UFRR - STUDY GUIDE - SIMULAÇÃO DO CONSELHO DE SEGURANÇA DA ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS - Caso Criméia (2014)

UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE RORAIMA – UFRR CENTRO DE CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS – CCH CURSO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS - CRI

STUDY GUIDE

SIMULAÇÃO DO CONSELHO DE SEGURANÇA DA ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS III SEMANA ACADÊMICA DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS Boa Vista, RR, Brazil, 15 e 16 de maio de 2014 1

SUMÁRIO Apresentação Mapa

03

04

Entenda a crise na Crimeia

03

Provisional Rules of Procedure

07

Encontros do Conselho de Segurança SC/11302

09

SC/11305 03 Mar 2014

12

SC 11314 13 Mar 2014

22

SC 11319 15 Mar 2014 SC 11328 19 Mar 2014 A/68/L.39

30

37

46

How to write a Position Paper & Modelos Modelos de Resoluções 2

53

48

O Centro Acadêmico de Relações Internacionais - CARI, juntamente com a Coordenação do Curso de Bacharelado em Relações Internacionais – CRI e com o Núcleo Amazônico de Pesquisa em Relações Internacionais – NAPRI, realizam este ano, ao longo da III Semana Acadêmica ddo Curso de Relações Internacionais, de 14 a 16 de maio de 20014, um exercício de Simulação do Conselho de Segurança da Organização das Nações Unidas. O tema desta Simulação do Conselho de Segurança é a crise na Criméia. Este Study Guide dispõe de um conjunto mínimo de textos de referência para a Simulação ser levada a efeito: mapa, breve narrativa do caso, as Resoluções do Conselho de Segurança sobre o assunto, excerto das regras administrativas do Conselho de Segurança, modelo de Resolução e modelo de Position Paper. O objetivo da simulação é o mesmo das high politics: chegar a consenso político, formalizado em uma Resolução, a qual enfrente de maneira assertiva o status da crise na Criméia. Isto significa procurar evitar, de todas as maneiras, a possibilidade de veto à Resolução. Recomenda-se que cada Representação Diplomática, que representará um dos 15 países membros do Conselho de Segurança, estude detalhadamente a posição de seu país, a partir das Resoluções já existentes, dispostas neste Study Guide. As Representações devem entregar um Position Paper aos Coordenadores imediatamente antes dos debates no Conselho de Segurança. Às Representações diplomáticas, esta Coordenação deseja virtú, pois

o futuro da região da Criméia está em suas mãos. Prof. Dr. Felipe Kern Moreira Prof. Msc. João Carlos Jarochinski Silva Organizadores da Simulação

3

Fonte: www.nbcnews.com

Entenda a crise na Crimeia Região ucraniana pró-Rússia é alvo de disputa entre Kiev e Moscou. Putin autorizou ação militar; Ocidente pede recuo e impõe sanções. A região ucraniana da Crimeia está sob disputa desde que foi praticamente anexada pela Rússia, sob protestos das potências ocidentais - e da própria Ucrânia, até então dona do território. A tenção começou na península do Mar Negro quando protestos derrubaram Viktor Yanukovich, o até então presidente ucraniano, em fevereiro. Aproveitando o vazio de governo, as autoridades da Crimeia, região de maioria russa, propuseram um referendo interno no território, perguntando aos habitantes se eles estariam dispostos a se juntar à Rússia. O resultado, um apoio esmagador à anexação, deu a legitimidade que o governo de Vladimir Putin queria para poder anexar completamente o território. Dois dias depois do 4

referendo, o presidente russo fez um discurso em que reconheceu a soberania do território ucraniano, dizendo que a Crimeia 'sempre foi e sempre será parte da Rússia'. O que é a Crimeia? A Crimeia é uma república autônoma da Ucrânia, localizada em uma península no Mar Negro. A região já pertenceu à Rússia, e foi anexada pela Ucrânia em 1954 – o então líder soviético Nikita Khrushchev, que era de origem ucraniana, deu a região como presente. Diferente do resto da Ucrânia, a maioria da população na região é de origem russa. Como teve início a crise na região? No final de 2013, o então presidente ucraniano Viktor Yanukovich desistiu de assinar um tratado de livre-comércio com a União Europeia, preferindo estreitar relações comerciais com a Rússia. A decisão deu origem a protestos massivos, que resultaram, em fevereiro, na destituição de Yanukovich, que fugiu para a Rússia. Na Crimeia, de maioria russa, o parlamento local foi dominado por um comando próRússia, que nomeou Sergei Axionov como premiê. Esse novo governo, considerado ilegal pela Ucrânia, aprovou sua adesão à Federação Russa e a realização de um referendo sobre o status da região no dia 16 de março. Posteriormente, o Parlamento se declarou independente da Ucrânia sendo apoiado por russos e criticado por ucranianos. Qual o papel da Rússia na crise? Com a intensificação das tensões separatistas, o Parlamento russo aprovou, a pedido do presidente Vladimir Putin, o envio de tropas à Crimeia para “normalizar” a situação. Tropas sem identificação, mas claramente russas – algumas em veículos com placas registradas na Rússia – tomaram a Crimeia, dominando bases militares e aeroportos. A Rússia justificou o movimento dizendo se reservar o direito de proteger seus interesses e os de seus cidadãos em casos de violência na Ucrânia e na região da Crimeia. A escalada militar fez com que diversos oficiais do exército ucraniano se juntassem ao governo local pró-russo. Outros abandonaram seus postos. No dia 4 de março, o novo governo da Crimeia anunciou que assumiu o controle da península, e deu um ultimato para que os últimos oficiais leais à Ucrânia se rendessem. Segundo a Ucrânia, mais de 30 mil soldados russos já foram enviados à região. Os Estados Unidos estimam o efetivo russo na região em 20 mil militares. A Rússia nega ter efetivo militar na região superior ao de seu posto fixo em Sebastopol. Qual o interesse russo na Crimeia? Para muitos russos, a Crimeia e sua "Cidade Heroica" de Sebastopol, da era soviética, sitiada pelos invasores nazistas, têm uma ressonância emocional muito forte, por já ter sido parte do país e ainda ter a maioria de sua população de origem russa. A península fica em uma área estratégica do Mar Negro, muito próxima do sudoeste da Rússia. A maior parte da frota russa no Mar Negro está na Crimeia, com um quartel-general na cidade ucraniana de Sebastopol. Para 5

a Ucrânia, independente da Rússia desde o colapso da União Soviética em 1991 e em meio a uma crise econômica, a perda da Crimeia seria um enorme golpe. Qual a reação do governo da Ucrânia? O novo governo ucraniano, pró-União Europeia, criticou os movimentos separatistas e classificou a aprovação de intervenção militar russa como uma declaração de guerra. Logo em seguida, o governo convocou todas suas reservas militares para reagir a um possível ataque russo. O país também pediu apoio do Conselho de Segurança da ONU para frear a crise na península e defender sua integridade territorial.Para o governo da Ucrânia, o Parlamento da Crimeia é ilegal e não tem legitimidade para declarar independência. Kiev também não reconheceu o resultado do referendo, que aprovou a reintegração a Moscou, nem do tratado assinado entre Crimeia e Rússia confirmando a adesão. Qual a reação dos países ocidentais? Os Estados Unidos e outros países ocidentais exigem que a Rússia recuasse suas tropas na Crimeia. Os EUA também ameaçaram a Rússia com sanções, suspenderam as transações comerciais com o país e cancelaram um acordo de cooperação militar com Moscou. Outros países do ocidente pressionaram a Rússia por uma saída diplomática. A escalada de tensão também levou a uma ruptura entre as grandes potências, com o G7 condenando a ação e cancelando uma reunião com o governo de Moscou. EUA e União Europeia realizaram sanções contra indivíduos russos e ucranianos envolvidos no processo, que tiveram seus bens no exterior congelados e foram impedidos de entrar nos EUA e na UE. A Rússia respondeu com sanções contra integrantes do governo norte-americano. Em meio à crise, a Comissão Europeia divulgou um plano de ajuda de pelo menos € 11 bilhões para a Ucrânia. Os EUA também anunciaram um pacote de assistência técnica e econômica ao país em uma demonstração de apoio ao novo governo, no valor de US$ 1 bilhão. O que pode acontecer? Analistas internacionais acreditam que a solução para o problema deve ocorrer por via diplomática.A Ucrânia não é oficialmente membro da Otan – em 1997, o país assinou um acordo em que se tornou um aliado extra-Otan e membro não-permanente da organização. Por isso, analistas não acreditam que a Otan possa entrar em guerra com a Rússia pela Ucrânia. Qualquer ação militar ocidental direta arriscaria uma guerra entre as superpotências nucleares. Relativamente pequena e com arsenal reduzido, as forças da Ucrânia poderiam agir, mas correriam o risco de incitar uma invasão russa muito mais ampla que poderia dominar o país. A Rússia pode cortar o fornecimento de gás para a Europa, cujos gasodutos passam pela Ucrânia, e acredita-se que o país tenha capacidades de ataque cibernéticos sofisticados que poderiam ser usadas contra a Ucrânia ou o Ocidente. Fonte: http://g1.globo.com/mundo/noticia/2014/03/entenda-crise-na-crimeia.html 6

Provisional Rules of Procedure Chapter VI: Conduct of Business Rule 27 The President shall call upon representatives in the order in which they signify their desire to speak.

Rule 28 The Security Council may appoint a commission or committee or a rapporteur for a specified question.

Rule 29 The President may accord precedence to any rapporteur appointed by the Security Council. The Chairman of a commission or committee, or the rapporteur appointed by the commission or committee to present its report, may be accorded precedence for the purpose of explaining the report.

Rule 30 If a representative raises a point of order, the President shall immediately state his ruling. If it is challenged, the President shall submit his ruling to the Security Council for immediate decision and it shall stand unless overruled.

