Parliamentary Assembly

Mr President, members of the Assembly, ladies and gentlemen, please permit me at the outset to extend my sincere thanks for the invitation to address the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I feel particularly honoured and privileged to be here with you today and to share with you my thoughts and concerns, as Europe is once more at a turning point.

Not very long ago we were agonising in international fora about the future of our civilisation because of the cold war, the race in nuclear armaments and the troubled spots of the world. Today the cold war is over and in parts of the world the old regimes have collapsed and a move to pluralistic societies and a free market economy is being made. However, the newly acquired freedom revived old enmities and opened the door to nationalistic chauvinism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, violation of the rule of law and the abominable practice of ethnic cleansing.

Following the collapse of communism that brought the cold war to an end, Europe has once again stepped into the forefront of the world scene. Our continent is once again not only the main stage of political activity but also a place where deep security, political, economic and social concerns have taken new and worrisome dimensions.

We are confronted with great challenges, old and new: the building of peace and security, the taming of the destructive forces of aggressive nationalism and intolerance, the safeguarding and promotion of human rights and democracy, the advancement of economic development throughout Europe, the protection of the environment and of course, above all, the European contribution towards a new and more humane world order. We are at the same time presented with greater opportunities for realising these objectives.

The most far-reaching consequence of the collapse of the wall that divided Europe, however, is the re-emergence of Europe as an ideal. Europe is no longer a mere geographic area divided by conflicting ideological, political and socio-economic diametrically-opposed systems. It is now a bond forged by history, by shared cultural heritage and common values. The political area from the Urals to the Atlantic and from Scandinavia to Cyprus is the Europe of the future. The European ideal is now being translated into a dynamic drive towards integration, uniting the peoples of Europe in a community of destiny.

This drive takes the form of an ever-deepening relationship between the European states and the broadening of the spectrum of their shared activities, be they economic, social, cultural or political.

Thus, a new impetus is given today to existing European organisations and institutions, while new ones are emerging in response to present and future needs, making a significant contribution to the realisation of this ideal. They are the guardians of our shared system of principles and values, while at the same time they are the most effective channels for our collective effort.

The Council of Europe, with its Parliamentary Assembly, is dedicated above all to the protection and development of pluralistic democracy, a free market economy and the rule of law. Human rights are now becoming the central focus that they deserve to be, giving substance to the hopes for the integration of the whole of Europe and the prevalence of democratic security.

The Council of Europe and in particular the Parliamentary Assembly, during the cold war years and in direct contact with the peoples of Europe, have kept the hope alive for a better and more humane future.

World developments, however, point out and clearly demonstrate that, unless the European community adopts a more unified approach in its understanding of the challenges it faces and the promotion of the necessary solutions, human rights abuse, increasing insecurity, civil wars, hunger and suffering will create an explosive situation which will spare no one. We are gradually becoming aware of the complexity and dimensions such issues acquire in an interdependent world.

The summit of the Council of Europe, held a few months ago in Vienna, in the preparation and convening of which this body played a pivotal role, is a landmark for its future development.

It gathered for the first time the heads of government of the member states, who discussed openly and frankly the problems confronting Europe today and the necessary institutional reforms which will render the Council of Europe more effective.

This unique meeting declared that closer co-operation and integration can only be achieved through the consolidation of democracy in the whole of Europe, the effective protection of human rights and the prevalence of the rule of law.

The European humanistic heritage which constitutes the driving force of our civilisation, and which derives its origins from the classical Greek period, to which Cyprus is proud to have contributed, places the individual human being in the centre of our concerns.

The safeguarding of human rights in every part of the world is today becoming, justifiably, a source of legitimate concern for the international community.

The Council of Europe and its machinery for the safeguarding of human rights are unique in this respect.

We must not forget, however, that the effectiveness of our institutions is based on certain simple principles: first, the consistent application of the principle of non-selectivity in cases of human rights violations; second, the full commitment of all members of our institutions to the need for implementing our system of shared principles without any constraints or reservations.

The worst service that can be rendered to the cause of human rights is the pursuance of a policy of double standards and selectivity dictated by narrow national interests. This is the best way of undermining the very ground on which the edifice for the protection of human rights is founded.

How can we justify the fact that in certain cases, to give an example, the restoration of human rights and fundamental freedoms such as the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties, becomes a sine qua non condition for the settlement of a dispute, while in some other cases this condition, for reasons of convenience, seems to be forgotten?

The experience of Cyprus can be very instructive in this respect. The European Commission on Human Rights was one of the bodies to deal with human rights violations by Turkey in Cyprus, which have been continuing since the Turkish invasion of 1974.

Following the third application of the Republic of Cyprus in 1977, the Commission closely studied the violations of human rights in Cyprus by Turkey. In 1983 it adopted a massive report, which clearly stated the facts and held Turkey responsible. Yet the report was only released in 1992. It remained confidential for nine years while the violations of the rights of the people of Cyprus were taking place.

