as agreed for a federal solution". If they come, we shall be very pleased and very honoured. We shall try to forget the past. We shall look to the future on the basis of equality. If they do not, we have patience. We have waited for 20 years. We shall go on waiting. We shall do nothing to harm them, and we hope they will do nothing to harm us. It is up to them. I hope that in its deliberations, in its resolutions, the Security Council will regard us as existing in Cyprus and as in full charge of our destiny - because we are.

The next speaker is the representative of Turkey, and I call on him. Mr. KIRCA (Turkey) (interpretation from Brench): I-should Iike,first,. Sir, to congratulate yuu warmly on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. The Turkish people has always had a special feeling for nations that have been able to preserve the noble values of the knights of old. In Malta, the. Turks sustained one of the rare military defeats in their long military history. But we learned there to appreciate and respect the Knights of Malta, whose noble spirit still prevails in the sc$ul of the Maltese nation. I extend my congratulations also to t$e Permanent Representative of Jordan on the remarkable way in which he conducted the proceedings of the Council in a particularly difficult period.' My congratulations are all the warmer because Turkey has maintained very highly valued links of friendship and fraternity with the Hashemite State since its creation - ljrnks that have never been darkened by the slightest shadow. Mr. Rauf Denktash, President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, has given sufficient explanations to the Council of the reasons that led the Turkish community of the island to proclaim its independence; and, by so doing, he has made a very clear and illuminating summary of the problem. It is therefore not necessary for me to repeat what he has already said. Hence, I shall confine myself to informing the Council of my Government's position and to making a more conceptual analysis of the problem. Contrary to the Greek and Greek Cypriot allegations, the problem of Cyprus after the independence of the island did not begin in July 1974, when Turkish armed forces had to intervene in order to protect the Turkish Cypriot community and to prevent union with Greece. Ctir&becams independent on 16.August 1960. Independence was ,hegoti&h at very great length-between the two:communities,of the island, the.&ited Kingdom, Turkey am3 Greece. Independenceims not granted by a mere unilatera1 act on the part of the United Kingdom, but was the codseguence of the conclusion of a nu&er “- of treaties between Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Turkey and Greece. The Treaty of Guarantee; in particular, guaranteed not only the existence and independence of the Republic of Cyprus, its territorial integrity and the prohibition of secession, partition and the total or partial annexation by one or several outside States, but also - and this is a crucial point if we are to understand the true nature of the problem and the &pose of the guarantee - the fundamental provisions of the 1960 Constitution. On the one hand, that Constitution of-itself determines its own ;*<,:s -.-. ‘j. c>,'r,.:- -j' fundamental provisions -*' . . . I refer to'paragraph l'of a&i&la 182 and annex III - and, on the other hand, one of the fundamental provisions of the same article unambiguously lays down that those provisions shall not be amended. As a party to the Treaty of Guarantee, the Republic of Cyprus undertook, not only from a constitutional standpoint but also from the standpoint of international law, not to modify the fundamental provisions of its Constitution. . . . : - : - , . . - I j . ; , _ - . , . * . / I . , . Furthermore, the guaranteeing Powers themselves undertook to guarantee, a,"d hence to,respect, the basic provisions of the 1960 Cypriot Constitution. t _,_ Had the Republic of Cyprus not undertaken by treaty not to amend the basic _, / provisions of its Constitution, the uniLatera1 ame&ments made to those basic . 1. provisions towards the end of 1963 by the Greek Cypriots in spite of the .,, constitutional prohibitions in that regard could have been considered from the' ,. '_ international standpoint,to be aninternal affair of the Republic of Cyprus. But' that was not'the case, since this prohibition of amendments to the basic provisions r '. I of the Constitution was not only an absolute precept of the constitutional order of . I ,the Republic of Cyprus, but also an obligation under international law. Thus, the unilateral amendments of 1963 are not an internal affair of the Republic of Cyprus.. The basic provisions of the 1960 Cypriot Constitution are not . ,, -. .r..., "* part of the private preserve of the Cypriot Republic, because they are governed by .international law stemming from the Treaty of Guarantee. What should happen in the case of the violation by the Republic of Cyprus of this formal international commitment? First of all, it is the duty of the guaranteeing Powers.to protest at that violation; then it is their duty to refuse : to recognize the de facto situation created as a result of'that violation: finally, it is their.duty to restore the "state of affairs created by the basic provisions" in question, as laid down in the Treaty of Guarantee. Furthermore, since the object of the guarantee forms a whole whose .elements are inseparable, in the event of one of those elements - in this case the constitutional order - being destroyed, the parties whose interestshave been damaged have an immediate right of reprisal. In 1963 the Greek Cypriots made unilateral amendments to the unamendable basic /' provisions of the 1960,Constitution. They removed from office the,Turkish s:,.f Vice-President,- the Turkish Ministers and the Turkish deputies. They compelled the West German President of the Constitutional Supreme Court to flee the country. They abolished all the immunities granted to the Turkish Vice-President, the Turkish Ministers and the Turkish deputies and then had the effrontery to invite them to resume office, stripped of all their rights, Since they refused to recognize this utterly illegal and illegitimate coup d'&at, the Turkish Cypriots were declared to be in a state of rebellion. The 1960 Constitution created a bicommunal Republic of Cyprus. There could be no more irrefutable proof that in Cyprus the right of self-determination was exercised jointly by the two communities which were thus recognized as the co-founders of the Republic. The purpose of the 1963 coup d'&at was.to give the Greek Cypriots a monopoly of political power, relegating the Turkish community, equal co-founder of the Cypriot State, to the status of a mere minority without guarantees and taking away its right of self-determination. Following this Greek Cypriot coup d'&at, the Turks of the island were persecuted, tortured and massacred: their villages and neighbourhoods were plundered; their electricity, water and food supplies were cut off; and they were refused medical services. This went on for ten and a half years, until the Turkish armed forces landed on the island in July 1974. The Greek Cypriot Administration had placed itself outside constitutional law and irrefutably had violated its international commitments, so what did the guaranteeing Powers do? Each time Turkey, and in certain cases, one other guaranteeing Power, protested. Another guaranteeing Power