The rule of law at the national and international levels - Item 84 - A/81/184 Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission - Item 75 - A/81/284, A/81/207
🇹🇷 Türkiye, 🇮🇳 India, 🇵🇰 Pakistan, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇨🇾 Cyprus
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm taking the floor in reply to one delegation who brought up baseless allegations against my country yesterday. It is both inappropriate and regrettable that certain delegations attempt to exploit this committee's discussions on the rule of law to advance their political narratives. The rule of law at both national and international levels cannot be invoked selectively or manipulated to distort historical facts and realities on the ground. Turkey's Cypriot People, co founders of the 1960 partnership state, were forced out of the government institutions and legislative and judicial organs of Cyprus in 1963. Turkish Cypriot people throughout the island had to flee their homes out of fear for their lives in the face of the Greek Cypriot onslaught which lasted for eleven years. Madam Chair, atrocities that amount to ethnic cleansing against Turkish Cypriots are well documented in the UN archives. Consequently, UNFISIP was deployed on the island back in 1964. In the following ten years, 180,000 Turkish Cypriots had been displaced multiple times and forced to live in scattered enclaves. The international community has been deliberately misled by portraying the Cyprus problem as one of invasion and occupation and by referring to the legitimate and justified Turkish intervention on the island carried out in accordance with the Treaty of Guarantee. In fact, the only occupation on the island is the 60 year long occupation of the seat of the so called government of the Cyprus. By the Greek Cypriot administration. Madam Chair, it is the Greek Cypriot side that rejected comprehensive solution attempts based on bisonal by communal federation. We would like to remind that the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey proved their political will for a solution over the past decades in 2004 with the UN comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, namely the Annan Plan, and in 2017 during the Conference of Cyprus in Cran Montana. Turkey fully supports the proposals of the Turkish Cypriot leadership aimed at establishing a structured cooperative relationship with the Greek Cypriot side following the acknowledgement of the inherent sovereign equality and equal international status of the two states on the island. Madam Chair, any genuine commitment to the rule of law must begin with respect for the equal rights and legitimate status of the Turkish Cypriot people. It is self-contradictory to appeal to the rule of law while at the same time disregarding the lawful rights and equal standing of the Turkish Cypriot people. We categorically reject all the baseless allegations of the Greek Cypriot administration. Greek Cypriot representatives' allegations shall be answered by their very counterpart, namely the Turkish Cypriot side, whose voice cannot unfortunately cannot be heard at this platform. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is compelled to take the floor to respond to the remarks made by the delegation of Pakistan. It is ironic to hear lectures on the rule of law from a nation whose own record makes a mockery of it. While here at the UN, Pakistan claims to defend the rule of law. In their own country, army is the rule and army is the law. The 26th constitutional amendment was a real blow to judicial independence in Pakistan. It goes against the rule of law, against the protection of human rights. And it is inconsistent with Article 14 of the ICCPR. A state that places its military rulers behind the reach of its own courts is in no position to lecture on the rule of law in this committee. Madam Chair, a regime where no government has been allowed to finish an elected term, a regime which arbitrarily jails an ex prime minister, a regime that denies him medical treatment. In opposition to its own Supreme Court's direction, is a regime that makes a mockery of the rule of law. A country where a popular party is not allowed to contest even in their sham elections, controlled by its military, is in no position to lecture my country. A country where military courts sentence civilians, where Supreme Court judges are muzzle, and human rights crushed in every way, the rule of law is a dead letter. I say only one thing to my Pakistani colleague listen to your people. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm obliged to take the floor to respond to the fictitious remarks made by the Indian delegation. India would do well to remember that six committees are forum to reaffirm our shared resolve to respect the rule of law, not a platform to defend illegal actions, aggressions, and violation of human rights. India has a strained obsession with Pakistan, which has compounded after its failed aggression and its ignominious defeat by Pakistan last year. The question before us is if we should expect India to respect the rule of law, implement the UNSC resolutions on Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir, accept unanimous decisions of international courts, or as India wishes, acquiesce to its failed attempts of imposing its hegemony and flouting of international norms and treaty obligations. We cannot accept the latter approach. Law can never become subservient to aggression and intimidation. Pakistan is not the only victim of India's violation of international law and misconduct. Indian government is involved in the witch hinting and assassination of political dissidents worldwide. At home, religious minorities, including Christians, Sikhs, and particularly Muslims, which are India's largest minority, suffer from systemic persecution, harassment, public lynching, discrimination, and even gatoization. Instead of peddling lies against Pakistan and defending its violations of international law, India should join the fellowship of responsible and law-respecting nations, fulfill its international obligations by implementing UNSC resolutions, respect international treaties, and restore constitutional rights of its minorities. Else, India would continue facing embarrassments, not only in the military field, but also in the international courts. I thank you.
