Three months ago, the Council unanimously adopted resolution 1441 (2002). Syria joined the consensus after receiving assurances and clarifications that voting in favour of the draft resolution meant proceeding seriously towards a peaceful resolution of the issue of the disarmament of Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and that it would not be used as a pretext for waging war against Iraq.

A moment ago, Mr. Blix and Mr. ElBaradei presented their reports and noted the progress made in the period that has elapsed since they made their last reports to the Council. This means that in only two weeks substantial progress has been made in the work of the inspectors. The progress reached its peak today when Iraq approved a law prohibiting weapons of mass destruction. That progress proves that the inspections are leading to significant results through dialogue, cooperation and mutual trust between the inspectors and Iraq. Therefore, the Council must continue to support the inspectors and allow them sufficient time to undertake their task as set out in resolution 1441 (2002).

Our region stands at a grave crossroads, teetering between war and peace. Our region has suffered tremendously from the scourge of many wars, and it continues to this very day to suffer a racist policy directed against the defenceless Palestinian people, a policy based on occupation and settlement and bent on destroying man and nature alike.

Since 1973, we have been counselled to adopt policies to pursue a peaceful settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to normalize relations with Israel and to cooperate with it in various areas. This is despite the fact that Israel, first, continues to occupy Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese territories, to build settlements in them and to threaten its neighbours.
Secondly, Israel continues to possess all types of weapons of mass destruction; it is in exclusive possession of nuclear weapons and rejects all international supervision and inspections, unlike the States of the Middle East that have accepted such international supervision and inspections. Thirdly, Israel continues to defy all relevant United Nations resolutions - more than 500 of them, 31 of which were adopted by the Security Council. Israel refuses to recognize an independent Palestinian State, as endorsed by the international community, including the United States of America. Even when the United States of America voted in favour of those resolutions, they remained a dead letter - or as we say in Arabic: ink on paper. The ink has faded of late and the paper has turned yellow. And miraculously, Mr. Sharon has become a "man of peace".

Against that backdrop, allow me to ask, where does today's Iraq stand? Has Iraq not recognized the State of Kuwait and its international borders, which were demarcated by the Security Council? Were not no-flight zones imposed on Iraq in the northern and southern parts of the country without any legal basis that could justify such a ban? Has Iraq not unconditionally and unreservedly opened its doors to the inspectors? Has it not cooperated with them positively, while Israel rejects any form of inspection of its nuclear facilities? Against that paradoxical backdrop, are we not justified in wondering whether such policies indicate double standards? Or perhaps we should realize that the real danger lies in the fact that those policies are deliberately designed to put Iraq and Palestine, in particular, and the Arabs and Muslims, in general, in a difficult position and to jeopardize their present and their future? Will not such policies have an impact on the vital interests of the world at large? We are in favour of a peaceful solution to the question of Iraq. Common sense dictates that there is no alternative to such a solution. As Iraq's neighbour, and having considerable experience with current events in our area, we understand better than anyone else that this would be the first war in the Middle East region to be unanimously rejected by Arabs. And the great majority of the people of the world say no to this war.

This war will have grave consequences for the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq and its people. It will spill over to the entire region. The war will lead to total anarchy and will benefit only those whose aim is to spread fear and destruction everywhere. Those who are beating the drums of war make no secret of their goal, which is not to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Rather, they have a hidden agenda that they seek to implement throughout the entire region. The prelude to that agenda is the war against Iraq. Had they really sought the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction they would have done so by supporting the work of the inspectors and by granting them enough time to accomplish their task.

We support a peaceful settlement of the question of Iraq because we believe that the option of war would erode the international coalition against terrorism. The first signs of that erosion have already appeared, in the Afghan theatre. We will spare the Council any details, with which we assume members are all too familiar.
Simply thinking that war is an option open to the Security Council is in itself proof both of the Council's failure to carry out its task and of the failure of the entire international order. In these circumstances, we believe that there is no alternative to respecting the Charter of the United Nations and using its institutions to safeguard world peace, security and prosperity, instead of poising the world on the edge of a volcano for many long months.

The efforts of prominent members of the Security Council to stress the need to pursue a peaceful solution in implementing Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) give us hope that the world order is still in good shape. In that context, we recognize the French, German, Russian and Chinese efforts, as well as those of the majority of other members of the Security Council, that are fully devoted to the promotion of the United Nations, its Charter and its central role. We should all appreciate those efforts.

We have considered the French proposal to strengthen the work of the inspectors. The inspections have brought considerable achievements that could not be attained by military force. Therefore, we support the French ideas because they provide an alternative to war. They constitute a basis for strengthening the inspections regime in order to enable it to complete as soon as possible the task entrusted to it. The fulfilment of this task will immediately lead to the lifting, through appropriate measures, of the sanctions imposed on Iraq under Security Council resolution 687 (1990). It would also lead to activation of paragraph 14 of that resolution, which would designate the Middle East as a zone free from all weapons of mass destruction: nuclear, biological-bacteriological and chemical, without excepting any State, including Israel, which alone has acquired all of those lethal weapons.

In conclusion, this is truly a historic moment. War in the twenty-first century is not a game. It has become a tragedy condemned by history. Let us work for peace, because we can achieve peace if we pursue it in good faith, with strong determination and with the political will. These requirements are readily available to those who are faithful to the United Nations Charter, a charter which, when all is said and done, remains the sole authority capable of maintaining world peace and security.


I, too, would like to thank Mr. Kouchner for his briefing and to make the following points regarding the main subject of today's meeting and the central event of the past few weeks in Kosovo, the holding of municipal elections.

First, we share the view of the Secretary-General expressed on 30 October that the municipal elections of 28 October in the province constitute a landmark in Kosovo's democratic development. Despite certain doubts and questions raised at the stage of the preparation of the elections, their conduct and outcome proved that it was a significant event. We were satisfied to learn that the elections were carried out in a calm and peaceful atmosphere, with an insignificant number of incidents, intimidation and with few procedural violations.

In our view, the people of Kosovo, who demonstrated a very high turnout, should be congratulated for their political maturity and consciousness in discharging their civic duty.

We acknowledge the key role of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and particularly its Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) pillar, in carrying out these municipal elections, and we pay tribute to the efforts of its personnel. Holding the elections indeed marked the completion of one of the most significant periods in UNMIK's activities.

Still, the most regrettable thing about the municipal elections of 28 October was the boycott on the part of most Serbs and Turks. This fact really cast a shadow over the general success. We are fully aware of UNMIK's intention to co-opt Serb and other communities' representatives through appointment by the Special Representative to those municipalities where they constitute the vast majority of the population, such as in the areas of Leposavic, Zubin Potok and Zvecan. This intention is welcome.
However, we have a question for Mr. Kouchner in this regard. What is the attitude of the Serbs and the Albanians themselves towards this idea of co-opting Serbs through such appointments and will this idea he carried out ifthere is no consent on their part? It is our understanding that the appointment of Serb representatives to the local bodies in those three municipalities should be considered as an interim measure. In this regard, in our view, the idea of holding by-elections in the near future in these municipalities deserves consideration and implementation. Moreover, as Mr. Kouchner said, there are signs that the Serb community may be willing to register. We think that one of the conditions of such by-elections should be the registration of Serbs inside and outside of Kosovo.
Therefore, we strongly encourage UNMIK to take practical steps in this direction.

The holding of municipal elections almost three weeks ago obviously did not bring solutions to all existing problems in Kosovo. My country is concerned about a new upsurge of inter-ethnic, political and criminal violence in recent days. This growing negative tendency shows that UNMIK and KFOR should not weaken their efforts in pursuit of their mandates to establish a secure environment for the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and to ensure public safety. In view of the current increase in violence following the elections, great caution should also be used in the matter of expediting the gradual transfer of administrative responsibilities from UNMIK to the newly elected municipal leaders.

While noting the general success of the elections, my country is deeply concerned, however, with the reports that leaders of all Albanian political parties openly admit that they consider municipal elections to be a first major step towards the declaration of Kosovo's independence and that they therefore categorically reject any possibility of discussing with the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia the issue of provincial autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In this respect, we deem it timely for the Council strongly to remind the Kosovo Albanian leaders of the basic provisions of resolution 1244 (1999), in particular those reaffirming the commitment of Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and entrusting UNMIK to ensure a substantial autonomy of the province within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. It is necessary to make clear to the newly elected municipal leaders that the partial transfer of power to them and the further creation of local governing structures place additional responsibility on them for the situation in Kosovo.

