Declaration of Turkish Cypriots regarding "purported secession" called "legally invalid".

Declaration of Turkish Cypriots regarding "Purported Secession' Called "Legally Invalid'

THE vote on resolution 541 (1983) deploring the "declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus' came toward the end of the second day of Security Council meetings in which 28 speakers participated.

The text, submitted by the United Kingdom, expressed the Council's view that the Turkish Cypriot declaration was "legally invalid' and called for its withdrawal. The Council also called for urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365 (1974) and 367 (1975).

(Resolution 365 (1974) urged implementation of General Assembly resolution 3212 (XXIX), in which the Assembly said, in part, that constitutional issues were up to the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities to resolve and urged continuation of the contacts and negotiations taking place between them with the help of the Secretary-General. In resolution 367 (1975), the Council requested the Secretary-General to undertake a new mission of good offices to facilitate comprehensive negotiations.)

The Secretary-General was requested to pursue his mission of good offices to achieve the earliest possible progress towards a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus. The parties were asked to give him full co-operation.

The Council called on all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus. All States and the two Communities in Cyprus were called on to refrain from any action that might exacerbate the situation.

In addition to letters from the United Kingdom (document S/16147), Cyprus (document S/16150) and Greece (document S/16151) requesting the meeting, the Council had before it a document circulated at Turkey's request containing a letter sent to the Secretary-General by Rauf R. Denktash, which he signed "President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' (document A/38/586-S/16148).

Other documents before the Council included letters transmitting the official reaction of a number of Governments to the Turkish Cypriot action.

(For background on United Nations consideration of the question of Cyprus, see UN Chronicle, 1983, No.7.)

Debate

Participating in the discussion on 17 and 18 November were Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, Nicaragua, India, Seychelles, Australia, Algeria, Canada, Pakistan, USSR, Sri Lanka, Cuba, Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Guyana, Zimbabwe, Poland, Togo, Zaire, Democratic Yemen, Egypt, France, United Kingdom, Jordan and China [Council members in bold type].

Secretary-General Javier Perez de CuAellar addressed the Council at the opening meeting on 17 November, as did the Foreign Ministers of Cyprus and Greece. Rauf R. Denktash spoke both days.

At the outset of the first meeting, Council President Victor J. Gauci (Malta) said the issue under consideration was "a very serious situation' and it was "of paramount importance that utmost restraint should continue to be exercised by all concerned, both in Cyprus and its neighbouring countries, as well as in this Chamber'.

Secretary-General

Secretary-General Javier PAerez de Cuellar told the Council that on receiving Rauf Denktash's letter informing him of the proclamation of a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' as an independent State, he had authorized release of a statement expressing deep regret at the move, which was contrary to Council resolutions on Cyprus and the High-level Agreements of 1977 and 1979.

The statement had also said the action was ""bound to affect adversely the situation in Cyprus and to complicate the efforts of the Secretary-General to promote an agreed, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem under the mission of good offices entrusted to him by the Security Council''. The Turkish Cypriot an-nouncement had been made, it was noted, at the moment when the Secretary-General's Special Representative had returned to Cyprus to initiate consultations in preparation for a high-level meeting suggested by Mr. Denktash to pave the way for resumption of intercommunal negotiations.

The statement had concluded by saying the Secretary-General was in consultation with all concerned. In the meantime, he had appealed to ""all those involved to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action that may further aggravate the situation''.

Mr. Perez de Cuellar told the Council he had little to add to his earlier statement. He had met with President Kyprianou on 30 September and Mr. Denktash on 1 October to discuss the soundings initiated in August within the framework of the mission of good offices entrusted to him by the Council. Mr. Denktash had suggested that the Secretary-General convene a high-level meeting to clarify both sides' intentions for a federal solution and pave the way for resumption of the intercommunal talks.

The Secretary-General said he had felt a meeting of that kind would provide an opportunity for a firm recommitment by both sides to a peaceful negotiated solution to the Cyprus problem. Having received encouraging reports from his Representative on preliminary contacts with both parties, the Secretary-General had decided to initiate consultations. Mr. Gobbi had returned to Cyprus on 14 November to begin consultations on the agenda.

