Sir,
I am amazed once again that the United Nations have approved the renewal of UNFICYP’s mandate for another six months, while apparently urging both sides to move forward towards the resumption of Cyprus negotiations.
“Only the achievement of a comprehensive settlement will bring an end to the Cyprus problem,” the Security Council said. “In the absence of such a comprehensive settlement, the presence of UNFICYP on the island continues to be necessary.”
Well, if my memory serves me right the UN plan – better known as the “Annan plan” – tabled on March 31, 2004, submitted to separate simultaneous referenda of April 24, 2004, formed the basis of a comprehensive settlement. The plan was the synthesis of agreed guidelines and many years of negotiation and foresaw the establishment of a new bi-zonal partnership, based on the acknowledgement by each side of the other’s distinct identity and integrity and the fact that their relationship was not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other.
However, in his emotional pre-referendum speech of April 7, 2004, the Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopulos called on the Greek Cypriot people to give a resounding ‘no’ reply to the UN plan. At a book-launching ceremony on January 14, 2005, the Greek Cypriot leader stated that the main reason for the Greek Cypriot refusal was the failure of the UN plan to endorse the sole continuity of the Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus. He pointed out that the security arrangements of the plan were not the main issue.
Just to remind the UN Secretary-general, the Turkish Cypriot people have been suffering economic oppression since 1963. In his report of September 10, 1964 (S/5950) the Secretary-general had described the economic restrictions imposed against the Turkish Cypriot people as “so severe as to amount to a veritable siege” (paragraph 222). In his report of May 28, 2004 (S/2004/437) the UN Secretary-general reported that “I would hope they [members of the Security Council] can give a strong lead to all states to co-operate both bilaterally and in international bodies to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development” (paragraph 93).
On May 1, 2004, the Greek Cypriots were rewarded for their ‘no’ vote by being admitted into the EU and promises to lift the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriots both by the UN and EU remain to be no more than just empty rhetoric.
So, given these simple examples, why on earth is it necessary to keep just under 1,000 UN “peacekeepers” on the island at the insistence of the Greek Cypriot administration when their security surely lies in the hands of their partners – the European Union?
This is a blatant waste of serious and ill afforded resources that could serve better in trouble spots such as Darfour.
To this end, I would urge the UN Secretary-general to reconsider this mandate at the next meeting of the Security Council as to the status of the security of the Cypriots, given EU involvement on the island. Surely, both the UN and EU must be fed up to the back teeth with Greek Cypriots’ blatant manipulation at every step.
Altan Houssein, Kyrenia
