Civil Georgia im Gespräch mit den drei Beisitzern der Genfer Gespräche: 'Neuer Kontext' für Genfer Gespräche

22.12.2010 | Civil.ge | Link zur Quelle | Bilder | Video |

• 'Non-Use of force pledge in package with int'l security guarantees';
• 'We can cautiously be optimistic';
• 'Flexible informal framework';
• 'Optimistic about OSCE mission’s return in the long run';

Georgia's unilateral declaration on non-use of force creates "new context", which can serve to further progress in Geneva Discussions, co-chairs of the talks, launched two months after the August war, say.

The three co-chairs of the Geneva discussions, Pierre Morel of EU, Antti Turunen of UN and Bolat Nurgaliyev, the special envoy of outgoing Kazakh OSCE chairmanship, spoke on December 7 with Civil.ge about the implications non-use of force pledge may have on the Geneva discussions, as well as about the prospects of restoration of OSCE mission in Georgia.

The diplomats were in Tbilisi after talks in Moscow and also visited Tskhinvali and Sokhumi in run up to fourteenth round of Geneva talks planned for December 16.

The following is a transcript of the interview:

Q.: President Saakashvili made unilateral pledge on non-use of force on November 23, later reiterated at the OSCE Astana summit. It was then followed by response from Tskhinvali, Sokhumi and Moscow. This has long been one of the key issues in Geneva Discussions with the participants failing to achieve an agreement. What practical meaning this declaration may have on talks in Geneva and do you think it may be the sign of any breakthrough?

Pierre Morel: We have taken note and we are not making statement speaking of a breakthrough. But what is clear is that it is the main subject on which we've been working for this year. We had plenty of other subjects, but this question of non-use of force and international security arrangements has been the matter we have tried to work very methodically - reviewing different options, getting proposals, comparing proposals, seeing the pros and cons of different formulas. So, we think that this work in Geneva, however modest, has helped to clarify ideas and has led participants [of the Geneva Discussions] to take the initiative, and indeed the statement by President Saakashvili is an important initiative. It is interesting to see that it led the other participants [of the Geneva Discussions] to react positively and we have now an expanded base for our work. Of course, all this is taking place just few days before the Geneva session, and this will be very much in the center of the next session.

Q.: If there is an agreement between the participants on this issue, it seems that one of the major controversies in the Geneva discussions will be removed.

Pierre Morel: Yes, but we've learnt to be careful. It is very clear that there are different types, modalities of statement and declaration. Therefore, you have different approaches to the statement on non-use of force. We have to be precise and to see where there is convergence and where there is divergence. This is part of our work and we must progress on this important subject in full clarity.

All the elements of the text of the statement of President Saakashvili are not exactly the way they might have been expected from other participants. But we have clear points of legal nature in this pledge. This is very important: I mean this is connected to international law, and now, in a written form. The modalities of the statement of President Saakashvili will be a matter of discussion, no doubt.

One year ago, this kind of approach was considered by some as just impossible; now we have moved. I also need to recall that, for some participants, the initial line was to say that there is a need for an agreement and that a statement was not enough; but it was also recognized by them that a statement would be a good start. That's where we have to do our further work. Frankly, we have been confronted with a lot of skepticism on this subject; some would say one year ago that we were embarking into some kind of philosophical consideration; no, we have tried to pin down what were the possibilities, the limitations, the opportunities, and we have been working with all the options. This is the approach of the Geneva Discussions.

‘We Can Cautiously Be Optimistic’

Antti Turunen: With his [President Saakashvili's] statement and inputs from Sukhumi and Tskhinvali we now have the material and we can say that the process is [moving] in right direction with this material we have and we can cautiously be optimistic. There is a feeling, that all the participants agree now that the Geneva Discussions are the right format and it's the only format where these issues are discussed. In that sense we have achieved a lot and secondly we have also achieved the full functioning of the IPRM [Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism] - both of these mechanisms, not only the Gali mechanism [referring to regular meetings held in Gali, breakaway Abkhazia], but also the Ergneti mechanism [referring to regular meetings in frames of IPRM held in a village on the administrative border of breakaway South Ossetia] - are positive steps forward.

