Note to Messrs. Gambari and Tharoor

Letter from Kai Falkman

The Secretary-General would be grateful for a response to the attached letter from

Ambassador Kai Falkman. DPA should coordinate the preparation of the draft.

Thank you.

Lopes 15 March 2006

cc: Mr. Mortimer

\\' MAR 1 5 2006 ':. i

26-03141 RlNDOGATAN 42 Stockholm 25 February 2006 SE-115 58 STOCKHOLM -_. C L TEL/FAX+46 8 661 7647 E-MAIL: [email protected]

His Excellency Mr , Secretary-General of the , NEW YORK

1. Inspired by today's news that Denmark has invited Islamic and Christian leaders to a conference _pn religious dialogue, which immediately was criticized by excluded Jewish groups, I wrote the enclosed paper expressing my conviction that such a conference could only be fully respected and jsusee§§M under the aegis of the United Nations. It is, in my view, highly appropriate time for a UN initiative, which certainly would be welcomed by the international community.

The paper has been sent to Shashi Tharoor by e-mail.

2. Peter Wallensteen and I are grateful.for, the positive reaction by Michael Moller to our report from last November. The Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs has asked us to continue our academic consultations with the parties to the conflict in the spirit of the Sigtuna process to encourage confidence-building measures of common interest to the two communities on the island.

An essay with a light poetical touch on Voices across the wall of Cyprus is hereby enclosed for your information. It may be that the poetical absurd best describes the long conflict of Cyprus.

Kai Falkman

,

86 OFFICE RlNDOGATAN 41 Stockholm 25 February 2006 SE-115 58 STOCKHOLM TEL/FAX+46 8 661 7647 E-MAIL: [email protected]

Proposal for a conference on religious dialogue under the aegis of the United Nations

1. Denmark's government has invited Islamic and Christian religious leaders and experts to a conference on religious dialogue. Jewish groups have criticized the Danish government for not issuing invitations to them.

2. An international conference on religious dialogue can be fully respected and successful only under the aegis of the United Nations.

3. Therefore the Secretary-General of the United Nations should take the initiative to assemble leaders of the world's religions to a conference on religious dialogue.

4. The conference could be convened in the spirit of Dag Hammarskjold's statement in the General Assembly on 10 April 1953 after his election as Secretary-General: "We are of different creeds and convictions./.../ But common to us all, and above all other convictions stands the truth, once expressed by a Swedish poet when he said that the greatest prayer of man does not ask for victory but for peace."

5. The United Nations stands outside all confessions but is, nevertheless, an instrument of faith, expressed by the Charter of the United Nations. As such it is inspired by what unites and not by what divides the great religions of the world. In this spirit the United Nations is required by the peoples of the world, more and more split by conflicts, violence and wars in the name of religion, to initiate a responsible action for peace.

Kai Falkman Voices across the wall of Cyprus

In the hotel room I pull back the curtains.

Minarets at dusk The laments of Mohammed Cross the wall

The hotel in is right next to the wall that divides Cyprus. Beyond the minaret stands the bulk of the mountains in the north with the huge picture of the Turkish and Turk Cypriot flag laid out with white painted stones.

In the evening I take a walk on Lidas Street, the pedestrian street on the Greek Cypriot side, crowded with people strolling, illuminated outdoor cafes, dazzling shop windows. Suddenly the street ends in af' wail, a wooden staircase up to a viewpoint, a tree in a buffer zone where vegetation runs wild, a new wall and beyond that, darkness. The same wall, the same tree I saw ten years ago, when I visited Cyprus for the first time as the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs' special adviser on the Cyprus issue.

Nothing has changed over these ten years, despite intensive UN negotiations, resulting in the Kofi . A plan that was rejected by 76 per cent of in the referendum on 24 April 2004. Before that it was the Turk Cypriots who rejected the UN proposals, now it's the Greek Cypriots, while 65 per cent of Turk Cypriots voted yes. The same drama, only the roles are reversed.

Now I am back accompanied by Professor Peter Wallensteen, peace and conflict researcher at Uppsala University. We are here on the initiative of Ambassador Ingemar Lindahl to talk about Dag Hammarskjold's Visions and Legacy at universities in the Turk Cypriot and Greek Cypriot parts and in the neutral UN zone, at Ledra Palace, once a luxury hotel, now £ run-down camp for British UN soldiers.

Between lectures we set out on a round of talks, north and south, with past friends and acquaintances and with new political representatives of the two communities in order to form a picture of the current situation on the island. Ten years ago we took the initiative to what came to be known as the "Sigtuna Process", bringing together political representatives of Greek and Turk Cypriots, Greece and and the UN Special Representative for Cyprus for informal talks, first in Sigtuna, then in Chios in Greece and in Istanbul. The intention was to try to find points of common interest for the parties, which could then promote a solution of the Cyprus conflict, which has gone on since 1964.

