Mr.
President, it is a pleasure to convey France's congratulations and best wishes on your presidency of the Security Council. However, the circumstances that have led to the holding of this open meeting are very grave indeed.

France expresses its keenly felt emotions in the face of the heavy toll that the clashes of the last few days have taken: some 60 dead, including three children aged 10 and 12, and a thousand injured. We wish here to express our profound sympathies and offer our condolences to the families of the victims.

The President of the French Republic, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have already clearly stated our position. The European Union, whose presidency France holds for the current six-month period, has also made public statements on this tragedy.
I would like, however, before this Security Council, before the United Nations, to recall France's reaction.

These events are the result of a deliberate provocation by Mr. Ariel Sharon on Thursday, 28 September. France unreservedly condemns his irresponsible visit to the sacred site of the Mosque Plaza, undertaken for reasons of domestic politics, at the most sensitive time in the peace negotiations.

France deplores the violence that grew out of that visit. Above and beyond that provocation, it is the responsibility of those who are in charge of maintaining order that is at issue. As President Chirac put it yesterday morning, "You do not fight against the emotion of a people with armour". The disproportionate use of armed force witnessed in the last several days manifestly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. We hope that full light will be shed on this tragedy, in the framework of international machinery suited to establishing responsibility.

It is a message of responsibility that the Council must today address to the parties. We solemnly call on the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to do all they can, within their respective spheres, to contribute to easing tension. The spiral of violence must be halted.
Absolute priority must be given to stopping the fighting. The ceasefire entered into during the night of Monday/Tuesday must be strictly observed. The clashes play into the hands of the provocateurs and the enemies of the peace process. Calm must return on the ground. Security must be assured.

These clashes are all the more cause for grave concern because the two parties had never been closer to peace. With impetus provided by the United States, thanks to the efforts led by President Clinton and Madeleine Albright, efforts which France supports, each party made courageous gestures towards the other at the Camp David summit. Those discussions gave reason to hope for an event awaited for over 50 years: peaceful coexistence, peace, between Israel and the State of Palestine. This historic occasion must not be lost.

We very much hope that the meeting tomorrow in Paris between President Arafat and Prime Minister Barak will make it possible to put a definitive end to the tragedy and to resume the path of dialogue, a dialogue to which, as the events of the last few days have reminded us, there is no alternative.

France and the European Union will continue resolutely to support the peace negotiations and, at the request of the parties, to make every possible contribution. There is no other option than peace. The parties must refrain from any action that might compromise the success of the negotiations. France invites the two parties to return to the talks, respecting the resolutions and conventions that make up international law. It invites them to adopt a calm approach to all the outstanding issues, in the spirit of the decisive strides made at the Camp David summit.

Having made a statement in my national capacity, I would like, on behalf of the European Union, whose presidency, I remind the Council, France currently holds, to read the following statements made public on 1 and 2 October, beginning with the statement of 1 October: "The European Union is very concerned at the continued bloody clashes in Jerusalem and in the territories, and is filled with consternation at the number of victims. These events show to what extent an act of provocation in tense circumstances can have tragic consequences.

"The European Union calls upon the leaders of both parties to take all necessary steps to halt the violence and prevent new provocations.

"It warns against the unjustified use of force.

"The European Union invites the parties to concentrate again on the quest for a negotiated peace, which is more necessary than ever." Yesterday, 2 October, the European Union declared: "On the fourth day of bloody clashes between Israelis and Palestinians, the European Union once again calls for reason to put an end to violence. It feels that the disproportionate resort to force can only aggravate the situation further, raise an already particularly deadly toll, and postpone the prospect of peace at a time when it appeared to be about to become a reality.

"The European Union supports the creation of an international commission charged with objectively establishing the facts of the events of the last several days, and is ready to make its contribution to the work of such a commission.

"The European Union remains convinced that only a negotiated solution can meet the aspirations of the Israeli and Palestinian peoples to peace and security."


It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of January. We are confident that under your able guidance the Council will successfully carry out its responsibilities.

I should like also to pay tribute to Ambassador Bakuramutsa of Rwanda for his able work as President of the Council last month.

It is also a great pleasure to welcome the Foreign Minister of Italy, a friendly and allied country.

On numerous occasions we have expressed before this Council our views on the ongoing tragedy in Bosnia. I do not intend to repeat them. Today, I should like to confine my statement to our hope that the agreement on the complete cessation of hostilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina will not remain simply an agreement on paper, but will become a first step towards the achievement of a just and viable peace. To that end, this agreement should not be allowed to lead in any way to a freezing of the situation on the ground. Such a freezing could seriously undermine the chances of a just and viable peace. Therefore, we believe it is high time for credible pressure on the Bosnian Serbs to make them accept the peace plan unconditionally. Such pressure should be exerted without further delay.

Unfortunately, there are reports that Serbian aggression is continuing in and around the Bihac region. The so-called Abdic forces and the Croatian Serbs should not be allowed to violate this agreement and the border between Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Croatian Serbs'
involvement in the aggression is a clear sign of defiance of the relevant Security Council resolutions. Resolutions 824 (1993) and 836 (1993) clearly define the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) vis-a-vis the safe areas. UNPROFOR is committed to defend the safe areas. The full implementation of this mandate is still a very urgent and vital need. In this context, we welcome the proposal of the Force Commander pertaining to the strengthening of UNPROFOR with a view to enabling it to contribute better to the implementation of the agreement on the complete cessation of hostilities. The reinforcement of UNPROFOR should be completed as soon as possible.

We have serious reservations about the draft resolution. The monitoring mechanism established under resolution 943 (1994) is not effective. There are still only about 200 monitors in the Mission. Because of this shortage of manpower for the monitoring of a long border, the effectiveness and credibility of the monitors are widely questioned.

On the other hand, it is true that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) could play an important role in convincing Karadzic forces to accept the peace plan. The adoption of resolution 943 (1994) was based on the optimistic assumption that if Serbia and Montenegro had been encouraged it could have played an instrumental role to this end. However, a hundred days elapsed and the Serbs continued their defiance of the will of international community. The peace plan has still to be accepted by the Bosnian Serbs.

During this period we have also witnessed a new round of aggression against the safe area of Bihac, in which the Croatian Serbs were also involved.

Despite Serbia and Montenegro's claim that it has closed its borders with the Serb-held areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and despite the certification provided by the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) Mission monitoring the border, many independent international sources acknowledge that the border continues to be violated through the transport of strategic material and personnel. It is extremely important that the monitoring mechanisms be strengthened and the number of monitors increased. In addition, serious consideration should be given to independent third-party sources.

Furthermore, having examined the report of the Co-Chairmen of the ICFY Steering Committee, we have once again learned that the border monitoring Mission, under the direction of the Co-Chairmen, has approved   fuel shipments to the so-called Croatian Serbs. This is a clear violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Croatia, as well as of resolution 820 (1993). It was these fuel shipments that enabled Croatian Serbs to continue their aggression against the safe area of Bihac. Therefore, we hope that the adoption of this draft resolution will at least contribute to the termination of these shipments. We also look forward to the strengthening of mechanisms for deterring and reporting violations.

In conclusion, I once again strongly urge the Serbian side to accept the peace plan unconditionally.

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) — Sanctions


Allow me, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month and to assure you that my delegation is fully committed to assisting you on the many important issues that will come before the   Council, particularly those that concern Croatia and its neighbours.

I also extend my delegation's compliments to the Permanent Representative of Rwanda for the able way in which he led the work of the Council during December.

My delegation would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Foreign Minister of Italy, His Excellency Mr. Antonio Martino, who is a high-ranking representative of a friendly neighbouring State.

Croatia welcomes the draft resolution before the Council. It contains elements that will be of great benefit to the peace process in Croatia and the region in general. It also contains elements that should enhance the credibility of the Council, following the reports and decisions regarding the illicit transfer of fuel into the occupied territories of Croatia from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). This draft resolution alleviates some of our concern that the international community may not be sufficiently determined in its quest for a durable peace in the region.

Paragraph 3 of the draft resolution extends the Yugoslav-Bosnian border blockade to affect Croatia. From now on Belgrade will not be able to send non-humanitarian assistance to the occupied territories of Croatia via the Bosnia and Herzegovina border, without consequences.
Should the Belgrade authorities choose to violate paragraph 12 of resolution 820 (1993) in this way, the Council will be left with no alternative but to reinstate the sanctions that were suspended by its resolution 943 (1994).

The Council's decision in this regard is made with the same principles in mind as when paragraph 12 was included in resolution 820 (1993) in the first place - to reiterate Croatia's sovereignty over its entire territory; to promote economic reintegration between the Government and the local Serb authorities in the United Nations protected areas in Croatia; and to protect the Croatian citizens in the protected areas from the sanctions regime imposed on the occupier, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Indeed, the reinforcement of this paragraph represents the Council's commitment to the spirit and the letter of that resolution.
The Council's decision is especially welcome at a time when my Government is pursuing implementation of the economic reintegration agreement of 2 December with the same local Serb authorities.

