THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTRY AND THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS PRESS RELEASE

In line with the recommendation of the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s report (S/2007/328) of 4 June 2007 to the Security Council, the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) has been extended for a further period of 6 months with Resolution 1758 of the Security Council adopted on 15 June 2007.

The Resolution by stating that the mandate of the UNFICYP has been extended with the consent of the so-called “Government of Cyprus” overlooks the realities on the Island once again, also contravening with the principle of political equality mentioned in the sixth Introductory paragraph. The title of “Government of Cyprus” ascribed to the Greek Cypriot administration which has usurped the legitimate government by force of arms in 1963, is not acceptable for the Turkish Cypriot side. The simultaneous referenda  of 24 April 2004 on the Comprehensive Settlement Plan of UN is the evident proof of the fact that the Greek Cypriot administration has sovereignty  only over the South of the Island and does not represent the Turkish Cypriot people. 

It is a well-established principle that the peace keeping operations can fulfill their duties successfully provided that the consent of all parties are taken and that the operations are carried out in cooperation with all concerned. Naturally, we deeply regret the reference in the Resolution only to the consent of the Greek Cypriot administration by overlooking the said fundamental principle concerning the UNFICYP operations. No doubt the absence of a reference by  the UN to the consent and approval of the Turkish Cypriot side as one of the two politically equal sides on the Island for the operation of the UNFICYP in Cyprus, also contravenes with its own principles.

We welcome the reference in the Resolution underlining the need to reach without further delay a comprehensive settlement based on political equality under the UN umbrella. Similarly, pointing out to the primary role of UN in the efforts for a settlement, is a clear and definite answer for the Greek Cypriot side which strives to shift the Cyprus issue to the EU framework.  However, it was observed that the Resolution failed to refer properly to the evaluations in the report of the UN Secretary-General related to the settlement of the Cyprus issue. The report noted that the necessary efforts were spent and the parameters for the settlement of the Cyprus issue have already emerged. However, this was not stated in the Resolution. With the firm belief for the need of a settlement, the Turkish Cypriot side continues its efforts in this direction. With this understanding, the Turkish Cypriot side has adopted a constructive stance from the very beginning for the implementation of the 8 July agreement in order to prepare ground for the fully fledged negotiations. Thus, the call in the Resolution towards implementing the process should only be made to the Greek Cypriot side but not to all sides.  

The Security Council Resolution expresses concern over the increase in the overall number of violations of the buffer zone suggesting the situation in the buffer zone would be improved if both sides accepted the “Aide-Memoire” of 1989 regarding the UN Peacekeeping Force’s operations in the region. It should be recalled that the said “Aide Memoire” is  accepted neither by the Turkish Cypriot side nor the Greek Cypriot side. The buffer zone activities referred in the Resolution are the violations of the Greek Cypriot side in order  to create a new situation in their favour. It is unfortunate that the Resolution disregards the violations of the Greek Cypriot side in the buffer zone which may lead to serious results and fails to clearly reflect the fact that these violations have been made by the Greek Cypriot side.

The Turkish Cypriot side has always been supporting the efforts for cleaning the remaining mines on the Island.  The allocation of funds for mine-clearance activities from the EU Financial Assistance Regulation’s budget which was drafted and adopted as a means of contributing to the development of our economy, is incompatible with the intended use of the Regulation. It is a well known fact that we are ready for cooperation on the issue of mine-clearance.  In addition to this, we rightly expect respect for the principal approach we adopted regarding the financing of the project. Ignoring the facts and putting the blame on the Turkish Cypriot side in the resolution created disappointment.

Taking into account the implementations already in place at the existing crossing points, the Resolution encourages  both sides for making progress on other confidence building measures such as the opening of additional crossing points including Lokmaci (Ledra Street) border gate. We want to underline once again that the Turkish Cypriot side has done its utmost for the opening of Lokmaci border gate in line with the arrangements at other crossing points. The only reason for the failure of the opening of the border gate in the Lokmaci region is the fabrication of new excuses and new preconditions created by the Greek Cypriot side. Besides disregarding this issue, through its call upon both sides to engage in consultations on “1989 Aide Memoire” with the UN Peace Force with a view to reaching agreement on the demarcation of the buffer zone, in particular in relation to the Lokmaci crossing point, the Security Council Resolution lends support to the preconditions created by the Greek Cypriot side. This shall encourage the Greek Cypriot side and render it almost impossible to expect them to display necessary goodwill for the opening of Lokmaci crossing point.

As is known, in his report of 4 June 2007, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon supported his predecessor’s report of 28 May 2004 and underlined the need of lifting the isolations imposed on the Turkish Cypriot side. It is necessary to reiterate that contrary to the normal practice, the failure of UN Security Council to come up with a resolution regarding the report of 28 May 2004 has been distressing and unjust. We consider it as incomprehensible that the Security Council has continued its wrong stance, and omitted reference to the report of 28 May 2004 in the Resolution and refraining from openly approving the report of Secretary- General Ban Ki-Moon.

As is already understood, the reference in the Resolution that UNFICYP’s mandate, force levels and concept of operation shall continue to be reviewed, is of great importance since it is a reminder to the Greek Cypriot side that it cannot forever continue with its intransigent stance in Cyprus by hiding behind the UN Peace Force.

Reference to the outdated UN Security Council Resolution 1251 (1999) by disregarding the important observations of the UN Secretary General in his report of 28 May 2004, is unacceptable.

Moreover, the Resolution repeats the unjust demand regarding Akyar village which has no connection to the buffer zone and falls outside the scope of UN Peace Force’s mission.

As the Turkish Cypriot side, we would like to express, once again, our determination to continue our cooperation with the UN and UNFICYP, and reiterate our expectation that the Security Council approves the report of 28 May 2004, keeping in mind our firm commitment towards the settlement of the Cyprus problem, without further delay.

Lefkoşa, 16 June 2007