At the outset, I would like to congratulate the elected President of the General Assembly at its seventy-sixth session, His Excellency Mr. Abdulla Shahid, and the Secretary-General, Mr. Antonio Guterres, on his recent reappointment to a second five-year mandate. I assure them of my Government’s unwavering support for their missions.
This is the ninth consecutive year that I have attended the general debate of the General Assembly. Every year, our deliberations focus on important issues regarding developments and challenges that are critical for humankind with the aim, through collective action, of addressing them effectively. Taking stock of our declarations and decisions over time, I must confess that — like many of us here — I feel a deep sense of disappointment. That sense of disappointment results from witnessing a widening gap between words and deeds, and between the auspicious declarations and commitments that are made and the results of the measures that we promise to deliver.
In all honesty, how many times have we spoken about the need to address regional disputes, invoking the Charter of the United Nations as well as the decisions and resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council? To what extent do the weakness or insufficient implementation of our decisions perpetuate conflicts and encourage violations that, in turn, proliferate humanitarian crises? How often have we spoken about the dire need to tackle major global challenges such as poverty, hunger, child mortality, social and economic exclusion, a lack of adequate health care and a shortage of educational opportunities? How compliant are we in the implementation of what we have agreed with regard to the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change?
I could expand into numerous other problems, the resolution of which could have been possible had the United Nations implemented its relevant decisions. That is why our collective and shared failure to decisively tackle the challenges I referred to has let down and disappointed many people across the world whose fundamental human rights and dignity are not adequately protected.
At the same time, it has also led to the rise of worrisome developments such as religious fundamentalism, violent extremism, sectarianism, the destruction of cultural heritage, civil war and ethnic conflict. What is equally alarming is that the combination of that has led to the forced displacement of millions of people and created unprecedented waves of refugees and migratory flows, exerting huge economic and social pressures on all countries and regions affected.
Unfortunately — and we have to be honest with ourselves — selfish interests hinder the founding principles of the United Nations, in which humankind has vested its hopes for a prosperous and peaceful future. In order to achieve that objective, there is only one answer: multilateralism, tangible solidarity and stronger partnerships that are based on a positive agenda. It is for that reason that we lend our unwavering support to the reform and revitalization priorities of the Secretary-General, which aim to reinforce the effectiveness of the Organization and further advance peacekeeping and peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and long-term development and growth.
What I have just referred to is by no means intended to belittle the numerous achievements of the work of the United Nations. My remarks and observations aim to emphasize the need to transform, via reforms, an Organization that will give real hope to those in need of international protection and to the quest for collective peace and security and development — in other words, to turn the United Nations into a much more effective Organization.
My strong and honest words are not unintentional. I stand here before the Assembly representing a country that, regrettably, still endures the consequences of the blatant violation of the fundamental principles of the United Nations as a result of the 1974 illegal military invasion by Turkey and the ongoing occupation. Ever since, both the General Assembly and the Security Council have issued numerous decisions and resolutions that call on Turkey to end the illegal occupation and withdraw its occupying troops, establishing at the same time the basis for reaching a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Those decisions and resolutions, in the absence of resolve and the necessary means for their implementation, have led to the audacity of the
invader, which tries to be portrayed as a victim instead of the perpetrator it actually is.
It is not my intention to engage in a blame game, but I cannot leave unnoticed the absurdity of the Turkish rhetoric, which lies in their claim that efforts towards reaching a compromise have been exhausted and that our focus should now be on reaching a settlement based on the so-called realities on the ground. Let me remind members what the true realities on the ground are.
Is it not a fact that 37 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, a European Union member State, remains under Turkish military occupation, with more than 40,000 troops still on the ground? Is it not a fact that after the Turkish invasion, one third of Greek Cypriots were forced to leave their ancestral homes? Is it not a fact that, while the Turkish Cypriots own approximately 14 per cent of privately owned land, today they usurp 37 per cent of the island?
Is it not a fact that they looted churches, destroyed archaeological sites and thousands of years of cultural heritage? Is it not a fact that they killed thousands of people and committed atrocities of all kinds and today almost 1,000 persons are still missing? Is it not a fact that they have sent hundreds of thousands of Turkish nationals to the occupied areas, thereby severely altering the demographic character of the island, turning the Turkish Cypriots into a minority in the areas they occupy? Is it not a fact that they have never implemented the 1975 Agreement on the status of the enclaved persons, who then numbered more than 23,000? Today there are only 350 of them.
Is it not a fact that all the aforementioned crimes have been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe in a plethora of decisions, with Turkey failing to comply with even one ruling? Is it not a fact that Turkey has established an illegal entity in the occupied areas, which is under its absolute political, economic, societal, cultural and religious control — a control that is also denounced by the majority of Turkish Cypriots; an illegal entity described by the European Court of Human Rights as a subordinate local administration of Turkey?
Is it not a fact that Turkey tries to equate the State, the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus, member of the United Nations and the European Union, with the illegal secessionist entity? Is it not a fact that the aforementioned proclamation of the purported secession has been condemned by the Security Council and considered legally invalid? And is it not a fact that the Security Council called for its reversal and for all States and the international community, as a whole, not to accept or in any way assist it? Is it not a fact that, recently, with the presence of President Erdogan in Cyprus, they are trying to change the status of the fenced city of Famagusta, contrary to Security Council resolutions and the condemnation of the international community?
During his address to the General Assembly on Tuesday, the President of Turkey, Mr. Erdogan, stated,
“[w]e hope that the problems regarding maritime boundary delimitation will be resolved within the framework of international law and good- neighbourly relations” (A/76/PV3, p.41).