Rule 31 Proposed resolutions, amendments and substantive motions shall normally be placed before the representatives in writing.

Rule 32 Principal motions and draft resolutions shall have precedence in the order of their submission. Parts of a motion or of a draft resolution shall be voted on separately at the request of any representative, unless the original mover objects.

Rule 33 The following motions shall have precedence in the order named over all principal motions and draft resolutions relative to the subject before the meeting: 1.

To suspend the meeting;

2.

To adjourn the meeting;

3.

To adjourn the meeting to a certain day or hour;

4.

To refer any matter to a committee, to the Secretary-General or to a rapporteur;

5.

To postpone discussion of the question to a certain day or indefinitely; or

6.

To introduce an amendment.

Any motion for the suspension or for the simple adjournment of the meeting shall be decided without debate.

Rule 34 7

It shall not be necessary for any motion or draft resolution proposed by a representative on the Security Council to be seconded before being put to a vote.

Rule 35 A motion or draft resolution can at any time be withdrawn so long as no vote has been taken with respect to it. If the motion or draft resolution has been seconded, the representative on the Security Council who has seconded it may require that it be put to the vote as his motion or draft resolution with the same right of precedence as if the original mover had not withdrawn it.

Rule 36 If two or more amendments to a motion or draft resolution are proposed, the President shall rule on the order in which they are to be voted upon. Ordinarily, the Security Council shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed until all amendments have been put to the vote, but when an amendment adds to or deletes from the text of a motion or draft resolution, that amendment shall be voted on first.

Rule 37 Any Member of the United Nations which is not a member of the Security Council may be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of any question brought before the Security Council when the Security Council considers that the interests of that Member are specially affected, or when a Member brings a matter to the attention of the Security Council in accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Charter.

Rule 38 Any Member of the United Nations invited in accordance with the preceding rule, or in application of Article 32 of the Charter, to participate in the discussions of the Security Council may submit proposals and draft resolutions. These proposals and draft resolutions may be put to a vote only at the request of a representative on the Security Council.

Rule 39 The Security Council may invite members of the Secretariat or other persons, whom it considers competent for the purpose, to supply it with information or to give other assistance in examining matters within its competence.

8

UKRAINE, IN EMERGENCY MEETING, CALLS ON SECURITY COUNCIL TO STOP MILITARY INTERVENTION BY RUSSIAN FEDERATION

SC/11302 Addressing an emergency meeting today, Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations called on the Security Council to do everything possible to prevent military intervention by the Russian Federation. He said recent events posed a serious threat to his country’s integrity and to peace and stability in the region. Even though the Russian Federation’s Parliament had just authorized the use of force against Ukraine, its troops were already in country and their numbers were increasing, constituting an act of aggression, he said. The Russian Federation’s representative acknowledged that Parliament had approved the use of force on Ukraine’s territory, but not against Ukraine. Pointing out that the President of the Russian Federation had not ordered the use of force, he emphasized the need for all parties to remain calm and to return to the agreement signed on 21 February by Germany, France, Poland and Ukraine. The representative of the United States called on the Russian Federation to engage with the Government of Ukraine, calling also for the immediate deployment of international observers from either the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the United Nations to provide transparency on unfolding events. The United Kingdom’s representative said his country was deeply concerned about the escalation of tensions and the Russian Parliament’s authorization of military action in Crimea. Noting that the Council had urged all actors to exhibit restraint, he said the Russian Federation needed to take immediate steps to calm the situation. France’s representative described the authorization to deploy troops as a dangerous development for peace. Calling for all parties to show restraint, he asked all authorities to ensure peace and cooperation with all communities, adding Ukraine’s neighbours were expected to help in that regard. The meeting began at 4:17 p.m. and ended at 4:50 p.m. Background The Security Council met this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine. Briefing JAN ELIASSON, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, said there were reports of serious developments in Ukraine since the Council’s meeting yesterday. In Crimea, key sites such as airports, communications facilities and public buildings, including the regional parliament, reportedly continued to be blocked by unidentified armed men. Following the

9

reported deployment of additional Russian troops and armoured vehicles to Crimea, the Russian Federation’s Upper House of Parliament had approved a request by President Vladimir Putin for Russian forces to be used in Ukraine, he said. However, there were some encouraging signs, including the reported announcement from Kyiv of the intention to broaden the Government to include representatives from eastern Ukraine, he said. Robert Serry had been in touch with the authorities in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but had been unable to visit the region today for logistical reasons. He would travel to Geneva today to brief the Secretary-General on his mission to Ukraine and discuss possible next steps. The Secretary-General was gravely concerned that the situation had deteriorated further since yesterday’s Council meeting, and reiterated his call for full respect for and preservation of Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, he said, adding that the Secretary-General would be speaking with President Putin shortly. Statements YURIY SERGEYEV (Ukraine) said the situation in his country continued to deteriorate. A few hours ago the Upper House of the Russian Federation’s Parliament had authorized the use of force against Ukraine, but the troops were already there and their numbers were increasing, he noted. That constituted an act of aggression, posing a serious threat to Ukraine’s integrity and to peace and stability in the whole region. He said the Russian Federation had rejected bilateral talks under the treaty of 1997, and had also violated the United Nations Charter. Facing the announced military intervention, Ukraine called on the Security Council to do everything possible to stop the aggression. He called for international monitors to observe the situation and urged all Member States to demonstrate solidarity with the people of Ukraine who were being brutally violated by a permanent member of the Security Council. VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said the Council had agreed that only three delegations would speak, yet some members were not following that agreement. Expressing support for the Deputy Secretary-General’s observation that cool heads must prevail, he said that his Ukrainian colleague had not followed that notion. The situation earlier this year had seen the democratically-elected President Viktor Yanukovych and Ukraine facing serious economic challenges and decisions, including the signing of an agreement on association with the European Union. That association had harmful consequences for Ukraine, he said. Posing a number of questions about the consequent demonstrations, he asked why the protests were being encouraged by people from abroad and why the European Union had attended meetings on Ukraine. While emphasizing that he did not wish to condone the actions of President Yanukovych, he asked why some Western colleagues were trying to spur on the confrontation and what armed militants were doing in the streets. The agreement signed on 21

10

February by President Yanukovych and the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France and Poland should be implemented, he said. He went on to state that the eastern part of Ukraine was concerned about the replacement Government, pointing out that the removal of Mr. Yanukovych from office had been done in an unconstitutional way. The Russian Parliament had considered the situation in making its decision on the use force on Ukraine’s territory, and not against Ukraine, he stressed. The President of the Russian Federation had not taken the decision on the use of armed forces, he said, underlining the need for cool heads and for a return to the 21 February agreement. SAMANTHA POWER (United States), noting that actions speak louder than words, said her delegation was deeply disturbed by the military intervention in Crimea. It was time for the Russian intervention to end. Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected, she emphasized, applauding efforts towards a political dialogue. The United States recognized and respected the Russian Federation’s historical ties to Ukraine, but instead of engaging the latter’s Government, it had elected to act militarily. The Russian Federation’s actions could push things beyond the breaking point, she warned. There was a clear way forward that would preserve Ukraine’s sovereignty and address the Russian Federation’s concerns, she continued. The Russian Federation must engage the Government of Ukraine and international monitors should be dispatched. The immediate deployment of international observers from either the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) or the United Nations would provide transparency on the events taking place in the region and de-escalate the situation, she said, stressing that the paramount concern was to end the confrontation and allow the Ukrainian people to determine their own future. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said his country was deeply concerned about the escalation of tensions and the fact that the Russian Parliament had authorized military action in Crimea. That was a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. He called on the Russian Federation to give a full account of the situation and on all parities to think about their actions. They must lower, not escalate, tensions, he emphasized. The United Kingdom supported Ukraine’s new Government and urged it to respect the rights of all citizens, including minorities, he said, adding that his delegation saw no reason why further consultations should not take place immediately. The Council had urged all actors to exhibit restraint, and the Russian Federation needed to take immediate steps to calm the situation. GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said that, while the world could not ask Ukraine to choose between East and West, the parliamentary authorization for the Russian Federation to move troops into Ukraine was a dangerous development for peace, and France would attempt to provide a political solution to the situation. Calling for all parties to show restraint, he asked all authorities to ensure peace and cooperation with all communities, saying he expected Ukraine’s neighbours to help in that regard.

11

SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS UPDATES SECURITY COUNCIL AS IT HOLDS SECOND MEETING ON UKRAINE IN THREE DAYS Deputy Secretary-General Attending Kyiv Meetings, He Tells Members before Debate

SC/11305 03 Mar 2014

The Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs provided an update to the Security Council on the situation in Ukraine today, as the 15-member body held its second meeting on the subject in three days. Oscar Fernández-Taranco told the Council that in the face of a reported troop build-up, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had, in the last 48 hours, spoken with a range of regional leaders to call for a de-escalation of tensions. Outlining other recent developments, including Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson’s presence at meetings in Kyiv today, Mr. FernándezTaranco reiterated the Secretary-General’s call for dialogue aimed at finding a peace resolution. Describing the current situation, Ukraine’s Permanent Representative said that, as of today, the Russian Federation had deployed 16,000 troops in his country, in addition to helicopters, aircraft and naval vessels. Emphasizing that their presence constituted an act of aggression, he called for Security Council mediation and monitoring. For his part, the Russian Federation’s representative reiterated that his country had not implemented the use of force, but the Ukraine’s takeover by radical extremists was breeding serious risks, and his country was concerned about the rights of minorities. The Russian Federation was amendable to a monitoring mission and supported Mr. Eliasson’s mission, he said. A number of speakers said that if the Russian Federation was concerned about Ukrainian citizens, armed intervention was not the right path. The United Kingdom’s representative said the era in which one country could suppress another by using force under a trumped up pretext was over. The representative the United States said that if the Russian Federation was concerned about the rights of Russian-speaking minorities, her country would work with Moscow to protect them. It would also support the dispatch of a monitoring mission. Diplomacy could serve Russian interests, she said, noting that the world was speaking out against the use of force. Many speakers agreed on the need to monitor the increasingly tense situation, urging all stakeholders to exercise restraint and begin a dialogue to seek a solution. France’s representative emphasized that his country wished to cooperate with the Russian Federation, but not at a price that would threaten its own principles and values.

