Today, we have little reason for optimism. The main problems of the crisis under review - namely, the humanitarian situation and the political process - have barely budged since our last meeting on this issue.

The humanitarian situation resulting from the conflict and the fate of Georgia's one-quarter of a million refugees and displaced persons have always been the primary preoccupation of my country in this issue. In this context, we are horrified by the complete lack of progress on their repatriation. Fewer than 500 of the quarter million have been repatriated voluntarily over the past three months - which is absolutely laughable. At this pace, it would take about 182 years before the repatriation was completed. And it is small wonder that under these circumstances spontaneous repatriation is under way, with ail the risks it entails. But even that has affected only a   few tens of thousands of people, according to information provided by the Russian delegation - that is, a small fraction of the total refugee population.

Meanwhile, in Georgia itself these refugees and displaced persons have been forgotten by the world. They suffer outside the field of vision of CNN cameras, and their suffering has resulted among other things in a full-blown health crisis: recently we dealt here approving the export of some vaccine against diphtheria - one of the diseases now plaguing Georgia. And it is pitiful that the operation of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UN HCR), the one organization that does help, is facing a financial crisis that might force it to curtail its work in one of the world's spots where it is needed most.

Repatriation has to be speeded up by at least two orders of magnitude, so that its end can be timed in months, not centuries. My delegation is in fact particularly chagrined that this draft resolution makes no reference to a repatriation timetable such as the one the UN HCR has repeatedly proposed - in vain - to the Quadripartite Commission, dealing with refugee issues; nor does our draft propose any other measure that would refocus our attention on the need to bring refugees and displaced persons back to their villages and fields.

No movement on humanitarian issues of course follows from the absence of movement on political issues - the two are interrelated. We are distressed that no progress has been made in the last six weeks or so to resolve the political and constitutional crisis. If anything, the crisis deepened when Abkhaz leaders very unadvisedly adopted certain unilateral constitutional steps.

In the light of these steps it is all the more important that our draft resolution once again clearly and unambiguously reiterate our support for Georgia' s territorial integrity. Its territorial integrity formed also the basis of a joint paper which the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Russian Federation submitted to the parties as a basis for further discussions - which, alas, again went nowhere.

The Secretary-General has made many efforts personally, but even these have not been fruitful. We urge him, however, not to be discouraged and to continue trying, again and again, to get high-level talks on Abkhazia off the ground. We do, however, agree with him that a general preoccupation with events taking place elsewhere in the Caucasus region hinders his efforts, and indeed that the crisis in Chechnya may impede the politics of seeking an Abkhaz settlement. This is just another reason why we hope the Chechnya crisis will be resolved soon - albeit not at any price. Heaven knows that the Caucasus region is already plagued by a goodly number of conflicts, and history shows that they influence one other. Would, therefore, that the impact of the crisis in Chechnya were indeed limited to politics, and the politics only of Abkhazia.
If there is anything positive in this altogether gloomy situation, it is the work of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG). UNOMIG has reached its full authorized strength. It has correspondingly expanded its activity. It is cooperating well with the peace-keeping forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Its freedom of movement is being observed. Even its status in Georgia has been successfully settled. All this is very welcome news.

And we are also happy to learn that an arrangement has been reached on the cooperation between the United Nations and the CIS forces, on the basis of the Secretary-General's proposals of 4 November last. This cooperation will, we hope, lead to an improvement of the security situation on the ground. It seems to be especially poor in the Gali region - which the Secretary-General's report touches on in several paragraphs. We certainly hope that the combined activities of the CIS peace-keepers and of UNOMIG will help calm the situation.

If there is one other thing we would like, it is richer reporting on the operations of the CIS peace-keeping force. We are grateful to the Russian delegation for the briefings it occasionally provides to Council members during informal consultations, and indeed I have used today some numbers precisely from these briefings. But we believe it would be very advantageous for their content to find its way into official documents of the Security Council, for the benefit both of greater transparency of the CIS peace-keeping operations and of fuller information for United Nations Members. No new ground would be broken in doing so: The United States delegation, for example, regularly provides comparable briefings on Haiti, which, as we all know, are publicly available as part of the official record.

Extending the UNOMIG mandate until 15 May will in effect synchronize the timetables of the United Nations and the CIS operations, something we have advocated in the past. We therefore fully support this extension and the draft resolution before us.


One stark set of facts hangs over the otherwise credible performance of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) and the peace-keeping force of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). We have witnessed the almost total absence of progress towards a political settlement of this conflict or towards the expeditious return of the tens of thousands of refugees and displaced persons to their homes in Abkhazia in safety and in dignity.

The Council has asked the Secretary-General to report twice in the short period of four months on the status of the political process and on the return of refugees and displaced persons. When the Council comes to consider the future of UNOMIG in May, we, and I trust other Council members will look closely and   seriously at the entire situation to determine whether continuation of this Mission is justified.

The United States delegation hopes that the Secretary-General's reports will give the Council reason to act favourably in this regard, but we must be realistic. Recent history does not paint an optimistic picture. The Abkhaz party bears a strong burden of responsibility for the absence of progress. By declaring themselves a sovereign nation, Abkhaz leaders have violated their commitment to reaching a mutually acceptable settlement with the Government of Georgia. The Council has rightly expressed its deep concern about this act and indicated that that declaration has no standing.

By establishing UN OMIG, the Security Council showed that it was prepared to help those who are helping themselves. Since then the process has reached a stalemate.
The message of this renewal resolution is clear: now is the time for the parties to return to the table and to achieve real progress toward a political settlement and the return of refugees and displaced persons in secure and safe conditions.


Some colleagues today have achieved high levels of rhetoric. I must mention that the Ukrainian colleague nevertheless went far beyond anything permissible. Ifone is to speak ofblood, indeed the blood is not on our hands but on the hands of his friends the nationalist radicals - the blood of those Ukrainians who were shot by snipers on days in February of this year - whose ideological fathers he defended not very long ago in the halls of the United Nations, stating that Nazi Ukranian henchmen did not kill anyone and that those were falsehoods made up by the Soviet Union.

With regard to other statements, I must note that something has caught my attention. Colleagues that have taken the floor discussed poorly developed arguments, on the whole - it was not the argumentation put forward by my delegation, but distorted images or elements of our position. I will not comment on everything heard today - all of the highly unacceptable comments. I will, however, make a few comments.

The French colleague did not notice the smallest hint of violence in Ukraine. It is possible that he was unaware of what occurred on Saturday in Kharkiv, where two citizens were killed by fighters from other regions of Ukraine. In fact, the violence had to be noted as it took place during this month in Kyiv and in other regions of the country. There is a continuing threat of violence and a continuing threat of it spreading to other regions okaraine. Yet the violence has not occurred in Crimea, due to measures taken there.

The Permanent Representative of the United States blamed Russia for illegally pursuing its ambitions. That does not apply to us; it is a phrase taken from the foreign policy arsenal of the United States. Ms. Power spoke of truth. The world would be very interested to know if Washington, DC, would in fact tell the truth about its role in the development of the crisis in Ukraine. Finally, Ms. Power spoke of dreams and aspirations. But why has she negated the right of the people of Crimea to express their will tomorrow during the referendum? To conclude, one of our colleagues said that Kyiv had extended a hand to Moscow and that we had refused to reciprocate. But the problem is not with Moscow; it has to do with the fact that Kyiv should have been the one to extend a hand to its people and regions, instead of intimidating them with repression and banning the use of the Russian language. Why, for instance, was the constitutional assembly not convened, and in reality, in the course of the constitutional process, it was not proved that the ideology and practice of radical nationalism did not prevail in Kyiv? It is unfortunate that much time has been lost.
Nevertheless, we would appeal to all to put an end to the confrontation and to begin constructive cooperation with a view to a long-term settlement of the situation in Ukraine, in the interests of all of the people, including those in the eastern and south-eastern regions.

Letter dated 28 February 2014 from the Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2014/136)


It is a great pleasure to be here again to consider this very important matter. I am very pleased to be here as the Secretary of State of a relatively new country on the face of the Earth. But I think I can take some credit sitting here as the representative of the oldest democracy represented here around this table. I am proud of that. It is a democracy that believes in peace, a nation that has tried in the course of its history to show how people can live in peace with one another.
But it is a democracy that has not been afraid to meet its responsibilities on the world stage when it has been challenged and, more importantly, when others in the world have been challenged, when the international order has been challenged or when the international institutions of which we are a part have been challenged.

