Today, for the second time, the Council is holding a special meeting to
discuss the issue related to my country. Only 12 hours
ago, in this Chamber, I stated that there were disturbing
signs that Georgia is facing a well-calculated
provocation to escalate the situation in order to justify
a premeditated military intervention from the Russian
Federation. That evaluation has been transformed into
a brutal reality.
2
Allow me to update the members of the Security
Council on the extremely alarming developments that
are taking place in Georgia now.

This morning, the Russian Federation started a
full-scale military invasion of Georgia. Here is an
outline of the events that took place today, and we have
provided a map for members, to vividly illustrate the
places on sovereign Georgian territory that were
bombed by the Russian Federation.

At 5.30 a.m., the first Russian troops entered
South Ossetia through the Roki tunnel, passed Java,
crossed the Gufta bridge and moved towards
Tskhinvali.

At 9.45 a.m., according to witnesses from the
local population, a military fighter plane dropped
approximately three to five bombs near the village of
Shayshvebi, 300 or 500 metres from Georgian military
radar.

At 10.30 a.m., Russian Su-24 bombers bombed
the village of Variani, in the Kareli district; seven
civilians were injured.

At 10.50 a.m., six Su-24 bombers entered
Georgian territory from the Roki pass. At 10.57 a.m.,
two of them dropped three bombs in Gori. One of them
fell near a stadium, the second near the other slope, and
the third near an artillery brigade.

At 11.45 a.m., four Su-24s entered from the
direction of the Russian Federation, Kazbegi region, on
the Georgian side. Two of them passed Tbilisi and
made two circles around Marneuli. The other two made
a circle above Gudauri.

At 11.45 a.m., the civil aviation emergency
service reported that they had received signals from a
crashed flying object - presumably a Russian fighter
plane - near the luri range, 17 kilometres south of
Gori.

By 12 noon, eight Georgians - six military and
two civilians - had died, and 87 were injured. One
military truck with ammunition was destroyed.

At 12.05 p.m., one Su-24 entered Georgian air
space from Russia and remained over Tskhinvali until
12.15.

At 3.05 p.m., a Russian military plane entered
Georgia from the direction of Tedzami, dropped two
bombs at the Vaziani military airport and turned back.
08-45515
Russian aviation also bombed the Marneuli and Bolnisi
military bases. Two aircraft were destroyed on the
ground. Several buildings were also destroyed, and
there were casualties. At 5 p.m., the Marneuli military
base was bombed for the second time, causing
fatalities. At 5.35 p.m., the Marneuli military base was
bombed for the third time, resulting in one dead and
four injured. As a result of the three bombings, three
An-2 planes and military vehicles stationed there were
destroyed.

It became known to the Government of Georgia
that, on 8 August 2008, a large amount of heavy
military equipment and personnel belonging to the
Russian Federation illegally entered the territory of
Georgia through the Roki tunnel. The Russian side
openly declared that the task of those military units
was to support the criminal regime of Tskhinvali in the
fight against the Government of Georgia. In order to
justify its actions, the Russian Federation is
speculating that Georgian authorities are targeting the
positions of Russian peacekeepers. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I can say with full responsibility
that Georgian troops are not targeting peacekeepers. I
want to stress that the Government's actions were
taken in self-defence after repeated armed provocations
and with the sole goal of protecting the civilian
population and preventing further loss of life among
the region's residents, who are of various ethnic
backgrounds.

The world is witnessing a direct and open
violation of universally recognized norms and
principles of international law. Russia is openly
challenging the international community and
jeopardizing established international order and
stability in the wider trans-Caucasus. The Russian
military aggression is intended to subdue Georgia and
make it give up its Euro-Atlantic aspirations, to make
Georgia and the region succumb to Russian political
influence and to destroy all the democratic
achievements accomplished by our country and the
international community in recent years.

We demand that the Russian Federation
immediately terminate the aerial bombardments,
immediately pull out the occupying forces and,
together with the relevant international actors,
negotiate a ceasefire and mechanisms to ensure lasting
peace and stability in this part of Georgia. President
Saakashvili is offering direct dialogue with the Russian
Federation and other interested parties to seek a

negotiated solution to this tragic conflict. We are
grateful to the European Union, to the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe and to other
international actors for their readiness to engage.

As we are having this discussion, the city of
Tskhinvali is under heavy shelling and air
bombardment from Russian military forces.


Ten years after the Iraqi regime invaded, occupied and brutalized Kuwait, it is useful for the Council to remind itself of how we got to where we are now and of what we can do together to change an unsatisfactory situation. On 2 August 1990 and for the six months it took for the United Nations to remove invading Iraqi to extinguish the existence of another United Nations Member State.

Once the international community defeated that attempt, the Security Council focused on ensuring that the regime which carried out the invasion and which remains unrepentant to this day would not have the ability to wage war on its neighbours or to threaten them with weapons of mass destruction ever again. To this point we have been successful. The Security Council has assumed a special role in maintaining security in the Gulf region; Iraq continues to pose a clear threat to that security; and it must be the Council's purpose to ensure that that threat remains contained.

But it is clear that the Iraqi people have borne the burden of the regime's policies. The oil-for-food programme has grown into the largest humanitarian programme ever run by the international community. It is a reflection of the regime's lack of cooperation and of its disregard for its own population that, despite the billions of dollars that have gone into Iraq under the programme, Iraq's development levels have not met the potential of the oil-for-food process. It is equally a measure of the programme's success that Iraq's development, by some standards, actually exceeds that of some of its regional neighbours.

During these past six years, the nature of the oil-for-food programme has changed, even though the name has not. But a better name today would be "oil for development", because such a term would more accurately reflect the fact that even today the Iraqi regime could redevelop the country using the oil-for-food programme, if it chose to do so. Instead, Iraq is using money and oil as a weapon against the international community. Iraq has not sold oil since the adoption of resolution 1352 (2001); that has cost the humanitarian programme more than half a billion dollars, on top of the several billion dollars that Iraq lost by shutting off oil some months ago.

Iraq has made much of the fact that its financial liquidity will allow it to defy the international community for several months. It has been clear for some time that we, the international community, care more for the Iraqi people than the regime does. As a result, Baghdad is making clear that despite all its protests it actually prefers the status quo to our proposal to change the oil-for-food programme so as to allow the Iraqi people the broadest possible contact with the rest of the world, especially through civilian commercial trade, and to significantly improve the humanitarian situation in Iraq.

My Government is accustomed by now to Iraq's cynicism towards its own people and to its bluster and threatening policies. We find it harder to understand, however, why others would join in playing that game when the status quo is clearly not satisfactory.

Let us be clear about what we are trying to accomplish with the United Kingdom draft resolution.
Far from "freezing the present situation", if we agree to something like it in its current form, we will have done nothing less than lift the sanctions on regular civilian commercial trade with the Iraqi people. It is the height of irony that, at the very moment my Government and others are prepared to undertake this radical shift of direction, we find ourselves under attack by others who have long pressed for change to the system. These States, like the Government of Iraq, seek to perpetuate the status quo instead of looking ahead.

We, on the other hand, want to change the system now so as to allow purchases of the civilian goods needed to develop Iraq's economy. Under the current system, to which we will revert if the new system cannot be brought into being, all exports to Iraq are forbidden unless specifically permitted by Security Council resolution or a specific decision of the sanctions Committee. Under the proposed system, everything is permitted unless it is contained on a list of military or dual-use goods, in which case it will be reviewed, not denied.

Iraq will be able to acquire everything it needs to improve the lives of its people and to provide for the country's development. The Iraqi regime will be prevented only from acquiring the few items critical to increasing its ability to threaten international peace and security. Almost every item that Iraq could need or want for its civilian development will not be subject to review by the sanctions Committee. Goods could flow rapidly to where they are needed most under a simplified procedure. Even items subject to control would go to Iraq once there is confidence that they would not be used to rebuild Iraq's weapons of mass destruction or improve its military capabilities.

Some continue to confuse the proposed review list with a denial list, so let me address this once again, because it is at the heart of the proposal. The items on the goods review list now under negotiation will be subject to review by the sanctions Committee. If it is clear that the goods will only be used for civilian purposes, those goods will be approved for export. This is a historically significant change in the way the United Nations does business with Iraq, and it is directly responsive to concerns raised in this Chamber repeatedly in the past, and contrary to assertions about "vague procedures", we are in fact negotiating agreed procedures that will provide the desired clarity, at least to almost all of the members of the Security Council.

We share concern that Iraq's neighbours might be damaged economically if Iraq responds to the changed system by ending trade arrangements with them. But there is no way to be certain about anything the Baghdad regime might do, and Iraq has its own interests in these trade arrangements. But it has, however, resorted to threats. Importantly, the current draft resolution asks nothing of the States neighbouring Iraq, except to continue consultations with the Secretary-General. Neither we, nor, I am sure, any other member of the Council, would seek to impose any particular set of rules on these countries against their will and without their cooperation. Instead, we suggest that we would use the next six months at least to explore what arrangements might be beneficial in assuring the promotion of legitimate trade by which the Iraq regime does not acquire unauthorized items or illicit cash.