12

Also delivering statements were representatives of Lithuania, Rwanda, Jordan, China, Australia, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, Republic of Korea, Chad and Luxembourg. The meeting began at 3:35 p.m. and ended at 5:35 p.m. Background Meeting this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine, Security Council members had before them a letter from that country’s delegation addressed to the Secretary-General (document S/2014/136). Briefing OSCAR FERNÁNDEZ-TARANCO, Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said there were reports of a troop build-up and attempts to seize control of some Government buildings in Ukraine, adding that Ukraine had called on Sunday for the withdrawal of Russian troops. The Russia Federation’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, had addressed the Human Rights Council in Geneva, where he had expressed some of his country’s concerns. Following the Council meeting on Saturday, the Secretary-General had dispatched Deputy SecretaryGeneral Jan Eliasson to Kyiv, where he was now engaged in meetings, he said. In the last 48 hours, the Secretary-General had spoken with President François Hollande of France, President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation, the European Union, the head of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Minister Lavrov in Geneva. He had reiterated the Secretary-General’s call for dialogue aimed at de-escalating tensions immediately and finding a peaceful resolution of the crisis in a collaborative effort. Statements VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said his delegation had initiated today’s meeting because events in Ukraine “evoked within us very deep concern”. The country’s takeover by radical extremists was breeding serious risks, and today in Geneva, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had spoken in detail about the situation, reaffirming that any international crisis must be settled through dialogue, backed by all political parties, as well as ethnic and denominational groups, and undertaken with respect for constitutional processes and international obligations, including international humanitarian law. Extremists in Ukraine must be prevented from taking control of the situation through illegitimate methods, the use of violence and open terror, he emphasized. Those responsible for the crisis were well known, but some partners were disputing legitimate actions and authority, and instead supporting antiGovernment statements. Kyiv had been taken over by extremists preaching anti-Russian and anti-Semitic slogans. Recalling the 21 February agreement between the then President of Ukraine and the opposition, he said its authors were refusing to control the emergency situation, suggesting that the opposition was blameless, while illegal weapons proliferated and civilian buildings remained

13

unprotected. Instead of fulfilling the promise to establish an interim Government of national unity, a “Government of national victims” was being formed, he said. The situation was limiting the rights of minorities, making it punishable for them to speak their own languages, and banning political parties that did not suit them. The victors wished to use the fruits of victory to trample the rights and freedoms of all other people. Millions of Russians lived in Crimea, and violence by ultra-nationalists jeopardized their interests and those of other Russian speakers. There was new information about provocative actions in connection with the Russian Black Sea fleet, based in Crimea, he continued, noting that the Autonomous Republic had asked the President of the Russian Federation to restore order and end crime there. It was completely legitimate under national law to respond to threats against Russian citizens and the Black Sea fleet, so President Vladimir Putin had sought approval for the use of armed force until the political situation in Ukraine stabilized, he said, adding that the President had appealed for the means to “cut off” the radicals with a view to defending the rights of Russian citizens, including the right to life. The Russian Federation had received notice from the legitimately elected President of Ukraine that the situation in the latter country verged on civil war. The lives, security and rights of people in Crimea were being threatened under the influence of Western countries supporting acts of terror and violence. The President of Ukraine had called for the use of Russian armed forces to re-establish legitimate peace, law and order and stability, and to defend the Ukrainian people, he said. Holding up a photocopy of that letter — dated 1 March — he said those trying to interpret his country’s actions “almost as aggression”, and who threatened the Russian Federation with boycotts were themselves consistently engaged in ultimatums, choosing to refrain from dialogue. Such geopolitical calculations would only serve to polarize Ukrainian society, he cautioned, calling for a sensitive approach that placed the interests of Ukraine’s people above all else. Constitutional reform supposed to have begun, to be followed by a national referendum and the establishment of an interim Government of national unity, which would consider the interests of all Ukrainian citizens. The Russian position remained consistent and open — all should refrain from turning Ukraine into “some geopolitical playground”, he said. SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said the facts showed that Russian forces had taken over border posts, ferry terminals and nearly all military bases. The military action was a violation of international law and of Ukraine’s territorial integrity of Ukraine in response to an imaginary threat, as there was no evidence of threats against ethnic Russians or the Russian Federation. The latter must engage in discussions with Ukraine, she said, adding that if it was concerned about the rights of Russian-speaking minorities, the United States would work with it to protect minorities and support the dispatch of a monitoring mission. Calling upon the Russian Federation to ensure that OSCE efforts were not impeded, she said its calls for implementation of the 21 February agreement rang hollow since [former President Viktor] Yanukovych had fled the country shortly after its signature. Diplomacy could serve Russian interests, she said,

14

noting that the world was speaking out against the use of force, and that Ukraine had the right to determine its own future. GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said no manipulation of television or other media could hide the fact that the Russian army was occupying Crimea. France had supported the 21 February agreement and the spirit of the proposals by the current Government of Ukraine. It had proposed a six-point plan to end the crisis, in keeping with international law, he said, adding that the plan called for the retreat of Russian troops to their bases, the disarming of paramilitary groups, as well as the establishment by Ukraine’s Parliament of a law on regional languages and a high counsel for the protection of minorities. The agreement’s final points called for constitutional reform and elections. International mediation should be negotiated, he said, emphasizing that his country wished to cooperate with the Russian Federation, but not at a price that would threaten its principles and values. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said “the pretence is now over”; the world could see that Russian military forces had taken control of Crimea against Ukraine’s wishes and in clear violation of its sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. It was a flagrant breach of international law and everyone could see that there was no justification. The Russian Federation said that its forces were there to protect against interference with the Orthodox Church, as well as hundreds of thousands of refugees, but it had provided no evidence. That was clearly fabricated, and on that “trumped up pretext”, the Russian Federation had contravened its international obligations, including the United Nations Charter, which sought to prevent breaches of any Member State’s territorial integrity and political independence through the use of force. If the Russian Federation was genuinely concerned about the human rights of Ukraine’s citizens, then armed intervention was not the way to protect them, he emphasized. The era in which one country could suppress another by using force under a trumped up pretext was over. RAIMONDA MURMOKAITE (Lithuania) said the military action on Crimean soil defied all agreements, memorandums and treaties of cooperation. The presence of the Russian Black Sea fleet was regulated, but that country’s actions were in blatant violation of United Nations Charter principles and had no place in the twenty-first century. Rather, they evoked the “darkest pages” of the twentieth century, she said. Russian actions were a threat to international peace and security and must be qualified as such. Indeed, none of the events in Ukraine warranted military invasion, she said, emphasizing that the latter was trying to rebuild the rule of law and establish State institutions. Calling for the return of Russian forces to their bases, and for an end to further interference, she stressed that the international community had a wide range of instruments at its disposal — the United Nations, OSCE, Council of Europe and others were offering mediation and good offices. The Russian Federation could not forge ahead with military actions, for which there were consequences under the Budapest accord, she said, urging that country to seize the opportunity to ease the situation before it was too late.

15

EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) urged all parties to exercise extreme restraint to de-escalate tensions, and called for dialogue to address concerns, including over Russian ethnic minorities. The United Nations had a critical role to play, including through the Deputy Secretary-General’s visit to Kyiv. Given the complexity and fragility of the situation on the ground, it was important to harmonize international efforts, he said, stressing that only a concerted effort alongside the main stakeholders that took all concerns into consideration could provide a lasting solution to the crisis. ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN (Jordan) called on all parties to exercise calm and selfrestraint. The Russian Federation and Ukraine must start serious and effective dialogue to resolve the crisis, which should lead to the return of Crimea to Ukraine’s control as soon as possible. He called on Ukraine to take immediate measures to resolve the causes of tension, while also stressing the importance of non-interference in the country’s internal affairs so that that it could decide its own political future. The Security Council must assume its responsibilities, he said, calling for more clarifications from the relevant parties on the situation on the ground, including in Crimea, so as to enable the Council to deal with the situation accordingly, including through an investigation and consideration of mediation and disputesettlement mechanisms. LIU JIEYI (China) condemned the recent violent actions in Ukraine, saying his Government had been urging all sides to resolve their internal differences peacefully within a legal framework and conscientiously to protect the legitimate rights of all Ukrainians. Emphasizing that China consistently stood up for the principle of non-interference and respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, he said there were reasons why events in Ukraine that country had progressed to the present stage. China would follow events on the ground closely and call on all sides to hold dialogue on the basis of international law. GARY QUINLAN (Australia) said the situation was escalating, tensions were rising, and the potential for military confrontation was obvious. Since the Council’s meeting on Saturday, Russian military activity in Crimea had seriously intensified amid reports of more Russian troop deployments on the country’s eastern and southern borders, violations of Ukraine’s airspace by fighter planes and of naval vessels blocking the exits of Sevastopol Bay. Such actions, taken alongside the recent decision by the Russian parliament to authorize the use of force in Ukraine, were wholly unacceptable since they undermined the right of the Ukrainian people to choose their own future, and contrary to international law. They also contravened the Charter, as well as agreements to which the Russian Federation was itself a party. The Government of Australia had urged the withdrawal of Russian armed forces and engagement in direct dialogue with Ukraine, in line with its own Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership. Australia had also called on the Russian Federation to respect Ukraine’s unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