That is why we joined, and have been an active member of, institutions such as the United Nations and a number of others that have come together for the purpose of peace, the purpose of mutual security and the purpose of letting other nations that pursue a path of destruction, that pursue a path of developing weapons of mass destruction and that threaten their neighbours know that we will stand tall, that we will stand together to meet these kinds of challenges.

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei for their statements this morning. They took up a difficult challenge when they went back into Iraq last fall in pursuit of disarmament, as required by resolution 1441 (2002). I listened very attentively to all they said this morning, and I am pleased that there have been improvements with respect to process. I am pleased that there have been improvements with respect to not having five minders with each inspectors, but fewer than five minders with each inspector. But I think they are still being minded; they are still being watched; they are still being bugged.
They still do not have the freedom of access around Iraq that they need in order to do their job well.

I am pleased that a few people have come forward for interviews. But not all the people who should be coming forward for interviews are doing so, or have the freedom to interview in such a way that their safety and the safety of their families can be protected, as required by resolution 1441 (2002). I am glad that access has been relatively good.

But that is all process - it is not substance. I am pleased to hear that decrees have now been issued that should have been issued years and years ago. But does anyone really think that a decree from Saddam Hussain - directed to whom? - is going to fundamentally change the situation? And it comes out on a morning when we are moving forward down the path laid out by resolution 1441 (2002). These are all process issues. These are all tricks that are being played on us.

They say that new commissions are being formed that will go and find materials that they claim are not there in the first place. Can anybody honestly believe that either one of those two new commissions will actively seek out information that they have been actively trying to deny to the world community, to the inspectors, for the past ll-plus years? I commend the inspectors. I thank them for what they are doing. But at the same time I have to keep coming back to the point that the inspectors have repeatedly made. They have made it again here this morning; they have been making it for the past 11-plus years. What we need is not more inspections, not more immediate access; what we need is immediate, active, unconditional, full cooperation on the part of Iraq.
What we need is for Iraq to disarm.

Resolution 1441 (2002) was not about inspections. Let me say that again: resolution 1441 (2002) was not about inspections. Resolution 1441 (2002) was about the disarmament of Iraq. We worked on that resolution for seven weeks, from the time of President Bush's powerful speech here in the General Assembly on 12 September until the resolution was adopted on 8 November. We had intense discussions.
All of you are familiar with that; you participated in those discussions. That was about disarmament.

The resolution began with the clear statement that Iraq had been in material breach of its obligations for the previous 11 years, and remained to that day - the day the resolution was adopted - in material breach.
The resolution said that Iraq must now come into compliance; it must disarm. The resolution went on to say that we wanted to see a declaration from Iraq, within 30 days, of all of its activities. "Put it all on the table; let us see what you have been doing. Give us a declaration that we can believe in that is full, complete and accurate" - that is what we said to Iraq on 8 November. And some 29 days later we got 12,000 pages. Nobody in this Council can say that that was a full, complete or accurate declaration.

Now it is several months after that declaration was submitted, and I have heard nothing to suggest that they have filled in the gaps that were in that declaration, or that they have added new evidence that should give us any comfort that we have a full, complete and accurate declaration. You will recall that we put that declaration requirement into the resolution as an early test of Iraq's seriousness. Are they serious?
Are they going to disarm? Are they going to comply?
Are they going to cooperate? The answer, with that declaration, was, "No - we are going to see what we can get away with. We will see how much we can slip under your nose. And everybody will clap, and say 'Isn't that wonderful; they provided a declaration'" -a declaration that was not of any particular use.

We then had some level of acceptance of the fact that inspectors were going back in. Recall that Iraq tried to use that gambit right after the President's speech in September to try to keep resolution 1441 (2002) from ever coming down the pipe. Suddenly, on the Monday after the President's speech, they said, "Oh! We'll let inspectors back in". Why? Because when the President spoke, and when Iraq saw that the international community was now coming together with seriousness and with determination, it knew it had better do something. It did not do it out of the goodness of its heart, or because it suddenly discovered that it had been in violation for all those years. They did it because of pressure. They did it because this Council stood firm. They did it because the international community said, "Enough! We will not tolerate Iraq continuing to have weapons of mass destruction to be used against its own people, to be used against its neighbours - or worse, if we find a post-11 September nexus between Iraq and terrorist organizations that are looking for just such weapons." And I would submit -and will provide more evidence - that such connections are now emerging. We can establish that they exist.

We cannot wait for one of these terrible weapons to show up in one of our cities and wonder where it came from after it has been detonated by Al-Qaeda or somebody else. This is the time to go after this source of this kind of weaponry.

And that is what resolution 1441 (2002) was all about. To this day we have not seen the level of cooperation that was expected, anticipated and hoped for - I hoped for it. No one worked harder than the United States. And I submit that no one worked harder - if I may humbly say so - than I did to try to put forward a resolution that would show the determination of the international community to the leadership in Iraq so that they would now meet their obligations and come clean and comply. And they did not. Notwithstanding all of the discussion that we have heard so far this morning about, "Give inspections more time; let's have more airplanes flying over; let's have more inspectors added to the inspection process" - Mr. Blix noted earlier this week that it is not more inspectors that are needed. What is needed is what both Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei have said, what has been needed since 1991: immediate, active, unconditional compliance and cooperation.

I am pleased that Iraq is now discussing this matter with South Africa. But it is not brain surgery.
South Africa knows how to do it. Anybody knows how to do it. If we were getting the kind of cooperation that we expected when resolution 1441 (2002) was passed and that we hoped for when resolution 1441 (2002)
was passed, these documents would be flooding out of homes, flooding out of factories. There would be no question about access. There would be no question about interviews. If Iraq were serious in this matter, interviewees would be standing up outside the offices of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Baghdad and elsewhere, waiting to be interviewed because they would be determined to prove to the world, to give the world all the evidence needed that these weapons of mass destruction are gone.

Notwithstanding all of the lovely rhetoric, the questions remain. Some of my colleagues have talked about them. We have not accounted for the anthrax. We have not accounted for the botulinum, the VX, bulk biological agents, growth media, 30,000 chemical and biological munitions. These are not trivial matters one can just ignore and walk away from and say "Well, maybe the inspectors will find them, maybe they won't". We have not had a complete, accurate declaration. We have seen the reconstitution of casting chambers for missiles. Why? Because they are still trying to develop these weapons. We have not seen the kind of cooperation that was anticipated, expected and demanded by this body. And we must continue to demand it; we must continue to put pressure on Iraq and to put force upon Iraq to make sure that the threat of force is not removed, because resolution 1441 (2002) was all about compliance, not inspections. The inspections were put in as a way, of course, to assist Iraq in coming forward and complying: in order to verify; in order to monitor, as the chief inspector noted.

But we still have an incomplete answer from Iraq.
We are facing a difficult situation. More inspectors?
Sorry, that is not the answer. What we need is immediate cooperation. Time? How much time does it take to say, "I understand the will of the international community, and I and my regime are laying it all out for you" and not playing "guess", not forming commissions, not issuing decrees, not getting laws that should have been passed years ago suddenly passed on the day when we are meeting. These are not responsible actions on the part of Iraq. These are continued efforts to deceive, to deny, to divert, to throw us off the trail, to throw us off the path.

The resolution anticipated this kind of response from Iraq. That is why in all of our discussions about that resolution we said, "They are in material breach. If they come into a new material breach with a false declaration or are not willing to cooperate and comply, as operative paragraph 4 says, then the matter has to be referred to the Council for serious consequences." I submit that notwithstanding the improvements in process that we have noted - and I welcome this, and thank the inspectors for their hard work - these improvements in process do not move us away from the central problem that we continue to have. And more inspections and a longer inspection period will not move us away from the central issue, the central problem we are facing. And that central problem is that Iraq has failed to comply with resolution 1441 (2002).

The threat of force must remain. Force should always be a last resort. I have preached this for most of my professional life as a soldier and as a diplomat. But it must be a resort. We cannot allow this process to be endlessly strung out, as Iraq is trying to do right now: "String it out long enough and the world will start looking in other directions. The Security Council will move on. We will get away with it again." My friends, they cannot be allowed to get away with it again. We are now in a situation where Iraq's continued non-compliance and failure to cooperate, it seems to me in the clearest terms, require this Council to begin to think through the consequences of walking away from this problem or the reality that we have to face this problem and that in the very near future we will have to consider whether or not we have reached that point where this Council must face this issue - as distasteful as it may be and as reluctant as we may be.
So many of you would rather not have to face this issue, but it is an issue that must be faced. And that issue is whether or not it is time to consider serious consequences of the kind intended by resolution 1441 (2002). The reason we must not look away from it is because these are terrible weapons. We are talking about weapons that will kill not a few people, not 100 people, not 1,000 people, but could kill tens of thousands of people if these weapons got into the wrong hands.

