CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS FROM GEORGIA AND RUSSIA ON CONFLICT IN SOUTH OSSETIA

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard from Georgia and the Russian Federation on the situation in South Ossetia. It also heard a farewell statement from Ambassador Chang Dong-hee of the Republic of Korea and a statement from Pakistan on the Conference’s annual report.

Georgia, lamenting the "full-scale military aggression by the Russian Federation in violation of the principles and rules of the United Nations Charter", noted that the massive deaths of civilians in the Tskhinvali Region of Georgia, argued by the Russian Federation as a legal ground for its intervention, had not been confirmed either by the international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch or by the Russian law enforcement authorities. Georgia particularly drew attention to the use of cluster munitions and other types of means of warfare having indiscriminate effects on civilian populations by the Russian Armed Forces

Countering the "torrent of lies and disinformation coming from the leadership of Georgia", the Russian Federation said the conflict had to be understood in terms of the chain of events since the first President of independent Georgia had proclaimed as an objective of his policies "Georgia for Georgians" and started aggressive military actions against the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the aim of eliminating those peoples. Responding to criticisms that Russia used excessive and indiscriminate force, Russia replied that it had simply forced Georgia to stop its aggression and promised to provide facts and figures on what had taken place in the framework of the Convention on Inhumane Weapons. Those figures "should demonstrate who used inhumane weapons and who attacked peaceful villages and cities".

In his farewell statement, Ambassador Chang Dong-hee of the Republic of Korea reiterated support for Presidential draft decision CD/1840, aimed at getting the Conference back to work. The fact that there was no precondition in document CD/1840 implied that the scope of the negotiation was broad enough to leave the door open for any delegations to pursue their priorities and raise issues deemed important to them during the process, he said.

Pakistan addressed the issue of the draft annual report of the Conference to the United Nations General Assembly, which it deemed "would require careful handling". The report should reflect diverse viewpoints, including substantive reservations expressed during plenary meetings. It should not be used as a tool for discussion on the programme of work, or to place lop-sided emphasis on one theme or issue or to seek legitimacy for interim, ad hoc measures taken for practical and functional reasons.

Opening the meeting Ambassador German Mundarain Hernandez of Venezuela, President of the Conference, presented the Presidential report to the Conference on Disarmament on Part III of its 2008 session, which noted that the Presidential proposal contained in document CD/1840 continued to generate support among a substantial number of delegations, but had not achieved consensus. The President also issued a short statement confirming that the draft report of the Conference to the General Assembly was "was factual and reflected the work of the Conference during its 2008 session". Copies of the report were to be distributed to delegations following the meeting.

According to draft decision CD/1840 by the 2008 Presidents of the Conference, the Conference would appoint Coordinators to preside over substantive discussions three of four core issues identified by the Conference: nuclear disarmament and the prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; and negative security assurances for non-nuclear weapon States. On the fourth item, a Coordinator would be appointed to preside over negotiations, without any preconditions, on a non-discriminatory and multilateral treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, thus "providing all delegations with the opportunity to actively pursue their respective positions and priorities, and to submit proposals on any issue they deem relevant in the course of negotiations". Draft Decision CD/1840 builds on an earlier proposal submitted by the 2007 P-6 (CD/2007/L.1), and its related documents CRP.5 and CRP.6, combining those three texts in a single document.

The next plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament is scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 2 September.

Statements

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ (Venezuela), President of the Conference on Disarmament, presented the Presidential report to the Conference on Disarmament on Part III of its 2008 session. The report noted that the Presidential proposal contained in document CD/1840 continued to generate support among a substantial number of delegations, but had not achieved consensus. It noted that some delegations, though they had some concerns about certain elements in the proposal, had said that they would not oppose consensus therein, and others had expressed concerns that the Proposal would not satisfy their expectations. Nonetheless, the report concluded that significant progress had been achieved on further elaborating agenda items and advancing the prospect for reaching agreement on a programme of work.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea), in a farewell statement, noted that they had had very useful and fruitful discussions on Presidential draft decision CD/1840 at the Conference's last plenary meeting. Some delegations still had some reservations about some issues related to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) and other agenda items, but they could discuss those in a serious manner once they embarked on negotiations. The fact that there was no precondition in document CD/1840 implied that the scope of the negotiation was broad enough to leave the door open for any delegations to pursue their priorities and raise issues deemed important to them during the process. Moreover, CD/1840 was not a surprising product which had burst on the scene unexpectedly. Rather, it was the outcome of tireless efforts of the Presidency to collect extensive opinions and ideas from all delegations engaged in the discussions, based on the six Presidents (P-6) mechanism which had been initiated in 2006. That initiative had, without a doubt, made a significant contribution to increasing the consistency and intensity of discussions in the Conference on Disarmament, building momentum to move it forward out of its longstanding stalemate.