This extension of the border blockade, however, is not complete. The border between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and Croatia's United Nations protected areas Sector East can still be used by Belgrade without consequences. The members of the Council should bear this in mind with regard to the next review of the issue, which will take place in a hundred days' time. This may be quite possible, as substantial human and financial resources will be released from Croatia at about that time, given my Government's decision today on the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). The UNPROFOR resources would thus be usable for other alternatives. A complete blockade of the border between Serbia and Montenegro and Croatia in this way would further the peace process in Croatia.

My Government's decision on the UNPROFOR mandate, which was transmitted to the Secretary-General this morning and to your office, Mr. President, this afternoon, was taken with full regard for the international community's concerns and interests in the region. On this occasion I shall simply emphasize the words of my President - that the Security Council can continue to count, in full confidence, on Croatia's acting in a manner consistent with its long-standing constructive policy in the region.

Croatia will continue to support the work of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia and to look for a political solution consistent with Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, in a reasonable time-frame. We shall continue to negotiate the 2-4 political plan for Croatia with the Contact Group. We shall continue to work to implement the economic agreement of 2 December, with the assistance of the international community. But we shall not allow the annexation of any part of our sovereign territory.

We hope that the international community will be able, in the coming months, to seize the opportunity to assist Croatia to reintegrate its occupied territories in a timely and peaceful way. The draft resolution gives us great hope. I should like to take this opportunity to praise the sponsors of the draft resolution for their serious and skilful work.

A viable Croatia will as such also be able to play a more significant role in achieving the desired balance of power in the region - a balance that is still needed because of one party's rejection of the Contact Group plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina. A political solution for   Bosnia and Herzegovina does not appear likely in the near future. By addressing the situation in Croatia first, however, the international community can help Bosnia and Herzegovina, in the short term, by reallocating the necessary additional UNPROFOR resources into Bosnia and Herzegovina, and, in the long term, by creating conditions of balance favourable to continuing with the Contact Group plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina. This draft resolution is a small but important step in that direction.


I thank you, Sir, for allowing Iraq to participate in this meeting. I did not realize until I arrived here that I had the right to speak, so, I did not prepare a statement, but if you allow me, I will make some brief remarks based on what I have heard.

First, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Volcker and his team for the very thorough and extensive inquiry that they have conducted. I would also like to express my thanks to the Secretary-General for his remarks and say that it is very much to his credit that he commissioned the inquiry in the first place.

In taking control of oil revenues in Iraq to run the oil-for-food programme, the Security Council in effect appointed itself the guardian of the Iraqis' wealth.
Therefore, it had a responsibility to discharge that function, together with the Secretariat. From all the conclusions that have been reached by the Volcker Committee, it is very clear that the Iraqi people have not received full value for their money. For various reasons, they were robbed of a great deal of what was theirs by right. The lessons will continue to be studied and various actions will be taken, but that loss is permanent. Thus, at the end of the day, the Iraqis paid the price for whatever failings and shortcomings arose.

It is also clear that the main beneficiary of the recommendations of the Volcker Committee is, in fact, the United Nations, because the report has pointed to systemic shortcomings and problems that had to, and have to, be put right. All the speeches that we have heard today echo that conclusion. Indeed, the Secretary-General has clearly stated that that is now one of his central objectives.

For some reason, however, Iraq had to pay the bill for arriving at this point. We were the people who paid for the Volcker Committee; we protested. I must say that, regrettably, that was decided with the tacit consent of the Security Council and implemented by the Secretary-General.

Now we have to think of the future. We will go forward and, hopefully, turn the conclusions of the Volcker Committee into action that will rebuild the credibility of the United Nations, which we all need.
Iraq is a proud founding Member of the United Nations and dearly wants the United Nations to continue to play its great role in the world and in Iraq itself.

Therefore, thinking forward, I would call upon the Council to consider the formation of a nucleus or group - perhaps a small part of the Volcker team itself- this time funded by the United Nations, to help Iraq pursue assets belonging to it that have been dispersed, let us say, through the oil-for-food programme. The Volcker Committee has, I believe, identified many, many ways in which assets have been taken away from Iraq. Some of those assets could be retrieved if we all cooperate in a systematic way. I hope that that will be taken up by the Council. We remain ready to work with any member of the Security Council to make that happen. That would, at least to some extent, recompense Iraq for some of its losses.

I would like to thank you, Sir, for having given me the opportunity to speak, and I hope my remarks lead to some concrete actions.


Allow me at the outset to extend our sincere condolences to the Government and the people of the United States of America following the tragic disaster that befell the space shuttle Columbia.

It is my privilege to read out the text of a statement by Mr. Farouk Al-Shara', Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic. It was impossible for him to participate in person in our important deliberations.

"It gives me pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your country's assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of February. I express my confidence that your presiding over our deliberations will lead us to a just settlement of the issues on our agenda and, in particular, a peaceful settlement to the question of Iraq based on the implementation of Council resolution 1441 (2002), which is our common objective.
"It is also my pleasure to thank France, a friend of Syria, for successfully presiding over the Council's deliberations last month. We thank France for its efforts, in more than one place in the world, to favour peace over war.

"We listened attentively to the information and opinions presented by Mr. Colin Powell, Secretary of State of the United States of America. Since time does not permit me to discuss the content of the statement, we believe that the way to ascertain the facts and to reach a conclusion with respect to irrefutable evidence is to transmit such information to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We urge all Member States that have accurate information on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to submit such information to the inspectors so that they can assess its accuracy and inform the Council accordingly. We hope that they will not be inundated with information or opinions that do not stand up to the facts in order not to confuse them or distract them from the tasks entrusted to them by the Council.

"The Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002). It is no secret that Syria joined the consensus on that resolution after receiving guarantees and clarifications from permanent members of the Council that voting in favour of the resolution meant proceeding seriously towards a peaceful resolution regarding Iraq's disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction and that the resolution was not a pretext for waging war against Iraq. The fact that some members of the Council speak about the need to adopt a second resolution is, in our view, further confirmation of those clarifications and guarantees.

"Nevertheless, two months after the adoption of the resolution and the resumption of inspections, which have made reasonable progress and have not yet met with any insurmountable obstacles, our region is at a grave crossroads, teetering between peace and war.
Thinking that war is one of the options before the Council is in itself proof of our collective failure to peacefully implement resolution 1441 (2002).
We believe that the Council can still make great efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the question of Iraq compatible with the Security Council's mandate to maintain international peace and security.

"Syria believes that the existence of the option of war is proof not only of the Council's failure to fulfil its duties but also of the failure of the international system, which at this stage should rely more than ever on the Charter of the United Nations as an indispensable point of reference in ensuring that peace prevails all over the world.

"Syria still believes in the possibility of arriving at a peaceful settlement that spares Iraq war and spares the region the dangerous repercussions of such a war. Such a settlement would guarantee the implementation of resolution 1441 (2002); it would save the lives of thousands of potential innocent victims in Iraq, as well as those of the soldiers who have crossed continents, bringing them safely back to their families.

"Our commitment to peace is compatible with the approach of the Security Council, which in December 2002 adopted a presidential statement on the protection of civilians in armed conflict (S/PRST/2002/41) and a few days ago adopted a resolution on the protection of children in armed conflicts (resolution 1460 (2003)). At a time when our Council is adopting one statement after another to save innocent people in many parts of the world, it is truly odd that we can discuss going to war against Iraq, which no longer occupies the territories of others or threatens it neighbours, and at a time when Israel still occupies Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian territories in violation of the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations and periodically threatens its neighbours.

"Syria has been kept informed of the work of the inspectors and of Iraqi cooperation with those inspectors. Those who believe that inspections in any part of the world can be free of occasional problems and obstacles are completely mistaken. Nevertheless, after listening to the reports of Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei, we ask whether the obstacles to which they referred are insurmountable. Do they truly warrant a destructive war against Iraq? This is an important question. Through statements by its senior officials, Iraq has expressed its readiness to continue to cooperate, to enhance cooperation and to make extra efforts to find acceptable solutions for existing problems in order to ensure that the inspectors can carry out their tasks as established by the Security Council.

"That requires that both parties - Iraq and the inspectors - build a common denominator of trust based on Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors, so that they can carry out their task as soon as possible, on the understanding that that will be in the interests of all concerned parties. In return, the inspectors' pursuit of their work, objectively and in a way that respects the sensitivities of the Iraqi people, would definitely build trust between the two parties, which is a desired goal.

"Therefore, Syria calls upon the Security Council to continue to support the work of the inspectors and to give them sufficient time to carry out their task. Syria emphasizes Iraq's commitment to continue to cooperate actively with the inspectors and to provide everything required under resolution 1441 (2002). In parallel, the Council must take necessary measures to lift the sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people under paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991) and must activate paragraph 14 of that resolution, which calls for the declaration of the Middle East as a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, bacteriological and chemical - without excepting any State, including Israel, which alone has acquired all of those lethal weapons.