The security of the region, the hopes for the people of Iraq themselves, and our security rest upon us meeting our responsibilities and, if it comes to it, invoking the serious consequences called for in resolution 1441 (2002). Resolution 1441 (2002) is about disarmament and compliance and not merely a process of inspections that goes on forever without ever resolving the basic problem.


I do not want to prolong today's debate but I must take issue with some of the things that the Russian ambassador has said.

Let us be clear about the facts of what has happened in Crimea. The Russian forces have forcibly taken over military and civilian airports and infrastructure. They have set up roadblocks and pressured Ukrainian military leaders to defect. They have given other Ukrainian units ultimatums to surrender. They have blocked Ukrainian ports and vastly increased their military forces all along the Russian-Ukrainian border.

There is no justification for that military action in international law or in the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the Status and Conditions of Presence of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation in the Territory of Ukraine, as article 6 of that Agreement sets forth very clearly: "Military formations shall respect the sovereignty of Ukraine, shall abide by Ukrainian laws and shall not interfere in the internal affairs of Ukraine." What part of that Agreement justifies the military action that we have seen Russian taking in Crimea? My Russian colleague has said just now that the Russian Federation is not against the idea of an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe monitoring mission to eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Can he now confirm therefore that the Russian Federation accepts the deployment of such a mission in the next few days?


Mr. Thiebaud (France) (interpretation from French): My delegation welcomes the decision the Council has just taken to extend the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) until 15 May 1995.

This resolution sends the right message to the parties concerned, since it confirms the international community's commitment to securing a political settlement of the Abkhaz conflict while respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia. The maintenance of a United Nations presence in Georgia is legitimate; the Secretary-General recognizes in his latest report that this presence, in close cooperation with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peace-keeping force, is playing a stabilizing role.

The situation in Abkhazia is indeed disquieting. There has been no progress on the issue of displaced persons, and this state of affairs is making it impossible to solve the humanitarian problems effectively. The political process is at a standstill and it is to be feared that it will remain there so as long as the return of the refugees is not ensured in secure conditions and in accordance with the agreements undertaken. This is a key factor for the stability of the region and for the return of the peoples concerned to normal living conditions.

Thus our Council, by today reaffirming its readiness to support the efforts to achieve a settlement, expects the parties to demonstrate without delay their resolve to break the present deadlock. The resolution we have just adopted calls on them first of all to comply with their commitments, to refrain from any action which would impede the political process, and to intensify their efforts to achieve a comprehensive settlement under United Nations auspices. It is clear that the thorough review our Council will undertake at the beginning of May will take these critical elements into account.

In this respect, my delegation lends its full support to the Secretary-General for the personal assistance that he is ready to give, as well as to the mediation role played by Mr. Brunner, with a view to restarting the negotiating process. Doing our utmost to promote this process should be our primary concern.


Mr. Wang Yingfan (China) (spoke in Chinese): The Chinese delegation wishes to thank Mr. Kouchner for his briefing.

While many people are praising the municipal elections in Kosovo, we have taken note of the fact that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia deems the election result null and void. The Serbs, Turks and other ethnic groups do not have effective participation in the elections. Members of ethnic groups still lack guarantees for their security, and they are concerned over this situation.

We expect the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) to implement as soon as possible measures to ensure the representation ofthe Serbs and other ethnic groups. We have also taken note of the fact that the elections are regarded locally as a symbol of Kosovo's movement towards independence. If the tendency towards Kosovo's independence grows, that would be in contravention of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). The international community and the Security Council should pay attention to this tendency towards independence in Kosovo and to what consequences it would have on the situation in the Balkans.

Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) already contains provisions on the future status of Kosovo. We hope that UNMIK will actively encourage and guide the Albanian Kosovars to conduct dialogue with the Government ofthe Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We believe that the positive and constructive influence of the international community should be able to produce positive results. The question of Kosovo can have the prospect for a fair and reasonable fundamental resolution only with the ultimate restoration of national harmony.


I, too, would like to thank Special Representative of the Secretary-General Bernard Kouchner for his briefing.

The issue of Kosovo and Metohija is of the greatest State importance for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In fact, it is more than that. It is one of the issues that concerns the fate of my country. As the Council contemplates how to address this issue, I will limit my statement to bringing to its attention only what the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia deems to be ofthe utmost importance.

First, the new Government of my country fully subscribes to Security Council resolution 1244 (1999)
and considers it the main and only basis for a just and lasting solution.

Secondly, the profound democratic changes that have taken place in Yugoslavia have ensured the full-fledged participation of the legitimate representatives of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the implementation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), which cannot be achieved without the active participation of my Government.

Thirdly, at this juncture it is of the utmost importance to proceed urgently to a comprehensive and consistent implementation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). In implementing resolution 1244 (1999) the following priorities are of special significance.

The first priority is the creation of a secure environment and the return of all those who fled Kosovo and Metohija. Interdependent as they are, these two prerequisites constitute the key to preserving the multi-ethnic character of Kosovo and Metohija and to normalizing the situation in the province.

The second priority is to conclude an agreement on the status of the international presence in Kosovo and Metohija. The problems relating to the status of the members of that presence would thereby be regulated, and the necessary conditions would be created for all-round cooperation between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and the Kosovo Force.
My country is ready to commence dialogue and cooperation with the representatives of the international community.

The third priority is a just solution to every detainee case and the clarification of the fate of missing persons. This would strengthen confidence and promote reconciliation.
The fourth priority is the forthcoming holding of elections in the Yugoslav constituent Republic of Serbia, as well as in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija.

The fifth priority is the return of a limited contingent of the Yugoslav army and police to Kosovo and Metohija.

The sixth priority is a resolution of the status of para-diplomatic representative offices in Kosovo and Metohija, in accordance with the Vienna Convention and with respect for the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

In the opinion of my delegation, these priorities and other provisions of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) are the basic issues that will determine the future course of events.

My delegation is also aware that resolution 1244 (1999) contains provisions to address other issues, including political negotiations on the final status of Kosovo and Metohija. We consider it premature to address these issues now, with basic problems still unresolved. Indeed, notwithstanding its will and readiness to take up the issues, the Government of my country is of the opinion that in the present circumstances of an extremely bad security situation and the lack of conditions for a mass return of displaced persons to Kosovo and Metohija, those issues would be difficult to deal with. As experience has shown, proper andjust solutions are difficult to achieve if major political problems are addressed in a simplified and hasty manner and without respect for different interests.

It is for that reason that President Vojislav Kostunica and the new, democratically elected Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia call on the international community to approach the question of Kosovo and Metohija in a thorough and prudent manner, and in accordance with Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). Similarly, in the quest for the best possible solution, it would be very useful to ensure broad cooperation with the international community and other interested parties and States.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia attaches the utmost importance to its sovereignty and territorial integrity, which is one of the provisions of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). In saying so, we are ready to work towards achieving substantial autonomy for Kosovo and Metohija, and we will do so. That would provide for a peaceful and prosperous life for all its residents - Serbs, Albanians and others alike.
Every other solution outside Security Council resolution 1244 (1999) is fraught with unforeseeable consequences not only for Kosovo and Metohija and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but also for the region as a whole. The strengthening of democratic processes in all countries of the region, the promotion of regional cooperation and the ever-greater prospects of joining the current processes of integration in Europe will, in the opinion of my delegation, help create a better atmosphere in the region and facilitate the quest for solutions to existing problems.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and its new leadership are open to cooperation and negotiation on all problems. They are willing to address outstanding issues through dialogue, in an atmosphere of openness, tolerance and good-neighbourliness and with full respect for vital interests of all. To that end, they are determined to preserve democracy in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and, in that context, to work for a peaceful and prosperous Kosovo and Metohija.


As the Permanent Representative of Russia has suggested that some European Union (EU) member States were somehow involved in making the crisis in Ukraine worse, I should like to set out clearly my Government's position.

The United Kingdom is deeply concerned by the escalation of tensions in the Crimea peninsula and by the fact that the Russian Parliament has authorized Russian military action on Ukrainian soil against the wishes of the Ukrainian Government. That action is a grave threat to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine. We condemn any act of aggression against Ukraine. We have therefore sought an immediate and full explanation from the Russian Federation for the decision to authorize military action on sovereign Ukrainian soil, and of the basis for it under international law.