There are a number of other issues being considered as well in this draft resolution. These include international civil aviation and different forms of economic interaction that would open prospects for the Iraqi people. A number of these have been under discussion for some time in this Council, and if we were able to agree on this package, it would be an important step forward in that regard as well.

Some have suggested this new approach to be an abandonment of resolution 1284 (1999) and a move away from implementing the other applicable Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. That assertion is fundamentally misleading. The introduction of this new approach to Iraq is in fact a bridge between the current situation and the existing framework of Security Council resolutions. The Council will still need to be certain that the region no longer faces a threat from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Instead of tearing up the Council's longstanding approach, this proposal ensures its survival, expands vastly the range of goods available to the civilian population and promotes future implementation by showing the Government of Iraq that it has no alternative to cooperation with the United Nations. Perhaps that is why, indeed, the Government of Iraq prefers the status quo.

The United States of America urges all members of the Council who want something better for the Iraqi people to join us in taking the next step toward the creation of a better - not perfect - but better system than the one that now exists. The draft resolution now being considered by the members of the Council, which moves far beyond the status quo, is that next step.


I would like to thank the Ministers of Malaysia, the Netherlands,
Australia and Ukraine for marking this occasion with
their presence.

The United Kingdom is deeply saddened, frustrated
and disappointed that Russia has vetoed draft resolution
S/2015/562 today. The draft resolution was about
securing justice for the 298 people - including 80
children and 10 British nationals - who lost their lives
on board Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17. Russia's
veto disrespects the victims and insults their families.
Through resolution 2166 (2014), the Security Council
unanimously agreed that those responsible for that
incident be held to account and demanded that all States
cooperate fully with efforts to establish accountability.
With its veto, Russia is not meeting that demand.

The Security Council had an opportunity today
to start a process that would have brought justice and
accountability for the families of all those who lost their
lives. There are clear precedents for the Council taking
this kind of action: securing international support for
the Lockerby trial, and establishing the International
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and another Special
Tribune for Lebanon, among others. A year after the
downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17, this was
precisely the moment to establish a tribunal - to send
a clear and unambiguous message that the Council will
not tolerate impunity and that the Council has a clear
responsibility to address violent acts that constitute a
threat to international peace and security. We therefore
reject the Russian allegation that this draft resolution
was an unnecessary and premature move, and that
the Security Council should have waited for the
investigations to conclude. An operational and fully
staffed tribunal takes time to set up. Had we started
that process today, the tribunal would have been ideally
placed to act on the outcome of the investigations.

Despite Russia's veto, the investigations will
continue. The investigators have been exemplary in
their professionalism and integrity, working in the most
challenging circumstances. We reject any allegations
to the contrary. Russia has been involved in both
investigations. The Russian Federal Transport Agency
has actively participated in the technical investigation
and contributed material to the criminal investigation.
It is damaging that Russia has chosen to block the
best route to establishing a tribunal for that criminal
investigation to reach a conclusion. It is through those
investigations that we will bring those responsible to
account - as resolution 2166 (2014) demands. The
veto today will not prevent that. The perpetrators of
that terrible crime should find no comfort in Russia's
actions today. There must be accountability, and the
international community now needs to unite to make
that happen.

Allow me to conclude by returning to the victims.
To them, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-l7 was meant
to be a routine flight to Kuala Lumpur: a business trip,
a holiday or a stop-over before a conference. Instead,
all 298 people on board lost their lives in a remote
part of eastern Ukraine - far from home, far from
those they loved and far from those who loved them.
They and those whom they left behind deserve justice.
Despite Russia's actions today, we will not give up in
our pursuit of that goal.

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 indeed difficult for the international community to keep
pace with the successive crimes committed by Israel.
Before I deal with the question before the Council
today, I cannot but refer to the crimes committed by
Israel, the occupying Power, in the Rafah refugee camp
and around the city in the last few days. We had sent
two letters to you, Mr. President, about this matter.

The occupation forces killed eight Palestinians
and wounded more than 70. According to a report by
the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for
Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), it
completely demolished nearly 120 houses, and 50
houses were partially destroyed. This led to the
evacuation of about 1,500 Palestinian citizens from
their homes. Rafah now looks as if it had been struck
by an earthquake. This is the result not of a natural
disaster, but of human evil - the evil of the Israeli
occupation.

Amnesty International has described the events
that took place in Rafah as a war crime. Nevertheless,
the occupation forces today returned once again to the
area and issued military orders to deport 15 Palestinian
citizens from their homes in the occupied West Bank to
the Gaza Strip. This is a grave violation of
international humanitarian law and of numerous
Security Council resolutions.

The Council and the international community
must deal with all these matters and other, similar ones,
at a subsequent stage.

Israel, the occupying Power, is committing an
immense war crime against the Palestinian people - a
crime that has the magnitude of a crime against
humanity - by building an expansionist wall in the
occupied Palestinian territories, including East
Jerusalem. This has involved the confiscation and
destruction of thousands of dunums of Palestinian land;
the destruction of the livelihood of tens of thousands of
Palestinian civilians; and the illegal, de facto
annexation of extensive areas of occupied Palestinian
land.

With the continued building of this expansionist
wall - if the international community permits the
continuation of such a crime - Israel will have
effectively transferred large numbers of Palestinian
civilians and will have confined the rest of the
Palestinian people in several walled bantustans with
additional secondary walls inside them. It will, of
course, also have effectively destroyed the possibility
of the existence of an independent, sovereign State of
Palestine and the potential for achieving a political
settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in line
with the two-State vision, based on Security Council
resolution 242 (1967) and the armistice line of 1949,
known also as the line of 1967.

Israel, the occupying Power, began building the
first phase of its wall in the northwest areas of the
occupied West Bank in June 2002. For several months
it succeeded in avoiding any real response by the
international community to this action because of the
secrecy surrounding the planning of the wall and the
false impression it created about compliance, albeit
relative, with the armistice line. In addition, of course,
to the continuation of its bloody military campaign
against the Palestinian people and the continuation of
its media and political campaign against the Palestinian
Authority and leadership, different immediate priorities
were imposed on the Palestinian side and on the
international community.

Under this cover, Israel, the occupying Power,
actually concluded what it refers to as the first phase. It
declared, in April 2003, the completion of 27
kilometres of the expansionist wall and then, by the
end of the summer, the completion of the entire first
phase of about 150 kilometres.

The wall is composed of several components,
including, in some areas, concrete walls 8 metres high
with fortified guard towers and, in others, several
fences, including electrical ones, containing all or most
of the following: trenches, dirt paths, two-lane paved
patrol roads, barbed wire, sensors and "no-go" areas,
making the width of the wall anywhere from 70 to 100
metres. I hope that Council members will take a look at
the two pictures distributed with our statement today.
In its first phase, this expansionist wall has already
resulted in the confiscation and destruction of
approximately 15,000 dunums of land for just the
footprint of the wall alone, which also involved the
uprooting of more than 100,000 trees and the
destruction of 30 kilometres of water networks.
Moreover, because the wall has cut deep into
Palestinian territories - up to 6 kilometres from the
armistice line - it has isolated more than 105,000
dunams of Palestinian land. If the wall is not removed,
the fate of that land will be its illegal, de facto
annexation by Israel.

The confiscation of the Palestinian land on which
the wall has been built and of the Palestinian land
isolated between the wall and the armistice line has had
destructive effects on the lives of more than 200,000
Palestinian civilians in 65 villages and towns on both
sides of the wall. Among other things, it has partially
or completely separated those civilians from their land
and water resources and from the rest of the Palestinian
people. In addition, severe restrictions have been
placed on the movements of some of them. These
restrictions include the complete walling of the city of
Qalqilya and the control of entry and exit into and out
of the city through one gate, which is open for only a
few hours a day for the city's 40,000 inhabitants.

With regard to occupied East Jerusalem, Israel,
the occupying Power, has not contented itself with
isolating the city from the rest of the occupied
Palestinian territory and with its ongoing attempts to
Judaize the city and change its demographic
composition. It has built a similar wall up to 8
kilometres long - which could be called the northern
wall of Jerusalem - which has resulted in the
confiscation of 800 dunams of Palestinian land from
the villages of Al-Ram, Kalandia and Kufr Aqab. All
of that is part of the plan for a Greater Jerusalem that
extends deep into the occupied territory to include the
illegal Israeli settlement of "Maale Adumim".

Similar plans are in store for the city of
Bethlehem. The city has been completely besieged,
especially since the building of a wall 15 kilometres
long north of the city - that is to say, south of
Jerusalem. The wall is totally suffocating the city in an
attempt to provide for the expansion of the Israeli
settlements south of occupied Jerusalem.

