Security Council extends mandate of Cyprus force until 15 June 1987.

The Security Council on 11 December unanimously extended the mandate of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) for another six months until 15 June 1987. The Cyprus Force has been in place since 1964.

The Council, in its resolution 593 (1986), also called upon all parties concerned to continue to co-operate with the Force "on the basis of the present mandate". The Secretary-General was asked to continue his mission of good offices, to keep the Council informed of progress made and to report on implementation of the resolution by 31 May 1987.

Established by Security Council resolution 186 of 4 March 1964, the Force has the task of preventing a recurrence of fighting and helping to restore normal conditions to the island. It also supervises the cease-fire lines in Cyprus and performs certain humanitarian tasks.

With a total strength of 2,328-2,290 troops and 38 civilian police-UNFICYP is under the command of Major-General Gunther G. Greindl. Contributing countries are: Australia (20 civilian police); Austria (301); Canada (515); Denmark (341); Finland (10); Ireland (8); Sweden (374 troops and 18 civilian police); and the United Kingdom (741). UNFICYP also has 34 international civilian staff members. The Force has suffered 139 fatal casualties since its inception.

Mission of good offices: In his report (S/18491 and Add.1) on the United Nations operation in Cyprus for the period 1 June to 30 November 1986, the Secretary-General stated that he had pursued his mission of good offices. He had met in New York with Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash on 16 September and President Spyros Kyprianou of Cyprus on 26 September, and told them that, given the mandate entrusted to him by the Security Council, he was determined pursue his efforts to assist in finding a mutually acceptable way to moved forward.

He had stressed the need to preserve and build on what had been achieved since, August 1984 and had advised them that he did not propose to revise the draft framework agreement of 29 March 1986 or to present a new one. It had been agreed that the Secretary-General would reflect on the views that both leaders had expressed to him and that he would then communicate to them his thoughts on how further progress might be achieved. President Kyprianou had asked him to sound out Security Council members on his proposal that the Secretary-General convene an international conference on the "withdrawal of the Turkish forces of occupation and settlers, and effective international guarantees".

Having reflected on those meetings, the Secretary-General had instructed Marrack Goulding, Under-Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs, and Gustave Feissel, Director in the Office of the Under-Secretaries-General for Special Political Affairs, to undertake a mission to Cyprus in November to explore possible ways of moving forward. The mission had recalled to both sides that, as a person entrusted with a mission of good offices, the Secretary-General's function was to produce ideas and suggestions to help the two sides find a solution, but that the Secretary-General could not impose anything on either side. Progress could be made only when both sides were in agreement.

It followed that, as long as the Security Council maintained the Secretary-General's mandate, he could not allow his mission of good offices to be frozen either because one side found a particular suggestion unacceptable, or cause the other side, having accepted a suggestion, insisted that his effort could not proceed until the other side had done the same. The mission had reiterated to both sides that the Secretary-General was determined to pursue his effort, preserving all that had been achieved so far and building. on it for further progress. They had also informed President Kyprianou that the Secretary-General's soundings of Security Council members had revealed differing positions and lack of agreement at present on the proposal for the convening of an international conference.

The Secretary-General reported that the two parties had maintained the positions they ha(i expressed following the submission of the draft framework agreement in March 1986. At the same time, they had reiterated their support for the Secretary-General's mission of good offices, stressing their commitment to the search for a just and lasting solution leading to the establishment of a federal republic of Cyprus. Both had said that they understood that Mr. Perez de Cuellar must continue the search for a way out of the current impasse. The Secretary-General observed that it should be possible to find a way for the two sides to proceed with negotiations to tackle in earnest all the issues whose resolution would permit the establishment of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal republic, while preserving the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and nonalignment of the Republic of Cyprus. Over the years, he said, the two sides had reached agreement on basic principles and objectives of such a solution: the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements, to which both sides remained committed, the matters agreed to during the intercommunal talks, and the progress made since August 1984, provided a foundation upon which a solution could be built. If both sides showed their goodwill and determination by "creating a more positive atmosphere, we may yet succeed".