Earlier today, my Prime Minister called on all parties to think carefully about their actions and to work to lower, not escalate, tensions. Yesterday, my Foreign Secretary spoke to Ukrainian acting President Turchynov, and made clear the United Kingdom's support for Ukraine's new Government. He urged him to ensure that the Government take measures that unify the country and that it protect the rights of Ukraine's citizens, including those from minority groups, in a spirit of inclusiveness. And he assured him of the United Kingdom's commitment to Ukraine's territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty.

The United Kingdom Government support the Ukrainian Government's request for urgent consultations, in accordance with the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by the United Kingdom, the United States, Russia and Ukraine. We see no reason why these consultations should not take place immediately.

Yesterday, the Council expressed support for Ukraine's unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and agreed that all political actors should show restraint. It is critical that the Russian Federation respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, and take immediate steps to calm this dangerous situation.


The United States deeply appreciates the support from our colleagues around the table and from the many States that have called for a peaceful end to the crisis in Ukraine. This is, however, a sad and remarkable moment. It is the seventh time that the Security Council has convened to discuss the urgent crisis in Ukraine.
The Council is meeting on Ukraine because it is the job of this body to stand up for peace and to defend those in danger.

We have heard a lot, each time that the Security Council has met, about the echoes and relevance of history. We have heard, for example, about the pleas of the brave democrats of Hungary in 1956 and about the dark chill that dashed the dreams of Czechs in 1968. We still have the time and the collective power to ensure that the past does not become prologue. But history has lessons, for those of us who are willing to listen.
Unfortunately, not everyone was willing to listen today.
Under the Charter of the United Nations, the Russian Federation has the power to veto a Security Council draft resolution. But it does not have the power to veto the truth. As we know, the word "truth" - or "pravda" - has aprominent place in the story ofmodern Russia. From the days of Lenin and Trotsky until the fall of the Berlin Wall, Pravda was the name of the house newspaper of the Soviet communist regime. But throughout that period, one could search in vain to find "pravda" in pravda.

Today one again searches in vain to find truth in the Russian position on Crimea, on Ukraine or on the proposed Security Council resolution (S/2014/189)
considered and vetoed a few moments ago. The truth is that the draft resolution should not have been controversial. It was grounded in principles that provide the foundation for international stability and law, Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, the prohibition of the use of force to acquire territory and respect for the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Member States. Those are principles that Russia agrees with and defends vigorously, all around the world; except, it seems, in circumstances that involve Russia.

The draft resolution broke no new legal or normative ground. It simply called on all parties to do what they had previously pledged through internationally binding agreements to do. It recalled specifically the 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, in which Russia and other signatories reaffirmed their commitments themselves to respect Ukraine's territorial integrity and to refrain from aggressive military action toward that country.

The draft resolution called on the Government of Ukraine to do what it had promised it would do: to protect the rights of all Ukrainians, including those belonging to minority groups.

Finally, the draft resolution noted that the planned Crimean referendum, scheduled for tomorrow, has no legal validity and will have no legal effect on the status of Crimea.

From the beginning of the crisis, the Russian position has been at odds not only with the law, but also with the facts. Russia claimed that the rights of people inside Ukraine were under attack, but that claim had validity only in the parts of Ukraine where Russia and Russian military forces were exercising undue influence. Russia denied that it was intervening militarily, but Russian troops have helped to surround and occupy public buildings, shut down airports, obstruct transit points and prevent the entry into Ukraine of international observers and human rights monitors. Russian leadership has disclaimed any intention of trying to annex Crimea, then reversed itself and concocted a rationale for justifying just such an illegal act.

Russia claims that its intentions are peaceful, but Russian officials have shown little interest in United Nations, European and American efforts at diplomacy, including Secretary of State Kerry's efforts yesterday in London. Russia has refused Ukraine's outstretched hand while, as we speak, Russian armed forces are massing across Ukraine's eastern border. Two days ago, in this very Chamber, Ukraine's Prime Minister appealed to Russia to embrace peace (see S/PV.7134).
Instead, Russia has rejected a draft resolution that had peace at its heart and law flowing through its veins.

The United States offered the draft resolution in a spirit of reconciliation, in the desire for peace, in keeping with the rule of law, in recognition of the facts and in fulfilment of the obligation of the Council to promote and preserve stability among nations. At the moment of decision, only one hand was raised to oppose those principles. Russia - isolated, alone and wrong - blocked the draft resolution's adoption, just as it has blocked Ukrainian ships and international observers. Russia put itself outside the international norms that we have painstakingly developed to serve as the bedrock foundation for peaceful relations between States.

The reason only one country voted against the draft resolution today is that the world believes that international borders are more than mere suggestions. The world believes that people within those internationally recognized borders have the right to chart their own future, free from intimidation.
The world believes that the lawless pursuit of one's ambitions serves none of us.

Russia has used its veto as an accomplice to unlawful military incursion. That very veto was given nearly 70 years ago to countries that had led an epic fight against aggression. But in so doing, Russia cannot change the fact that moving forward in blatant defiance of the international rules of the road will have consequences, nor can it change Crimea's status. Crimea is part of Ukraine today. It will be part of Ukraine tomorrow. It will be part of Ukraine next week. It will be part of Ukraine unless and until its status is changed in accordance with Ukrainian and international law.

Russia prevented the adoption of a resolution today, but it cannot change the aspirations and destiny of the Ukrainian people, and it cannot deny the truth, displayed today, that there is overwhelming international opposition to its dangerous actions.


In joining our Multinational Force (MNF) partners in sponsoring the resolution, Romania had in view, first of all, the letter received by the President of the Security Council from the Iraqi Government, requesting the extension of the mandates of the MNF, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board and the Development Fund for Iraq, as provided in Security Council resolution 1546 (2004). We believe that the Council ought to rally to that request and articulate its response with the same understanding of timing and effectiveness. Extending those mandates now will allow the Iraqis to focus on preparing for what is the most important step yet in their political transition.

We very much welcome the constructive work by the members of the Council during the negotiations on the draft resolution, which enabled the unanimous adoption of the text. The final text is well balanced and is an appropriate response to the specific requests of the Iraqi Government.

I wish to conclude by stating, in a nutshell, that Romania has repeatedly affirmed her support for the actions of the Iraqi Government to ensure durable stability, an effective reconstruction process and a democratic transition process. Romania will remain engaged in Iraq for as along as our presence and assistance are needed by the Iraqi people and Government.


I thank you very much, Madam, for agreeing to have this meeting at such short notice. I thank Mr. Eliasson for his comments and for presenting to us the statement of the Secretary-General, which is very promising. What I am going to say now, including the recent information about the developments in Ukraine, in particular in Crimea, was sent to all the missions this afternoon, The situation continues to deteriorate. As I said yesterday (see S/PV.7123), Russian troops illegally entered the territory of Ukraine in the Crimean peninsula on the ambiguous pretext of protecting the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine. A few hours ago, the upper house of the Russian Parliament, the Federation Council, unanimously authorized the use of military force against Ukraine upon the request of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, but the troops are already there and their number is increasing every hour.

However, such action by the Russian Federation constitutes an act of aggression against the State of Ukraine and a severe violation of international law, posing a serious threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, as well as peace and stability in the whole region. The Russian Federation is not complying with its obligations as a State guarantor of Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, obliging Russia, as well as other permanent members of the Security Council, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It is a dangerous challenge to the very principle of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Russia officially rejected the Ukrainian proposal to hold immediate bilateral consultations under article 7 of the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 1997.
The Russian Federation has brutally violated the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations, obliging all Member States, inter alia, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.

Facing the announced military intervention in Ukraine, the Government of Ukraine requested that this meeting of the Security Council be held. We call upon the Security Council to do everything possible now to stop aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine. There is still a chance.

Ukraine calls on the guarantor States to react immediately in order to prevent intervention. We call for international monitors of the situation in Ukraine with regard to the aggression of the Russian Federation.
We urge all States Members of the United Nations to demonstrate solidarity with the Ukrainian nation to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and the very basic principles of the United Nations, currently brutally violated by a permanent member of the Security Council.


