CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT HEARS GEORGIA SAY RUSSIAN FORCES GUILTY OF TARGETING CIVILIANS; RUSSIA ALLEGES GEORGIAN POLICY OF ETHNIC CLEANSING

The Conference on Disarmament this morning heard Georgia say Russia had committed acts "in grave breach of the rules of international humanitarian law" in the context of the Russian-Georgian conflict. In response, Russia said that everything that had occurred in the past days had been nothing more than a carefully planned aggression by Tbilisi against the people of South Ossetia, which was "clearly ethnic cleansing" and genocide.

Georgia said that even after reaching agreement on 12 August 2008 on the principles on the resolution of the Russian-Georgian conflict, negotiated by the President of France, the Russian Federation had still continued occupying further territories of Georgia and bombings of civilian targets far beyond the conflict regions. On 13 August, Russian troops had seized the city of Gori, causing mass destruction and severe damage to the civilian population and infrastructure. Those acts had been done in grave breach of the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular violating the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, as evidenced by incidents of mistreatment of civilians and looting of villages by the Russian forces.

Russia said that Georgia had brought heavy military equipment into the conflict and had carried out a scorched-earth policy, savagely bombing the area of Tskhinvali and bombing South Ossetian villages, using all types of weapons. The number of total civilian casualties caused by those barbaric attacks was currently reported as 2,000 people. That was more than 5 per cent of the population remaining in Ossetia, many of whom had fled their houses and destroyed villages. This was clearly ethnic cleansing, which was a war crime and a violation of international law. The aim of a policy of this kind had been to clear South Ossetia of Ossetians and the territory thus cleared would have been seized as a settlement to the South Ossetian conflict. Russia would, in short order, provide documents that confirmed that criminal activity by Georgia.

In farewell speeches, the Ambassador of Israel stressed Israel's position that the threat of terrorism in all of its dimensions and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction deserved to be placed at a higher priority within the Conference, and the Ambassador of Italy stressed Italy's support for resuming substantive work in the Conference by adopting document CD/1840, which still represented the best possible compromise.

At the end of the meeting, Ambassador Christine Rocca of the United States, outgoing President of the Conference, regretted that the enhanced exchange of views afforded by the informal meetings held under her presidency had, so far, failed to reach consensus on a programme of work. She highlighted that national statements in recent weeks had continued to show strong support for that proposal.

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, 19 August, under the Presidency of Venezuela.

Statements

ITZHAK LEVANON (Israel), in a farewell statement, said that he had been grateful during his years in the Conference on Disarmament to be able to witness first-hand the interesting movement that had occurred in the Conference during his tenure. The outstanding efforts exerted towards resuscitation of the negotiation process were an achievement in and of themselves. Some were no doubt sceptical when he spoke of achievements, but everything was relative. Member States had all made a significant effort to work towards a better understanding of national positions in this realm.

At the same time, the deliberations had emphasized the fact that for States, work in the Conference on Disarmament related to issues closely linked to vital national security needs. In that connection, in Israel's view, there were two fundamental threats to global peace and security that deserved to be placed at a higher priority within the Conference: the threat of terrorism in all of its dimensions; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Those phenomena plagued all regions of the world, and should be treated in a comprehensive manner in order to avoid the creation of future conflicts, internal and regional instability and, above all, harm to civilian populations.

LUCIA FIORI (Italy), in a farewell statement, said that the depth of the deliberations that were held this year had shown once again the varying degree of ripeness of the core issues to which Member States attached priority. The debate so far had convinced them that a very viable solution to resuming substantive work in the Conference would be by adopting document CD/1840. It was true that this document was perfectible, but it was equally true that it contained a realistic and balanced proposal and it still represented the best possible compromise for a programme of work. Italy had not been able to detect any particular evolution on the so-called "core issues" to justify a change on the four key points of the proposal. CD/1840 was the result of several years of "negotiations on negotiations". This year's exercise only represented the last chapter of a distillation process which had brought them where they were standing right now: very close to start substantive negotiations in which the overwhelming majority of countries were ready to engage.