The voices we now listen to hardly herald a will to find a solution. President Papadopoulos' support for a no to the Annan Plan in the referendum seems to have increased rather than decreased, and therefore does not generate any political will for change ahead of the parliamentary elections in May 2006.

Why did the Greek Cypriots vote no to this comprehensive plan for a solution? Because the President, the Church and the four TV channels urged them to do so, with the motivation that the Annan Plan contained more concessions to the Turkish side than the previous version of the plan during President derides9 time. Politicians must show that they are winners, not losers, we were told.

No matter how they voted, the Republic of Cyprus would be a member of the EU a week after the referendum. Therefore, President Papadopoulos wasn't taking any risks, when - to the surprise and disappointment of the UN - he advocated a no. As a full member of the EU, Cyprus wtiuld be a powerful member of a political union of 25 states, to which Turkey was also a candidate. This would give the Republic of Cyprus an unbeatable advantage on Turkey, which constitutes a triumph as Cyprus had been invaded in 1974 by Turkish forces, which had not since been withdrawn from the island. How would the EU be able to accept Turkey as a member if it occupied a third of an EU country with 40 000 troops? In his new position of strength Papadopoulos did not feel that he had to negotiate with the Turk Cypriot minority on setting up a with shared power.

He sees the solution in osmosis, a concept he put forward in the UN General Assembly at the summit in September 2005. This word had many journalists and diplomats looking in their computers and dictionaries to understand its meaning. I recognised it from a haiku poem by Dag Hammarskjold:

Trees, waters, crescent moon - all this night in shivering osmosis.

Here, osmosis means the mutual dissolution on this night of everything in nature. Osmosis comes form Greek and means "thrusting, pressing", according \o the Swedish National Encyclopaedia, while the Swedish Academy's Glossary explains the word as "a fluid's penetration of a membrane". If the UN is the membrane, a thin film between the Greek Cypriot and the Turk Cypriot parts, the fluid is the Republic of Cyprus, mixed witlj the EU, which penetrates the membrane through its weight, dissolving the Turk Cypriots. A Turk Cypriot gave this interpretation, while a Greek Cypriot was of the opinion that it meant closer ties between two parties, resulting in a total union.

Scientists talk about an osmotic shock, when there is a sudden increase in osmotic potential. This has happened through EU membership. "We have become spectators" one Turk Cypriot complained. As citizens of a state no one except Turkey recognises they have no cards to negotiate with. Their only negotiating card is the Turkish troops, but the Republic of Cyprus does not want to negotiate about the troop presence with the Turk Cypriots, preferring to do so with the Republic of Turkey instead.

Papadopoulos feels that he can calmly wait for the day when Turkey is forced to fully recognise the Republic of Cyprus. This day has to come sooner or later, preferably later, Turkey hopes, because Turkey cannot become a member of the EU without recognising all its Member States, including Cyprus.

Does a Turkish recognition of the Republic of Cyprus entail a de- recognition of the "Turkish Republic of "? Naturally, according to the Greek Cypriots, white leading Turk Cypriote share another view with us: A Turkish government that gives up Turkish Cyprus will not have tfiie support of the people and the military. In that case the government would collapse. Prime-Minister Erdogan doesn't dare take a risk like that before the parliamentary elections in 2007.

We often hear Taiwan cited as a mode! by Turk Cypriots. Another scenario presented is for Ankara to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without making any declarations about the status of northern Cyprus. The north could then either be seen as an autonomous part of the republic or have the same status as the GDR in the cold war, when the Soviet Union recognised both German states.

The Turk Cypriots fear isolation and put their faith in the UN to end their isolation through resolutions in the Security Council and negotiations. The Turk Cypriots can only act as equal partners of the Greek Cypriots within the framework of UN negotiations. And, they say, when the moment of truth arrives in the negotiations between Turkey and the EU, the crisis must lead to the insight that only the UN can solve it. The EU should have demanded such a solution as a condition for the recognition of Cyprus, and not for Turkey's recognition of Cyprus, one pessimistic Cypriot said and pointed to the cart before the horse.

We often heard that the people of Cyprus are ready for a solution, while the politicians are not. As soon as a practical problem arises on the island, the obvious solution is obstructed by over-adherence to legal principle. Murderers and other criminals walk across the border and cannot then be arrested or put on trial because the republic does not recognise the police authority on the northern side, as that could be seen as recognition of the illegal state. The fire departments cannot cooperate to prevent a fire at the border. Water works and electrical plants are divided; the only thing that is shared is the sewage system.

It is true that the border has been opened up and that Greek and Turk Cypriots can now cross the border every day to work and shop. Some 10 000 Turk Cypriots are said to walk over to the south side daily to work, mainly in the construction sector. This involves a confidence- building improvement that can be of great importance for future cooperation in other areas. Other people are sceptical: the workers do not understand one another's language and the opening leads to person-to-product contacts rather than person-to-person contacts. Greek Cypriots make their way to casinos on the northern side at dusk, as gambling houses are prohibited on the southern side, but the profits do not benefit the Turk Cypriots, ending up in the pockets of their Turkish owners instead.