16

OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile) called on all parties to show restraint, saying they must refrain from actions in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. Ukraine’s sovereignty was respected under the Budapest Memorandum, and that and other treaties should be honoured. Calling upon the Russian Federation to consider undertaking consultations to find a solution to the crisis, he emphasized that it was up to Ukrainians to determine their own destiny. MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said the United Nations must uphold its responsibilities under the Charter, and called on all involved to refrain from statements that could escalate tensions and to find a way out of the crisis. All stakeholders should aim to find solutions, she said, stressing that it was essential that all political forces participate in those efforts. Argentina was convinced of the need to work for a united Ukraine, she added. U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) called for strict adherence to the Charter. The situation in Ukraine, especially in Crimea, represented a clear and potential threat to international peace and security, and a rapid de-escalation of tensions and hostile rhetoric was needed. The parties must embrace dialogue and seek a return to normality, she said, calling on the international community, particularly those with “constructive influence” over the parties, to intensify efforts towards mediation. The use of preventive diplomacy tools was the most expedient and effective option. All should abide by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on security assurances, which guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also called for the signatories to consult when questions arose in relation to those commitments. The Government of Ukraine was taking steps to ensure greater political inclusiveness, which was a prudent way to address the underlying causes of the dispute and ensuring an early return to peace and stability, she said. Quoting the Secretary-General, she reiterated that “cool heads” must prevail. PAIK JI-AH (Republic of Korea) said her delegation was deeply concerned about the situation, particularly the escalation in Crimea, and called on all parties to exercise maximum restraint and surmount the crisis through dialogue. It was vital that Ukraine’s political independence, territorial integrity and sovereignty be respected. The Republic of Korea hoped for a peaceful settlement and supported international mediation efforts. Hopefully, the Deputy Secretary-General’s visit would bring positive results. MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad) said he was deeply concerned about the serious turn of events, despite the many international appeals for de-escalation, calm and dialogue. Any conflict between Member States should be dealt with peacefully, in line with the Charter and respect for the principles of sovereignty, non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes. Given the deteriorating situation, Chad reiterated its appeal for calm and restraint, in support of all mediation efforts. SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg), Council President for March, spoke in her national capacity, vigorously condemning the violations of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russian armed forces, as well as the decision to allow it, in flagrant violation of the United

17

Nations Charter and the Helsinki Final Act. Echoing the European Union’s appeal for a return to the conditions for the Black Sea fleet’s presence in Ukraine, she emphasized that the situation must be resolved peacefully. An essential first step would be for the Russian Federation to accept the request to consult with Ukraine, as called for in the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994, and in the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership signed by both parties. Expressing hope that it was still possible to “avoid the worst”, she said her country understood the risk of military escalation and urged the immediate start of de-escalation in Ukraine. The very foundation of the United Nations was at stake, she stressed. YURIY A. SERGEYEV (Ukraine) said that, unfortunately, his country had not yet received a compelling answer to the question of why Russian forces were occupying parts of Crimea. While the Budapest Memorandum contained provisions against the use of force, as of today, the Russian Federation had deployed about 16,000 troops, in addition to helicopters, other aircraft and naval vessels. Airports and main roads had been blocked, and the Russian Federation was engaging in disinformation activities aimed at discrediting the legitimate Ukrainian authorities by calling the Russian intervention a “peacekeeping” operation, he said. While the Russian Federation was concerned about the rights of ethnic Russians on Ukrainian territory, the responsibility to protect them rested with Ukraine, he emphasized. The presence of Russian troops was an act of aggression, and none of the pretexts for the invasion of Ukraine could be justified by the United Nations Charter. As for the 21 February agreement, the Russian side participating in the talks had refrained from signing or recognizing the document, he recalled, asking how it could be implemented if one of the major players, Mr. Yanukovych, had left the country. Describing subsequent events as a coup d’état was not correct, he said, explaining that they constituted a revolution. The representative of the Russian Federation, taking the floor again, said his Ukrainian colleague, as well as the delegations of France and the United Kingdom, had said, among other things, that the Russian Federation was trying to pressure Ukrainian democracy. But did a forcible takeover constitute democracy?, he asked. They were saying that there must be a democratic process, but the Russian Federation was calling for democracy while others were re-defining it, he said. Expressing condolences for the dramatic and tragic events of the past three months, he said that following the break-up of demonstrations in Ukraine, laws that existed in many other countries had been adopted, including one that stipulated that demonstrators could not cross the road during a political protest or wear masks on the streets. Why had colleagues decided that there was now a democratic Government in Ukraine? “Let’s not think violence led to democracy,” he emphasized, saying his country sought a real democratic victory with genuine democracy in Ukraine. Recalling that his colleague from the United States had stressed the need to respect Ukraine’s Constitution, he reiterated that what was occurring in that country was neither

18

democracy nor respect for the Constitution. There had been concerns in Crimea about a violent capture of the administration. Now that someone had come to power there, people were making it look as though the Russian armed forces were in Crimea, whereas the Ukrainian armed forces had sworn allegiance to the new Government. As for the Black Sea fleet, 16,000 military forces were in Crimea, whereas the agreement stipulated that there could be up to 25,000 to protect their sites from extremists who also posed a threat to the lives of civilians. Maybe the representative of the United Kingdom believed that was excessive, but that was part of the agreement, he said, adding that he had been surprised to hear that all those concerns were fabricated. He said he had the impression that speakers were obtaining their information from United States television — everything in Ukraine was beautiful and a symbol of democracy. He added that he was sure the Russian media had reported the wave of violence that had ripped through Ukraine when an administration building had been “hit” and people taken from it tied to a pillar and mocked. Would that happen in Chicago?, he asked. Would people be dragged out like that? None of that was made up, he stressed. A group of armed people in eastern Ukraine had tried to remove the Government and had set up an illegitimate, undemocratic administration. Did the delegations present “really think Russia could allow a repeat of what happened” under Hitler in central and eastern Ukraine, where millions of Russians lived? Recalling that the United States had justified its intervention in Grenada by saying it had gone in because of the 1,000 or so United States citizens living there, he said that his country was defending millions of Russian citizens in Ukraine. “You want an observer mission of the OSCE to go there to get rid of the radicals?”, he asked. The radicals would not listen and, besides, it would take months to prepare such a mission, “so who knows what will happen in that time?” The Russian delegation had called today’s meeting, not because it sought to give a fuller picture from its own viewpoint, but because the last two meetings had been “more spontaneous”, and it was very important that the wrong conclusions not be drawn by those controlling the situation in Ukraine. The Russian Federation must refuse the intent, or any plans to establish authority through violence, he said. Imposing authority, philosophy and the culture of another’s world view could “lead to very difficult consequences in Ukraine”. However, it continued to believe that Viktor Yanukovych was the President of Ukraine and that his fate must be resolved by that country’s people. Democratic parameters must be set for resolving the crisis in Ukraine; it must be a constitutional way out and not just a cobbling together of various laws, he added, emphasizing that the process must be regional and political. The representative of the United States, speaking in response to her Russian counterpart’s statement, commended the effort to negotiate the 21 February agreement, saying her Government would have supported it upon implementation. However, not only had Mr.Yanukovych not signed it, but he had fled Kyiv and left the seat of the presidency vacant for two days with Ukraine in crisis. In that context, the country’s democratically elected legislature

19

had voted to impeach the former president, she said. All Council members who had spoken today, except the Russian Federation’s representative, had called for recognizing Ukraine’s territorial integrity and for sending monitoring missions. Why did the Russia Federation not support a monitoring mission or a pull-back of its troops? The representative of France said that for the four and a half years that he had worked in the Council, the Russian Federation’s representative had repeatedly jumped up and said there should be no interference in the internal affairs of any State. Yet, his own country had interfered in the internal affairs of Ukraine and the Russian army was currently occupying it. Regarding Russian support of the 21 February agreement, he noted that it originally had neither supported nor signed the accord. The representative of the Russian Federation said his counterpart from the United States “makes it sound like we are against something; we’re not excluding the role of some international agencies or bodies”. He said he had explained why it might not be enough to do so. He also asked the representative of France not to engage in “high hyperbole”. Protesters had not only set the tone, but also played the instruments for the orchestra and sent provocations to the east and to Crimea. The representative of the United Kingdom emphasized: “Let’s be clear about the facts in Crimea.” Russian forces had forcibly taken over military and civilian airports, pressured Ukrainian military leaders to defect and issued ultimatums for their surrender; and blocked Ukrainian ports and vastly increased their numbers along the common border. Article 6 of the agreement concerning Ukraine’s Black Sea territory stated very clearly that any military formations shall respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, abide by its law and not interfere in its internal affairs, he pointed out. “What part of that agreement justified the actions taken by Russia in the Crimea?”, he asked, noting that his Russian counterpart had just said that he was not against sending an OSCE monitoring mission to eastern Ukraine. Could he now confirm that the Russian Federation accepted the deployment of such a mission in the next few days? The representative of the Russian Federation said his remarks were not about OSCE, stressing that he supported Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson’s mission and that an OSCE mission “has to be discussed”. There was too much disinformation and too many unrealistic statements. Much of what the representative of the United Kingdom had said about events in Crimea was not based on reality. The representative of Ukraine said he supported his Russian counterpart’s remarks on the need to be “extremely honest”, but wished to clarify a few points. First, regarding the occupation or threat to occupy the monastery in Kyiv, Ukraine had received information that there might be some provocation concerning the monastery. In fact, demonstrators were defending the monastery from possible provocations, he said. As for the Black Sea fleet, the accord stated that the nautical strength of the fleet would be 11,000, including some 2,000 marines and about 5,300 other military personnel from the Russian armed forces. In December

20

2013, Ukraine was notified by the “Russian side” that the Black Sea fleet would be maintained at 11,000, he said. He went on to state that, according to a relevant General Assembly resolution, any violation of the agreed number of armed forces or where they went would constitute “aggression”. In fact, the approximately 14 military helicopters that had arrived should not be considered part of the Black Sea fleet, and neither should the many transport aircrafts infringing Ukrainian airspace, all of which spelled aggression. Describing Ukraine’s first law upon independence, in 1990, he said it guaranteed equal rights and protections for all ethnic groups, including ethnic minorities. When Ukraine had approached the European Union regarding membership, it had taken on an obligation to sign and ratify a charter on minority languages. The former Ukrainian Government had “redone” that charter, saying it should not apply to languages spoken in Crimea. By voiding that law, the new Government had said that parliamentarians would look again at ratifying the charter. The Russian Federation had not done so, but Ukraine would do so in order to defend those languages at risk of disappearing, he said. As for the formerly governing Party of Regions, he said another “untruth” had been spoken because it had a large caucus in the current parliament. Moreover, one of its leaders had said he would run for President. Urging an opportunity for elections and for learning to live together and govern, he agreed that assistance was needed to “get past the years-long crisis and help to build Ukraine in a way that people are not ashamed to live there”.

