S/PV.2969 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion without the right to vote, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no cbjection, it is so decided. At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Exarchos (Greece) and Mr. Aksin (Turkey) took places at the Council table,

I should like to recall that in the course of the Council's consultations members of the Council agreed that an invitation should be extended to Mr. Ozer Koray 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. Koray 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. Koray to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda, Members of the Council have before them the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus for the period from 1 June 1990 to 30 November 1990, document 8/21981 and Addendum 1. Members of the Council also have before them document 8/22000, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations. I should like te draw the attention of members of the Council to document §/21996, which contains the text of a letter dated 12 December 1990 from the Permanent Representatives of Australia, Austria, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. Unless I hear an objection, I shall put the draft resolution (S/22000}) to the vote now. There being no objection, it is so decided. I shall now call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements on the draft resolution before the voting. Mr. KIRSCH (Canada): Let me begin my remarks this afternoon by reaffirming in no uncertain terms our continuing commitment to the United Nations Peace-keeping Force (UNFICYP) in Cyprus. As the Council is aware, we have been contributing both troops and money to UNFICYP since its inception in 1964. In the years since UNFICYP was created, thousands of men and women have served this Organization in one of its noblest responsibilities - peace-keeping. Just this week Canada informed the Secretary-General that we shall continue our participation in UNPICYP at current levels if the Security Council renews its mandate this afternoon. As a troop contributor of long standing, both to UNFICYP and to other United Nations peace-keeping operations, we remain convinced that such operations are vital in promoting the peaceful resolution of seemingly intractable conflicts. In the case of Cyprus, there can be no doubt that UNFICYP has helped to maintain the peace on that divided island. In so doing, UNFICYP is helping the Secretary-Ceneral carry out his mission of good offices in the search for a just and lasting solution to the Cyprus problem. I believe that view is shared by the rest of the members of the Council, who on 61 occasions since 1964 have voted to renew UNFICYP's mandate. Canada is proud to have been associated with the Force since its creation. We are also proud of the dedication of the men and women from many countries who have served the United Nations with great distinction in Cyprus. We are pleased to see the Force Commander, Major-General Clive Milner, in the Council this afternoon, and we wish him success in his difficult but important task, Peace-keeping is an expensive operation, in terms of both lives lost and moneys spent. From the early days of UNFICYP to the middle of this year 149 men and women had died in the service of the United Nations in Cyprus, while many more had been hurt or wounded. They made the ultimate sacrifice in the search for peace, and we pay a tribute to them and remember them. It is estimated that the total cost of the United Nations Force in Cyprus that has been absorbed by the troop-contributing countries since 1964 exceeds $2 billion. Meanwhile, the costs borne by the United Nations are to be financed through a system of voluntary contributions that is unique to UNFICYP among ail peace-keeping operations ~- and there is little wonder that it is unique to that Force. The voluntary contributions to UNFICYP are consistently insufficient to meet the United Nations portion of the costs of the Force. As a result the troop-contributing nations, including Canada, are obliged to bear an inordinately heavy share of those costs. The Secretary-General has on numerous occasions expressed concern about the unhealthy financial situation of UNFICYP and has urged that a system of assessed contributions replace the voluntary fund. Since joining the Security Council in January 1989 Canada has been working to correct the financing difficulties facing UNFICYP, After two years of negotiation and discussion we and some other members of the Security Council have circulated a draft resolution that would finally place the financing of UNFICYP on a more sound and secure basis through the use of assessed contributions. As members know, it had been our intention to have the draft resolution voted upon this afternoon at this meeting of the Council. We believe that the time has come to deal with this matter. Nevertheless, at the request of a few of the members of the Council, including one of the sponsors of the draft resolution, we have asked that the voting be postponed until next week to allow time for further consultations. My delegation made it clear to the members of the Council on a number of occasions that we viewed the financing of UNFICYP as of major importance and, should the financial crisis facing the Force not be dealt with before the next renewal of its mandate, Canada reserved the right to abstain on that renewal. Since we have delayed consideration of our draft resolution to next week, it is clear that the financial crisis of UNFICYP has not been dealt with before the mandate renewal meeting. As a result Canada will indeed abstain on the mandate renewal. We do this with reluctance, but in all good conscience. The Security Council has expressed the view, through the statement of its President on 30 May 1990, that peace-keeping operations must be launched and maintained on a sound and secure financial basis. The Security Council also expressed its concern - at the last mandate renewal meeting, in June of this year - about the chronic and ever-deepening financial crisis facing UNFICYP. The time has come to solve the crisis. That is the intention of our draft resolution on UNFICYP financing. We hope that when our draft resolution is put to the vote next week the members of the Security Council will adopt it. By so doing they will be underlining their continuing commitment to the important role UNFICYP plays in the search for a peaceful solution in Cyprus, a commitment that Canada has already made and continues to make every day that our troops serve the cause of peace on that island.