UNFICYP Operations: During the reporting period, the Secretary-General said, the Cyprus Government had protested to the United Nations about the influx of Turkish settlers into the northern part of the island, expressing the view that the influx was intended to destroy the demographic structure of Cyprus. It had also denounced as illegal the distribution by the Turkish Cypriot side of properties located in the northern part of the island and owned by Greek Cypriots. In discussion with United Nations representatives, the Turkish Cypriot side had denied that settlers were arriving in the numbers alleged and had said that only limited numbers of seasonal workers from Turkey were being admitted to the northern part of the island. The Secretary-General stressed that it was important that nothing should be done to change the demographic composition of the island, as such action could prejudice efforts to help the parties to negotiate an overall solution.

The Cyprus Government had also complained to the United Nations, the Secretary-General went on, about desecration of several churches and a monastery located in the northern part of the island. In response to UNFICYP representations, the Turkish Cypriot side had rejected the allegations, which it had described as politically motivated, and had added that the Greek Cypriot side had been responsible either directly or indirectly for the destruction of 103 mosques between 1963 and 1974. It had informed UNFICYP of its efforts to preserve churches and other cultural sites and had expressed the view that it was a matter to be pursued not by UNFICYP but by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

The Secretary-General said he attached great importance to the preservation of the religious and cultural heritage of the island and he considered it the responsibility of those concerned to ensure that no desecration or destruction took place. The United Nations had in the past brought similar complaints to the attention of UNESCO and efforts had been undertaken to have that organization concern itself with those matters. That had not proved possible because of the Turkish Cypriot side's position that all pertinent arrangements must be made by them directly with UNESCO.

The Secretary-General said that in August, the Cyprus Government had protested to the United Nations that the strength of Turkish forces in the northern part of the island had increased and that the capability of their tanks had been enhanced. The Secretary-General was concerned by that report and had sought the views of the Force Commander of UNFICYP, Major-General Gunther G. Greindl, who reported that, from open observation, UNFICYP believed that there had been an increase in the strength of Turkish forces on the island and that Turkey had brought to Cyprus tanks with greater fire power and mobility than those previously there.

The Secretary-General had taken up that matter with the Turkish authorities, both personally and through the mission which he had sent to the area in November, and had also asked General Greindl to keep the situation under review. The Turkish authorities had denied that there had been any increase in the strength of their forces in Cyprus. They had confirmed that their tanks in Cyprus were being upgraded as part of a programme to improve all the Turkish Army's tanks, but had said that there would be no increase in the number of tanks stationed in Cyprus. They had stated that for their part they, were concerned by the acquisition of armored vehicles by the National Guard and by an increase in its manpower. On the latter point, the Government had assured UNFICYP that it was its intention to maintain a purely defensive posture.

Between 1 and 4 July, the Secretary-General said, a demonstration had taken place in the area of the Ledra Palace Hotel in Nicosia to protest against the visit of the Turkish Prime Minister to the northern part of the island. As a result, civilian movement through the adjacent crossing points had been obstructed, and UNFICYP had been obliged to maintain access to the northern part of the island through an alternative crossing point. On 4 July. the Turkish Cypriot side had announced a total ban on travel across the cease-fire line of the Turkish forces, closing all crossing points usually available to members of the diplomatic community and other civilians, and banning all UNFICYP movement into and out of the northern part of the island via the United Nations buffer zone. The activities of UNFICYP personnel stationed in the northern part of the island had not been affected, and it had been possible for UNFICYP to carry out its mandate within the buffer zone. Following interventions by him and the Force Commander, most of the crossing points had been reopened on 12 July. The status quo ante had been restored on 15 September 1986.

UNFICYP had continued to perform its function of maintaining calm and promoting normalization in the island, a function that was indispensable if the ongoing negotiations were to have a realistic chance of making progress. That important work continued to deserve the full support, including the financial support, of the international community. The continued presence of UNFICYP remained indispensable, both in helping to maintain calm in the island and in creating the conditions in which the search for a peaceful settlement could best be pursued, he said, recommending the extension of the Force's mandate for a further period of six months.

Committee on Missing Persons: He also reported that the Committee on Missing Persons in Cyprus had held four sessions during the period under review, with progress having been made on several cases.

Financing: The Secretary-General expressed concern about the Force's financial situation. The accumulated deficit in the UNFICYP Special Account was expected to reach $145 million by mid-December, unless additional contributions were received. Contributions and pledges over the last six-month period had been received from only 15 States, he said, amounting to $3.1 million against anticipated expenditures of some $14.3 million. As a result, the United Nations had been able to meet the claims of the troop-contributing Governments only up to December 1978.