I think we have all chances and also challenges to take the next step forward and try to formulate something, which is common, not only individual statements.

Q.: Mr. Morel said, while speaking about President Saakashvili's declaration, that it might not be what others expected; it seems there are still disagreements about the form of this non-use of force declaration. One of the recent proposals put forth by Russia was, that if the parties fail to agree on signing a legally binding agreements on non-use of force, then let them separately make unilateral, individual declarations on non-use of force. Georgia's unilateral declaration is very much similar to what Russia has been proposing...

Pierre Morel: Yes, indeed. We have said that we have had different proposals; this was the base of the work of the co-chairs. Indeed, it can be the first step, and some also would argue that it should lead to an agreement - but an agreement between whom and whom and a statement from which participant of the discussions? So we have clearly taken a new step; we must assess where we are and, once again, [assess] what is now possible.

Last year, the participants in Geneva [Discussions] were discussing ideas, launching proposals and counter-proposals... One year later, after this useful work, we have statements, including the formal one made by Georgian head of state in a prestigious place [European Parliament], confirming to major international interlocutors his position; we have Foreign Ministry reaction in Russia; we have inputs from Sukhumi and from Tskhinvali; so we have now a new context. This deserves further analysis.

Q.: Judging from the Russian leadership's statements, Moscow is not going to make any such declaration on non-use of force as it considers itself a mediator and not a party into the conflict. Is this one of the reasons of your cautious stance?

Pierre Morel: This is a matter of discussion already [since] the last year. We continue to look after this dimension. We were discussing that in a context of drafts put on table between the participants; now we have new developments, which have taken place on the international level with the legal dimension. So let's reconsider this point further.

Antti Turunen: Both the substance and the format - everything is to be discussed; the format [is] also including possible guarantees of international security arrangements - all this is part of the package. We are just approaching this with cautious steps, and let's see how it functions.

'Non-Use of Force Pledge and Int'l Security Guarantees Should Go Hand in Hand'

Q.: You mentioned international security guarantees. The document, which the co-chairs have developed known as "basic elements of a framework for an agreement on the non-use of force and international security arrangements", is this something in which you tried to combine the key positions of the participants - on the one hand calls for non-use of force and on the other - Tbilisi's insistence on creating international security guarantees in the breakaway regions?

Pierre Morel: This is how you start; when you have different points of view and you have people seating around the table, looking for means to improve security - let's identify all the options; so, you first have to do a checklist in order to review all the dimensions. In this deepening of the discussion, we have stressed, again and again, with all the participants, that if you want to work on non-use of force, you have also to work on the international security arrangements, which are connected with non-use of force.

Non-use of force is not the kind of concept which is floating in the air. This is something related to concrete situations, which implies rules of behavior and guarantees and consequences on the ground. Otherwise, why should one enter into this complex exercise? This is meant to improve real security; therefore, as soon as you begin to work on this legal and commitment dimensions, you must look at the guarantees and modalities.

So we have always spoken of "non-use of force and international security arrangements". If partners, interlocutors are ready to commit themselves, they also look into the modalities in which this can be secured and can be prevented from non-compliance or failure.

Q.: So these two – non-use of force and international security guarantees - go hand in hand.

Pierre Morel: Yes, exactly.

‘Flexible Informal Framework’

Q.: Who are the mediators in the Geneva discussions?

Pierre Morel: Well, let's not be trapped by the words, this would be my first reaction.

As you know, the Geneva discussions started on October 15, 2008 - two months after the war. That was part of August 12 agreement and complementary arrangements of September 8. We started from scratch in the sense that Georgia has withdrawn from the former Moscow and Sochi agreements; therefore, we had no real precedents. We started in a new context and we had therefore to elaborate our framework. Thus, we shaped this formula of co-chairs, which is linking the three organizations [UN, OSCE, EU]. Since the start, we have been working the same way, shaping further our system.