At the outset, I would like to express my sympathy to you, Madam President, because under your presidency we have just wasted two hours discussing the format for this meeting. We agreed that only three people would speak in an open format: Mr. Eliasson, my Ukrainian colleague Mr. Sergeyev, and the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation. As I understand it, some of my Security Council colleagues already intend to depart from that agreement, but what can we do when there is a game without rules? I would like to thank Mr. Eliasson for his briefing and I support his conclusion that, in the current situation, cool heads must prevail. Unfortunately, I must note that my Ukrainian colleague did not choose to follow that advice, and what I heard in his statement was a number of terms characterizing the situation in Ukraine and the actions of the Russian Federation to which we cannot agree at all.

We are discussing a crisis that should not have taken place. There was no objective reason whatsoever for it to happen. There was and remains our fraternal country of Ukraine, our neighbour. If we talk about this in terms of the situation last autumn, it has a democratically and legally elected President, Mr. Yanukovych. He undertakes his functions on basis of the parliamentary majority in a democratically elected Parliament. His country is certainly dealing with serious economic challenges, and the leadership of Ukraine had serious decisions to make. In particular, it needed to decide whether to join or Sign an association agreement with the European Union. That is a complex decision.
One of the mistakes made the Ukrainian leadership was perhaps its last-minute recognition that this association agreement could have significant economic consequences for Ukraine.

In such conditions, the Ukrainian leader, President Yanukovych, took a completely constitutional decision that was fully in line with the prerogatives of the Head of any State, namely, to refrain from signing an association agreement with the European Union.
That did not mean, as many have said, that there was a complete repudiation of a European orientation; he simply had to weigh the circumstances that had arisen at that time. Therefore, I repeat, his decision was fully within the prerogatives of the Ukrainian leadership.

This raises a question: Why did that problem need to result in street demonstrations? Why do those street demonstrations need to be encouraged from abroad by members of the European Union? Why did the representatives of several countries of the European Union need to appear at those meetings, which were ignited by protests against a decision taken by the Ukrainian leadership? Why did some officials need to talk about stirring up the public and opposition leaders?
Why did there have to be such crude interventions in the internal affairs of a sovereign State? There is another question that must be asked.
I do not want to condone the actions of President Yanukovych during the crisis in reaction to the protests. Many things could be said in that regard, but I will just reiterate the facts. A leader of the opposition, Mr. Yatsenyuk, was offered the post of Prime Minister.
Why did he not accept that proposal? Why continue to escalate the situation? Mr. Yatsenyuk could have formed a Government. If he had wanted to sign an association agreement with the European Union, he could have - and then he would have been responsible for the catastrophic economic consequences for the country if he had done so. Moreover, there will be presidential elections in Ukraine in 2015, and if the people do not like President Yanukovych's position, they can elect another President. That has happened before. Mr. Yanukovych lost an election and other Presidents were elected in Ukraine.

Why continue to whip up the situation? Why are some of our Western colleagues trying to prolong the confrontation? Why are they bringing armed militants into the streets? Why do those armed militants need to throw Molotov cocktails at the police? Why are they going after the police? Have we heard any censure of these activities from the Western supporters of democracy in Ukraine? We, for one, have heard not one word from any of the many institutions that promote democracy. It is therefore unclear why they even exist, if they do not react to such manifestations.

As a result of the emergence of the crisis, an agreement between President Yanukovych and the opposition was signed on 21 February. It contained the signatures of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Germany, France and Poland. It was a very important agreement. At a later stage, it would have provided an opportunity to defuse the crisis. Under the agreement, a national unity Government was to be formed within 10 days, constitutional reforms were to be undertaken, a new constitution was to be adopted, and presidential elections were to be held by December 2014. The opposition and its leaders pledged not use force. They were to surrender their weapons to whomever was supposed to keep them.

Why was that agreement not implemented? Why were threats aimed at President Yanukovych that resulted in his having to leave Kiev? Why, with all the traumatic changes that have taken place, was the first action of the Ukrainian Parliament and its new membership a decision to change the law on language, which accorded Ukrainian minority communities - not only Russians but others as well - the right to use their own languages? Why was that decision taken the very first day? This was not the result of a political coalition or process. One opposition leader sought to assert himself, claimed victory and tried to impose his will on the people. I would not venture to estimate their numbers, but there are a number of political groups whose membership includes radical extremists working in the field of Ukrainian security.

What has occurred over the past few days, which is the reason for our meeting today? A very difficult situation has arisen in Crimea and the eastern part of Ukraine in recent days. There has been a lot of concern, and in Crimea in particular. People have come in from Kiev with the clear intention of repeating what they have done in Kiev and in the western Ukraine by replacing the regional governments. That has created great concern in the eastern part of the country, especially in the Republic of Crimea.

In those circumstances, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Crimea, Mr. Aksyonov, made a statement that was referenced today by Mr. Eliasson, in which he said: "In spite of the agreement that was reached with the central authorities concerning the inadmissibility of the appointment of leaders of power structures without the consent of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, in violation of the norms of the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Ukrainian laws governing the police, yesterday, 28 February, Mr. Igor Avrutsky was appointed chief of the local Crimean militia. That appointment, the presence of unidentified armed groups and military equipment, and the inabaility of the power structures of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea to effectively control the situation on the territory of the Republic have led to disorder and the use of firearms." I will now quote the statement issued today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Russia.

"On the night of 1 March, unknown armed people sent from Kiev attempted to storm the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. As a result of those perfidious provocations, there were casualties. The decisive action of self-defence groups prevented the attempt to overrun the Ministry. These developments confirm the aspirations of certain well-known political circles in Kiev to destabilize the situation on the peninsula. It is very irresponsible to stir up tensions in the Crimea, which is already very tense." In those conditions, Mr. Aksyonov, Prime Minister of Crimea, went to the President of Russia with a request for assistance to restore peace in Crimea.
According to available information, the appeal was also supported by Mr. Yanukovych, whose removal from office, we believe, was illegal. As a result of that appeal, the President of Russia, in accordance with our constitutional procedures, sent to the Federation Council the following request.

"With respect to the extraordinary situation in Ukraine and threats against the lives of Russian citizens, our compatriots, and members of the military contingent of the armed forces of the Russian Federation deployed in conformity with international agreement on the territory of Ukraine, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea - in accordance with paragraph (g) of part I of article 102 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation - has requested the deployment of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine until the civic and political situation in Ukraine can be normalized".

I therefore draw the Council's attention to the fact that it says"on the territory of Ukraine" - not "against Ukraine", as my Ukrainian colleague said, but "on the territory of Ukraine until the civic and political situation in Ukraine can be normalized". In recent reports that I have received, including the statement issued by the press representative of the President of the Russian Federation, the President of the Russian Federation has not taken a decision on the use of armed forces on the territory of Ukraine.

With regard to how to get out of this situation, I repeat, as Mr. Eliasson said quite correctly, that cooler heads must prevail and we must return to the political path in the constitutional framework. We need to go back to the agreement of 21 February and establish a national unity Government, and we need to put an end to attempts to converse with our ethnic or political opponents in the language of force. The international factors that are especially interested in the situation in Ukraine need to call the radicals to order. They must advise the Ukrainian opposition, or whoever happens to be in Kiev, to distance itself from the radicals and not allow them to lord it over Ukraine, as such actions could lead to very difficult developments, which is what the Russian Federation is trying to avoid.


Perhaps I should not comment on such trivial things, but the statement made by my colleague Ms. Power made it sound as if we oppose something that we do not oppose. We are not excluding the role of some international bodies, but I explained why that approach might not be enough.

More importantly, I would like to ask my French colleague not to engage in hyperbole. We do not need hyperbole. Furthermore, I did not say that the majority of those who protested in the streets of Kyiv were radical nationalists. I did not say that. The minority of them may have been, but the problem is that they were the ones who not nly called the tune but also played along with the band. They have now taken over Government authority in Kyiv and are sending people to east and southern Ukraine and to the territory of Crimea.


Later in this debate France will make a statement in the name of the European Union, and that statement will make the fundamental points of substance which the United Kingdom subscribes to, and we wholly associate ourselves with that. I want to make just a few extra points.

First of all, I want to pay very warm tribute to Mr.
Kouchner and to his whole team for what they have achieved over the last year and a quarter in Kosovo.
This is the most difficult of the international jobs that we are monitoring from the Security Council. Against the background we all know he has had to face, it has been an extraordinary achievement. The United Kingdom thanks him for that, as well as the whole of the European Union.

