Cyprus

Before I begin, I wish to indicate that my statement is complementary to that delivered yesterday (see ) by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the European Union, to which Cyprus fully subscribes. As this is the first general debate since the election of the new Secretary-General, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Ban Ki-moon on his appointment to that crucial post and wish him every success. His report on the work of the Organization (A/62/1) demonstrates not only the broad spectrum of issues dealt with by the United Nations but also the comprehensive character and vast potential of multilateral diplomacy. Among the aspects of the Organization's work that are of particular interest, we note the disconcerting developments in the Middle East, the modest progress made with respect to the development agenda, the effects of the Organization's involvement in different crises, particularly in Africa, and the increasing impact of its humanitarian contribution. To date, we have ample scientific data and other overwhelmingly convincing evidence suggesting that world climate is changing to the detriment of human and ecological systems as a result of human activity. Thus, our response to this alarming phenomenon should be the focus of our debate rather than the extent to which it exists. We believe that it is important for us to define, from the outset, the scope of the response we are seeking to formulate. In the face of the quasi- irreversibility of the damage done thus far, we should at least put the necessary focus, resources and energy into curbing the galloping deterioration of the situation and urgently decide the first steps to protect our societies from large-scale future climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested a number of technological and policy instruments that are available to Governments for mitigation action. We stand ready to support the adoption of a number of sectoral policies and measures that the Panel has deemed effective, such as the use of renewable energy, the use of technology to produce energy cleanly, improved waste and waste-water management and the use of alternative technologies in exploiting human systems like forestry, fisheries and agriculture. In deciding and enforcing our response, we see no plausible framework other than the United Nations. Aside from its unique position to address the issue because of its global character, its success in confronting a threat with such massive potential as climate change will be a litmus test for the relevance of our Organization. One could say that climate change is the modern-day equivalent of the security threat that necessitated the establishment of the Organization in 1945. It remains to be seen whether our system can be as effective in dealing with contemporary threats to humanity as it has been in dealing with more traditional security deficits. Let me now turn to an issue with which the United Nations has had a long involvement, an issue which we aim to keep as one of the Organization’s priorities until it has been definitively resolved within the framework set out in the numerous relevant resolutions of this Organization. For many years, the United Nations has engaged in strenuous efforts aimed at brokering a solution. It may be that the task has proved so very arduous, because the Cyprus issue, when stripped of the niceties of diplomatic terminology, is a question of foreign aggression and continuing occupation of a significant part of a sovereign State, entailing enclaved and missing persons, refugees and massive and enduring violations of human rights. Cyprus has survived the most difficult circumstances created by the many facets of the problem and has primarily insisted on one thing vis-à - vis the involvement of the United Nations in its resolution: the full application of the values on which this Organization was founded and which it has worked so hard to promote. So, why does this problem persist after so many years during which the national, regional and international political landscape has undergone dramatic changes? Certainly, it is neither for lack of political will nor for lack of effort on our part. Rather, the occupying Power has not displayed any motivation to solve the problem, and this has only been reinforced by the Annan plan, which satisfied all Turkish desiderata, thus being readily accepted by the Turkish side. Instead, Turkey has used its dominant position to command trade-offs of all sorts. Secondly, Turkey’s long-standing objective of gaining political and military control over Cyprus remains unchanged. Despite declaratory remarks of willingness to solve the Cyprus problem, its actions confirm its dedication to its ab initio pursuit of controlling Cyprus by partitioning it geographically into two ethnically clean parts, with Turkey securing rights of suzerainty and the “right” of intervention in Cyprus. Thirdly, efforts to solve the Cyprus problem have not been filtered through a system of values and norms of international law. They have not been tailored to tackling the roots of the problem or even to the problem itself; rather, their centre of gravity seems to have been the kind of solution the occupying Power would want or could, at least, tolerate. In fact, it is clear through the conduct and negotiating positions of Turkey that it has not contemplated a solution outside the boundaries of the status quo. Fourthly, shifting the problem from the context of its origin — that of invasion and occupation — has led to a problem-solving methodology that divides the distance that separates the parties, caving in to the demands of the more powerful party and making success conditional upon the other’s magnanimity. Fifthly, the occupying Power has insisted on discussing elements that form neither part of