"I do not believe that the United Nations or the troop-contributing countries can continue to tolerate indefinitely this gap between the resources made available to the United Nations and the costs of UNFICYP", the Secretary-General asserted. Unless there was a more generous response to his appeals for voluntary contributions than had been the case in recent years, the Council might wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to change the system of financing so that UNFICYP's costs would in future be financed by means of assessed contributions, he said.

Troop contributors: On 11 December, UNFICYP troop contributors informed the Secretary-General (S/18517) that the Force's existence should not be taken for granted. The further deterioration of its financial situation had placed an increasingly unfair and disproportionate burden on them. They shared the Secretary-General's belief that neither the United Nations nor the troop-contributing countries could continue to tolerate indefinitely the gap between the resources made available to the United Nations and UNFICYP costs. They fully supported the Secretary-General's assessment that the Council might wish to consider whether it would be appropriate to change the system of financing so FICYP's costs would in future be financed by means of assessed contributions. They also supported the Secretary-General's efforts to help the parties to reach a negotiated solution, and urged the parties to show the goodwill and determination required for a successful outcome.

Statements

In debate, Constantine Moushoutas (Cyprus) said that for 12 years, Cypriots had been the victims of "aggression, military occupation, expulsion, uprooting, attempts at secession and the massive violation of human rights". Turkey had consolidated further its grip on the occupied territories of the Republic. It had constructed a vast military airport in Lefkonico. There had been a tremendous increase in Turkish occupation troop strength which, according to United Nations sources, numbered 28,000, although Cyprus estimated the number to be more than 32,000.

Ankara was continuously "upping the ante" through "Turkification" by the importation of thousands of illegal settlers into the occupied areas of the Republic. The number of settlers had reached some 60,000, according to the Turkish Cypriot press.

The settlers' party, he said, organized and guided by Turkey, had participated in the "so-called government of the pseudo-state", thus enabling Turkey to have, in addition to its military control, continuing political control of the Turkish Cypriot community. So-called elections had been conducted and so-called governments had been formed in the occupied areas in which those colonists had had a decisive say, "thus adulterating the will of the Turkish Cypriot community". Since the Turkish invasion of the Republic in 1974 and the continuing military occupation of nearly 40 per cent of its territory, the "Turkish invaders have pursued a premeditated and systematic policy of destruction of the tradition of the occupied areas".

As long as Turkey persisted in its occupation of Cypriot territory, any so-called intercommunal negotiations would in fact be conducted at gun-point and offer Turkey an additional means of exerting pressure on the Greek Cypriot side in order to make it surrender to Turkish demands and force it to capitulate unconditionally and accept that the whole of Cyprus be placed under Turkey's political and military control. "Through Turkish actions of faits accomplis we are now faced with a situation where nothing will be left to negotiate about short of asking the Government of Cyprus to surrender and to accept the partition, dismemberment and disintegration of the Republic of Cyprus".

The Secretary-General, he stated, was not a mediator or an arbitrator, and therefore any ideas or suggestions he might have were for discussion and could not be submitted as formal proposals for acceptance or rejection. Documents could be submitted only if there was prior approval by both sides. The outstanding issues of the withdrawal of the troops and the settlers, international guarantees, and the "three freedoms" - freedom of movement, freedom of settlement and the right to property - should receive priority treatment. The Secretary-General should pursue the matter of convening an international conference further.

"A demilitarized Republic, united and territorially integral, without armies of occupation and barbed wires, will bring forth again, even stronger and warmer, the age-old peaceful and amicable coexistence of the people Cyprus, separated now by artificial barriers. We look forward to rebuilding with the Turkish Cypriot community the bridges of co-operation which are temporarily out of use because they have been blown up by foreign interference, invasion, division and occupation."

Mihalis Dountas (Greece) said Greece would respond positively to any suggestion aimed at putting UNFICYP finances on a sound footing. There had been a quantitative and qualitative increase in the Turkish occupation forces in Cyprus. Turkey intended to leave at least part of its army in the island indefinitely. The question of the withdrawal of the Turkish army should be discussed as a matter of absolute priority. However, there was no indication in the Secretary-General's report that the Turkish side envisaged any change in its position on that question.