We are of the view that the role of UNMIK in the new political environment that was created by the democratic changes in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is to initiate the process of establishing a meaningful dialogue between the new leadership in Belgrade and the Kosovo Albanian side. In this context, we are encouraged by the statements of the new Yugoslav President, Mr. Kostunica, on his readiness to start such a dialogue. In our view, UNMIK's facilitation of such direct contacts might result in opening a political process designed to determine Kosovo's future status. Moreover, UNMIK's task of facilitating the reopening of the political process is clearly outlined in resolution 1244 (1999).

To this end, it is also obvious that a proper dialogue and closer cooperation between the new Yugoslav authorities and UNMIK itself are highly required and should be established. The recent admission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the South-East Europe Stability Pact, as well as many other dramatic, speedy and welcome changes currently taking place, create additional good opportunities.

In this context, I cannot but pay tribute to UNMIK's effort to resolve issues concerning detainees and missing persons. We welcome yesterday's consultations, held in Pristina between UNMIK and the Yugoslav delegation, on this sensitive issue. My country welcomes the declaration by the Yugoslav President to the Council of Europe last week that his Government will initiate a process of resolving this painful problem.

Lastly, given the new situation in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the entire region and the beginning of the next post-conflict peace-building phase in Kosovo, we feel that the Security Council should consider a new strategy of actions with regard to the future of the province, in particular the status issue, and give its clear guidance to UNMIK in this respect. In our view, the time has come for the Council to consider all the ways to bring the authorities of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Kosovo leaders to the negotiation table. We are of the view that it would be wrong to rush in this, but that it would also be dangerous to postpone it. As I said earlier, the Council can pursue this goal through UNMIK's efforts, or with the assistance of the Secretary-General's special envoys to the Balkans, or undertake mediatory efforts itself. In our view, today, now that the municipal elections are over, this issue is becoming increasingly topical.

In conclusion, let me sincerely wish Mr.
Kouchner and all his staff further success in all their endeavours.


Here we go again. In a pattern that is as familiar as it is distasteful, we have gathered for yet another meeting of the Council called to censure Israel for its measures to prevent terrorism, rather than to address the terrorism itself. Members might pause to consider what message is sent to the citizens of the world by this kind of Council activity, especially after hearing from the Palestinian Observer that the biggest war crime carried out in contemporary history is not the murder of innocents, but the defensive measures taken to protect them.

What message is sent by the Council when it convenes to address Israel's measured defensive response against a terrorist training facility, a response in which there were no casualties, but does not convene immediately to address the deliberate murder of 20 innocent civilians at a beachfront restaurant in Haifa on the eve of the holiest day in the Jewish calendar? What message is sent when the focus of a debate is the building of a security fence by Israel to protect against terrorism, rather than the murder of hundreds of innocent civilians that made its construction inevitable? It is a message that the victims of terrorism, at least if they are Israeli, cannot seek or find protection in this Council from the rogue regimes that continue to sponsor the deliberate murder of innocent civilians, in violation of international law and the Council's own resolutions. This is the true double standard at the United Nations, and sooner or later it must be addressed.

Many lies and misrepresentations have been made about Israel's security measures, but no lie is so bold and audacious as the one which pretends that Israel's actions occur in a vacuum and are not in response to years and years of terrorism of the most vicious and brutal kind.

The decision to construct a security fence is one which Israel has arrived at with great reluctance. Three main factors have brought us to this conclusion. The single most important factor has been Yassar Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. Israel's policymaking over the past 10 years has been guided by the belief that measures agreed bilaterally by the two sides are preferable to unilateral measures. Indeed, we still believe that today. But 10 years and thousands of victims later, we have painfully come to the realization that wanting someone to be a partner does not make him one. Yasser Arafat has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is incapable, unwilling and uninterested in making peace with Israel. In the choice faced by the Palestinian leadership - namely, between building a partnership with Israel or with Palestinian terrorist groups - the terrorists have won every time.

In choosing terrorists over Israel, and jihad over salam, Arafat and the Palestinian Authority have flouted numerous Security Council resolutions -including resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1435 (2002) -the provisions of the road map and repeated Palestinian undertakings in our peace agreements. Those documents clearly require that the Palestinian Authority dismantle the terrorist infrastructure, prevent terrorism and incitement, and bring those responsible to justice. Yet, to this day the Palestinian leadership continues to declare, brazenly and publicly, that it has no intention of fulfilling the very first clauses of the road map, which call, inter alia, for the dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. As we can see almost daily from the headlines, Yasser Arafat continues to prevent the emergence of a Palestinian leadership that will do something other than foment hatred, sponsor terrorism or encourage and tolerate the smuggling of sophisticated weapons into the hands of murderers while using civilians as human shields.

To be sure, along with the continued incitement and the glorification of murder as martyrdom, there are occasional half-hearted condemnations of terrorist atrocities offered by the Palestinian leadership to placate the international community. But those merely condemn terrorism as a tactic, saying that it is against the interests of the Palestinian people. Were terrorism to be an effective tool, those statements imply, it would presumably be acceptable. We have yet to hear from any Palestinian leader the simple moral truth that deliberately killing the innocent is wrong.

For evidence of that duplicity, one need look no further than the fact that the Palestinian Observer at the United Nations occasionally offers muted criticism of terrorism but, at the same time, considers it unacceptable for a Council resolution to expressly condemn the actions of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and to call for their dismantlement, as required by the road map.
In short, had there been any concerted action by the Palestinian side to confront and prevent the terrorists - as they have repeatedly undertaken to do - the security fence might not have been necessary.
But by deciding to remain passive, and even to support terrorism, the current leadership has built that fence with their own hands.

The second factor that has convinced Israelis of the need to construct the fence has been the scarcity of other options. There are no easy choices. In the horrendous situation that we are faced with, in which terrorists are operating with impunity in the heart of civilian centres, there is no perfect way by which we can obstruct the terrorists without having some impact on the lives of the Palestinians they are hiding among.
Trying to find the appropriate balance between the right of Israelis to live without being blown up on buses and in restaurants and the right of Palestinians to live and move freely is a dilemma that Israel, its courts and its citizens anguish over daily.

There is no democracy that has found a perfect solution to the problem of terrorism - especially suicide terrorism, which was invented and perfected by the Palestinians - and most especially when it operates from within a society whose leadership is passively and actively supportive of its goals. Among States facing such a threat, Israel has been among the most successful, preventing over 80 per cent of attempted terrorist attacks. But as the terrorists develop new and even more heinous means of murder, so must we devise better methods of prevention.

The construction of a security fence is one of the most effective non-violent methods of preventing the passage of terrorists and their armaments from the terrorist factories in the heart of Palestinian cities to the heart of civilian areas in Israel. We have seen this in the Gaza Strip, where since the construction of a similar fence, under an Israeli-Palestinian agreement of 1994, not a single terrorist has succeeded in penetrating into Israel from Gaza through the fence in order to execute an attack. That fence garnered no dissent from the Security Council or from the Palestinian side, and has in fact contributed to enhancing the personal security and welfare of Israeli and Palestinian communities on both sides of the fence. Until now there has been a stretch of some 300 kilometres across which Palestinian terrorists have been able to infiltrate Israeli population centres to murder civilians. Between Israel and Palestinian Authority areas there is no border or natural obstacle, and the distance dividing terrorists emanating from Palestinian cities and targeted Israeli population centres has sometimes been less than a ten-minute walk. But in those areas of the West Bank where a fence has been constructed, a reduction in terrorist attacks is already evident.

The third factor supporting the construction of the fence has been the knowledge that it will enable Israel to markedly reduce its involvement in the daily lives of Palestinians. The net effect of the construction of the security fence will be a reduction in terrorism and an overall improvement in the quality of life for both the Israeli and the Palestinian peoples. By building the fence, Israel will be able to significantly reduce the presence of its forces in Palestinian areas and further diminish the necessity for defensive action within Palestinian cities. Importantly, the fence will also enable the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints. The result will be greater freedom of movement within the West Bank without increasing vulnerability to terrorism.

