HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY CO-CHAIRS OF GENEVA DISCUSSIONS

The three Co-Chairs of the Geneva International Discussions, Pierre Morel, Special Representative of the European Union, Antti Turunen, Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Georgia and Bolat Nurgaliev, Special Envoy of the Chairperson-in-Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) updated the press this evening on the outcome of the eleventh round of the Geneva Discussions, which was held today in Geneva.

Reading out from the official press communiqué of the Co-Chairs, Mr. Morel said that, as during the past round of discussions, they had met in two working groups to discuss respectively, security and stability issues, as well as humanitarian matters. They had also agreed to meet again on 27 July 2010.

Working Group I had reviewed the security situation since the last round of the Discussions. The participants had expressed concern over the recent incidents in the Gali district, regretted the loss of lives and urged for the need to avoid any further destabilization or an increase of tensions in the field. In response to these recent events, the participants had agreed to convene early next week a meeting of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism in Gali, said Mr. Morel.

The participants further reaffirmed the importance of this Mechanism and, in particular, the use of the hotline. They had also welcomed the meeting in the framework of the Dvani/Ergneti Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism that had taken place last week and expressed hope that regular and full work of this Mechanism could be resumed shortly. They also looked forward to the presentation of the report on missing persons and detainees by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, said Mr. Morel.

Mr. Morel said Working Group I participants had also continued to exchange views on the issue of the non-use of force and international security arrangements, as well as on best practices and cooperation on the ground. The Co-chairs had made suggestions with regard to additional information on building trust and transparency. These would be further discussed at the next meeting.

The participants of Working Group II had participated in an information session on the technical aspect of human rights observation and promotion, said Mr. Morel. The co-moderators would explore how field experience and lessons learned could be used to further concrete objectives and activities of this working group.

Working Group II had also continued its discussions on topics relating to the draft agreed undertakings that were tabled by the co-moderators. The discussion had focused on problems of property-related issues, but without full participation at the end of the session. There were still basic differences and the Co-Chairs had called upon all participants to stay engaged in the ongoing work in a constructive manner, said Mr. Morel. The next session would continue to review subsequent contributions to the text and look at other pending measures.

Sharing his personal views on this eleventh round of discussions, Mr. Morel said it had been difficult and sometimes tense. The situation on the ground remained difficult and at times dangerous, including in zones that had not been conflict zones two years ago. This showed that the mechanisms that had been created through the Geneva Discussion played an important role.

The issue of the non-use of force had become a central topic of Working Group I, said Mr. Morel. Working Group II had continued its activities focusing on the best way to implement humanitarian arrangements. The right to property was one of the most complicated issues being discussed. The information session had focused on the respect and promotion of human rights, as well as registration and go-and-see visits for displaced and refugees to their former places of residency.

Mr. Morel said the Geneva dynamic had been confirmed during this round and the meetings were taking place at a sustained pace now. Almost two years after the events they had still the same determination to move forward.

Mr. Turunen also highlighted the difficult nature of the discussions, as they were tackling very complex issues. It was however encouraging and important that all participants remained engaged in the Geneva Discussions process and that all were committed to continue the dialogue in this framework. He was also saddened by the latest incident in Gali, which had resulted in three deaths. As explained before, this incident had led to the decision to call for an earlier meeting of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism to clarify the situation.

Also, they were facing political problems with regards to the agenda of the Geneva Discussions; more time was needed and they had to focus on the small steps they could do right now to address issues in a bottom-up approach. They had to concentrate on the security needs and humanitarian efforts aimed at alleviating the difficult situation of the local population, said Mr. Turunen.

Mr. Nurgaliev said that he had called for the resumption of meetings of the Second Incident Prevention and Response Mechanism to address the problems affecting the communities on a daily basis. The Mechanism had been designed to bring concrete solutions to concrete problems and regular meetings were indispensable. A flexible approach was a precondition to meet the expectations of ordinary people.

All participants of the Geneva Discussions should translate their willingness into action so as to build confidence in tackling practical measures, said Mr. Nurgaliev. People were facing difficulties now and everyone had to work hard to get people back to normal life.

Under facilitation of the OSCE, consultations had taken place on the humanitarian package, notably on the issue of gas and water supply. Participants remained committed to improving the daily life of communities; this was encouraging, said Mr. Nurgaliev. There had however been some disagreements on the way to approach this issue and thus the modalities of the proposed package would have to be further elaborated.

Questions & Answers

A journalist said that the Russian Federation was insisting that Georgia had to sign a new document with South Ossetia and Abkhazia on the non-use of force. But the document signed in 2008 between France and Russia had already included a provision on the non-use of force. What was the position of the Co-Chair on this issue?

Mr. Morel said that this touched upon the heart of the problem of the discussions over the non-use of force. While there were diverging views, there were also some common ones between the participants and the Co-Chairs had been working on the points of possible convergence and on the way to overcome differences. For some of the participants, an agreement on the non-use of force was urgently needed and for others this was already existent and it should only be reinforced. All participants were ready to continue to discuss this subject.

Another journalist asked for clarifications on the draft agreed undertakings and what it contained. Also which delegation had not participated in the information session?

Mr. Morel answered that the draft was a working document, serving as a basis for the discussion on the situation of displaced persons and refugees, including the issues of registration, status, returns, go-and-see-visits, gas and water supplies and property rights. These themes had been regularly reviewed since 2009. This work, whose aim was to identify precise plans of actions, had made it possible to gradually clarify the concerns of all sides. They were now approaching the final reading of this text but diverging views had not made it possible to finish this work during the current round of the Discussions. Work on the subject would have to be continued at the next round.