became the instigator of and accomplice in these violations and acts of oppression. Turkey, of course, refused to recognize the unconstitutional so-called Government born of a violation of international law. The two other guaranteeing Powers - and it pains me to have to say this - recognized this illegal and' illegitimate Government as the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, thus refusing to honour their international contractual commitmentsi in disregard af such sacred principles as the principle of the primacy of the rule of law and the principle of the inviolability of international treaties. As to their commitment to restore "the state of affairs created by the basic provisions" of the 1960 Constitution, what did the three guaranteeing Powers do? f One of them, the instigator of and accomplice in the acts of oppression and the violations commited by the illegal abd illegitimate Greek Cypriot team, while itself violating the Treaty by secretly Fending armed troops to the i&and - which it had no right to station there, and which in any event it had to recall in 1967 under Turkish and United States pressureadisqualified itself as a guarantor by ,. its own actions. Is it not true that since 1963 the so-called Cypriot armed forces have been led by Greek officers and commanded by a Greek general appointed from Athens, and still are? The positions taken by the guaranteeing Powers, apart from Turkey, were such that it was impossible to persuade them to take effective joint action to restore legality, legitimacy and peace in the Republic of Cyprus. The United Nations sent a Peace-Keeping Force to Cyprus in 1964. The truth is that Force was unable to protect the Turkish community. The basic reason for that that failure was that it was obliged to co-operate with the illegal and 5 5 illegitimate so-called Government, which was none other than the author of the Greek Cypriot plan for subjugation of the Turkish Cypriot community. After being patient for too long, in July 1974 Turkey intervened following a putsch organized by a professional killer in the pay of Greece, supported by Greek troops and military personnel, whose plan it was bring about a union with Greece, 'tihich tiaa prohibited by the Gonstitutionand by the Treaty of Guarantee, and : compIeteLy to eliminate the Turkish‘community. That Turkish intervention took ., place in accordance with the Treaty of Guarantee,.since that Treaty&cognized Turkey*s 'right of individual t L action ', . 'Before intervening, Turkey consulted the r United Rin&lom'for the purpose of reaching a decision on joint action. Itdidnot consider it necessary to consult Greece, since that countrywas itself in the process.of violating its international commitments. ..’ , . ; * I , ,.- . ..-, .., (Mr. Rirca, Turkey) ;... ,.' ,-. _' Turkish intervention saved the Turkish community from.elimination and: :_ prevented union with Greece. It enabIed the Turks .of the isfand to gather in a ; ., territory following the intercommuna 1 agreement of 1975 which led to an exchange of ,. .3 populations. The presence of Turkish armed forces in Cypnxs continues on the basis 1 , of the treaty of guarantee and the principle of legitimate individual defence. :. Indeed, the Greek Cypriot administration makes no secret of its illusions that it has jurisdiction over the territory administered by the state apparatus of the Turkish community. In other words, in the event that the Turkish armed forces were to withdraw from the island, this administration w+uld immediately occupy the territory. The Turkish coxnnunity has a fresh memory of its recent past and, in particular, of the period from 1963 to 1974. It is determined never to have to relive that nightmare. That is why it is asking Turkey to continue to maintain its military presence in order to protect it. The United Nations force, until July 1974, was powerless in the face of the upsurge of Greek Cypriot violence. It was unable to protect the Turks. It is only natural, therefore, that the Turkish community should not have any confidence in this matter except in the Turkish military presence which will last until the conclusion and the entry into force of agreements bringing about a final solution to the problem. The Turkish military presence in the island is not directed against the Greek community. It is totally unrealistic and even false to claim that this presence makes intercommunal negotiations difficult. In intervening, Turkey also undertook to restore the state of affairs occasioned by the fundamental provisions of the 1960 Constitution. This undertaking does not consist of a pure and simple return to that Constitution, but (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) in the‘restoration of the status quo which those fundamental provisions aimed at establishing - that is to say, a bicommunal republic within the framework ofwhich, thetwocommuni ties, under the protection of appropriate safeguards and guarantees, could finally coexist in peace and security. This objective can only be achieved in a bicommunal. bizonal and federal State. The Security Council has acknowledged that the final solution to this problem can only be found by means of negotiations between the two communities on the island under the auspices of the Secretary-General. The Turkish community and Turkey have,endorsed this principle. Two summit agreements were concluded between the heads of the two communities in 1977 and 1979. The Secretary-General, in 1980, in his statement at the resumption of the intercommunal negotiations, specifically cited the basic principles I have mentioned. In 1981, the Secretary-General of the United-Nations produced an evaluation document which the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey welcomed as a particularly useful and important contribution. The Greek Cypriots did everything in their power to avoid negotiating seriously on the basis of this document. They intended, at all costs, to keep this document presented by the SecretaryGeneral from the negotiating table. They even tried to modify the method of the intercommunal negotiations which consisted of direct talks between the two coxununities and to replace them by shuttle diplomacy conducted by the Secretary-General. To this end, they tried, unsuccessfully be it said, to divert from their true objective the most recent informal suggestions of the Secretary-General. And they lie, incidentally, when they say that they accepted these suggestions. And what a lie, since Mr. Rolandis resigned his post, loudly protesting against Mr. Kyprianou precisely for having rejected these suggestions. Since July 1974, behind all these setbacks and all the delays in the course of the intercommunal negotiations, it is easy to discern one single cause: ill will (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) on the part of Greek Cypriots aided and abetted by.Greece. The chronology is there to prove, it. So, by trying to play with words andideas...and quite frequently, by calling.for suspensions or by attempting to attack the Turkish community in international forums when it was obvious that these attacks would inevitably have a bad effect on the negotiations, they thus poisoned relations between the two communities which, indeed, do suffer from a considerable lack of mutual confidence. The General Assembly's resolution of last May, adopted without having heard, on an equal footing, the views of the Turkish community, a