It was no secret that negotiating a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices represented Italy's top priority in the Conference. They were many years late on their time schedule according to the decision consensually adopted on the occasion of the 2000 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Further progress had been made in the Conference on Disarmament on this issue. During the coordination of the Ambassadors of Italy and Japan in 2007 and 2008, the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty issue had matured to a point in which further progress was only achievable through real negotiations. These negotiations could only be "without preconditions". The problems were out there. But right here in the Council Chamber they had the opportunity and the tools to contribute to solve those problems. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty would be a fundamental building block to reinforce the current nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation architecture.

GIORGI GORGILADZE (Georgia) said that the aim of the Conference was to create a secure environment in accordance with the spirit of the principles of the United Nations Charter. It was regrettable that today they were witnessing the violation of those principles by the Russian Federation. The situation in Georgia had become more aggravated on a daily basis in the course of last week. The Russian armed forces had occupied large parts of Georgian territory and had been carrying out massive bombings of Georgian cities throughout the country far from the conflict region in South Ossetia. The international community would have the opportunity to thoroughly consider, investigate and assess all violations of international law by the Russian side, one by one. The acts of the Georgian authorities had been aimed to react to and to defend the security of the peaceful populations against acts of the separatist regime of South Ossetia. Georgia had acted in compliance with the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, while the Russian Federation had used that opportunity to carry out an invasion of its territory. Even after reaching agreement on 12 August 2008 on the principles on the resolution of the Russian-Georgian conflict, negotiated by the President of France, the Russian Federation had still continued occupying further territories of Georgia and bombings of civilian targets far beyond the conflict regions. On 13 August, Russian troops had seized the city of Gori, causing mass destruction and severe damage to the civilian population and infrastructure. Those acts had been done in grave breach of the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular violating the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets, as evidenced by incidents of mistreatment of civilians and looting of villages by the Russian forces.

Georgia underscored that the representatives of the international community – international humanitarian organizations – had not been granted access to the territories controlled by the Russian armed forces, which further intensified doubts as to the real aims followed by Russia in Georgia. The number of civilian targets bombed or otherwise attacked by the Russian armed forces clearly indicated that it was not just collateral damage, including apartment buildings; the Gori Market and Municipality; the Poti seaport; the railway station and airport in Senaki; the Baku-Tiflis-Ceyhan-Pipeline (BTC-pipeline); the Kopitanari airport near Kutaisi; the aerodrome in Upper Abkhazia; the bridge linking eastern and western Georgia; the civilian radar station near Tbilisi, etc. In the recent past, the Russian side had repeatedly accused Georgia of rapid militarization. Georgia once again underlined that it had never exceeded the limits set by respective international treaties and arms control regimes and all Russia's accusations were sheer demagogy. However, there were strong indications proving that different types of weapons, including Rocket Complex 9M72 (SS-26 Stone) had been indiscriminately used against the civilian population and infrastructure of Georgia.

VALERY LOSCHININ (Russian Federation), regarding the situation in South Ossetia, informed the Conference on Disarmament that on the night from 7 to 8 August, on the eve of the solemn opening of the Olympics Games in Beijing, when most of the world leaders were attending the opening ceremony, Georgia had unleashed an aggression against the people of South Ossetia and against its own territory. That had occurred a few hours after an agreement had been reached on holding negotiations to reduce tension in the conflict zone, as had been stated publicly by Mikhail Saakashvili himself. Those assurances had proven to be lies. Despite diplomatic efforts undertaken between Moscow, Tskhinvali and Washington, and other interested capitals, including Berlin, Paris and Brussels, and despite their numerous warnings, the Georgian leadership had preferred to follow the worst of all possible scenarios, using force, and thus had deliberately carried out aggression and had carried out gross violations of standards of international law and humanitarian principles. Two days ago, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had made an important statement on the completion of operations in South Ossetia, saying the aims of the operation had been achieved, namely ensuring the security of peacekeepers in the region, the security of the civilian population and of civilian facilities and the punishment of the aggressor, who had suffered serious losses. During the armed conflict, the Russian Forces strictly observed the standards of international humanitarian law and, in particular, had not carried out any attack against civilian facilities or civilians.

