Earth to mars,is anybody there!?(you finally did it i lowered myself to your level)

WHere is the quote????And you generalised about my resources and i was talking about whatever i had posted.

Originally posted by Phallanx So never and I do mean NEVER!!! question my sources again. Unlike you, I only use documents that DO exist. I do have more if you're not full yet.

I remain Unsatisfied

Proof?I posted 3 links,a teeny bit of the ottoman archives and i am almost at the point of posting the agreement that turkey signed with greece and un

Pathetic.Instead of meddling with words answer my request.You have failed to give me a direct quote from denktash

and you are a fraud.Alparslan pointed that you were adding on facts really nicely....

Tsk tsk, Atomic�. Quick to proclaim your easy conclusion of Greek-Cypriot "massacres," while Turks and Turkish Cypriots were such poor and innocent angels?

Could the first two lines of your quote describe EXACTLY yours and your friends attitude here, Atomic?? Tsk Tsk I bet you haven�t notice it

Tsk tsk Atomic... if YOU fail to read long documents/posts which prove the other side's point it doesnt have to apply for the MAJORITY of people here. But if you follow your own advice Atomic, YOU should be ashamed of yourself, for spamming this board with a soooo lo-o-oong post that nobody according to your own logic is going to read.

You mean like the links of your writings YOU MISSED to provide????? Tsk Tsk Atomic... i love how you manage to contradict yourself with your own quotes

Be my guest Atomic... but like you wrote before, it would be best to provide the links of the un-biased and non Anti-Greek sites you took them from. Too bad you failed to do it.

IF we follow your own logic Atomic, Cyprus has never been the possession of the government of Turkey. And before you rush into to protest, remember Turkey has been a republic government since 1923.

But again what you fail to grasp is, what matters is WHO WERE THE INHABITANTS OF THE ISLAND. And if you cared to read the history of Cyprus, Greeks were for THOUSANDS of years there, since 1400 B.C . No matter who ruled, The majority of inhabitants were greeks, they had a continuous presence there and they spoke greek language and had the same culture like the rest of Greeks.

Have you just wrote Atomic "when the RULE changed, the humanitarian Turks allowed the Greek PEOPLE to remain, and flourish"???

You mean Atomic, not to have the tragic end of e.g the inhabitants of Constantinople in 1453 when the savages were butchering them for 3 DAYS after the fall of Constantinople???

OR to have the tragic end of the 20.000 inhabitants of Nicosia who were massacred  from Lala Mustafa Pasha???

And what else did the humanitarian turks did?? As usual every church, public building, and palace was looted, property who belonged to Greeks Cypriots was taken by force from Ottomans. Many Greek- Cypriots were forced to convert to Islam in order to save their lifes (have you ever heard the term "Linobambakoi", Atomic??? and all of these because...of the humanitarian Turks!!!! In other words, Atomic is telling us to THANK the humanitarian Turks who spared the lifes of the entire Greek-Cypriot population and didnt exterminate them.

Tsk tsk, Isk. Quick to proclaim your easy conclusion of Turkish "massacres," while the Greek Cypriots were such poor and innocent angels?

I see you gentlemen are enjoying patting each other on the shoulder, and crying victory over the seemingly case-closing impact of these documents. Here's my response. (And please keep in mind I rarely venture onto this site, so if I don't answer, at least not right away, that doesn't necessarily mean I have no answer... as you seem to be implying with your slow-to-respond foes, who have caused you such hearty amusement.)

You should be ashamed of yourself, Phallanx, for spamming this board with lo-o-ongg documents that nobody is going to read. Next time, it would be more considerate of you to highlight the points you'd like to make, and to provide links on the Internet for anyone interested in the details. Anybody can post long documents. (Maybe one is okay once in a while, but a whole series of them? Is that the purpose of this forum, to get lost in the crowd of difficult-to-get-through legalese in this particular case, or to attempt honest discussion?)

Would you like me to post the many western and "Christian" press reports of the long line of Greek Cypriot barbarities? Those words, I believe, would speak infinitely louder than the opinions of biased anti-Turkish "Christian" parties firmly in alignment with your Greek version of events.

