S/PV.2689 Security Council

The Security council will now resume fU3 consideration of the item on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of Turkey, on w&n I now C811. Mr. lURI@lm- (Tut key) t Mr. President, let me first thank you and the other metiers of the Security Council for granting me this opportunity to participate in the discuseion on Cyprus. 1 wish to extend to you my warm congratulations on you assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of June. I amconfident that your long and rich experience at the United Nations and your diplomatic talents will prove to be invaluable in guiding the work of the Council. Iet me also pay a tribute to Ambaseedor Gbeho, who guided the Council with great distinction in May. been outlined several times before this Council. I wish in particular to stress that UNFICYP’s continued presence in Cyprus after more than two decades has to be considered in the light of the profound changes that have taken place on the island since the Council adopted its resolution 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964. (Hr. TUrkmen, mrkcty) The reports of the Sacretary-General over the last few years have made it abundantly clear .that the function that UNPICYP performs is no 1QngQr to prevent fighting between the two uunmunities. Since the regrouping of the two communities in two differant zo91es - the ‘hrks in the Ebr th and the Greeks in the South - the Greek Cypriot military hits and armed bands have been deprived of the posQibii?tY Of assaulting and mawacr ing Turkish Cypriots, and as a result .thQ island has been remarkably quiet and peacQfu1. The physical aggreusivenese of the Greek Cypriots has been replaced by a verb 11 aggressiveness , which is rambunctiously displayed by ths Greek epriot repm kes at each Council meeting. Under the present c ~3~ we share the mr kish Cypriot views on UNPPCXP, which are basae(l on the expect& 1.~41 that there will be a cmctete peace-making proceeo within an agreQd ftaipework, which uNFICYP will be callra upn to support by performing certain specific funotion8. But if the peace process continues to bQ hafwcwea by Greek Cypriot intransigence the need for the continued presence of the Force, especially in the light of the financial difficulties faced by thQ OonUibutiw aomct~es, will bsaxm more and more questionable. The recent ststeiment by the tecoog-4antrfbutifig comtriea is in this reegect significant. (Hr. Turkmenc Turkey) I believe that f do not have to go into the details of our fundamental objection6 to the content of the resolution just adopted by the Council. The otjectione we have expressed in ptevioulr meeting8 remain valid 8ince the present resolution lacks the support of two of the directly interested parties. P wirh therefore to raconfira my Government08 full agreement with the position of the Turkish pepublic of Northern Cyprus on the laodalitiee of UNPI.CPps presence in Northern Cyprus, as ha8 been reiterated today by Ur. Oeer Koray. The period which elapsed since the last Council meeting on Cyprus ha8 been marked by the sustained effort8 of the Secretary-General to work out an agreed framework of negotiations in conrultation with both parties. P wfeh here to expreee to the Secretary-Genersl the deep appreciation of my Government for the dedioation and wi8dom with which he ha8 carried out the miseipn enttueted to him by the Security Council. It is gratifying that th8 membere of the Security Council have al8o collectively and individually given unqualified 8uppOrt to the Secretary-General's effort8 in full knowledge of the parameters of hi8 initiative. The initiative the Secretary-General has pureued eince Auguot 1984 is in fast 8 prolongation of previous effort8 deployed since 197s with the aim of evolving the outline of an agreement for a federal solution in Cyprus. Notwith8tanding the deeply dieappointing enperience of January 1985, the Secretary-General engaged in detailed and arduous talk8 with both Bide8 and finally put forward a "draft framework agreement on CypruP. What the Secretary-General propoaer i8 n0t a final 8ettleu@nt in all ita Obviouely the draft agreement doe8 not aatiefy completely any of the partied, and we are all aware that if this framework is accepted the negotiations which will ensue will still be difficult an% time-consuming. But, on the other hand, after more than 10 years of discuseionn at every level, including several atimmit meetinga, (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) the framework agreement put forward by the Secretaty-General constitutes the Only baste on which meaningful negotiations can at last begin. The Secretary-General is certainly justified in insisting on the significance of the step he her taken. He says in his report of 11 June 1986 that VMcause of the significance of the stage we have reached” I gave a COPY Of the draft framework agreement together with the aubstance of my covering letter to the President of the Security Council and I requested him to give a copy to the members of the Council.* (a/l8102/Add.l, p. 3, Pare. 9) F& also adde that, at the invitation of the President of the Council, he briefed the Council members at an informal meeting. One of the most important characteristics of the ‘Waft agreement. is the deliaate balance it foresees between the cownenta of a solution. This is the reaeon for which the Secretary-General underlines the concept of the “integrated whole*. 190 opecial priority can be attributed to any of the elements since a rolutian can be feaeible only if there is an agreement on all the issue6 that ate impottent for one or the other party. These aonsidaratiane explain the need for an unequiv4cel reply by the two side8 to the proposals of the Secretary-General. An unequivocal reply means a readineee to aign the dreft agreement. President Denktaeh has indicated that he vau teacly to do 60. The firot reply of the Creek Cypriots was a non-reply. The VOlUBiinoU8 ciecond reply, by contta6t, has the merit of being a very cleat and rpacif ic anewer. It is an unqualified and extremely detailed rejection of the SecfetafyGenerei's ~cu~uD&~, ari t!t: uCYbw-w..