"Syria has made strenuous efforts, and has engaged in regional and international contacts at the highest level, so that we can arrive at a peaceful solution to the Iraqi question, based on implementation of resolution 1441 (2002). Syria has also worked with Iraq's neighbouring countries, which have expressed readiness to cooperate with the Council in efforts to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the Iraqi question. The deliberations held in Istanbul proved that Iraq does not constitute a threat to its neighbours. The message of Iraq's neighbours to the world was "no" to war and "yes" to peaceful solutions based on the implementation of Security Council resolutions. That message is extremely significant, because it comes from a region that has suffered under the scourge of many wars and that is still suffering from the continued policy of occupation and destruction against the defenceless Palestinian people, its property and its legitimate rights.
"The world's peoples look forward to our deliberations, hoping for a peaceful settlement to the Iraqi question - a settlement that will save the lives of thousands of Iraqis and other people should the military option, outside the framework of international legitimacy, be exercised. Let us all work for peace, because we can attain peace if we have the good faith, the determination and the political will to do so. Those elements are to be found in most members of the Council, which was entrusted by the Charter with maintaining international peace and security. That is what Syria and the other Arab countries are trying to bring about, and it is what we hope the Council and the rest of the international community will also work towards."


Very briefly, I want to reiterate a few issues which were raised by my very respected colleague, Ambassador Churkin. First of all, I probably did not make myself quite clear: I was saying that the Russian side had explained to the Georgian side that they had no control over the South Ossetian regime. That is why things were getting out of hand. I did not say that the Russians - the Russian security and defence services - really do not have control of the armed forces of the separatist regime. I demonstrated very clearly who are the core decision-makers in the South Ossetian Government - former and current Federal Security Service (FSB) and defence officials - precisely for that reason: for the Council to understand who is really making decisions in Tskhinvali.

On the other issue, I would like to stress that we welcome the cooperation of the Russian Federation and the United States, which is now happening at a high level, to ease the tensions and to de-escalate the situation. That is exactly what Georgia wants and that is exactly what was proposed by President Saakashvili recently - last night - in a televised address. And that is exactly what we are offering our friends at the 08-45458 negotiating table: the State Minister for Conflict Resolution, who was willing to go, and actually went, to Tskhinvali twice to negotiate and who was rejected by the separatist regime, was bringing those same proposals.

So I would close my remarks with the hope that reason will prevail in this situation and that both sides, and the Russian Federation as well, will come to the negotiating table and will resolve this conflict in a peaceful manner.


The Russian Federation took the initiative of calling for this emergency meeting of the Security Council because of the alarming situation in South Ossetia, which has been brought about by the blatant and aggressive actions of the Georgian armed forces against that republic, which is an internationally recognized party to the conflict.
During the night of 8 August 2008 local time, literally just a few hours after reaching an agreement on holding negotiations to resolve the escalation in the South Ossetian conflict, Georgian military divisions began a treacherous and massive attack against Tskhinvali. The military option was used by the Georgian authorities despite all the diplomatic efforts that had been undertaken in contacts between Moscow, Tbilisi, Tskhinvali, Washington and other interested capitals.

The Russian Federation has recently and repeatedly warned members of the Council of a likely escalation in the situation. We warned Council members that the Georgian authorities had augmented their offensive forces. Indeed, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe warned of growing militarization in Georgia, as seen in the alarming build-up of the Georgian armed forces. Our warnings were ignored, and the Council is obliged today not only to deal with a resurgence in the conflict but to discuss a situation that represents a threat to regional security and peace.

Because of Georgia's actions, the situation in the conflict zone has now reached a critical phase. Massive artillery fire is being directed against a peaceful civilian population, including old people and children, using Grad multiple launch systems and large-calibre rocket launchers. Shooting is taking place in the centre of the capital of South Ossetia, where dozens of houses are engulfed in flames. According to available information, at 3 a.m. local time, Georgian tanks and infantry began to attack the southern parts of Tskhinvali.

Such policies of the Georgian authorities dramatically contravene the hopes that Tbilisi was promoting. We can already say with certainty that the aggressive acts ordered by the Georgian authorities have done great damage to the peace process and to the prospects of achieving a political or diplomatic settlement. Tbilisi is trying to create a smokescreen around its acts by both blaming the Russian Federation, including Russian television channels, for everything, and talking about peace, in sharp contrast with its actual conduct.

The Georgian military are being more frank about events. A few hours ago, General Mamuka Kurashvili, commander of the peacekeeping contingent of the Georgian armed forces in Georgia, announced in front 08-45458 of the television cameras that the decision had been taken in Tbilisi to restore constitutional order in South Ossetia - that is, to resolve a long-standing conflict by military means. Even Georgian politicians have let the cat out of the bag: Temur Yakobashvili, State Minister for Reintegration, has said that the goal of his leaders was to put an end to the regime in Tskhinvali.

As a result of all those actions, Tbilisi has totally destroyed the credibility of the Georgian leadership as a responsible party to the negotiating process and, in general, as a member of the international community guided by the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

It is now quite understandable why Tbilisi has, for a long period of time and using many pretexts, stubbornly refused to reach an agreement with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the non-use of force.
Members of the Security Council will recall that that has been the principal element in many Council resolutions. The Russian Federation has insisted on that and will continue to do so. Since the current flare-up of the conflict began, the Russian Federation has done everything possible to de-escalate it. We have sent a special representative of our Minister for Foreign Affairs to the region, and we are using all available leverage to exert positive pressure.

The Security Council must now play its role. We are convinced that the Council must immediately call for an end to the hostilities and for a rejection of the use of force. The Council and the international community as a whole cannot remain on the sidelines at this difficult moment, when the fate of the hundreds of thousands of people living in the region is being decided. Together, we must put an end to the violence, which has serious implications for regional and international security.

There is still time to avoid further casualties, including among the civilian population. The Georgian leadership must reflect and must return to civilized means of resolving difficult issues related to a political settlement. The Russian Federation will continue its efforts to prevent any further bloodshed and to put the situation in South Ossetia back on a peaceful track.


The Republic of Croatia shares the concerns of the international community on the situation in Kosovo and the impending threat to international peace and security which it constitutes.
Croatia, as a neighbour of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is vitally interested in a speedy resolution of the crisis.

Croatia believes that all political issues in Kosovo, including its future status, must be resolved between the Belgrade authorities and Kosovar Albanians through a genuinely democratic political process. The dialogue has to take into account both the opinions of the Arbitration Commission of the International Conference on Yugoslavia - The Badinter Commission - on the inviolability of the borders of new States established following the dissolution of the former Yugoslavia and the tradition of territorial autonomy in Kosovo. The disrespect that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia showed for the opinions of the Badinter Commission regarding the territorial integrity of neighbouring Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina is now, regarding Kosovo, returning like a boomerang.

Croatia welcomes - and emphasizes the importance of - the readiness of the international community to help facilitate this process, as demonstrated by the resolution that the Security Council has just adopted. My delegation believes that the willingness of the international community to play an active role in alleviating the tension is vital for the achievement of a political solution. Croatia supports all the efforts undertaken by the international community in this regard, particularly the endeavours made by the Contact Group and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) aimed at halting the escalation of the conflict.

Croatia joins others in condemning the violation of human rights in Kosovo and denounces all acts and forms of terrorism, regardless of whether they are committed by a State, a group or an individual, bearing in mind that State terrorism represents the most dangerous form of terrorism because of the resources available to States.

It is very clear that police repression is an unacceptable method for resolving political issues in Kosovo. Croatia expressed its disagreement with such repressive methods used by Serbian authorities even during the time of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, when the Socialist Republic of Croatia withdrew its police forces from the federal units deployed in Kosovo. Today, as an independent and sovereign State, Croatia adds its voice to the efforts of the international community in seeking a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

Croatia is particularly concerned by the possible humanitarian catastrophe which could be caused by the present crisis. The international community cannot allow the same pattern of humanitarian disasters experienced in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to be repeated in Kosovo. On this issue Croatia speaks from the experience of a country which has during the past six years taken care of more than 800,000 refugees and displaced persons.

In this context, my delegation welcomes the fact that the resolution calls on the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to allow international humanitarian organizations full access to Kosovo in order to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and to alleviate the
suffering of the civilian population. Croatia holds this to be a humanitarian imperative.

Croatia acknowledges the importance of normalizing relations between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the rest of the international community. However, I should like to stress that the participation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in international institutions is conditional upon its application for membership and the fulfilment of all criteria for acceptance into those institutions, as is the case with every new applicant. Consequently, it is the understanding of my delegation that this is the only context within which paragraph 18 of the resolution can be interpreted. The issue of succession to the former Yugoslavia cannot be linked to the Kosovo crisis, because it is a matter which involves all the successor States to the former Yugoslavia and must be resolved on the basis of the opinions of the Badinter Commission and international law.