Fonte: http://www.un.org/apps/news/docs.asp?Topic

21

PEACEFUL RESOLUTION OF UKRAINE CRISIS REMAINS POSSIBLE, UNDERSECRETARY-GENERALTELLS SECURITY COUNCIL DURING BRIEFING Government Ready for ‘Open Dialogue’ Prime Minister Says amid Calls for Diplomacy

SC 11314 13 Mar 2014 While an end to the crisis in Ukraine had proven elusive thus far, a peaceful solution remained possible, the Secretary-General’s senior United Nations political affairs official told the Security Council today. Jeffrey Feltman, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, emphasized, however, that the frequency of the Council’s deliberations on the subject reflected the international community’s inability so far to deliver on its obligation to help de-escalate tensions. Council members were considering the situation in Ukraine for the sixth time since 1 March. Also addressing the Council, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine said there was still a chance for peace. “This Government is ready for an open dialogue. We extended our hand to Russia, but instead we got a barrel. But we still believe Russia is ready to negotiate and tackle this dramatic conflict.” However, the Russian Federation’s representative responded that his country wanted neither war nor to exacerbate the situation further. However, the international community must objectively look at the facts in order to understand the genesis of the situation. The representative of the United States described plans for a referendum in Crimea on whether to join the Russian Federation or remain within Ukraine as “hasty, unjustified and divisive”, while emphasizing that the vote proposed for Sunday, 16 March, would be a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Luxembourg, Council President for March, also addressed the Council. Also delivering statements were representatives of the United Kingdom, France, Rwanda, Jordan, Republic of Korea, China, Nigeria, Chile, Australia, Lithuania, Chad and Argentina. The meeting began at 3:10 p.m. and ended at 5 p.m. Background Meeting this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine, members of the Security Council had before them a letter (document S/2014/136) dated 28 February from that country’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and addressed to the President of the Council. Briefing

22

JEFFREY FELTMAN, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, said the Council had accorded serious attention to recent developments in Ukraine, amid multiple multilateral and bilateral diplomatic efforts to resolve the situation. The frequency of those deliberations reflected the international community’s inability so far to deliver on its obligation to help deescalate tensions, despite the Secretary-General’s repeated reminders to do so. Although it had proven elusive so far, the path towards a peaceful resolution of the crisis was still open, he said, adding: “Let us seize it.” Noting that the continuing seizure and blockading of Ukrainian military bases in Crimea, as well as of most State Border Service facilities, he said there had been reports that unidentified military personnel had taken over a military hospital. On 11 March, it had also been reported that the Crimean authorities had closed down the peninsula’s airspace to all commercial flights, except those originating from Moscow, citing the need to keep “provocateurs” out of Crimea. The referendum called by the authorities was expected to go ahead on Sunday, 16 March, and there were no indicators to the contrary. On the same day, Crimea’s Parliament had adopted a “declaration of independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea” on 11 March, he recalled. Also that day, Ukraine’s Parliament, citing specific articles of the country’s Constitution, had adopted a resolution urging the Parliament of Crimea to “reconsider its decision of 6 March 2014 and bring it in line with the Constitution of Ukraine and the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, approved by the Law of Ukraine of 23 December 1998”. The resolution further stated that if the Crimean Parliament failed to reconsider by 12 March, the Parliament of Ukraine would “initiate the issue of early termination of powers of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea”. The Under-Secretary-General went on to express regret that the local authorities had denied Ivan Šimonović, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, access to Crimea, citing their lack of readiness to receive him and its inability to provide security for him. Reporting on the human rights situation throughout Ukraine, Mr. Šimonović had said that in respect of Crimea, he would have to rely on reports from residents, foreign diplomats and international non-governmental organizations there. However, he had held meetings in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Lviv, including with representatives of local administrations, the Russian minority and nongovernmental organizations. A monitoring mission from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) was set to become operational in Ukraine by the upcoming Monday, and the Secretary-General was now considering whether to ask Mr. Šimonović to extend his mission. Statements ARSENIY YATSENYUK, Prime Minister of Ukraine, said it was absolutely unacceptable in the twenty-first century to resolve any kind of conflict with tanks, artillery and boots on the ground. The Russian Federation’s actions were in violation of a number of treaties signed by the

23

two countries, he emphasized, adding, however, that there was a chance to resolve the conflict in a peaceful manner. Praising his country’s military for having refrained from the use of force, he said the foreign military presence in Ukraine had been clearly identified as Russian. Urging the Russian Federation to pull back its forces and to start real negotiations, he said the conflict was not merely regional in scope as its ramifications went beyond Ukraine’s borders. Recalling that his country had abandoned its nuclear weapons programme in 1994, thereby giving up one of world’s biggest nuclear weapons arsenals of under the Budapest Memorandum, he said that accord guaranteed the Ukrainian State’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Russian Federation’s actions jeopardized the international nuclear nonproliferation regime and would make it difficult to convince anyone around the globe not to seek nuclear weapons. The Ukrainian Government was absolutely open and wanted to have talks, he said, declaring that his country was looking for an answer to the question of whether the Russians wanted war. The two countries had maintained warm and friendly relations, and Ukraine was convinced that the Russian people did not want war, he stressed, expressing hope that the Russian Federation would heed the will of its people. JEAN ASSELBORN, Council President for March and Minister for Foreign and European Affairs of Luxembourg, spoke in his national capacity, saying the international community could not be indifferent to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine. Stressing the role of the Security Council as the main body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, he said the Russian Federation’s use of force was a flagrant violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and of international law and the United Nations Charter. The international community would not recognize the outcome of the referendum to be held in Crimea on Sunday, in breach of Ukraine’s Constitution, she said. Welcoming the spirit of openness just shown by the Prime Minister of Ukraine, she said the Russian side “should grasp the outstretched hand extended by Ukraine”, and called for the formation of an international contact group to mediate negotiations between the two. SAMANTHA POWER (United States), describing the “stark contrast” between the conduct of Kyiv and that of Moscow, said the Government of Ukraine was according priority to internal reconciliation and had proposed the creation of a task force to consider the prospect of autonomy for Crimea within Ukraine. Unwavering in its pledge to honour all international agreements, it had also shown remarkable restraint in respect of armed force. Ukraine’s voice was one of reason and restraint in the face of provocation, she said, adding that the groundwork had been for a new Government that would represent the needs of all Ukrainians, with elections planned for 25 May. That vote would give citizens the chance to be heard, and those wishing to shape Ukraine’s future an opportunity to be elected.

24

The international community had seen a different type of approach in Moscow, including military action from the outset, she continued. The Russian Federation had massed forces along the border, while supporting efforts to take control of key Ukrainian assets. Russian troops had obstructed international monitors whose task was to ensure that the rights of minorities were not violated. “This was not the action of those who believed they had truth and law on their side,” she said. The planned referendum offered no option to vote for the status quo, and Russian troops had conducted new military operations as recently as this morning. Plans for the referendum were hasty, unjustified and divisive, she said emphasizing that the 16 March ballot would be a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. The United States called for the suspension of that “ill-conceived” initiative, she said, calling upon the Russian Federation also to refrain from taking additional steps in its “dangerous undertaking” and urging direct talks between the two countries, with appropriate international support. The Russian Federation had to want a diplomatic solution, which remained both viable and clear, she said, recalling that her Government proposed a resolution that would endorse a solution allowing the Security Council to act, if needed, to ensure the peace. “This is the moment to show that rules matter,” she stressed. Unless the international community came together and sent a clear signal, the world would live with the consequences well beyond the current conflict. “We will look back and wish we had spoken with a unified voice,” she warned. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said his delegation stood side by side with Ukraine’s people, stressing that there was still a chance for a peaceful diplomatic solution. Recalling that there had been doubts over the legitimacy of the transitional administration in Kyiv, he pointed out that it had been formed after the former leader had discarded his own Government. In order to move away from confrontation, the Russian Federation must understand that its actions in Crimea were the cause of the confrontation. The Russian Federation’s alleged claims that it needed to protect Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population against anti-Semitism was unfounded, he said. As for Sunday’s planned referendum in Crimea, article 73 of Ukraine’s Constitution stated that any territorial change should be decided by a national referendum, he said, stressing that a free and fair vote could not be held under the threat posed by Russian forces. Such a “farcical” vote would reopen ethnic divisions and fail to win international recognition, he said, warning the Russian Federation against taking unilateral action. “The window is narrow, but it exists,” he said, calling that country’s forces in Crimea to return to their bases. GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said the Russian Federation was trying to justify the unjustifiable and would ultimately lose credibility while facing distrust in the future as a result. What would the future hold for relations between the Russian Federation and the European Union?, he asked. In the end, everyone would lose because the fragile international fabric would be torn as a result of the Russian Federation’s actions. It was important that the Security Council reassert the principles that were the very foundation of the United Nations, he