partial text based on distortion of reality, both historical and juridical, finally exasperated the Turkish Cypriots. Turkey did everything in its power to counsel moderation. The Turkish community, on this advice, agreed to reopen intercommunal negotiations. There ~was no comprehensible reasonwhy these negotiations should not be resumed on the existing basis, at the precise place where they had been broken off because of the Greek Cypriots. When negotiations on the basis of the evaluation document were concluded, the Turkish community was ready to consider, by joint agreement, other initiatives of the Secretary-General, provided that these initiatives were confined to points which fell within the competence of the two communities and were the object of direct negotiation between them as laid down in the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. The Turkish community also proposed a summit meeting between the heads.of the two communities under the aegis of the Secretary-General. However, the Greek Cypriot attacks continued with increased virulence. The Greek Cypriot administration was preparing to put before the Commonwealth Conference a draft resolution as devastating as the recent resolution of the General Assembly. It strove to monopolize Cypriot representation in the Consultative Assembly at the Council of Europe. On every occasion we witnessed a torrent of invective from them against everything Turk, a display of inveterate hostility and visceral hatred. (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) The' Turkish community was-described as a minority, as an ethnic group,-thi&'making it abtid&ly' clear that there was no question, in the eyes of the Greek Cypriot;, of restoring to it its legal and legitimate position as co-founder of the Republic. a status ihich was laid down as'belonging to it in the Constitution and the 1960 treaties. The exasperation of the Turkish community thus reached its peak. Hence, the ~prbclamation of independence. As far back as July 1974, the'Geneva Declaration, which was the subject of agreement among the three guarantor Powers, recognized the de facto existence of two 'community administrations in the Republic of Cyprus. In February 1975, this Turkish community administration transformed itself into the Turkish'.Federated c ., State &< &?-& l . I( ‘;&en”;ti ht tiYmk, the Greek'Cy&ot administr&ion and Greece described that State merely as a federated or separated State. If the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus was already a separate State, why all this hullabaloo today when all that State has done is change its name? The Republic of Cyprus, following the Greek Cypriot coup d'&at, was transformed into a sort of transcendental entity. Since the so-called government established by the Greek Cypriots could not legally and legitimately claim, in terms of constitutional order and international treaties, anything but the title of K :. i: . : ._ : usurper of the Cypriot'executive, that republic lost its institutional framework and its representative organs from an international standpoint. Respectful of the Treaty of Guarantee - and incidentally article 181 is part of the Cypriot constitutional order - the Turkish'community and Turkey never , recognizedandwillneverrecognize the statusoftheGove~~taftheReeublicof Cyprus as belonging to the Greek Cypriot administration. Other States may recognise it as such. Well, all those States are doing is endorsing a flagrant’ violati‘on of international law, in disregard of the principle of tha primacy of the rule of law and the principle of the inviolability of international treaties. Such conduct will not impress the Turkish community or Turkey, confident of their rights and the justice of their cause. But what is crucial for the usurper, in the current state of affairs in Cyprus is to have its legitimacy recognized by the Turkish community and Turkey. Here, the.Greek Cypriots can be absolutely sure that their ambitions will never be satisfied. All the rest is really not essential for the.Turks. The right to self-determination was exercised in Cyprus jointly by the two communities. This was recognized by the Security Council since the Council considers 'that only the two cosanunities together are competent to bring about a negotiated solution which will lead precisely to the regeneration and the restructuring of the institutions of the Republic of Cyprus. Now it is precisely this fundamental right of the Turkish community which the Greek Cypriots are trying to deny. How.can it‘be that the Greek Cypriots can deny the Turkish Cypriots this, right? Because they benefit from a paradox which even this Council must face. Since in Cyprus there are two national communities which agreed in 1960 to found an independent republic. and'which must negotiate together for the purpose of rebuilding and rehabilitation, one of those communities cannot also enjoy the privilege of forming a government which would rule over both those communities. One of the communities cannot be considered as more of a co-founder of the Cypriot State than the other. Anything else would be paradoxical. This entirely illegitimate paradox permits the.Greek community to monopolize diplomatic representation and to attempt to impose an economic embargo againstthe Turkish community. But, above all, it permits them to cherish illusions, because the Greek Cypriots believe this is the only asset remaining to them from the period when they attempted to subjugate and dominate the Turkish community. , This is the stumbling block in the Cypriot problem. As long as the Greek Cypriot administration has conferred upon it, by certain States, the false and illegitimate title of "government", experience shows that it will continue to refuse a bicommunal, bizonal and federal solution. The Turkish community has been patient for 20 years. How much longer is it going to be asked to be patient? Forever? No, that is not fair or reasonable. ..* The Turkish Government, however, asked the community to wait a little longer and not proclaim its independence. However, no one, not even Turkey, has the right to impede indefinitely the exercise of the right to self-determination by the Turkish Cypriot community which, after having exercised this right jointly with the Greek community, was stripped of its status of co-founder which it had detained at that time. It has the right to decide its own fate, which cannot be forever dependent on the goodwill of the Greek Cypriots. Independence was its decision. Turkey respects this decision and can only abide by it, and that is what it is doing. The Turkish community of Cyprus is not an ethnic minority. It is an organized political community, and the Constitution of 1960 acknowledged its right of equal participation in the State machinery of decision-making. That is a fundamental difference. Thus, the right to self-determination was exercised in this way in Cyprus. How can anyone now attempt to reduce the status of the Turkish Cypriot people to that of a minority? In any given country there can be citizens of different racial and ethnic origins. That is indeed the case in most modern (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) States. These citizens must be satisfied with enjoying human rights on an equal footing; or .else. for special reasons, certain rights of certain ethnic categories of citizens may be guaranteed by means of a minority status. In.Cyprus., the model chosen was