CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS STATEMENTS ON SITUATION IN GEORGIA AND ON DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF CONFERENCE TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
The Conference on Disarmament today heard statements from Georgia, the Russian Federation and the Secretary-General of the Conference on the situation in Georgia, and from Norway, Ecuador, Mexico, Iran and Algeria on the draft annual report of the Conference on its 2008 session which will be presented to the General Assembly.
Georgia said the decision of [Russian] President Medvedev recognizing the independence of the territories of Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Georgia disregarded relevant provisions of the UN Charter, undermined international stability and security and cynically squashed his own signature on the ceasefire agreement brokered by the European Union under the French Presidency. Russia was trying to unilaterally alter the borders of a sovereign State through the use of military force.
The Russian Federation rejected Georgian claims that it had used cluster weapons against the civilian population, and that it was trying to resurrect the colonial regime of the past. He said Russia was being reproached for recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the recognition of their independence was the necessary and only response possible to the aggression by Georgia. This decision was final and irrevocable.
Sergei Ordzhonikidze, the Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it had been the consistent position of the Secretary-General of the Conference to remind all delegations raising issues outside the agenda of the Conference that the Conference was not a tool for political propaganda. He appealed to delegations to stick to the agenda of the Conference. Each time someone tried to bring bilateral or multilateral problems into the Conference on Disarmament, this had a negative effect on the situation in the Conference.
Norway, Ecuador, Mexico, Iran and Algeria spoke about the draft annual report.
The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 9 September at 10 a.m. The Conference will conclude the third and last part of its 2008 session on Friday, 12 September.
Statements
GIORGI GORGILADZE (Georgia) said that over the last two weeks, Georgia had briefed the representatives of the Conference on Disarmament regarding the existing situation in Georgia. At the same time, he considered that it was important to give certain explanations regarding the statements made last week that wrongly interpreted the existing facts on the ground with total disregard of principles and norms of international law. The Russian Federation’s invasion and subsequent actions had invalidated all the peacekeeping and conflict resolution formats that had been in place until now, established through bilateral agreements and within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States. It had been argued that there was not and had not been an armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Georgia. In that respect, it was important to recite the relevant provisions from the Geneva Convention of 1949 that did not require formal declaration of war for existence of an international armed conflict between two States, the use of force was a sufficient component. In course of an armed conflict if a State invaded even part of the territory of another State, it became an occupying power, subject to the relevant legal framework under international humanitarian law. Unfortunately, the Russian armed forced disregarded their legal obligations under the law of occupation while engaging in looting, pillage, cruel and inhuman treatment of civilian population and ethnically motivated crimes in the Tskhinvali region. Georgia was appealing to the international community to conduct a thorough and objective investigation in order to determine all circumstances.
There was no longer any doubt that the Russian Federation was a party to the conflict in Georgia and therefore had no legal, political or moral grounds for acting as a facilitator to the peace process aimed at resolving the conflicts in Georgia. The delegation included information, photos and data regarding the Russian officials who had been or served as the de facto government of separatist regimes, once again underlying the direct role and control taken by the Russian Federation in these conflicts. It must be underlined that Georgia was not terminating the peace process as it understood the importance of its continuity. The Government of Ukraine remained fully committed to establishing a new, effective peace process in cooperation with the international community. It proposed to replace the terminated negotiation and peacekeeping formats, which were negated by the Russian invasion of Georgia, with neutral international peacekeeping mechanisms. Georgia remained strongly committed to the six-point ceasefire agreement mediated by President Sarkozy.
The Conference on Disarmament was not a proper forum for demagogy, remembering of old Soviet times or discussion of how many years this or that State had been independent. The decision of President Medvedev recognizing the independence of the territories of Abkhazia, Georgia and South Ossetia, Georgia disregarded relevant provisions of the UN Charter, undermined international stability and security and cynically squashed his own signature on the ceasefire agreement brokered by the European Union under the French Presidency. Russia was trying to unilaterally alter the borders of a sovereign State through the use of military force.
VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said this was the third time that he addressed the Conference to set forth the situation with respect to the Georgian aggression with regard to South Ossetia. Colleagues already had a clear idea of how things stood. He had not intended to speak today but could not refrain from responding to the statement made by Georgia. The Georgian side, instead of implementing the provisions of the Sarkozy mediation plan, was trying to hunt for enemies and to lay blame. This was unfortunate, especially in light of the European Union Summit that ended yesterday with President Sarkozy saying that the events in Georgia were not grounds for the return of the cold war. This was very important, and everyone should listen, including in Tbilisi.