Let me congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency.
Your energy and fairness have already been of immeasurable help this month, and I am sure they will continue to be. I would also like to warmly thank the Permanent Representative of Rwanda for his hard work during December.

Let me join my colleagues in welcoming our new colleagues to what is going to be a very busy period for the Security Council and in thanking those who have just completed their term. Of course, through the Italian Mission, we would very much like to welcome Foreign Minister Martino; we are glad he was here.

The sanctions regime that the Council has enacted over time is vital to our effort to persuade the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Pale Serbs that a peaceful resolution of the Bosnia conflict is in their interest. The resolution we have just adopted is an indication that our effort to persuade Belgrade to pressure the Pale Serbs to accept a just and viable peace has begun to show results. There should be no doubt that my Government's willingness to support this resolution was a direct result of our conclusion that the Government in Belgrade has moved to implement its decision to close the border by making it less porous over time, a process which it significantly augmented by imposing new measures in recent weeks.

But further efforts must be made to ensure that the border is more effectively closed. In that context, we are especially gratified that the Council is today reaffirming its prohibition of transshipments through Bosnian territory controlled by the Pale Serbs. By doing so, we are not adding any sanctions provisions. Transshipments through Bosnian Serb-controlled territory to the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia without the permission of the relevant Governments were, and continue to be, clear violations of paragraph 12 of resolution 820 (1993). The United States expects that paragraph to be complied with.

There have been suggestions made, not by members of this Council, that the provisions of paragraph 12 of resolution 820 (1993) do not apply to shipments from Serbia and Montenegro to Serb-held territory in Croatia.
This contention is obviously inconsistent with the Council's previous decisions, including the border closure we are reviewing today. Tolerating illegal transshipments to the United Nations Protected Areas in Croatia without an assurance that these goods would not find their way back into Bosnian Serb-controlled territory undermined the logic of the border closure. There can be no doubt that these illegal transshipments were an obvious contravention of the letter and spirit of our resolutions.
The Security Council is reaffirming that these transshipments are prohibited. We expect that others will accept the Council's decision and take their guidance from it.

  However, the effectiveness of the border closure will require continued vigilance by the international community, the monitoring Mission of the International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (ICFY) and the officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. We cannot allow any backsliding towards Belgrade's earlier, inadequate level of compliance. Although we believe that the border closure is now effective - in large part because of the actions taken by officials of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the ICFY Mission in the 40 days leading up to our decision today - we expect to see continued improvement over the next 100 days.

In particular, we expect that there will be physical closure of all border crossing points not covered by the ICFY Mission on a 24-hour basis; dismantlement of river ferries and physical closure of ferry sites; continued monitoring of train shipments transiting Bosnia and Herzegovina; an end to exports exiting from Bosnia and Herzegovina; control of smuggling, even by individuals; an end to all logistic and other support for the Bosnian Serb military; the thorough investigation and diligent prosecution and punishment of persons violating the border closure; and the severance of telecommunications links between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Pale Serb-held territory, which the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia itself imposed but recently rescinded.

We look forward to the Secretary General's periodic reports on the status of the border closure and, in particular, to the certification on transshipments required under operative paragraph 5. An inability to make such a certification will have consequences. During the next 100 days we expect that Belgrade will continue to implement the measures described in the Co-Chairmen's 4 January report and move ahead on additional measures, including those I have mentioned, that are needed to ensure effective compliance with its commitment to close the border.


The United Kingdom welcomes this meeting. The Security Council is at an important point in its consideration of this issue. It is right for us to hear the views of other Members of the United Nations before we take decisions.

There are two principles which have guided us and must continue to guide us in the Council in handling Iraq. They are clearly enshrined in resolution 1352 (2001). First, it is our responsibility in the Council to prevent Iraq from posing a threat to its region and, as part of this, to ensure that Iraq is fully and verifiably disarmed of its weapons of mass destruction. Until this is the case, it is the responsibility of the Council to ensure that Iraq cannot rearm and cannot once again pose a threat to its neighbours. The second principle is as important and even more immediate: to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people and take whatever steps we can from outside to ensure that their needs are met. To this extent, we agree with the Russian Federation that the status quo is not acceptable.

These two principles are embodied in resolution 1284 (1999), which remains the comprehensive framework for the Council's approach to Iraq. This resolution instituted various steps to relieve the human suffering in Iraq. It also sets out a route forward for Iraq to the suspension and lifting of sanctions if Iraq chooses to cooperate with the United Nations in meeting its disarmament obligations. That route map remains the Council's policy and the only credible way forward; and the implementation of resolution 1284 (1999) is supported by all Council members because it will mean the end of sanctions. There is no good reason to back away from or to alter that framework, nor does the United Kingdom have any wish to do so.

If Iraq decided to cooperate with resolution 1284 (1999), we are all willing to work with them without any further delay. Let us be clear, resolution 1284 (1999) has not been implemented because Iraq has refused to implement it. That cannot be the basis for any kind of renegotiation of its terms. But if Iraq indicates a willingness to move forward, the Council will undoubtedly wish to reciprocate by fleshing out in detail the precise steps that need to be taken. To move while Iraq continues to reject the Council's position will only serve Iraq's wish to divide the Council and to avoid its international obligations. I repeat: the only route to the ending of sanctions lies through the confidence of the Security Council, living up to its responsibilities, that Iraq has disarmed in accordance with the resolutions.

We now have before us a series of proposals, set out by the United Kingdom in our draft resolution, to allow Iraq to import the full range of civilian goods without restriction. Three weeks ago, in resolution 1352 (2001), the Council agreed to spend a month examining and refining those proposals and, at the end of that month, to agree on a new set of arrangements. I emphasize that the aim was not to replace the Council's comprehensive approach in resolution 1284 (1999), but to do two things: to set in place measures to liberalize the flow of goods to Iraq and, at the same time, to examine ways to make sure that military-related items are not exported to Iraq.

These are two goals supported by the whole Council and, I am sure, by the entire United Nations membership. Resolution 1352 (2001) represented an unusual agreement in the Council on these two aims and gave hope to the wider world that we had gathered some momentum and a sense of responsibility. In agreeing on that resolution, all Council members accepted that the measures should be instituted quickly, and that a month was a reasonable target within which to agree on the new proposals in detail.

That month is nearly up. There have been intensive discussions at the expert level covering every aspect of our proposals. Differences remain. It would be naive to expect agreement on every point, but compromises have been worked out on many issues and there is now no good reason why a decision should not be taken to institute a set of arrangements to fulfil the dual purpose set out in resolution 1352 (2001). My delegation will continue to work as hard as it takes to meet that deadline.

Clearly, others are less optimistic, or less determined. We should examine their reasoning carefully. The Council now has the chance to agree upon and implement changes that will make an immediate and positive difference to the flow of civilian goods to ordinary Iraqis. Iraq is opposing these changes because it wishes to freeze the work of the Council and escape from its obligations. It has calculated that time and international inertia will be on its side. In that respect, the Council is being challenged.

Let me say in all frankness that none of us, on this issue in particular, can allow national economic self-interest to hold up positive measures for the Iraqi people. Having successfully negotiated the unanimous adoption of resolution 1352 (2001), we must collectively ensure that the two principles of that resolution are the principles which guide us now.

The new proposals contained in the British draft resolution will make an important and significant difference to the flow of goods to Iraq. From a situation where no export is allowed unless approved by the Security Council Committee established by resolution 661 (1990), we will move to a situation where every export is allowed except for a very limited range of items which must be reviewed by the 661 Committee on the basis of criteria related to their potential military use. Even for those items, there is no presumption of denial. We believe this change will bring a dramatic improvement in the flow of goods and a dramatic reduction in the level of holds. Even within that limited category of items reviewed by the Committee, we intend to allow the export of a good number if there is proper monitoring.

The current discussion of the Goods Review List, contrary to the Russian Federation's contention, is a search for clarity and therefore for ease of procedure, and not a search for broadening or tightening. We are even now constructively negotiating on the Goods Review List.

We are fully aware that in many cases sensitive items can form a key component of larger civilian projects which must be allowed to go forward if the economic infrastructure of Iraq is to be rebuilt. We want to see the ordinary civilian infrastructure reconstructed in Iraq, and our attitude to individual items reviewed by the Committee will be guided by that philosophy.

At the same time, we all have to continue to exercise our responsibility to ensure that items are not exported to Iraq that, unless closely supervised, will allow Iraq to rebuild its military capability.
Accompanying these changes, there should be a slimming down in the bureaucracy facing those who wish to export goods to Iraq or operate projects there.
Procedures will be simplified. There will be no reason why Iraq cannot import the civilian goods it needs. The funds are there, and with these proposals Iraq will have the freedom to purchase all necessary civilian items.
There is no intention in this draft resolution to harm the economic interests of neighbouring States or others doing legitimate business with Iraq. We expect to see an expansion of civilian trade, which will benefit all.
There will be no reason why Iraq cannot import a full range of civilian goods, and Iraq will have no pretext to blame the United Nations for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The new proposals will nail that false charge once and for all.