Moreover, it is hoped that the protection and security that the fence provides will help create an atmosphere conducive to peaceful and fruitful negotiations. The security fence is a crucial measure in taking terrorism out of the equation. When a Palestinian leadership emerges that is ready to negotiate a political solution, the terror weapon will be less available to scuttle the efforts for peace. Could it be that those on the Palestinian side opposing the fence wish to ensure that the terrorist weapon remains a decisive factor in their arsenal? Could it be that the fence is particularly objectionable to extremists in Palestinian society because they see it as thwarting their long-term agenda of seeking Israel's destruction? In determining the route of the fence, Israel has sought to create a barrier between those areas from which the terrorists originate and those that they seek to target. But along with those security concerns, Israel has taken into consideration other humanitarian and environmental concerns, even at the cost of increasing the risks to its civilians. The rights and interests of local populations must be weighed against the rights of civilians to protection from terrorism. Local Palestinian residents have been engaged and consulted throughout that process, with a View to providing individual solutions and ensuring access to schools, health resources and so on.

The use of public and unused lands has been of the highest priority. In the circumstances Where that has been impossible, dozens of agricultural gates have been established along the route of the fence to enable farmers to continue cultivating their lands. In addition, new crossing points have been added for Israeli and Palestinian pedestrians and vehicles, as well as for the transfer of goods.

Any private land used in building the fence is requisitioned for military purposes, in full conformity with the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law and local law that specifically provide for that purpose. Indeed, there are a number of precedents in which other States have made this kind of requisition for security purposes, pursuant to the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law. There is no change whatsoever in the legal status of this territory and it remains the property of the owner. Compensation matching the properties' value is provided for the use of the land and any damage to trees and crops. In addition, owners of agricultural land are also provided with compensation for the full value of their crop yield for as long as the property will need to be used. Farmers who cultivate olive and fruit trees growing within the security fence area can designate a new site to which the trees will be replanted.

All residents have the opportunity to submit objections. In numerous cases, the authorities and the complainants have reached mutual agreement regarding alterations of the path. Complainants whose concerns are not resolved also have the unprecedented opportunity to file a petition directly with the Israeli Supreme Court.

In seeking to divert attention from the fact that the true architects of this fence are the Palestinian leaders who have failed to take any measures against terrorism, Palestinian representatives have used a number of emotive and pejorative terms, which are without foundation.

First, they have termed the fence a "wall", even though they are fully aware that for well over 90 per cent of its length it is a chain-link fence. Those short sections that are actually a solid structure are only in areas where Palestinian terrorists can and have shot at Israeli civilians on roads or in nearby towns. Despite blatant misrepresentations to the contrary, there is no enclosure of the West Bank and no Palestinian town or village is closed off. Passage and movement are guaranteed between Palestinian areas throughout the West Bank and into Israel. And, as I have stated, the fence will enable a reduction of Israeli forces in Palestinian areas, thereby facilitating greater freedom of movement within the West Bank and an overall improvement in the humanitarian situation for the vast majority of Palestinian residents, without enhancing the risks of terrorism.

The use of the term "wall" is a transparent attempt by some to evoke memories of darker days, when solid walls were used by certain States to divide one people and prevent the flight to freedom. The comparison is both false and offensive. This fence seeks to separate two peoples who are in conflict, to prevent suicide bombers from targeting innocent civilians and thus to create a terror-free environment in which finally we can move towards a peaceful settlement, which is itself founded on the concept of separation between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples.

Secondly, they have charged that the construction of the fence is racist, though what is really racism is their suggestion that one people does not have the right to protection from murderers. What is really racism is the mistreatment and persecution of Jews in Arab lands, the prohibition of entry imposed upon Jews in certain Arab countries, and the prohibition of the sale of property to Jews on punishment of death. To build a fence in order to provide security for the Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel and ultimately to advance the vision of peace between two peoples, Israeli and Palestinian, is anything but racism.

Thirdly and above all, they have charged that the fence is an act of de facto annexation and an attempt to prejudice final-status negotiations, as though it were Israel and not the Palestinian leadership that walked out of those negotiations and adopted the path of violence. The Israeli Government has repeatedly made clear, and I reiterate again today, that the fence has no political significance. Israel remains committed to resolving all aspects of the conflict, including the final status of the West Bank and Gaza, through political negotiations. The sole purpose of the fence is to protect the vital security of Israeli citizens targeted by Palestinian terrorism. It does not annex territories to the State of Israel nor does it change the status of the land, its ownership or the legal status of the residents of these areas. The Palestinian observer's accusations in this regard are belied by the fact that certain sections of the fence, for example near Modiin and Kibbutz Maale Hachamisha, are actually being built within sovereign Israeli territory.

In fact, not only has Israel repeatedly asserted that there is no political significance to this fence; we have demonstrated in practice and articulated in negotiations that Israel is ready and able, at tremendous cost, to adjust or dismantle a fence if so required as part of a political settlement. In the context of its withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel moved a similar structure in order to comply with Security Council resolution 425 (1978). After having adjusted the fence, Israel moved portions of it a further 95 centimetres, at a cost of millions of dollars, to respond to requests by the Secretary-General.
Similarly, in the context of permanent-status negotiations, Israel expressed a willingness to adjust the fence established in Gaza as part of the permanent territorial settlement.

In both cases, Israel has proven that security fences are security fences. This fence is intended to counter terrorism of the most brutal kind, not to dictate a border that is and remains the subject of permanent-status negotiations. It is our hope that, by our building this fence, its very function will become irrelevant and that one day it will be dismantled.

It has been suggested that, in order to avoid the impression of having a political motive, Israel should have constructed the fence along the so-called Green Line. On the practical level, a fence along the Line would create far greater humanitarian problems, arbitrarily dividing certain villages and separating others from access to water and other basic services on a large scale. Moreover, it would ignore the aim of the fence, which is to frustrate acts of terrorism directed against Israeli population centres. It is the terrorists who, by their murderous attacks, have dictated the route, which seeks to protect as many civilians as possible while seeking to minimize humanitarian and environmental hardship.

Of equal importance, the so-called Green Line has never represented an international boundary. The 1949 armistice agreements specifically refer to that fact. There was never a recognized and legitimate sovereign in the West Bank. The legal status of these areas remains that of disputed territory to be resolved through negotiations. It is this that is required by Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which call for the parties to start negotiations, inter alia, on secure and recognized boundaries, and agreements reached between the parties specifically refer to the need for there to be direct negotiations to resolve this issue.

When the familiar rhetoric and misrepresentations of the Palestinian observer are peeled away, the simple truth is revealed. The fence is a response to Palestinian terror, designed not to establish a border, but to create a terror-free environment in which a border can be agreed through negotiations. Many Palestinians who oppose the fence simply want to continue killing Israelis. The Israelis who built the fence simply want to live.

Much has been said of the need to conduct the war against terrorism in accordance with international law. We agree, but international law is not a suicide pact. International law recognizes that the measure of the legitimacy of a State's actions is whether such action is proportionate to the threat. This means assessing the threat according to those attacks planned and prevented, not just those that have succeeded. In Israel's case, this has meant considering not just the hundreds of civilians killed in terrorist attacks, but those many hundreds of attacks successfully thwarted, including mega-terror attacks planned against skyscrapers, gas depots, fuel tankers and bridges.

International humanitarian law specifically allows for territory to be requisitioned for security purposes.
Some who speak of international law seem to have forgotten that there is in place a significant body of established laws that provide support for the confrontation against terrorism. They also seem to have forgotten that in fighting terrorists we fight an enemy that has no respect for life or for law. Yes, we must respect the rule of law. But we cannot do so by applying misconceived or blinkered interpretations that no enlightened nation would apply to itself if faced with such sustained attack and that effectively strengthen the hands of those devoted to trampling the law as they trample innocent lives.

Israel has no problem being - indeed, it is proud to be - held to the highest standards. But at least let us be permitted to value the lives of our civilians in the way that any other democratic country would. If the Council decides to call us to account, then surely some of our neighbours should be the focus of equal attention. If the Council were to devote only a fraction of the time and resources it has spent considering Israel's record to a fair examination of the destabilizing and dangerous conduct of the rogue regimes in our neighbourhood, does anyone doubt the conclusions that would be drawn? If the United Nations voice is to be taken seriously, this selective treatment must end.

Israel yearns for peace, and has proved that it is willing to make the most painful compromises to that end. We will continue to pursue every opportunity for a peaceful settlement, with a view to realizing President Bush's vision and the relevant Council resolutions. But no State can allow its citizens to be murdered in the hundreds by terrorists, with the support and tolerance of the current Palestinian leadership, which has virtually ceased to even masquerade as a peace partner.
The fence is to protect against terrorism, improve the overall humanitarian situation on both sides and contribute to an atmosphere in which peace negotiations can proceed for the benefit of both peoples.