On 1 October, the Israeli Government adopted
plans for the expansionist wall's second phase, which
dwarfs the first phase in terms of the extent of the
illegal expansion and conquest of Palestinian land, as
well as other dangerous consequences in that regard.
The second phase is to begin with the establishment of
the wall east of the illegal Israeli settlements of "Ariel"
and "Kedumim", which will cut more than 22
kilometres into Palestinian land. The consequences of
that can only be imagined. Once again, I invite the
Council to review the map distributed with our
statement, which illustrates the first and second phases,
as well as the entire project. If the international
community allows the implementation of this phase of
such an Israeli crime, then the third and fourth phases
will follow, making the length of the wall more than
500 kilometres, at a cost of more than $1 billion. After
that, the establishment of the wall on the eastern side of
the Palestinian territory will begin in order to isolate it
from its international border with Jordan, allowing for
the conquest of the Jordan Valley and the completion of
the walls of the three or four bantustans on half of the
occupied Palestinian territory.

To restate the obvious, the expansionist wall of
conquest - in its parts and in its entirety - is illegal.
Its construction represents a violation of both Article 2,
paragraph 4, and Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter
of the United Nations. It violates the established
principle of international law that prohibits the
acquisition of territory by force. It violates article 47 of
the Fourth Geneva Convention, which bans any
annexation by the occupying Power of the whole or
part of the occupied territory. It also violates article 33
of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits collective
punishment of protected civilians. Finally, it represents
a grave breach of the Convention under article 147, as
it involves extensive destruction and appropriation of
property. All of that is in addition to its serious
violation of relevant Security Council resolutions,
including resolution 242 (1967), cornerstone of the
peace process, and of the Oslo Agreements. Thus, it is
abundantly clear that the establishment of the
expansionist conquest wall by the occupying Power is a
war crime and, I reiterate, it is of the same magnitude
as a crime against humanity.

The establishment of this expansionist wall
complements Israeli settlement activities. Their nature
is the same in terms of the colonization, conquest and
annexation of the land. The wall is another war crime
that compounds the other war crime - the Israeli
settlement of our land - in addition, of course, to the
countless other war crimes committed by the
occupying Power against the Palestinian people.

Israel, the occupying Power, has illegally
transferred more than 400,000 Israeli settlers to the
occupied Palestinian territory, including East
Jerusalem, placing them in more than 200 settlements
built on more than 8 per cent of Palestinian land, in
addition to the land in their vicinities and the additional
land they attempt to control. It has established a
separate infrastructure and a complete network of roads
for those settlers, and it has enabled them to exploit
and abuse our natural resources, including our water,
and to terrorize our people. Now, with the building of
its expansionist wall, the occupying Power is
attempting to annex the Palestinian land on which half
those settlers are living, while leaving enough room for
the expansion of the rest of the settlements and, at the
same time, destroying the Palestinian national
existence.

Israel has done all of this despite the absolute
prohibition of such colonization under the 1949 Fourth
Geneva Convention and its Additional Protocol 1,
which defines such action as a war crime, as does the
Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court. Israel
has done all of this despite the fact that the Security
Council has reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth
Geneva Convention in 26 resolutions, which demand
that the occupying Power comply with its provisions
and some of which specifically demand the cessation of
settlement activities and declare the annexation of East
Jerusalem to be null and void.

How can these Israeli war crimes be appropriately
described? Is this classic colonization? We believe it is
worse than that. Is this a new apartheid system? We
believe it is worse than that. It is a combination that
has drawn upon those two ugly phenomena, amounting
to the lowest-level thinking of racist colonizers with
regard to achieving expansion, colonization and
negation of the indigenous people's national existence,
which are all in grave breach of fundamental laws and
values of the United Nations Charter, international
humanitarian law and the relevant Security Council
resolutions.

Indeed, the Special Rapporteur of the Human
Rights Commission, Professor John Duggard, in his
report to the Commission on the situation of human
rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel
since 1967, stated, inter alia, the following with regard
to the issue of the wall:

"Like the settlements it seeks to protect, the
Wall is manifestly intended to create facts on the
ground. It may lack an act of annexation, as
occurred in the case of East Jerusalem and the
Golan Heights. But its effect is the same:
annexation. Annexation of this kind goes by
another name in international law - conquest."
(E/CN.4/2004/6, para. 14)

He goes on to say:

"The right to self-determination is closely
linked to the notion of territorial sovereignty. A
people can only exercise the right of self-
determination within a territory. The amputation
of Palestinian territory by the Wall seriously
interferes with the right of self-determination of
the Palestinian people as it substantially reduces
the size of the self-determination unit (already small) within which that right is to be exercised."
(Ibid., para. 15)

Israel claims that it is building the expansionist
wall as a security measure to prevent suicide bombings.
This is not only incredible and illogical, but a
repetition of the same lie and pretext that has been used
by Israel over the years to commit all of its crimes
against the Palestinian people, particularly its
campaign of expansionism and settler colonialism.

Israel could build walls along the armistice line
and could raise them to 80 metres instead of eight. It is
true that this would be a bad thing in terms of
coexistence between the two sides, but no one could
say it is illegal. Indeed, Israel did that to some extent
around the occupied Gaza Strip. If this were now the
case with regard to the occupied West Bank and the
armistice line, then it would be possible to believe that
Israel is actually building the wall as a security
measure.

It is imperative to recall in this regard that in the
past Israel repeatedly used the same meaningless
security pretext before the Security Council to justify
its illegal settlement activities throughout the territories
it has occupied since 1967.

Indeed, over the years the Council has repeatedly
witnessed, as can be seen in the record, the actual
colonization of our land while the Israeli side
continued to repeat the argument that this was all just
"a security measure". The transfer of 400,000 settlers
was described before this Council as "a security
measure". In reality, the entire issue has revolved
around one thing, land, and Israel's plans to illegally
expand and conquer more land at the expense of the
rights of the Palestinian people.

In the war of 1948, immediately after declaring
its existence, Israel conquered almost half the territory
allotted by the United Nations to the Arab State when
the United Nations partitioned Mandated Palestine in
accordance with General Assembly resolution 181 (II)
of 29 November 1947, under the pretext that it was
attacked by the Arab States. In the war of 1967, Israel
occupied the remaining half allotted to the Arab State,
which represents less than one-quarter of Mandated
Palestine, and has refused to withdraw for more than
36 years.

When the Palestinian leadership made the
unparalleled historic concession to accept coexistence
between the two States, with Palestine established only
on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, Israel
continued instead to colonize our land and to illegally
transfer its nationals to that land.

Even after the start of the Oslo peace process, the
occupying Power continued in this regard, actually
doubling the number of settlers since then, and it has
continued since the launching of the road map.

Israel is doing all of this when it has not even
solved the issue of the ownership of land in Israel
itself. There are 5.5 million dunums of land privately
owned by Palestinian refugees. I speak here
specifically about private ownership and not public
ownership, all of which was accounted for and
documented by the United Nations Conciliation
Commission for Palestine (UNCCP), composed of the
United States, France and Turkey. In fact the UNCCP
record was recently modernized in a way that has made
it available for practical use. These 5.5 million dunums
constitute almost half of the land of Israel if we
exclude the Negev desert.

Apparently, for Israel taking over these lands
instead of restoring them to their rightful Palestinian
owners was not enough. It has actually moved to
colonize the land left to the Palestinian people in the
West Bank, including East Jerusalem and the Gaza
Strip, once more as part of the biggest war crime of its
kind in our contemporary history.

Absolute madness and compounded crimes, the
arrogance of power and the absence of morality, have
all been sustained by illegitimate protection, by a huge
influx of funds and unlimited armaments, all provided
by basically one source.

The Security Council clearly bears responsibility
for the prevailing situation in the occupied Palestinian
territory, including East Jerusalem. In addition, the
Security Council, the Middle East region as a whole,
and the entire international community are now
approaching the moment of truth. Either Israel, the
occupying Power, will be allowed to continue all that it
has been doing illegally - that is, colonizing our land,
conquering it and denying the existence of the State of
Palestine, with all the consequent grave results, not
least the demise of the two-State solution and the
emergence of a more radical solution or the
continuation of a perpetual conflict - or Israel is to be
stopped. Settlements must be stopped. The wall must
be stopped. And both must be reversed. That will
rescue the potential for achieving peace and a final
settlement based on the existence of two States, Israel
and Palestine.
Accordingly, the meeting of the Council and its
decision this time have strategic and historic
importance. We hope that the Council will rise to the
level of this challenge.

Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question


While I am in the United States, I should like first of all, on behalf of the leadership and the people of Russia, to express profound condolences to the Government and the people of the United States of America following the tragic death of the crew of the space shuttle Columbia. We share the grief of our American partners, with whom we are actively cooperating in outer space, primarily in the implementation of the international space station project.