none of these, but a different model. That of co-founding communities of the State. That particular model is not for export. But other States, concerned with their own problems, need not seek to export to and impose on Cyprus their own model by becoming the advocates of a usurping Greek Cypriot administration. Each country has and always will have the model it needs in terms of its own specific needs and circumstances. In Cyprus, there is not just one nation; there are two peoples, each of which is the extension of a different nation. These two great nations, Turkish and Greek, were forged by centuries of history, with affinities no doubt, but also with very distinct features, and each with the keen awareness of forming a different societp. Cyprus is the point of intersection between these two nations. Just as the two Turkish and Greek nations must co-exist in good-neighbourliness, within a complex of political cheques and balances, on an equal footing, as in the very successful arrangements arrived at in Lausanne, the same ctincern must guide the two Cypriot communities. It is for this reason that there were two co-founding communities in Cyprus. This principle is still valid, and is more necessary than ever. It is in this spirit that the Turkish Cypriot community exercised its right to self-determination. In order to demonstrate that it would certainly not accept a status inferior to that of the Greek community, it has proclaimed its independence in the most democratic of fashions and in a remarkably peaceful atmosphere. Furthermore, since July 1974, there has beenno major incident in Cyprus. This proclamation is not a secession. The Turkish community has proclaimed that it considers itself bound by the Treaties of Establishment, of Guarantee and of Alliance which gave birth to the:Republic of.Cyprus,. Furthermore, the Turkish Cypriot community has declared that.:it will always pursue the goal of bringing about a just and lasting solution for the Cypriot question on a bico mmunal. bizonal and federal basis. It remains faithful to the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979. The proclamation of independence, therefore, is to be understood asbeing part of the very concept of the entity which is the Republic of Cyprus. That is why the Turkish community, in its proclamation, undertook not to unite with any outside. State. Its sole purpose is to be able to join the Greek community on an,egual footing in the bicommunal, bizonal and federal framework which should be,that of the Republic of Cyprus. . In this regard, I wish once again solemnly to.declare that Turkey has -' absolutely no territorial ambitions in Cyprus or -anywhere else; It is true that until 'the conclusion in.1959 of the Zurich and London agreements ths official policy of Turkey was based on the concept of partitioning the island between Turkey and Greece, The Greek Cypriot side has today quoted from statements referring to ~ this policy, which Turkey completely abandoned when the agreements I have mentioned were concluded in 1959. However, what was the official policy of Greece at that time, that is to say before the conclusion of the 1959 agreements? Everyone knows that the Greek Government was calling for nothing less at that time than union with Greece. l The difference since 1959 between Turkey and Greece is that Turkey has continued to support the idea of an independent Republic of Cyprus, in accordance with these agreements and the agreements of 16 August 1960, while Greece has never given up its dream of the annexation of the entire territory of the island of Cyprus. A single example will suffice to prove this. Here is a quotation from a statement by Mr. Constantin Karamanlis, President of the Republic of Greece, taken from the Athens News Agency Bulletin of 7 April 1983: II . . . Cyprus should have been granted independence in 1960 to develop into an exemplary eastern Mediterranean State, without, however, abandoning hope of Enosis which means union with Greece under certain preconditions." This is what we must understand by Greek goodwill. The other example throws light on the true intentions of the Greek Cypriot administration after the conclusion of these agreements. The late Archbishop Makarios said in the weekly Le Point, on 19 February 1973, 13 years after independence: "I have fought for the union of Cyprus with Greece and Enosis will always be my profound national aspiration, as indeed it is that of all Greek Cypriots. (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) : j _ My conviction has never changed, and in the course of my career as a national leader I have never done anything which is inconsistent or in contradiction ,-, I . with that." This is.what we,have to understand by Greek Cypriot good will. 9, The Turkish cormuunity believes that the only possible way of achieving its goal of a federal, bicommunal, bizonal Republic of Cyprus is thraugh iutercomunal negotiations under the auspices of the Secretary-General acting on a mandate from the Security Council to carry out a mission of good offices. It is ready to recommence intercommunal negotiations at the point at which they were broken off on the existing basis. The Head of the Turkisp C$nmunity is ready to meet the Head of the Greek community in the presence of the Secretary-General once preparations have been concluded. The Turkish community is also ready to co-operate with the United Nations Force in Cyprus, as it has done hitherto. It has also proposed, through its President, an interim agreement with the Greek community. This proposal will make possible the opening to traffic of the international airport in Nicosia and the resettlement of Varosha by the Greeks, the region of resettlement to be placed under the control and administration of the United Nations. My Government hopes that this gesture will be properly understood and appreciated,by other Governments. We also hope that the Greek Cypriot community . .~, and Greece will appreciate this and will take the outstretched hand we offer. In the view of my Government, the resolution to be adopted by the Security Council must, above all, call upon the two communities to resume intercommunal negotiations within the framework of the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General. The Council must refrain from judgements based upon distortion of historical facts and from prejudice in the interpretation of juridical reality. The Council must take into account the willingness to negotiate of the (Mr. Kirca, Turkey) Turkish Cypriot community in order to.bring about .a solution whichwill en& .the two co-founder communities to.coexist in peace andsecurity within the framework of the RepubLic of Cyprus. Unilateral condemnations of the Turkish c ommunity will sercte only to aggravate and deepen its exasperation; they will never succeed in deflecting it from its aspiration to equality. It has no fear of being alone in pursuing its course, maintaining its own identity in dignity and honour. Whatever the circumstances, Turkey, its motherland, will never abandon it, never let it be alone. Turkey will protect and sustain it always. All that is necessary is the smallest'show of goodwill on the part of the Greek Cypriot community and Greece for a solution very rapidly to be found - that 8 is, acceptance of the Turkish community as an equal partner in an independent sovereign, bicommunal, bizonal, federal and, of course, non-aligned Republic of ! Cyprus.

