HIGHLIGHTS OF PRESS CONFERENCE BY CO-CHAIRS OF GENEVA DISCUSSIONS

The three Co-chairs of the 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 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Chairperson-in-Office, this evening presented to the press the outcome of the twelfth round of the Geneva International Discussions which was held over the day at the Palais des Nations.

Reading from their joint press communiqué, Mr. Morel announced that the participants had agreed to hold the thirteenth round of the Geneva International Discussions in the same format on 14 October 2010.

Turning to the activities of Working Group I, Mr. Morel said that the participants had started their deliberations with a review of the security situation on the ground. They had agreed on the importance of fully-functioning hotlines in the framework of the Incident Prevention and Response Mechanisms (IPRMs). They also reiterated that the full operation of both mechanisms remained of utmost importance.

While noting that the situation on the ground had in general been calm, notwithstanding some specific incidents of concern, including detentions, the co-Chairs had emphasized that the implementation of the principle of freedom of movement needed the concerted efforts by all participants, said Mr. Morel.

Working Group I participants had also discussed a paper that was prepared by the co-Chairs, entitled “Recapitulation of the on-going work on non-use of force and international security arrangements”, as the basis of further work on these issues, said Mr. Morel. The participants also discussed best practices and improved cooperation on the ground, including through voluntary exchange of information on sensitive activities.

Concerning the activities of Working Group II, Mr. Morel said the participants had continued detailed examination of the draft document that had been tabled by the co-Moderators and discussed in previous rounds. The participants had presented their suggestions to guide the discussions in future meetings and to advance the achievements of concrete outcomes. The co-Moderators would assess how these suggestions could be achieved.

Working Group II participants had also taken part in an information session on issues relating to housing and property rights. Mr. Morel said the co-Moderators would explore how specific questions that were raised during the information session could be addressed to further the understanding of these issues and the objectives of the Working Group.

Finally, the co-chairs, co-Moderators and the participants had welcomed the business-like atmosphere that had prevailed during the meeting and expressed the hope that this spirit would continue to guide their deliberations, said Mr. Morel.

Adding his own remarks, Mr. Morel said that in the past weeks there had been doubts on whether this round of discussion would take place or not. Nonetheless, this had not prevented the Geneva process to move forward. By the same token, one could note that there were attendance problems of some participants, but this had not precluded the twelfth round of Discussions of having gone well.

Mr. Morel said that the co-Chairs had the impression that there was a constructive atmosphere in the Discussions because they did sense that there was an availability and a readiness by all to move forward in order to improve the work that had been done until now. However, they were also aware of the current difficulties and of the impossibility to solve them all at once. But they could sense a qualitative improvement in their work.

While they were now moving closer to the second anniversary of the war, the fact that they had held twelve rounds of Discussions showed that, despite the difficulties, work was underway, said Mr. Morel.

Mr. Turunen supported his colleague’s assessment of the current situation in the Geneva Discussions. Today’s round showed that when there was political will they could make progress in this framework. The best example of the success of this process had been the establishment of the IPRMs. Despite the serious incidents of the past few months the IPRMs had been able to meet on a regular basis.

Mr. Turunen further said that they had to concentrate on the issues that were of importance to the local population. This was a way of promoting conflict prevention and confidence-building. However, a lot of patience was needed in order to continue the process because they were approaching very complex and sensitive issues. But today’s discussion on the non-use of force showed that there were possibilities, despite the diverting views, to at least, explore certain elements for common ground. The co-Chairs were fully committed to continue the dialogue but they also needed the commitment of all participants to contribute to this common effort.

Mr. Nurgaliev said that despite some dramatic developments in the past, they had gathered again in Geneva and this fact was a confirmation that there was consensus that the Geneva Discussions were the only inclusive format in which all parties to the conflict were represented. The business-like atmosphere of today’s deliberations was the further proof that the discussions and the cooperation on the ground were in the vital interests of all participants.

Mr. Nurgaliev also noted that the resumption of one among the two IPRMs was still a desired goal. The effective way to gradually build the much needed confidence and thrust was the successful functioning of all IPRMs.

Mr. Nurgaliev said that during their regular pre-Geneva trip to the region, they had witnessed specific problems affecting the communities on a daily basis. The co-Chairs’ commitment was there to precipitate the improvement of the lives of the local population.

One of the pressing issues was also the restoration of the OSCE field presence in the region, in a mutually acceptable format, said Mr. Nurgaliev. He was ready to continue to search for ways to narrow differences in the participating States to resolve this situation as soon as possible.

Questions and Answers

A journalist wondered whether the planned submission by Georgia of a draft resolution on refugees at the General Assembly had had a negative influence on the Geneva Discussions.

Mr. Morel said that this issue had been discussed in both Working Groups but it had not hampered the process of the Geneva Discussions. Further, this was not a new issue as it had already been discussed in the General Assembly last year.

Another journalist wondered whether the recent International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion on Kosovo’s independence had affected the discussions. Mr. Morel answered that this matter had not been mentioned during the discussions.

Answering a journalist’s question about the diverging views on the issue of the use of force, Mr. Morel said that there was a strong demand from the Russian, South Ossetian and Abkhaz participants for a specific agreement on the non-use of force, which would be signed by Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia. From the standpoint of Georgia the agreement of 12 August 2008, which had put an end to the war, had already set Georgia’s full commitment not to use force. But they were also ready to go further in that commitment, providing that parallel measures were taken with regard to the presence of Russian forces in the field. But Russia felt that they were not directly involved on this issue. However, at the same time, all participants had the will to seek formulas to move forward.