What was the reason for this nine-year delay? If it is so difficult to disclose a report, how convincing do we expect to be in our commitment? How can we expect to be effective and credible if we do not have the necessary courage, or if certain interests prevent us from publishing the findings of the European Commission on Human Rights?

The challenges that Europe has to meet are great. Cypms is determined to play a role, and to make its own contribution to the effort of meeting those challenges and shaping the common European destiny. The Republic of Cyprus has already applied to become a full member of the European Union. Its European vocation and eligibility for membership have been recognised by the opinion of the Commission; the Council has confirmed that Cyprus fulfils all conditions for membership, and it has already been decided to proceed with substantive discussions that will help preparations for the accession negotiations.

My country’s determination to participate in the making of a new Europe is not limited to our efforts to obtain membership of the European Union, and our activity in the Council of Europe; Cyprus is also an active participant in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the other European institutions to which it contributes. Our European commitment is also exemplified in our bilateral relations with other European states.

Cyprus – a country that has had the experience of rebuilding its economy and prosperity on the ruins created by the Turkish invasion and occupation – can certainly contribute by sharing its experience with the countries of eastern and central Europe in their effort to move to a free market economy. To that end, we have already embarked on a dialogue with certain central and eastern European countries which look forward to closer economic co-operation with Cyprus, leading also to closer political aspirations.

Let me now turn to the question of Cyprus, and stress that it is within the overall European orientation of our country that we are trying to promote a solution to the Cyprus problem. Let me state at the outset, in the most emphatic and categorical manner, that my government and I remain firmly committed to sparing no effort to find a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem, and to make a success of the negotiations that take place by the good offices of the Secretary General of the United Nations, as provided by Security Council resolutions.

In line with our European commitment, we have accepted the basic principle that a political solution to the Cyprus problem must allow the two ethnic communities to enjoy maximum autonomy in internal administration, at the same time permitting the bicommunal Federal Republic of Cyprus to have one international legal personality and territorial integrity, to be free of foreign forces on its territory – as provided by United Nations resolutions – and to have entrenchment of human rights in its constitution, compatibility of its constitution with the acquis communautaire and entry into the European Union.

A question often asked is why a solution has escaped us for so many years. Some international observers say that the failure to find a solution results from the recent history of Cyprus, both before and after independence. Because of the intercommunal conflict, there is deep mistrust between the two communities. Others opine that the intercommunal aspect of the problem has been complicated by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the continued occupation by

Turkish forces of substantial territory in the republic. There are also those who attribute the failure to find a solution to a lack of political will among the parties concerned.

It cannot be denied that some mistrust exists between the two communities. The political leaderships of both communities – in which I include myself, for I have been concerned with and in the forefront of political life in my country for forty years – have committed serious political mistakes in the past. It is, however, a futile exercise to try to apportion blame, and to throw accusations and counter-accusations at one another. What is needed is a recognition that both leaderships erred, and a demonstration of the will not to repeat the mistakes of the past but to look to the future.

There can be no doubt that the Turkish invasion of Cyprus complicated the situation. As a result of that invasion, a third of the island’s Greek Cypriot population were expelled from their homes and properties and made refugees in their own country. A total of 1 619 Greek Cypriots are missing, and under the protection of the Turkish occupation forces a separate state was declared in the North and continues to be maintained by Turkey, despite United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541 and 550 calling for its dissolution and calling on all United Nations’ members not to recognise this state which broke away. Despite the United Nations Security Council resolution calling on both sides to avoid any acts which will change the demographic composition of the island, Turkey colonised the north by sending to Cyprus 80 000 Turks from Turkey who settled in the properties which the Greek Cypriots had been forced to leave. This process is still continuing. The Turkish forces built a military line across Cyprus thus forcing a military confrontation and preventing contact between the two communities.

The massive military presence in Cyprus of 40 000 Turkish troops and 400 armoured vehicles and tanks, with air cover and naval support, forces the Republic of Cyprus to maintain the national guard, to purchase arms and seek military support and joint defence planning with Greece.

I believe that the time has come, if progress is to be made towards a solution to the Cyprus problem, to proceed to the demilitarisation of the territory of the republic. Having this in mind I addressed, on 17 December 1993, a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations making the following offer:

“There is no doubt that the massive presence of Turkish military forces in the occupied part of Cyprus creates serious anxieties and mistrust amongst the Greek Cypriot community regarding Turkish intentions. It also imposes on the government of the republic the need to increase the defensive capabilities of the country by purchasing arms. Furthermore, it makes it necessary to request military help from Greece and to include Cyprus in the Greek defensive plans. There are also indications that the above preparations, though entirely defensive in their nature, are misinterpreted and cause anxiety and mistrust within the Turkish Cypriot community regarding Greek intentions.

After careful consideration, I came to the conclusion that in order to break the counterproductive climate of fear and mistrust and thus enhance the prospects of a negotiated settlement the government of the republic should take the following steps:

The above offer is made provided the Turkish side also agrees that parallel to the above the Turkish Forces are withdrawn from Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot armed forces disband and hand their weapons and military equipment to the custody of the United Nations peacekeeping force.