Russia welcomed the upcoming visit by Mr. Sarkozy, Mr. Barroso and Mr. Solana to Moscow to discuss implementation of the Sarkozy-Medvedev plan. The plan had six principles, and he wanted to tell the Conference where Russia stood on these principles. The first principle was not to use force. This principle was quite clearly directed first and foremost to the Georgian leadership. Over the years, Russia had tried to strengthen the principle of the non use of force to end conflicts. Its proposals had always been rejected by the Georgians. The second principle was an immediate hold on all military hostilities. Here, President Medvedev should stop his military aggressions and should not be rearmed, both overtly and covertly. Unfortunately, information showed that the rearming of the Georgian regime had already started. For Russia, the military activities in order to return to peace were completed on 12 August. The third principle was free access to humanitarian assistance. There were no obstacles by the Russian side to any humanitarian assistance. The fourth principle required the Georgian armed forces to return to their barracks. This principle was of particular importance as the Georgian forces had not done that, according to reliable information. The fifth principle was divided into two parts. On the withdrawal of the Russian Federation to the lines before the conflict, this process had already been completed. Also 500 Russian peacekeeping forces were taking additional security measures and had established a security buffer around South Ossetia. The sixth principle was beginning international discussions to ensure a lasting resolution to the conflict. Such discussions were already underway within the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe with regard to sending a mission and Russia was willing to help the military observers to patrol the security zone. It was still necessary to discuss an international plan to demilitarise this area, also with regard to Abkhazia, under the surveillance of an international presence.
Another issue which was raised by the Georgian representative was on the use by Russia of cluster weapons against the civilian population. Russia declared in categorical terms that no cluster weapons were used by the Russian troops against the civilian population. On the other hand, Human Rights Watch had testified to the use of cluster weapons by Georgian troops. They were the same bombs used in southern Lebanon in 2006. Also, Russia was constantly being accused of trying to resurrect the colonial regime of the past. He wanted to inform the Conference about some details of the history of this region. Russia did not have a colonial policy. Recently, a scientific conference was held in Ankara and concluded that the actions of the Russian Federation were totally justified and that the Georgian leadership needed to be held to account for their misdeeds. The Georgian representative had also made reference to Russia’s participation in the conflict. He wanted to inform the Conference that until 7 and 8 August of this year, Russia was not a party to the conflict. The armed conflict, which started with the Georgian attack on 7 and 8 August, had now been concluded. Russia did not have effective control of the structures in Southern Ossetia and Abkhazia, and could not be held responsible for the actions of these structures. Russia was not an occupying power. The Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia were just a military presence, but were not carrying out the work of the structures. Russia had recognized these two structures and it was doing all that it could to maintain law and order. Russia was being reproached for recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but the recognition of their independence was the necessary and only response possible to the aggression by Georgia. This decision was final and irrevocable.
HILDE SKORPEN (Norway) welcomed the presentation of a draft annual report which was balanced, factual and objective. Ideally Norway would have liked the report to be even more substantial and even more forward leaning, but it could live with it. Most important for Norway was that the report could steer the Conference onto a productive path for the coming year and that it reflected the broad support for document CD/1840 and that all Member States were all ready to build on it in 2009. Norway considered CD/1840 to be the best product for breaking the stalemate and that the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was the topic ripest for negotiations. Ideally, Norway wanted the negotiating mandate to deal with both verification and stocks, but it was ready to settle for the start of negotiations. Norway was disappointed that yet another year had gone by without the Conference agreeing on a programme of work. Yet it was encouraging that even those who could not endorse it considered it a useful platform to continue negotiations for the next year. The rhetoric and stalling must be put aside. Norway had long called for a cultural revolution in the Conference. It was high time for the Conference to hold an open and honest debate on the working methods, the rules of procedure, the consensus principle, seating arrangements and the working of the regional groups. Breaking the deadlock in the Conference had been the work of many seminars. UNIDIR eight years ago had held a conference on the work of the Conference on Disarmament. The report dealt with it being unable to agree on a programme of work, and how the deadlock was perceived from the outside, and the underlying causes of the deadlock in the Conference. These reasons remained the same. They needed to have an open debate on whether they were well served in a process which allowed one or two States to stall progress for all.