I thank the representative of Turkey for the kind words he addressed to me. Mr. CHAMORRO MORA (Nicaragua) (interpretationfrom Spanish): It is an honour, Sir, for me and my delegation to see presiding over this Council a representative of a sister country and member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Your ., wisdom, experience, good humour and diplomatic skill are well known to us all and we have no doubt that all of these qualities will contribute to the success of our work in the course of this month. I should also like to congratulate your predecessor, Ambassador Abdullah Salah of Jordan, on the effective and expeditious way in which he handled our busy schedule in the month of October. In the last few weeks this Council has been compelled to deal with alarming frequency with crises whose root cause is to be found in the violation of article.2 -(4) of the UnitedNations .Charter. The unilateral declaration of-,' independence of the part of the territory of Cyprus under -foreign oticupatiok ik one more-ac+.ix-thcdrsmatic escalation which we have been witnessing of.the trends towards violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nonaligned Member States, whose greatest defence, as ix the case of the Republic of Cyprus, is their moral strength and their dignity. . . : . (Mr. Chamorro Mora, Nicaracrua) -, , In the specific case.we are considering to&y, we note that the root-cause of the probJem is the invasion and occupation of part of the territoryof Cyprus by' forces.of another State 80 times bigger than Cyprus in terms of population, .' territory and military power. : The nightmare visited upon the sister non-aligned country of Cyprus began in 1974. Since then, in order to justify the invasion, endless arguments have been put forward which are of very dubious value in the context of the very clear provisions of our Charter and the pr?nciples of contemporary international law. We should like to emphasize the fact that the root-cause of the problem is none other than the military occupation of a sovereign State, which constitute a flagrant violation of the rights of peoples and States to live in peace free from foreign interference and of the duty of all States to refrain from the use of force in the settlement.of disputes. Last week the General Assembly adopted by consensus resolution 38/10 on the item, The situation in Central America: threats to international peace and security and peace initiatives". Operative paragraph 1 reaffirms: "the right of all countries of the region to live in peace and to decide their c own future, free from all outside interference or intervention, whatever pretext may be adduced for such interference or intervention and whatever the circumstances in which such interference or intervention may be committed". This vigorous reaffirmation of one of the basic principles'of the Charter caused some discomfort to a couple of countries which, in their statements, show that they do not share this principle with the rest of the international community, automatically placing them beyond the pale of international'law. (Mr. Chamorro Mora, Nicaragua) Since 1974 the UnitedNations has been striving to achieve a just and lasting peace in Cyprus, as reflected in the various relevant resolutions adcpted:by.the Security Council and the General Assembly. General Assembly resolution 3212 (XXIX), which was adopted unanimously in 1974, Security Council resolutions 365 (1974) and 367 (1975) and General Assembly resolution 37/253, adopted in L983, constitute strong foundations on which all efforts by all the parties involved in the conflict must be based in the search for a solution. All these resolutions, and in particular General Assembly resolution 3212 (XXIX), adopted in 1974, which was endorsed by Security Council resolution 365 (1974), have reiterated support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of Cyprus and called for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs. Moreover, these-resolutions have requested the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Cyprus, which is a prerequisite for a solution to the problem. Furthermore, there are two aspects of General Assembly resolution 37/253 which are particularly relevant with regard to the situation before the Council today. I refer to operative paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which state that the de facto situation created by force can have no influence or effect on the political . solution and appeal to the parties to refrain from undertaking any unilateral action which might adversely affect the prospects of a just and lasting solution of the problem and from any action which violates the independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus. The declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot leaders violates this provision, just as it violates the Security Council resolutions on the subject. The confidence and support the United Nations and Cyprus have placed in the Secretary-General's efforts have been particularly demonstrated in the last two resolutions adopted by our Organization with regard to Cyprus - Security Council resolution 534 (1983) and General Assembly resolution 37/253 of 13 May 1983, to (Mr. Chamorro Mora. Nicaragua) which I have just referred. Both call'upon the SecretargrGeneral to promote :- negotiations between the two Cypriot communities on the .basis of Unkted Nations resolutions and high-Ievel agreements. As a worthy founding member of the Non-AIigned Movement. Cyprus has spared no effort to obtain compliance with the principles of our Movement, particularly with regard to the search for a peaceful, just and lasting solution for the country based on unity. For its part, the Non-Aligned Movement has shown concern for, and devoted its attention to, the problem of Cyprus. Thus the New Delhi Summit, held early this year, reaffirmed the inadmissibility of policies based on faits accomplis and the violation of legitimate rights by means of military intervention. Similarly, the Movement opposed measures to change the demographic character of that country and emphasized the urgent need to solve the problem of the refugees and the missing persons. Equally, the efforts made by the contact group of our Movement to find a solution to that situation deserve our full gratitude and support. Everyone knows that the various resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council have not been implemented and that force rather than the rules of international law has prevailed in this situation. We must not permit the status of Cyprus as a unified and an independent State to be altered unilaterally. To do so would be an extremely dangerous precedent. We are fully aware of the complexity and difficulty of this problem, but we also believe and have full confidence in the efforts of the Secretary-General to achieve a negotiated peaceful solution. This Council must once again encourage these efforts and promote them energetically. (Mr. Chamorro Mora, Nicaragua) CjrpruS ‘is one nation- 'Both fxmnnunitik3 must. without interference i let alone foreign military intervention - in full sovereignty come to an understanding and find the appropriate machinery making it possible for both to live banuoniously side by side through respect for diversitp within unity. Although small, Cyprus is located in an extremely sinsitive geographic area and is a neme centre in the Mediterranean. : Therefore, we cannot allow this balance, which has so far been maintained with such .'. difficulty, to be-upset by actions taken by those who directly.or indirectly . . ..:: support military options, warlike policies or fait8 accomplis ss,msthods to .he : _. applied not only in the Mediterraxean but also in the Middle East, in southern :,.% Africa and in Central America. The decision to declare an independent Turkish Cypriot. State is unacceptable, and from all standpoints wrong, since it shatters, through the use of force, the unity, independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State of our Organization and member of the Non-Aligned Movement. That decision must not have any international legal effect whatsoever. This Council must declare it null and void and call upon Member States to adopt a line of conduct in keeping with the resolutions of this Council and the General Assembly - and this includes non-recognition of the State thus created. Anything else would constitute recognition and indirect perpetuation of an unlawful military occupation, creating the problem of a State divided along false lines, which will make it much more difficult to continue the efforts that have been made so far. I should like to conclude by reading out an official communique' from my Government on the situation the Council is discussing today: "The Government of National Reconstruction of the Republic of Nicaragua expresses its profound concern at the recent proclamation of independence of the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern.Cyprus, since this constitutes a flagrant violation of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as the declarations made on this subject by the Non-Aligned Movement. "This decision, furthermore, constitutes a clear violation of the principles of the Charter and endangers international peace and security. "Therefore we urge the parties concerned to revoke their decision to proclaim independence, which violates the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. The Governmen t of Rational Reconstruction most strongly condemns that proclamation and reaffirms its unswerving solidarity with the Government and people of Cyprus. and it expresses