The action on 15 November was thus a deep disappointment, the Secretary-General told the Council. However, Mr. Denktash had said his proposal for a high-level meeting under the Secretary-General's auspices remained valid and that his good offices should continue.

The Secretary-General said reports of the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) indicated that access to the north, which had been temporarily closed prior to the announcement on 15 November, had been reopened and the situation in the island and along the cease-fire lines remained calm. "It is evident that the chances of success of our efforts depend primarily on the Co-operation of the parties and on their willingness to engage in serious negotiations', said the Secretary-General.

General Views

In the discussion that followed, nearly all speakers deplored the Turkish Cypriot community's unilateral declaration of independence. That declaration, it was pointed out, was in clear defiance of United Nations resolutions, Declarations of the Non-Aligned Movement and the High-level Agreements of 1977 and 1979.

Most speakers called for withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot declaration, saying it was illegal. Many stated their intention not to recognize the so-called "independent entity' and called on other Member States to do the same.

The Turkish Cypriot community's invocation of the right of self-determination as the legal basis for its declaration was groundless, according to several speakers. It was suggested that the declaration could not have taken place without the support of Turkey.

The Turkish Cypriot move would only exacerbate the already difficult task of reaching a mutually acceptable settlement, some said. However, Rauf Denktash took the view that the declaration would help the negotiating process by underscoring the equality of both parties.

A number of speakers felt the unilateral decision had introduced a "new flash-point' of tension that could have grave consequences for peace and security in the region. All parties were called on to refrain from actions that could adversely affect the prospects of a just and lasting solution.

The presence of occupation troops in Cyprus was impeding such a solution, according to many speakers. There was a widespread call for the immediate withdrawal of all foreign forces. In one view, however, the continued presence of Turkish troops on the island could be justified on the basis of the Treaty of Guarantee and the principle of legitimate defence.

Any solution must respect the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus, several speakers said. Direct negotiations between the parties were seen by many as the only viable means to a peaceful settlement of the Cyprus problem.

There was wide support for the Secretary-General's efforts, including his recent initiatives, toward resumption of the intercommunal talks. Both communities were called on to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices. There was also support for the proposed talks between the President of Cyprus and the head of the Turkish Cypriot community.

Most speakers favoured the draft text submitted by the United Kingdom. However, there was some feeling that it failed to adequately take into account the internal problem of Cyprus and that it did not give the Secretary-General an explicit mandate to promote conciliation between the two communities.

Several speakers expressed support for maintaining UNFICYP. However, it was cautioned that its presence should not be used as a pretext to avoid the "real issues' in Cyprus, which included the continued presence of foreign armed forces in the territory.

Parties Concerned

Cyprus said the right to selfdetermination must be exercised by the people of a country as a whole and not by each community separately, as Turkey and "its agents in Cyprus' claimed. If that claim were applied internationally, "many States in the world be fragmented', Cyprus said. Moreover, wasn't it a contradiction to speak of exercising the right to selfdetermination in a part of the country under the "absolute control' of foreign occupation troops?

Cyprus believed in the equality of all Cypriots and total absence of discrimination of any kind. "But to accept that 18 per cent equals 82 per cent of the population would strike at the roots of democracy and the balance upon which a federal State is to be based'.

United Nations resolutions on the Cyprus problem had established the framework for a just and viable solution. Of all the provisions of those resolutions, Turkey had chosen "to pay lip service' only to the one which referred to negotiations. For many years, the Turkish Cypriot side had emphasized the intercommunal talks as the basis for solution of the Cyprus problem. Yet they had given no reason for refusing to attend talks scheduled at the end of May. Nor had they explained why their proposals had been "so separatist and devoid of substance' that the Secretary-General's intervention had been required to save the talks from total collapse.

The presence of occupation forces over the past nine years constituted an insurmountable obstacle to a negotiated solution, in Cyprus' view. Every day, Turkey took another step to destroy the independence, sover-eignty, territorial integrity and unity of Cyprus. Its plans were to wipe out any trace of Greek Cypriot rights in the occupied part of Cyprus, to partition the island and to annex, de facto, the occupied territories of Cyprus.