The work of the astronauts is probably the best demonstration of the shared fundamental interests of humankind and of the need to pool our intellectual and creative efforts in the name of the progress of civilization.

Russia views today's meeting in the context of the consistent efforts of the Security Council to find a political settlement to the situation surrounding Iraq, on the basis of complete and scrupulous compliance with the relevant resolutions.

The unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) and the deployment of international inspectors in Iraq have demonstrated the ability of the international community to act together in the interests of attaining a common goal. We are convinced that maintaining the unity of the world community, primarily within the context of the Security Council, and our concerted action, in strict compliance with the Charter of the United Nations and the resolutions of the Security Council, are the most reliable means of resolving the problem of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq through political means.

There is no doubt that we all want to resolve this problem. It was with that in mind that we listened very closely to the presentation given by Secretary of State Powell. Russia continues to believe that the Security Council - and, through it, the entire international community - must have all of the information it needs in order to determine whether or not there are remaining weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The information given to us today definitely will require very serious and thorough study. Experts in our countries must immediately begin to analyse it and then draw the appropriate conclusions. The main point is that this information must immediately be handed over for processing by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), including through direct on-site verification during the inspections in Iraq.

Baghdad must give the inspectors answers to the questions that we heard in the presentation given by the United States Secretary of State. We appeal once again to all States immediately to hand over to the international inspectors any information that can help them discharge their responsible mandate.

The information provided today by the United States Secretary of State once again convincingly indicates that the activities of the international inspectors in Iraq must be continued. They alone can say to what extent Iraq is complying with the demands of the Security Council. They alone can help the Security Council work out and adopt carefully balanced decisions - the best possible decisions.

The statements made by Mr. Blix and by Mr. ElBaradei in this very Chamber on 27 January show that a unique inspection mechanism has been deployed in Iraq which has everything it needs to ensure compliance with resolution 1441 (2002) and other Security Council resolutions. This great potential must be used to the fullest.

The Security Council and all its members must do everything they can to support the inspection process.
Russia, for its part, intends to continue actively to promote the creation of the best possible conditions for the work of the international inspectors in Iraq. In particular, we are prepared to provide an aircraft for aerial monitoring and, if need be, additional inspectors as well.

Russia welcomes the continuation of dialogue between the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director General of the IAEA with Iraq on outstanding unresolved issues. We hope that this dialogue will be extremely concrete and productive. It is facilitated, inter alia, by the fact that work has been carried out according to the timetable set out in resolution 1284 (1999), which should make the international inspections and monitoring even more systematic and effective, especially with respect to clarifying key disarmament tasks by the end of March of this year.

It is perfectly obvious that the work of UNMOVIC and the IAEA can be effective only with full cooperation in good faith from Iraq. Iraq should be the first to be concerned about providing definitive clarity on the question of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. That is the only way to reach a political settlement, including the lifting of the sanctions on Iraq. Baghdad should fully realize how crucial this is and do everything in its power so that the international inspectors can carry out their mandate.

Recently, we have often heard the expression that time is running out for a settlement to the question of Iraq. Of course, resolution 1441 (2002) aims to quickly achieve practical results, but it does not set out any concrete time frame. The inspectors alone can advise the Security Council on how much time they need to carry out the tasks entrusted to them. In this respect, we cannot rule out the possibility that at some stage the Security Council may need to adopt a new resolution, or perhaps more than one resolution. The main point is that our efforts should continue to be aimed at doing everything possible to facilitate the inspection process, which has proven its effectiveness and which makes it possible to implement Council decisions by peaceful means.

Unfortunately, the current situation concerning Iraq is far from being the last problem whose solution we will all still have to work on. The international community of the twenty-first century is confronting new global threats and challenges requiring a unified response from all States. A graphic example of that approach was the creation of the broad coalition to combat the primary and most dangerous threat of our time: international terrorism. It is precisely because of the unity of the world community that initial success has been achieved in combating that scourge. However, it is perfectly obvious that we are only beginning a very difficult battle with terrorism. And the information from the United States Secretary of State about the activities of Al Qaeda is further corroboration of that fact.

The unity of the world community will continue to be the principal guarantee of the effectiveness of the world's action. It is precisely unity that is essential in our approach to all problems, however complicated they may be. Tactical differences may arise, it is true.
And probably there will be quite a few of them, given the complexity of the tasks we need to resolve. But they must not overshadow the strategic goals that are in the interests of our common security and stability.


Before we came into this Chamber, members of the Council met in the Consultations Room. We regret that it has not yet been possible to agree on a Security Council statement on this issue. We hope that it will be possible in the days to come. But the absence of a statement tonight should not be taken as a sign that the Security Council is not engaged on this issue and is unconcerned about the direction that events are taking. On the contrary, this is a grave matter, and it is one that threatens stability and security in the region.
I would like to use this opportunity to express our serious concern at the escalation of violence in South Ossetia, Georgia. I would like to take the opportunity to call for the immediate cessation of hostilities and take the opportunity also to call on the parties to immediately resume negotiations.

We have been concerned to hear about reports of troops and other armed personnel from outside Georgia and South Ossetia moving into the region, and the United Kingdom calls on all actors in the region, whether they are State or non-State actors, not to escalate tensions and to exercise the utmost restraint at this time.


My delegation would like to thank you, Mr. President, for having brought the situation in South Ossetia, Georgia, to the attention of the Council at the request of the Russian Federation and of Georgia. A clear threat to peace and security is posed, and we are particularly concerned at the risk of an escalation of violence.
Under these circumstances, it is legitimate and urgent that our Council should be seized of the matter. We hope that, to the greatest extent possible, the Security Council will be able to rapidly speak with one voice on the situation. France is alarmed by the serious incidents that are taking place, all the more so because in this situation of confusion the information we have indicates numerous victims on both sides.

What is certain is that for all the parties to the conflict the military option offers no way out. France therefore calls on the parties and on all those who have a decisive influence on them, first of all, immediately to cease hostilities on the ground; secondly, immediately to resume dialogue, with a View to a ceasefire by which each party must make all of its forces abide; and finally, to cooperate fully with the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). France fully supports the search for a political solution, with respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia.

To conclude, I would like to recall that France currently holds the presidency of the European Union, as Council members know. The European Union very recently recalled that it was determined to spare no effort in helping the parties to attain a lasting solution.


Mr. Wang Yingfan (China) (spoke in Chinese): Like other members, I wish, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. We believe that you will carry out your duties with success, as you have done over the past few days.
I wish also to congratulate Ambassador Ouane on his outstanding contribution in September.

The Chinese delegation thanks you very much, Mr. President, for convening this meeting to consider the recent bloody events in Jerusalem and other places.
Over the past five days, Jerusalem and other occupied Arab territories have been the scene of sustained violence. It is appalling that Israeli military police have used helicopters, tanks and rockets against Palestinian civilians, causing many casualties and deaths among civilians, including, in particular, children. China expresses its strong condemnation and indignation in that regard, and wishes to convey its condolences to the families of the victims.

The conflicts that have raged over the past few days must be completely stopped, or more innocent civilians, women and children in particular, will continue to suffer death or injury.

The Security Council bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
It is duty-bound to protect civilians in Palestine. The Council must send the strongest possible signal that these bloody incidents, in which innocent civilians have been the victims of violence, must be brought to an end.

Palestine and Israel are now engaged in negotiations on such sensitive issues as the final status of Jerusalem. The entire peace process is at a critical stage, yet an Israeli opposition leader made a sudden visit to Al-Haram Al-Sharif and made a controversial statement. That was a most irresponsible, provocative act that the Council ought to condemn.

It is China's strong hope that, at this critical juncture, the parties concerned will exercise the utmost restraint and halt all statements and actions detrimental to the peace process, and that they will create the conditions necessary for resuming and accelerating the peace negotiations. We also expect the upcoming Paris and Cairo meetings to yield positive results enabling the arduous peace negotiations to continue and making it possible, in accordance with the relevant Security Council resolutions, to achieve a settlement of the Palestinian issue at an early date.


May I at the outset congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of January this year.

I should also like warmly to welcome the Foreign Minister of Italy, His Excellency Mr. Antonio Martino, with whose country Yugoslavia has had a long history of friendly and good neighbourly relations.

The decision that the Security Council is about to take on the extension of the partial suspension of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a thoroughly inadequate response to the great efforts and contribution that Yugoslavia has been making in the search for a just and lasting solution to the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As is well known, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has fulfilled all the obligations and met all the conditions set by the relevant Security Council resolutions by which the sanctions regime was established. In addition, Yugoslavia has accepted the peace plan of the Contact Group on Bosnia and Herzegovina, as it has accepted all the other peace proposals, and has done everything in its power to influence the Bosnian Serbs to do the same.