The Council. will now vote on the draft resolution in document §/22000.. A_vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: _ China, Colombia, Céte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Malaysia, Romania, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yemen, Zaire Against: None Abstaining: Canada

The result of the voting is as follows: 14 yotes in favour, none against and 1 abstention. The draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 680 (1990). I call on the representative of Cyprus. Mr. MAYROMMATIS (Cyprus): I take this opportunity at the outset, Sir, to congratulate you on the assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of December. We are particularly pleased to see the presidency of the Council in the capable hands of the Permanent Representative of a friendly country that symbolizes unity and with which we maintain excellent relations. I would aiso like to express appreciation to your predecessor, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, the Permanent Representative of the United States of America, for the very able and skilful manner in which he steered the work of the Council in November, a very important month in the history of the United Nations. Moreover, I wish to express thanks and appreciation to all the members of the Security Council not only for the unanimous adoption of the resolution renewing for for a further period of six-months the mandate of UNFICYP and that of the Secretary-General’s mission of good offices, as well as for the keen interest in the solution of the Cyprus problem exhibited throughout this year, often in the form of decisions or statements aimed at removing obstacles in the path of dialogue, obstacles that were and are undermining the very basis and even the existence of the talks. We welcome the resolution just adopted and reiterate our pledge of full co-operation with the Secretary-General and with UNFICYP. Once again we wish to express our appreciation and gratitude to the Secretary-General for his indefatigable, constant and consistent efforts to promote a just and viable solution to our problem. His patience and perseverance in the face of obstructions and obstacles, which during the last 15 months have become the order of the day, are admirable. I also extend our thanks to the Force Commander, General Clive Milner, and his officers and men, and to Ambassador Oscar Camilidén, Mr. Virendra Dayal, Mr. Marrack Goulding, Mr. Gustave Feissel and Mr. Giandomenico Picco. The Government of Cyprus has always been preoccupied with the chronic financial problem of UNFICYP, which has persisted in spite of repeated calls by the Secretary-General for contributions and the patience of troop or police-contributing countries, to which we again express our sincere gratitude. This is why Cyprus, although keeping a low profile on the whole issue, cannot but express sympathy with the Canadian initiative and hope for a quick consensus draft resolution, taking into consideration that the presence of UNFICYP is the direct result of the continuation of a serious international problem, as observed by the Secretary-General in his report (S/21981 and Add.1), in recommending to the Security Council the extension of the mandate of the Force. Moreover, the Secretary-General sets out in the report that I have mentioned - paragraph 44 - the conclusions of the Secretariat review team that he dispatched in November to examine the operations and organization of UNFICYP.- It is clear that UNFICYP, while carrying out its mandate in an efficacious manner, is stretched to the Limit. In the light of circumstances prevailing in Cyprus owing to the continuing Turkish occupation. of the areas of the republic of Cyprus, the situation in those areas ~- in particular, the Karpas peninsula - and the plight of those enclaved, it must be underlined that any possible reduction of the Force should not reduce its effectiveness, I take this opportunity to welcome the reopening of the liaison post at Leonarisso, in accordance with the Vienna III Agreement, and urge UNFICYP to assist in applying vigorously this humanitarian agreement, which is being grossly violated. We have no doubt that the Secretary-General, when discussing the implementation of the team's findings and recommendations with the UNFICYP troop contributors, will ensure that the force is enabled to maintain its effective capability, which is so necessary if it is to carry out its mandate. We have reached the end of yet another six-month review period not only without any tangible results at hand but also with the prospects of achieving even the slightest progress towards a negotiated solution to the Cyprus problem rather dim and disheartening. Threats to further colonize Cyprus, continuous obstacles, intransigent Statements, conditions and pre-conditions, untenable claims disputing the agreed basis of the negotiations and, recently, even a provocative yolte-face in respect of the type of solution we have been seeking have not only polluted the negotiating environment but have also cast serious doubts on the bona fides of the other side. The illegal visits of the Prime Minister and, more recently, the Foreign Minister of Turkey to the occupied part of Cyprus, branded by the Turkish Government as "official visits" to the secessionist Turkish Cypriot State, were new and serious provocations, constituting blatant violations of Security Council resolution 541 (1983) and, more notably, of Security Council resolution 550 (1984). These violations do not end with the mere act of the "official visits"; they go much further, with the publicly declared intention contained in the joint declaration and the agreed minutes of the talks held in occupied Cyprus between the Turkish Premier and the "Prime Minister" of the Turkish Cypriot régime. They agreed to pursue "practical measures" to strengthen the illegal Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and to promote it at the international level. As if this were not enough, further serious disregard of the appeals of both the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, who repeatedly called on the parties concerned "to refrain, especially at this sensitive stage, from any action or statement that would aggravate the situation", was evidenced more recently. In a new wave of provocative statements, emanating from the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Denktash, and other members of his partitionist régime, there is an ominous message of hardening intransigence and disappointing retrogression towards untenable positions, which were unequivocally condemned and expressly excluded from the negotiating process by the Secretary-General himself and by Security Council resolution 649 (1990), which was adopted earlier this year. In making such statements, the Turkish side returns to the already-rejected thesis of "two peoples“ and their "separate rights to self-determination" and, still worse, proceeds to new levels of astonishing absurdity in explicitly demanding recognition of a separatist and universally condemned entity as a pre-condition for the resumption of the talks. The situation acquired such alarming proportions that it prompted the President of Cyprus, on 30 November last, to address a letter to the Secretary-General warning that these statements did not augur well for the success of his mission and that the necessary influence should.be exerted to safequard respect for the resolutions of the Security Council and the agreed basis of the talks as a sine qua non for progress. Such statements included the threatened colonization of the fenced area of Varosha - justifying our earlier warning that the purported change of the special status of that area by allegedly handing over control to the illegal régime not only was a prelude to colonization, but also provided Turkey with a false alibi. Prompt action by the Government of Cyprus and the international community again averted colonization, and it was more than heartening to note that the Secretary-General, in paragraph 17 of his report, which is before the Council, stresses that the United Nations considers the Government of Turkey responsible for maintaining the status quo in the fenced area of Varosha. It is obvious, therefore, that the views, positions and actions of the Turkish side are not in conformity with the new spirit of international relations brought about by a sweeping democratization process in Europe and elsewhere and enhanced by the resolve that, after the Gulf crisis, aggression should be dealt with effectively. We the Cypriots, like everybody else, shared with the German people their joy and enthusiasm with regard to the unification of their country, the more because we are fully aware - and very sensitive at that - of what the yearning for unification means, living, as we have done, for the last sixteen and a half years in a country divided by force of arms, The Cyprus question is an international problem of invasion and occupation, whose solution is long overdue. Cyprus cannot remain an anachronism in Europe, being the only European country with a large part of its territory under foreign military occupation, with its citizens denied the exercise of their fundamental freedoms and basic human rights, its demographic structure altered through the massive implantation of imported settlers, and with 1,619 persons missing, persons whose fate has not yet been ascertained despite the fact that many of them were known to be alive in the hands of the occupying Power after the cessation of hostilities in 1974, I could not complete my statement without a further brief reference to recent developments, which, in the case of the continuing tragedy of Cyprus, entail hope for the oppressed Cypriots and a stern warning for the Turkish oppressor. I could begin with Europe - not only the Europe of the Twelve that has, time and again and at all levels, made it abundantly clear that there is no justification for any State to occupy another State, but also the Eurepe of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which, at the Paris summit meeting last month, heard the Secretary-General so