We'll address the nature of these documents in greater detail, as I run down the list of what I've encountered on this thread.

Now, I don't know whether we got the expression, "slow as molosses" from one of our members here, but when Molosses made the utterly false statement of "I must remind you that (Cyprus) has been Greek since the dawn of humanity," I don't know why the honorable Greeks among you did not jump down his throat. The fact is, the nationalistic propaganda of your country drives home this very same notion.

This is why Clerides unashamedly declared years ago, "We have taken these lands from our ancestors as Hellenic, our national duty is to deliver them to our future generations as Hellenic, however not divided but as a whole." President Stephanopoulos also did his bit to distort history when he proclaimed, after having received his Makarios medal of honor: "CYPRUS IS GREEK, and we are not alone in saying that. It is history which declares it so."

When the lies emerge so readily from your leaders' mouths, of course your brains are going to be washed, better than if you were to drop your drachmas into the coin slots of the local laundromat. 

I'm not aware of any history book ever crediting Greece to have owned Cyprus. the previous owners of Cyprus, chronologically, were as follows: The Assyrians, the Sumerians, the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, the Venetians, and the Ottoman Turks. Contrary to Augustus' very intelligent post (adding other parties I wasn't aware of, including the ancient Hittites), where he otherwise observed, "It seems Cyprus was Greek only for a rather small part of its recorded history," "seems" is the key word. What it really seems like is that Cyprus has never been the possession of the government of Greece.

As far as Strategos' response when trapped in the corner with the lie of Cyprus being Greek -- "The RULE of countries can change, but the PEOPLE still remain" -- I beg to offer a caveat. The reason why there are Greeks on the island of Cyprus ever since 1571 is because when the RULE changed, the humanitarian Turks allowed the Greek PEOPLE to remain, and flourish. Quite unlike Greece's inhuman ethnic cleansing policies whenever she had the upper hand with Turks. True in 1821, true in 1919, and true in 1974.

The Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia published an interview with Nicos Sampson on Feb. 26, 1981 in which he said, "Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed << enosis,>> I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

In the movie, I don't know why Tony Curtis stepped up to the plate and was quick to shout, I'M SPARTAKUS! I don't know, would you be willing to put your life on the line for another who writes such nonsense as "The situation is that a foreign state,Turkey, invaded illlegaly to another state..."? I hope Spartakus wasn't referring to 1570-1, during the age of empires, where everyone was illegally invading each others' territories... and the Venetians lost the island, only 40 miles off the Turkish coast. 

If Spartakus was referring to the legality of the 1974 events, I'll get to that critical question toward the end, when addressing the endless document spams of Phallanx.

Strategos wrote, "I have a feeling that if turks were the main population on Cyprus, then at one time it would want to try to unite with ;the motherland'." Well, Strategos obviously has many emotional feelings about the issue, and while he is certainly welcome to his speculations, his feelings do not translate into fact.

The fact is, When Ataturk overthrew the Ottoman Empire, along with the invading Greeks who meant to enslave his nation, Venizelos was so impressed with the honor of the Turkish leader, he nominated Ataturk for the Nobel Peace Prize. Ataturk made good on his proclamation, "Peace at home, peace in the world." At no time has Turkey taken on an aggressive major military stance outside her borders, except when snapping to the attention of her USA master, getting involved in foreign adventures for which the Turks have rarely received sufficient credit.

Of course, the prejudiced world, just about all of whom fought bloody wars against the Turks over the centuries, is not going to listen to the side of the Turks.  So was Turkey suddenly the aggressor in Cyprus, going smack-dab against her peaceful policies since her existence as a republic? That doesn't make any sense.

Once again, the Greeks provoked, and the Turks... after enduring patiently the rude and often criminal Greek jabs time and again... reacted. Action-Reaction; this is the scientific formula of Greeks vs. Turks. Finally, after being fed their medicine, and unhappy about the consequences of the repercussions, do the Greeks ever take it like a man? No. They weep and take their case to their Christian compatriots, the latter of whom have never given the Turks a fair shake.