The capacity to rebuild military potential, against the rulings of the Security Council, is related to the flow of money, as well as to the flow of goods. Do not make the mistake, as some do, of confusing the Iraqi civilian economy with the economic activities of the Iraqi Government. We are all aware that Iraq continues to export oil outside the United Nations system to build up illegal revenue with which it can purchase weapons and other proscribed items. There is worrying evidence that such items continue to find their way into Iraq.
This traffic has to be controlled if the resolutions of the Council are to have their intended effect.

Our draft resolution would ask the Secretary-General to consult and cooperate with the neighbouring States to address these problems. There are also obligations on supplier countries. We are not laying blame, but each one of us must be vigilant to ensure that illegal flows are prevented.

The logic of those who argue that our proposed measures will damage or set aside the policies set out in resolution 1284 (1999) is precisely wrong. The aim of all of us is the ending of sanctions. The period December 1999 to June 2001 has seen no progress towards that objective because Iraq has preferred the continuation of sanctions, whatever the effect on the Iraqi people, to acceptance of the disarmament process set out in resolution 687 (1991) and resolution 1284 (1999). Doing nothing now will not change that. Nor will any proposal to alter the conditions of resolution 1284 (1999) change that. Adoption of our draft resolution will change the situation. There will be an immediate improvement in the lives of ordinary Iraqis, the longest-suffering victims of the situation between Iraq and Kuwait. And the course mapped out by resolution 1284 (1999) is more likely to be seen as the right one if we take steps to refocus the sanctions policy of the Council, as resolution 687 (1991)
originally intended it. That is our primary consideration in advocating these proposals: calculate the quickest route, in the light of the realities, to the ending of sanctions.

There are other steps in our draft resolution which will move the present situation forward. Iraq will be allowed to pay its United Nations dues from the escrow account. Aircraft frozen and held in other States will be allowed to return to Iraq. Steps will be taken to begin, on an independent and objective basis, to address the problem of the illegal oil surcharge levied by Iraq on purchasers of Iraqi oil. In other areas, practical work can proceed to implement decisions of the Council. For example, we have agreed, in resolution 1330 (2000), that Iraq should utilize funds from the escrow account for a so-called cash component in the oil sector. We are ready to agree to this proposal, but note with regret that Iraq continues to block the implementation of the cash component elsewhere in the Iraqi economy. This is an insupportable obstruction of a step that has been recommended by every United Nations agency and humanitarian non-governmental organization in the field, a step which these bodies believe would make a considerable difference to improving the situation of ordinary Iraqis. Yet again we question the true priorities of the Iraqi Government in blocking this improvement. Nevertheless, the oil cash component should go forward, on a basis whereby funds cannot be diverted for illegal use.

The United Kingdom has put forward these proposals in good faith within the overall framework of resolution 1284 (1999), in response to calls made by many in the international community to alleviate the plight of the Iraqi people. The principles of the approach were unanimously endorsed by the Security Council through resolution 1352 (2001). We would find it unaccountable for the Council, or any member of the Council, not to move forward on the basis of those principles. The risk is that if we do not act now, the Security Council may never be in a position to act.
There is therefore every reason for the Council to put into practice now the approach we set out in resolution 1352 (2001).


Allow me, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council, and to express our sincere appreciation to the representative of Jamaica for her excellent stewardship of the Security Council during the month of November.

The past two weeks have seen an incredible escalation of Palestinian terrorism against Israel which is unparalleled in more than 14 months of violence.
Though one would never know it from the draft resolution before the Council, surely we are all aware of the devastating triple bombing that occurred on 1 December in a crowded pedestrian mall in the heart of Jerusalem, claiming the lives of 11 Israelis, all between the ages of 14 and 20, and wounding nearly 200 others.
Barely 12 hours after that attack, a Palestinian suicide terrorist, with more than 10 kilograms of explosives strapped to his body, blew up a public bus in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, killing 15 civilians and wounding 38 others, several of them seriously. That same morning, an Israeli professor was shot and killed, and several others were wounded, by two Palestinian terrorists disguised as Israeli soldiers.

Three days later, a Palestinian terrorist blew himself up on a side street in Jerusalem, wounding two people at a nearby bus stop. Four days later, more than 40 civilians were wounded when a Palestinian suicide terrorist detonated his charges in the northern city of Haifa. Later that same day, Palestinian terrorists shot and seriously wounded an Israeli civilian after his car was ambushed near the village of Na'aleh.
The following day, Palestinian terrorists fired mortar shells into the community of Gush Katif, wounding a 3-year-old boy and his 4-year-old sister.
This past Wednesday evening, Palestinian terrorists struck again when a public bus was ambushed near the community of Emmanuel. Two roadside bombs were detonated, and several terrorists opened fire, with automatic rifles and anti-tank grenades, on passengers as they fled the vehicle, as well as on ambulances, rescue workers and medical personnel who arrived at the scene. Ten Israelis were killed in that attack, and approximately 30 others were wounded. At almost precisely the same moment, Palestinian suicide bombers attacked two Israeli vehicles near the community of Neve Dekalim, wounding the four occupants.

The list goes on and on. Palestinian terrorism continues even as we speak, despite the insistence of the international community that Chairman Arafat fulfil his responsibility to fight terrorism. Even a cursory analysis of the events of the past 14 days indicates that Chairman Arafat has abjectly failed to do so.

The terrorism that has afflicted Israeli civilians is part and parcel of the fundamentalist terrorism that is now the focus of the comprehensive international campaign aimed at its eradication. The same rejectionist ideologies that have imperilled the safety and security of Israelis for decades are finally being recognized as a clear and present danger to the world order. This danger emerges from the fanatical mindset that justifies any and all means to achieve its ends. It makes no distinction among its targets. It is remorseless and unforgiving in its brutality and must be condemned and fought unequivocally, without reservations, without hesitation and without fear.

Unfortunately, there are those who refuse to acknowledge that Palestinians who target innocent Israelis are, in fact, terrorists. They refer to the so-called cycle of violence, to the poverty and despair of the Palestinian population, and even bestow the noble title of"freedom fighter" on those who kill children.

This notion is as repulsive as it is mistaken. There is no cycle of violence in the Middle East in the manner in which that term is usually understood. There is no equivalent between those who perpetrate terror and those who fight it.

For Israel, every death of a civilian is a tragic consequence in a conflict in which civilians have been used by terrorists as human shields. For the Palestinian terrorists, however, civilians are the target, and each civilian casualty is the benchmark of a successful operation.

Israel recognizes, and has repeatedly expressed its sympathy for, the unfortunate deaths of Palestinian civilians and for the Palestinian populations that must endure the precautionary security measures foisted upon Israel by the inaction of the Palestinian leadership. But while Israel considers the death of any civilian, whether Israeli or Palestinian, to be tragic, for the Palestinian terrorist, these deaths are deliberate, premeditated and desired.

For Palestinian terrorists, every Israeli casualty is a matter of pride, a religious obligation and an occasion for celebration. Palestinian terrorists routinely produce videotapes prior to embarking on a murderous rampage in which they speak with evident pleasure of their desire to kill as many men, women and children as possible. These videos are virtually indistinguishable from that of another notorious terrorist, who, in a videotape with which we are all by now familiar, rejoiced over the murders of thousands of Americans in New York; Washington, DC; and Pennsylvania.

When Mr. Arafat announced his historic decision, in September 1993, to part ways with his terrorist past, he showed no confusion over who was a terrorist. He demonstrated a perfectly clear understanding of the fact that the murders he himself had orchestrated in the name of the Palestine Liberation Organization were the very terrorist tactics that he was renouncing.
Increasingly, however, we now hear representatives of the Palestinian Authority and others attempt to justify the unjustifiable and to distinguish between one kind of terror and another, as evidenced by their conspicuous refusal to employ the term "terrorism" when referring to attacks on Israeli civilians. But if Palestinian terrorism is truly a legitimate method of liberation, why, then, did Chairman Arafat even make a pretence, back in 1993, of rejecting it? And if it is not, then on what basis is Israel to be condemned for taking action to prevent it? We must be clear. There is no cause so just, no grievance so severe, no objective so noble that it can justify killing innocent civilians. Terrorism must be defined by what one does, not by what one does it for.
By refusing to condemn terrorist murder whenever and wherever it exists, we only empower extremists. We legitimize those who seek to achieve their goals through violence and terror at the expense of leaders willing to resolve disputes through peaceful dialogue. If the international community tolerates any act of terrorism, if it turns a blind eye to it, it renders irrelevant the very methods it has championed for the peaceful resolution of disputes.