This conflict, and this debate, is not just about Palestinian rights. It is about Israeli rights as well.
Dead, injured and terrorized Israelis are also a humanitarian problem, and until our neighbours and the international community are willing to seriously accept that fact and deal with it, we will have difficulty advancing towards a peaceful solution. It is just not enough for condemnations and expressions of sympathy to be issued in capitals or in United Nations speeches on the day an attack takes place, without the sustained action and public support needed to demonstrate that the international community will not tolerate the deliberate murder of innocent civilians.

Those in the Palestinian leadership that have turned Palestinian victimhood from a condition that could be resolved by peaceful settlement into a political strategy of immortalization in the pursuit of personal power have a great deal to answer for. We do the peace process no service by reinforcing a sense of entitlement without affirming a sense of responsibility.

The road map can never succeed if we absolve the Palestinian side of its obligations to end its morally bankrupt and profoundly destructive terrorist strategy.
The security fence, like other Israeli defensive measures, is a product of that strategy. And it is the abandonment of that strategy that would obviate the need for such defence measures, including the security fence itself, and pave the way for peaceful negotiations based on mutual recognition and mutual compromise.

If we confuse cause and effect, if we apply justice selectively, and if we pander to more one-sided initiatives that assert sweeping rights but ignore well-founded responsibilities, we will only encourage a strategy of terrorism and push the day of peace further into the future.

Before concluding, I would like to ask representatives and colleagues to pause for a moment before deciding how to respond to this issue, and think of the lives that can be saved by the security fence, and the lives that could have been saved had it been constructed earlier. I would like them to think of the Almog family - Zeev Almog, aged 71; his wife, Ruth, aged 70; their son, Moshe, aged 43; and their grandsons, Tomer and Asaf, aged nine and 11 - a whole family, three generations, wiped out, all murdered, together with 15 other innocent victims, at the Maxime restaurant in Haifa last week. I put it to them: "Imagine if they were your children, and ask yourself what would you expect your Government to do to protect them? Would you not do anything -literally anything - to save them?"

Middle East situation, including the Palestinian question


The United Kingdom is deeply concerned by the escalating violence in the region and the resulting deaths of so many innocent civilians on both sides. Terrorist targeting of civilians, particularly, is beyond contempt.
Violence will result in nothing but more violence; it serves only the interests of those on either side who do not want peace.

Both communities have seen too many funerals. It is way beyond time for Israel and the Palestinian Authority to be thinking hard about where further violence will lead and to be acting wisely and with restraint. The only way forward is a cessation of violence and dialogue. Tenet and Mitchell show the way. It means a resumption of the political process leading to a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement of this long-standing dispute based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and the principle of land for peace.

The United Kingdom is committed to a settlement in the Middle East that provides security for Israel within recognized borders and allows the emergence of a viable Palestinian State. This can be achieved only through negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority which President Arafat heads. He is the elected representative of the Palestinian people and the key Palestinian leader with whom Israel can negotiate peace when the time is right. It serves no one's interest to undermine President Arafat or to weaken the Palestinian Authority.

The Palestinian Authority has responsibilities. As a first step, it must dismantle the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist networks. We again urge the Palestinian Authority to crack down on the terrorists who are using the Palestinian areas to launch attacks. They should be arrested and brought to justice. We welcome President Arafat's reported decision to take such action. These commitments must be turned into reality.

Israel has a right to security and is entitled to take steps to protect itself from terrorist attack, but it should ensure that its actions remain proportionate and avoid civilian casualties. As the European Union is making perfectly clear this week at the highest level, Israel must at once withdraw its military forces and stop extrajudicial executions.

We urge Israel and the Palestinian Authority to pull back from the brink and work together to end violence, implement the recommendations of the Mitchell Committee and return to negotiations. We also urge them to work with United States envoy Zinni to achieve this.

The United Kingdom will abstain in the voting on the text in front of us because it does not reflect the realities on the ground; does not specify one essential next step for a resumption of meaningful negotiations; and does not, as the European Union has done, define the responsibilities which both sides must accept to end the violence threatening the lives of civilians in the region on a daily basis.


<metadata>
<year=2015>2015</year>
<country>'Ukraine'</country>
<conflict>"Ukraine"</conflict>
<speaker>"Mr. Klimkin"</speaker>
<gender>"M"</gender>
<language>"English"</language>
</metadata>

I take this opportunity to <attitude><affect><dis-satisfaction><positive>congratulate</positive></dis-satisfaction></affect></attitude> you, Sir, on your effective presidency of the Council for this month. I would like to <attitude><affect><dis-satisfaction><positive>thank/positive></dis-satisfaction></affect></attitude> the delegation of Malaysia for requesting the convening of this meeting, and all members of the Security Council and the grieving nations for their strong support for the idea of establishing an international criminal tribunal to hold to account those responsible for the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17.

It is obvious that these historic times will always be remembered, not only because of the number of vetoes exercised by the Russian Federation, but mainly because of the spirit of unity among the countries participating in the joint investigation team and all who support us in our efforts to deliver justice. A year ago, the Ukrainian people took the downing of Flight MH-17 as a national tragedy, and it will always remain so in our hearts. 1 still remember the sea of flowers in front of the Dutch and Malaysian embassies, and the hundreds of Ukrainians who gathered around those buildings during the night.
I will never forget it.

When we heard about this incident, at the very beginning we had some hope that lives might be saved and immediately provided all available resources to the rescue teams. Then we did everything possible to prevent looting and to secure access for the investigators to the areas controlled by the terrorists. Now, our duty to those who died and the families of the victims is to bring to justice those who committed this barbaric act.
We, more than anyone, feel the pain of the victims; that is why we want the truth about this crime to emerge.
More than anyone, we want the perpetrators to be arraigned and tried by a public international court.
There can be no reason to oppose that, unless you are a perpetrator yourself.

I could not agree more with my friends and colleagues, including several Government ministers who have spoken today, but I would like to make several points crystal clear. Resolution 2166 (2014) established an obligation for States to cooperate fully in the course of the investigation of this tragedy and to bring those responsible to justice. The use of a sophisticated and powerful weapon against a civilian aircraft constitutes a threat to international civil aviation and to international peace and security in general. The only effective way to prevent such acts in the future is to punish those responsible without delay. It is indeed an issue for the Security Council to deal with under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.

The level of support enjoyed by our draft resolution has clearly risen, showing that we are on right track.
Our aim here is to create an effective, transparent, unbiased and independent vehicle to bring to justice those responsible for the crime. It is about the individual criminal responsibility of the murderers, and it is not about politics. That is why it is particularly disappointing that one country - Russia, to be precise - still mixes two completely separate issues: its responsibility for aggression against Ukraine and its continuous support for terrorism, on the one hand, and the individual responsibility of the perpetrators of the tragedy, on the other. There is no other explanation for today's veto by Russia.

The role of Russia in the conflict is absolutely clear and well known. Thousands of Russian soldiers and mercenaries and tanks and every type of heavy weaponry have been delivered across the border; that is simply impossible to hide. Just recently, another Russian truck full of weapons and ammunition was captured in Ukraine. The driver is once again a Special Forces officer. But this story is a matter for international mechanisms.

When I look at the Russian delegation today, I feel pity. It dared to dampen the aspirations of the entire world, especially those of the families of the victims.
It has aligned itself with the thugs who committed this atrocious crime. But our hope for justice is not lost.
The Russian Federation just killed draft resolution S/2015/562, but that abuse of the veto power will not kill the hope of those who suffered or their love for loved ones and their relatives. It will only make all ofus stronger and more determined and more committed to elaborating and implementing an effective and credible prosecution model to deliver justice.

I am reminded of a line from Shakespeare about captive good attending captain ill; let us stop attending captain ill - it is just not worth it. In the face of truth, humanity and God, if one still believes in God, the tribunal in question is about 298 innocent lives. It is about the truth. He who is afraid of truth is definitely on the wrong side of the issue. He who is afraid of truth is alone here in the Security Council. "If you know the truth, the truth will set you free." These are not my words. They are from the Holy Gospel. They come from a higher authority.

