HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY THE CO-CHAIRS OF THE GENEVA
DISCUSSIONS HELD AT THE PALAIS DES NATIONS ON 11 NOVEMBER 2009

The three Co-Chairs of the Geneva Discussions, Pierre Morel, Special Representative of the European Union; Johan Verbeke, Special Representative of the Secretary-General; and Charalampos Christopoulos, Special Envoy of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Chairperson-in-Office, briefed journalists at the end of the one-day meeting of the Geneva Discussions.

Mr. Morel, reading out the press communiqué of the Co-Chairs of the Geneva Discussions, said the participants in the Geneva Discussions had completed their eighth round. All participants met in two parallel working groups to discuss security and stability in the region and humanitarian matters. They agree to continue their discussions in the same format on 28 January 2010.

In Working Group One, the Co-Chairs reviewed the general security situation for the period since the last round of Geneva Discussions. Participants also reviewed in detail the work to date of both joint Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms, which were agreed during the fourth round of the Geneva discussions on 17 and 18 February 2009. Participants supported the continued contribution of Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms to improving people’s lives by addressing practical security-related matters. Whilst the overall security situation on the ground was assessed as relatively stable, the Co-Chairs expressed their concern about a number of recent detentions. They noted that these incidents should be addressed through the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms, which remained the most effective way to resolve matters important for all sides.

The participants exchanged views on the report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, which was headed by Ambassador Heidi Tagliavini of Switzerland. Participants agreed the report contained useful lessons to draw on in contributing to building a more stable future. Participants also discussed basic elements of a framework for an agreement related to the non-use of force and international security arrangements. The discussion was based on elements prepared by the Co-Chairs, following consultations with and including contributions provided by participants since the previous round of Geneva Discussions. Participants agreed that the elements formed a good basis for further discussions. The Co-Chairs would continue to work on these elements ahead of the next round.

In Working Group Two, participants continued their discussion on a proposal from the Co-Moderators for Agreed Undertakings on the return of refugees, internally displaced persons and other persons of concern. Substantive discussions had allowed participants to make some progress towards a comprehensive set of actions, but discussions would have to continue.

Mr. Morel, making a few general observations of his own, said the first dynamics of the Geneva Discussions which were established over the past year were continuing to develop and grown. They could see this in the pace of work and the nature of discussions that were developing. To sum up, they had held a session where they delved deeply into the issues. One year was very short to deal with all of the elements. They were seeking an agreement on the non-use of force and international security arrangements. The dynamics were continuing and the Co-Chairs would continue their intersessional work. At the same time, they were taking into account pragmatic aspects like the crossing of the separation lines and joint visits. On Working Group Two, the procedure was different. The document on Agreed Undertakings was now well advanced. It was substantive on very sensitive issues and dealt with five points: rehabilitation of housing and damaged facilities; supply of water and other utilities; legal situation of refugees and internally displaced persons and other persons of concern; facilitation of voluntary, safe, dignified return or relocation; and property related issues, including restitution and compensation. Work on substantive issues needed substantive consideration. They were moving forward, step by step, subject by subject, bottom up. The upward curve was quite clear and the process was gradually moving forward.

Mr. Verbeke said he fully shared with Mr. Morel the general assessment of this meeting being once again a useful meeting, and a difficult meeting, but they were here to solve problems, and the meeting gave them the necessary material to continue on the Geneva road. They had for the first time a rather in-depth and horizontal review of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms. They had been set up on 17 and 18 February of this year and it was time to make an assessment to see where they stood on their functioning. These mechanisms were doing what they expected them to do. Concerning the mechanism that he was responsible for, chairing the meeting for Abkhazia, he had also shared with participants more personal evaluations, and one of them was that the mere fact that they had the regularity of those bi-weekly meetings and the consistency of participants in the meetings, and that they had a business like, no nonsense approach when they dealt with the problems, had very much contributed to the effectiveness of the system. His general conclusion of that the meetings of the Incident Preventions and Response Mechanisms was that they were in a position to dis-inflate, de-dramatize, and perhaps to de-politicize issues that were brought to the table. After an open and frank exchange of information, very often these issues ended up being re-dimensioned to their proper dimension. This exercise of dis-inflating incidents and bringing them back to their humane dimensions was a major merit.