As a part of this mission, we have paid regular visits to all participants, and you can call this a mediation role. But, usually, when you look at international norms, it is done within certain rules or under the aegis of one organization or with a formal agreement between the different parties to the conflict. We have not gone through too many procedural steps. We've had guidelines, and our mandate is based on the August 12 agreement. With the consent of all the participants in this rather flexible informal framework of the Geneva Discussions, we have tried to push as far as possible the work. There are about 60 people meeting every two months. Work is going on between the sessions, we do not stop [between them], this is our rule as co-chairs; our respective teams are constantly involved and this is what we have elaborated.

We will not put ourselves into some kind of specific category, because we keep this informal character; it's called Geneva Discussions, it's not negotiations. So in that respect, I understand your need to qualify things more precisely...

Q.: I'm asking this because Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, said just recently "Russia, US, EU, OSCE and UN act there as mediators"...

Pierre Morel: We would not enter into this kind of characterization. We start from what we have - the mission we have received - and we try to push it as far as possible.

Antti Turunen: This process itself hopefully will really create some kind of peace reconciliation, that's of course our dream and aim. But at the moment we try to do step-by-step, facilitating the discussions that we have in Geneva and it's the only forum for all the participants and it is important achievement in itself and now we are taking cautiously steps forward and hopefully we can keep making progress.

Pierre Morel: In other words, we do not have full-fledged, structured system from the beginning. It was rather specific base from which we try to extract the maximum. We have had some results already and some positive impacts on the ground, together with EUMM [EU Monitoring Mission in Georgia] and with the work we have been doing between the sessions; this represents certain dynamism, we are there to further the process, as far as we can.

‘Optimistic about OSCE mission’s return in the long run’

Q.: OSCE Summit in Astana adopted a Commemorative Declaration, but failed to adopt a comprehensive action plan with unresolved conflicts representing key stumbling block. Can you identify briefly what was the controversy particularly in respect of Georgia?

Bolat Nurgaliyev: The major controversies were around the status issue of the two entities - South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Insistence that the fragment on protected conflicts should be titled 'Conflict in Georgia' was not receiving consensus among the participating states; that prevented us from putting [that fragment] in the text; otherwise, other aspects [were] agreed including to proceed [with the work] within the framework of the Geneva International Discussions.

But I have to remind that the concluding part of the Declaration contains instruction to the incoming chairmanship of the OSCE to proceed working on the Action Plan taking into consideration what has already been discussed during preparation of the summit, plus the proposals and specific ideas, which were put forward during the summit and in the speeches of heads of government and heads of state.

Q.: There have been calls by number of western leaders at the Astana summit for re-establishment of the OSCE mission in Georgia. The previous, OSCE Greek chairmanship in 2009, was putting forth proposal in this respect. What were the Kazakh chairmanship’s efforts in this regard, what kind of proposals, if any, have been discussed and do you foresee any progress in this regard?

Bolat Nurgaliyev: Of course we were very keen to ensure the continuity of the preceding efforts and we picked from where our Greek colleagues left that particular set of issues - it's not just one issue, it's also the essence of what the mission of the OSCE should be doing in the region.

We were trying to adjust ideas put forward by different participants. For example: something is not acceptable to all the sides, then what about this, what about that - and this took quite a long time, because [during] each occasion we had the request for timeout for consideration of fresh proposals.

But I think, more or less, the formula on which we will be proceeding to concentrate our efforts - Kazakhstan being the member of "OSCE Troika", will also be providing its own input, but now the leading role will be passed to the Lithuanian chairmanship - this way or other way, I am pretty optimistic that we will have an OSCE presence. But, of course, that will need further tries and in the long run I am sure that we will restore a meaningful and useful presence of the OSCE, which will continue to play its role in the Geneva International Discussions, as well as its engagement in implementation of specific projects, which were discussed yesterday here in Tbilisi and today in Tskhinvali.