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)


Russia, like the whole international community, is alarmed by the dangerously explosive dynamic of recent developments in the relations between Palestinians and the Israeli population. This can have a very negative impact on the overall situation in the Middle East. We decisively condemn the terrorist actions and the raids of extremist organizations against civilian populations in Israel. This only results in discrediting the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people to exercise its national rights. It undermines any attempts to change the course of events and revert to a political settlement, and impedes the possibility of resuming a peaceful Arab-Israeli dialogue. This is why we believe that the leadership of the Palestine Authority, and Yasser Arafat personally, should take very energetic and harsh measures to put an end to the violence on the part of the Palestinian extremists; they should arrest and punish the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.

At the same time, we are convinced that it is not through the use of force that a solution to the problems of Israeli-Palestinian relations will be found. That is not the way out. The status quo is totally untenable, because ultimately there can be a settlement only in political terms. It is against this backdrop that we are convinced that any attempts made by Israel to ensure its security through the use of military force can in no way resolve this urgent problem. On the contrary, this can only lead to renewed acts of vengeance between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

It is not in the interest of Israel to have a de facto destruction of the Palestine Authority. The Israeli leadership cannot question the legitimate right of the Palestinian people to build its own independent State, and therefore cannot question the existence of Palestinian self-government headed by the legitimately recognized leader of the Palestinian people, Yasser Arafat.

This is why the Israeli Government should not undertake any measures that would burn bridges; it should preserve the possibility of a political dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian self-government. In such circumstances, we need concrete steps on both sides to achieve de-escalation of the critical situation and energetic political efforts to get out of the dead end.

Russia, together with the American co-sponsors of the peace process, with the European Union, with the United Nations and within the framework of the quartet of international intermediaries and other concerned parties, will spare no effort to overcome the explosive spiral of recent developments and to revert the process to a political settlement.

The draft resolution that has been presented for the Council's consideration is a balanced one; it decisively condemns terrorism and all other forms of violence; and it calls for the implementation of the Mitchell plan and the resumption of the peace process.

In the light of our well-known position, the Russian Federation will vote in favour of this draft resolution.


Let me also begin by thanking you, Mr. President, for convening this important meeting to consider a serious development that comes to all of us as a shock.

We all saw the pain-ridden face of that small child lying at his father's side as the last breath of life slipped out of him. This was only one glimpse of the fate that is suffered by thousands of children in different parts of the world that are under foreign occupation or in conflict situations. This tragedy is a grim reminder that a part of humanity dies each time an innocent life is snuffed out by violence.

The Security Council meets today in the wake of the tragic events in Palestine, resulting in the deaths of scores of innocent civilians, including children, and injuries to many others. With these events, the hope that peace was finally taking root in the Middle East has fast evaporated.

We share the international outrage and concern at the high-handedness of the Israeli forces' actions against defenceless Palestinian civilians in the very vicinity of Al-Haram Al-Sharif, the third most holy place of Islam. The immediate reason is the misplaced determination of certain elements in Israel to undermine the Middle East peace process. The Security Council must send an unequivocal message that such provocative actions and the bloodshed of innocent Palestinians are unacceptable to the international community.

The excessive force used by the Israeli security forces is simply unjustifiable. Grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 have been committed. The first article of that Convention emphasizes that "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) continue to provide a viable and just framework for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. The status of Al-Quds Al-Sharif, Holy Jerusalem, remains central to any comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. No lasting peace in the region will be possible without the realization of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. These include their right to establish their independent State with Holy Jerusalem as its capital and the exercise of their full sovereignty over Al-Haram Al-Sharif. Pakistan extends its unequivocal support to the just struggle of the people of Palestine for their inalienable rights. This has been our policy in respect of all peoples struggling against foreign occupation and repression.

The peace process had recently been making steady, if agonizingly slow, progress due to realistic approaches of the leaders of the two sides. It has now been dealt a severe blow and has been pushed to the verge of collapse. Continuation of the violence threatens to wreck the peace process. Immediate steps are therefore needed to prevent any further deterioration of the situation. The peace process must be urgently put back on track on the basis of agreements reached and full compliance with the relevant Security Council resolutions. At stake are the authority and credibility of the United Nations.

Prompt action is therefore required by the international community, in particular the Security Council, to put an end to the present round of violence against the Palestinians, secure Israel's compliance with United Nations resolutions, ensure the safety and sanctity of Al-Quds Al-Sharif and facilitate the realization of the national rights of the Palestinian people. The prospects for peace in that region, and indeed the future prosperity of the Middle East, now rest with this body.


Since the Council was briefed yesterday by Assistant Secretary-General Fernandez-Taranco (see S/PV.7I23), there have been reports of continued serious developments in Ukraine.
In Crimea, key sites such as airports, communications and public buildings, including the regional parliament, reportedly continue to be blocked by unidentified armed men. There are further reports of armed personnel taking control of regional administration buildings in several cities in the East and South of Ukraine.

The new Crimean Prime Minister, Sergei Aksenov, today released a statement appealing to President Vladimir Putin to provide assistance in "ensuring peace and tranquillity on the territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea". In the same statement, he announced that he was taking control of security in Crimea "on a temporary basis". He told all security personnel to declare allegiance to him rather than to the authorities of Kiev. Following the reported deployment of additional Russian troops and armoured vehicles to Crimea, the Russian Federation's upper house of Parliament today approved the request of President Putin for Russian forces to be used in Ukraine "pending the normalization of the public and political situation in that country".

At the same time, in this fluid situation, however, there are some encouraging signs. One of them is the reported announcement from Kiev just now of the intention to broaden the Government to include representatives from eastern Ukraine. We also note that the calls for dialogue among all other interested parties, both inside and outside Ukraine, appear to be resonating.

Referring to the Security Council discussions yesterday about Robert Serry's fact-finding mission and his possible visit to Crimea, Mr. Serry was in touch with the authorities of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea. He came to the conclusion that a visit to Crimea today was not possible for logistical reasons.
In his statement today, Mr. Serry noted that if he had travelled to Crimea, he would have conveyed, on behalf of the Secretary-General, a message for all to calm the situation down and to refrain from any actions that could further escalate an already tense environment.
Robert Serry will travel to Geneva today, where he will brief the Secretary-General on his mission to Ukraine and discuss further possible steps.

The Secretary-General is gravely concerned that the situation has further deteriorated since yesterday's meeting of the Council. In that regard, let me reiterate the Secretary-General's important messages, conveyed in his statement of today: "The Secretary-General continues to closely follow the seriously and rapidly unfolding events in Ukraine, including developments in Crimea, and is gravely concerned about the deterioration of the situation.

"The Secretary-General reiterates his call for the full respect for and preservation of the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

"He calls for an immediate restoration of calm and direct dialogue between all concerned to solve the current crisis.
"The Secretary-General will be speaking with President Vladimir Putin of Russia shortly about the situation in Ukraine." Let me say in closing that at this crucial moment it is important to recall the mission ofthe Organization. It always seeks the peaceful settlement of disputes. That is the essence of the Charter of the United Nations and should serve as our primary guide in this situation.
Now is the time for cool heads to prevail.


It is my pleasure at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your accession to the presidency of the Security Council this month. I am confident that your wisdom, experience and wide-ranging knowledge will lead us to the desired success. May I also express our deep appreciation to your predecessor, the representative of Mali, for the skill with which he presided over the deliberations of the Council last month. May I furthermore express my thanks to you for convening this emergency meeting of the Security Council following a request by the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Movement of Non-Aligned States.

The convening of this emergency meeting at this time to take up the situation in the Palestinian occupied territories is a clear expression of how aware and concerned the Security Council is about the latest grave events that threaten our region with a new wave of violence and bloodshed. His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Al Hussein has warned of the threat of such acts to the peace process. These events once again reaffirm the urgent need for peace in the Middle East as well as the right of the Palestinian people to be rid of the injustice and occupation under which they have languished for a very long time.

The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan condemns the attacks and the heinous crimes committed against Palestinians in Al-Quds Al-Sharif and the occupied territories by the Israeli occupation forces. We call on the Israeli Government to withdraw its forces from the territories and towns under Palestinian authority without delay.

The events in Al-Quds Al-Sharif are a direct consequence of extremism and provocative practices perpetrated by those who reject peace inside Israel against Palestinians and against the feelings of Arabs and Muslims. The Prime Minister of Jordan, Mr. Ali Abul Ragheb, has stated that condoning extremism will only lead to further extremism and strife and will overcome the voice of dialogue, which we have all accepted in the region as the only effective means to reach just, lasting and comprehensive peace.