25

emphasized. France supported the draft resolution submitted by the United States and wanted a vote on it before Sunday’s referendum. If the illegal vote took place, the Russian Federation would have to bear the consequences because the international community could not accept its actions. EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) said it was a cause of growing alarm that the crisis in Crimea posed a threat to the security of the entire region and affected the daily lives of innocent people. While there were a number of diplomatic approaches to the crisis, it was important to take into account the substantive issues that had led to the conflict in the first place, he emphasized. The Security Council had a duty to work for an end to the confrontation, which would allow the Ukrainian people to determine their own destiny. Rwanda was concerned about the intensifying rhetoric, which undermined efforts to find common ground, he said, reiterating his delegation’s call for all parties to exercise extreme restraint and resolve the crisis through existing agreements. ZEID R’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN (Jordan) said events in Ukraine had reached an extremely delicate stage requiring efforts to defuse tensions. The time had come to begin direct dialogue between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, he said, adding that his delegation supported efforts by the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including a proposal to form an international contact mechanism and to send fact-finding missions. Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty, political independence, as well as the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of States, must be respected, he stressed, calling on the parties concerned to launch an inclusive political process, restore the rule of law, and refrain from measures that could “close the door” on negotiations. JOON OH (Republic of Korea) expressed full support for the proposed May elections, but was particularly troubled by the decision of the Crimean authorities to hold a referendum, and by their unilateral declaration of independence. Ukraine’s people had full power to conduct their own affairs without interference, and any military presence not authorized by its Government must cease, he emphasized. Welcoming the efforts made by the SecretaryGeneral and OSCE, he called for the deployment of a credible international monitoring mechanism, and for unhindered access to United Nations personnel, recalling that the Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights had been denied entry. LIU JIEYI (China) said the situation in Ukraine remained highly complex and sensitive. Condemning extremism and violence, he said the priority must be the protection of all ethnic communities, with a view to upholding social order. China approached the issue objectively, bearing in mind its long-standing reluctance to interfere in the internal affairs of any State, he emphasized. All parties must exercise restraint, there must be a diplomatic solution and the interests of all ethnic communities must be put above all else. China supported constructive international efforts to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, and was open to all plans that would mitigate tensions.

26

U JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said that, in a world already deeply embroiled in turmoil, the crisis in Ukraine was one too many and the world could ill afford it. A cautious approach to the delicate situation could not be more imperative, she said, emphasizing that such an approach was even more pertinent today, since so little had changed since the Council’s last meeting. Nigeria called on all parties to uphold the provisions of the United Nations Charter, particularly the peaceful solution of disputes. There must be understanding, mutual trust, flexibility and a willingness to engage in constructive and peaceful dialogue. Urging the parties not to “slam the door on dialogue”, as “this represents a priceless opportunity for all possible solutions to be explored”. The foundations of reconciliation could be found in the previous agreements signed by the parties. The referendum planned for Sunday was illegitimate, and Nigeria called on the Crimean authorities to postpone and indeed cancel it. OCTAVIO ERRÁZURRIZ (Chile) warned against holding the referendum, saying it could escalate tensions. Underlining the need to respect Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence, he said the breach of the United Nations Charter, as well as treaties to which Ukraine was a signatory should be avoided. Chile appealed to the Ukrainian authorities to establish inclusive national dialogue, while also urging both Ukraine and the Russian Federation to make use of existing mechanisms to resolve their dispute by peaceful means. Diplomacy should be given time, and the people of Ukraine should decide their own destiny, he added. GARY QUINLAN (Australia), emphasizing that Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be respected, urged the Russian Federation to take “immediate, deliberate and definitive” steps to de-escalate the situation by ordering its troops back to their bases and allowing independent monitors into Crimea. The two countries must engage with each other in direct dialogue at senior levels. Yet, there had been no sign of change in the Russian Federation’s actions, he noted. Rather, there had been ample evidence of further efforts to consolidate its control over Ukrainian territory in Crimea. Citing the seizure of Ukrainian military and other Government facilities, he declared: “These actions cannot be justified by a perceived threat to Russian assets or nationals.” VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said his country wanted neither war nor further exacerbation of the situation. Underlining the need for the international community to look objectively at the facts in order to understand the genesis of the situation, he said that his fellow delegates painted the image that without “evil Russia”, people in Ukraine would live long and happily. As for the recent change of power there, the legitimately elected President had been overthrown through the use of force, which was illegal, he pointed out, asking why Western nations considered that democracy. He went on to note that the radicals who had taken over the Government had not yet laid down their weapons, and neither had they done anything to implement the agreement signed on 21 February. They had shut down the Russian-language version of the Government

27

website. Ukraine was the one splitting itself in two, he stressed. Concerning the proposed referendum in Crimea, he said that while delegates disputed its legitimacy, he would remind them that the concept of a referendum was not new. Citing the example of Kosovo, he recalled that France had vetoed a draft resolution on the sovereignty of Comoros following a referendum held in Mayotte. The Russian Black Sea fleet was not interfering in the situation, he said in conclusion. RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said that a referendum had never been set up so hurriedly and in such clear violation of Ukraine’s constitution. The voices of many other ethnic groups in Crimea would not be heard through the referendum because it had only been planned because the Russian Federation was “fast-tracking” the annexation of Crimea. As a result, one could only imagine the shudders being felt across the region, she said. The Russian Federation had repeatedly expressed recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under existing agreements, yet the its actions violated the very foundations of international law, as well as regional and international security. Nothing that had been said warranted or justified the Russian Federation’s actions, she emphasized, noting that Ukraine had repeatedly invited monitors in and had nothing to hide. The crisis was deeply troubling because it had a highly explosive human dimension and risked unleashing the “most dangerous demons” of hatred, she warned, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop its “warmongering”. BANTE MANGARAL (Chad) expressed concern about the escalating crisis, despite calls by the international community for calm and restraint. It was time to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity and to hold an inclusive dialogue, he said. Chad called for the peaceful settlement of the dispute, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and supported by international mediation for a peaceful solution. MARIA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said it was essential that all States respect Ukraine’s right to conduct its own internal affairs. Argentina had supported the concept of political independence of all States throughout its history, even before the existence of the United Nations, and was greatly concerned about the internal situation evolving in Ukraine. It was essential that the international community and the main parties concerned promote a democratic dialogue that would help to bring about a peaceful solution to the crisis, she said. Argentina appealed to all parties to refrain from adopting positions that would complicate the possibility of dialogue. Prime Minister YATSENYUK of Ukraine, taking the floor for a second time, noted that all delegations except one supported his country’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. The Government was executing bilateral and multilateral agreements that Ukraine had signed. Crimea was an integral part of the country, and the Government would not honour any “hand-made, artificial referendum”. Ukraine’s Government would protect every minority and was ready for an open dialogue. “We extended our hand to Russia, but instead we got a barrel,” he

28

said, adding nevertheless that he felt the Russian Federation was ready to negotiate. Calling for truth, he said history would be the judge.

Fonte: http://www.un.org/apps/news/docs.asp?Topic

29

SECURITY COUNCIL FAILS TO ADOPT TEXT URGING MEMBER STATES NOT TO RECOGNIZEPLANNED 16 MARCH REFERENDUM IN UKRAINE’S CRIMEA REGION

SC 11319 15 Mar 2014

After weeks of intense diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions in Ukraine, the Security Council today failed to adopt a draft resolution that would have urged Member States not to recognize the results of the referendum planned for 16 March in that country’s autonomous Crimea region, or any alteration of its status. As a result of 13 votes in favour to 1 against (Russian Federation) and 1 abstention (China), the Council did not adopt the draft, by which it would have reaffirmed its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders. The text would also have urged all parties immediately to pursue a peaceful resolution of the current dispute through direct political dialogue, to exercise restraint, to refrain from unilateral actions and “inflammatory rhetoric” that could increase tensions, and to engage fully with international mediation efforts. By other terms, the text would have called upon Ukraine to continue to uphold its international legal obligations, and in that regard, would have welcomed statements by the transitional Government reaffirming its commitment to upholding the rights of all Ukrainians, including minorities, and to pursue an inclusive national political dialogue. Speaking before the vote, the Russian Federation’s representative said it had been no secret that he had intended to vote against the draft resolution because he could not support making the 16 March referendum illegal. That would contravene the principle of equal rights and self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter and confirmed by General Assembly decisions and the Helsinki Act of 1975. Self-determination was an extraordinary measure applied when coexistence within a State became impossible, he said, a case that had arisen in Crimea from a legal vacuum following the unconstitutional coup d’état carried out by nationalist radicals. Recalling that Crimea had been part of his country until 1954, he said the rights of its people had been ignored when the region had automatically become part of Ukraine. The Russian Federation was attempting to defend their right of self-determination, he said, stressing that it would respect the will of the Crimean people as expressed in the referendum. In the ensuing debate, many speakers decried the Council’s inability to act, expressing support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity. Most speakers called for calm and an unswerving pursuit of a political solution to the crisis.