its firm resolve not to recognise that unilateral declatation of independence, since it is harmful to the efforts to achieve unity in Cyprus, including those being made by the Secretary-General." The PRSSIDENT: I thank the respresentative of Nicaragua for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of India, whom I invite to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. KRISHNAN (India): Mr. President, it is, in a sense, a sad commentary on the state of affairs in the world today that the Security Council should have to remain almost permanently in session, as indeed it has over several months now. Like your predecessors,.you bear the difficult mantle of guiding the Council in troubled times. On this occasion the Council meets to consider the unfortunate events that have transpired in your own part of the world. At such a time we are happy to see you in the Chair, as the representative of a friendly and fellow non-aligned country with which India enjoys the most cordial of relations. We are confident that you will bring your very considerable diplomatic skills and experience to bear upon the challenges before the Council and guide its deliberations in an effective and purposeful manner. Two days ago the world learned with consternation and shock of the unilateral proclamation of a so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - an action which has been denounced in most capitals of the world. The Foreign Minister of Cyprus dwelt in detail this morning upon the serious situationcreated bythis'grave development. The Government of India.issued, on 16 November, a statement regarding these developments which I should like to read into the records of the Security Council: "The Government of India have learnt with profound shock and concern of the unilateral declaration of independence by the so-called Turkish Cypriot Assembly of the Turkish occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus. They deplore this action, which is in violation of the Declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement and the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly on the Question of Cyprus. "The Government of India fully support the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus headed by'Pre&dent Ky$ian&.:pi'i and demand the revocation of this unilateral declaration by the foreign occupied part of Cyprus. They support the continuation of intercommunal talks, which is the only way to an enduring and satisfactory solution of the Cyprus problem. The Government of India are in contact with.other non-aligned countries over this unfortunate development. The Prime Minister of India haspersonally been in touch with President Kyprianou." '). The vexed question of Cyprus has been on the agenda of the United Nations'for ' quite some time now. It is by no means an easy problem to resolve, and in&%&t times the atmosphere has been particularly charged with acrimony'and animosity.- We have been aware for some time of indications that the Turkish Cypriot leadership might be attempting to consolidate illegitimately, through measures that go beyond mere physical occupation and are unacceptable under the Charter and in international law, the hold that it exercises over a large part of the territory of Cyprus with the assistance of foreign troops. However, few would have expected that.such a retrograde, illegal and.illTadvised step wouldactually be taken. We : ! . have studied attentively the letter sent by Mr. Denktash to the Secretary-General, contained in document A/38/586. ., We have also listened carefully to the h-tatement made by Mr. Denktash to the Council a little while ago. The legitimate rights of the Turkish Cypriot community should be respected and defended. However, we fail to see any force in the arguments advanced to justify the illegal and unacceptable action taken. The Cyprus question needs to be resolved in a peaceful manner and without delay, and we are all agreed that the intercommunal talks provide the only possible means. This action taken by the Turkish &riot community could not possibly help promote the intercommunal talks; indeed, it.will only bring them to a sudden and complete halt, as has already become manifest. The Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March this year, "reiterated its full solidarity and support for the people and Government of the Republic of Cyprus and reaffirmed its respect for that country's independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment" (A/38/132, annex, p. 38). The Heads of State or Government "expressed their deep concern over the fact that part of the Republic of Cyprus continued to be under foreign occupation and demanded the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces as an essential basis for the solution of the Cyprus problem" (ibid.). The Conference considered that "the de facto situation created by the force of arms and unilateral actions should not in any way affect the solution of the problem" (ibid.). (Mr. Krishnan, India) 'United Rations General Assembly resolution 371253 also, inter alia, affirmed the right of the people of the Republic of Cyprus to . ..: -- "full and effective sovereignty and control overjthe entire territory of Cyprus and its natural and other resources" and condemned any act which undermined the faithful and effective exercise of those rights. The Assembly also declared that the de facto situation created by the _ force of arms should not be allowed to prejudice an eventual solution to the Cyprus problem. It called upon the parties concerned to "refrain from any unilateral action which bight adversely affect the prospects of a just and lasting solution of the prob>em of Cyprus by peaceful means", as also to refrain from , . ,i’, . . . "any action which violates or is designed Ito violate the independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus." It is also pertinent to recall that the Security Council, in its resolution 367 (1975), regretted the unilateral decision of 13 February 1975 declaring the establishment of a so-called Federated Turkish State on part of the territory of Cyprus and expressed its concern over all unilateral actions which had compromised or might compromise the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions. The Security Council also called on all States to respect the sovereignty, / ,;,: . independence, territorial integrity'and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and urgently requested them, as well as the parties concerned, to refrain from any action which might prejudice those attributes, as well as from any attempt at partition of the island or its unification with any other country. This position of the Council has subsequently been reaffirmed. What has happened in Cyprus is thus in defiance of the will of the international community as reflected in the pronouncements of the United Nations and the Movement of non-aligned countries.. This unilateral actionhasnot only disrupted the ongoing process of dialogue but has introduced a new flash-point of tensioninthe EasterrrMediterranean which could have:grave consequences for peace and security in that region, already surcharged with conflict, with far-reaching implications for world peace. It is particularly ironic and unfortunate that, just at a time when the Secretary-General had embarked on his renewed mission of good offices and made significant efforts through soundings with the two Cypriot communities, and progress had been made towards the convening of a high-level meeting, the process of 'dialogue should have been so rudely and irresponsibly . subverted. We take note: of the statement of the Secretary-General in which he has expressed deep regret at the step taken and stated that he considers that this is bound to affect adversely the situation in Cyprus and complicate his own efforts to find a just and lasting solution of the problem. We have also noted his intention to pursue his high-level! contacts. The world cannot accept,a fait accompli of the kind attempted. We urge that the unilateral declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot Assembly be revoked forthwith. We also urge that no legitimacy or support through recognition or other means be given by any Member-State of the United Nations to the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus whose creation is being sought through that declaration. The intercommunal talks should be resumed under the auspices of the Secretary-General, but this will clearly not be feasible until and unless this illegal act of unilateral declaration by the Turkish-Cypriot side is revoked and aMUlled. The path to a solution of the Cyprus question remains through dialogue, not through such unilateral actions. The Government and people of India are bound by deep-rooted ties of friendship and co-operation with the Government and people of the Republic of Cyprus. Our solidarity with Cyprus at this critical time, has been reaffirmed by our Prime Hinister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, to the President of the.Republic of Cyprus, His Excellency Mr. Kyprianou. Cyprus, like India, is a founding member of the Movement of non-aligned countries. All of us members of the Movement of non-aligned countries are firmly committed to lending our full support to the sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-alignment of that friendly country. We hope that the Security Council will act decisively and promptly in firmly .rejecting this attempted act of secession and call for its immediate annulment. I thank you, Mr. President, and the Council for having invited me to address it on this subject.