In the Palestinian case, the grievance that is cited is that of occupation, and the objective ascribed to the terrorist murderers is that of liberation. Yet even if one were to accept the ludicrous notion that occupation is a legitimate basis for killing innocent civilians, the Palestinians still would not qualify. The Palestinians have sought to portray Israeli occupation as an outgrowth of a type of colonial quest for power and domination over another people. And yet the historical record demonstrably asserts the contrary.

Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza was the result of a war in which Israel's very existence was threatened by the combined armies of several Arab nations. The hostilities of 1967 were a war imposed upon Israel, not a war undertaken in order to conquer new territory and subjugate its people. The Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza is a result not of Israeli aggression, but of Israeli self-defence.

More recently, Israel has transferred sufficient territory to the Palestinians that now the overwhelming majority of Palestinians live under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. In July 2000, at the Camp David Summit, Israel was prepared to go even further, extending an offer that would have transferred virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, an offer that numerous observers have described as fair and generous. The Palestinians not only spurned that offer, they launched a terrorist war that continues to this very day.

Surely the tired notion that occupation is the root of this conflict cannot withstand the forces of history and common sense. And even more surely, it in no way justifies the unconscionable murders of innocent Israeli civilians.

What we are witnessing today in the Middle East is the continuation of a struggle begun not in 1967, but in 1948, when members of the League of Arab States collectively rejected General Assembly partition resolution 181 (II) and launched a war to eliminate the Jewish State. Every day that terrorism threatens civilians simply because they are Israeli; every day that the Jewish right to self-determination is equated with racism; every day that Palestinian incitement encourages hatred of the Jewish people, Israelis become further convinced that this is a conflict not about occupation, but about our legitimacy and our right to exist.

The obstacle to peace in the Middle East is not occupation - an occupation that Israel never wanted and that it has gone to great lengths to bring to an end.
The primary obstacle to peace and to a negotiated settlement between our peoples is the continuing murder of civilians and the abhorrent attempts to justify those murders by the Palestinian leadership.
There is absolutely no alternative to the immediate arrest of Palestinian terrorists, the dismantling of their infrastructure and putting an end to officially sanctioned incitement and demonization.

Israel had hoped that the mounting international pressure on Mr. Arafat would finally mobilize him to act. We were cautiously optimistic that, following the carnage in Jerusalem and Haifa, he had finally been made to realize that the only hope for his people and the survival of his leadership was to act, and to act quickly.

Unfortunately, reports today indicate that Mr.
Arafat has officially suspended his campaign against terrorists - if it ever really existed to begin with. By this statement, Mr. Arafat has made it clear that he has no intention of ending the violence, taking action against terrorists or bringing himself into accord with the will of the international community, the principles of international law and the standards of international legitimacy. It further substantiates the fact that, while the Palestinians claim to have made a strategic choice for peace, they have made a tactical choice for terrorism. By his statement and his pattern of action -or, more precisely, his inaction - Mr. Arafat is reinforcing his reputation as an unworthy and unreliable leader who is leading his people to yet another catastrophe.

I will not deny that the situation we are facing is as bleak as it is dangerous. But all is not lost. There is an ever-diminishing window of opportunity for us to reverse the descent into hopeless violence if the Council acts prudently today. Unfortunately, the draft resolution before us does not further that objective.
While serious international efforts are under way to bring an end to the Palestinian terrorist campaign, a draft resolution which fails to recognize that terror as the primary obstacle to peace and security in the region sends a misleading and dangerous message. At a time when Israeli civilians are being continuously targeted, the failure to condemn such actions and call in clear terms for Palestinian leadership to combat that terror, as it is morally and legally obligated to do, amounts to a reward for violence and an indirect endorsement of the inaction of the Palestinian Authority.

After all that has passed, is this draft resolution really the message the Council wants to send? Does the carnage of the past 14 months not deserve more than the cursory mention of terrorism? It is my hope that Council members will find it within themselves to deal honestly with the situation before us. But as it stands, the draft is unbalanced and counterproductive and, quite frankly, out of touch with the reality in the region, in which innocent Israeli civilians are being targeted day after day, precisely because they are innocent. As it stands, the draft resolution cannot help the parties return to the negotiating table, which is the only place - as the parties themselves have acknowledged - where outstanding issues can be resolved.

Israel is as committed to combating terrorism as it is to the pursuit of peace through a process of dialogue, negotiation and reconciliation with our Palestinian neighbours. We are committed to the implementation of the Mitchell report, which calls first and foremost for a complete and unconditional cessation of violence; we are committed to implementing the confidence-building measures detailed in the Mitchell report; and we are committed to engaging once again in substantial peace negotiations with the Palestinians aimed at achieving a just and lasting resolution to the conflict between our peoples, on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).

But we cannot do it alone. We cannot take actions towards these ends while our citizens are being gunned down at will. We cannot take action without reciprocal Palestinian action. We cannot be the lone voice calling for peace and reconciliation while terror, hatred and incitement continue to emanate from the other side.

We call upon the Palestinian people to end the litany of historic opportunities missed by their leader and to join us in the historic endeavour to reaffirm, not just in word but also in deed, their commitment to non-violence and direct bilateral negotiations. In this way, and only in this way, can we clear the path for negotiations and finally put to rest the tragic and painful conflict that both peoples have endured for so long.

Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question


I wish to thank Malaysia and the co-authors of the draft resolution and to welcome the Ministers who are honouring us with their presence today.

We deeply deplore the defeat of the draft resolution on the establishment of an international tribunal to prosecute persons responsible for the downing of Flight MH-l7. France supported this major initiative from the beginning.

The creation of the ad hoc tribunal formed a part of the fight against impunity, one of the Security Council's priorities. Today we are once again witnessing the calling into question of one of the Council's major areas of action, one that had until now found consensus among its members. The initiative was also part of the implementation of resolution 2166 (2014), adopted on 21 July 2014 by the Security Council, demanding that those responsible for the tragedy be held accountable for their actions.

Resolution 2166 (2014) marked the unity of the Council in condemning that heinous act. It was also a milestone in clarifying the tragedy, finding those responsible and the demands ofjustice. The provisions of the draft resolution are by no means revoked by the fact that the draft was rejected today. Make no mistake, the call will continue for the whole truth behind this tragedy to be known, for those responsible to be prosecuted and for justice to be done. The Joint Investigation Team, with which the United Nations is associated through the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and whose impartiality the United Nations recognizes, must continue its work. We owe it to the victims, who are vividly remembered.

It is deeply shocking that one year after the disaster, in which, let us recall, 298 innocent civilians perished, the Council is unable to respond to the terrible anguish and concerns of entire nations, as evidenced by the presence here today of several Government representatives of the countries concerned. We therefore deeply regret Russia's veto.

Today's vote represents a serious failure for the Council. We must take note of this, but we do not have the right to stop working. We owe it to each of the victims of this tragedy. We owe it to the quest for truth.
And we owe it to the values of the United Nations, which must unite us. It is in that spirit that we will soon be called on to continue our work on the follow-up to the international inquiry, which will shortly submit its findings.

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)


First of all, Sir, I should like to extend our sincere congratulations to you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month and to wish you success in your activities. We would also express our gratitude to the previous President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Rwanda, for his efforts directed at the cost-effective work of the Council.

It is an honour and great pleasure for us to see here present the new members of the Security Council. We believe that their contribution to the work of the Council will be important and valuable.

On behalf of the Government of the Republic of Georgia and in the personal name of its Head of State, Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze, allow me to express our deepest appreciation to the United Nations, to its Security Council and especially to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and his Special Envoy, Ambassador Edouard Brunner, for the attention and goodwill they have accorded to the process under way in my country.

The resolutions on Georgia adopted by the Security Council and the recent Visit of the Secretary-General to the region have made clear to the world community the importance that the family of nations attaches to the comprehensive settlement of the protracted conflict in Abkhazia.

I should like to express my sincere gratitude to the members of the group of countries known as 'Friends of Georgia' and to the Russian Federation, as facilitator, for their efforts to bring about a peaceful settlement of the dispute.

I should also like to underscore the joint activities being carried out by the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG) and the peace-keeping forces of the Commonwealth of Independent States to monitor the cease-fire and ensure the safe return of thousands of homeless, which is being organized by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

It has been more than a year now since negotiations began in Geneva. My Government remains fully committed to the peace process initiated by the United Nations and has complied with all the documents adopted by the Security Council and the Quadripartite Commission.

Bearing in mind the importance of reaching a negotiated settlement of the dispute, Georgia is fully cooperating with the United Nations and has taken realistic, practical steps to reach a compromise.

  In a futile attempt to accelerate the peace process, in September 1994 Georgia's Head of State Visited the zone of conflict and negotiated with the leader of the Abkhaz side. Unfortunately, the Abkhaz leadership is constantly violating Security Council resolutions and seeking to evade, ignore and negotiate away its obligations. Its intransigence reached its pinnacle when the separatists unilaterally adopted a new constitution on 26 November 1994 and declared Abkhazia a subject of international law, thus damaging the peace process almost beyond repair. We are gratified that the Security Council immediately condemned this unilateral decision and once again reaffirmed the territorial integrity of Georgia.