Q.: You said you are optimistic about restoration of OSCE presence in Georgia; what is this optimism based on?

Bolat Nurgaliyev: I've never heard that there is no need for that [mission in Georgia] and the acceptance of the projects that we are discussing, which have a direct bearing on everyday life of population of the region is the proof that we will be definitely having a field mission. But how it is going to be, on what footing - that is subject of further deliberation; the matter in principle is accepted; the devil is in details, but these details, I am sure, will be worked out.

Q.: There have been talks on launch of EU-funded and OSCE-implemented rehabilitation project in breakaway South Ossetia [if launched it will be the first of this kind since the August, 2008 war], involving repair works on Zonkari dam. Are there any tangible signs that this project will be launched?

Bolat Nurgaliyev: Yes, we strongly hope that it's going to be this way, because there were some technical issues, which we had to clear; we seem to have come to understanding. Money is there, the technical feasibility has been studied. Now it's a matter of signing the contract and starting actual work. We were insisting that it should start as soon as possible given the winter’s coming and if it is snowing, maybe, there will be a delay, but that will be a delay caused by force majeure.

Stichworte: Georgien, Abchasien, Süd-Ossetien, Russland, Krieg-2008, Genfer Gespräche - Sprache: englisch, Archiv: #

Resolution zu Georgien im US-Senat

11.12.2010 | Civil.ge | Link zur Quelle | Bilder | Video |

'Resolution zur Okkupation' im US-Senat initiiert
Die demokratische Senatorin Jeanne Shaheen hat eine Resolution verfaßt, die Georgiens territoriale Integrität und die Anerkennung von Abchasien und Südossetien als von Russland besetzte Regionen unterstützt. Russland auch aufgerufen, das Waffenstillstandsabkommen von 2008 vollständig zu erfüllen.
Entwurf einer Resolution zu Georgien im US-Senat initiiert:
Draft of Resolution on Georgia Initiated in U.S. Senate
Draft - S.RES.698
A resolution expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the territorial integrity of Georgia and the situation within Georgia's internationally recognized borders
Whereas, since 1993, the territorial integrity of Georgia has been reaffirmed by the international community and 36 United Nations Security Council resolutions;
Whereas the Helsinki Final Act resulting from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe in 1975 states that parties ‘‘shall regard as inviolable all one another’s frontiers’’ and that ‘‘participating States will likewise refrain from making each other’s territory the object of military occupation’’;
Whereas the United States-Georgia Strategic Charter, signed on January 9, 2009, underscores that ‘‘support for each other’s sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders constitutes the foundation of our bilateral relations’’;
Whereas, in October 2010, at the meeting of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership, Secretary of State Clinton stated, ‘‘The United States will not waiver in its support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity’’;
Whereas the White House released a fact sheet on July 24, 2010, calling for ‘‘Russia to end its occupation of the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’’ and for ‘‘a return of international observers to the two occupied regions of Georgia’’;
Whereas Vice President Joseph Biden stated in Tbilisi in July 2009 that the United States ‘‘will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states’’ and went on to ‘‘urge the world not to recognize [Abkhazia and South Ossetia] as independent states’’;
Whereas the August 2008 conflict between the Governments of Russia and Georgia resulted in civilian and military causalities, the violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, and large numbers of internally-displaced persons;
Whereas the August 12, 2008, ceasefire agreement, agreed to by the Governments of Russia and Georgia, provides that all Russian troops shall be withdrawn to pre-conflict positions;
Whereas the August 12, 2008, ceasefire agreement provides that free access shall be granted to organizations providing humanitarian assistance in regions affected by violence in August 2008;
Whereas the International Crisis Group concluded in its June 7, 2010, report on South Ossetia that ‘‘Moscow has not kept important ceasefire commitments and some 20,000 ethnic Georgians from the region remain forcibly displaced’’;
Whereas Human Rights Watch concluded in its World Report 2010 that ‘‘Russia continued to exercise effective control over South Ossetia and. . . Abkhazia, preventing international observers’ access and vetoing international missions working there’’;
Whereas, in October 2010, Russian troops withdrew from the small Georgian village of Perevi;
Whereas the withdrawal of Russian troops from Perevi is a positive step, but it does not constitute compliance with the terms of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia ceasefire agreement;
Whereas, on November 23, 2010, before the European Parliament, Georgian President Saakashvili committed Georgia to not use force to restore control over the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia;
Whereas Secretary of State Clinton stated in Tbilisi on July 5, 2010, ‘‘We continue to call for Russia to abide by the August 2008 cease-fire commitment. . . including ending the occupation and withdrawing Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia to their pre-conflict positions.’’;
Whereas the Russian Federation vetoed the extension of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Mission to Georgia and the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia, forcing the missions to withdraw from the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
Whereas Russian troops stationed in the regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia continue to be present without a mandate from the United Nations or other multilateral organizations;
Whereas the Senate supports United States efforts to develop a productive relationship with the Russian Federation in areas of mutual interest, including non-proliferation and arms control, cooperation concerning the failure of the Government of Iran to meet its international obligations with regard to its nuclear programs, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, anti-piracy, economics and trade, and others; and
Whereas the Senate agrees that these efforts must not compromise longstanding United States policy, principles of the Helsinki Final Act, and United States support for United States allies and partners worldwide: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate
(1) affirms that it is the policy of the United States to support the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Georgia and the inviolability of its borders and to recognize the areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as regions of Georgia occupied by the Russian Federation;
(2) calls upon the Government of Russia to take steps to fulfill all the terms and conditions of the 2008 ceasefire agreements, including returning military forces to pre-war positions and ensuring access to international humanitarian aid to all those affected by the conflict;
(3) urges the Government of Russia and the de facto authorities in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to allow for the full and dignified return of internally-displaced persons and international observer missions to the territories of Abkhazia and
South Ossetia;
(4) supports constructive engagement and confidence-building measures between the Government of Georgia and the de facto authorities in the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia; and
(5) affirms that the path to lasting stability in this region is through peaceful means and long-term diplomatic and political dialogue.

Stichworte: Georgien, Abchasien, Süd-Ossetien, Russland, Krieg-2008, Sprache: englisch, Archiv: #