Let me say a word on the elections. We, too, were particularly pleased at the success of the municipal elections held at the end of October, which should pave the way for Kosovo-wide elections in due course to restore the autonomy which was taken away from Kosovo in 1990. We are interested in the Special Representative's support for an election at a fairly early date. The United Kingdom has no specific date in mind, because the conditions have to be right for those elections first. The point is to work from now on to ensure that the right conditions are put in place and the right general atmosphere established. Of course, the changes in Belgrade are relevant to that, and elections will have to be preceded by a new registration exercise to ensure that Serbs and other ethnic minorities are fully included.

My second point, not entirely irrelevant to that, concerns future status. Deciding future status should not be a top priority for the moment in the short term.
There are more pressing issues for both Belgrade and Pristina on which attention should be focused - for instance, economic regeneration and the rebuilding of society.

It will, in the end, be up to Belgrade and elected representatives of Kosovo's communities to reach final agreement between themselves on status, with the help and support of the international community. That is the import of resolution 1244 (1999), which, of course, makes no final prescriptions on this point.

Thirdly, we welcome Mr. Kouchner's intention to nominate representatives of the Kosovo Serbs to certain municipal councils, as well as his intention to widen involvement in the advisory structures, because this will make the current Kosovo structures more representative of public opinion and thus bring the current structures nearer to the people over whom they have influence. For this reason, we support him in that move.

Lastly, on the issue of Serbian elections in December and how they affect Kosovo, we support in principle the ability of voters in Kosovo to participate in the planned Serbian parliamentary elections. We hear what Mr. Kouchner has said about the practical and technical impossibility for the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK)
to organize those, but we do not at this point regard this as being the end of the story as far as participation is concerned.

If there are arrangements for people to vote from Kosovo in the Serb elections, then all parties, particularly Kosovar Albanians, must understand that this would be without prejudice to the future status of Kosovo.


Mr. Wang Guangya (China) (spoke in Chinese): The Chinese delegation supports the Arab Group's request to hold an emergency Security Council meeting. Like the majority of countries, we strongly deplore the fact that the Israeli Government has decided to continue to build a separation wall and expand settlements. Israel's actions are not acceptable.
As an occupying Power, Israel must abide strictly by international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention.

The root cause of the situation in the Middle East is Israel's occupation of Arab lands. Israel's building of a separation wall, in violation of international law, will not bring true security for Israel; it will only lead to more violence and hamper efforts aimed at achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

The current situation in the Middle East is deeply troubling. The peace process is once again at a crossroads. The question of how we can break out of this impasse deserves our serious consideration. The urgent task at hand is to break, as soon as possible, the vicious circle of using violence against violence, and both the Israelis and the Palestinians must make efforts to that end. Israel must stop building the separation wall and stop expanding settlements; end its policy of targeted killings; stop its sieges and blockades against Palestinians; respect the Palestinian people's basic rights; and take measures to improve the humanitarian situation of the Palestinians.

The Palestinians must also take effective measures. They must halt suicide bombings against civilians. Suicide bombings do not help the Palestinian people's just cause of recovering their occupied lands and establishing an independent State as soon as possible.

The history of the situation in the Middle East demonstrates that using violence against violence is not the way out; hope lies only in dialogue and negotiations. We hope that both Palestinians and Israelis will face reality and consider their long-term interests and the bigger picture. They must take bold steps to create conditions for a return to negotiations and for continued implementation of the road map.

In order to break the vicious circle of using violence against violence, the Quartet must shoulder its responsibilities. At the same time, the rest of the international community must employ creative efforts.
In the general debate at the current session of the General Assembly, a number of countries have proposed the deployment of an international protection force between the Israelis and the Palestinians, other countries suggested that the Security Council dispatch a fact-finding mission; and still others advocated the holding of an international conference on the situation in the Middle East. All those suggestions deserve our serious consideration. The United Nations can and must play a greater role in helping the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve peace.

China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is willing to join the rest of the international community in helping to promote the process aimed at a peaceful settlement of the situation in the Middle East.

Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question


Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine) (spoke in Arabic): Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the Council this month. I thank you for your work, and I am grateful to the Permanent Representative of Jamaica, Ambassador Patricia Durrant, for her leadership last month.

The Government of Ariel Sharon announced last Wednesday that it would sever all contact with the Palestinian Authority and its elected leader, President Yasser Arafat. This decision means the abandonment of the negotiation process. It appears to be a prelude to the abandonment of all existing arrangements between the two sides. The Israeli Government has thus begun to take official and public measures to prevent a final settlement and revert the conflict between the two sides to the era before the Oslo accords instead of resolving the conflict and establishing peace in the region.

Despite the immense danger posed by such measures which portend widespread confrontation that could plunge the entire region into war, it would be difficult to say that this came as a complete surprise. It was obvious from the first day that Mr. Sharon and his Government came to power that they were going in that direction. Mr. Sharon has declared on more than one occasion that he does not want a final settlement, and that he wants only an agreement on a cessation of hostilities. Also, Mr. Sharon has repeatedly stated his animosity to the Mitchell Committee and then to its recommendations. In fact, to avoid implementing those recommendations, he concocted the condition of having seven days of quiet - as though a period of quiet would lead to the implementation of the recommendations rather than the implementation of the recommendations leading to a period of quiet, to an end to the violence and to a resumption of the peace process.

Once Mr. Sharon had succeeded in burying the Mitchell recommendations for an extended period and in thwarting any attempt to revive them, he came up that the Palestinian Authority first had to combat and put an end to terrorism. In the meantime, Israel would continue to assault the Authority and its institutions, including its security apparatus, thus making it impossible for them to function. Most recently, he came up with the announcement that he was boycotting the Palestinian Authority.

Those are the basic political statements of the Israeli Government and its leader, all of them firmly conveying the determination of that Government to continue its confrontation, its violence and its rejection of any attempt to bring about peace.
I regret to have to say here that some have attempted to provide cover for some of those positions, either deliberately or unintentionally, thus encouraging the Israeli Government to continue its destructive policies and its aggression against our people.

For our part, we have repeatedly stated our commitment to existing agreements and our full acceptance of the Mitchell report, and we have called for the comprehensive and speedy implementation of the report's recommendations. Moreover, we have always expressed our readiness to resume the negotiations on the agreed basis, with a view to the rapid achievement of a final settlement and to the establishment of peace. That has been and remains our position. The Israeli Government must stop doubting that position and casting doubt on it. The Israeli Government must also understand that any retreat from mutual recognition and from existing agreements cannot go in one direction only, and that this can only prolong the pain and suffering of both our peoples, and of all the peoples of the region - although our people remain the principal victim.

On the question of terrorism, the Palestinian side has taken a clear stand against international terrorism and against terrorist groups with a global dimension.
The Palestinian side joined the international consensus on this issue following the September disaster in the United States. In line with that clear position - as well as prior to those events ~ we have also rejected suicide bombings carried out in Israel targeting Israeli civilians. We condemn them as terrorist acts, and we view them as incompatible with Palestinian commitments and as acts that harm the national interests of the Palestinian people. That position remains clear and fair, in spite of all the crimes and all the State terrorism perpetrated against our people by official Israel - not just by Israeli groups or organizations. I shall return later to this question.

Despite our clear position, the ability of the Palestinians to confront and put an end to that phenomenon depends, first and foremost, on the capabilities of the security apparatus, including its freedom of movement. And secondly, and perhaps more important, it depends on a halt to the suffering of the Palestinian people and on the restoration of their hope and belief that the process of negotiations will actually lead to an end to occupation and to the establishment of peace.

Regrettably, the present Israeli Government has persistently worked to destroy both of those requirements. It has violently assaulted the Palestinian security apparatus, virtually preventing it from functioning. At the same time, it has continued to impose its siege and closures, causing the suffocation, destruction and killing of our people. It has persisted in sending the message that there is no hope of a final settlement or of peace.

Let me speak now of acts of violence committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. We do not support or condone such acts, because we are trying to reach a peaceful negotiated solution. Moreover, we affirm that those acts are incompatible with our commitments, including our commitment to the ceasefire. But we absolutely do not accept any attempt to label those acts as terrorist acts.
Over the years, resistance to foreign occupation has been, and it remains, a legitimate right under international law and international humanitarian law. In the Palestinian case, there are no protected Israeli civilians in the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem. Israeli settlers are there illegally, and were sent in grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and of the first Protocol Additional to the Conventions. They came to colonize Palestinian lands and thus to deny the rights and the existence of our people. I would add that most of the settlers are armed, which makes them illegal combatants or members of militias. Over the years, they have terrorized and attacked Palestinian civilians. One example was the massacre committed by a settler at Al-Haram Al-Ibrahimi at Hebron.

