Cyprus, 2007

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-Ã -

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.