Briefly reiterating its position on the four core issues, the Republic of Korea believed that the FMCT was the issue that was the most ripe for negotiation in the Conference. It could be a building block for nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation given the delayed entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. On nuclear disarmament, transparency, irreversibility and verifiability should be the guiding principles. The Republic of Korea supported the concept of negative security assurances as a useful means of reducing the sense of insecurity of non-nuclear weapon States. Finally, as one of the countries that was actively pursuing a peaceful space programme, the Republic of Korea viewed space security, including prevention of an arms race in outer space, as an important issue of great relevance to the Conference on Disarmament, and welcomed the draft treaty submitted by the Russian Federation and China this year. All four core issues were too important to be abandoned. However, as had been pointed out at the last plenary, it was neither realistic nor possible to begin negotiations on the four core issues simultaneously.

GIORGI GORGILADZE (Georgia) said that Georgia had been subjected to a full-scale military aggression by the Russian Federation in violation of the principles and rules of the United Nations Charter, including the prohibition of the use of force among States and respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia. It was disgraceful that the Russian Federation had used so-called violations of the rights of Ossetians in Georgia as a pretext for such unlawful acts. While not engaging in a debate regarding the Russian Federation's justification for its act of aggression, ironically, it had never pursued any international mechanism as a proper arena for discussion of its concerns.

As for the scale of massive deaths of civilians in the Tskhinvali Region of Georgia, as argued by the Russian Federation as another legal ground justifying its intervention, that fact had not been confirmed either by the international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch or by the Russian law enforcement authorities. It was unfortunate that civilian casualties had taken place in the course of the conduct of hostilities and Georgia did mourn for those civilians. It was most unfortunate that the civilian population throughout Georgia had become a direct victim of the aggressive acts of the Russian Federation. The Russian Armed Forces had acted in breach of major principles governing means and methods of warfare under international humanitarian law. Those violations continued even after the cease-fire agreement brokered by the President of France, and signed by both sides on 15-16 August 2008. As of today, Russian forces were occupying the territories of Georgia proper, going beyond the conflict zone of Tzkhinavali region. Moreover, the situation had further deteriorated by acts of looting, pillage and destruction of property, as well as detention of the civilian population and their inhumane treatment, summary executions and hostage-taking by the Russian Armed Forces. In the course of the last two weeks civilian objects – cities, hospitals, academic facilities and churches – throughout Georgia had been subject to military attacks in violation of the principle of distinction.

Georgia particularly drew attention to the use of cluster munitions and other types of means of warfare having indiscriminate effects on civilian populations by the Russian Armed Forces. In particular, the Russian Forces had extensively used, and left, missile system 9M72 "Iskander" (SS=26 Stone); short-range tactical ballistic missiles, "Tochka-U" (SS-21 Scarab); multiple launch rocket systems, "Grad" and "Uragan"; and different modifications of cluster munitions (including RBK-250). Apart from the civilian objects and the civilian population, the Russian Armed Forces had targeted Georgia's environment – bombarding with incendiary munitions the mountainous regions of Borjomi and the settlement of Tsemi. Broad areas of timberland had been set on fire, and several hundred hectares of unique flora and protected plant species of the National Park had been burnt to the ground in violation of Protocol III to the Convention on Conventional Weapons. Georgia was still waiting today for the Russian Government to adhere to the ceasefire agreement and to leave the territories of Georgia occupied by its Armed Forces. Georgia appealed to all members of the international community to support the internationalisation of the conflict resolution and confidence-building process, with the active participation of all relevant international organizations and mechanisms.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan) observed that consultations and negotiations on the draft annual report of the Conference to the United Nations General Assembly would require careful handling. In accordance with rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the report should be factual and reflect the negotiations and work of the Conference. This year, no formal negotiations had taken place; but the Conference had been working in both formal and informal settings; and proposals had been made about the programme of work. The report should reflect diverse viewpoints, including substantive reservations, expressed during plenary meetings; and capture convergences and divergences. Evaluations, if agreed, could be made once and effectively. Repetition, selective quotations, and negative characterizations needed to be avoided.