It was not true that the Turkish Cypriots had been "forced out of the Government', as had been claimed. The Turkish Cypriot ministers had refused from 1964 on to participate in the Council of Ministers to show that "the Republic was dead' and promote partition.

Regarding the so-called "population exchange agreement' of August 1975, which the Turkish side presented as a reason for not complying with the 1977 and 1979 High-level Agreements and for their "declaration of independence', it would be "ironic indeed' to allege that 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees had come voluntarily to the free areas of the Republic. Threat of massacre, rape, torture and cruelty had forced them to abandon their properties and flee for their lives. The Turkish Cypriot side had violated every provision of the 1975 "population exchange agreement', as the Secretary-General's reports revealed.

The so-called "Turkish Cypriot Federated State' was subject to the authority and directions of the Turkish Government. Any alleged authority exercised by that illegal body was in fact derived from the strength of the Turkish Army, to which it was subordinate. It was evident that the socalled "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus' was in reality a puppet wholly controlled by Turkey. The recognition of that "non-existent State' by Turkey was indicative of that country's involvement and complicity.

The Turkish Cypriot side had argued that internationalization of the Cyprus problem was harming the climate of the intercommunal talks and was the main reason for lack of progress. To demonstrate its good-will, Cyprus had for three years avoided recourse to the United Nations. Unfortunately, not only had the deadlock remained but also Turkey had taken advantage of the time to consolidate the de facto situation in Cyprus and apply new secessionist measures.

One of the main issues now was the Turkish attitude regarding the personal involvement and initiative of the Secretary-General. While President Kyprianou had responded to the Secretary-General's soundings in a most constructive manner, Mr. Denktash had rejected the Secretary-General's initiative outright, then made a "spectacular' proposal to meet with President Kyprianou. He had set a three-week time-limit for the convening of that meeting, threatening to declare a ""separate state'' if it did not come to pass.

Cyprus had declared such a move would be considered equivalent to secession and it would react appropriately. After discussions with the Secretary-General, Cyprus had agreed to begin consultations toward the possible convening of such a meeting.

While all that was going on, "an unwarranted and arbitrary secessionist act was taking place in the occupied pied areas of the Republic of Cyprus'. All the Turkish actions "fall squarely within the definition of aggression adopted by the General Assembly in 1974', said Cyprus.

Turkey was solely responsible for the purported declaration of independence, which would have been impossible had Turkey not been occupying that part of the Republic. Cyprus called on the international community to demand that Turkey take all required measures to reverse that unilateral act and rescind its recognition of the purported regime. All States had a duty and obligation not to recognize any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus.

Greece said that once again, the Turkish side had flagrantly violated international treaties and trampled on the fundamental principles of the Charter. The decision to declare the independence of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' was part of Turkey's continued violation of Cyprus' sovereignty and a breach of the Treaty of Guarantee.

Greece would spare no effort to see the end of Turkey's illegal acts against the Republic of Cyprus and the restoration of Cyprus' unity in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. It called on Member States to refrain from any form of recognition to that "artificial product of illegality and brute force' that called itself the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' and to unequivocally condemn that illegal act. It called on Turkey to withdraw its army immediately from Cyprus.

Time and again, Turkey had harped on the theme that Greece was purportedly pursuing the goal of enosis--the union of Cyprus with Greece. In a letter to the Secretary-General on 26 October, Greece had stated its acceptance and unwavering support for the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Cyprus. ""If there is a country that is violating each and every one of these principles'', Greece's letter had said, ""it is Turkey, by its invasion of Cyprus of 1974 and by its continuing occupation of one third of the territory''.

Rauf R. Denktash, the Turkish Cypriot leader, told the Council he had not come before it to apologize or answer "unjust accusations' but to explain why his people, after waiting patiently for 20 years, had exercised their undeniable right to self-determination.