aptly refer to the Cyprus problem. What began in 1975 with the Helsinki Final Act as a mere enunciation and elaboration of the Decalogue of Principles that should govern international relations in Europe has developed into practical measures and mechanisms that ensure the translation into action of all that has been agreed to date. Therefore, the days when Turkish accountability for violations of principles and for its continued presence in Cyprus was hedged by the East-West confrontation are gone, and account they shall in Europe - sooner than they think. I now turn to the grave situation in the Persian Gulf, created by the occupation of Kuwait by Iraq. Turkey is toeing the line of the international community, complying with measures taken and hypocritically applauding both the resolve of nations and the resolutions of the Security Council, knowing well that the same yardstick, the same considerations and the same principles as underlie the resolutions on Kuwait are equally applicable to other problems, and particularly to Cyprus. The Gulf crisis shall end in the not-so-distant future, and this Council will have to take up these other problems, including Cyprus, with the same vigour, with the same resolve, and shall apply - let there be no doubt about it - the very same principles. The President of Cyprus, by his letter to the Secretary—General, has already invited the Security Council to play a more active role in the quest for a solution to the Cyprus problem by promoting the implementation of its own relevant resolutions. Therefore, the days of the Turkish occupation of Cypriot soil must be numbered. If the Turkish side entertained any doubts, a mere reading of the record of the historic meeting of the Security Council on 29 November last, under the presidency of the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Baker, should dispel them. Permit me to end by quoting a passage from Mr. Baker's statement at that meeting: “With the cold war behind us, we now have the chance to build the world which was envisioned by the founders of this Organization ~- by the founders of the United Nations. We have the chance to make this Security Council and this United Nations true instruments for peace and for justice across the globe. We must not let the United Nations go the way of the League of Nations. We must fulfil our common vision of a peaceful and just post-cold-war world." (S/PV.2963, vp. 6)

I thank the representative of Cyprus for his kind words addressed to me. I call on the representative of Greece. Mr. EXARCHOS (Greece): It gives me great pleasure to offer you, Sir, my sincere congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of December. I wish to assure you of our total confidence that you will discharge with success the important duties vested in that high office. I take this opportunity also to extend sincere and warm congratulations to your predecessor in the chair, the representative of the United States of America, Ambassador Thomas Pickering, for the skill and leadership he displayed in the exercise of his duties last month. I cannot fail to express my Government's sincere thanks and appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, for his perseverance and dedication in the face of difficult obstacles he encounters as he carries out his mission of good offices. Our thanks also go to the Secretary-General's Special Representative in Cyprus, Mr. Camilién, and to Mr. Feissel, Director in the Office of the Secretary-General, for their invaluable contribution to the ongoing negotiating process. I wish also to express appreciation to Force Commander Clive Milner for the manner in which he has been carrying out his delicate mission, and to the Force's military and civilian personnel for the devotion they have demonstrated in the performance of their duties. The Greek Government has concurred in the extension of the stationing in Cyprus of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for another six months, as decided by the Security Council, having taken note of the agreement (Mr. Exarchos, Greece) to that effect of the Government of Cyprus, exercising its exclusive and sovereign right with respect to this matter. My Government aiso considers that, in view of the prevailing conditions in Cyprus, there should be a renewal of the mandate of UNFICYP, which continues to play - and we share the Secretary-General's opinion on this ~ an indispensable role, As we all know, the peace-keeping force is performing a wide range of tasks, and there have been cases in which it has faced difficult or delicate situations. This give me the opportunity to express, on behalf of my Government, sincere appreciation to the Governments of the troop-contributing countries for their continuing commitment to the cause of peace in Cyprus and for having undertaken a heavy financial burden, without which the very existence of UNFICYP would be at stake. That is why I would like to express, on behalf of my Government, the hope that next week the Council will be able to adopt a resolution which would resolve the chronic financial crisis facing UNFICYP by changing its method of financing from voluntary to assessed contributions, as is the case with all other United Nations peace-keeping operations. Allow me to reiterate at this point my Government's pledge to maintain the level of its total contribution at the present voluntary amount of $800,000 per annum, even if a new system were to bring its assessed contribution down to a lower level. Regarding the conclusions of the Secretariat review team concerning the operations and organization of UNFICYP mentioned in paragraph 44 of the Secretary-General‘s report (5/21981), dated 7 December, allow me to express my Government's concern that the proposed reduction of infantry battalions from four to three should in no way reduce the effectiveness of the Force. We would, (Mr. Exarchos, Greece) therefore, ask for"the Secretary-General's aSsurance in this respect before any relevant decision is adopted. We have been witnessing historic events in the world during the last two years, events that ‘have also contributed, as we have witnessed in’ recent months, to the strengthening of the effectiveness of the Council. However, this new effectiveness of the Council has not yet had any results on the resolution of the Cyprus problem. Sixteen years after Turkey invaded Cyprus, the relevant United Nations resolutions have yet to be implemented, and, consequently, the occupying forces continue to control more than one-third of the territory of the Republic 6f Cyprus. It is therefore indispensable that the Council assume a more active role in the search for a solution to this problem and towards contributing more effectively to the Secretary-General's ongoing efforts. Nine months have passed since the Council unanimously adopted resolution 649 (1990), after witnessing the complete collapse of the Secretary-General's efforts to breathe new life into the intercommunal talks last March. The reasons for the failure of those talks are well known and are clearly set out in the Secretary-General's report of 8 March 1990. In this document (S/21183), it is stated that Mr. Denktash's insistence that the term "communities" be used in a manner that is synonymous with the term "peoples", each having a separate right to “self-determination", created an impasse of a substantive kind, which raised questions regarding the essence of the Secretary-General's mandate of good offices, The Security Council, to which the Secretary-General turned for guidance, rejected, and rightly so, this attempt to change the basis of the talks: it did so’ by means of its resolution 649 (1990), which, inter alia, formally excluded any form of partition or secession in the case of Cyprus. Nine months after this resolution was adopted, the impasse still persists, and may indeed have deteriorated, owing, again, to Mr. Denktash's unwillingness to renounce his intransigent views and because of various provocative actions by the Turkish authorities. a Thus, last July, as is mentioned in paragraph 17 of the Secretary~-General's report, the Turkish occupation forces handed over control of Varosha, the new town of Famagusta, to the so-called "Turkish-Cypriot Security Forces", a development which could lead to the eventual settlement of the area by people other than its inhabitants. This action compelled the President of the Security Council, in his statement of July 19 (S/21400) to express the concern of the members of the Council over any action which contravenes paragraph 5 of resolution 550 (1984). This paragraph clearly states that the Security Council "Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and‘calls for the transfer of that area to the administration of the United Nations”. In total disregard of the aforementioned statement of the President of the Security Council and of paragraphs 5 of resolutions 550 (1984) and 649 (1990), Mr. Denktash, in an interview he gave on 28 November, stated that he planned to settle 350 Palestinian students in the city of Varosha, and added that the closure of the city had been a mistake, that it was now in ruins because it had been left uninhabited. Turkey also signed a so-called agreement with the pseudo~State providing for the abolition of passport requirements and for a customs union between Turkey and those parts of the Republic of Cyprus still occupied by Turkish military forces, Apart from the obvious disregard for the relevant resolutions, resolutions (541 (1983), 550 (1984) and even 649 (1990), this so-called agreement clearly contravenes the provisions of the association agreement between the European Economic Community (EEC) and Cyprus, as well as the one between the EEC and Turkey. These actions by Turkey, as well as the recent threats by Mr. Denktash and his partitionist administration to colonize Varosha, do not contribute at all to a successful outcome of the Secretary-General's current efforte. On the contrary, they undermine the agreed basis of the intercommunal negotiations, thus jeopardizing the efforts of the Secretary-General and further aggravating the already grave situation in Cyprus.

