S/PV.6239 Security Council

There were 14 votes in favour and one against. The draft resolution has been adopted as resolution 1898 (2009). I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements after the voting.

Having voted against today’s resolution, I would like briefly to share with the Council the reasons that compelled us to do so. Turkey has never objected to the intention behind the establishment of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) back in 1964, which was to protect Turkish Cypriots. Our objections have always been to the method through which resolutions such as today’s have been adopted and the language they contain. Resolution 186 (1964), which set up the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, and subsequent resolutions extending the mandate of the Force have all made references to the Government of Cyprus. As all members know, the partnership State established by the 1959 London and Zurich Agreements in the shape of the Republic of Cyprus and the Government of Cyprus, collapsed in 1963, when Turkish Cypriots were expelled from all State institutions, including the Government. Since that day, there has not been a joint constitutional Government representing all of Cyprus, either legally or functionally, and the two peoples have been living separately under their own administrations. Actually, this wrong approach of considering the Government of Cyprus as the Government of the whole island has been the main obstacle in the way to finding a just, lasting and comprehensive solution for over 45 years. The spirit of goodwill and cooperation displayed by the Turkish Cypriot side, which enabled UNFICYP to function in the northern part of the island in accordance with the modalities set by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, does not change the fact that the open consent of the two sides has to be sought for the extension of the mandate of UNFICYP. However, today’s resolution once again fails to do so. In line with the provisions on contingency planning in resolution 1873 (2009) and the intention to keep all peacekeeping operations, including UNFICYP, under review, the Secretary-General says in his report (S/2009/609) that the two sides will decide what role UNFICYP will play in the future. If the Turkish Cypriot side has a say in the future of UNFICYP, why is its consent not sought today? That looks like a paradox. The resolution adopted today also contained elements dealing with the good offices mission of the Secretary-General but unfortunately fails to make any reference to resolution 1250 (1999), which lies at the source of this mission. Turkey fully supports the Secretary-General’s good offices mission. We welcome the solid progress achieved so far in the negotiations, which aim at establishing a partnership State on the basis of well-established United Nations parameters, namely bi-zonality, political equality and equal status of two co-founder peoples. As the two leaders agreed on 23 May 2008, this new partnership will have a federal Government and two constituent States with equal status. In that regard, we would like to put on record our full support to the efforts of the Special Adviser of the Secretary-General, Mr. Alexander Downer, and his team.

The Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.