The report should not be interpretative. It should not give value judgements that would entail substantive negotiations due to varying interpretations of the content. It should not be used as a tool for discussion on the programme of work, or to place lop-sided emphasis on one theme or issue or to seek legitimacy for interim, ad hoc measures taken for practical and functional reasons. For all those issues, they needed independent space for conscious, collective decisions. The report would be a negotiated document. Pakistan had full confidence in the President’s wisdom and skills in holding those negotiations in an open and transparent manner. Next year, early in the session, they should resolve their differences over key issues and commence negotiations.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said that, in light of the current situation in South Ossetia, the true picture of what was taking place in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had to be made known, in particular in the face of the torrent of lies and disinformation coming from the leadership of Georgia, and which were quite willingly spread by numerous mass media. Numerous attempts were being made to portray the conflict as one between Georgia and Russia. What was being ignored were the historical facts and the chain of events that had taken place since the first President of independent Georgia, in 1992, had proclaimed as an objective of his policies "Georgia for Georgians" and started aggressive military actions against the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the aim of eliminating those peoples. Georgia had been an independent State for only 20 years now. During its independence, it had used all possible means to apply pressure and eliminate the minority peoples of its own country, attacking Abkhazia and Ossetia nine times. Those policies had culminated in Georgia’s attack against the people of South Ossetia launched on the night of 7 to 8 August 2008.

Some Western mass media, Western Governments and NATO were trying to portray the aggressor as the victim and taking steps to rearm Georgia, although it was clear to see what the rearmament of the aggressor had led to. Georgia was not only purchasing arms, it had sometimes shipped its arms as humanitarian assistance. It was doing that not for defensive purposes but to resolve, through the use of force, the problem that it itself had been creating. Instead of condemning the aggressor, however, NATO was defending that criminal regime. They were trying to make Moscow responsible for everything, threatening to break off cooperation with Russia. The Russian President's position on NATO was quite clear. Yesterday he had said "We have been developing consistently our relations with NATO for a very long time. We would like to see those relations as comprehensive and based on a partnership. But we do not need the illusion of a partnership, when we are being surrounded from all sides by military bases and more and more countries are being dragged into the North Atlantic Alliance, and we are being told "don’t worry, everything is alright". Of course we did not like that, especially when we see the measures of containment that we have seen over the past few years. We did not provoke those actions and we don’t want them. ... If NATO is breaking off its cooperation, that will not be a big deal for us. We are ready to take any decisions, including terminating our relations completely. Of course, that would be the most difficult evolution of events."

Another step in the chain of subjective and biased approaches to the situation was the continued attempts to block the approval of a Security Council resolution in support of the six principles that had been elaborated by the Presidents Medvedev and Sarkozy. The Russian military operation in South Ossetia was an appropriate and legitimate response to the aggression against them. The peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia saw the Russian Federation as a protector. For that reason, yesterday, on 25 August, the Russian Duma, in response to a request from the peoples of those two Republics, unanimously adopted an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation and the Parliaments of other countries the need to recognize the independence of the Republic of South Ossetia and the Republic of Abkhazia. The real threat of genocide in those two republics on the part of Georgia makes that declaration timely and legitimate. That declaration is currently under consideration by the Russian President.

On criticisms that Russia used excessive and indiscriminate force, and assertions of the use of multiple rocket launcher systems Grad and the use of heavy artillery such as mortars and air bombs against peaceful populations, through its actions Russia simply forced Georgia to stop its aggression and return its warriors to their barracks. As for use of inhumane weapons, Russia would talk about that in the appropriate specialized forum, the Convention on Inhumane Weapons, when it would provide facts and figures on what actually took place. The facts showed that the number of victims among the peaceful population of South Ossetia caused by the Georgian military were about 2,000 persons. The numbers showed that this was a planned attack. They should demonstrate who used inhumane weapons and who attacked peaceful villages and cities. When Russia presented its figures it would be clear who was breaching international law. Russia saved the people of South Ossetia from genocide and prevented the possible exacerbation of the situation in the southern Caucasus.

DAVID KAPANADZE (Georgia) said that Georgia would not comment on the cynical statement of the Russian Federation. Georgia had already expressed its position on the current situation in Georgia.

GERMAN MUNDARAIN HERNANDEZ, President of the Conference, introduced the draft annual report of the Conference for submission to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session. That report had been prepared by the President, in accordance with rule 44, with the help of the Secretariat. In accordance with rule 45, it was factual and reflected the work of the Conference during its 2008 session. The draft report took into account the work of the Conference up to 20 August 2008. Copies of the draft report would be distributed to all delegations.


For use of information media; not an official record

DC08048E