30

Ukraine’s representative said he had received a call to the effect that Russian troops entered the Ukrainian mainland from Crimea, and called upon States to do their utmost to stop “the aggressor”. Speaking in Russian, he quoted the Russian Federation’s representative as having said that his country had obtained the right of veto with the blood spilled during the Second World War. Today, however, the Russian Federation had Ukrainian blood on its hands. Nonetheless, Ukraine took an optimistic view of current events, he said, because his Russian counterpart had spoken with the voice of the former Soviet Union. The Russian Federation’s real voice was to be found in the streets of Saint Petersburg, Moscow and Yekaterinburg. The representative of the United States said the draft resolution was grounded in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter — prohibition of use of force to acquire territory — and such principles as territorial integrity, which the Russian Federation vigorously defended, except in when it was itself concerned. The text also recalled the Budapest Memorandum, in which the Government of the Russian Federation agreed to refrain from aggressive military action. Today’s veto would have consequences, she said, declaring that Crimea was part of Ukraine unless and until its status was changed in line with Ukrainian and international law. China’s representative took a different view, saying that the text only would have complicated the situation in Ukraine, which was neither in line with the interests of the international community nor those of Ukrainians. As such, China had abstained from the vote and would continue its mediation efforts to help resolve the crisis. He suggested the creation of an international coordination mechanism to explore political solutions. Luxembourg’s representative, one of 41 co-sponsors of the draft resolution, said the planned referendum would be a unilateral act that could rapidly destabilize Ukraine and the region. The draft resolution would have helped to halt the stoking of nationalism. Today’s inaction was a failure, not only for the Council, but also for the Russian Federation, she said. Also speaking today were representatives of France, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Rwanda, Chile, Argentina, Australia, Republic of Korea, Nigeria, Chad and Jordan. The representative of the Russian Federation took the floor a second time in response to his Ukrainian counterpart’s statement. The meeting began at 11:08 a.m. and ended at 12:17 p.m. Background The Security Council met this morning to take action on a draft resolution on the situation in Ukraine. Statements VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation), taking the floor before the vote, said it was no secret that his delegation would vote against the draft resolution submitted by the United States, which described the proposed 16 March referendum in Crimea as illegal. Crimean people had a

31

right to determine their future, as well as an equal right to self-determination — principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The Russian Federation was not disputing the principle of territorial integrity, but when it became impossible to enjoy such rights within a single State, people could seek the right to self-determination, which was the case in Crimea now. Radicals had assumed power through an illegal coup d’état, thereby creating an illegal political vacuum. Generally agreed principles should be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking political and historical specificities into account. The Crimean peninsula had previously been part of the Russian Federation, and had declared autonomy within Ukraine in 1991, he said, adding that the Russian Federation would respect the will of Crimea’s people, to be expressed in Sunday’s referendum. SAMANTHA POWER (United States), speaking after the vote, said, “This is a sad and remarkable moment.” The Council’s job was to stand up for peace and to defend those in danger, and history had lessons for those willing to listen. Unfortunately, “not everyone was willing to listen today”, she said. The Russian Federation did not have the power to veto the truth, or Pravda, which had a prominent place in the story of that country, as the name of the Soviet communist regime’s house newspaper. Today, however, one would search in vain “to find pravd in Pravda,” she said. The resolution should not have been controversial, since it was grounded in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter — prohibition of the use of force to acquire territory — and such principles as respect for territorial integrity, which the Russian Federation had vigorously defended, except when such principles concerned itself. In the Budapest Memorandum, the Government of the Russian Federation had agreed to refrain from aggressive military action, she recalled, noting that today’s resolution also called on Ukraine to protect the rights of all the people in that country. The text also noted that the planned referendum would have no legal effect on Crimea, she continued. The Russian Federation had denied having carried out a military intervention, yet its troops had helped to shut airports and prevent the entry of both international observers and human rights monitors. It had shown little interest in diplomatic efforts by the United Nations, the European Union and the United States, and had refused Ukraine’s outstretched hand, all the while extending Russian forces over the neighbouring country’s eastern border, she said. The Russian Federation had rejected a resolution that had “peace at its heart and law flowing through its veins”, thereby demonstrating that it was “isolated, alone and wrong”, and placing itself outside international norms that were the bedrock of peaceful international resolutions. Recalling that veto power had been granted 70 years ago to the countries that had led an epic fight against aggression, she said that today’s veto would have consequences. Crimea was part of Ukraine unless and until its status was changed in line with Ukrainian and international law, she stressed, pointing out that there was overwhelming opposition to the Russian Federation’s dangerous actions.

32

GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said that the masquerade of a referendum had reduced an electoral campaign to “a choice between two yeses”. France almost felt pity in listening to Russian diplomats and seeing Moscow so willing to grasp at straws. While agreeing with his Russian counterpart in respect of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act — to the effect that destroying territorial integrity contravened the United Nations Charter — today’s resolution recalled fundamental Charter principles, he said the day’s headlines would read: “ Russia has vetoed the Charter”. He went on to note that the Russian Federation had invoked the pretext of protecting Russians apparently threatened in Crimea, while no such violence had been observed by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The hundreds of thousands of refugees cited by the Russian representative had never existed. The fact that Crimea had been part of the former Soviet Union was irrelevant, he continued, pointing out that the peninsula had been under Turkish rule for three centuries. The Russian Federation could not justify the unjustifiable. Its veto said that force trumped law, he said, stressing: “We cannot trample law.” The Council’s duty was to uphold the fragile barrier of law, and accepting the planned referendum would turn the Charter into a farce. Annexation was an international concern and the Security Council must remain firm in its adherence to the principle that such actions must be denied. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) said the draft resolution invited the Council to reaffirm core United Nations principles. The Russian Federation was isolated, and the message that it was violating international law would be heard beyond the walls of the Council chamber. Tomorrow’s planned referendum would have no credibility, and thus no recognition by the international community. Ukraine was ready for direct dialogue, and “the ball is in Russia’s court”, he said, urging the latter to grasp the former’s outstretched hand. The Russian Federation’s military adventurism would further escalate the tension, he said, demanding that it rethink its actions and seek a peaceful solution. RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said her delegation was deeply troubled by the Russian Federation’s veto, and expressed concern about its consequences for the future maintenance of international, as well as regional, peace and security. Ukraine was an independent country and the Russian Federation should not lay claim to any part of it, she stressed, pointing out that the Budapest Memorandum and other treaties reaffirmed respect for each other’s borders. The Russian Federation was challenging the principle of pacific settlement of disputes that was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Lithuania called on the international community not to recognize the referendum in Crimea. EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) said the timing of action on the draft resolution was not productive. Now was the time for frank dialogue, rather than rhetoric that would isolate a country. The situations in Ukraine and Crimea had unfolded rapidly, and the pressure exerted by some countries had diverted attention away from careful analysis of their root causes. While

33

Rwanda had still voted in favour of the text, which embodied important principles such as sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, it urged Ukraine to launch an inclusive national dialogue, and the international community to help avoid further deterioration of the situation. LIU JIEYI (China) said the international community should push for a political solution to the crisis in Ukraine so as to maintain regional stability. The situation involved complex historical reasons and realities, which called for a balanced solution. China had always respected the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States, he said, noting that foreign interference had led to the violence in Ukraine, while the failure to implement the 21 February agreement had accelerated the turmoil. Condemning all violence, he stressed the need to act within the framework of law and order and to seek an early resolution of differences through dialogue and respectful negotiations. The aim should be to protect the interests of all communities in Ukraine and to avoid an escalation of tensions, while firmly aiming for a political solution, he stressed. He called for constructive international efforts to de-escalate the situation in Ukraine, saying China had engaged in mediation efforts. The draft resolution would only have complicated the situation, which was neither in the interests of the international community nor those of Ukrainians. As such, China could only abstain in today’s vote, he said, adding that it would continue to mediate and to play a constructive role in resolving the crisis. Going forward, China suggested the creation of an international coordination mechanism consisting of all parties to explore a political solution. All parties should refrain from actions that would escalate the situation, while international financial institutions should explore how to help maintain financial stability. OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile) said he had voted in favour of the resolution, as it was an appropriate response to the crisis in Ukraine. The Budapest Memorandum required the parties to observe Ukraine’s independence and current borders, and to refrain from military measures. The planned referendum was not in line with Ukraine’s Constitution, he said, emphasizing the fundamental importance of ensuring that the rule of law was observed, nationally and internationally. Indeed, it was for Ukrainians to choose their future through a democratic process that respected minority rights. The crisis must be resolved peacefully through dialogue, and Chile regretted the Council’s inability to support the resolution due to the use of the veto. The Council had not fulfilled its responsibility, he declared. MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina) said she had voted in favour of the resolution because it asserted the principle of territorial integrity and would have contributed to constructive dialogue towards a peaceful solution involving all political actors. While urging refraining from actions that would hamper such a solution, she said it was indeed for Ukrainians to decide their own affairs. It was not for the Council to define the situation, but rather, to maintain international peace and security. Argentina hoped all countries would respect the principle of non-interference in State affairs.

34

GARY QUINLAN (Australia) said the referendum to be held tomorrow was dangerous, destabilizing, unauthorized and invalid. The international community would recognize neither the result nor any action based on it. With or without a resolution, the message from Council members and the wider international community had been overwhelming. De-escalation of the crisis was imperative, he said, adding that the Russian Federation must order its forces to their bases and decrease their numbers to agreed levels. It must grant international observers access to Crimea, and engage in direct dialogue with Ukraine, either bilaterally or through a diplomatic mechanism such as a contact group, he said. OH JOON (Republic of Korea) said he had voted in favour of the text, which embodied important principles such as sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity. Those principles should be respected. Today’s failure to adopt the text would not close the window to a diplomatic solution, he emphasized. U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said she had voted in favour because the text embodied principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which obliged Member States to settle disputes through peaceful means. Pointing out that the draft resolution was not a countryspecific text, she said the pacific settlement of the territorial dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon through the International Court of Justice should serve as a beacon. Nigeria opposed unilateral actions aimed at altering a country’s configuration. MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad) said his Government had consistently supported Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and had voted in favour of the resolution out of a commitment to such principles. Concerned about the continued escalation of the crisis, despite the Council’s appeals for restraint and calm, he said it was still possible for the parties to open the way for national reconciliation and maintenance of territorial integrity by engaging in dialogue. With that, he reiterated the importance of upholding the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes, in line with the Charter. ZEID RA’AD ZEID AL-HUSSEIN (Jordan) said he had voted in favour of the resolution out of respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, as well as for the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. Underlining the importance of adherence to the United Nations Charter, especially Article 1 on peaceful dispute settlement, he said Crimea was under Ukrainian sovereignty. SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg) expressed her deep regret that today’s resolution, of which she had voted in favour, had not been adopted. Many States had co-sponsored the text because it was anchored in Charter principles and aimed to reassert the Council’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. In implementing Chapter VI of the Charter, the text would have urged all parties to seek political dialogue and refrain from unilateral actions and inflammatory rhetoric. She described the planned referendum as a unilateral act that could rapidly destabilize Ukraine and the region. Today’s veto had prevented the Council from carrying out its responsibility to