I also wish to reaffirm what I have told Mr Feissel before leaving for New York, namely that I am ready to discuss the modalities regarding the implementation of the confidence-building measures and of course the solution to the Cyprus problem.

I hope, Your Excellency, that the Turkish side will respond positively to my proposal, otherwise the only logical inference to be drawn will be that the massive presence of Turkish Forces is not for the alleged safety of the Turkish Cypriot community, but for the perpetuation of the status quo which, as stated in your report, has been created by military force and is sustained by military strength and which the Security Council has deemed unacceptable. Such an inference will impose on my government the need to substantially increase the defensive capabilities of the republic and to enter into arrangements with Greece regarding a common defensive plan.”

Regrettably, Turkey rejected my proposal.

Coming now to the view that the failure of finding a solution to the Cyprus problem is due to the lack of political will for a settlement by the communities I have the following observations.

It is a fact that there is lack of political will by the Turkish side. The Secretary General of the United Nations in his report to the Security Council, Document S/24830, of 19 November 1992 stated that the effort to find a solution, despite the intensive efforts made, failed because the Turkish position was at variance with the set of ideas prepared by the Secretary General and made it clear that there was a lack of political will by the Turkish side and that this was the major obstacle in reaching an agreed settlement.

The Secretary General of the United Nations in his report of 1 July 1993, Document S/26026, informed the Security Council that despite intensive efforts and preparatory work it was not found possible to secure acceptance by the Turkish side of the confidence-building measures and that the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community had not promoted the acceptance of the package of the confidence-building measures during his subsequent consultations in Ankara and Nicosia, nor did he return to the joint meeting in New York as he had undertaken to do.

Today, almost a year later, the situation on the issue of the confidence-building measures is as follows. The Greek Cypriot side accepted the paper prepared by the representatives of the Secretary General of 18 March regarding the implementation of the confidence-building measures. Regarding the position of the parties, the report of the Secretary General of 4 April 1994 (Document S/1994/1330) states the following:

“The leader of the Greek Cypriot community stated that, while he did not like many of the changes which had been introduced in the 21 March text, he was prepared to accept the revised text if the Turkish Cypriot leader would do likewise.

5. Before leaving Cyprus on 23 March, my special representative Mr Clark stated publicly that he had not received from the Turkish Cypriot side the agreement that he had hoped for on the implementation of the package.

6. On 28 March, Mr Feissel again met with the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community to pursue discussions to reach an agreement on the ideas for the implementation of the package of confidence-building measures. At the conclusion of this meeting, Mr Feissel confirmed publicly that there had been no new developments and that the Turkish Cypriot side had not provided the response necessary to make an agreement on the implementation of the confidence-building measures possible.”

Yesterday the Security Council agreed the text of a letter to be sent to the Secretary General, which states that the Greek Cypriot leader accepted the implementation of the confidence-building measures, as suggested by the representative of the Secretary General, but that the Turkish Cypriot leader has many objections to their implementation.

From what has been stated so far, it is clear that the Secretary General has warned the Security Council that the unacceptable status quo is maintained by military forces; the failure to find a solution in November 1992 squarely falls on the Turkish side which did not have the political will to conclude an agreement which was within reach; the failure to agree to the implementation of the confidence-building measures in April 1994 also falls squarely on the Turkish side, which has not accepted any of the proposals from the Secretary General’s representative on the implementation of those measures.

The Security Council has in its recent resolutions warned that if no progress is made it will consider alternative methods of promoting a solution. It is my firm belief that the time has come for the Security Council to decide to act. It must consider seriously the question of demilitarisation because as long as there is a massive Turkish occupation force in Cyprus the Turkish side will continue to show lack of political will for a solution to the Cyprus problem and both communities will bear arms and live as potential enemies.

Despite Turkish opposition, the European Union accepted our demand and appointed an observer in the talks. We are happy that his terms of reference are not only to keep the European Union informed if progress is being made, and consequently which side is responsible for the lack of progress, but also to inform it on whether the solution discussed is compatible with the acquis communautaire.

I also believe that it would give an impetus to the solution to the Cyprus problem if the accession of Cyprus to the European Union were to start without delay.

Ethnic differences, micronationalism and the problems of minorities gave a rude awakening from the euphoria that was created by the end of the cold war. It now seems that if we do not take immediate and resolute action the issues of minorities and their rights, along with the emerging wide confrontation between cultures, will be with us in the coming decades. Cyprus has every potential to be a model of success and a source of hope in our collective search for solutions. Problems of ethnic minorities or other communities are solved not by partition and forced physical separation but by participation in democratic institutions and effective constitutional and judicial protection. Cyprus, at the crossroads of continents and civilisations, can be a vital bridge of communication contributing to de-confrontation and understanding, provided that it is itself free of internal fragmentation and external intervention.

It is our dream to solve the problem of Cyprus not only because this will be beneficial to both communities and to the people of Cyprus, irrespective of language, religion or ethnic origin, but because we wish to bring Cyprus into the European Union as a state based on the European concept of democracy, freedom, justice, human rights and compliance with the rule of law.