So when Red Guard asked, "Why can't the Greeks and Turks just unite into one indepent nation?" it wasn't for lack of trying on humanistic Turkey's part. The people of the island lived in relative peace... Until the 1950s, once again, the Greeks started their nationalistic provocations. Sure, they can come up with all their little speculative theories to deter from the real truth, like Turkey planning to have an "enosis" with Cyprus (when the idea of such union was entirely on the part of Greece; but this isn't the first time when the Orthodox clan commits the crime, and then points the finger at Turkey for having their criminal idea), and as Phallanx is disgracefully trying to present TAKISM as the reason why the troubles got started, when TAKISM was obviously a reaction to the Greeks' provocatively murderous actions.

You are not being honorable, Phallanx, by ignoring the fact that it was your fathers committing the crimes. It's not right for you to try and cover their having fired the first shot, by making it seem like the Turks were the aggressors. 

Now let's get to those spam documents, and the legality of Turkey's move.

Okay, they all sound good on the surface. Turkey is one bad boy.

But here's the deal, friends. The Greeks, like the Armenians, know they are the darlings of the Christian world. They have practical free reign to do whatever mischief they want, spoiled brats that they are, in full realization that all they will get is a slap on the wrist.

The cradle-to-grave prejudices of the Western world are deeply ingrained still against the "Terrible Turk." There's still too much the Crusader mentality, and too many wars have been fought in the past centuries, against the one nation the imperialistic West has never been able to tame. The West is still approaching Turkish issues from a position of dishonesty, for example, demanding the Turks recognize a false Armenian genocide as the price for entering the EU.

The left, since the days of Gladstone still thinking of the Turks as a "human cancer," wholeheartedly accepts the line that the Turks are still the savage barbarians. I'm not saying the Turks are always angels -- no people are -- but the human rights groups, peopled by those with a liberal and compassionate mindset, are quick to acknowledge these charges of barbarism at face value, and single the Turks out with disproportionate zeal. Kurds who claim they are escaping injustice? Come on in, Europe welcomes you with open arms. We all know how evil those Turks can be.

In this atmosphere where the Greeks, Armenians, and others who make it their passion to spread their hatred, "Christian" Europe and America easily swallow the propaganda... especially when the Turks are too clueless and powerless to know how to counter effectively, P.R. always being their weak point. The Christian world easily accepts the deceitful claims, because such claims fit in well with their comfort zones and beliefs.

The first of Phallanx's spam contributions was a wonderful little decision by "the European Court of Human Rights." After they exclusively considered their darling Greeks' perspective, holding the Turks guilty on every count, one has but to wonder whether the judges... Swedish, French, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Czech, Luxemburger, Slovenian, Croatian, Irish, Macedonian, Moldovan, Latvian, Russian, members of incredibly Turk-friendly countries, would have done more than yawn had Turkey not intervened, and Sampson would have been able to go through his extermination plan.

Such is the hypocrisy of these groups such as "the European Court of Human Rights," who primarily consider the rights of the humans they deem most valuable. If they're not going to be able to deal a fair hand, why should anyone with true honor listen to them? For example: Regarding "Home and property of displaced persons," did this court look equally to the displaced from the Turkish side? I'll bet not; Turkish lives are not as important.

Armenia, with the help of 1.5 billion in Russian military aid and millions lobbied from the pockets of American taxpayers, pulled off a surprise attack in 1992. They have occupied Karabakh, displacing scores of Azeris. Despite a few token U.N. condemnations, where are the voices of outrage from the Christian community? There is none, because Azeri Turkic lives are not as important. (Quite the contrary, the "Christian Club" in the form of the Minsk Group Fact-Finding Mission, quite recently -- and incredibly -- found Azerbaijan as the aggressor, and poor Armenia as the innocent victim. Same old story.)