Präsident Saakashvili spricht über Abchasien in der UN-Klimakonferenz in Cancun

08.12.2010 | Civil.ge | Link zur Quelle | Bilder | Video |

Präsident Saakashvili spricht über Abchasien in der UN-Klimakonferenz in Cancun
President Saakashvili told the climate conference in Cancun, Mexico that in “occupied region of Abkhazia the Black Sea coast has been experiencing abrasion due to the devastating practices of the occupying power and its proxy regime.”
“Their mining of inert materials from the Gumista River construction projects related to the Sochi Olympics has resulted in landslides and degradation of the microclimate,” he said while addressing the conference.
“Their illegal search for oil in the Black Sea, in the territorial waters of Georgia, is done in a total blackout, without any legitimate authority being able to check the impact on the environment,” Saakashvili continued. “This is extremely alarming. What is most unfortunate is that we are unable to halt these disturbing practices due to the ongoing occupation and the violation of all cease-fire agreements.”
He also told the conference, that the global warming was “a challenge for humankind”.
“Our overarching goal in Georgia is to show that lowering our consumption of fossil fuels can help us increase growth-and can do so in a sustainable way,” Saakashvili said.
Remarks of H.E. President Mikheil Saakashvili:
16th Conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Cancun, Mexico
8 December 2010
Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen,
Allow me to deliver my speech in Spanish, in honor of our Mexican hosts.
It is a great honor for me to be here at the Sixteenth Conference of the Parties of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
I will try to share with you Georgia's vision on how a little country like ours can be a laboratory for how to confront climate change and work on sustainable development.
But first, allow me to thank our Mexican hosts and all of you for the progress made during the conference.
There were fears that Cancun, after the disappointment of Copenhagen, would be a summit marked by little hope and low aspirations.
We must congratulate the Mexican Government, and in particular the President of the Conference, Ms. Patricia Espinosa, for their extraordinary work in rejuvenating these global climate talks. I also am very pleased by the appointment of Ms. Christiana Figueres as the Executive Secretary.
The conference, of course, is not over, but Cancun has the potential to mark a new beginning in our common pursuit of a low-carbon era.
We are near agreements on the REDD framework for compensating developing nations for preserving forests, as a well as on a "Green Fund" that will channel billions to poor nations to help them adapt to climate impacts, adopt low-carbon technology from developed countries, and convert to cleaner energy sources.
In a more ideal world, of course, the Copenhagen Accord would have been achieved last December and we would be gathering here in the aftermath of success.
As you know, Georgia is and remains a strong supporter of the Copenhagen Accord.
We believe that the time has past for a debate on whether the world needs to address climate change; the only question we now face is how to do so.
We also believe strongly that a low-carbon world not only benefits the environment, but also help decrease regional tensions.
After all, our country lies at a crossroads of global energy supplies, a region where oil and gas have helped fuel conflicts for more than a century. Building up local, renewable sources can help ensure that energy is not used as a political tool. Doing so in close cooperation with neighboring countries, as Georgia does, creates greater regional stability.
Immediately after Copenhagen, Georgia formally affiliated with the Copenhagen Accord and we fully support the implementation of its provisions. We also believe in the absolute necessity of continuing the UNFCCC process, and we're confident in a balanced outcome that reflects the guiding principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.