In this framework, my Government has consistently fulfilled its commitment to sever all political and economic contacts with the Bosnian Serb leadership. This has been clearly confirmed by the reports of the Co-Chairmen of the Steering Committee of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia, which have certified that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is continuing to meet its commitment to close the border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Srpska.
Therefore, the decision by the Council to extend only the very limited partial suspension of the sanctions for just another 100 days and to put forward new conditionalities and restrictions is certainly very disappointing. It reflects a lack of political will to assess objectively the positive and constructive role of the Federal Republic of   Yugoslavia in the search for a peaceful solution to the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It ignores the fact that the decision to close the border with the Bosnian Serbs was a unilateral one, for which the Yugoslav Government asked for the assistance of the Mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia.

References in the draft resolution concerning the export of products from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Krajina Serbs have absolutely nothing to do with the primary objective of the closure of the border, which is to influence the Bosnian Serbs to accept the Contact Group's peace plan. It represents an attempt to impose new conditions on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is unacceptable. The draft resolution, in fact, is not a mere extension of the partial suspension of the sanctions, but actually calls for the cessation of practically all economic relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Krajina Serbs. Moreover, it seeks to exact an indirect recognition of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is unacceptable to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia before the overall political solution to the crisis has been found and accepted by all parties concerned. This approach is counter-productive and harmful, particularly in this delicate phase of the peace process, which is demonstrating some signs of progress.

By opting again to maintain the greatest part of sanctions against Yugoslavia, the Security Council is in fact playing into the hands of the extremist elements in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, thus continuing to encourage the war option.
This, of course, fuels the ambitions of the hardline Bosnian Muslim leadership, which feels that the continuation of the sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Serb nation as a whole is the shortest way to realize its extremist political goals. At the same time, the perpetuation of the sanctions also strengthens the hand of the Serb extremists, who argue that, no matter what the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is doing, the sanctions will remain in place and therefore the war option should be pursued.

That the sanctions have never managed to accomplish the goals they were imposed for in the first place, except to severely punish the most vulnerable segments of the population, was unambiguously stated in the Secretary-General's "Supplement to An Agenda for Peace"
(S/1995/1). By making a decision to lift or substantially alleviate the sanctions, the Council would marginalize those extremist positions and would indeed make a significant contribution to the peace process.

Unfortunately, in the past hundred days the very limited suspension of the sanctions established by Security Council resolution 943 (1994) has also not been entirely fulfilled. Despite a clear call by that resolution to the sanctions Committee to adopt appropriate streamlined procedures for expediting its consideration of applications concerning legitimate humanitarian assistance, the Committee has in fact resorted to an ever stricter implementation of the sanctions. Due to the inflexible positions of some delegations, the Committee consistently rejected requests for the export of gas for humanitarian purposes to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, even though all conditions concerning the monitoring and control by the World Health Organization of the consumption of the gas were met. The sanctions Committee has also steadfastly refused to allow the import into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of raw materials for the pharmaceutical industry, which is a necessary precondition for the regular supply of medicaments to the population. The Security Council for its part has ignored the request of the Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia for the one-shot export of $70 million worth of goods, whose proceeds would have been used for the import of emergency humanitarian products.

Furthermore, even though resolution 943 (1994)
clearly allowed all civilian passenger flights to and from Belgrade Airport, it has not yet been possible to purchase or even make reservations for tickets from United States territory to Belgrade, a matter about which the Mission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia informed the Chairman of the sanctions Committee in its letter of 31 October 1994.
As the Council has now decided to extend the partial suspension of the sanctions, it is to be hoped that these shortcomings and flaws in the interpretation of resolution 943 (1994) will be overcome.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is convinced that the plan of the Contact Group, as a basis for the continuation of the peace process, is the rational and viable way to end the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina   and to establish a just and lasting solution. For its part, it is prepared to continue to make efforts towards that end.

In this framework, any linking of the further suspension of sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to conditions that were not valid at the time when the sanctions were imposed, or have no connection with the resolution of the crisis in Bosnia and Herzegovina, cannot be acceptable. By pursuing this policy, the Security Council in fact continues the practice of punishing the citizens of a sovereign country for events over which it has no control, which is a definite abuse of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations and is highly inhumane.

In spite of the fact that the Security Council has failed so far to properly weigh the constructive role that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been playing with regard to the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia will continue to pursue the option of a peaceful, negotiated settlement, which it continues to believe is the only one possible and which it is convinced is in the best interests of all the peoples of the Balkan region.

I would like to offer the following comments in connection with some of the statements made during the debate. My delegation categorically rejects the untrue and malicious allegations made by certain delegations. The situation in the former Yugoslavia is far too serious for the Council to be manipulated in order to satisfy the domestic and political propaganda needs of certain countries. Those delegations that have again chosen to put forward such allegations have thus clearly shown that they are not striving to reach a just and lasting peaceful solution.

I must admit that my delegation is surprised and disappointed that the Security Council did not grant its request to sit at the Council table throughout the discussion of this item, which exclusively refers to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is all the more incomprehensible why the Council decided to make this precedent, when such a request was granted in the past. I should like to believe that the Security Council reached such a decision in particular circumstances, and that it is only an unwanted exception, which will not be repeated.

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) — Sanctions


We congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency and on the convening of today's urgent and important meeting of the Security Council. We also pay tribute to Ambassador Moctar Ouane of Mali for his excellent work during the month of September, which led to the convening of the Security Council Summit.

Ukraine is deeply concerned about the high level of violence that broke out in the course of the past several days at the Al-Haram Al-Sharif compound in East Jerusalem and spread to other parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as to some parts of Israel. We were shocked and appalled by the disproportionate use of force, in particular the use of heavy weapons, by the Israel Defence Forces and by police against Palestinian civilians, which claimed the lives of more than 60 people, including Palestinian children, and left more than 1,500 people wounded or injured. We are similarly shocked by the casualties on the Israeli side.

I would like to add my voice to that of delegations that expressed their condolences to the families of all those who have been killed and wounded in these tragic events. We are hopeful that the ceasefire, which has been in place since dawn today, will hold, helping to prevent further loss of life and injuries among the civilian population.

My country strongly condemns all acts of violence and aggression by whomsoever committed.
We urge the parties to stop the hostilities, to refrain from unilateral provocative actions and to persevere in their efforts aimed at reaching a final settlement agreement as soon as possible. The lives of innocent civilians should remain an absolute priority. In this connection, we call on Israel to ensure full respect for the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Palestinian territories.

Ukraine has always been supportive of the Middle East peace process, which is based on the relevant United Nations resolutions and the principles laid down at the Madrid Peace Conference. We are convinced that the Palestinian and Israeli sides have no alternative but to complete the implementation of the Madrid peace process formula, which is based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), as well as on the principle of land for peace.

It is also our firm belief that the political wisdom and far-sightedness of the Israelis and Palestinians will eventually help them reach a mutually acceptable compromise on such sensitive issues as the fate of the Holy City of Jerusalem and other permanent status issues. Ukraine hopes that, as a result of the strenuous efforts of the two sides, the Palestinian people will at long last find themselves in a position to exercise in full its right to self-determination and statehood.

We look forward to the forthcoming Israeli-Palestinian summits, to take place in Paris and Cairo.
My country welcomes the readiness of France and Egypt to host these important events at such a critical moment. Ukraine highly commends the efforts of the United States in this regard. My delegation also welcomes the constructive engagement of the Secretary-General and his special representative on this issue.

Finally, my delegation believes that the Security Council should continue to follow closely the developments on the ground and act, as appropriate, in exercise of its primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security. Ukraine is also of the view that the United Nations should retain its permanent responsibility towards the question of Palestine until it is resolved in conformity with the relevant United Nations resolutions.


First, Mr. President, let me <appraisal> welcome </appraisal> you to your new position, and <appraisal> extend to you our warmest wishes for a successful month and our full cooperation in the endeavours of the Security Council under your leadership. Let me also acknowledge the capable and faithful commitment of the Permanent Representative of Rwanda to the position of the President of the Security Council for the previous month, and let me finally acknowledge the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Italy, a country that is a neighbour and friend of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and welcome him to this Chamber.

The Security Council has before it a draft resolution, contained in document S/ 1995/21, to extend for another hundred days the easing of sanctions methodology adopted under resolution 943 (1994), of 23 September 1994, with respect to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro).

  The lessons of the last one hundred days compel us not to repeat the same mistakes, for none of the stated objectives behind resolution 943 (1994) have been realized.

At the same time, unfortunately, resolution 943 (1994)
has set in motion a course that today is most difficult to reverse. Our attempt will be not to acquiesce in this course, or the mistakes, but to maximize what can be salvaged from what is clearly an effort that is quickly taking on water.

Resolution 943 (1994) was adopted, by less than a unanimous vote, to achieve at least the following stated goals: First, to encourage the so-called Bosnian Serbs to accept the Contact Group peace plan by rewarding the Belgrade regime for perceived steps to cut off and further isolate the so-called Bosnian or Pale Serbs.

