With only a few months left of my 10-year tenure in office, I stand before members to address the plenary session of the General Assembly for the very last time. I would have wished nothing more than for this address to have been a reflection of positive developments in what humankind has had to face or is facing. Like all of those here, I would have liked to have applauded the results of the implementation either of the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations or of the decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
That would have ensured that any threat or attempt to call into question the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any United Nations State Member would have been brought to a complete halt or minimized; that long-standing conflicts and disputes would have been resolved or would be in the process of being resolved in accordance with the decisions and resolutions of the United Nations; that the need for the Organization’s reform would have led to the effective prevention of new threats and challenges to world peace; that, through its new role, the United Nations would have implemented projects to effectively combat hunger and to improve the living conditions of hundreds of millions of people in dire need of aid; and that the number of refugees and migrants forced to flee from their homes due to conflict or poverty would have been greatly reduced.
Furthermore, that would have ensured that we would have been able to tackle social and economic exclusion, the lack of adequate health-care standards and the shortage of educational opportunities; that
sustainable development would have finally become a reality for all countries and regions in need by establishing the necessary political and socioeconomic conditions that lead to stability, economic growth and institution-building; that measures for the prevention of climate change and its devastating consequences would have been implemented consistently by all parties involved; that terrorism and religious fundamentalism would have given way to tolerance and understanding; that the trillions of dollars spent on destructive weapons would instead have been spent on actions and programmes aiming to bridge the gap between rich and poor States; and, finally, that multilateralism would have been the guiding doctrine of all States.
In addressing the General Assembly in 2018 and referring to the weakness of dealing with the same problems, I wondered aloud:
“how is it that we come back again and again, year after year, as a kind of ritual, to attest to the dismal lack of effectiveness for some and the attempts at embellishment of others for what is in fact our inability to fulfil the aims of the Charter of the United Nations?” (A/73/PV.10, p. 5)
I wondered further:
“Why do the decisions of the Security Council in their overwhelming majority remain mere certificates that attest to violations? Why are international law and international agreements not implemented? Why do strategies and programmes aimed at creating better conditions for people who are suffering remain wishful thinking?”
Although I am well aware that what I am about to say is well known to everyone in attendance, for the sake of history I cannot but relay some truths that are leading us on a declining path and to the gradual loss of credibility of the United Nations, an Organization that was formed right after the Second World War in order to prevent new disasters and to provide protection and hope to those in need of effective protection, as well as to take action to tackle the challenges I just mentioned.
I know that what I am saying may be outside the bounds of diplomatic etiquette, but I believe that the obligation of each leader before history is not to overlook failings and shortcomings in favour of wishful thinking or flattery. That is why I will proceed with a review, not just of the reasons that have transformed the Organization into a repository of problems, but also of what States are required to do in order to lend credibility to the Organization so that it can effectively impose international legal order and consistently implement decisions and programmes for the benefit of humankind.
In my opinion, the weaknesses and inefficacies of the United Nations are due to several factors.
The first problem is the fact that international law is dictated by the financial or other interests of powerful Member States.
Secondly, despite the end of the Cold War, alliances based on common interests lead to tolerance towards States that violate international law if the offender is under their sphere of influence.
Thirdly, there is a resurgence of hegemonic tendencies by some States, with the aim of creating new empires, at the expense of smaller States and in violation of international law.
Fourthly, despite the declared intention of the Secretary-General to proceed with the much-needed reform and modernization of the Organization, as well as its modus operandi and decision-making processes, the lack of willingness on the part of the States I referred to has not allowed for the implementation of such a change.
Fifthly, as a result of the same political expediencies, the United Nations, unfortunately, adopts an equal-distance stance, even when faced with the violation of decisions, resolutions and defined scope and terms of reference specified to the Secretariat. That results in emboldening offending States, which not only disregard international law but also create new precedents outside the framework of legality.
I have set out the main reasons for the lack of effectiveness, as well as the weakness, of the United Nations in living up to the expectations of billions of people. I know that I may be considered a romantic ideologist, but I believe that the recent events and problems affecting the world do not leave any choice other than to take bold, but necessary decisions.
The first decision is to ensure the identification of the causes that lead to unnecessary rivalries and conflicts and the renewal of our commitment to a global order based on international law — a global order that ensures that peace, security, human rights and sustainable development remain the highest values, which we undertake to preserve and hold.
The second decision is to ensure the political will and determination to proceed with the reform and modernization of the United Nations into a just and efficient multilateral governance system. That reform and modernization process becomes even more imperative and urgent with the imminent danger, after 77 years, of a new world war following the Russian aggression and Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
My reference to the need for reforms to the structure and implementation mechanism of decisions taken by the United Nations arises not only from my assessment as to other international problems, but also from what my country still endures and suffers as a result of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.
It is with deep disappointment that I heard President Erdogan claiming that
“As a country, Tiirkiye wants all the issues in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean to be resolved within the framework of good-neighbourly relations and in conformity with international law.” (A/77/PV.4, p.24).
How ironic is it for the Turkish President to put forward such a claim when every day he threatens to overtake Greek islands, or when he commits thousands of violations of the airspace of the sovereign and neighbouring country, contrary to international law? How even more provocative is it to express the desire to resolve disputes “in conformity with international law” when he refuses to implement numerous resolutions of the United Nations on the Cyprus problem and creates new faits accompli? How much in conformity with international law is his refusal to abide by, first, resolution 3212 (XXIX), adopted in October 1974, which urges the speedy withdrawal of all foreign armed forces and foreign military presence and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus and the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs; secondly, resolution 365 (1974), which was endorsed by the Security Council in December of the same year; and thirdly, Security Council resolution 1251 (1999), which reaffirms the Council’s position that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty, international personality and citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded in a bizonal, bicommunal federation? The latter resolution also stresses that such a settlement must exclude union, in whole or in part, with any other country or any form of partition or secession.