(In America, victim Azerbaijan got penalized and villain Armenia got rewarded. No differently than in 1974, when the powerful Greek lobby and the prejudices of American politicians enabled the USA to penalize Turkey with its arms embargo.)

The 1996 European Parliament Resolution. Same types of findings. The poor Greeks are always the innocent victims. Never mind that they fired the first shot.

The 1987 Commission of Human Rights. Same bunch of hypocrites.

There's a Nov. 2000 declaration from something called "Unilateral Declaration of Independence," (UDI) the origins of which I didn't first understand. But given its extremely hostile language, I wasn't surprised to discover it apparently originates from the Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the United Nations. (As the root of the web link revealed.) What is this partisan report doing here?

Now the United Nations documents appear a little more serious. But who holds the cards at the U.N.? Again, it's the Christian club, with very short memories. Here is the legitimacy of the U.N., from a 1999 article excerpt by former British Parliamentarian, Michael Stephen, responding to those who have completely overlooked the recent history of the island:

On Sept. 10, 1964, the U.N. Secretary-General reported that "UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances. ...it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."

The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987 and reported unanimously on July 2 of that year that "although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to 'operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation,' this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of << enosis >> and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective." The committee continued: "Moreover, in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favor of <<enosis, >> in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee prohibited any action likely to directly or indirectly promote union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect).

Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, told Die Welt on Dec. 27, 1963: "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility for the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights." In an interview with the UPI press agency on Dec. 30, 1963 he said, "All this happened because Makarios wanted to take away all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots." The United Nations not only failed to condemn the forceable usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor upon Britain, nor the other countries who have acquiesced.

There you have it; the legitimacy of the United Nations. They totally didn't care about the Treaty of Guarantee, because Turkish lives just aren't important.

If your judge is completely on the side of one party and ignores the other's rights, we call that a "kangaroo court." Even if this court derives from a seemingly prestigious organization such as the United Nations, why should such a dishonest attitude be held legitimate?

Look at the nonsense from these documents. Regarding missing persons, I'm not saying people did not lost their lives unfairly at the hands of the Turks, no differently than many Iraqi civilians keep getting killed with the United States invasion. (In my country, we only read about American lives lost, because Muslim lives are just not important.) This is the ugly consequence of war, in this case, a war that was not started by the Turks.

But the missing persons issue appears also to be a blown-up affair. As the Stephen article went on to tell us:

On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."

The (South) CYPRUS MAIL gave us a clear indication of this phenomenon. In October 27, 1995, they posted a piece entitled, THE TRUTH IS OUT? Below is the beginning excerpt:
 
So now the truth is out. We are not talking about 300 dead, or 45 dead, but 96 people killed during action in 1974 and that is only from an initial examination of 487 files out of 1,619 examined at the Attorney General s office.

Successive governments have a lot to answer to. First, why these people were put on the list of missing people in the first place., and why, now that the truth is out, relatives are not put to rest once and for all on the fate of their loved ones.

News of the existence of dead persons on the list was made public more than a month ago, a fact officially confirmed by President Clerides before his departure for the United States three weeks ago.

And for all this time, 1,619 families have been virtually sitting on hot coals wondering whether one of the numbers bandied about so nonchalantly concerns a person they haven t seen or heard for 21 years.

As a result of these findings, the Greek Cypriot administration lowered the toll of the missing from 1,619 to 1,493. I don't know what this number has been lowered to in the interim, since shocking new revelations kept getting published in the Greek Cypriot press regarding the Greek Cypriot missing persons.

The bad boy Turks kept getting blamed; the culprits turned out to be mostly Greek. But the biased West did not care. The biased West still does not care.

Finally, let's turn to the legality of the 1974 Turkish move.

Because of their fanatical nationalism, the Greek-Cypriots have been engaging in bloody massacres of their Turkish counterparts since the 1950s. The situation got so desperate, Greece, Turkey and Great Britain enacted the 1960 "Treaty of Guarantee." As the title implies, the treaty guarantees the right of the two minorities on the island.

Should one of the minorities get threatened by the other, the "mother countries" of both minorities were granted the legal right to come in and intervene.