Secondly, to limit the resources available to the so-called Bosnian Serbs to continue their military campaigns and aggression in lieu of accepting this peace.

Thirdly, to encourage the Belgrade regime to take further steps to create an environment suitable for a durable and just peace and reverse the consequences of Belgrade's pivotal role as an aggressor against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I am afraid that we can all agree that none of those objectives have been realized. In fact, on the contrary, there is evidence that there are counter-productive consequences.
The reasons for this are many.

Certainly, we can argue that the motivations of some who supported resolution 943 (1994), and, most importantly, the methodology established under it, were not consistent with the stated goals and objectives.

The mechanisms established pursuant to resolution 943 (1994) to monitor the border and implement the resolutions's stated objectives were flawed and inadequate from their inception. These established mechanisms ensured compliance by their inadequacy to witness and report non-compliance.

As a consequence, the Belgrade regime could usurp over-extended international observers to continue to echo its claim of no responsibility, while in fact continuing to fuel the fire that it had started in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. By the way, I do not use the word "fuel"
here just as an analogy. It was the very fuel transported under the blind supervision of the Co-Chairmen of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) that allowed the allied so-called Croatian and Bosnian Serbs to carry out their aggression against the Bihac region, occupy its safe area and cause danger, suffering and even death to United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) personnel.

Effectively, a Security Council resolution has been hijacked to subvert its own stated objectives, to undermine other Security Council resolutions and mandates and to endanger the security of United Nations personnel.

None the less, we do not wish to associate only negative and subversive motives to resolution 943 (1994), for we believe that many who supported its adoption did so sincerely.

It is in this spirit that we welcome the elements of the draft resolution that are designed to strengthen the effectiveness of the border monitoring mission and its reporting methodology.

We also welcome the most obvious - but apparently not to all - clarification requiring that any transshipment of goods or personnel through or to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia requires the approval of their respective Governments. This would appear to be a most basic element of respect for international law, but apparently not for those who have placed their persona above the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the two Republics as well as the authority of the Security Council's resolutions, in particular resolution 820 (1993).

With respect to the language in the draft resolution, we would like to clarify that our Republic concurs with all shipments of essential humanitarian supplies consistent with our territorial integrity and sovereignty.

Unfortunately, though, our endorsement of the changes and improvements on resolution 943 (1994) must be tempered by the following factors.

First, can the methodology of border monitoring -or, more accurately, reporting on border monitoring - be corrected, if in fact, there is a most basic design flaw?
Although we can endorse the stated objectives behind the resolution, we must continue to question its application.
  Therefore, we recommend that the next time the methodology comes before the Council for review - on or before 21 April 1995 - the Council should establish a new methodology that: first, no longer monitors the Serbians that are supposed to be monitoring the border, but actually monitors the border; secondly, provides the international monitoring force with adequate resources and manpower, certainly more than the couple of hundred people now lightly equipped to actually observe a border of approximately 500 kilometres; and, thirdly, is properly delegated under an appropriate command structure and authority consistent with a mandate designed to truly seal or monitor the border.

The current methodology established to deter violations of the Bosnian border with Serbia is nonsensical.
It is analogous to allowing the rats to guard the cheese from the mice while a near-sighted cat is asked to report as to how much cheese is being taken and who is stealing it.
The logic of this methodology only becomes clear once we understand that it is the rat who is dictating the terms to provide an alibi and demonstrate his innocence. Although the effectively blind cat can even smell the cheese on the rat's breath, it cannot report that it has actually seen the rat stealing the cheese.

The Security Council really should not be brought to the level of being dictated to by the rat, who has already even admitted previous treachery, and it can certainly afford to ensure that the cat at least has glasses.

Secondly, the Security Council cannot continue 100 days hereafter to further reward the Belgrade regime with another easing of sanctions, unless the Belgrade regime takes the most basic step to start to reverse the perverse ideology of a Greater Serbia, which it has initiated and still nurtures.

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should not be allowed in the future to benefit from the self-serving claim that it is promoting peace with its neighbours until it recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbours - the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the other former Yugoslav Republics.

Failure to recognize its neighbours and continue the status quo indefinitely allows the Belgrade regime to plead one case to the international audience, but, in fact, to maintain its ultra-nationalist credentials and still fuel the vision of a Greater Serbia.

Finally, the overall peace process that is in theory to be supported by the draft resolution is moribund as long as the so-called Croatian Serbs continue to conduct cross-border aggression against, and to occupy parts of, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Bihac region.
This violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been directly facilitated by the misuse of resolution 943 (1994)
and the delusions that led to its adoption.

The so-called Croatian and Bosnian Serbs could not have executed their coordinated assault against the Bihac safe area and region without the fuel and other supplies that were transported to the attackers as part of the misuse of the monitoring mission established pursuant to resolution 943 (1994) or, in fact, in direct avoidance of it.

Certainly, one must also wonder to what extent we are to be led to further delusions in believing that the so-called Croatian Serbs could have become full accomplices in the coordinated assault on Bihac without at least the acquiescence, if not the outright support, of Belgrade.

No matter what delusions may have been behind the course set out by resolution 943 (1994), and no matter what faults may endanger the very seaworthiness of the vessel, it is a ship that has been set sailing by the Security Council and therefore on which we are passengers, unwitting or otherwise. We therefore do not look to drill holes in the hull of this ship. On the contrary, we will look, as any passenger would, to bale out water, plug the leaks and keep the course steady.

However, the Security Council must take the responsibility of ensuring that the objectives of resolution 943 (1994) are being advanced and that the holes are being adequately plugged, or the ship must reverse course, with the realization that this effort by the Council was at least premature.

Just one final warning as we embark on the next 100 days: the rats are already abandoning ship.


It is certainly right that we should be discussing this item at this time. We and all of our partners in the European Union have been shocked by the violence in Jerusalem, elsewhere in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and in Israel in the past few days.

We deplore the catastrophic loss of life and are horrified in particular by the deaths of innocent children. It is alarming how quickly in this theatre of tension the recourse to violence can get so out of hand.
Those who have been fuelling the violence of the last few days are people who want to derail the peace process, and they cannot be allowed to succeed.

These tragic events bring home the need for a new urgency in resolving the outstanding issues in the Middle East peace process. It is vital that the violence come to an end so that peace talks can get under way again. In that regard, we welcome the talks that the United States Secretary of State will host in Paris tomorrow between Prime Minister Barak and President Yasser Arafat and those that President Mubarak of Egypt will host in Cairo on Thursday, 5 October. There needs to be a return to diplomacy and negotiation.

The Middle East region needs to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace to benefit all its peoples. The region's future and its people's prosperity will depend partly on trade and cooperation between them.

Britain and the rest of the European Union have made clear their commitment to assist the region to develop in that way. But progress will be painfully slow unless we have a peace agreement. Only a peace agreement will enable the people of the region to realize their potential. It is the duty of the region's leaders to make sure that we turn away from violence and conclude a negotiated peace. If they fail, they fail their peoples. They must show the strength and wisdom to overcome the immediate difficulties and to focus on achieving peace as a priority, and so pave the way to a brighter future.

So, the immediate task is to break this cycle of violence and the use of force. We call for calm, and we urge both parties to exercise the utmost restraint.


Mr. President, let me begin by offering my most sincere compliments on the dynamic and authoritative way in which you are presiding over the work of the Security Council in the month of January.

For me it is a special honour and a source of deep satisfaction to deliver my country's first statement in the Security Council, a body that has taken on a pivotal role in managing the complex and treacherous international balances that emerged with the end of the cold war. On this occasion I reaffirm Italy's active and ongoing commitment to the Council's work of maintaining international peace and security amidst the tumult and strife of this new page of history.

In a century beset by terrible conflagrations, the Bosnian crisis has the unenviable distinction of being one of the worst of them. It has lasted over 30 months, and it has had a tremendous impact on public opinion - all the more so in Italy, where these dramatic events are happening right on our doorstep.

However much has been done in these years to settle this crisis, even more remains to be done. On the positive side, the protagonists of the conflict have been brought to the negotiating table. A massive humanitarian effort has helped to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population.
To the greatest extent possible, a spillover of the conflict has been avoided. Finally, the parties have been persuaded to sign a cease-fire agreement, and an agreement for a complete cessation of hostilities effective as of 1 January. We fervently hope that they will fully comply, so as to allow the negotiations to be resumed and brought to a swift and successful conclusion.

We are quite hopeful that the recent agreements will be fully implemented, and provide a solid and permanent foundation on which to relaunch and revitalize the negotiations. We must immediately build on this achievement by strongly encouraging the parties to return to the negotiating table as soon as possible, lest we lose momentum or even undermine seemingly consolidated results.

