THREE CO-CHAIRS OF GENEVA INTERNATIONAL DISCUSSIONS HOLD PRESS CONFERENCE ON 17 SEPTEMBER

Subsequent to the seventh round of the Geneva International Discussions taking place in Geneva on Thursday, 17 September, the three Co-Chairs of the Geneva International Discussions held a Press Conference at the United Nations Office at Geneva.

PIERRE MOREL, Special Representative of the European Union, said there had been intense work throughout the day in the seventh round of the Geneva International Discussions. The participants at the Discussions completed their seventh session - all participants met in the two parallel Working Groups to discuss security and stability in the region, and humanitarian issues. They agreed to continue the discussions in the same format on 11 November 2009.

In the first group, Mr. Morel said the co-chairs reviewed the general security situation for the period since the last session of the Discussions. The participants also reviewed the work done by the Joint Incidence and Prevention Mechanisms. Each of these two mechanisms met and had met four times so far. The participants welcomed the regularity of meeting of the two mechanisms. They had contributed to improving security and stability in the field, and made available resources to all participants in order to respond rapidly to security incidents. The mechanisms also provided a forum for dealing with security-related problems and preventive measures in order to deal with concrete matters aimed at improving people's lives. Participants also discussed a non-paper presented by the co-Chairs based on the proposals that had previously been made by participants on the non-use of force and international security arrangements. The participants agreed on the co-Chairs undertaking discussions on this subject so as to move forward in their preparations with a view to the next Meeting, working in consultation with all parties to work out basic elements for a framework agreement.

In the second Working Group, Mr. Morel said participants started to discuss a proposal on operations that had been agreed on to allow the return of refugees and internally displaced persons and other displaced based on proposals received from participants following the sixth session of the Discussions. The participants agreed to continue working on a draft with a view to reaching agreement on a comprehensive set of principles and measures in this regard.

The Discussions were somewhat technical and difficult to decode, but despite that they were moving into specific and operational work with the aim of working on the situation of the ground, Mr. Morel said. All sides held meetings on security every few weeks. The mechanisms could be convened at any time if the need arose, at the request of any participant, and they provided for a hotline which operated on a regular basis not only in situations of urgency, but also when the participants needed to communicate. The procedure had been sufficiently broken-in to provide a framework on the ground for all parties regarding security. This had been achieved since the initial commitment in February, and the co-Chairs had consistently proposed to work from the bottom up, step by step and case by case. This was why today broader subjects, the non-use of force and international security arrangements, had been able to be discussed. Three draft agreements had been tabled, and a working document had been prepared by the co-Chairs, and after in-depth discussion, a new goal for the next stage had been set. These would be basic elements for the framework for an agreement on non-use of force and international security arrangements, and would involve ongoing efforts and work with the co-Chairs and all parties.

As to the second Working Group, after identifying the principles, a framework document was now ready, also calling for specific measures to be taken. Work had begun and would continue up to Geneva Eight in order to lead to an agreement during that meeting. The point that Mr. Morel wished to stress was going more deeply into the area with more specific results.

JOHAN VERBEKE, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, said he wished to stress two points. The first was on the so-called Joint Incidence and Prevention Mechanisms, and these Mechanisms were now definitely on track and running. They were meeting on a regular basis - as far as the Abkhazia mechanism was situated, it met weekly. As they were on track, it could now be said that these mechanisms had been consolidated. The basic agreement on both of these mechanisms was reached here by consensus in Geneva on 17 February, and at that time it was an agreement on paper, and they were now consolidated and complete.

Secondly, Mr. Verbeke said the search for a foundation for coming among the sides and parties to an agreement on the non-use of force, which was by its very nature linked to the arrangements on national security, was continuing. This was a tough issue and a difficult debate. Such agreements by their very nature were not only politically but also technically delicate. There was an understanding by all participants that they should not in the first stage focus on formalistic issues that could pre-empt the search for such an agreement, but should focus on the substantive building blocks on an agreement on the non-use of force and international security arrangements, and after to address the more formal questions on who are the parties and what is their quality. The mandate of today's Discussions led to the drafting of elements of a Framework Agreement to submit to the next round of Discussions so that participants could continue on the road to an Agreement. The co-Chairs would continue in this, holding open consultations, so that they produced a product that all could engage with.

CHARALAMPOS CHRISTOPOULOS, Special Envoy of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office, said the seventh round demonstrated again that the format was indispensable for regional security, and the participants took a constructive approach. First, from the perspective of the OSCE, the key element of the round was that practical, detailed discussions began on elements for a potential agreement for a non-use of force. Second, a positive development on the ground had been the start of regular meetings of the Joint Incidence and Prevention Mechanisms. Third, the OSCE updated the participants on its efforts so far on putting together a joint needs assessment team to look at repair needs to ensure water supplies to the benefit of all persons in the region, regardless of ethnic origin. Humanitarian issues were no less important than security matters.

Questions by Journalists

Responding to a question on whether participants had said when they would like to conclude an agreement on the non-use of force, and who was meeting in the Incident Prevention mechanism, Mr. Morel said on the time frame no specific date had been set. This was the third session when the issue had been discussed, and the one where it was discussed in most depth. In two months, a basic document would be produced that had already been subjected to consultations among participants. This would be the subject of difficult discussions, but would be substantial. The concern was to make progress speedily. As to who met in these discussions, these were security and law-enforcement officials of the region. Mr. Verbeke added that deadlines were a diplomat's enemy but it was an undisputed fact that all participants approved of the topic and had all submitted draft proposals for an agreement on the non-use of force. All of this was not rigid.

In response to a question on what effect on the situation in the ground and on the talks the withdrawal of monitors and the observer mission had had in past months, Mr. Verbeke said that as far as the withdrawal of the United Nations Mission was concerned, this had been done in a swift manner and in a proper manner, and this was thanks to the cooperation of both sides in this so-called dismantling operation. This had gone swiftly - for all practical purposes, the Mission was closed, and no activities whatsoever on its behalf had been carried out. Thanks to good, proper and responsible cooperation from all parties involved, there had been a smooth withdrawal process, and those in the field were happy this had taken place. Mr. Christopoulos said with regards to the OSCE Mission, the withdrawal had been completed in an organised way, as was provided for by the institutions of the Organisation, and it had no more presence in the area since 30 June. Mr. Morel added that this description of a change in the practical conditions on the ground had in no way limited the ability of the co-Chairs to continue the Discussions, as the Geneva work went hand-in-hand with the situation on the ground, but was also political in nature.

On a question on whether the situation could be compared with Kosovo, where there had been a similar situation, Mr. Morel said this was a vast issue and the answer deserved a long discourse. However, he was inclined to say again that deadlines were the enemy of diplomats, and comparisons were not much more helpful. Work was not undertaken after comparing to what had taken place or been done in Kosovo. There had been a long-term humanitarian situation and problems with security, and it had to be ensured that the over 300 monitors from the European Mission could undertake their work effectively. The framework lay in the documents, the commitment by all participants, and the concern to handle the situation on the ground, and this was an honest description of the work being conducted.