I thank the representative of Greece for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is Mr. Ozer Koray, to whom the Council has extended an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement. Mr. KORAY: Mr. President, I should like to thank you and, through you, the other members of the Security Council for giving me this opportunity to address the Council on the subject of the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for a further period of six months. I should also like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of December. I am confident that your weli-known diplomatic experience will be invaluable in quiding the deliberations of this body to constructive results. My congratulations go also to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of the United States, for the skilful manner in which he conducted the Council's work during the exceptionally busy month of November. The Security Council remains seized of the situation in Cyprus and of the efforts of the Secretary-General in pursuit of his mission of good offices. I shall therefore refrain from going into the details of all the developments which have taken place since the high-level meeting in New York in February and March 1990, which, unfortunately, failed to produce a favourable outcome owing to the refusal of the Greek Cypriot leader to discuss our proposals and suggestions for a comprehensive settlement and his outright rejection of even the most basic guiding principles of equality, bizonality and true partnership based on friendly relations and mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and integrity. I shall, however, touch upon three important issues which continue to threaten the delicate situation in Cyprus in the most profound way. First, the prospects for a negotiated settlement were dealt a major setback by the unilateral Greek Cypriot application for membership of the European Community. We had warned in advance that any one-sided step that would fundamentally alter the future of Cyprus without reference to the Turkish Cypriot side would be considered a rejection of any kind of partnership with us and would therefore deal a serious blow to the negotiations. It will also be recalled that the Secretary-General had issued a statement in this regard saying that application for membership of the European Community was among the issues to be discussed, within the context of an overall agreement, between the two leaders. For having made that statement, the Secretary-General was accused by those in some Greek Cypriot quarters of overstepping his powers. I should like to underscore our firm stance in this matter. The Turkish Cypriot side will not allow any encroachment on its sovereignty, or the negation of its equal political status. While the Greek Cypriot side is vigorously denying the Turkish Cypriot people the exercise of its inalienable right freely to determine its future, it has the audacity to submit an application for the whole of Cyprus. It purports to represent the will of both peoples, under the pretentious and illegal title of Republic of Cyprus, when it is nothing more than a Greek Cypriot State representing the Greek Cypriot people only. This hypocrisy distorts all the existing realities and cripples the principles which form the basis of the negotiations on a genuine partnership. The title role which the Greek Cypriots have assumed cannot make them the owners of the island as a whole. Having said that, I should like to express the hope that, in line with the call made by the Secretary-General in his statement of 11 September 1990, the European Commission will refrain from taking any action on the one-sided application of the Greek (Mr. Koray) Cypriots pending an overall agreement, to be negotiated by the two sides, which should cover all aspects of the issue. Secondly, there is the issue of the economic and other restrictions imposed on northern Cyprus. The war of attrition waged against the Turkish Cypriot people by the Greek Cypriot administration over the last 27 years has had devastating effects on the prospects of rapprochement between the two peoples, The longstanding Greek Cypriot antagonism against the Turkish Cypriots is manifested in the perpetuation of an all-out embargo in the economic, social, cultural and other fields. The most recent example of this ugly policy was the illegal arrest of a Danish captain by the Greek Cypriot police at Larnaca port on the grounds that his vessel had previously called at one of the Turkish Cypriot ports. There have been many other cases of such illegal arrests and arbitrary sentencing of foreigners in the south over the last 15 years. The harassment of foreign tourists bearing in their passports Turkish Cypriot entry stamps also continues to be daily routine in south Cyprus. Paragraph 15 of the Secretary-General's latest report (8/21981 and Add.1) provides another example of the Greek Cypriot side closing the Ledra Palace border checkpoint to bar tourists from crossing over to the north from the south. The world is being punished unjustly by an illegitimate régime, through an array of capricious measures, for having any kind of dealings with northern Cyprus. Such measures go a long way, even to the extent of the Greek Cypriots punishing their own citizens for attempting to engage in commerce with the Turkish Cypriots, In the village of Pile, which is the only mixed village situated on the buffer zone between south and north Cyprus, the inhabitants have been under a virtual siege for the past two years. In paragraph 32 of the Secretary-General's report the Greek Cypriot police are clearly pinpointed as the culprits in Pile. The Greek Cypriot police have prevented freedom of movement by setting up road-blocks and effectively intercepting and arresting anyone found in possession of goods purchased from the Turkish Cypriots. Several weeks ago, for instance, a Greek Cypriot was arrested for the serious crime of buying snails from a Turkish Cypriot. The Greek Cypriot daily Fileleftheros of 27 November reported that a total of 316 arrests, detentions and interceptions took place in 1989 alone. It is pertinent to note that while the Greek Cypriot administration pays lip service to establishing closer relations between the two peoples, actually all their efforts are directed towards a complete blockade and oppression of the Turkish Cypriot people. Thirdly, the frantic rearmament efforts of the Greek Cypriot side are not conducive to peace, but are a constant source of tension in the island. This rearmament is totally inconsistent with the spirit of negotiations and is a most serious violation of paragraph 5 of resolution 649 (1990). Mr. Vassiliou has accumulated a significant arsenal of sophisticated weapons and equipment by spending around $1 million per day on military purchases. That magnitude of expenditure, by the admission of none other than