in addition to the question of CO2 emmisions it is time to start working and finding solutions for other environmental and sustainibility issues.
Although Georgia is a small country, we believe we can have a large impact, especially in our region-one that has suffered from environmental degradation, as well as oppression and instability.
Ecological concerns and policies are not reserved to big and wealthy members of the Northern World: transitional democracies, emerging countries, small republics can do their part. In fact, they should see the green ambition as the key for their development and their stability.
In the global fight against climate change, these countries have a critical role to play as laboratories for innovation-testing new ideas, setting ambitious targets, and serving as a model for others.
Our overarching goal in Georgia is to show that lowering our consumption of fossil fuels can help us increase growth-and can do so in a sustainable way.
We are bringing the same resolve to this initiative as we have brought to the reform of our economy, our institutions and our political sphere.
Georgia already has taken concrete steps in combating climate change. Tbilisi, our capital, has joined the "Covenant of Mayors Initiative of the European Union" to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. It is the first capital of the region to join the initiative.
Perhaps most important, Georgia is making great strides in developing its renewable energy program. We have established a friendly investment environment that has led to billions being poured into renewable energy sources, especially hydropower.
As a result of our rapid progress, already more than 80 percent of the electricity production in Georgia comes from renewable sources. In fact, we are exporting renewable energy to our neighbors, and we will eventually transmit it through Turkey to the European Union. This will enable us to achieve our goal of establishing Georgia as the first large-scale renewable energy exporter to Europe.
Our renewable energy initiatives can be complemented by large-scale initiatives to grow our forests and advance carbon sequestration activities, both of which will need the support of the international community.
These programs could allow natural forests to constitute as much as 10 percent of Georgia's territory, offering significant economic and environment benefits. Efforts such as these also will lead to the rehabilitation of degraded soils and vegetation cover, the protection of watersheds, and greater local employment.
In addition to these evolutions, we are launching a program that will lead to a cleaner transport industry. And public institutions will play the role of example. Georgia's government will, starting from this year, replace official traditional cars by electric ones.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I cannot end my speech without noting that there are man-made challenges to our climate that would be easy to stop and that we must not ignore. I have to point there to the tragic situation of Georgia's currently occupied region of Abkhazia, where the Black Sea coast has been experiencing abrasion due to the devastating practices of the occupying power and its proxy regime.
Their mining of inert materials from the Gumista River construction projects related to the Sochi Olympics has resulted in landslides and degradation of the microclimate.
Their illegal search for oil in the Blacksea, in the territorial waters of Georgia, is done in a total blackout, without any legitimate authority being able to check the impact on the environment.
This is extremely alarming. What is most unfortunate is that we are unable to halt these disturbing practices due to the ongoing occupation and the violation of all cease-fire agreements.
Ladies and gentlemen-
Global warming is a challenge for humankind as a whole and requires a response from a united humankind.
We must act with resolve and determination, setting aside our short-term interests, our actual rivalries or tensions, and taking concrete actions for our long-term good, for the good of the generations to come.
Thank you.