Mr. Loschinin said that during the French President's visit to Moscow, they had reached an agreement on the following six principles for the settlement of the Georgian-Russian conflict: firstly, the non-use of force; secondly, the definitive end to all military action; thirdly, free access to humanitarian assistance; fourthly, the return of the armed Georgian forces to their previous locations; fifthly, withdrawal of the Russian forces to their positions prior to the military actions and, until international mechanisms were set up, Russian peacekeeping forces would take additional security measures; sixthly, the beginning of international discussions on how to ensure a lasting security in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Those principles still needed to be given shape in legally binding documents, Russia added, praising Mr. Sarkozy's efforts in that regard.

Everything that had occurred in the past days had been nothing more than a carefully planned aggression by Tbilisi against the people of South Ossetia, Russia stressed. Georgia had brought heavy military equipment into the conflict, and had carried out a scorched-earth policy, savagely bombing the area of Tskhinvali and bombing South Ossetian villages, using all types of weapons. All had seen on television how those munitions had wiped the city of Tskhinvali from the face of the Earth. The number of total civilian casualties caused by those barbaric attacks was currently reported as 2,000 people. That was more than 5 per cent of the population remaining in Ossetia, many of whom had fled their houses and destroyed villages. This was clearly ethnic cleansing, which was a war crime and a violation of international law. The aim of a policy of this kind had been to clear South Ossetia of Ossetians and the territory thus cleared would have been seized as a settlement to the South Ossetian conflict. Such criminal action fell under the definition of genocide and there was considerable evidence of violations of the standards of international humanitarian law by the Georgian side. Russia would, in short order, provide documents that confirmed that criminal activity by Georgia. The hypocrisy of Georgia when appealing to the International Criminal Court against Russia was obvious. When turning to the International Criminal Court, Georgia would need to go there not as a plaintiff but as a defendant and ask for forgiveness from the international community. They should also go to church and pray for forgiveness for their sins.

According to official data, under Mikhail Saakashvili's leadership, the Georgian military expenditure had increased tenfold and the Georgian military budget had increased 20 times. That had happened because it was convenient for several States. At a meeting on the issue in Brussels yesterday, countries had raised the question of who was guilty and it was stated that, even now, it was hard to answer this question; this was rather surprising. There was a campaign of lies and slanders against Russia, but many world leaders recognized that Georgia was responsible for the situation. Even the United States had indicated this, with an article in the International Herald Tribune stating that Condolezza Rice had gone to see the President of Georgia and had told him not to get into a military conflict with Russia because Georgia could not win. By carrying out ethnic cleansing and military actions, Georgia was fully responsible for what had occurred in South Ossetia.

CHRISTINE ROCCA (United States), President of the Conference, in final remarks to the Conference at the last meeting under the Presidency of the United States, welcomed the active participation of delegations during her presidency, in particular in the renewed round of informal meetings under the Coordinators, which had helped refresh the conversation on the important issues before them. Regretfully, that enhanced exchange of views afforded by the informal meetings had, so far, failed to reach the third, and she believed, the most important of their aims, to reach consensus on a programme of work. That was all the more perplexing as their discussions had underscored the common understanding of the Conference on Disarmament's purpose, and the importance of substantive work on its four core issues, including the prompt commencement of negotiations on an FMCT (treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices). National statements in the plenary sessions in recent weeks had continued to show strong support for the programme of work proposed by the Presidency, contained in document CD/1840, and she wished to acknowledge the strong basis for that proposal in the efforts of the 2006 and 2007 Presidencies. Under the incoming Venezuelan presidency, the United States looked forward to agreement on a strong and substantive report of the Conference's work this year to the United Nations General Assembly.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC08043E