Last year, Mr. Erdogan claimed that efforts should concentrate on reaching a settlement based on the so- called realities on the ground (see A/76/PV.3), while this year he spoke about the need for everyone to “see the truth” and that there were “two distinct States and two distinct peoples on the island today”.
I am wondering as to which truth is he talking about? Is it the truth that 37 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, a State member of the European Union, remains under military occupation? Is it the truth that, after the Turkish invasion of 1974, one third of Greek Cypriots were forced to leave their ancestral homes? Is it the truth that they have implanted hundreds of thousands of Turkish nationals in the occupied areas, thereby altering the demographic character of the island, turning the Turkish Cypriots into a minority in the areas that they illegally occupy? Is it the truth that Turkey established an illegal entity in the occupied areas, which is under its absolute political, economic, social, cultural and religious control — an illegal entity, bear in mind, described by the European Court of Human Rights as a subordinate local administration of Turkey? Is it the truth that Turkey tries to equate the State, the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus, with the illegal secessionist entity?
Is it the truth that that proclamation of the purported secession was condemned by the Security Council and considered legally invalid? Is it the truth that the Security Council called for its reversal and for all States and the international community as a whole not to accept it or in any way assist it? Is it the truth that it is trying to change the status of the fenced city of Famagusta, contrary to Security Council resolutions 550 (1983) and 789 (1992)? Is it the ruth that Turkey adopts its own arbitrary interpretation of international law, which reduces the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus by 44 per cent, at the expense of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
As I noted earlier, when decisions or resolutions based on international law are not implemented or enforced, that, rightly so, could be perceived as fostering, or even rewarding, arbitrariness. That is what we are actually witnessing today with the Cyprus problem. Turkey, which systematically violates international law, calls on the international community to recognize its illegal faits accompli.
Unfortunately, that was the long-standing aim of Turkey ever since 1956. That is why, despite
the historical compromises by the Greek Cypriot side, all efforts to reach a settlement of the Cyprus problem failed as a result of the intransigent stance and irrational demands of Turkey. The latest example of this was the Conference on Cyprus held at Crans-Montana in July 2017. In his report dated 28 September 2017, the Secretary-General offered his assessment of the proceedings at Crans-Montana with regard to the internal aspects of the Cyprus problem, stating that,
“[t]he core outstanding issues related to governance and power-sharing remained few ...” (S/2017/814, para. 20)
and that
“[b]y the time the Conference closed, the sides had essentially solved the key issue of effective participation” (ibid., para. 27).
Therefore, while the aim of the Secretary-General to reach a strategic agreement was within close reach, the reason for the unsuccessful outcome was Turkey’s inflexible stance and its insistence on maintaining the anachronistic Treaty of Guarantee, the right of intervention and a permanent presence of troops. I would further like to recall the Secretary-General’s statement in June 2017, in which he stressed that,
“Progress in this chapter [on security and guarantees] is an essential element in reaching an overall agreement”.
Following a period of stalemate and despite our disappointment, we undertook new initiatives to resume the process where it was left off at Crans-Montana, culminating in the joint understanding reached with the Secretary-General and the then-leader of the Turkish Cypriots on 25 November 2019, which reaffirmed the principles for the resumption of a new round of talks, namely, the Joint Declaration of 11 February 2014, the prior convergences and the six-point framework the Secretary-General presented at Crans-Montana.
Regrettably, once again, Turkey undermined the prospect of resuming the negotiating process and, instead, at the meeting held in Geneva in April 2021, the Turks presented their position, which was to change the agreed basis of a settlement from a federal solution to a two-State solution.
Nonetheless, our side undertook another initiative, which also led to a new joint meeting of the leaders of the two communities with the Secretary-General in September 2021, during which it was agreed that the Secretary-General would proceed with the appointment of an envoy in order to deliberate with both sides and all interested parties, so as to reach common ground for a new peace process to resume. Yet again, Turkey refused to uphold said agreement.
We also continued taking initiatives to break the impasse, including through a letter I sent to the Turkish Cypriot leader on 23 May 2022, by which I conveyed constructive proposals for the adoption of bold win-win confidence-building measures — measures that were immediately rejected by the Turkish Cypriot side, which submitted counter-proposals in line with their aim for a two-State solution.
Mrs. Gonzalez Lopez (El Salvador), Vice-President,
took the Chair.
Based on the foregoing, I believe that it is clear that the Greek Cypriot community has exerted and will continue to exert every possible effort for the resumption of talks, in order to reach a settlement based on the United Nations resolutions. And as I have emphasized, the only way forward in resolving conflicts and for peace to prevail is none other than the unwavering adherence to international law and the United Nations Charter — and not as arbitrarily interpreted by those who seek to disguise their revisionist aspirations.
During my 10-year tenure as President of Cyprus, I may not have been able to enjoy what the vast majority would have also wished to see: the necessary reforms of this international Organization, the resolution of international conflicts and the tackling of such challenges that affect hundreds of millions of people as hunger, poverty and climate change. I may have not been able to see my homeland reunited, with my Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot compatriots living in conditions of peace, prosperity and stability, but I earnestly hope that, during my lifetime, I will be able to witness a better and more stable future for humankind.