The Government of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan calls on the Israeli Government to shoulder its responsibilities vis-a-vis this critical situation at this delicate stage of the peace process in the region. We call upon it to cease harming the Palestinian people. In particular, it must stop the harm being meted out by short-sighted extremists who, by their acts, are undermining the peace process and working to renew strife, violence, hatred and enmity in the region.

Jordan, its King, its Government and its people reaffirm their solidarity with our brothers, the Palestinian people, as they seek to achieve their legitimate rights and establish their independent State on their national soil with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

May I, on behalf of my Government, express our condolences and sympathy to the Palestinian leadership and to our brothers, the Palestinian people, and with their innocent martyrs.


Mr. de La Sabliere (France) (spoke in French): At the outset, I recall that France associates itself with the statement which will be made by the presidency of the European Union.

The building of a separation wall, which deviates from the Green Line and encroaches on the occupied Palestinian territories, together with the continuation of the establishment of settlements in the occupied territories, is an issue of vital importance for the future of the settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

What is at stake is historic - nothing less than the possibility of a negotiated settlement on the basis of two States - Israel and a viable Palestinian State -living in peace and security, within secure and recognized borders.

What is at stake is the very idea of a peace process based on the principles enshrined by the international community in resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 1397 (2002) - the principle of land for peace, which was given concrete expression in the road map of the Quartet, which was accepted by the two parties at the Aqaba Summit on 4 June last.

With such high stakes, it seems to us legitimate and critical for the international community, through the Security Council, to respond, recall the rule of law, and show the parties the way to be followed.

France has publicly indicated its opposition to the construction of the separation wall following a route that cuts into the occupied Palestinian territories and deviates from the Green Line, as it has indicated its opposition to the settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, and this for at least three reasons.

First, construction of the wall following the route chosen is illegal in terms of international law and cannot be justified in terms of the war on terrorism.

France recognizes Israel's inalienable right to security, its right to self-defence and its right to combat terrorist attacks, which are totally condemnable, morally odious and which no cause can justify.
However, the struggle against terrorism cannot justify everything and must be carried out with respect for the law.

What can be criticized from a legal perspective regarding the building of the separation wall is not so much the wall itself as the route chosen by the Israeli Government. That route broadly cuts into the territories occupied in 1967 and opens the way to the confiscation of Palestinian territories, thus contravening international humanitarian law and in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, as well as the agreements signed between Israelis and Palestinians.

This is all the more true of the second segment of the wall, which is closely following the location of settlements - and in particular of Ariel - which are clearly illegal. The permanent nature of the wall means that the territories between the wall and the Green Line will be de facto incorporated by Israel and under its control.

Moreover, the inadmissible nature of the acquisition of territory by force is a fundamental principle of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), on which the peace process is based.

In East Jerusalem, the construction of the wall calls into question once again a fundamental principle of the peace process, which should allow the city to become the capital of two independent States and which should preserve the specific status of the holy places.

Today the construction of the security wall on the Mount of Olives directly threatens the property and gardens of several charitable religious congregations. I would recall here the importance to France of ensuring free access to the holy sites of Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Secondly, construction of the wall following the chosen route has inadmissible humanitarian consequences. The wall is a physical barrier which gravely hampers the movement of persons and of goods, separates families and cuts off numerous Palestinians from their agricultural lands, thereby depriving them of their livelihood.

According to various estimates, the lives of more than 200,000 Palestinians will be directly affected by the construction of the wall. Several thousand people will find themselves trapped between the wall and the Green Line. Life in general and the humanitarian situation in the Palestinian territories, which are a source of great concern, can only further deteriorate -let alone the offence to human dignity represented by the creation of a quasi-ghetto, as is the case in Qalqilya.

Thirdly, the construction of the wall runs counter to the road map and is likely seriously to jeopardize the future of the peace process and of a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, which can be conceived only based on the 1967 borders and a viable Palestinian State.

The construction of the wall directly contravenes the road map, which expressly demands that the Israeli Government not undertake any action that would undermine confidence, in particular the confiscation of Palestinian houses and property.

This will be a permanent structure that will permanently change geographic and demographic data.
The building of the wall can only encourage the development of settlements and aggravate the already serious problems that these are causing.

What Israeli leader would dare in future to dismantle the settlements in the interests of a necessary peace with the Palestinians, if they have developed in the shadow of a security barrier? The price of peace for Israel will then be considerably higher.

The planned route, if indeed followed, prejudges the borders of the future Palestinian State. The continued building of a wall of separation following a route that departs from the Green Line would de facto indicate that Israel no longer recognizes resolution 242 (1967) as an essential basis for negotiations with the Palestinians.

There cannot be peace without mutual recognition by each of the parties of their territorial rights. The route also seriously damages the viability of a future Palestinian State, which would be likely to find itself reduced to a collection of isolated enclaves.

What Palestinian leader could make his people agree to peace without the assurance of the creation of an independent and viable State, which is predicated on territorial continuity? To thus so seriously and permanently jeopardize the opportunity for a negotiated settlement to the conflict is in no one's interest. In such conditions, we believe that it is the responsibility of the Security Council to respond through the adoption of a draft resolution showing its opposition to the building of the wall following the route selected - a route that is illegal in terms of international law and whose humanitarian and political consequences are extremely serious and inadmissible.

Security and peace, moreover, go hand in hand.
France reaffirms its conviction that only a just and negotiated solution to the conflict, leading to the end of the occupation of 1967 and to the creation, side by side with Israel, of a viable Palestinian State, will provide Israel that security to which all Israelis have an inalienable right.

It is on this path that the two parties embarked in accepting the road map during the Aqaba Summit on 4 June last. They must stay on this path. France calls on the parties immediately to fulfil their reciprocal and parallel obligations within the framework of the road map. France is convinced that the international community, in particular through the Quartet, has a key role to play to contribute to the advent of peace. We must press on.

The time has come to hold an international conference and to establish in the field a credible third-party monitoring mechanism. There is a need to take risks that will lead to peace in the Middle East; it is our collective duty to act.


My delegation thanks you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question.

Recent events in the Palestinian occupied territories and in Israel and the resulting loss of innocent lives have proven to be more tragic than anyone could have imagined. The situation has now reached desperate proportions and clearly constitutes a threat to the stability of the region and international peace and security. These events are taking place in the context of a world changed by the events of 11 September and the resulting renewed vigour of the international community in the search for global peace.

My delegation is therefore disheartened that in relation to the situation in the Middle East, the Security Council has failed to take any formal action since September 2000. At that time, in resolution 1322 (2000), the Council called, inter alia, for the immediate cessation of violence and for all steps to be taken to ensure that the cycle of violence was brought to an end.
The Council also committed itself to fully supporting the role of the Secretary-General in facilitating the peace process, and we wish to express our appreciation to the Secretary-General for his continued efforts to bring peace to the region through the use of his good offlces.

We also take the opportunity to express our appreciation to those countries and organizations which have sought to play a mediating role. But as the situation continues to deteriorate, it is crucial for the Security Council to carry out its Charter responsibilities. We must continue to encourage the parties to move from the brink of total chaos back to the negotiating table. It is my delegation's firm conviction that it is the Security Council's responsibility - indeed, its duty - to be engaged on this issue, and that the international community expects no less from the Council in keeping with its mandate for the maintenance of international peace and security.

The provisions of the Sharm El-Sheikh agreement and the recommendations of the Mitchell report remain the best basis on which to move the peace process forward. In this regard, the parties should immediately take steps towards implementing their commitments on the basis of their previous agreements. We also support the call for the establishment of a monitoring mechanism, as it would serve the interests of the parties in their implementation of the recommendations of the Mitchell report and help to create a better situation in the occupied Palestinian territories.

We continue to support the sending of an observer force to the Palestinian territories. We still believe that the deployment of such a force could act as a deterrent to further violence and serve as a confidence-building measure between the parties.

Jamaica reiterates its unqualified support for efforts to achieve a just and lasting settlement within the framework of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and based on the principle of land for peace. Action by the Security Council will clearly demonstrate our resolve to assist in the peace process. The draft resolution presented to us by Egypt and Tunisia, inter alia, demands the immediate cessation of all acts of violence, provocation and destruction, as well as the return to the positions and arrangements which existed prior to September 2000. It also condemns all acts of terror, in particular those targeting civilians, and condemns all acts of extrajudiciary executions, excessive use of force and wide destruction of properties.

In this context, Jamaica fully supports the draft resolution contained in document S/2001/1199 and will vote in favour of its adoption.