I thank the representative of India for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Seychelles. I invite her to take a place at the Council table and to make her statement. Ms. GONTHIER (Seychelles): Two years ago this month I had the sad duty of informing the Security Council that my island country had been invaded by a mainlander. Two weeks ago I again appeared before this Council to discuss yet another invasion of an island country by a mainlander. Today I am here again to deliberate on another serious violation of yet another island country, a violation caused and sanctioned by a mainlander. It seems all islands are being sought for strategic purposes these days. We; the small, the weak, the vulnerable are being used in the crudest and ugliest way for war preparations. I need not remind this Council of the dangerous excessive militarization of the Indian Ocean and how most of the island countries there are trembling with fear. The Government of the.Pepublic of Seychelles condemns the declaration Of independence by the Turkish occupied side of Cyprus, and it urges all countriesof the worfd not to recaQnize it. It is an illegal act and therefore should be declared null and void. This move is a serious violation of the integrity, sovereignty, unity and non-alignment of Cyprus. This event is contrary to any efforts to bring peace and stability in the area, and we appeal to all States Members of the United Nations to take all the necessary measures and action for the preservation of the independence of Cyprus. This event should not be accepted lightly as a fait accompli. All Governments must use all the means available to them to see that the United Nations Security Council resolutions on this grave issue are implemented. We also want to stress that we support the Secretary-General's initiatives and any other new ideas he might have. Let me take this opportunity to tell you, Mr. President, how proud I am to see Malta presiding this month. It is the smallest country to have served on the Council thus far. It is fitting that the only other independent island State in the Mediterranean should be occupying the presidency while this Cyprus issue is being discussed. We will need your islander sensibilities and sensitivities. Cyprus is known as the island of bitter lemons, but it also has the sweetest oranges - both products of the Mediterranean climate. It is our hope that the two communities in Cyprus will be able to savour in the future only the sweetness they have tasted in the past, which they can still experience, and share with the world despite what we hope are temporary differences. The PR$SIDRNT: I thank the representative of Seychelles for the kind words she addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Australia. I invite him to take a pface at the Council table and to make his statement. Hr. JOSEPH (Australia): .Thtough you, Mr. President, permit me to thank members of the Council for acceding to my delegation's request to appear before the Council to&y. May I also express my delegation's pleasure at seeing you in the Chair this month. Malta and Australia enjoy a unique relationship because of the many personal ties between our two countries. And I might say, Sir, that your own' links to Australia typify these ties. - The attitude of the Australian Government towards the matter now under consideration is clear and unequivocal. We reject and condemn the unilateral declaration of independence by the leadership of the Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus. As the Australian Prime Minister said in the Australian Parliament on 16 November: "The establishment of this so-called republic is in violation of international law. It is in specific violation of a number of United Nations Security Council resolutions to which Australia subscribes and it endangers the peace and security of this troubled area". .. Mr. Hawke went on to underline the conviction of the Australian Government that the illegal declaration must be withdrawn. My country is in fact gravely concerned that this latest development can only lead to an increase in tension in a country that has already experienced too much violence and loss,of life. We must appeal to all concerned to exercise maximum restraint in the face of a potentially inflammatory situation. The Australian Government has no intention of recognizing the illegal state declared by the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus. We continue to recognize only the legal Government of the Republic of Cyprus, led by President Kyprianou. We express the very strong hope that all other members of the international community will also withhold recognition from this illegal entity or, if they have already extended recognition, will withdraw it promptly. It is the firm view of the Australian Government that a negotiated settlement should be sought as a matter of urgency. Such a negotiated settlement would need to ensure the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, as well as safeguarding the legitimate interests and concerns of both communities in Cyprus. We believe that there continues to be a significant role for the SecretaryGeneral in the search for a peaceful settlement and we are confident that he will spare no efforts on a problem on which he is so uniquely well equipped. It would be appropriate for the Security Council to renew and reinforce his mandate. For our own part, and at the direction of the Foreign Minister, we have been active in both Canberra and the capitals concerned to make clear our deep anxiety at the situation and the implications for stability. Australia has been a contributor to the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus (UNPICYP) since it was established in 1964. This commitment automatically involves us in this debate in the Security Council today. We are keeping a very close watch on the safety of UNFICYP and call upon all the parties to allow it to carry out its mandate unimpeded. I should say that if the Force were to be placed in jeopardy, the Australian Government would have to review the participation of its contingent. Following the adoption of General Assembly resolution 37/253 on 16 May this year and the subsequent activities by the Secretary-General, there was some small reason to think that progress toward a settlement might be possible. Indeed, as we heard this morning, the possibility of a meeting between President Kyprianou and Mr. Denktash was being actively pursued and the prospects looked fair. We fear that those hopes have now been dashed. Australia, however, calls on the Turkish Cypriot community to recreate the situation in the Island which would allow a return to sensible dialogue with its Greek Cypriot compatriots.