the genesis of the problem nor part of its solution. The Cyprus problem is caused by not bad community relations but by outside intervention. Persisting, therefore, with a constitutional arrangement, set up primarily on the basis of ethnic origin — without due respect for the overriding democratic principles of liberty and equality of all citizens — insults the dignity of those citizens and dooms the viability of any settlement. We currently find ourselves engaged in an effort to implement a process consisting of an Agreement concluded and signed by the two communities in Cyprus on 8 July 2006 and complemented by letters exchanged between the leaders of the two communities and the then Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs of the United Nations, Mr. Gambari, on 15 November 2006. The surprising laboriousness in the implementation of this carefully crafted Agreement — the purpose of which is to prepare the ground for subsequent negotiation and to lead to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue — is not inherent to this particular process. We should therefore concentrate on implementing what has been agreed. The pace can only be determined by progress, with full-fledged negotiations as needed. Sidelining or circumventing stages of the process will lead, not to expediting the solution, but to confirming the deadlock. So, what does the future hold for the mission of good offices entrusted to the Secretary-General by the Security Council? For our part, we remain fully committed, as it is clear to us that we cannot sustain the status quo and must insist on a meaningful and forward-looking process that can elicit concrete results, leading to the establishment of a bizonal, bicommunal federation, within the true meaning of each of these terms. The only process that can take us forward is the one established by the 8 July agreed process I have just outlined. This process is expected to test suggestions, ideas and alternatives at the expert level, adequately prepare the ground and submit to the leaders, any points that warrant political compromise or agreement. Although the last meeting with the Turkish Cypriot leader did not signal the beginning of the implementation of the Agreement as we had hoped, we will not rescind our efforts to put the 8 July process back on track. The element of time is very important; however, only progress through preparing the ground can bring us sooner to an agreed settlement. With a view to achieving progress, I submitted to the Secretary-General certain ideas and proposals that I hope will contribute to this end. Turkey's intentions are not only manifest in the non-resolution of the Cyprus problem after all these years. They transpire from all its actions: the non-normalization of its relations with Cyprus as a first step to becoming a European partner, the non-removal of any of its troops from Cypriot soil as a confidence- building measure, the intensification of efforts to project a secessionist entity in Cyprus and its systematic violations of our sovereign air and maritime space and of the military status quo. This was recently confirmed by explicit statements of its leadership at the highest political level referring to a settlement based on two peoples, two democracies, two States and two religions. That is an arrangement we shall never accept. Over the past year, we have also witnessed repeated attempts by the occupying Power to illegally explore my country's natural resources and to sabotage our sovereign right to explore and manage these resources. It has carried out unauthorized demolitions of Greek Cypriot houses in the areas it occupies and it continues to destroy cultural and religious heritage. It has intensified the large-scale illegal exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied part of Cyprus, not least because this will skew the terms of a future settlement. At the same time, Turkey pursues its own strategic objectives in Cyprus at the expense of reunification and is only guided by its own interests and not those of Turkish Cypriots. It has ascertained over the years that the occupied part of Cyprus would come completely under its political, economic and military control. We regret to note that Turkey has been trying to involve our friends and neighbours in this ill- conceived effort. Underpinning this strategy is the intent to legitimize the fait accompli of the invasion and attribute political status to its results. Such a strategy could not have been achieved without presenting the Turkish Cypriot community as victims, not of Turkish aggression as really is the case, but of Greek Cypriots for resisting this fait accompli. A prime example of those tactics has been the ongoing campaign to deceivingly suggest that the Turkish Cypriot community is economically disadvantaged because it is isolated. Considering that the per capita income of Turkish Cypriots has doubled over the past three years and that they now enjoy the 59th highest per capita income in the world, one can easily detect the political agenda behind the attempt to link their economic development with the fate of the illegal regime. For years now, we have been advocating that the road to solving the Cyprus problem is not via the exclusion of the inconvenient truths that underlie it or the bypassing of principles that are, for us, the guarantee that the settlement of the Cyprus problem will continue to be valid and relevant in a constantly changing world. Equally important, we regard the preservation of our interests and those of Turkey in our region not as mutually exclusive but as complementary and interdependent. Our vision must be to bequeath to future generations the legacy of friendship, cooperation and good neighbourliness. We are afforded the opportunity to avoid eternalizing this feud and we should seize it.