.
By Dr. Andrestinos N. Papadopoulos, Ambassador a.h.
It is quite obvious, that when the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Alexander Downer met, as it was reported, the so-called Foreign Minister and Prime Minister of the illegal regime of the north, he was aiming at upgrading the so-called Turkish-Cypriot state. Moreover, according to reports, he tried to organise through the British Embassy, which pretends that it favours the reunion of Cyprus, the meeting of the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in the occupied area! Time wise, these actions coincide with the pressure exercised by Turkey for the start of the negotiations and the meeting of the P5 in the occupied area would have proved beneficial. Fortunately, the firm stand of the Ambassadors of Russia and China, who did not attend the meeting, strictly observing the UN resolutions and the terms of reference of the good offices mission of the UN Secretary General, averted this possibility. The French Ambassador went to the meeting, but stated that it was regrettable the fact that the British High Commissioner hosted the meeting in the north, thus hindering the presence of the Russian and Chinese Ambassadors.
These moves by Mr. Downer were highly unproductive, as they created a negative climate and prompted the reaction not only of the government, but also of the political parties and the Church, which asked the withdrawal of Mr. Downer. It is of interest to look into the legal aspects of Mr. Downer’s misconduct within the framework of the good offices mission of the UN Secretary General.
The Security Council with two Resolutions, 244 (1967) of 22 December 1967 and 367 (1975) of 12 March 1975 invited the parties to avail themselves of the good offices of the Secretary General with a view to finding a solution to the Cyprus problem. It is according to Article 98 of the Charter – providing that the Secretary General “shall perform such other functions as are entrusted to him by General Assembly, the Security Council…..” – that the executive organ of the UN entrusted to Ban Ki-moon and his predecessors the mission of good offices to Cyprus.
Performing this duty, the Secretary General should act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, the norms of international law and the UN Resolutions. This view was supported by former Secretary Generals Dag Hammarskjold and U Thant, who regarded that “strict compliance with the aims and principles of the Charter was sine qua non of every exercise of good offices by the Secretary General.”
More importantly, the International Court of Justice in the “Expenses Case” – when the Court gave an opinion on whether certain expenses have been validly authorised by a series of General Assembly resolutions – said that the validity of the United Nations actions should be tested in the light of the Charter’s aims and distinguished international lawyers, such as the late Professor Derek Bowett, take the view that when the Secretary General acts under a specific resolution it is his practice to consider it as biding terms or reference.
These are, therefore, the terms of reference of the good office mission of the UN Secretary General and his Special Representative should act within this framework with due respect of the UN resolutions. One wonders whether Mr. Downer is not aware of Resolution 186 (1964) of 4th March 1964, which created UNFICYP, where there is a specific reference to the “sovereign Republic of Cyprus”, and more importantly of Resolution 541 (1983) of 18th November 1983, which considers the Turkish Cypriot UDI “as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal”, while at the same time is “calling upon all states not to recognise any Cypriot State other than the Republic of Cyprus.”
In view of the above, any attempt to upgrade the so-called Turkish Cypriot state through policies of equal distances runs counter to the UN Resolutions, the Charter and the decisions of the International Court of Justice.