Stichworte: Georgien, Abchasien, Sprache: deutsch, englisch, Archiv: #

Präsident Saakashvili's Rede beim OSCE-Gipfel in Astana

01.12.2010 | Civil.ge | Link zur Quelle | Bilder | Video |

President Saakashvili's Speech at the OSCE Summit in Astana
December 1, Astana
Thank you Mr. Chairman, distinguished heads of states and governments, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to thank our Kazakh hosts, and you know, I have been in the city of Astana for the first time six years ago.
This very city is a great evidence of what leadership of personalities, what historic differences it can make. And I think it is very much attribute also to the great man Nursultan Nazarbayev with very rare vision about this city, about this country, about this region.
And I think it is a great example to follow for all the others also in this region. Our common mission at the summit is to agree on a set of concrete steps to make the OSCE a true security community one free of dividing lines, conflicts, spheres of influence, a community in which human rights are respected and people live in dignity.
We need a common vision for how to enforce the principles that define the OSCE, or how to foster a cooperation to quarrel rivalries and the strategy to help us overcome the danger of tensions and the so-called frozen conflicts that undermine the stability of our common area.
I am confident that we can make a substantial progress, but we cannot do it so if we ignore the difficulties we faced to overlook the progress or the result.
35 years ago the Helsinki Final Act marked a fundamental shift in the history of international relations by affirming a set of principles to bind the behaviors of states, this included the inviolability of borders, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the territorial integrity of states and respect for international law on human rights.
Unfortunately over three decades later these principles are still being violated within the OSCE area. 11 years ago at the last OSCE summit in Istanbul we witnessed the adoption of another set of fundamental principles, embodied in the Istanbul summit declaration and a charter for the European security. What a different time it has been, I remember President Yeltsin together with President Clinton sealing up of what was the end of Cold War in the OSCE area, on withdrawal troops, on arms control, the commitments that had to be complied with. If those commitments had been upheld, my country would have been liberated from the presence of foreign troops on her soil.
Unfortunately, the time has changed, the mood has changed and Russia [inaudible] on the obligations it undertook in Istanbul both with respect to Georgia and to other states. In fact contrary to the spirit of Istanbul, Russia has dramatically increased the size of its forces illegally stationed within our internationally recognized borders.
Today more than 12 000 heavily armed troops enforced the Russian occupation of 20 percent of Georgian territory, with tanks, with missiles, with heavy artillery, this is a blatant violation of the Helsinki principles, the Istanbul declaration, international law and August 12, 2008 ceasefire agreement brokered by the European Union. If we treat these principles as dead letter, our community is destined to die as well.
By contrast, if we commit to implementing than we can make progress towards being a real security community, one in which there is mutual sympathy, trust, and sense of common interests. These commitments have to be respected in all three dimensions, not only in political, military area.
We all agree today that the human dimension is a pre-requisite for comprehensive and indivisible security. But in our case the human dimension commitment have been violated as well. In 1994- 1996 the OSCE summits in Budapest and Lisbon condemned the ethnic cleansing in Georgia and called for the safe and dignified return of IDPs and refugees.
Yet the number of IDPs and refugees in a country of less than 5 million people continue to increase, climbing up to 500 000 after the ethnic cleansing campaign of 2008. Half a million souls are thus deprived of their most basic human rights because of their origins, their nationalities, ethnicities, their faith, their political views. Human rights continue to be violated on a daily basis in the occupied regions; the OSCE has reported on this many times throughout the last two years as you all know very well.