-- rL-d--+- vp I?ngA May were even more explicit. We are avace of the many discuesions that took plwe between Greek Cypriot politician8 before Mr. Rypfianou forvarded his latest Eetter to the Secretary-General. We undetetand that same of them politicians have apparently (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) wart& Mr. ~yprianou of the dangers inherent in a rejection of the draft agreement. But the decisive diacueeione were not held in Nieosia$ they took place in Athens in what seems to be an agonizing atmosphere. As fqir as we are concerned, the outcome of the talks between the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots was not a surpriae. The consistently negative attitude of Prime Minister Papandreou to the draft agreement from the very beginning had left no doubts in our minds. We knew, therefore, that Pri!re Minister Papandreou was dead set against the proposals of the Secretary-General and also that he had the power to impoec his will on Mr. Ryptianou. Nevertheless, we were surprised to see in their detailed second reply that the Greek Cypriote were reneging on their word on every point to which they ha8 obviously agreed during discussions with the Secretary-General and Secretariat officials. Ae a result, the Greek Cypriot administration looks really like a degraded and humiliated subordinate. The in ertremie circulation of the letter deted 20 Hatch 1986 by Mr. Ryprianou to the Secretary-General is not changing anything. If that wae really the Greek Cypriot baeic position, why had they not said so in their first reply and why did they wait until today3 Is it possible that they have forgotten shout it for so long? Anyway it is fascinating that with the Greek and Greek Cypriot logic, conciliation ~uld mean rejection of the Secretary-General’s proposals and intransigence towaras aacepting them. A twisted logic for those who claim to be depcendante of Arietotle. The irony ie that the Greek Cvpriote hsve long accused the Turkish cyprlata af being subservient to the Policies of Ankara and insieted on the prepoeteroue demand Pot direct negotiations with the Turkish Government. It seeme now that the revere8 is true, and there are probably some lessons to be drawn from it. The Greek Cypriots have lost thel.r tight to speak on their own destiny. Their only freedom (Mr. Turkmen, Turkey) 8eem to he the free&m to flood the United Nations Secretariat with a torrent of abusive letter8 aud to eubjact this Council to pathetic rhetoric. Xt is clear that there can ha no negotiated solution to the Cyprue problem ae long a8 the Greek Prime Minister, Mr. Papandreou, can dictate to the Greek Cypriota the policiear they should follow. I muat add that I heard with amazement the statement of Ambassador Dountaa today. Not catiefied uith the total su;bmirusion of the Greer Cypriot ride to the diktate of Athens, he wanted alea to dictate to the Secretary-General hou to conduct his good offices mission, to the Counci? how it ehuuld act and to Turkey what it should accept. I underetand that under Hr. Papandreeu the famous Greek megali idea - the Great Pdea - the concept of Greek expaneionism and grandeur, is taking a rather global and ominous dimension. In uonaluaion, I wieh to reaffirm our thanks and appreciation to the Secretary-General. I should like to expreoe our appreciation to Plajordeneral Greindl, Coamander of the United Nationo Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus, am3 his staff. I should like to thank also Ur. Jam6 Rofger, Acting Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Cyprus, as well a8 the member6 of the Secretariat dealing with Cypruc here in New York. The PRESIDEWP (interpretation from French): I thank the representative of Turkey for the kind words he addteased to me. I call on the representative of Cyprus, who has asked to be allowed to speak in exercise of the right of reply. ‘Mr. MODSHUJTAS (Cyprus) ; I was prompted to ask to be allowed to epeak because of the casual way in which Ambaseador Turkmen described the uprooting and and expulsion of 200,000 Cypriots from their aucesttal homes and lands: he described it as mEegrOUping of the two communities’. Apparently, Ambassador Turkmen expects us and the internatioxal conunuuity to be appreciative of the orderly msnner in which the Turkish army of occupation uprooted and segregated our people and 5s strangling a mm11 country LOO times smaller than Turkey. Et50 description of the invaoion and the expulsion of the thoueande of our people ftonb their home and lsnda is as accurate as his understanding of our reply to the sectetary4eneral. Our reply of 10 June 1986 is clear, constructive and 5n full accord with the Secretary-Generalge mieeion of good offices. May I also add, small we are, conquered we are, occupied we are; but, by Go& free and always independent to decide our mtn destiny. The very fact that we are here pointing an tiCCueing finger at Turkey 5s cvillence of our freedom. The PRRSfDEeWP (interpretation from French): The representative of Greece has asked to be allowed to speak in exercise of the right of reply, and I call on him. Mr. DUJNTAS (Greece) 8 Ambassador Turkmen made reference to Prime Minister Papandreou and his influence in the developments in Cyprus. If I understood h5m correctly, he said that aa long as Prime Minister papandreou is in government there can be no solution of the Cyprus problem - or something to that (Mr. Dountae, Greece) affect. I should like to cay to Ambassador Turkmen that he tends to overstate Prime Minister Papandreou*s role and to understate the role of the Turkish army of occupation in Cyprus. We believe that so long a5 the Turkish army of occupation in Cyprus relpains there a solution cannot be found. ns to the pursuit by Greece of the idea of e%paneionism and that eort of demagogical, phraseological fireworks, I am afraid that does noi hold water by the logic of either Aristotle or Ionesco. The PRDSInENT (interpretation from FrenCh): The representative of Turkey ha5 asked to be allowed to speak in exercise of the right of reply, and I call on him. Mr. TDlWlED (Turkey) t I merely want to clarify a point. I did not say the Cyprus problem could not be resolved as long as Prime Minister Papandreou was in power but as long as Prime Minister Papandreou could dictate his will on the Greek Cypriot5 - as to the case today. The PPESIDENP (interpretat ion f ram French] t There are uo more names on the speakers’ list. The Security Counoil has therefore concluded the present stage of its coneideration of the item on it6 agenda. Before adjourning the meeting, I should like to remid members that the Council will consider she queetion of South Africa later thie afterncmn. I therefore invite the members of the Council to proceed immediately to the security Council consultations r&m. The meating rose at 4.15 PAL