But let us not lose sight of our long-term goals: a lasting peace, stability in the region and the region's introduction into the fold of the free, democratic, and   prosperous commonwealth of European nations. These goals remain absolute priorities for the international community. Together with other members of the international community, we will work patiently and with perseverance towards these ends.

Sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) have proved effective, inducing Belgrade to accept the logic of negotiations. But it was the prospect of suspending and alleviating sanctions that convinced Belgrade to cooperate with the peace process by pressuring the Bosnian Serbs to accept the proposed peace plan, which has already been accepted by the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. We are convinced that any feasible peace strategy must include Belgrade. Therefore, if we want to maintain our leverage with Belgrade at this stage we must be flexible in our approach to sanctions through a balance of incentives and disincentives.

Of course, should the positive trends we are presently witnessing not be confirmed in the future, and the Secretary-General report that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has backtracked on its closing of the Bosnian border, the draft resolution sponsored by the four member countries of the European Union and by the Czech Republic provides for the termination of the sanctions suspension.

On the other hand, should our optimism be rewarded, paragraph 7 of the draft resolution provides for the possibility of the Council's considering additional measures "in the light of further progress in the situation".

We hope that this possibility materializes as quickly as possible, in such a way as to allow the alleviation of sanctions with humanitarian implications. I am thinking, for instance, of the possibility of financial transactions for the purpose of supplying hospitals. Let us not forget that sanctions hurt people more than they do Governments. By creating the perception of an international conspiracy against the country, sanctions often tend to rally the people around the Government rather than mobilize them against it. If sanctions are to maintain their usefulness as an instrument of international policy, they must be applied cautiously.
We favour the extension of resolution 943 (1994), to eventually be followed by provisions to benefit the people of Serbia and Montenegro rather than their Government.
While such an approach would not ensure an immediate solution to the Bosnian crisis, it would certainly help create favourable conditions for relaunching the peace process.

Finally, whatever progress has been made can be attributed at least in part to our cohesiveness. If our house is divided against itself, we will only perpetuate that division among the very people we are seeking to help.
By the same token, our unity of purpose and intent can only instil that spirit among the factions, and help remove the last obstacle from the path to a fair, balanced and global political solution to the Bosnian crisis.


The Chinese delegation supports the draft resolution before us today. We hope that, upon adoption, it will play a positive role in the settlement of the question of Georgia.
The world is very much concerned about the long absence of a solution to the question of Georgia. The crux of a political settlement of the Georgian question is whether this newly independent Member State will continue to maintain its sovereignty and territorial integrity or will be dismembered. The position of the Security Council on this question is clear: the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia must be fully respected. A comprehensive political settlement of the Georgian question must proceed within this framework.

The Georgian Government, proceeding from the fundamental interests of the Georgian people, of all ethnic groups, has adopted a responsible attitude in promoting a comprehensive settlement of the Georgian question and has put forward constructive proposals, including that of establishing a federal State and granting Abkhazia wide-ranging autonomy. This position has provided a basis for an early settlement of the Georgian question, and we wish to express our appreciation and support for it.

Regrettably, however, the Abkhaz authorities still cling to a rigid position and continue to set obstacles to a political settlement, which has brought the peace process to a standstill. We cannot but express our deep concern over this situation.

  N0 country can be prosperous, with its people living in peace, without ethnic harmony and territorial integrity.
Therefore, we urge the parties concerned, particularly the Abkhaz authorities, to adopt a realistic approach and take concrete action to focus on settling the political status of Abkhazia so as to advance the peace process in Georgia and enable the Georgian people, of all ethnic groups, to live and work in peace and contentment at an early date.

The Secretary-General and his Special Envoy have made tremendous efforts for a comprehensive political settlement of the Georgian question, for which we wish to express our support and our thanks. We also believe that the countries concerned in the region, particularly the Russian Federation, can play a unique mediating role, and indeed have already been doing so. The Council should therefore encourage them to continue and increase their efforts to that end.

We have noted that the peace-keeping forces of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG)
and the Commonwealth of Independent States enjoy good cooperation and are together playing a positive role in stabilizing the situation in the region and promoting the peace process in Georgia. Therefore, we support the Secretary-General' s recommendation to extend the mandate of UNOMIG.


Let me express my gratitude to the members of the Security Council for 08-45458 this opportunity to address them. Today's special Council meeting is being held to consider the grave escalation of the situation in the Tskhinvali region of Georgia. First, I will reflect on the recent events that have led to that tragic deterioration.

On 1 August, at about 8 a.m. Tbilisi time, a pickup vehicle containing six Georgian police officers was hit by two remote-control explosive devices. As a result of that attack, five Georgian policemen were severely wounded. The central authorities decided not to retaliate, so as not to escalate the situation.

On 2 August, six civilians and one Georgian policeman were injured during the overnight shelling of seven Georgian villages in the South Ossetian conflict zone. The seven Georgian-controlled villages came under intense fire from South Ossetian separatists using large-calibre mortars. Georgian law-enforcement personnel fired back defensively for some time but then received a ceasefire order aimed at not escalating the situation.

On 3 August, the South Ossetian separatist government announced the evacuation of more than 500 people, including 400 children. However, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia's Republic of North Ossetia told the Interfax news agency that it was not an evacuation; the children were being sent to North Ossetia as part of a prearranged summer camp programme, as he explained it. Russian media outlets started a massive propaganda campaign against Georgia.

Late on 6 August, separatists opened fire with mortars on Georgian-populated villages: Eredvi and four others. Georgian Government forces fired back to defend the civilian population. As a result of intense crossfire during the night, two servicemen belonging to the Georgian battalion of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces were injured. The separatist regime also claimed several injuries on its side. Despite the targeted attacks on the peaceful population and villages, as well as on the Georgian police and peacekeeping forces, the central authorities decided not to respond with a heavy exchange of fire, in order not to injure the local population.

Temur Yakobashvili, Georgian chief negotiator and State Minister for Reintegration, said in late-night televised remarks on 6 August that it was the position of the Georgian Government that only direct dialogue with the Tskhinvali authorities would resolve the 3 deteriorating security situation. Mr. Yakobashvili also stressed that Ambassador-at-Large Yuri Popov would attend the talks as a facilitator. South Ossetian chief negotiator Boris Chochiev refused to take part in the negotiations.

Overnight and in the early-morning hours of 7August, intensive fire came from four positions in various Ossetian villages. The separatist authorities continued firing on Georgian law-enforcement personnel and peacekeeping units with mortars and artillery. The central authorities responded with limited fire in order to defend those positions.

In a morning interview with Russian news agencies, South Ossetian de facto President Eduard Kokoity declared that, if the Georgian Government did not withdraw its military forces from the region, he would start to clean them out. President Saakashvili, speaking with journalists at the military hospital in Gori, where he was visiting injured Georgian servicemen, said that, despite the attacks on the Georgian villages, Tbilisi was showing maximum restraint. The President also called on Russia to recall from South Ossetia its officials, who consider themselves the so-called South Ossetian government.

On the morning of 7 August, Temur Yakobashvili visited the conflict zone to meet with representatives of the separatist government. The Minister of State met with Marat Kulakhmetov, Commander of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, in Tskhinvali. Once again, however, the separatists refused to negotiate with him.
Anatoly Barankevich, head of the separatist republic's Security Council, threatened that armed groups of Cossacks from North Ossetia were headed towards South Ossetia to fight Georgian forces.

By 4 p.m. the same day, the separatists had resumed their shelling of Georgian villages. Three Georgian servicemen were injured when the South Ossetian separatist forces blew up an infantry combat vehicle belonging to the Georgian peacekeeping battalion. Georgian police responded by firing towards groups of armed separatists in those villages, killing two separatist militiamen and wounding two others.
Later, the Georgian peacekeepers' checkpoint at Avnevi was bombed, and several Georgian servicemen and civilians were killed.

In a live televised address at 7.10 p.m., President Saakashvili said that he had ordered the Georgian forces to cease fire in South Ossetia. He stated that there had been casualties, including both deaths and injuries. Mr. Saakashvili said that he had ordered the ceasefire specifically to give the South Ossetian secessionist regime another opportunity to resume the talks. Despite Georgia's decision not to return fire, the Georgian village of Avnevi once again came under fire from South Ossetian militiamen at approximately 8.30 p.m. The village can be described as having been totally destroyed as a result of that attack.

South Ossetian separatist armed groups fired at the Georgian-controlled village of Prisi at about 10.30 last night. The attack left several people wounded on the Georgian side. At approximately 11.30 p.m., the same separatist authorities opened fire on all Georgian positions around the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, including those in the villages of Tamarasheni and Kurta. The police station in Kurta was totally destroyed as a result of that heavy fire.