the Greek Cypriot Defence Minister, Mr. Aloneftis, is, proportionately, one of the highest in the world. Coupled with the conscription of women and the measures taken towards enabling complete mobilization, the Vassiliou administration seems to be bent on resort to armed violence. (Mr. Koray) The oft-repeated warmongering rhetoric of the Greek Cypriot Defence Minister continues to make headlines in Greek Cypriot newspapers. "Mentally, and from the point of view of its behaviour, the Greek Cypriot community is already in a state of war. Suffice it to say at this stage that we are closely monitoring the developments. The Secretary-General has also been kept informed of this festering situation. We should have liked to see included in the Secretary-General's latest report a clearer cali upon the Greek Cypriot side to desist from such an arming frenzy. With regard to the clumsy and unwarranted attempts by the Greek Cypriot leadership which purport to draw parallels between the situations in Kuwait and Cyprus, I shouid like to draw the attention of the Council to an article written by the Editor-in-Chief of the Greek Cypriot daily Fileleftheros, Mr. Stavros Angelides. Mr. Angelides writes: "Iraq openly occupied Kuwait, but Turkey arrived in Cyprus because of the upset constitutional order in the island. We [the Greek Cypriots] are responsible for this." Mr. Angelides then goes on to explain how the constitutional order in Cyprus was destroyed in accordance with the notorious Akritas plan, and with the concurrence of all Greek Cypriot leaders at the time. He reminds his readers of the 1974 coup d'état and the invasion of Cyprus by Greece, culminating in the violent efforts to achieve the forcible annexation of the island to Greece, before the legal intervention of Turkey took place as a necessary move to protect the Turkish Cypriots and the independence of the island. Mr. Angelides concludes with the following observation: “With the passage of time, we forget, or ignore deliberately, the past events which have created the present realities in Cyprus. In the course of time, we forget our mistakes and call on others to observe justice in the same way that we ourselves understand it. We make generalizations about the UN resolutions and only refer to those suiting our own interest." As a footnote, let me add that Mr. Angelides is referring here, of course,, to the rejection of Security Council resolution 649 (1990) by the Greek Cypriot side. But if there is in fact a similarity between the situations in Kuwait and in Cyprus, the similarity could only stem from the fact that in 1974, Greece was playing Iraq's role in the present Gulf crisis and Turkey was assuming a position equivalent to what the whole world is trying to achieve today - that is to say, to repel aggression and to reverse the annexation of Kuwait. In this connection, I should also like to quote from the letter addressed by the British Foreign Office to a number of Greek Cypriot organizations in which it attempted to draw a comparison between Kuwait and Cyprus. The letter states: "Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was an unprovoked attack on its neighbour leading to proclaimed annexation of the whole State. The Turkish military intervention in Cyprus was preceded by the military coup ... intended to bring about a declaration of the union of Cyprus and Greece." The Greek Cypriot side often complains that, while a number of regional disputes are being resolved all around the world, the Cyprus question still remains unsettled. It tends to forget, however, that in all disputes which have been peacefully settled there exists a common denominator: the two sides to the issue accept each other as equals in all respects and there is mutual recognition of and respect for each other's sovereign rights, That common denominator does not exist in Cyprus and its absence is precisely the reason for the prolongation of the issue. (Mr. Koray) Today we rejoice at the unification of Germany and of Yemen and are heartened by the improved relations between North and South Korea and by the prospects of the reconciliation of the Korean people. Let us ask ourselves how it was possible for these countries to transform their relations, characterized by many years of conflict and tension, into genuine co-operation and partnership at an astounding pace, The answer is simple. Each of the peoples that who were forcibly separated into two states along ideological and/or artificial lines was part of the same nation. In Cyprus, however, there exist two separate peoples that have no common ethnic, linguistic, cultural or religious bonds. The emergence of two states in Cyprus is the direct result of the violent struggle of one people to dominate the other by force of arms. In consequence, the two peoples have been living independently of each other for the last 27 years. In the case of Germany and Yemen, unification talks began oniy after the relations between the respective sides had been normalized through recognition of and mutual respect for each other's sovereignty and independence. The Greek Cypriots should draw lessons from these historic developments and adopt the policy of rapprochement towards Northern Cyprus, with a view to facilitating a relationship based on mutual agreement and co-operation on the way to a federation in the future. In the absence of a new and realistic pattern of relationship between the two states in Cyprus, I fear that the prospect for a federal settlement will remain bleak. The question of missing persons in Cyprus ~ which the Greek Cypriots insist on exploiting for political propaganda purposes - has cropped up yet again before this body as well as before Main Committees of the General Assembly. The Turkish Cypriot side sees no useful purpose in the protraction of this humanitarian issue, which has been the subject of an ill-motivated campaign for much longer than the relatives of the missing persons can tolerate. The first priority should now be given to removing the grievances of the relatives of missing persons by putting an end to the flow of deceitful statements pertaining to this issue. The best course of action, as proposed by President Denktash, would be the issuance of a joint statement by the leaders of the two peoples acknowledging in good faith that all missing persons have to be presumed dead since no evidence exists to the contrary and since even Mr. Vassiliou admitted, in Amsterdam last July, that all the missing persons are dead. I wish to reiterate this call on the Greek Cypriot leadership, as it is the only realistic approach in this regard. I should also like to touch upon a matter which has been exploited by the Greek Cypriot side - namely, the status of Varosha. In view of the artificial : storm created by the disinformation campaign on the subject, I should like to restate the Turkish Cypriot position on Varosha which I