The declaration of independence had made quite clear the Turkish Cypriots' desire to continue negotiations under the good offices of the Secretary-General. They felt the declaration of statehood would help the negotiating process by underlining the equality of the parties, which had been "denied, ignored, ridiculed or forgotten' by the Greek Cypriot side.

Mr. Denktash expressed disappointment, however, at what he saw as a "deliberate attempt' to distort the facts about the Turkish Cypriots' equality and "partnership status'. That was what had prevented a solution of the problem within the agreed formula. The Cyprus problem had, in fact, arisen because of the armed attempt in 1963 to destroy the Turkish Cypriot people's partnership rights in the Republic of Cyprus. It would be very unfortunate if, in the twentieth year of the problem, the international community refused to look at the facts objectively.

No man could live in dignity, security and justice without the roof of statehood over his head, Mr. Denktash said. The Greek Cypriot representative had told the Council the roof of statehood existed in Cyprus but that its protection could not be extended to the Turkish Cypriot community because of the presence of Turkish troops.

The Cyprus problem had not been solved because the Greek Cypriots felt they had achieved their goal of taking over Cyprus. The United Nations had "handed it over to them on a piece of paper', but there was no legal basis for their claim.

The Turkish Cypriot people had not divided Cyprus. Cyprus had been divided the moment the Turkish Cypriots were thrown out of the government and forced to live in "open-air prison camps' called the "Turkish areas'.

Mr. Denktash said he had asked the Secretary-General to continue his good offices to settle the Cyprus problem "within its correct perspective', by re-establishing the partnership State in a bizonal federal form as agreed with Archbishop Makarios. Declaring that the Greek Cypriots were the Government of Cyprus, when morally, legally and constitutionally they were not, removed all incentive to re-establish a bicommunal State. Therefore they simply went around the world making propaganda for themselves, getting more and more seals of approval from international fora to the effect that they were the legitimate Government. Finally, at the General Assembly in May, they had been given "the terrible seal' to extend their rule to the north, over the Turkish Cypriots.

Now having established their own State, the Turkish Cypriots hoped that people looking at Cyprus would see a Cyprus Government, but would also see an unrecognized or semi-recognized Government with another people in it and have a better comprehension of the problem of Cyprus. He had come to tell all the members of the Council that the Turkish Cypriots stood by the 1977 agreement he had made with Archbishop Makarios, that they stood by the agreement he had made with Mr. Kyprianou, the 1980 opening statement of the Secretary-General and his evaluation paper. All of those foresaw the establishment of a bizonal federal republic.

In a declaration issued on 17 November, Mr. Denktash had stated that the Turkish Cypriot side was willing to engage immediately in negotiations with the Greek Cypriot side within the framework of the good offices mission of the United Nations Secretary-General on the following subjects:

"A. The establishment of an interim administration in Varosha under the auspices of the United Nations without any prejudice to the final political status of the area.

"The parties may enter into discussions for the number of Greek Cypriots to be resettled in the area.

"The area of resettlement will be the same as it was defined on the Turkish Cypriot map of 5 August 1981.

"B. The reopening of Nicosia international airport for civilian traffic under an interim United Nations administration to the mutual benefit of the two sides in Cyprus'.

His people today stood in the North in their own State and extended their hand of friendship to the Greek Cypriot side, saying, "come, let us negotiate as agreed for a federal solution'. If they came, his people would try to forget the past and look to the future on the basis of equality. If not, they had patience. They would do nothing to harm the Greek Cypriots and hoped these would do nothing to harm them.

Turkey said the Treaty of Guarantee had guaranteed not only the existence and independence of the Republic of Cyprus, its territorial integrity and the prohibition of secession, partition and total or partial annexation, but also the fundamental provisions of the 1960 Constitution, which could not be amended. Hence, the unilateral amendments declared in 1963 by the Greek Cypriots were not just an internal matter of the Cypriot Republic; the prohibition of amendments was also an obligation under international law. Therefore, it was the duty of the guaranteeing Powers to honour their commitment to restore the ""state of affairs created by the basic provisions'' of the 1960 Constitution.