A year ago, Malaysia Airlines Flight MH-17 crashed in eastern Ukraine, killing all 298 people aboard. China is deeply saddened by that tragedy and wishes once again to express its sympathy to the bereaved families of the victims and to the countries concerned. We support, in accordance with resolution 2166 (2014), the holding of an objective, impartial and independent international investigation into the incident and the bringing of the perpetrators to justice.

The current focus should be on establishing the truth behind the incident and seeking justice for the victims.
China understands the feelings of the sponsors of the draft resolution and in particular those of the bereaved families of the victims of the crash of Flight MH-17, as well as their urgent desire that the perpetrators be punished.

China participated in the consultations on the draft resolution and has all along called on the members of the Council to remain united and meet one another halfway, accommodate one another's concerns and avoid political confrontation. If the Security Council could have achieved consensus on the next step to be taken concerning that incident, it would have sent out a positive signal to the effect that the international community was maintaining a common position on this issue. It would also have helped to establish the truth of the incident as soon as possible.

Under circumstances in which some members of the Council still have major concerns about the draft resolution, to forcibly push forward a vote could only result in division among the States members of the Council. It will not help to ease the grief of the bereaved families of the victims of the crash of Flight MH-l7, nor will it help to establish the facts or bring the perpetrators to justice. For these reasons, China abstained in the voting on the draft resolution.


My report to the Council today is an update on the status of the nuclear verification activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Iraq, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1441 (2002) and other relevant resolutions. Less than three weeks have passed since my last update to the Council, on 27 January, a relatively short period in the overall inspection process. However, I believe it is important for the Council to remain actively engaged and fully informed at this critical time.

The focus of the IAEA's inspections has now moved from the reconnaissance phase into the investigative phase. The reconnaissance phase was aimed at re-establishing rapidly our knowledge base of Iraq's nuclear capabilities, ensuring that nuclear activities at known key facilities had not been resumed, verifying the location of nuclear material and relevant non-nuclear material and equipment, and identifying the current workplaces of former key Iraqi personnel.
The focus of the investigative phase is achieving an understanding of Iraq's activities over the last four years, in particular in areas identified by States as being of concern and in those identified by IAEA on the basis of its own analysis.

Since our 27 January report, IAEA has conducted an additional 38 inspections at 19 locations, for a total of 177 inspections at 125 locations. Iraq has continued to provide immediate access to all locations. In the course of the inspections, we have identified certain facilities at which we will be re-establishing containment and surveillance systems in order to monitor, on a continuous basis, activities associated with critical dual-use equipment. At this time, we are using recurrent inspections to ensure that this equipment is not being used for prohibited purposes.

As I mentioned in my last report to the Council, we have a number of wide-area and location-specific measures for detecting indications of undeclared past or ongoing nuclear activities in Iraq, including environmental sampling and radiation detection surveys. In this regard, we have been collecting a broad variety of samples, including water, sediment and vegetation, at inspected facilities and at other locations across Iraq, and analysing them for signature of nuclear activities.

We have also resumed air sampling at key locations in Iraq. Three of the four air samplers that were removed in December 2002 for refurbishing have been returned to Iraq. One of these has been installed at a fixed location, and the other two are being operated from mobile platforms. We intend to increase their number to make optimum use of this technique.

We are also continuing to expand the use of hand-held and car-borne gamma surveys in Iraq. The gamma survey vehicle has been used en route to inspection sites and within sites, as well as in urban and industrial areas. We will start helicopter-borne gamma surveys as soon as the relevant equipment receives its final certification for use on the helicopter model provided to us for use in Iraq.

IAEA has continued to interview key Iraqi personnel. We have recently been able to conduct four interviews in private, that is, without the presence of an Iraqi observer. The interviewees, however, have tape-recorded their interviews. In addition, discussions have continued to be conducted with Iraqi technicians and officials as part of inspection activities and technical meetings. I should note that, during our recent meeting in Baghdad, Iraq reconfirmed its commitment to encourage its citizens to accept interviews in private, both inside and outside of Iraq.

In response to a request by IAEA, Iraq has expanded the list of relevant Iraqi personnel to over 300, along with their current work locations. The list includes the higher-level scientists known to IAEA in the nuclear and nuclear-related areas. We will continue, however, to ask for information about Iraqi personnel of lesser rank whose work may be of significance to our mandate.

I would like now to provide an update on a number of specific issues that we are currently pursuing. I should mention that, shortly before our recent meeting in Baghdad, and based on our discussions with the Iraqi counterpart, Iraq provided documentation related to these issues: the reported attempt to import uranium, the attempted procurement of aluminium tubes, the procurement of magnets and magnet production capabilities, the use of the high explosive HMX, and those questions and concerns that were outstanding in 1998. I will touch briefly on each of those issues.

Iraq continues to state that it has made no attempt to import uranium since the 19805. IAEA recently received some additional information relevant to this issue, which will be further pursued, hopefully with the assistance of the African country reported to have been involved.

IAEA is also continuing to follow up on acknowledged efforts by Iraq to import high-strength aluminium tubes. As members will know, Iraq has declared these efforts to have been in connection with a programme to reverse-engineer conventional rockets.
The IAEA has verified that Iraq had indeed been manufacturing such rockets. However, we are still exploring whether the tubes were intended rather for the manufacture of centrifuges for uranium enrichment.
In connection with this investigation, Iraq has been asked to explain the reasons for the tight tolerance specifications that it had requested from various suppliers. Iraq has provided documentation related to the project of reverse engineering and has committed itself to providing samples of tubes received from prospective suppliers. We will continue to investigate the matter further.

In response to IAEA inquiries about Iraq's attempts to procure a facility for the manufacture of magnets, and the possible link with the resumption of a nuclear programme, Iraq recently provided additional documentation, which we are now examining.

In the course of an inspection conducted in connection with the aluminium tube investigation, IAEA inspectors found a number of documents relevant to transactions aimed at the procurement of carbon fibre, a dual-use material used by Iraq in its past clandestine uranium enrichment programme for the manufacture of gas centrifuge rotors. Our review of these documents suggests that the carbon fibre sought by Iraq was not intended for enrichment purposes, as the specifications of the material appear not to be consistent with those needed for manufacturing rotor tubes. In addition, we have carried out follow-up inspections, during which we have been able to observe the use of such carbon fibre in non-nuclear-related applications and to take samples. IAEA will, nevertheless, continue to pursue this matter.

We have also continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX. As I reported earlier, Iraq has declared that 32 tons of HMX previously under IAEA seal has been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying.

Iraq has provided us with additional information, including documentation on the movement and use of this material, and inspections have been conducted at locations where the material is said to have been used.
However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material.
While we have no indication that this material was used for any application other than that declared by Iraq, we have no technical method of verifying, quantitatively, the declared use of the material in explosions. We will continue to follow this issue through a review of civilian mining practices in Iraq and through interviews of key Iraqi personnel involved in former relevant research and development activities.

We have completed a more detailed review of the 2,000 pages of documents found on 16 January at the private residence of an Iraqi scientist. The documents relate predominantly to lasers, including the use of laser technology to enrich uranium. They consist of technical reports; minutes of meetings, including those of the Standing Committee for Laser Applications; personal notes; copies of publications and student research project theses; and a number of administrative documents, some of which were marked as classified.
While the documents have provided some additional details about Iraq's laser enrichment development efforts, they refer to activities or sites already known to IAEA and appear to be the personal files of the scientist in whose home they were found. Nothing contained in the documents alters the conclusions previously drawn by IAEA concerning the extent of Iraq's laser enrichment programme. We nevertheless continue to emphasize to Iraq that it should search for and provide all documents, personal or otherwise, that might be relevant to our mandate.
Last week, Iraq also provided IAEA with documentation related to questions and concerns that, since 1998, have been in need of further clarification, particularly as regards weapons and centrifuge design.
However, no new information was contained in that documentation.

It is to be hoped that the new commissions established by Iraq to look for any additional documents and hardware relevant to its programmes for weapons of mass destruction will be able to uncover documents and other evidence that could assist in clarifying these remaining questions and concerns, as well as other areas of current concern.

Finally, as Mr. Blix mentioned earlier, I was informed this morning by the Director General of Iraq's National Monitoring Directorate that national legislation prohibiting proscribed activities was adopted today. The resolution of this long-standing legal matter is, in my view, a step in the right direction if Iraq is to demonstrate its commitment to fulfilling its obligations under Security Council resolutions.