explained three years ago, on 14 December 1987, at a meeting of the Security Council: “At the outset, let me restate and make it perfectly clear ... that Varosha is part and parcel of the territory of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The status of Varosha is not different from that of any other area of our Republic. It is only the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus that has full and exclusive jurisdiction and sovereignty over Varosha. And I should also remind the Greek Cypriot side and others that causing false confusion over irrelevant matters will not warrant any alteration in the status of Varosha." (S/PV.2771, p. 43) The position of the Turkish Cypriot side on this matter remains unchanged.: We reject once again all Greek Cypriot claims over Varosha as untenable and highly provocative. A few weeks from now, I shall be handing over my duties as the representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. During the six years that I have served my country at the United Nations, some of the developments shaping the negotiations between the two sides in Cyprus, under the auspices of the Secretary-General, have been significant, and it is worth while recalling them now. Six years ago, when I assumed this post, the whole world was closely watching the hopeful developments which led to the summit meeting between President Denktash and Mr. Kyprianon in January 1985. The Turkish Cypriot side had concurred in a United Nations draft joint high-level agreement and had agreed to the convening of the summit meeting to sign it, only to discover that Mr. Kyprianov was to back off at the last minute, rejecting everything that was presented to the two sides. At the time, everybody except the Greek Cypriot leaders expressed disappointment over the loss of a historic opportunity for reaching a final settlement, The Secretary-General then continued his contacts with the two sides and, after months of arduous work, the draft framework agreement of 29 March 1968 was presented to the two sides for approval. The Turkish Cypriot side accepted the draft in toto, but Mr. Kyprianou, once again, dashed all hopes for a settlement by rejecting the document. Mr. Kyprianou's intransigence was compounded by his campaign in international forums to vilify and further isolate the people of North Cyprus, The results of the 1988 elections in South Cyprus brought about a change in the leadership of the Greek Cypriot administration, The glimmer of hope which emerged with the elimination of Mr. Kyprianou was soon to fade away when it became apparent that there was no change in the Greek Cypriot mentality vis-a-vis the Cyprus issue. Fresh rounds of talks which were initiated between the two sides under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary-General produced no positive results as the new Greek Cypriot leader refused to acknowledge the political equality, the partnership rights and the right to self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot people. At this critical juncture it is regrettable that, after all these years, countries are still refraining from according equal treatment to the two States in Cyprus. ‘This is certainly not helping the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices. The sooner the community of nations begin to grant this equal treatment to the two sides, the better will be the chances of an early settlement. Our endeavours to promote a peaceful settlement can be successful only if there is an even-handed approach that will promote reconciliation and settlement in the island. Otherwise, the Greek Cypriot side will continue to wreck the efforts in this direction by setting pre-conditions, no matter who is heading the Greek Cypriot administration. Turning now to the question of the extension of the mandate of UNFICYP, I would like to restate that the resolution which has just been adopted by the Security Council is unacceptable to the Turkish Cypriot side for the reasons that were outlined in previous Security Council debates on this matter. Any resolution which refers to the Greek Cypriot administration as the “Government of Cyprus" is unacceptable to the Turkish Cypriot side because such resolutions ignore the existing realities in Cyprus and attempt to negate the principle of equality between the two sides. Notwithstanding its unavoidable rejection of the present resolution, the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is nevertheless favourably disposed to accept the presence of UNFICYP on the territory of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, on the same basis as that stated in June 1990. Thus, our position continues to be that the principle, the scope, the modalities and procedures of co-operation between the authorities of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and UNFICYP shail be based only on decisions which shall be taken solely by the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. In this connection, I would like to point out that the present mandate of UNFICYP is not compatible with the radically changed conditions and circumstances of today. In the light of the present realities in Cyprus, and the new approach spelt out in Security Council resolution 649 (1990), we believe that a reappraisal of UNFICYP's mandate is necessary. This would not only be in response to prevailing circumstances but also in keeping with the decision to reach a settlement that would be based on the equality of the two parties. I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his untiring efforts and to renew my Government's support for the mission of good offices of the United Nations Secretary-General entrusted te him by the Security Council. I would also like to reiterate my Government's readiness to co-operate with the Secretary-General in accordance with Security Council resolution 649 (1990). The Turkish Cypriot side considers this resolution a step in the right direction which could constitute a fresh starting-point for future negotiations on an equal footing. The Council's resolution has set out important ground rules for the process of negotiations and the conduct of relations between the two sides in Cyprus by confirming the legal and political equality of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. In keeping with resolution 649 (1990), we urge the Greek Cypriots to return to the negotiating table in order to reach freely a mutually acceptable settlement that would be a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation as stipulated by that resolution. Finally, we commend the efforts and invaluable contributions of the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General in Cyprus, Mr. Oscar Camilién, and of Director Gustave Feissel. We also commend Under-Secretary-General Marrack Goulding and the Force Commander, Major General Clive Milner, for their successful guidance of UNFICYP.