I wonder to which international law Mr. Erdogan refers. Is it not a fact that Turkey refuses to ratify and abide by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which codifies relevant customary international law? How does Mr. Erdogan understand the settlement of disputes concerning delimitations? Is he referring to Turkey’s own arbitrary interpretation of international law, which reduces the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus by 44 per cent, at the expense of Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike?
President Erdogan also spoke of the need to maintain good-neighbourly relations. I again ask which country invaded and to date still occupies Cyprus? Which country invaded Syria? Which country violates the sovereignty of Iraq? Which country interferes in the internal affairs of Libya? Which country violates the sovereign rights of Greece? Which country interfered in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
The narrative also put forward by the Turkish side, according to which all efforts to reach a compromise have failed and we should therefore seek solutions outside the United Nations framework, reinforces the valid argument that Turkey’s end-game is not to solve the Cyprus problem but to turn Cyprus into its protectorate. I will elaborate.
In paragraph 27 of his report of 28 September 2017 (S/2017/814), with reference to the outcome of the Conference on Cyprus at Crans-Montana, the Secretary-General rightly assessed that all internal elements included in his six-point framework were almost, or about to be, resolved. 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 insistence on maintaining the anachronistic Treaty of Guarantee, the right of intervention and a permanent presence of troops.
Furthermore, following the Conference held at Crans-Montana, in line with our commitment to resume the peace process, both leaders — I and my counterpart, the Turkish Cypriot leader — and the Secretary-General reached a joint understanding on 25 November 2019 on the principles that should guide the resumption of a new round of negotiations, namely, the Joint Declaration of 2014, the convergences reached so far and the six-point framework presented by the Secretary-General at Crans-Montana.
Following that, one would expect the next step to be the resumption of negotiations. Nevertheless, with Turkish objectives being different, we witnessed blatant intervention by Turkey to oust the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, with whom the aforementioned joint understanding was reached.
The evident goal was for him to be replaced by a new leadership that reproduces and adopts Turkey’s position on changing the agreed basis for a settlement, with the ultimate goal being a two-State solution. Therefore, it is clear why a compromise cannot be reached when one side deviates from the United Nations framework or annuls agreements reached and aspires to a different form of settlement, contrary to the agreed basis and the good-offices mandate of the Secretary-General.
Part of the Turkish agenda is also the creation of a new fait accompli on the ground in Famagusta, in full contravention and violation of the relevant Security Council resolutions, in particular resolutions 550 (1984) and 789 (1992). All such actions are clearly intended to destroy the prospects of a settlement based on the agreed United Nations framework.
A compromise becomes even more difficult to reach when new ideas put forward by our side, as requested by the Secretary-General and in an effort to move the process forward, are blatantly rejected.
I have proposed the decentralization of the exercise of powers, which we deem as the appropriate balance between the enhancement of the constituent States’ essential role and the unhindered functioning of the State, including at the international level.
I have also flagged our willingness to consider the option of a parliamentary system with a ceremonial Head of State and a rotating Prime Minister.
More recently, I even extended an invitation to the Turkish Cypriots to rejoin the State institutions established by the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, thereby fully implementing, mutatis mutandis, its relevant provisions. It goes without saying that such an invitation is not meant to be an alternative to the agreed basis of the settlement. It is meant to ease the Turkish Cypriot community back into the State pending a final settlement, provided a strategic agreement is reached, thereby fully participating in the evolution of the Republic of Cyprus into a federal State.
That proposal should also be assessed in conjunction with the package of game-changing, win-win, confidence-building measures that I proposed last December and which were unfortunately rejected by the Turkish side. Those confidence-building measures are still on the table.
I would like to assure the Assembly about my determination to set the negotiation process back on track, on the basis of the United Nations framework and the agreement reached in Berlin on 25 November 2019. For us, there is only one plan, that is, to reach a settlement on the basis of a bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality, as set out in relevant Security Council resolutions and in line with the principles on which the EU is founded; a settlement that will lead to a functional and viable State, without the obsolete system of guarantees, the right of intervention, the presence of Turkish troops or any kind of foreign dependencies; and a settlement that will equally benefit all Cypriots — Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots — while fully respecting their human rights and contributing to the peace and stability of the region.
My extensive reference to the Cyprus problem aims to highlight the need to address the realities and issues before us on the basis of the values and the principles of international law, and not on the basis of the law arbitrarily interpreted by the powerful.
The chosen theme of this year’s General Assembly, “Building resilience through hope — to recover from COVID-19, rebuild sustainably, respond to the needs of the planet, respect the rights of people and revitalize the United Nations”, is of course very timely and relevant to the momentous challenges that we need to tackle.
As our actions are interconnected and have an impact on one another, we — all the nations of the world — made a collective pledge to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals so as to address universal challenges, to which I have already alluded, for the benefit of humankind.
At the same time, we must all realize that we are at a defining moment for climate change. Taking into account the alarming projections concerning its impact on our immediate region, namely, the eastern Mediterranean and the greater Middle East, Cyprus has undertaken a coordinating role in the development of a regional action plan, consisting of two distinct components, that is, a scientific and, subsequently, an intergovernmental one.
I would be remiss if I did not refer to the recent developments in Afghanistan. We share a collective responsibility to uphold international humanitarian law, particularly with regard to the protection of women and minorities. We also need to ensure that Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism and extremism, or a breeding ground for organized crime, weapons and drug trafficking and renewed waves of migration.
Another region that is also considered synonymous with discord and strife is the Middle East and North Africa. In that regard, as a strong proponent of the ideal that the eastern Mediterranean and the greater Middle East can become an area of stability, peace and cooperation, Cyprus strives to actively promote an enhanced network of regional cooperation.
In conclusion, please allow me to stress that, in a fragmented and multipolar world, we have more than ever a moral, ethical and political duty to promote the essence of human civilization, unite our strength to maintain international peace and security and establish conditions that can bring prosperity and welfare to all.