I thank the representative of Australia for the kind addressed to me. words he next speaker is the representative of Algeria, I invite him to take a The the Council table and to make his statement. place at Mr. SAHNOUN (Algeria) (interpretation from French): Mr. President, we owe to your predecessor our congratulations on the way in which he discharged his important duties as.President of the Security Council during a month in which there was intense activity. You are now called upon to use your recognized talents as a seasoned diplomat ifi conducting the proceedings of the Council this month. I would have willingly resi$ted the privilege of appearing before you and the pleasure of extending to you my best wishes for success if the uncertain world we live in had spared us a new clash. This clash is the result of a deplorable development in the Mediterranean, whose agitated heartbeats we constantly hear in Algeria and in Malta, both of which are non-aligned coastal States. This unexpected development gives an alarming dimension to the crisis of Cyprus, a non-aligned country with which Algeria has relations of trust and friendship. Since it began, the crisis of Cyprus has been a constant focus of the attention of the international community, whose efforts have been especially directed towards promoting a final political solution, through constructive talks between the two communities. The United Nations has worked towards that end with dedication and perseverance. In so doing, it has established the key elements of the framework within which any solution must be found - that is, the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus. (Mr. Sahnoun, Algeria) That is why in this matter the Organization committed the full authority of the Secretary-General, who has made universally welcomed efforts to help in-the initiation and success of the dialogue which is indispensabla:to the resolution of the crisis by striving especially to create the conditions necessary to that end. It is with the same concerns.that the Non-Aligned Movement too has acted in .the same direction and on the basis of the same principles, establishing a contact group on the question of Cyprus, over which Algeria has the honour to preside. Since its establishment, this group, which also includes Cuba, Guyana, India, Mali, Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia, has made tireless efforts to cont$ibute as best:it.can to the success of the intercommunal dialogue, so as to put an pnd to the crisis and to restore coexistence and peace between the two Cypriot communities. . s. It was in that spirit, and on the basis of the unswerving position of,.: principle of the Movement - similar in every way to that of, the United Nations - that just after the New Delhi summit conference the contact! group went to Cyprus at the invitation of the Government of that country, and engaged in various contacts both with Government authorities and with spokesmen of the two communities.., I had the opportunity last May to inform the General Assembly of this mission when.on behalf of the contact group I introduced a draft resolution on the question of Cyprus. .; . The reactivation and stimulation of the efforts of the Secretary-General, which was one of the primary objectives of the resolution adopted by the G.eneral Assembly, were the hallmark of activities in recent months. Since those efforts gave rise to legitimate optimism, the General Assembly even decided to defer consideration of the item to the present session. .- (Mr. Sahnoun, Algeria) The proclamation on 15 November of an "independent State" on a part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus which is not under the control of its Government constitutes in every respect a development which is as regrettable as it is alarming. This act, which clearly runs counter to the international consensus on the peaceful settlement of the Cypriot crisis, can only be considered as a factor for increasing tension and complicating a situation whose solution has unceasingly been the subject of increased efforts by the international community. At the'very least, this.act must be harmful to a settlement and to the painstaking process, ba$ed on universally acknowledged principles and directed towards a just and fina! solution, which had given rise to high hopes for a peaceful and harmonious future for the Cypriot nation. Algeria, which is resolutely committed to that objective and which is sparing no effort to help achieve it, was naturally compelled to consider this new development in that light. Thus, my Government has affirmed, through the spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that: "The unilateral proclamation of an independent Turkish Cypriot State is a serious'blow both to the resolutions and decisions of the United Nations and of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and to the unflagging efforts now being made in the search for a political solution which would be to the satisfaction of the Cypriot people. Algeria reaffirms its staunch dedication to the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus. In its capacity as chairman of the contact group on Cyprus of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, Algeria has constantly worked for the respect of those basic principles and for promoting them as the solid basis for the desired political settlement and continues (Mr. Sahnoun, Algeria) today to call for responsible dialogue in the legitimate interest of the two Cypriot communities. In this context, the new proposals made by the Secretary-General of the United Hations, which have been hailed by the international community, in particular by the Republic of Cyprus, should underlie the needed continuation of such dialogue." That needed continuation of dialogue, for which we earnestly call, has now come up against the considerable obstacle of the unilateral proclamation of,an independent Turkish State in northern Cyprus. Such an act can have no validity whatsoever under international law, under the Treaty of Guarantee of the Republic of Cyprus or under the Cypriot Constitution, and the Security Council must use all its political, moral and legal influence to eliminate this unfortunate threat to the sovereignty of Cyprus and to the painstaking process aimed at a just and lasting solution of the crisis. This Council is called upon to declare, with responsibility and calm, what is demanded by international legality in the face of this new situation, and we are certain that it will not fail to do so unanimously and to point out to the States Members of the United Nations all measures which could ensure the primacy of law and which could put to constructive use the energies available for a solution to the crisis consistent with the international consensus on this issue.

I thank the representative of Algeria for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Canada. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. E%I&RTIER (Canada) (interpretation from French): First bf all, Sir, I should like on behalf of 'my delegation to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. This is a.wqll-deserved honour, which reflects well 6190 upon the country which yu~ represent here with such dignity. I wish also on behalf of the Government of Canada to elcpress my gratitude to the Council for the opportunity to participate in this urgent debate or! the situation in Cyprus. I regret that events in the island have made it necessary for the Council to return to this question barely five months after it was last discussed here, when I had the privilege of addressing the Council. My Government deeply regrets the unilateral declaration of independence on 15 November by the self-styled "Turkish Republic of.Northern Cyprus**. We have no plans to recognize this self-proclaimed State in the island of Cyprus. We continue to recognize a single Republic of Cyprus, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity should be respected by all. The unilateral declaration of independence has been.disruptive of a very ' ', delicate and difficult negotiation process. It is the unfortunate result of what I : observed to the Council last June, to the effect that the two communities of Cyprus I. and certain others involved in the Cyprus dispute have not shown the will necessary . :, to make the difficult compromises required to reach a successful political solution. .' .i ’ _ (Mr. Pelletier,Canada) While we recognize the impatience and frustration of the parties evoked by the contim& rack of a settlement, we do not, however, condone such a disproportionate response to these feelings. By its action, the %kxrkish Cygri?Mz community has endangered the prospects for the achievement of a just and lasting settlement within a united Cyprus and the attainment of well deserved peace &id prosperity on the island. Canada's regret at this unhappy situation is much the greater because of our long standing involvement in the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force designed precisely to facilitate a solution to the Cyprus problem, one not imposed unilaterally, but developed by and having the agreement of all parties. We note that the Turkish Cypriot leaders have expressed the view that the good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General and negotiations must continue. A tangible and constructive manifestation of this intention would be the withdrawal _ of the unilateral declaration by the leaders and their agreement to resume active intercommunal negotiations at the highest level as soon as possible. In the meantime, Canada joins the United Nations Secretary-General and other States in calling on all parties to exercise the maximum restraint and to avoid any provocation that could result in a further deterioration of the situation. As an important troop contributor to the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNE'ICYP), we call on all concerned to respect fully the mandate and the perSOme of this United Nations peace-keeping force. This is the minimum requirement for the continued effectiveness of UNE'ICYP. In this current difficult situation, I believe that there are constructive steps the Council could take now. It might wish to ask the Secretary-General to carry out urgent soundings and report back to the Council within a short period. This report could serve as a basis for further consideration and action by the Council. (Mr. Pelletier, Canada) Canada continues to support most.strongly the efforts of the Secretary-General to promote a negotiated and lasting settlement. These efforts are-all the more hipo~t in the ffew situation which now confronts us. and we urge.the Council to again endorse them. We Call on the other Hember States to offer their full support to enhance the authority of the Secretary-General in overcoming the obstacles to a final settlement of a problem-which has been with us all too long.

I thank the representative of Canada for his kind words addressed to me. Since there are no further speakers inscribed on my list for this meeting, the next meeting of the Security Council to continue the consideration of this item on the agenda will take place tomorrow, Friday, 18 November, at a time to be determined by consultations among the Members. The meeting rose at 6.55 P.m.