That Constitution had created a bicommunal Republic of Cyprus. There could be no more irrefutable proof that in Cyprus the right of self-determination was exercised jointly by the two communities recognized as the co-founders of the Republic. Following the 1963 coup d'etat, only Turkish intervention had saved the Turkish Cypriot community from elimination and prevented union with Greece. The presence of Turkish armed forces continued in Cyprus on the basis of the Treaty of Guarantee and the principle of legitimate individual defence.

Behind all the setbacks and delays in the intercommunal negotiations since 1974 was the ill will of the Greek Cypriots, aided and abetted by Greece. The exasperation of the Turkish community reached its peak in the proclamation of independence.

The 1974 Geneva Declaration had recognized the de facto existence of two community administrations in Cyprus, and in February 1975, the Turkish community administration had transformed itself into the Turkish State of Cyprus. So if the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus was already a separate State, "why all this hullabaloo' when all that State had done was change its name?

Turkey had asked the Turkish Cypriot community to wait a little longer and not proclaim its independence. However no one, not even Turkey, had the right to impede indefinitely the exercise of its right to self-determination. The Turkish Cypriot community had taken that action to demonstrate that it would not accept a status inferior to that of the Greek community. "This proclamation is not a secession', asserted Turkey. The Turkish Cypriot community considered itself bound by the Treaties of Establishment, Guarantee and Alliance.

Turkey had absolutely no territorial ambitions in Cyprus or elsewhere. It was true that before 1959 its goal had been to partition the island between Greece and Turkey, but since then Turkey, unlike Greece, had supported the idea of an independent Republic of Cyprus.

Because the text of the draft resolution was based on a "distortion of historical events and a misreading of legal facts' and showed "not the slightest concern for an even-handed and equitable approach to the two communities of Cyprus', Turkey would reject it if the Council approved it.

Council Members

China said the international community was well aware the question of Cyprus was a complicated one left over from colonialist rule and that there might be "twists and turns and even setbacks' in the course of negotiations. Nevertheless, China believed that as long as both the Greek and Turkish Cypriots continued with the negotiations in a spirit of mutual understanding and accommodation, they should be able to find a fair and just solution acceptable to both sides.

China supported the resolution since it referred to respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and called on the parties to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices.

France unreservedly denounced the proclamation of the independence of the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' and called on the international community not to recognize that "illegal action'.

France had always maintained that the solution to the problem must include respect for the unity, integrity, sovereignty and independence of Cyprus, which implied withdrawal of the foreign occupation forces. It welcomed the Secretary-General's recent initiatives towards resumption of intercommunal talks, as well as the idea of talks between the President of Cyprus and head of the Turkish Cypriot community. The decision taken by the authorities of the northern zone jeopardized those prospects for a settlement and must be rescinded.

Guyana could not separate the Turkish Cypriot community's declaration of independence from an increasing tendency in world politics to resort to threat or use of force. The action of 15 November was an attempt to consolidate and give legitimacy to a situation created by invasion and occupation.

That action also added a new dimension to an already complicated search for a solution to the question of Cyprus. Security Council resolution 367 (1975) called on all parties to refrain from any action that might jeopardize negotiations between the two communities and to take steps to facilitate creation of a climate necessary for their success. The Non-Aligned Movement had consistently promoted withdrawal of all occupation troops as an essential basis for solution of the Cyprus problem.

Guyana considered the Council's response in the resolution inadequate, although "in a spirit of compromise' it would vote in favour of it. Guyana felt the Council should condemn the declaration of independence as being in defiance of the United Nations and, consistent with the gravity of the situation, should declare that the United Nations would not recognize the so-called independent entity. Guyana would certainly not recognize it and called on other Member States to take a similar position.

Jordan affirmed its full commitment to the sovereignty, territorial integrity, independence and non-aligned status of Cyprus and expressed satisfaction that no delegation had expressed objections to that stand, which had been the "point of departure' for all concerned since the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Jordan disapproved of the recent developments in Cyprus as a means of solving the Cyprus problem. While the Council and Assembly had dealt appropriately with the regional aspect of the question, there was a kind of "lacuna' in the treatment of the internal aspect.