That is what this treaty was about, enacted solely as a reaction against murderous Greek actions.

When 1974 rolled around, and the forces of Makarios and Sampson were at each other's throats, every Turkish-Cypriot knew the fate awaiting them. They did not need Sampson's admission of extermination plans seven years later.

Turkey did not invade the island. Turkey exercised her legal right to intervene.

Had Turkey not done so, there would have been no Turks left on the island. I realize that makes you Greek boys giddy with delight, but if you try and go down deep, and listen to your human hearts, you will realize that would not have been the moral action.

So all of these biased reports Phallanx posted are based on a foundation of lies and anti-Turkish prejudice. How do we know the move was a legal one? How do we know that Spartakus was partakusing in falsehood when he told us, "The situation is that a foreign state,Turkey, invaded illlegaly to another state..."?

Why, what better source to listen to than the Athens Court of Appeal? Its decision of March 21, 1979 read as follows:

"The Turkish intervention in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the London-Zurich agreements, was legal. Turkey had, as one of the Guarantor Powers, the right to fulfill her obligation. The true guilty ones were the Greek Officers, who organised the coup and thereby created the conditions for an intervention."

Now why doesn't the U.N., the European Parliament, the Commission of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights, and certainly the Permanent Mission of Cyprus to the United Nations listen to the Athens court decision? We all know the answer to that question, gentlemen... and the answer has nothing to do with history, nor legality, nor morality.

RESOLUTION 193 (1964)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1143th meeting,
on 9 August 1964

The Security Council,

Concerned at the serious deterioration of the situation in Cyprus,

Reaffirming its resolutions 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964, 187(1964) of 13 March and 192(1964) of 20 June 1964,

Anticipating the submission of the Secretary-General's report on the situation,

1.Reaffirms the appeal just addressed by the President of the Security Council to the Governments of Turkey and Cyprus, worded as follows:

'The Security Council has authorized me to make an urgent appeal to the Government of Turkey to cease instantly the bombardment of and the use of military force of any kind against Cyprus, and to the Government of Cyprus to order the armed forces under its control to cease firing immediately';

2.Calls for an immediate cease-fire by all concerned;

3.Calls upon all concerned to cooperate fully with the Commander of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus in the restoration of peace and security;

4.Calls upon all states to refrain from any action that might exacerbate the situation or contribute to the broadening of hostilities.

Adopted at the 1143rd meeting by 9 votes to none, with 2 abstentions Czechoslovakia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

         &nbs p;   http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr193.htm

RESOLUTION 358 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1793rd meeting,
on 15 August 1974

The Security Council,

Deeply concerned about the continuation of violence and bloodshed in Cyprus,

Deeply deploring the non-compliance with its resolution 357 (1974) of 14 August 1974,

1. Recalls its resolutions 353 (1974) of 20 July, 354 (1974) of 23 July, 355 (1974) of 1 August 1974 and 357 (1974),

2. Insists  on the full implementation of the above resolutions by all parties and on the immediate and strict observance of the cease-fire.

Adopted unanimously at the 1793rd meeting.

                      http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr358.htm

RESOLUTION 370 (1975)

Adopted by the Security Council 
on 13 June 1975

The Security Council,

Noting from the report of the Secretary-General of 9 June 1975 (S/11717), that in the existing circumstances the presence of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus is still needed to perform the tasks it is currently undertaking if the cease-fire is to be maintained in the island and the search for a peaceful settlement facilitated,

Noting from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Noting further that, in paragraphs 67 and 68 of his report, the Secretary-General has expressed the view, in connection with the talks in Vienna between representatives of the two communities held pursuant to resolution 367(1975) of 12 March 1975, that the negotiating process should be maintained and, if possible, accelerated and that its success would require from all parties determination, understanding and a willingness to make reciprocal gestures,

Noting also the statement by the Secretary-General contained in paragraph 69 of his report that the parties concerned had signified their concurrence in his recommendations that the Security Council extend the stationing of the Force in Cyprus for a further period of six months,