I speak of this because some parties seem to be trying to lend legitimacy to the presence of the settlers.
The Israeli settlers will remain illegal until they depart with the end of the occupation of our land.

Recently, Israel, the occupying Power, viciously escalated its bloody military campaign against our people and against the Palestinian Authority. It has made intensive use of F-l6 warplanes, helicopter gunships, tanks and other weaponry. It has re-occupied some areas that are under full Palestinian control; it has tightened its siege of Palestinian cities and has destroyed many Palestinian institutions and symbols of the Authority, including important facilities such as the Gaza international airport and the Voice of Palestine radio station.

All of this, of course, has been accompanied by significant loss of life and by widespread fear and terror among Palestinian civilians. Today the Israeli forces of occupation killed at least eight Palestinians; yesterday they killed another six. Regrettably, we heard nothing from the circles that had spoken out before under different circumstances. Prior to this escalation, the Israeli campaign had not ceased since the infamous visit of Ariel Sharon to Al-Haram al-Sharif on 28 September 2000. Since then, Israeli forces of occupation have killed more than 800 Palestinians, in addition to the hundreds of Palestinian who have been martyred by the occupation in different ways, such as through preventing the movement of ambulances.
Israeli forces of occupation have also injured approximately 30,000 Palestinians, many of whom have been permanently disabled, and have caused tremendous suffering among all Palestinians.

The occupying forces have committed deliberate killings, and Israel - the occupying Power - has adopted an official policy of extra-judicial executions.
Israel has also caused the widespread destruction of private and public property, including economic institutions; the uprooting of thousands of trees; and the despoiling of agricultural land. All of these actions represent serious breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The occupying Power has also committed other serious violations of the Convention, including the imposition of severe restrictions on the movement of persons and goods and the imposition of closure and of collective punishment.

We should also refer here to the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, which was reconvened on 5 December and unanimously adopted an extremely important declaration calling on the occupying Power, inter alia, immediately to cease committing grave breaches of the Convention, including any of the acts mentioned in article 147, and to refrain from any other violations of the Convention.

Regrettably, Israel has continued and escalated these violations. On the basis of the clear provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and its first Additional Protocol, we charge the Government of Mr. Ariel Sharon, the Government of the occupying Power, with war crimes committed against the Palestinian people, pursuant to the official policies of that Government.
Further, we hold it responsible for all other war crimes committed by members of the occupying army and by Israeli settlers, in accordance with article 29 of the Convention.

The responsibilities of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention are very clear, as defined in common article 1 and article 148. The responsibilities of the Security Council are also clear.
We also charge Israel, the occupying Power, with carrying out State terrorism against our people. It has engaged in the killing of civilians and in the vast destruction of property, with the aim of instilling fear and terror in the population and forcing it to submit to its political will.

The responsibility of the international community is perfectly clear, as are the responsibilities of the Security Council, particularly in the light of the campaign against international terrorism. The peoples of our region, as are many throughout the world, are looking to see how the international community deals with this grave and tragic matter.

In any case, the Israeli occupation of our land and our people remains the main problem and the source of all of these disastrous events. The only solution to the situation is an end to the occupation and the realization of the rights of our people, including the establishment of an independent state, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital. Only the realization of the rights of the Palestinians and coexistence between the two States of Palestine and Israel will bring security, stability and peace for both sides and for the region.

In this regard, we would like to express our appreciation for what was stated by President George Bush before the General Assembly as well as the statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell on 19 November with regard to the Middle East. We accept the content of that statement as a basis for moving forward, with regard both to dealing with the current situation on the ground and to the final settlement between the two sides.

We also express our appreciation for the envoys sent by certain concerned parties, including the United States, the Russian Federation, the European Union, the United Nations Secretary-General, and, of course, to all of our friends, including the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement, for their principled and continuous support.

The Security Council has convened today to consider the grave situation in the occupied Palestinian territories and to attempt to take the necessary action in this regard. There is no doubt that, tragically, this step is extremely late in coming, due in particular to the Council's inability to take any action since the adoption of resolution 1322 (2000) on 7 October 2000, even if only to follow up on the implementation of the resolution. No one can deny that the Council's inability to act in this regard has had a major impact on its credibility and possibly affected its ability to take action in other areas.
The important question here - one that is relevant to international relations as a whole and perhaps even to the future of the Organization - is whether the Council is being used by some only when it suits them, or whether it is representative, acting on behalf of all of the members of the international community, and is actually responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Today, regrettably, it appears that the Security Council will be prevented once again from assuming its responsibilities under the Charter because of the negative stance of one of its members. But at least a serious attempt was made by the members to deal with this grave situation. We appreciate this attempt.

We wish to express our sincere thanks and appreciation to all of those members of the Security Council who have expressed their support for the draft resolution, and we wish also to thank our Arab brothers who asked for this meeting, co-sponsored the draft resolution and presented it to the Council -particularly Tunisia, the Arab member of the Security Council, and Egypt, the Chairman of the Arab Group for this month.


The Russian Federation was a co-sponsor of the draft resolution just adopted by the Security Council. This resolution we have adopted, along with the further extension of the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), contains weighty political provisions. We consider it important that the Council is confirming its commitment to upholding the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia and the right of all refugees and displaced persons to return home, and that it is calling on the parties to refrain from any actions which might hinder or complicate the peace process.

  The Russian Federation is concerned at the clearly inadequate progress in the negotiation process. We consider that the sides must materially intensify the quest for ways to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict.

In this connection, we View as timely the Council's call upon the sides to reach substantive progress in the negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations and with the assistance of the Russian Federation as facilitator and with participation of representatives of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and also the Council's request to the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to contribute to the negotiation process.

We hope that the next stage in the Georgian-Abkhaz negotiations will take place in the next few weeks. The Russian Federation for its part is actively working to that end. In this context, we attach the greatest importance to the coordination of our efforts and close collaboration with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General in Georgia, Ambassador Edouard Brunner.

The Russian Federation is seriously concerned at the extremely slow pace of the return of refugees; the Abkhaz side is to blame for this. We hope that the Security Council's call upon both sides to comply with their commitments with regard to the return of refugees, and upon the Abkhaz side to accelerate the process significantly, will be effective.

The Russian representative on the Quadripartite Commission on refugees, along with the representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is working actively to ensure that the sides fully implement all the provisions of the Quadripartite Agreement of 4 April 1994 on the voluntary return of refugees and displaced persons.

We also note the request made by the Council in the resolution to the Secretary-General to examine, in cooperation with the relevant representatives of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peace-keeping forces the possibility of adopting additional steps to contribute to conditions conducive to the safe return of refugees.

The Russian delegation is grateful to the Council for commending the contribution of the CIS peace-keeping forces to the maintenance of the cease-fire and the stabilization of the situation in the conflict zone.

We also note the satisfaction expressed by the Council with the close cooperation between the CIS peace-keeping forces and the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), and we confirm our readiness to continue to cooperate closely with UNOMIG.
We hope that further development of this cooperation will be facilitated by the exchange of letters on the question that has taken place between the Secretary-General and the Chairman of the Council of the Heads of Government of the CIS.

The Russian delegation attaches importance to the Council's decision to undertake, on the basis of a report from the Secretary-General to be submitted by 4 May 1995, a thorough review of the situation in Abkhazia, Republic of Georgia. We expect that in the course of that review substantive consideration will be given to the gradual transformation of the peace-keeping operation now being carried out in the conflict zone into a United Nations operation based, initially, on the already deployed CIS and UNOMIG forces in that area.

In conclusion, I would like to draw attention to the new call in the resolution we have just adopted upon Member States to contribute to the voluntary fund established by the Secretary-General pursuant to resolution 937 (1994). Probably few occasions can be found when during a period of nearly half a year not one contribution has been made to a voluntary fund. We believe that an inflow of resources into this fund would contribute to a more effective solution of many problems and, first and foremost, to the creation of conditions for the return of the refugees.


China listened carefully to the statements made by Ambassador Alasania of Georgia and Ambassador Churkin of the Russian Federation. The current situation in South Ossetia, Georgia, is very worrisome.
China is gravely concerned about the military conflict in the region. It is urgent that the parties achieve an immediate ceasefire and refrain from any actions that might escalate tensions. The parties to the conflict should immediately resume dialogue and should peacefully settle their dispute.


The United States renews our call for the international community to support the newly formed Government of Ukraine and to prevent unnecessary violence.