Some of the recommendations of the UNIDIR conference on the group system, the participation of civil society, and other issues in the Conference were worth repeating. The report had one recommendation which was particularly of relevance to the situation that the Conference on Disarmament found itself today. It said that the start of negotiations on a ban on the production of fissile material was important. However, the most contentious issues could be better resolved through negotiations, rather than being used as an excuse for holding up negotiations. That was what CD/1840 was trying to do, and that was why it was the best compromise to date.
MAURICIO MONTALVO (Ecuador) wanted to echo the comments made by Norway about the draft report. The annual report had to be objective and had to reflect the work in the Conference, and had to be submitted at least two weeks before it was adopted. That was precisely the approach which the President took and he was congratulated for this. It was a useful document and had to be discussed and improved and Ecuador shared the positive spirit that Venezuela as President of the Conference had used to satisfy everyone and achieve a correct balance while following the rules and regulations. The work of the Conference now was to improve the draft, if possible, with realistic, responsible and objective amendments.
MABEL GOMEZ OLIVER (Mexico) said Mexico was particularly please to see Venezuela as the President of the Conference and congratulated the President for the constructive spirit with which he had conducted the work of the Conference. Mexico also thanked the President’s predecessors who showed commitment and untiring and unswerving efforts to break the deadlock in the Conference. Mexico acknowledged the work and intensive consultations that had been held with regard to the draft report which would be submitted to the General Assembly. The draft report was objective, balanced and reflected in genuine and actual terms the developments that had taken place. Mexico had some amendments to suggest, but would still be happy to support the draft as it stood now. It was very important for the Conference to resort to every measure available so that they could arrive to an agreement on a programme of work in the very near future. They had to move towards building a consensus to take them out of this paralysis. Mexico reiterated its readiness to continue to work towards this praiseworthy end.
HAMID BAEIDI NEJAD (Iran) said he was pleased to take the floor today as the newly appointed Ambassador of Iran to the Conference and the Deputy Permanent Representative. An important part of his activities would be dedicated to the negotiations in the Conference and he looked forward to an efficient exchange of views and close cooperation with his colleagues. The period during which Venezuela had assumed the Presidency was of utmost importance as they needed to work together to adopt the draft report for 2008. Iran continued to carefully examine this draft and wished to enter into a constructive dialogue to finalize it. He reminded the Conference of the general principles which guided the body. As stipulated, the report should be factual and should reflect the work and should not be open to interpretation. They had to avoid value judgements unless they were agreed upon by all. Given the extensive activities of the Conference this year, the report needed to reflect this comprehensively. There was the unfortunate fact that no consensus was reached on a programme of work and this needed to be reflected in the report. The draft report needed some elaboration as well as some modification in some paragraphs to reflect fully all the views expressed. The modification would make the draft report more factual and consistent with what actually happened on the ground. Iran had full confidence in the wisdom of the President and was prepared to engage in serious negotiations on the report.
IDRISS JAZAIRI (Algeria) said Algeria had taken note with great interest of the draft report presented by the President and wished to congratulate him for being able to steer the way in such an objective manner. Algeria would consult with the Group of 21 and other groups it belonged to and was sure that they would reach a joint conclusion on any changes that needed to be made in the report. The comments made by colleagues like Norway today were an inspiration and Algeria looked forward to future negotiations in a spirit of cooperation. Some of the language they heard today was a bit out of tune, but they hoped to be able to work in a friendly and cooperative way.
SERGEI ORDZHONIKIDZE, Secretary-General of the Conference on Disarmament and Director-General of the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it had been the consistent position of the Secretary-General of the Conference to remind all delegations raising issues outside the agenda of the Conference that the Conference was not a tool for political propaganda. The Conference on Disarmament was not the Security Council, nor the Human Rights Council, nor any other humanitarian or political forum. According to the draft report, the items of the agenda of the Conference were cessation of a nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war; prevention of an arms race in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of mass destruction and new systems of such weapons; radiological weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament; and transparency in armaments. These were the issues which the Conference should be dealing with.
Mr. Ordzhonikidze appealed to the delegations to stick to the agenda of the Conference. Each time someone tried to bring bilateral or multilateral problems into the Conference on Disarmament, this had a negative effect on the situation in the Conference. They should not create an atmosphere of trading political blows. The Conference had plenty of work before it and should not be distracted. He welcomed the statements made by the delegations in that spirit and reminded everyone that the Conference was not progressing as they would like it to. The least they could do was adopt the draft report and present it to the General Assembly.
For use of information media; not an official record
DC08050E