Noting that the Government of Cyprus has agreed that in view of the prevailing conditions in the island it is necessary to keep the Force in Cyprus beyond 15 June 1975,

1. Reaffirms the provisions of resolution 186(1964) of 4 March 1964, as well as subsequent resolutions and decisions on the establishment and maintenance of UNFICYP and on other aspects of the situation in Cyprus;

2. Reaffirms once again its resolution 365(1974) of 13 December 1974, by which it endorsed General Assembly resolution 3212(XXIX) adopted unanimously on 1 November, 1974, and calls for their urgent and effective implementation and that of its resolution 367(1975);

3. Urges the parties concerned to act with the utmost restraint and to continue and accelerate determined co-operative efforts to achieve the objectives of the Security Council;

4. Extends once more the stationing in Cyprus of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force, established under Security Council resolution 186(1964) for a further period ending 15 December 1975, in the expectation that by then sufficient progress towards a final solution will make possible a withdrawal or substantial reduction of the Force;

5. Appeals again to all parties concerned to extend their full co-operation to the United Nations, Peace-Keeping Force in the continuing performance of its duties;

6. Requests the Secretary-General to continue the mission of good offices entrusted to him by paragraph 6 of resolution 367(1975) to keep the Security Council informed of the progress made and to submit an interim report by 15 September 1975 and a definite report not later than 15 December, 1975.

Adopted at the 1830th meeting by 14 votes to none. One member (China) did not participate in the voting.

         &nbs p;      http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr370.htm

RESOLUTION 550 (1984)

Adopted by the Security Council 
on 11 May 1984

The Security Council,

Having considered the situation in Cyprus at the request of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,

Having heard the statement made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus,

Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General (S/16519),

Recalling its resolutions 365(1974), 367(1975), 541(1983) and 544(1983),

Deeply regretting the non-implementation of its resolutions, in particular resolution 541(1983),

Gravely concerned about the further secessionist acts in the occupied part of the Republic of Cyprus which are in violation of resolution 541(1983), namely the purported "exchange of Ambassadors" between Turkey and the legally invalid "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" and the contemplated holding of a "Constitutional referendum" and "elections", as well as by other actions or threats of action aimed at further consolidating the purported independent state and the division of Cyprus,

Deeply concerned about recent threats for settlement of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants,

Reaffirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,

1. Reaffirms its resolution 541(1983) and calls for its urgent and effective implementation,

2. Condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership, declares them illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal;

3. Reiterates the call upon all States not to recognise the purported state of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessionist entity;

4. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

5. Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations;

6. Considers any attempts to interfere with the status or the deployment of the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus as contrary to the resolutions of the United Nations;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the urgent implementation of Security Council resolution 541(1983);

8. Reaffirms its mandate of good offices given to the Secretary General and requests him to undertake new efforts to attain an overall solution to the Cyprus problem in conformity with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the provisions for such a settlement laid down in the pertinent United Nations resolutions, including Security Council resolution 541(1983) and the present resolution;

9. Calls upon all parties to cooperate with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

10. Decides to remain seized of the situation with a view to taking urgent and appropriate measures in the event of non-implementation of its resolution 541(1983) and the present resolution;

11. Requests the Secretary-General to promote the implementation of the resolution and to report thereon to the Security Council as developments require.

Adopted at the 2539th meeting by 13 votes to 1 (Pakistan) with 1 abstention (United States of America).

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr550.htm

RESOLUTION 37/253 (1983)

The United Nations General Assembly adopted on May13, 1983, resolution 37/253 on Cyprus. The vote on the resolution was 103 in favor and 5 against with 20 abstentions. The votes against the resolution were cast by Bangladesh, Malaysia, Pakistan, Somalis and Turkey.