These facts, ladies and gentlemen, must not be ignored or overlooked, and previous OSCE agreements must be fulfilled. I came here with a message of hope and a profound commitment to helping lead positive change in our security community.
We came here to tell you that these tragic facts can be reversed, that they will be reversed and that our conflict with the Russian Federation can be resolved. The way forward is through a comprehensive dialogue, not permanent confrontation.
We rely on the power of words, not of bombs. On November 23rd, one week ago I made the solemn pledge in front of the European Parliament, that Georgia would never use force to restore its territorial integrity and sovereignty; that it will only resort to peaceful means in its quest for the de-occupation and the reunification of its territory. Even if the Russian Federation refuses to withdraw the occupational forces, even if less than 20% of original population remain in the occupied areas and 80% are held back to go back to their houses, even if its proxy militias multiply their human rights violations, Georgia will only retain the right to self-defense in case of new attacks and invasion of the Georgian territory that remains under control of the Georgian government.
We have made this pledge, because we believe that peace is the only way to achieve our legitimate and legal goals.
I have just sent letters formulizing Georgia's pledge to the Secretary-General of the OSCE, UN and NATO, as well as the Presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the United States.
I came here animated by the same spirit, reiterating my call to the Russian leadership to engage in serious negotiations, to engage in dialogue rather than in polemics. Unfortunately, despite our numerous calls Russia has not agreed to any dialogue either bilaterally or within the framework of the OSCE.
Dialogue between Moscow and Tbilisi remains one of the stumbling blocks of the Astana declaration. Yet this organization is built upon dialogue and consensus.
Last summit 11 years ago we encountered serious difference and overcame the true dialogue. We must master the same resolve today because without dialogue we will never bridge our differences. I am committed without any reservations to engage in dialogue as soon as possible as to seek peaceful solutions of our conflicts.
Ladies and Gentlemen, we all want to forge a new common space free of dividing lines, spheres of influence and intentions we have inherited from the history. We all want to have a true, security community.
We need stronger, better and more resolute OSCE, one that does not shy away from tackling the real problems and serves as forum for dialogue between partners, between all the leaders at every level. There has been a lot of arguments around the OSCE, there has been an attack on ODIHR for instance in terms of election monitoring.
It is ups and downs, we also had our arguments with them but I always believe that OSCE presence on monitoring for democratic process, election process, the whole democratic dialogue is very helpful to any country, especially for those who are coming out from cold to another kind of policy and to another sphere. Indeed, our region has been changing.
No country of the OSCE but one as well as basically no other serious country in the world recognized occupation of our regions. The region has been changing itself; the country has become more independent, more self-reliant, speaking out with their voice.
Today I was speaking with Roza Otunbayeva, who is herself a symbol of changing Kyrgyzstan, but also lots of changes in this region. I think, this is the whole change of its democratization, better security and OSCE is a very important instrument.
It was like this in the seventies, when it was in much more difficult situation of the cold war and it remains the same in today's world if we use it properly.
We must not allow the past to undermine our future, the tools we have at our disposal are dialogue and consensus.
Georgia is committed to this path and I am confident that strengthened OSCE peace and cooperation will prevail in our region.
Thank you.

Stichworte: Georgien, Abchasien, Süd-Ossetien, Russland, Krieg-2008, Sprache: deutsch, englisch, Archiv: #