As I mentioned earlier, a year has passed since the negotiations opened in Geneva, but no arrangements have yet been made for the return of the more than 250,000 refugees and displaced persons to their homes. The Abkhaz side is doing its utmost to prevent the return of those who have been forcibly expelled, even terrorizing the few still remaining in the Gali and other districts of Abkhazia. The decision of the Security Council that the refugees and displaced persons should be allowed to return to their homes is being effectively disregarded and ignored.

Although the Security Council has condemned any attempt to change the demographic composition of Abkhazia, the region is still being settled with people of so-called Abkhaz origin - in fact mercenaries, who, as a reward, are given the houses of Georgians free of charge.

The current plight of the refugees, who are scattered throughout Georgia, is ruinously affecting its already devastated economy. Despite intensive humanitarian assistance from the international community, Georgia is experiencing, in the face of the cold winter, severe shortages of food, fuel and medicine.

Speaking of the present situation in Georgia, I would presume to remind the Security Council of the prediction that Mr. Eduard Shevardnadze made in his speech before the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. He warned at that time against the danger of aggressive separatism under the guise of the ideals of self-determination, and he urged the international community to take all necessary measures to keep at bay this new trend, running counter to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and jeopardizing the lives of thousands of innocent people.

My President also expressed the fear that in the Caucasus 'as nowhere else is the danger so great that the existing internal conflicts will merge with the ones in neighbouring States and grow into regional or even continental wars fought along national or religious lines'. (Ofiicial Records of the General Assembly, F arty-seventh Session, Plenary Meetings, 12th meeting, p. 28-30) Unfortunately, in the light of current events this ominous prediction is becoming ever more realistic and imminent.

Under the circumstances, the Government of the Republic of Georgia would welcome a decision by the Security Council to extend the mandate of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia, for we believe that the United Nations presence in the region will greatly contribute to its stability and to the peace process as a whole.


The Russian Federation proposed the convening of today's meeting in this open format, with the participation of all interested States, in order to consider ways of improving the humanitarian situation in Iraq under the devastating sanctions that have been in place for so many years, as well as the question of a comprehensive post-conflict settlement in the Gulf region on the basis of relevant Security Council resolutions.

Resolution 1352 (2001) of 1 June clearly defined the main goal of possible changes in the Iraqi humanitarian programme: facilitating trade and economic ties between Iraq and the rest of the world.
Accordingly, we participated in work on various possible ways of improving the humanitarian operation and very seriously considered all the various proposals made, including the draft resolution submitted by the United Kingdom.

I must say frankly that the deeper we get into the details of proposed changes in the sanctions regime, the more our doubts grow as to the feasibility of the concept enshrined in that draft and its political viability vis-a-Vis the prospects for a lasting settlement in Iraq.
One basic element is that the system proposed in the draft resolution leads us away from the task of full implementation of Security Council resolutions on Iraq and basically requires the freezing of the current situation, in which sanctions are preserved with unacceptable consequences for the people and economy of Iraq and no progress is made on disarmament. Specifically, the key elements of the United Kingdom draft appear to lead not to easing the very harsh economic situation of Iraq, but rather to tightening the sanctions.

Many questions are raised by the authors'
proposal of a "goods review list" for deliveries to Iraq.
Until recently, the Security Council proceeded on the premise that, in order to ensure that Iraq did not resume its programme of weapons of mass destruction, it was quite sufficient to have the so-called "1051 list", including in the post-sanctions period. That list is already in effect and a procedure in place for its regular review. Such a review has just been carried out by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and the revised list requires further study. In any event, we believe that the list will continue to be applied on the basis of resolution 1051 (1996).

It is now being said that the authors of the new concept regard the "1051 list" as inadequate. They want to include in their "goods review list" goods from the so-called Wassenaar Arrangements. Those Arrangements, however, which bring together a limited group of countries on a voluntary basis, are already being applied in practice, inter alia, in respect of Iraq.
Giving those Arrangements a "sanctions status" under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations would have very serious legal and political consequences.

Above and beyond the Wassenaar Arrangements, a third part is being proposed for this "goods review list", in which there would be a list of additional products also subject to monitoring for delivery into Iraq. Included in this third category are goods defined in such a way that it would be possible, via very vague procedures for considering contracts, to block projects that are essential to the recovery of the energy, oil, industrial and other areas of Iraq's economy. An analysis demonstrates that this list of goods would not be broader, but would be rather more prohibitive. Its approval could undermine prospects for the industrial development of Iraq.

The draft resolution contains nothing investment or economic projects f and not only infrastructure projects - which runs contrary to resolution 1352 (2001) in respect of facilitating economic ties with Iraq. There is also total silence concerning the fate of the Memorandum of Understanding between Iraq and the United Nations, on which the humanitarian programme has been based to date. It would therefore appear that this new scheme is to be introduced without Baghdad's consent, and that is utterly unrealistic.
Moreover, it is contrary to the decisions of the Council concerning the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq.

Overall, the concept that has been put together changes the very essence of the humanitarian programme of the United Nations, politicizes it and makes it and UNMOVIC into an instrument for applying sanctions pressure. Attempts to use the humanitarian operation to resolve tasks unrelated to it would bury all hope for a resumption of ongoing disarmament monitoring in Iraq and the legal lifting of the anti-Iraq sanctions, pursuant to Security Council decisions.

The perpetuation of sanctions can make the situation in the Gulf much worse. Given the conditions of the crisis in the Middle East, this would raise regional tension to a qualitatively new level of danger.
Neighbouring States of Iraq and other States of the region already see this new concept as a threat to their new socio-economic and political stability. We are also concerned that, as a result of introducing these so-called "smart" sanctions, serious damage could be done to the legitimate trade and economic interests of many countries, including Russia.

We feel that the adoption of the proposed draft resolution on smart sanctions would be detrimental to averting the humanitarian catastrophe, devastate the Iraqi economy and work against a post-conflict settlement in the Gulf region.

Taking account of all these factors, we cannot agree to this draft resolution, which seems unadoptable. This certainly does not mean that Russia is not prepared to discuss further questions of how the humanitarian operation functions. However, such a discussion must not be politicized and must be geared towards reaching agreement on measures that would genuinely improve the humanitarian programme in order to undertake tasks that are truly humanitarian.

At the same time, Russia feels that we must delay no longer the resumption of Security Council work on a comprehensive settlement of the Iraqi problem.
Everyone knows that this work was interrupted because of the hasty adoption of resolution 1284 (1999), which contained too many gaps and too much ambiguity that made the resolution not implementable in its current form. Since then, we have consistently advocated creating the necessary conditions and mechanisms for implementing the resolution, but some States members of the Security Council did not want that. The deadlock that has arisen as a result made us unable to implement the Secretary-General's initiative concerning a comprehensive dialogue between the United Nations and Iraq on all pending problems.

We regard the status quo as unacceptable, so today we have introduced a specific proposal that contains clear criteria for suspending and then lifting sanctions that are tied to the deployment in Iraq of the ongoing monitoring and verification system on the basis of implementation of existing resolutions of the Security Council. We are convinced that there is simply no alternative to this comprehensive approach if we all want to achieve a lasting settlement around Iraq and in the entire Gulf region that is strictly in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations.


I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the members of the Security Council for their overwhelming support of the draft resolution contained in document S/2104/l89, as well as for their support in trying to resolve the crisis by diplomatic and political means.

I would like to thank all the sponsors of the draft resolution for their support. In this difficult time for my country, we really need their support, and I want to assure them that it is highly appreciated by the people of Ukraine.

I would like to particularly thank the Member States who are the guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum who supported Ukraine - the United States, the United Kingdom, France and China - and who several times spoke in favour of territorial integrity. It is awful that the other one, the fifth guarantor, the Russian Federation, violated its own obligations.

All the appeals by the united membership to the wisdom of the Russian leadership were not successful.
I received a call 40 minutes ago as we were discussing the crisis in Crimea, Ukraine. Members noticed that somebody called me. Russian troops entered the mainland from the south, from Crimea. Now we are facing a new development and we are to face an even more dangerous stance of the Russian Federation.

I appeal to all Council members to find the means and measures in the Security Council and the United Nations, as well as at the bilateral level, to do the utmost possible to stop the aggressor, the Russian delegation, present in the Chamber.

For us it is no surprise that Russia has vetoed today's draft resolution. For that permanent member of the Council, it has become the custom to veto any measure aimed at maintaining international peace and security.

We remember the vetoes of draft resolutions on peacekeeping missions in Syria, which brought about thousands and thousands of deaths. I am confident that when Council members gather together next week with Ambassador Tanin to speak about the reform of the Security Council, the issue of the right of the veto will be discussed. Two cases, Syria and Crimea, will certainly be considered as examples of the behaviour of a permanent member of the Council when peace is needed.