I have to underline that no provision of international law or the Charter of the United Nations require us to remain passive while our territory are being attacked and our people are being killed. Definitely, international law, of course, requires all countries, including those in the region, to refrain from placing their territory at the disposal of other states for acts of aggression against us. It's therefore difficult to understand on what legal basis Iran could be ex expected to. be simply subjected to an attack and not defend itself. International law imposes no obligation of passivity. Rather, international law confers upon us an inherent right to defend ourselves. Therefore the measures taken in response to the aggression by us was in exercise of our inherent right to self defense and in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. And we have to mention that uh political calculation which fails to reflect the fact and try to change the place of uh culprit and victim culminated in a text to which uh some members it have been has have sub subscribes to against their will could not be considered uh credible. The uh facts could not be changed, nor the laws that could that need to be applied on these facts as been mentioned could be changed. As for the Strait of Hormuz, we have always demonstrated our commitment to the safety and security of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz. Evidently under the law of the sea, passage through Sarchist must have due respect to the sovereignty of coastal estates and in a such manner that passage does not threaten the security and sovereignty of the coastal estates. And the Strait of Hormuz has undergone a fundamental change of circumstances resulting directly from the aggression against my country. And the aggressors use of the Strait of Hormones for and the maritime space to commit attacks against Iran and to supply military bases placed at their disposal in the region. has fundamentally uh changed the circumstances. Uh and regarding the passage regime of passage through the street to hormones, we once again emphasize our legal position. That Iran, given that Iran has not ratified the Convention of Anklas, Iran considers itself bound only by those provisions that Iran considers as part of customer international law. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is compelled to exercise its right of reply to the remarks made by the representative of Turkey It is deeply regrettable that the Turkish delegation appears determined not to let facts interfere with its narrative, persisting in the use of arbitrary names of its own invention. In this regard, let us recall that the Republic of Cyprus is a member state of the United Nations and the only recognized international state on the island. In accordance with international law and relevant Security Council resolutions 541 of 1983 and 550 of 1984. The Security Council has declared the purported cessation of the Turkish occupation regime in Cyprus as legally invalid, called for non recognition of the cessationist entity, and called upon all states not to facilitate or assist it. Let me also remind you that the Republic of Cyprus acceded to the European Union on 1 May 2004, with the whole of its territory, including the areas under Turkish occupation, forming part of the Union. The international community has no doubts. The Republic of Cyprus represents and will continue to represent the whole of Cyprus and all Cypriots. We therefore unequivocally reject the Turkish assertions which are inconsistent with international law and the relevant Security Council resolutions. Respect for the quality of states, the prohibition of threat or use of force, and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states are fundamental to the work of this committee. These principles must be upheld consistently in Cyprus as elsewhere. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just could not help taking the floor, seeing the mockery of this August forum that a Pakistani colleague is seeking to make. Pakistan's accusations on India's treatment of religious minorities is only a tactical diversion from its own conduct towards its minorities, whose percentage in their population has been constantly shrinking since this country came into existence. Pakistan's new foreign media facilitation guidelines, therefore. Which require a no-objection certificate for assignments outside Islamabad, Lahur, and Karachi should not come as a surprise. And in such a country, what can possibly be the state of fourth pillar of democracy? Madam Chair, the rule of law bestows an obligation upon those in positions of power to do good upon those they govern. However, in case of Pakistan, unfortunately, this promise is broken again and again. As far as the question of defeat is concerned, This committee has already heard the truth from us earlier this week. I do not want to prolong my Pakistani colleagues' embarrassment. It is not India that that has obsession within Pakistan, but the other way around. What happened last year was a measured and focused response to a to a terrorism. As far as the result of the same is concerned, it could If um airfields and destroyed hangars are victory, they are welcome to enjoy it. Reading and rereading the same laundry list of false allegations against my country will not absorb Pakistani representatives of the promises that they have made to their people and which they have no intention to keep. I thank you, Madam Chair.
second intervention. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I had to take the floor again to respond to falsehood and lies. Peddled by the Indian delegate. We reject these baseless assertions. India's duplicity and hypocrisy is crystal clear. It sponsors, finances, and abets terrorist organizations to attack Pakistani citizens in the same way as it targets political dissidents worldwide in other countries. It tries to weaponize natural resources like water against Pakistan. We can understand India's sense of guilt and culpability when the UN member states express commitment. To respect international law, human rights, and call for putting an end to the last festivals of colonialism as is happening in the occupied territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is laughable and comical to listen to lectures on the rule of law and respect of human rights and minorities from a country which is denying fundamental human rights to its own people, to its own minorities, where courts have become a handmaiden to the hate spewing Hindutva ideology of BJP. And where senior BDP leaders and government ministers openly threaten Muslims and other minorities. Instead of paddling dies against Pakistan and targeting its minorities, India is advised to fulfill its international obligations by restoring the dignity and respect of its minorities and pursue a path of dialogue and reconciliation both at home and in its international engagements. If India continues its habit of aggression and violation of international law, Pakistan would defend itself as guarantee and as successfully as we did last year in May when Pakistan armed forces down six Indian plains. Thank you very much.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.