There was much in the draft resolution to which Jordan did not object in principle. Unfortunately, it failed to take into account the internal problem of Cyprus. Jordan felt the provisional version of the draft would have provided a better basis for solution, since it emphasized the Secretary-General's role.

Netherlands deeply deplored the Turkish Cypriot community's unilateral declaration of independence, which clearly disregarded United Nations resolutions. The least the Council could do was uphold its "principles and previous commitments', calling for withdrawal of the declaration, which was legally invalid. Netherlands reiterated its unconditional support for the independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus and continued to regard the Government of President Kyprianou as the sole legitimate Government.

The latest step taken by the Turkish Cypriot authorities could only complicate the already difficult task of reaching a settlement acceptable to both communities, said Netherlands. Nonetheless, it believed there was no alternative to peaceful dialogue. It called on the two communities to co-operate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices and urged all parties to help create favourable conditions leading to a just and lasting solution and to refrain from actions that could exacerbate the situation.

Calling on the international community to reaffirm its support of UNFICYP, Netherlands said that under the present circumstances, the Force's presence gave assurance that recent events would not escalate into acts to further strain relations between the two communities. However, that presence should never be used as a pretext for not addressing the real issues in Cyprus, one of which was the continued presence of foreign armed forces on its territory. Netherlands called on all parties to facilitate the early withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Republic "under circumstances that would not endanger the safety of both communities'.

Nicaragua said the unilateral declaration was one more act in the dramatic escalation of the trend towards violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of non-aligned Member States. United Nations resolutions on the question of Cyprus called for cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs and requested the withdrawal of all foreign forces as a prerequisite for solution. The declaration of independence by the Turkish Cypriot leaders violated provisions of those resolutions which said the de facto situation created by force could have no effect on the political solution and appealed to the parties to refrain from unilateral action that might adversely affect the prospects of solution.

Nicaragua said Cyprus had spared no efforts to comply with the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, particularly regarding a peaceful solution based on unity. The international community must not permit Cyprus' status as a unified and independent State to be altered unilaterally. The Council must declare that action null and void an call on Member States not to recognize it. Anything else would constitute "indefinite perpetuation' of an unlawful military occupation.

Pakistan said it had consistently emphasized the need for promoting confidence between the two communities to ensure progress in the intercommunal talks. It deeply regretted that Assembly resolutions continued to remain insensitive to those concerns, widening the rift between the two communities and deepening the Turkish Cypriots' frustration.

The Turkish Cypriots had expressed deep disappointment at the inadequacy of the response to their suggestion for a summit meeting with President Kyprianou under United Nations auspices. Their decision to declare an independent "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' was thus attributable as much to the international community's neglect of their vital interests as to the failure of the Greek leadership to mitigate the misgivings of their Turkish compatriots.

It was not too late, however, for the Council to fulfil a constructive and decisive role in resolving the situation in Cyprus. The declaration of an independent "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' was not an irreversible act of secession. The Turkish Cypriot community had expressly reaffirmed their desire for continuation of the Secretary-General's mission of good offices and the resumption of negotiations.

Pakistan cautioned against adopting a resolution condemning the Turkish Cypriot community, whose co-operation was "a sine qua non for re-establishing the unity of Cyprus.' Such a resolution was more likely to exacerbate bad feelings and aggravate the situation it sought to cure.

The present text had been modified to exclude any reference to the intercommunal negotiations, thus robbing the resolution of any explicit mandate for the Secretary-General to promote conciliation between the two communities. For that reason, it was unacceptable to Pakistan.

The proclamation of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' was a "regrettable event', said Poland. It added a new dimension to the crisis in Cyprus by increasing tensions in the area, thus posing a threat to international peace and security. That unilateral step had prejudiced the painstaking efforts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict, disrupting the Secretary-General's negotiations at a delicate stage. Particularly disturbing was the fact the step had been taken at a moment when the negotiations seemed to justify hope for a summit meeting between the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish community leader.