I would like to take a moment to respond to the comments made here by the representative of the Russian Federation. Actions speak louder than words.
Early this morning, the Russian Duma acted to authorize the use of military force in Ukraine. This is as dangerous as it is destabilizing. We are deeply disturbed by reports this morning of Russian military intervention into Crimea. This intervention is without legal basis; indeed, it violates Russia's commitment to protecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine.

It is time for the Russian intervention in Ukraine to end. The Russian military must stand down, the aspirations of the Ukrainian people must be respected, and political dialogue must be allowed to continue. We applaud the remarkable restraint and commitment to that dialogue that the new Ukrainian Government in Kiev has demonstrated in the face of hostility.

We have said from the outset that we recognize and respect Russia's historical ties to Ukraine, but instead of engaging the Government of Ukraine and international institutions about its concerns for ethnic Russians, Russia has ignored both, and has instead acted unilaterally and militarily. It is ironic that the Russian Federation regularly goes out of its way in this Chamber to emphasize the sanctity of national borders and of sovereignty, but Russian actions in Ukraine are violating the sovereignty of Ukraine and pose a threat to peace and security.

Russia alleges various actions against and threats to minority groups in Ukraine. We see no evidence of such actions yet, but Russia's provocative actions could easily push a tense situation beyond the breaking point.
Russia's incitement of groups to come out to protest is not responsible behaviour in the present situation.
There is a clear way forward that would preserve Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and address Russia's concerns.

First, Russia should directly engage the Government of Ukraine. Secondly, international monitors and observers, including from the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), should be sent to Ukraine. That is the best way to get the facts, monitor conduct and prevent any abuses. Russia is a leading member of both institutions and can participate actively to ensure that its interests are upheld. The immediate deployment of international observers from either the OSCE or the United Nations to Crimea would also provide transparency about the movements and activities of military and paramilitary forces in the region, and defuse the tensions between different groups. We are also working to stand up an international mediation mission to the Crimea to begin to de-escalate the situation and facilitate productive and peaceful political dialogue among all Ukrainian parties.

Our paramount concerns are to end the confrontation and to find a solution that allows the Ukrainian people to determine their own destiny, their own Government and their own future. That must be the goal of the Council and the international community. The United States will work with Ukraine, our allies and partners in Europe and around the world, and here at the United Nations to uphold and protect the sovereignty, unity and democratic future of Ukraine.


Many times, we have put forth in this Chamber the essence of the Russian position regarding the cause and development of the internal crisis in Ukraine. That general context is important to understanding our view of the draft resolution submitted by the United States (S/2014/189) for the Council's vote today.

It is a secret to no one that the Russian Federation will vote against the draft resolution. We cannot go along with its basic assumption, which is to declare illegal the planned referendum of 16 March whereby the people of the Crimean republic will themselves determine their future.

The philosophy of the sponsors of the draft resolution runs counter to one of basic principles of international law, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, enshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. That principle is confirmed in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and in a number of other decisions of the General Assembly, as well as the Helsinki Final Act of 1975.

We do not dispute the principle of the territorial integrity of States. It is indeed very important. It is also understandable that the enjoyment of the right to self-determination involving separation from an existing State is an extraordinary measure, applied when further coexistence within a single State becomes impossible. Moreover, as practice has demonstrated, in the majority of cases, the realization ofpeoples' right to self-determination is achieved without the agreement of the central authorities of the State.

With respect to Crimea, that case resulted from a legal vacuum generated by an unconstitutional armed coup d'etat carried out in Kyiv by radical nationalists in February, as well as by their direct threats to impose their order throughout Ukraine.

It should also be noted that generally agreed principles of international law are closely interlinked and that each should be considered in the light of the others, the relevant political context and historic specificities.
The political, legal and historic backdrop of the events of today in Ukraine is extremely complicated. In that context, it is useful to recall that up until 1954, Crimea formed part of the Russian Federation. It was given to Ukraine in violation of the norms of that time under Soviet law and without taking into account the views of the people of Crimea, who nevertheless remained within a single State - the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

When the Soviet Union fell, Crimea automatically became part of Ukraine. The View of the people of Crimea was once again ignored. After the fall of the Soviet Union, for more than 20 years Crimea attempted to exercise its right to self-determination.

In January 1991, a referendum was conducted in Crimea, resulting in the adoption of a law in Ukraine regarding the establishment of autonomous Crimea.
In September 1991, the High Council of Crimea adopted a declaration on State sovereignty. In 1992, the constitution of Crimea was adopted, declaring Crimea an independent state within Ukraine. However, in 1995, through a decision of the Ukrainian authorities and the President of Ukraine, the constitution was annulled, without the agreement of the Crimean people.

We set out a number of other arguments in favour of the legality of the Crimean referendum at the Council meeting on 13 March (see S/PV.7134).

In conclusion, we wish to confirm that we will respect the will of the Crimean people during the referendum of 16 March.


I am speaking in Russian in order to be properly understood.
I support what Ambassador Churkin said with regard to the need to speak openly and be extremely honest. I just want to clarify a few issues he raised in his statement. I will be clear.

First, as to the occupation or threat of occupation of the Pechersk Lavra monastery in Kyiv, which is in canonical relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate, when the unrest began we received information that there might be some kind of provocation against the monastery. The monastery issued a statement that same day and repeated it the next day to the effect that the exterior of the monastery was being guarded by ordinary people from the Maidan to prevent any provocation. That is the entire answer. The demonstrators were defending the monastery from possible provocations.

As to the Black Sea fleet, I have something to add.
Our Agreement provides for a numerical strength for the Black Sea fleet of 11,000 people, including about 2,000 marines and 5,300 other military from the Russian armed forces. Let us pay close attention - in December 2013, our Ministry was notified by the Russian side that the Black Sea fleet would be maintained at a numerical strength of 11,000.

I would now like to go back to statement made by the representative of Jordan. He quoted the annex of General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX), in which the concept of aggression is defined. Article 3 of the annex contains a non-exhaustive list of what would qualify as an act of aggression. The list provides for the eventuality that if within the territory of a State f for example, Ukraine - the armed forces of another State - for example, Russia, and in this case the Black Sea fleet - are present with the agreement of the receiving State, and the permitted number and location of the troops are specified, and there is a violation of the specified number and location of troops without the agreement of the receiving country, that is an act of aggression. In that regard, I am not even referring to the number of military forces that infringed the airspace of Ukraine, namely, M-14 combat helicopters that were not part of the Black Sea fleet, or the many other transport aircraft that have infringed our airspace. There has thus been an increase in the number of Russian military within our territory, in violation of all of our agreements. That is aggression.

There has been much speculation about language.
I and my Administration have explained to the press and to many of my colleagues that the first law upon Ukraine's independence, promulgated in 1992, was the law on national minorities, which guaranteed equal rights and protection of the national interests of all ethnic groups, including linguistic minorities. In principle, the substantive law that was adopted in 2012 under pressure by the former Ukrainian Government did not take into account more than 2,000 amendments, and the opposition did not participate in the vote.

We did not need that legislation because it was enough to have the 1992 law and the Constitution. I would recall that when Ukraine went to the Council of Europe, it took on an obligation to sign and to ratify the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, not languages of minorities but minority languages. The former Governments redid the Charter, saying that it should apply not only to languages such as Crimean Tartar, Karaim and others that need to be protected, but to all languages of national minorities that are protected by law. We have therefore now got rid of that law. The Government said that the Parliament would once again consider the ratification of the Charter, which we undertook to ratify. We signed and ratified it. Incidentally, to date, the Russian Federation has not ratified the Charter. But we are ratifying it.
For languages that do not have a territory and have no official definition, we will defend those languages that would disappear because there are not many people who speak them.

With regard to the Party of Regions, unfortunately an untruth was said. The Party of Regions, the former ruling party, was a large faction of the current Parliament. Moreover, one of the leaders of that faction, Mr. Tygipko, said that he would run for President. No one heard that. The ruling party called Mr. Yanukovych what he is, that is, a coward and a traitor. It was not a comment about the Parliament. The Parliament was elected legally for a long time, not in a revolutionary way. It has all the power that it needs to appoint the Government. It has the full range of powers to conduct elections. Today, it was announced there would be presidential elections on 25 May. Let us therefore give that an opportunity to work and for us to learn how to live together and how to govern.

I agree that we need assistance so that we can get past this crisis, which has been going on for years, and help the country to build its future in such a way that people will not be ashamed to live there. We need that assistance in order to form a civil society and, of course, we invite all to come and help and to see how we are doing that but not to bother us when we do not ask for it.