I thank Mr. Koray for the kind words he addressed to me. I now call on the representative of Turkey. Mr. AKSIN (Turkey): I wish to extend to you my warm congratulations on your assumption of the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of December. Your long experience in the United Nations and your well-known diplomatic skill will help bring success to the work of the Council during this month, | I would also like to pay a tribute to your distinguished predecessor, Ambassador Pickering, for the effective manner in which he conducted the work of the Council as President, at a time when fateful decisions were being taken by the Council. The resolution which has just been adopted, extending the mandate of UNFICYP for another six months, cannot be accepted by my Government for reasons well known to the Council. Our position is in full agreement with the position of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, as explained by its representative, Mr. Koray. The reference made in the resolution to the "Government of Cyprus" is incorrect, because at present, there is no Government of Cyprus. The Government in the southern part of the island, which has appropriated that title, represents only the Greek Cypriot community. The resolution fails to acknowledge the existence in the northern part of the island, since 1983, of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This State was established by the Turkish Cypriot people because no people can remain stateless indefinitely. At present, the Turkish Cypriots are negotiating with the Greek Cypriots for the purpose of establishing a federation with them. The basis for these negotiations and the nature of the federation to be formed is described in resolution 649 (1990). In this resolution, the Security Council calls upon the two sides, inter alia, to co-operate, on an equal footing, with the Secretary-General, to reach the sought objective, Given that the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots are to negotiate and to decide on the nature of their future political partnership, it is logically impossible, before the conclusion of the negotiations, to make any reference to a single government of Cyprus representing all the inhabitants of the island. The truth of the matter is that there are two administrations in Cyprus, each representing exclusively its own community. It is high time to introduce the concept of the full political equality of the two communities in Cyprus into all the resolutions of the United Nations, including those dealing with the mandate of UNFICYP, My Government would have liked to see this properly reflected in the resolution adopted today. Turkey supports the political equality of the. Turkish Cypriot people and its right to determine its own future. Turkey will continue to help protect the legitimate rights and the freedom of the Turkish Cypriots and will not allow their security to become endangered. Turkey stands for a comprehensive and lasting settlement in Cyprus. We believe that this can only be achieved through negotiations between the two peoples of the island within the framework of the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General. Security Council resolution 649 (1990) has identified the principles and concepts on which a settlement will be based. This resolution has also provided the methods to be followed for reaching a settlement. We are gratified to know that the Turkish Cypriot leadership supports resolution 649 (1990). My Government also supports this resolution and appeals to the other parties concerned to give it their unequivocal support. In particular, we would like to draw attention to operative paragraph 5 of the resolution, which calls on the parties to refrain from action that could aggravate the situation. Developments following the last meeting of the Council on the question of Cyprus have not been encouraging. The Greek Cypriot side, with no regard for the good offices mission of the Secretary-General, and in defiance of all appeals not. to aggravate the situation, continued its campaign to vilify and isolate the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and stepped up its attempts to internationalize the Cyprus issue. The Greek Cypriot action of applying for membership of the European Community, in total disregard of the Turkish Cypriots, can be cited as a complete rejection of the principles governing the negotiations within the framework of resolution 649 (1990). The action of the Greek Cypriots in applying for European Community membership for Cyprus without reference to the Turkish Cypriots is a denial of the principles of partnership and political equality. Without these principles, a federation is inconceivable. The Greek Cypriot rearmament effort is incompatible with the current efforts to create an atmosphere of trust and good will in Cyprus. It also violates paragraph 5 of resolution 649 (1990) by seriously aggravating the already tense situation on the island. It is a strange paradox that, while the Greek Cypriots continue their hostile activities directed-at the Turkish Cypriots, they have also been calling for unilateral gestures of good will from the Turkish side. These gestures have been demanded as a pre-condition for resuming the negotiations. Another Greek Cypriot pre-condition for resuming the negotiations is that the Turkish Cypricts must renounce some of their basic rights, including their right to self-determination. Such hard-line policies do nothing to further the prospects for an early resumption of the talks, nor is Greece being helpful in breaking out of the present deadlock. On the contrary, Athens is encouraging the Greek Cypriots in their intransigent stance. Earlier this week the spokesman for the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed the concern of Turkey over the statements made by Prime Minister Mitsotakis and Mr. Vasiliou at their joint press conference in Athens. The spokesman for the Ministry said that it would be good for Greece to stop hedging, declare its support for resolution 649 (1990) and encourage the Greek Cypriots to carry out their responsibilities in accordance with this resolution, The spokesman also said that Greece should stop its provocative claims that Cyprus is a Greek island, declare that it has given up its quest for enosis and that it regards Cyprus as the common home of the two equal communities living there. The spokesman added: "that none of this was done is disappointing, and from the point of view of the efforts of the Secretary-General, disturbing”. A settlement in Cyprus requires of both parties good intentions, fairness, respect for the principle of equality and, above all, the will to overcome differences. We sincerely hope that the Greek Cypriots will be able to bring themselves to adopt such a frame of mind so as to achieve the desired end. They should heed the appeals of the Secretary-General and seek the path of reconciliation and enter into negotiations in good faith. Before I conclude my statement I would like to quote from a speech delivered by the President of my country, Mr. Turgut Ozal, on the occasion of the awarding by the University of Izmir in Turkey of an honorary doctorate to Mr. Andreas Politakis, a Greek intellectual dedicated to the cause of friendship between Turkey and Greece. In this speech President Ozal referred to differences between Greece and Turkey and to the need to settle those differences through dialogue. He also referred to closer co-operation between the two countries and to the need to avoid creating new problems and working against the interests of one another. After this, President Ozal said, “Obviously, we cannot ignore the significant changes taking place in our region and throughout the world when we look at the future of our relations. “I am convinced that these changes and the new conditions taking shape in our region will bring us closer to one another and lead us into adopting new positions by discarding the obsessions of the past. "I would also like to underline the following point. “The Turkish and Greek nations have extensions beyond their own countries. Obviously I am referring here to Cyprus. We are keen to see the two peoples of the island breaking away from today's atmosphere of political conflict and moving in the direction of a new constructive relationship. As one of the three Guarantor Powers, Turkey is ready to do what it can to help. We wish to see Greece taking a similar approach. We believe that the two mother countries should encourage moderate, just and realistic policies so that a new relationship between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots can emerge. It is essential not to repeat past mistakes. The two sides in the island should try to come to terms with one another as equals and they should put an end to all activities that are incompatible with this goal. We cannot believe that the road to a settlement passes through rearmament, embargoes or the exploitation of the question at the international level, A settlement has to be sought through the establishment of a constructive relationship between the two sides,” I would like to recall once again that my Government will continue to give its full support to the Secretary-General in carrying out his mission of good offices. My