The possibilities for progress on the Cyprus question could be correctly assessed only by dealing as a matter of priority with the main outstanding issues which constituted the crux of the question - the withdrawal of Turkish troops, eventual guarantees, and the "three freedoms". The presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus remained the stumbling-block for progress towards a solution in the island. Greece continued to lend its support to the Secretary-General's mission of good offices. It stood firmly at the side of the Cypriot Government in its genuine struggle for a peaceful and just solution to a problem.

Ilter Turkmen (Turkey) said UNFICYP's role had undergone a tremendous change. If the peace process continued to be hampered by Greek Cypriot intransigence, the need for the continued presence of the Force would become more and more questionable. Because of the unacceptable elements it contained, Turkey could not consent to any extension of UNFICYP's mandate on the basis of the present resolution. Therefore, it lacked Turkey's support as a directly interested party. Turkey fully agreed with the position of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on the modalities of UNFICYP's presence in Northern Cyprus. Turkey supported the Secretary-General's efforts "in search of a federal solution in Cyprus". The draft framework agreement constituted an "integrated whole". Greek Cypriot demands and preconditions advanced to evade that.document were illogical and unreasonable. Their sole purpose was to discard the legitimate interests of the Turkish Cypriot side.

Turkey had not reinforced its forces in northern Cyprus, in either personnel or equipment. It was encouraging peace and negotiations in Cyprus and supporting, in that context, the Secretary-General's mission of good offices and the document of 29 March 1986. There was close collaboration between Greece and the Greek Cypriot administration to increase dramatically armaments and military capabilities in southern Cyprus. The attempt to start the history of the crisis of Cyprus only in 1974 was a deep cause of the conflict. Whenever the efforts for a comprehensive solution had taken a more defined shape, Greek Cypriots had directed their energies to frustrating that effort.

Ozer Koray, on behalf of the Turkish Cypriot Community, said the violent dismantling of the bi-national Republic of Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot wing had commenced on 21 December 1963. Greek Cypriots, who had terminated the partnership of 1960 between Greek and Turkish Cypriots through the use of force, had never been genuinely interested, either before or since 1974, in re-establishing a join Government with Turkish Cypriots. The recognition of "an illegal, unconstitutional, usurper regime as the Government of Cyprus" was the main stumbling-block in the way of a negotiated solution in Cyprus.

The political equality cf the two sides in Cyprus, which had been embodied in the 1960 Constitution, must be recognized, and equal treatment must be accorded to both sides if the chances of a negotiated settlement in Cyprus were to be enhanced. The draft framework agreement of 29 March 1986 was the right framework for a negotiated solution. The acceptance of that document by the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was still valid and that document remained on the table. The only factor blocking the way to progress and to a negotiated overall solution was the lack of political will on the part of the Greek Cypriot side.

He said the Greek Cypriot leadership, which took pride in its "meek subordination" to Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, could not and would not accept any document that embodied the principle of equal political status of both sides in Cyprus and envisaged a bi-communal, bi-zonal republic. It was because of the presence of those elements in the draft framework agreement that the Greek Cypriot side had shrunk from accepting it. A more flexible approach in the treatment of the two sides in Cyprus was the only leverage the international community had in affecting a positive change in the attitude and approach of the Greek Cypriot side.

There were today more Turkish Cypriots and their descendants living elsewhere than in Cyprus itself There was no problem of "settlers" in Cyprus the way the Greek Cypriot side had portrayed it. Those who returned were "our kith and kin coming back to their lost homeland". "The Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is the sole legitimate authority conducting the affairs of the State, including control of its borders and of the crossing points to and from its territory. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is the embodiment of the right to self-determination of the Turkish people of Cyprus, is as legal and constitutional as the Greek Cypriot administration masquerading as the legitimate |Government of Cyprus' is illegal and unconstitutional."

The Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, he stated, rejected resolution 593 (1968) firmly, unequivocally, and in toto. It understood that the Secretary-General's mission of good offices emanated from Council resolution 367 (1975), in which case it pledged that mission its full support. The present mandate of UNFICYP was not compatible with the radically changed conditions. "The principle, the scope, the modalities and the procedures of co-operation between the authorities of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and UNFICYP shall be based only on decisions which shall be taken solely by the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus."