Excellency,
It was a pleasure to meet with you in Geneva at the 5+ UN informal meeting and I would like to thank you for the fair and balanced manner in which you have conducted the meetings aimed at exploring whether or not common ground exists between the two sides in order to enable the commencement of formal negotiations for a sustainable settlement in Cyprus.
Let me first of all say that I agree with your statement to the effect that we cannot rewrite history but, with political will and courage, can design a better future for our children and future generations. This is in fact the understanding on which we have approached past settlement processes, as well as the 5+UN informal meeting the Turkish side proposed and you have organized.

We recall and highly value Albert Einstein’s words that it is best to learn from yesterday, live for today and hope for tomorrow. We are hopeful for tomorrow, but need to learn from yesterday in order for that hope to be realized. However, learning from yesterday is best served if we base it on objective facts and prevailing realities.

I was very disappointed to see at the 5+UN informal meeting in Geneva that my Greek Cypriot counterpart, Mr. Anastasiades, has not only distorted historical facts but has again shown how oblivious he is to the suffering of Turkish Cypriots, particularly during the 1963-74 period.

Mr. Secretary General, there is no better source than the very own reports of the UN Peacekeeping Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP) that  would set the record straight as regards the distortion, by the Greek Cypriot side, that the Turkish Cypriots "left the government" of their own will in the 1963-64 period.

For instance, the then Secretary-General U Thant’s report of 10 September 1964 (S/5950) states in paragraph 109 that as far as their observations go Turkish Cypriot civil servants never disclaimed the "Government of Cyprus" and felt that due to the prevailing conditions (since December 1963) they were unable, for physical and security reasons, to attend their offices on the Greek Cypriot side.
 
 
His Excellency Mr. António Guterres
Secretary-General of the United Nations
New York
 
 
 
 
In paragraphs 218 and 219 of the same report, Secretary-General U Thant states that the Turkish Cypriot side applied to the UN to help in the restoration of the 1960 constitutional order but that the UN did not think this was part of its mandate, arguing that "a return to normal conditions" in resolution 186 did not mean a "return to the constitutional order".
 
Most strikingly, the Secretary-General states in paragraph 222 of the same report, that “…the conclusion seems warranted that the economic restrictions being imposed against the Turkish communities in Cyprus, which in some instances have been so severe as to amount to veritable siege, indicated that the Government of Cyprus seeks to force a potential solution by economic pressure as a substitute for military action.”
 
Those economic, as well as social, cultural and other restrictions continue to this day and still aim at achieving an “imposed” solution, on the Greek Cypriot side's own terms, by pressure.
 
I would lastly refer to the report of the then Secretary-General U Thant dated 29 July 1965 (S/6569) where, among other things, he states that Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives did attempt, through the UN, to return to the House of Representatives but that the then Speaker of the House, the late Glafkos Clerides,  told the Turkish Cypriot Representatives that they could only return if they accepted the unilateral changes that were made to the Constitution - particularly the unchangeable provisions providing for bi-communal power sharing.
 
Dr. Ernst Forsthoff, the then neutral President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus, who resigned in 1963 because Greek Cypriot President Makarios refused to comply with the rulings of the Court regarding the establishment of separate Turkish municipalities as provided for in the Constitution, had said in an interview given to a UPI correspondent on 30 December 1963 that “All this happened because Makarios wanted to remove all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots. From the moment Makarios started openly to deprive the Turkish Cypriots of their rights, the present events were inevitable”. 
 
As far as the background is concerned, it must be recalled that the emergence of Cyprus as an independent bi-communal State in 1960 was an act of self-determination by each of the two peoples. The British Colonial Secretary, Lennox-Boyd, had described the emerging situation in these terms in 1956: "... it will be the purpose of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any exercise of self-determination should be effected in such a manner that the Turkish Cypriot community, no less than the Greek Cypriot community, shall, in the special
 
 
 
 
circumstances of Cyprus, be given freedom to decide for themselves their future status. In other words, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the exercise of self-determination in
such a mixed population must include partition among the eventual options" (Statement in the House of Commons, 19 December, 1956.) This statement was confirmed by the Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, on 26 June, 1958, who had also described the Colonial Secretary's assurances as "pledges".
 
Accordingly, the relevant unchangeable provisions of the 1960 Constitution of the partnership Republic of Cyprus described the precise manner in which power would be shared by the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities as equal co-founding partners.

The Basic Articles of the Constitution were thus carefully drafted to ensure both the recognized equality of the two communities and their obligation to share the attributes of sovereignty as equals.

As one reflection of the equality of the two communities both the Greek Cypriot President and the Turkish Cypriot Vice President possessed the right of veto over decisions of the Council of Ministers, and laws and decisions of the House of Representatives, where separate majorities were required for the passage of laws in specific matters.

Having been hijacked by the Greek Cypriots in December 1963 and having thus lost its legitimacy by unlawful changes to the Constitution, the former bi-communal Government of Cyprus had become an exclusively Greek Cypriot Government of the Greek Cypriot people, for the Greek Cypriot people. This material breach was aimed at subjugating and dominating the Turkish Cypriot people. In the face of this, the Turkish Cypriots had no alternative but to establish their own separate administration in Cyprus in exercise of their inherent right to self-determination.
 
The material breach of the internationally sanctioned original Cyprus Constitution and the change of circumstances since 1963, especially with the failure of repeated UN efforts, have been so fundamental that the only solution compatible with the original intention of protecting the Turkish Cypriot people and respecting its right to self-determination is a solution that would establish the needed equilibrium between the two sides through recognition of the legitimacy of the current Turkish Cypriot State on the island.
 
It adds insult to injury to hear Mr. Anastasides speak, as he did in Geneva, of the "evolution" of the Greek Cypriot usurped “Republic of Cyprus”, through the integration of the Turkish
 
  
Cypriot community into it, as his vision for a settlement in Cyprus. This amounts to asking the Turkish Cypriot side to legitimize the Greek Cypriot hijacking of the 1960 bi-communal Republic of Cyprus and agreeing to integrate themselves into this illegality through, what the other side calls, "osmosis".
 
This only goes to show that the Greek Cypriot mentality of distorting the facts and shifting the blame for the collapse of the then bi-national Republic on the Turkish Cypriot side, has not changed. Nor has the mentality of superiority/hegemony that exudes from their rhetoric and actions!

Sadly, the international community conceded to the illegal actions of the Greek Cypriot side, which eventually led to the total break-up of the state of affairs created by the 1960 Agreements. But this de facto acceptance by the international community could not, and did not, in any way expunge the international illegality or, even more to the point, deprive the Turkish Cypriot community of its entitlement, possessed in common with the Greek Cypriot community, to the enjoyment of its right of self-determination.

In trying to build the future, the Turkish Cypriot side cannot, and must not, allow history to repeat itself and it is for this reason that we are determined to maintain our inherent right to self-determination, and with it our sovereign equality and equal international status, so that we can constructively and sustainably realize a cooperative relationship between the island’s two existing and future States. In the face of the enduring challenges we have been facing for generations this has now become indispensable for our political, social, economic and physical security. International law does not sanction differential treatment of the two sides in the negotiation process or in any resulting settlement.

The past has failed, Mr. Secretary General, the future must not! And, after decades of failed negotiations and the mentality that we continue to face today, we see this as the only way to ensure our security, freedom and dignity, as well as our very existence in the island of Cyprus.

Today, as Your Excellency has also acknowledged during the meeting in Geneva, the Turkish Cypriot people continue to face inhuman measures of isolation and restrictions, instigated by the other side and condoned by the international community, through no fault of our own. These range from restrictions on our freedom of travel, direct trade to sports and even social and cultural events. Coupled with the denial of an international identity/status to the Turkish Cypriots, these measures of isolation have not only prevented the development of our economic and social life but have also mitigated against a settlement, by emboldening the other side in its intransigent attitude. In effect, we have been taking part in the process of talks/negotiations under duress, while the "civilized world" has been telling us that there
 
 
 
must be a settlement before these restrictions can be lifted. This is not only unjust but is also counterproductive, since it is crystal clear that it is the other side that has prevented a settlement, as evidenced by their rejection of successive UN plans for a settlement, including the Comprehensive Plan for the Settlement of the Cyprus Problem (the "Annan Plan") in 2004, and the intransigent attitude they displayed at Crans-Montana in 2017.
We went to Geneva with a new vision, taking into account Your Excellency's advice that this time must be different, determined to turn a new page in the history of negotiations and for peaceful co-existence in Cyprus. All we heard from Mr. Anastasiades, however, was a repetition of the same arguments from the previous episode at Crans-Montana, which clearly failed and which would not yield a sustainable result. In view of its repeated rejection of settlement plans, the Greek Cypriot side's paying lip service to "UN parameters, convergences", etc. is the epitome of insincerity and hypocrisy, and is designed to maintain the status quo, in which they have significant advantages and a vested interest.
Taking note of Your Excellency's suggestion of a "bottom-up" approach, the Turkish Cypriot side maintains that the way forward is to leave the failed exercises of the past behind and start on a new basis. This can only be based on the existing realities on the island and the equal international status of the two sides as well as their inherent sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter.
In Geneva, I have put forward a proposal to establish a cooperative relationship once a resolution of the UN Security Council in which the equal international status and sovereign equality of the two sides is secured. Such a resolution will form the new basis for the establishment of a cooperative relationship between the two existing States.
The rationale behind my proposal is; results-oriented negotiations should be conducted between equals. Entering into results-oriented, time-framed negotiations after establishing the equilibrium between the two sides is of crucial importance. Experience has shown that negotiations in Cyprus fail when equality is restricted to the negotiation table, always leaving the option to one of the sides to walk away at whim as the recognized Government knowing that the other side will continue to suffer under inhuman isolation and restrictions. This is clearly not equality between the two sides.
I do not intend to open a discussion on whether we have sovereignty or not, which we do. My proposal is aimed at levelling the playing field, both at the negotiation table and outside, which can only be achieved by recognizing the inherent sovereign equality and equal international status of the two sides.
 
 
 
It is a fact that we have exhausted negotiations on the basis of federation. This has been due to the institutionalized Greek Cypriot and Greek passion that Cyprus is an integral part Hellenism, resulting in their reluctance to share power and prosperity, the absence of mutual interests, the deep crises of confidence between the two sides, and the absence of meaningful cooperation and interdependence. It is time to acknowledge this fact through the assistance of Your Excellency in order to establish a freely-reached and mutually acceptable cooperative settlement on a new basis. We will then be ready to work on a roadmap which includes a time-frame for a result-oriented process.

I appeal to you and the members of the Security Council to approach our Package Proposal, a copy of which is attached for your convenience, with an open mind, so that the Greek Cypriot side may also be induced to adopt a positive attitude to it, paving the way for a just and sustainable settlement in the island that will be in the interest of all involved as well as the region at large. Within this spirit, the Turkish Cypriot side is ready to work with Your Excellency and Ms Lute in a constructive manner towards this end.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.
 
 
 
Ersin Tatar           
President