Following is the text of the resolution:

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of Cyprus,

Recalling its resolution 3212(XXIX) of 1 November 1974 and its subsequent resolutions on the question of Cyprus,

Recalling the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977 and 19 May 1979,

Reaffirming the principle of the inadmissibility of occupation and acquisition of territories by force,

Greatly concerned at the prolongation of the Cyprus crisis, which poses serious threat to international peace and security,

Deeply regretting that the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus have not yet been implemented, 

Recalling the idea of holding an international conference on Cyprus,

Deploring the fact that part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus is till occupied by foreign forces,

Deploring the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks,

Deploring all unilateral actions that change the demographic structure of Cyprus to promote faits accomplis,

Reaffirming the need to settle the question of Cyprus without further delay by peaceful means in accordance with the provitions of the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant United Nations resolutions,

1. Reiterates its full support for the sovereignty, independence, territorial itegrity, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and calls once again for the cessation of all foreign interference in its affairs;

2. Affirms the right of the Republic of Cyprus and its people to full and effective sovereignty and the control over the entire territory of Cyprus and its natural and other resources and calls upon all states to support and help the Government  of the Republic of Cyprus to exercise these rights;

3. Condemns any act which tends to undermine the full and effective exercise of the above-mentioned rights, including the unlawful issues of titles of ownership of property;

4. Welcomes the proposal for total demilitarization made by the President of the Republic of Cyprus;

5. Expresses its support for the high-level agreements of 12 February 1977 and 19 May 1979 and all the provisions thereof;

6. Demands the immediate and effective implementation of resolution 3212(XXIX), unanimously adopted by the General Assembly and endorsed by the Security Council in its resolution 365(1974) of 13 December (1974), and of the subsequent resolutions of the Assembly and the Council on Cyprus, which provide the valid and essential basis  for the solution of the problem of Cyprus;

7. Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem;

8. Demand s the immediate withdrawal of all occupation forces from the Republic pf Cyprus;

9. Commends the intensification of the efforts made by the Secretary-General, while noting with concern the lack of progress in the intercommunal talks;

10. Calls for meaningful, result-oriented, constructive and substantive negotiations between the representatives of the two communities, to be conducted freely on an equal footing on the basis of  relevant United Nations resolutions and the high level agreements, with a view to reaching as early as possible a mutually acceptable agreement based on the fundamental and legitimate right of the two communities;

11. Calls for respect of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all Cypriots, including the freedom of movement, the freedom of settlement and the right to property and the instituting of urgent measures for the voluntary return of the refugees to their homes in safety;

12. Considers that the de facto situation created by the force of arms should not be allowed to influence or in any way affect the solution of the problem of Cyprus;

13. Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any unilateral action which might adversely effect the prospects of a just and lasting solution of the problem of Cyprus by peaceful means and to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General  in the performance of his task under the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council as well as with the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus;

14. Calls upon the parties concerned to refrain from any action which violates or is designed to violate the independence, unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus;

15. Reiterates its recommendation that the Security Council should examine the question of the implementation, within a specified time-frame, of its relevant resolutions and consider and adopt thereafter, if necessary, all appropriate and practical measures under the Charter of the United Nations for ensuring the speedy and effective implementation of the resolutions of the United Nations on Cyprus;

16. Welcomes the intention of the Secretary-General, as expressed in his report (Doc. A/37/805 of 6/5/1983), to pursue a renewed personal involvement in the quest for a solution of the Cyprus problem and, in view  of this, requests the Secretary General to undertake such actions or initiatives as he may consider appropriate within the framework of the mission of good offices entrusted to him by the Security Council fro promoting a just and lasting solution of the problem and to report to the General Assembly as its thirty-eighth session on the results of his efforts;

17. Decides to include the provisional agenda of its thirty-eighth session the item entitled "Question of Cyprus" and requests the Secretary-General to follow up the implementation of the present resolution and to report on all its aspects to the General Assembly at that session.

Separate vote on paragraph 8

A separate vote was taken on operative paragraph 8, which was approved by 89 votes in favor, 5 against and 27 abstentions.

Separate vote on paragraph 15

A separate vote was also taken on operative paragraph 15 which was approved by 86 votes in favor, 8 against and 25 abstentions.

http://www.un.int/cyprus/Res37253GA.htm