(spoke in Russian) The representative of the Russian Federation has stated many times in this Chamber that Russia's right of the veto was gained through the blood of the Second World War. I would like to recall that it was the collective bloodshed of Ukrainians, Belarusians and Georgians. To manipulate the issue of the bloodshed is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, it is a manipulation of the right of the veto before the new blood on one's hands. Previously it was Georgian blood - now it is Ukrainian. I believe that such chaos should end now.

Today I take an optimistic View of the situation.
Why so? Because I am convinced that the statement made by the Russian representative expressed not the voice of the Russian Federation, but rather the voice of the Soviet Union. The genuine voice of Russia today can be heard on the streets and squares of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara and Yekaterinburg, where thousands and thousands of people have gone to express their support and desire to protect Ukraine and its territorial integrity. That represents the democratic future of Russia and the basis on which we will build our fraternal ties.

Today the question of how to stop the aggressor concerns all of us. It involves the loss of the entire system of values established over the years through the untiring efforts of Member States towards a collective security system and non-proliferation.

(spoke in English) I am confident that today the entire United Nations family demonstrated its unity. Tragic and dramatic events in Ukraine have united all of us. We must demonstrate that we are capable of protecting the United Nations system and the global security system through a new approach. I am absolutely confident that we will be able to do that.


For four and a halfyears Ihave had the honour to serve on the Security Council. And for four and a half years I have had the honour of working with the representative of the Russian Federation. In that time, I have heard the representative of the Russian Federation invoke whenever possible the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country. As soon as we talk about human rights in a given country, the representative of the Russian Federation says that there should be absolutely no interference in the domestic affairs of another country.
I have just heard a statement that is nothing more than pure interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine. I am sorry to have to recall that there should be some sort of coherence in the foreign policies that we should be aspiring to. Everything that the representative of the Russian Federation has just said is interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine.

Secondly, the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation has told us that the decision for the Russian armed forces to enter Ukraine has not yet been taken. Please, everyone knows that the Russian army is controlling the Republic of Crimea. That is a fact. Of course they had no need to enter Ukraine, since they were already were there. At this hour, the Russian army is occupying Ukraine. That is a fact. The Internet and television do exist, and Russian soldiers are not even hiding the fact that they are occupying Ukraine and surrounding the army bases of the Ukrainian army.

Thirdly, there is a long-standing habit of always calling one's opponent a Nazi before getting rid of him. The Soviets were good at that. No - not all the demonstrators who were in the streets in Kyiv were Nazis, and for the most part they were not from the far right or radical nationalists. If members of the Council need evidence ofthat, it is quite simple. Elections can be held on 25 May under international supervision - for example, under the supervision of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Let the Ukrainians vote. They will decide, under OSCE monitoring, what future they want.

Finally, I am very touched by the Russian Federation's attachment to the 21 February agreement, which the Russian Federation had previously rejected. 1 repeat - it is an agreement that the Russian Federation had refused to endorse and that it now invokes incessantly. It is better to find the path of wisdom late than never.


My delegation thanks Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson and Assistant Secretary-General Simonovie for their updates on the recent developments in Ukraine. From the outset, we with to reiterate the Deputy Secretary-General's observation that the door for dialogue to resolve the crisis in Ukraine is still open, not closed. We hope that all of the parties involved and concerned will take advantage of that.

This is the eighth time in three weeks that the Security Council has met on the situation in Ukraine.
This underscores the seriousness with which the Council views the matter and its commitment to addressing issues related to international peace and security. Nigeria has consistently highlighted and stressed the need for dialogue, especially between the parties directly concerned, and for mediation by the rest of the international community to ensure that the situation in Ukraine is resolved peacefully.

We reaffirm our earlier warning that the world has too many challenges to international peace and security to contemplate adding another layer to existing ones.
All peaceful means, including mediation, arbitration and dialogue, must be explored and used to the hilt by the parties concerned. Further escalation of the situation with hurtful rhetoric would only leave to grave consequences, including military confrontation, which the world can ill afford, especially when nuclear-weapon States are involved. The world would therefore not want to see any further deterioration in the situation as this could have grave implications, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire region and beyond. The Deputy Secretary-General's report was clear on that point.

With regard to the human rights situation in Ukraine, we welcome the deployment by Assistant Secretary-General Simonovie of a United Nations monitoring team throughout the country to establish the truth or otherwise or alleged human rights violations.
Nigeria once again urges all parties to embrace dialogue and negotiation, and to seek a peaceful resolution to the crisis. We call on all concerned to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in line with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.


My delegation is very pleased to have this opportunity to hear, in open format in the Council, the views and concerns of so many delegations on this issue of such importance to us all.
The Irish Government has consistently made clear its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Iraq.
When comprehensive economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq by resolution 661 (1990), almost 11 years ago, it was not anticipated that they could possibly last so long.

When they were reaffirmed by resolution 687 (1991), the conditions for their suspension were clearly established. That they have still not been fulfilled 10 years on, even as modified by resolution 1284 (1999), is a matter of utmost regret to the Irish Government. It is regrettable because without their fulfilment, the objective of restoring international peace and security in the region cannot be considered to have been achieved. It is regrettable also because of the effect that the long-term comprehensive economic sanctions have had on the people of Iraq, most of whom had nothing whatever to do with the decisions taken by the Iraqi authorities that led to the imposition of sanctions.

The international community and the Security Council, acting on its behalf in the area of international peace and security, have a responsibility to ensure that the measures they adopt do not prevent the people of the country under sanctions from obtaining the necessities of life. That was acknowledged in resolution 661 (1990) itself, which permitted the supply of medicines, and of foodstuffs in humanitarian circumstances. Because it was realized pragmatically that the disarmament process would require some time, the Council, in resolution 687 (1991), calibrated the sanctions regime established by resolution 661 (1990), lifting the prohibitions on foodstuffs, and establishing a no-objection procedure for essential civilian needs.

That process was continued in resolution 986 (1995), with the establishment of the oil-for-food programme. It was developed further in successive resolutions, including in resolution 1284 (1999), which lifted the cap on the amount of oil that Iraq can sell.

The arrangements envisaged in resolution 1352 (2001), therefore, do not represent anything radically new. The Council has for a considerable time recognized that the longer the sanctions continue, the more the sanctions regime must be adjusted in the interests of the people of Iraq and concentrated more and more on their primary objective.

It is now time to take a further step, and to acknowledge the need, after 11 years of sanctions, to allow the people of Iraq to recover their national economy and life, while maintaining the controls necessary to ensure that the Government of Iraq does not further develop weapons of mass destruction and does not acquire the means of again threatening Iraq's neighbours, pending the fulfilment of its disarmament obligations in line with the Council's resolutions.

My delegation considers the approach now envisaged on the basis of resolution 1352 (2001) to be a promising one that would improve significantly the flow of commodities and products to Iraq, while maintaining the necessary controls.

However, the development and prosperity of a people do not depend solely on the supply of commodities. They also depend on modern infrastructure - roads, railways, telecommunications, medical facilities, water and sanitation systems. We must ensure that nothing in the measures that we adopt, or in the way we apply these measures, prevents the development of Iraq's normal economic infrastructure.
In this context, it is important that the list of goods that would be reserved for review by the Iraq sanctions committee under the envisaged system is as short and as precise as possible. Furthermore, any contract containing an item on the list must be carefully reviewed from the point of view of its overall economic and infrastructural importance.

The new arrangements that the Council envisages are intended, in the words of resolution 1352 (2001), for the facilitation of civilian trade and economic cooperation with Iraq in civilian sectors. Before the Gulf War, Iraq had vigorous international economic relationships, and international service contracts were important in many sectors of Iraq's economic life. Such contracts should again be permitted and appropriate arrangements made for authenticating them and for paying for them from the escrow account.

However, the people of Iraq will never achieve the level of development and prosperity to which the natural wealth of their country entitles them without access to foreign investment. The longer they must do without the resources and expertise that foreign investment can make available, the longer development in real terms will be put off.

None of this is to deny the responsibility of the Iraqi authorities to take the steps clearly open to them to secure their people's future. In particular, they must devote the necessary priority to the education and health sectors. The neglect of these sectors can not be laid fully, or even mainly, at the door of the sanctions regime. Every administration has the primary domestic responsibility for these sectors, and citing the sanctions regime as an excuse is not a posture that impresses the international community.

My delegation has no interest whatever in the perpetuation of sanctions. We are committed at any time to act on the suspension and lifting of sanctions on Iraq to the extent that the necessary conditions are fulfilled. We can perhaps consider these conditions, but the Iraqi authorities also have a big step to take in the direction of the Security Council. When they are prepared to take that step, we will be ready. In the interim, however, we have a duty to the people of Iraq.
The strong sense of that duty underpins our approach to the draft resolution under consideration and our approach to the detailed work in the area of reserved goods lists.