In the coming weeks, IAEA will continue to expand its inspection capabilities in a number of ways, including its already extensive use of unannounced inspections at all relevant sites in Iraq. To strengthen and accelerate our ability to investigate matters of concern, and to reinstate and reinforce our ongoing monitoring and verification system, which came to a halt in 1998, we intend to increase the number of inspectors and support staff. We will also be adding more analysts and translators to support analysis of documents and other inspection findings. We intend to augment the number of customs and procurement experts for the monitoring of imports by Iraq. We will also intensify and expand the range of technical meetings and private interviews with Iraqi personnel, in accordance with our preferred modalities and locations, both inside and outside Iraq.

In addition, we intend to expand our capabilities for near real-time monitoring of dual-use equipment and related activities and to implement several additional components of wide-area environmental monitoring aimed at identifying fingerprints left by nuclear material and nuclear-related activities.

We hope to continue to receive from States actionable information relevant to our mandate. Now that Iraq has accepted the use of all of the platforms for aerial surveillance proposed by supporting States to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) and IAEA - including U-2s, Mirage IVs, Antonovs and drones - we plan to make use of them to support our inspection activities, in particular with a view to monitoring movements in and around sites to be inspected.

The Government of Iraq reiterated last week its commitment to comply with its Security Council obligations and to provide full and active cooperation with the inspecting organizations. Subject to Iraq's making good on this commitment, the measures to which I have referred will contribute to the effectiveness of the inspection process.

As I have reported on numerous occasions, by December 1998 IAEA concluded that it had neutralized Iraq's past nuclear programme and that therefore no unresolved disarmament issues remained at that time.
Hence, our focus since the resumption of our inspections in Iraq two and a half months ago has been verifying whether Iraq revived its nuclear programme in the intervening years.

We have to date found no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.
However, as I have just indicated, a number of issues are still under investigation and we are not yet in a position to reach a conclusion about them, although we are moving forward with regard to some of them. To that end, we intend to make full use of the authority granted to us under all relevant Security Council resolutions to build as much capacity into the inspection process as necessary.

In that context, I would underline the importance of information that States may be able to provide to help us in assessing the accuracy and completeness of the information provided by Iraq.

IAEA's experience in nuclear verification shows that it is possible, particularly with an intrusive verification system, to assess the presence or absence of a nuclear weapons programme in a State even without the full cooperation of the inspected State.
However, prompt, full and active cooperation by Iraq, as required under resolution 1441 (2002), will speed up the process. More importantly, it will enable us to reach the high degree of assurance required by the Security Council in the case of Iraq, in view of its past clandestine programmes for weapons of mass destruction and its past pattern of cooperation. It is my hope that the commitments made recently in Baghdad will continue to translate into concrete and sustained actions.


Mr.
President, once again I must remark on the way in which Namibia's month has got off to a rather dramatic start. I hope you can slow the pace down, but I congratulate you on moving so rapidly to assemble this extremely important Security Council meeting under very difficult and complicated circumstances. I express my appreciation to my many friends, other Ambassadors and Permanent Representatives here who are waiting their turn to speak, and I hope they will understand the very difficult, complicated situation which led to the arrangements announced by the President of the Security Council a few minutes ago.

I have listened carefully to the statements of the previous two speakers, from the Palestinian Authority and from Israel, and on behalf of my Government I would like to address what they said on the situation.

The United States Government joins all the other members of the Council who, I am sure, will express their deep sorrow and regret at the violence we have seen between Israelis and Palestinians in recent days.
We offer our deepest condolences to the families of the victims, particularly those who have lost children. We extend our sympathies to the injured. We pray for the restoration of peace in a region where, as both previous speakers have suggested, there has been an extraordinary effort by the leaders to achieve peace recently - in talks at Camp David, in Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere.
What is needed now is to focus on stopping the violence and to do everything we can to encourage the parties to return to the peace process. This is the only way to end the cycle of heartbreak and sorrow.
President Clinton and Secretary Albright and their colleagues are in ongoing consultations with the parties in a search for ways to end the violence. Tomorrow, Secretary Albright will meet in Paris with Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat. On Thursday, Egyptian President Mubarak will bring the parties together in Cairo for further discussions. I know that my French colleague, Ambassador Levitte, will also want to address the Paris meetings and we look forward to hearing from the Egyptian Ambassador, Mr.
Aboulgheit later this afternoon with an important statement on behalf of his Government in regard to Egypt's role.

All of these meetings in Paris and in Egypt will have great importance. The world will be watching.
The world will be hoping that the cycle of violence will be reversed and that the very encouraging and intense efforts to make progress will be resumed.

As soon as conditions permit, the United States will chair a meeting of Israeli and Palestinian security officials for the purpose of fact-finding and to prevent a recurrence of the events of the last few days.

But I want to stress that the first priority for all parties must be to stop the violence. Now is not the time to be apportioning blame. Israelis and Palestinians have negotiated historic agreements in the past. They have engaged in practical cooperation on the ground.
Now, tragically, in full view of a horrified world, victims, innocent victims, have suffered senseless violence.

But empty rhetoric does not advance the cause of peace. Too often in the past, positions taken by the United Nations have tarnished this great Organization's credibility and undermined its ability to play a constructive role in the peace process. Let us not repeat this error again in this cycle of history. Recent events have undeniably been a setback for the peace process, and we cannot pretend otherwise. But let us not allow them to become a setback to our commitment and our efforts to move forward in the peace process and also to restore the United Nations credibility so that it may play whatever role it can in this process.

There is, of course, no place for violence, intimidation or pressure in this process, although we recognize that they have been concomitants of the problem for generations. The only way peace can be achieved - the only way the hopes and dreams of the people of the region can be fulfilled - is through negotiations. Neither side wants a future of indefinite confrontation. The way ahead lies through negotiations, to which both sides remain committed, as we have heard here today. At this delicate and dangerous moment, the Security Council should keep its focus on the task at hand: restoring calm and creating a climate in which the parties can take steps that will lead to a just, comprehensive and lasting peace.

Thank you, Mr. President, for calling this important meeting today.


Mr. Dejammet (France)(interpretation from French): The situation in Kosovo in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia calls for a response from the Security Council.
The tragic events that have marked the former Yugoslavia in recent years have indeed demonstrated the need for a rapid and appropriate response to crisis situations in the region.

The States that make up what has been called the Contact Group, as well as the European Union, the 26 countries that participated in the European conference held in London and the neighbouring Balkan States, have been involved since the beginning of the crisis. They have emphasized the need for a cessation of violence and the Withdrawal of the special police forces, their condemnation of terrorism and the importance of achieving a political solution to the Kosovo crisis through dialogue and with respect for the territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. That solution should include substantially greater autonomy for Kosovo.

During the London Contact Group meeting, on 9 March 1998, specific requirements were defined, deadlines were set and measures for immediate implementation were decided on. Meeting again on 25 March at Bonn, the States of the Contact Group noted that progress had been achieved since the London meeting.

The joint visit of the German and French Foreign Ministers to Belgrade on 19 March made it possible to appreciate positive developments in the position of the authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The agreement reached on 23 March between the parties regarding measures to implement the 1996 Education Agreement also demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a negotiated solution to delicate issues.

That progress, however important, is still not enough. Additional steps must be taken by the Belgrade authorities and the representatives of the Kosovar Albanians in order for substantive dialogue to commence without preconditions.

The draft resolution before the Security Council today is part of this context. By this draft resolution, the Security Council would decide on an embargo on the sale or supply of arms to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including Kosovo. France already supports such a measure, in accordance with the embargo decided on by the European Union in 1991 and reconfirmed on 19 March 1998.

The measures stipulated in the draft resolution should first and foremost be seen as a means to achieve a negotiated settlement of the current crisis. The text provides that the Security Council will review the prohibitions that have been decided on and will be able to lift them as soon as the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has met the conditions set out in   the draft resolution. The prohibitions can thus be lifted when the Secretary-General, in one of the periodic reports he must submit to the Security Council every 30 days, deems that the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has fulfilled the specific requirements set by the Security Council.

The draft resolution also provides that specific progress on certain difficult issues related to Kosovo will make it possible for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to improve its prospects for normalizing its international relations and for full participation in international institutions.

My country therefore considers this draft resolution to be a balanced text that can contribute to a peaceful political settlement of the current crisis in Kosovo. That is Why France will vote in favour of the draft resolution.