Poland favoured resolution of the problem through intercommunal negotiations without interference by other States. The problem should be resolved with respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and for its non-aligned status.

Efforts to refrain from any action that might aggravate the situation were a sine qua non of a negotiated, mutually acceptable settlement, Poland said, calling for an end to all foreign intervention in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

Togo had been "astounded' at the proclamation of the so-called "turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus'. Did that spell an end to the United Nations' efforts to resolve the unhappy problem of Cyprus? Had all the Secretary-General's "sacrifices' been in vain?

The question of Cyprus was rooted in the difficulties encountered by two peoples who had been "condemned by history' to live together on the same territory, said Togo. A settlement must be based on strict respect for the Constitution and the treaties signed at the time of Cyprus' accession to independence. The two communities should work together to build a Cyprus with full territorial integrity. Neither should take advantage of de facto situations to unilaterally modify conditions which were the subject of Treaties guaranteeing the rights of both communities.

Togo hoped the parties would return to the negotiating table with the assistance of the Secretary-General's good offices.

The USSR shared the international community's profound concern at the proclamation by the Turkish Cypriot community of a so-called independent State. That separatist action could lead only to a further exacerbation of the situation in Cyprus and subvert the prospects for a just political settlement of the question.

The Soviet Union condemned all actions that undermined the territorial integrity of Cyprus and threatened international peace and security. The Turkish Cypriot community should rescind its decision, and conditions should be created for resuming intercommunal negotiations. The Council should also appeal to all States concerned to take no action that could further increase tensions. The Soviet Union supported the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the dismantling of military bases on the island.

The Soviet Union supported the resolution but said the "Zurich-London agreements' referred to in the preamble seriously curtailed its sovereignty. The guarantees envisaged therein were essentially used to serve interests alien to the Cypriot people. They had failed to prevent armed intervention in Cyprus and acts aimed at splitting up the State.

United Kingdom said it had requested the Council meeting out of deep concern at the action taken by the Turkish Cypriots purporting to declare unilaterally the establishment of an independent State in the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus.

The text of the resolution reflected the United Kingdom's views. The British Government deplored the Turkish Cypriot action. It recognized only one Cypriot State, the Republic of Cyprus under President Kyprianou. The Turkish Cypriot action was incompatible with the Treaties governing the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus.

The draft was directed at the present deplorable action. It did not purport to deal with the whole problem of Cyprus.

The Council's responsibilities required it to address itself to the future. Both communities had expressed support for the Secretary-General's mission of good offices and the 1977 and 1979 High-level Agreements. It remained necessary to make every effort to bring the two sides together. The best way to do that was through the activities of the Secretary-General, the United Kingdom felt. It hoped the Council would give him its full backing and unstinting co-operation in the days ahead.

Zaire noted that many resolutions had been adopted by the United Nations in an attempt to bring about a just, negotiated solution in Cyprus. It commended the efforts of all parties concerned. In no circumstances, could Zaire support a solution dictated by the use of force, much less secession. Therefore, it remained firmly committed to the continuance of the intercommunal talks under the Secretary-General's auspices.

Zimbabwe said the illegal unilateral "declaration of independence' by the Turkish Cypriot leaders on 15 November was being roundly condemned by world leaders. Zimbabwe's Prime Minister had said it exacerbated the grave problems facing Cyprus and was ""sure to cause serious harm not only to the delicate peace obtaining in that country but also to the initiatives of the international community to seek, through the United Nations, a negotiated solution to the problem facing the Turkish and Greek communities of Cyprus''.

The illegal declaration came at a time when the Secretary-General's own personal efforts toward a peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem were under way. That move was, therefore, "utterly unjustified' and a "rude and intolerable slap in the face for the international community'.

The Council must condemn it and declare it null and void. It must call on all member States not to recognize the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' and call on the Turkish Cypriot leadership to withdraw its illegal declaration immediately, in order to create conditions conducive to resuming the Secretary-General's efforts to reach a peaceful, just and lasting solution.

Table: Council Meetings

Photo: Security Council members adopt resolution 541 (1983) by a vote of 13 to 1, with 1 abstention.