I want to state very clearly that the illegal separatist authorities and armed formations are under the control and direction of the security and defence agencies of the Russian Federation. Numerous high-ranking Russian officers from among the ranks of the peacekeepers, as well as other officials from the Russian military, intelligence, and law-enforcement services, are serving in senior roles in Tskhinvali.

That is a clear violation of Russia's obligation to remain neutral: instead, it has thus become a party to the conflict. These Russian officers and individuals include: Mr. Yuri Morozov, the Prime Minister, born in the Russian Federation, who, before his appointment in the government of South Ossetia in 2005, occupied various positions in Bashkiria; Mikhail Minzayev, Minister for Internal Affairs since 2005, a colonel in the Russian police, who, in 2004, during the counter-terrorist operation in Beslan, led FSB Special Unit Alpha; Anatoly Barankevich, Secretary of the National Security Council of South Ossetia since 2006 and a colonel in the Russian military forces, who participated in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and in both Chechen wars; Boris Attoyev, Chairman since 2006 of the Committee for State Security, analogue of the KGB, who previously held various positions in the Soviet KGB and who after the completing his mission in Afghanistan was appointed to the central apparatus of the FSB in Moscow; Vasily Lunev, Minister for Defence of South Ossetia since March 2008, a general in the Russian army; Vladimir Kotoyev, head of the Government Protection Service since 2007, a colonel 08-45458 in the Russian army, who participated in the Chechen and Bosnian wars; and Oleg Chebotariev, head of the State Border Protection Services since 2005, a colonel in the Russian FSB. Those individuals were granted impunity by the Russian Federation from being held responsible for atrocities that they have been committing.

The Government's military action was taken in self-defence after repeated armed provocations and with the sole goal of protecting the civilian population and preventing further loss of life among residents of various ethnic backgrounds. We believe that every democratic State would have reacted in a similar fashion to protect its own citizens. The Government acted because the separatists not only defied the ceasefire but sharply escalated the violence, killing several peacekeepers and civilians within hours of the ceasefire.

Additional illegal forces and military equipment were and are entering Georgian territory from Russia through the Roki tunnel, threatening even worse violence. The separatists have also been continuing to threaten to attack other parts of the country outside the South Ossetian region, allegedly with the foreign assistance that is flowing into that region. Russian peacekeepers told Georgian officials that they were unable to control the separatists. The security situation was deteriorating and violence wais increasing rapidly.
The separatists were not heeding any appeal for direct talks.

Georgia seeks a negotiated solution to the conflict, with international engagement. Our offer of autonomy in line with European standards stands, with international guarantees including an elected regional parliament, an elected regional president, shared sovereignty and the protection of South Ossetian identity, culture and language, still on the table. Until such a solution is agreed, the region, we think, should be governed by the elected head of the South Ossetian administration, Dmitry Sanakoev, an ethnic Ossetian and former separatist leader.

We invite Russia to be constructively engaged in the economic rehabilitation of the region as well as to contribute to the agreed security arrangements there.
The Government's immediate goal at this point is to restore peace, to facilitate the return to normal life for all residents of the region and to allow the return of the refugees and internally displaced persons. We stand 08-45458 ready to ensure adequate supplies of water, electricity, food, emergency services, medical care and shelter.
Separatist rebels will be eligible for amnesty.
Humanitarian organizations will have access to the region, and the Georgian Government has already allocated funding totalling €2 million for the immediate humanitarian and emergency needs of the region.

According to verified reports, as we speak, a huge contingent of military personnel and equipment is illegally entering Georgia's sovereign territory through the Roki tunnel. The Russian Federation's Republic of North Ossetia has declared the mobilization of armed mercenaries to be sent to Georgia. There are disturbing signs that we are facing a calculated provocation for the purposes of escalating the situation in order to justify a pre-planned military intervention from the Russian side.

We therefore demand that the Russian Federation prevent the transit of armed mercenaries to Georgia, exercise its influence over the separatist regime to stop attacks on the civilian population and start negotiations.

As in my last address to this forum, I want to reiterate Georgia's call to the international community to explicitly condemn the continuing infringements of Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity by the Russian Federation. Despite this most recent escalation, I want to emphasize that the Georgian Government once again calls for, and is showing its readiness to immediately begin, peace talks aimed at resolving the conflict in South Ossetia and calls on the separatist rebels to cease their military actions and come to the negotiating table.


Just over two years ago, the Georgian Government and the Abkhaz leadership agreed to a cease-fire and appealed to the international community to help them to work for a political settlement. This Council responded by increasing, in both size and scope, the United Nations military observer presence on the ground in Georgia. It also made clear to the parties at that time that it expected them both to work urgently towards a comprehensive political settlement, and that such a settlement would have to respect fully the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders.

Since then, the Georgian Government has worked patiently and consistently towards that goal; the Abkhaz leadership has not. The Abkhaz leadership has failed to engage constructively in talks, in spite of Georgian proposals that would entail the widest possible autonomy for the Abkhaz region. It has blocked any significant return of non-Abkhaz refugees. And it has refused to face up to the fact that no country is prepared to contemplate an independent State of Abkhazia. In doing this, the Abkhaz leadership has condemned its own people to an impoverished and uncertain existence.

This Council will shortly extend the current mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) for a further six months. That decision represents the willingness of Council members to continue to commit scarce United Nations resources in the hope the current stalemate in negotiations can be overcome. It also represents the willingness of countries to make military personnel available. As a member of the Friends of the Secretary-General for Georgia, and as a leading contributor of personnel to UN OMIG, we are grateful to the Special Envoy, his Head of Mission and the Chief Military Observer, as well as to the members of UNOMIG, for their work. But UNOMIG must be able to count on the support of the parties, which requested United Nations involvement on the ground. The recent increase in the laying of mines in UNOMIG's area of responsibility is of particular concern, and we look to the parties to do all they can to ensure that such activities cease. We welcome the Secretariat's efforts to redeploy mine-protected vehicles and to provide UNOMIG with a mine detection and clearance capability, and we urge those concerned to work with the Secretariat so that such measures can be implemented as soon as possible. The objective is to work towards the restoration of UNOMIG' s operational effectiveness. The presence of the peace-keeping force of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is an important factor in achieving this, and we hope that UN OMIG and the CIS peace-keeping force will continue to develop closer cooperation to this end.
In addition, reconstruction and respect for human rights are key elements in developing stability and allowing the return of normality to the region. In particular, we welcome proposals to implement a programme for the protection and promotion of human rights, and look forward to the Secretary-General's report on arrangements to establish a human rights office in Sukhumi.

We believe that UNOMIG continues to have a valuable role in sustaining the conditions necessary to allow a lasting settlement to emerge. But - and we always say this on these occasions - it is up to the parties, and in particular the Abkhaz leadership, to demonstrate that they are prepared to work earnestly and constructively towards a settlement. The British Government continues to believe that any such settlement, if it is to be viable, must fully respect Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders.


Unfortunately, I must note that the statement by the Permanent Representative of Georgia at this evening's meeting included many distortions and contradictions. On the one hand, the representative of Georgia said that the Russian Federation is controlling everything in South Ossetia, but at the same time, he alleged that the Russian military say that they are incapable of controlling the separatists. If Russia has aggressive intentions, as the representative of Georgia alleged today, then why has the Georgian side, over a long period of time, refused to reach an agreement on the non-use of force in the Georgian-South Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhazian conflict, which would protect Georgia against any attempt to use force by anyone at all. From listening to the Permanent Representative of Georgia, it might appear that South Ossetian forces are attacking Tbilisi; in fact, as we all know, the situation is quite the contrary.

I would like also to comment on the point that during Security Council's prior consultations today, the Council was unable to work out a clear reaction to today's events and was unable to send an unambiguous message to both parties, primarily Tbilisi, on the need to put an end to violence and on the need to reject the use of force. The reason for the incapacity of the Security Council to develop a clear reaction to these events unfortunately lies in the absence of clear political guidelines among a number of Council members. This has been demonstrated again during this evening's discussion in our open meeting.

Let me comment on another specific point. In fact, I spoke of this in my statement today and it was also heard in the statement by the representative of the United States: that in recent days Moscow and Washington have very much been in contact. It seemed to us that there was a certain mutual understanding with our United States colleagues about the need to take steps which could put an end to the escalation of the conflict. But in her statement today in the Security Council the representative of the United States only once used the word "condemn" - and that was against South Ossetia, for its alleged failure to attend one of the proposed meetings. And yet, they failed to find clear political terms to describe the aggressive actions of Tbilisi and of the Georgian armed forces attempting to invade Tskhinvali.

It is precisely this inconsistency and this vagueness in the political position that are among the main reasons for the critical situation regarding the South Ossetian-Georgian conflict.

Nevertheless, I hope that today's meeting of the Security Council has been useful and that it will be seen by Tbilisi as indicating that the Security Council, one of the leading institutions of the international community, is not prepared to accept the attempts to resolve the long-standing Georgian-South Ossetian conflict through armed aggression.