Some 55 000 Turk Cypriots are said to have been granted Greek Cypriot passports (osmosis? someone wondered), which gives them the chance of studying and working in EU countries. To get a passport you have to be a native Turk Cypriot and not an immigrant Turk. This group, which is thought to be on the increase, causes the Greek Cypriots a great deal of concern as it is altering the island's demographic balance. There are an estimated 160 000 immigrant Turks, while there are only 90 000 Turk Cypriots. The Turkish side has claimed that 75 per cent of the population in the north is Turkish Cypriot. The Annan Plan proposed a census on the island, with outside assistance, but the Turkish side does not want to hear of placing such a sensitive issue in outside hands.

One group of creatures enjoys the conflict on the island to the full, a UN officer says pointing to the birds in the high grass of the abandoned airport, now the UN headquarters. Birds from the whole of the eastern Mediterranean have found a haven in this quiet and peaceful oasis. The cement on the long runways is cracked, only UN helicopters can land there, and outside a dilapidated hangar a passenger plane from CYPRUS AIRWAYS stands without a nose and with shattered windows. The plane has been standing and rusting there for thirty one years.

The conflic^ has lasted for more than 40 years. Turk Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have lived in peace on the island for centuries, they were united in their struggle for independence in the 1950s, but when the UK was forced to dissolve its colonial empire and gave Cyprus its freedom in 1960, power conflicts soon arose that triggered violence and the UN intervention in 1964.

One Cypriot voice said: When archbishop Makarios and his flock realised that Cyprus could not be a world power, they decided that Cyprus would be a world problem. Sic! We heard a revealing comment from another Cypriot: Before the referendum I was worried that both sides would vote yes to the Annan Plan. What would we have done then? Fought about the application of every point we had already approved?

How long will this drama continue? Until a new generation takes over, a generation that has not experienced the struggle, the battles, the population resettlements, the blood on their hands and the lies on their tongues?

A solution requires a will to break with forty years of contemporary history, and to base the future on centuries of peaceful coexistence instead. To us, this doesn't seem so hard to achieve with a little (o

imagination and a lot of willingness to compromise. So why aren't leaders, particularly the strongest one at present, the centre nationalist Papadopoulos (15 per cent) and his, in voting terms (35 per cent), dominant coalition partner, the left party AKEL, attracted by the prospect of entering history as the creators of a united Cyprus? Everyone who participated in and around the UN negotiations in the 1990s thought that Denktash and Clerides would crown their political lives by reaching a solution. It didn't happen then, but it could happen now. If the leaders were prepared to compromise, in the name of reconciliation.

A solution would be welcomed by the people of this divided country, show Greece and Turkey that the Cypriots are no longer irresponsible "children" of their mother countries, but are now mature citizens of their own country, show the EU that the Republic of Cyprus is a normal member of the Union and not an increasingly disturbing problem, show the UN that four decades of peace-building operations and negotiations had finally resulted in general peace and order.

"The future is not what it used to be," Paul Valery said. But the future could be what it should have been.

Kai Falkman Summary of an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 16 February 2006:

Sweden can contribute to diminishing the threat of nuclear arms

UN sanctions and armed actions against Iran pose a risk of strengthening its will to produce nuclear arms.

The Iran problem should instead be used by the world community to demand actions from all nuclear power$ to diminish the threat of nuclear weapons by nuclear disarmament and negotiations between the great powers of the Security Council on "off alert status".

Sweden could take an initiative. USA would probably oppose such a proposal on the ground that it could be seen as a concession to Iran. Against this should be stated that diplomacy always demands concessions in order to attain results.

It is worth trying in order to pay attention to the co-responsibility of the great powers for the increasingly threatening situation on our planet since the first atom bombs fell over Japan in 1945.

Sweden takes no risks in submitting a proposal which lifts the view above Iran. On the contrary, the government would show that Sweden fulfils its traditional UN policy to demand concrete actions in order to diminish the risks for nuclear war by mistake.

Furthermore, $weden would show the countries in the Middle East that Sweden wishes to contribute to a comprehensive solution including also the explosive situation in the whole region. In today's situation it could also be seen as an expression of Sweden's will to reduce the effects of the caricature controversy with a proposal taking into consideration the interests of all involved.

If the Swedish government would choose to first put forward a proposal in this direction in the EU in order to get support from its member countries, it would probably be opposed by Great Britain and - especially since the president of France recently threatened that France is prepared to use nuclear arms against states harbouring terrorists.

If France in this way can pursue a most alarming independent foreign policy without support of the EU, also Sweden should be able to give proof of independent foreign policy activity which confirms that the UN is still the main pillar in Sweden's foreign policy.

It should not beJmpossible to convince USA that it is in their interest to seek a solution of the%iSBi problem by comprehensive nuclear arms negotiations instead of increasing the spite in the Middle East by unilateral armed attacks not supported by international law against another country in the area.

Kai Falkman