Mr. Verbeke said concerning the Tagliavini report, all the participants had the position to share with others their reading of the report. It was important to know how participants looked at the report in order to draw appropriate lessons for the future. There were also general political considerations in the report which the Co-Chairs would take with them when they continued their work in the future, more specifically with regard to the point discussed today on the non-use of force and international security arrangements. He was referring to such issues as the place of international law in conflict resolution, and the international presences in the past which the Tagliavini report implicitly criticized as having been too static. When they settled down on the security arrangements, they would have to reflect how to put a more dynamic situation. There was in the Tagliavini report a lot in terms of facts and figures, but there were also more general political lessons that they could carry with them.

Mr. Verbeke said on the third topic they discussed, the non-use of force, he was rather satisfied. It was a difficult discussion. All participants had stated explicitly that the working document prepared by Co-Chairs was a good basis. This meant that they could further work on it. Of course, each participant may have reservations on certain points. A good basis meant that basically they were on track and the basic trust and orientation of the document was perhaps the right one, and they therefore had been tasked to pursue the work on the non-use of force and international security arrangements and to produce a further, perhaps a more technical paper, toward the future. They had also presented informally contributions, Ambassador Morel on a joint visit and himself on the so-called problems of the crossings of the line of separation. They had presentations of these two issues. When they discussed issues here in Geneva, they were not just discussing broad and abstract issues but also concrete issues which touched on the daily lives of the people living in that region. Crossing of the line was such an issue. They had a productive and difficult meeting.

Mr. Christopoulos said this eighth round showed them that this format was indispensable for reaching security and that this approach to dialogue, while it was not easy, was the best, in fact the only way ahead. The constructive approach of all participants remained a crucial factor and it was evident again today despite differences. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had an annually rotating Chair, and Greece would hand the baton to Kazakhstan next year. His counterpart from Kazakhstan had been following the discussions closely. From the perspective of the OSCE, the key element of this round of the Geneva Discussions was that participants began to deliberate on elements for potential agreement on the non-use of force and international security arrangements. This would take time, but they had made a good start. On another aspect, he was pleased to note that they had held two further meetings of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms relating to Georgian and Ossetian matters since the previous round of Geneva Discussions. One positive outcome had been an agreement to hold a joint field visit. On the downside, the OSCE like others was concerned about the recent spate of detentions which did not help the collective efforts toward stability. The OSCE remained committed to helping the sides work cooperatively on gas and water supplies.

Asked to elaborate further on his use of the adjective “difficult” in relation to the discussions, Mr. Verbeke said the participants had had the courage to put difficult issues on the agenda, and difficult issues gave rise to difficult discussions. They should not look at his use of the adjective as language to hide open controversy. It was difficult in terms of having to build bridges between different positions that at this time remained apart. There were issues of commonality, but there were still bridges to be built. They were addressing issues that would make a difference for the people in the region. Just from the title - an agreement on the non-use of force and international security arrangements - showed that these were heavy topics, there was no shaming and blaming in the discussions, they were mature, difficult discussions.

In response to a question about Mr. Kalin’s assessment that he was pessimistic there would be large scale returns of ethnic Georgians to South Ossetia, Mr. Verbeke said although on the face of it, this could be considered a humanitarian issue, the underlying issues were quite political and they could not make short cuts on such questions. The question on internally displaced persons and refugees had been identified as one of the major issues to be taken up, along with stability and security in the region. They continued to work in the Working Groups on these issues and he was confident that they were moving ahead.

Mr. Morel said he agreed with Mr. Verbeke, the aim of the Geneva Discussions was to ensure that returns took place and at the largest possible scale. They were working on facilitation of conditions allowing for returns. Establishment of security issues was also an element. Their work was to create conditions to allow the safest possible returns.