Government will continue to co-operate with the Secretary-General to secure an early resumption of the intercommunal talks. Finally, my Government will also continue to support the Turkish Cypriots in their efforts to secure the resumption of the intercommunal talks without pre-conditions. I would not like toe conclude without expressing our gratitude to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Oscar Camilidén, for his patient efforts; to Major-General Clive Milner, Commander of UNFICYP, for his dedicated services; and to Director Gustave Feissel for his hard work. They have all contributed significantly to the pursuit of the mission of the Secretary-General. Of course, our deepest debt of gratitude goes to the Secretary-General himself for his total commitment to a fair and lasting solution in Cyprus. We wish him success in his delicate task and promise him our full support once again, I had intended to end my statement at this point, but some of the allegations made by the speakers who have preceded me require me to address these points very briefly. There was a reference to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) and the Helsinki Final Act with the implication that European principles are being viclated in Cyprus today. How strange that it should be the Greek Cypriots who raise this point. Do they really think that the world has forgotten that for 11 grim years they violated every human right of the Turkish Cypriots? Do they think that their systematic efforts to destroy the Turkish Cypriots politically, economically and, yes, even physically have been forgotten? The authors of the carnage that went on from 1963 to 1974 in Cyprus are the last people to pose as defenders of human rights and lecture others about respect for European standards, We also heard references to foreign occupation in Cyprus. Need I remind the Council that there is a full regiment from mainland Greece in southern Cyprus? That, in addition, there is a massive presence of officers and personnel from the Greek Army in the so-called Cypriot National Guard? And that even the commander of the force is an officer from mainland Greece? Are these not foreign troops or has enosis taken place already without our being aware of it? There was also an attempt to cast doubts on the Turkish Cypriot State. This has been done before, and I have had to respond before. I am sorry for sounding repetitive, but I must refer to a previous statement of mine when f said that “the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has all the attributes of a State, including population, territory and sovereignty. It has all the institutions that a properly constituted State should have. Furthermore, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a country of laws. It is democratic and pluralistic and is an open society. Its citizens enjoy all human rights and freedoms. In the recent past these citizens have fought repeatedly to preserve their freedom and dignity against the racist onslaughts of the Greek side. They have succeeded against all odds in creating a model State. Turkey is proud to recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as an independent State - because that is what it is." (2898th meeting, p. 41)

I call on the representative of Cyprus. Mr. MAVROMMATIS (Cyprus): I will begin with Turkey's rejection of the resolution just adopted. I only want to remark that Turkey is now in very good company - Iraq has aiso been rejecting resolutions of the Security Council. It is a law unto itself. But why should we be surprised? The very last words that we heard from the representative of Turkey again run counter to resolutions of the Council - resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), which deals directly with the exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the pseudo-State that Turkey now alleges has all the attributes of a State. There is a small difference between Turkey and Iraq. Turkey is the more moderate: it did not occupy the whole of Cyprus; it only occupied 40 per cent of it, whereas Iraq occupied the whole of Kuwait. But they are alike because neither of them recognizes the Government of the other country. Now, on rearmament, which was mentioned again, I am not going to speak again of the defensive nature of the armed forces of the Republic of Cyprus and the offensive nature of Turkey's own armed forces. I am not even going to repeat that Turkey boasts the second largest army in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, an army that numbers more than the total population of Cyprus. I am going to tell the representative of Turkey something else. The Minister of Defence is quite prepared to accept verification by the United Nations. Are they - and I am not talking about Turkey but its forces in Cyprus - prepared to accept verification? Let them come out and tell us about it. Secondly, as regards our obligation to the European Community, one would not have expected Turkey to respect the sovereign equality of States - namely, Turkey and Cyprus - but it should have respected the decision of the Council of Ministers of the Community, the very Community to which it has applied to join. A reply to what it said was given by the Council of Ministers of the European Community. We hear so much about Security Council resolution 649 (1990) that I am forced not only to remind the representative of Turkey of the raison d'étre of that resolution but to reread its most important paragraph, paragraph 1, which “Reaffirms in particular its resolution 367 (1975) as well as its support for the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements between the leaders of the two communities in which they pledged themselves to establish a bi-communal Federal Republic of Cyprus that will safeguard its independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-alignment, and exclude union in whole or in part with any other country and any form of partition or secession". If this is not yet more disregard for a mandatory Security Council resolution, I do not know what it is. Concerning violations of human rights, we said earlier that when any country or individual speaks about human rights, Turkey should keep silent. Everybody knows the record of that country, beginning with genocide, and the three successive findings of one of the most respected human rights bodies, the European Commission on Human Rights, to which Turkey belongs, about violations of every right in the book, from murder to rape. Where is there reference to violations of human rights by the Greek Cypriots? To put it in a nutshell, all this denotes that there is no serious intention either to abandon the present stance or to negotiate for a solution based on principles.

I call on the representative of Greece. Mr. EXARCHOS (Greece): Frankly, I regret taking up the Council's time, but since the representative of Turkey has referred directly to Greece by invoking Security Council resolution 649 (1990), may I in turn remind him that the same resolution also reaffirms all previous United Nations resolutions on Cyprus and reiterates in its first operative paragraph the exclusion of union in whole or in part with any other country and any form of partition or seccession, thus reiterating and reaffirming Security Council resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984), which declare the Turkish Cypriot unilateral declaration of independence illegal and call for its withdrawal. If Turkey were fully to implement resolution 649 (1990), it would enormously facilitate the ongoing efforts of the Secretary-General to find a solution to the Cyprus problem within the framework of his mission of good offices. And I would like to add that the Secretary-General's last report on his mission of good offices in Cyprus, of 7 November 1990, mentions that the discussion that his colleagues had had since mid-October in Nicosia could not be completed before the preparation of that report nor was it possible to cover all the hearings during those talks. His next report on the current efforts will be submitted by 15 February next year. We indeed hope that the existing stalemate will have been broken by then, and that substantial progress will have been achieved. That can only happen if Turkey accepts to go along with an agreed solution to the problem of Cyprus by peaceful means within the framework of the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General in keeping with the rules governing United Nations bodies. Greece, for its part, wiil continue to give its full support, in close co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, to the Secretary-General's ongoing mission of good offices,

I call on the representative of Turkey. Mr. AKSIN (Turkey): I am not going to prolong this debate by attempting to answer some of the allegations coming from the Greek Cypriot side. But, with reference to my colleague from Greece, I would like to ask him to remember that the question of Cyprus is going to be settled by the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, not by Greece or by Turkey. We can only be helpful, and we can encourage. We are not participants; we are not even direct parties to the conflict. I just wanted to remind him of that.

There are no further speakers on my list. The meeting rose at 5.30 p.m.