35

maintain international peace and security, she said, urging Member States not to recognize the results of the referendum. Had it been adopted, the resolution would have helped to halt the stoking of nationalism, and today’s inaction was a failure, not only for the Council, but also the Russian Federation as well. YURIY SERGEYEV (Ukraine) thanked Council members, especially the delegations supporting the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Federation had violated its own obligations, he said, adding that just 40 minutes ago, he had received information that its troops had entered mainland Ukraine from Crimea. While urging the international community to find the means to stop the aggression, he said the Russian Federation’s veto was not a surprise. It had vetoed a resolution on the crisis in Syria, which had resulted in thousands of deaths. A discussion on Security Council reform, particularly the right of veto, was forthcoming, he said, adding that the Russian vetoes on Syria and Crimea should be examined. The Russian Federation was manipulating its veto power and causing bloodshed. However, Ukraine remained optimistic because what had been heard from the Russian Federation’s representative was the voice of the Soviet Union, not that of the “true Russia” — the voices of people on the streets of Moscow and other cities who had expressed their desire to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Mr. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), taking the floor a second time, said the representative of Ukraine had gone far beyond imagination about who was causing bloodshed. “Blood was on your hands,” he said, referring to nationalist radicals and snipers in Ukraine. He said that some colleagues in the Council had presented distorted views about his country’s position, pointing out that the representative of France had inaccurately described the ongoing violence, while the delegate of the United States was ignoring the will of Crimea’s people.

Fonte: http://www.un.org/apps/news/docs.asp?Topic

36

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS MONITORING MISSION DEPLOYED TO CRIMEA AMID CRISIS BETWEEN RUSSIAN FEDERATION, UKRAINE, SECURITY COUNCIL TOLD Deputy, Assistant-Secretary-General Brief Members on Events since Crimea Vote

SC 11328 19 Mar 2014

Following rapid developments that unfolded after Sunday’s referendum in which the people of Crimea voted to leave Ukraine and join the Russian Federation, a United Nations human rights monitoring team had been deployed to the region, with a pending invitation to visit the capital, Simferopol, the world body’s senior human rights official told the Security Council today. Briefing the 15-member body a day after returning from Ukraine, Ivan Šimonović, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, said that although he had been denied entry to Crimea earlier this month, he was gravely concerned after having spoken with victims of violence, torture and ill treatment. Members of the human rights monitoring team, comprising 9 international and 25 national staff, were gradually joining the head of the mission who had arrived in Ukraine last week. Chronic human rights violations of long-standing concern were among the root causes of the recent upheaval in Ukraine, he said, underlining the need for judicial and security-sector reform, and the importance of addressing corruption and ensuring equal access. He said that after having heard accounts of protest-related violations that had occurred in Kyiv — ranging from the excessive use of force to execution-style sniper killings — he had said that all such allegations must be investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson said that since his visit to Ukraine earlier this month, developments, including the death of a Ukrainian officer and the takeover of naval bases, had only added tensions and new layers of complexity to an already precarious situation. “We are now faced with risks of a dangerous further escalation of this crisis that could have ramifications for international peace and security, and have serious significance for this Council and the United Nations,” he said, noting that the Secretary-General was leaving today for Moscow and Kyiv to discuss diplomatic solutions. From a broader perspective, he pointed out that the Russian Federation and Ukraine remained neighbours with close and complex ties, and positive relations between the two nations would be in the interest of all, with the first step being immediate de-escalation and restraint in the current crisis. Ukraine’s representative described the 16 March referendum in Crimea as “illegitimate” and in violation of his country’s Constitution. Ukraine would never recognize the declared independence of Crimea.

37

The Russian Federation’s representative said that, through the referendum, Crimeans had fulfilled what was enshrined in the Charter: the right to self-determination. “This is an expression of the free will of Crimeans,” he added. Many Council members voiced concern about the violation of the Charter principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, with the representative of the United States saying her country rejected the illegal “land grab” in Crimea. France’s representative stressed that Moscow must open direct negotiations with Kyiv, while other delegates expressed satisfaction with efforts by the United Nations, with many commending the Secretary-General’s current visit to Ukraine and the Russian Federation. China’s representative emphasized that his country continued to promote peace talks and a political settlement of the crisis, proposing the creation of an international coordination mechanism as soon as possible to explore political possibilities. Also delivering statements were representatives of Nigeria, Chile, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Rwanda, Australia, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Jordan, Chad and Luxembourg. The meeting began at 3:07 p.m. and ended at 5 p.m. Background Meeting this afternoon to consider the situation in Ukraine, members of the Security Council had before them a letter dated 28 February from that country’s Permanent Representative addressed to the President of the Council (document S/2014/136). Briefings JAN ELIASSON, Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that before the Secretary-General’s departure for Moscow and Kyiv to discuss diplomatic solutions to the current crisis, he had spoken with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk of Ukraine. Since briefing the Council on 13 March, he had also continued to engage with key actors with the aim of deescalating the situation, unfailingly urging dialogue and adherence to the United Nations Charter in respect of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. He recalled that during his own recent mission to Ukraine, he had stressed the importance of inclusive government and the need to preserve a multicultural, multilingual country. He had been joined by Ivan Šimonović, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, who had remained in Ukraine until yesterday in light of the volatile situation on the ground. The United Nations had already deployed a human rights monitoring mission, which would coordinate with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The Deputy Secretary-General said that since his visit, the 16 March referendum in Crimea, the region’s declaration of independence, its recognition by the Russian Federation and recent reported killings had added tensions and new layers of complexity to an already

38

precarious situation. “We are now faced with risks of a dangerous further escalation of this crisis that could have ramifications for international peace and security and have serious significance for this Council and the United Nations, he said. In a wider perspective, the Russian Federation and Ukraine remained neighbours with close, complex ties, he said, cautioning that it was in the interest of all that the two nations retain positive ties, with the first step being immediate deescalation and restraint in the current crisis. IVAN ŠIMONOVIĆ, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights, reported that he had joined Mr. Eliasson in Kyiv on 9 March to begin his mission of working towards the deescalation of tensions and making recommendations on a path forward. While he had met authorities and civil society representatives in Kyiv, Kharkiv and Lviv, however, he had been unable to enter Crimea, although his team had collected written materials about the situation there. Last Sunday, he had received an invitation to visit Simferopol in Crimea in hopes that the head of the United Nations human rights monitoring mission would soon visit. Chronic, long-standing human rights violations were among the reasons for the recent upheaval in Ukraine, he said, emphasizing the need for judicial and security-sector reform, and the importance of addressing corruption and ensuring equal access. Regarding protest-related violations, he said he was deeply concerned about the excessive use of force, detentions and disappearances as well as the issue of snipers on the Maidan in Kyiv. Medical personnel said that some protesters had been killed “execution-style”, he said, stressing that the perpetrators must be brought to justice. Hate speech must be curbed and equal protection for all ensured, he continued, noting also that Ukraine’s hasty repeal of the law on languages had been a mistake. The old law would continue to be enforced while a new text was prepared. He said that after meeting with civil society groups, he had raised the question of attacks against and harassment of members of the Russian minority and emphasized that all such allegations must be thoroughly investigated. However, violations against minorities were neither widespread nor systematic, he noted. Turning to Crimea, he said he had serious concerns about the protection of human rights, having met with victims of arbitrary arrest, torture and ill treatment. He also expressed concern about the Tatar community and those who opposed recent political events. Violence and rumours had added to insecurity among the population and there was an urgent need for independent monitors to conduct an objective assessment and report on violations and the implications of recent events, he said, noting that establishing the facts could help to counter the spread of false information. Following a request from Ukraine’s acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, the deployment of human rights monitors had already begun, he said. The team, comprising nine international and 25 national staff, were gradually joining the head of the mission, who had arrived last week. By Friday, monitors would be in place in Kharkiv and Donetsk, he said, adding that the mission would work closely with OSCE in planning a larger monitoring operation.

39

Statements YURIY SERGEYEV (Ukraine) said the world had observed dramatic changes in Crimea today, none for the good. The illegitimate referendum on the region’s annexation by the Russian Federation had been carried out in an expedited manner on 16 March, and on 18 March, the Russian President had signed an annexation treaty. “We consider all these acts to be illegal,” he emphasized, calling upon the civilized world not to recognize Crimea’s “violent dismembering” from Ukraine. The real violation of human rights was taking place on the Crimean peninsula under illegitimate control, he said, expressing serious reservations about the region’s expressed “free view”, since Russian armed forces had been in de facto occupation of Crimea since 26 February. Describing violations during the referendum, he said some ballots had been distributed to unregistered voters, and that Russian citizens had been allowed to vote. People unable to leave their homes had been forced to vote by mobile teams, and additional lists of voters included citizens who were not qualified to vote. The results of the illegal referendum were also doubtful because of a decision to boycott the vote by Crimean Tatars, numbering some 300,000 people, and ethnic Ukrainians, an additional half a million. Further, the referendum had offered only two questions, neither of which provided an option for maintaining Crimea’s autonomous status, he said. He said that the self-proclaimed authorities who had held the illegal referendum had violated Ukraine’s Constitution as well as international law and the 1991 Alma-Ata Agreement that had established the Commonwealth of Independent States. Eyewitness accounts proved that conditions in Crimea had failed to meet the democratic standards of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe. On the basis of customary norms and international law, States were obliged not to recognize the referendum’s results. Lodging a strong protest against the Russian Federation’s recognition of a selfproclaimed republic, he said that country had used pseudo-legitimate reasons for incorporating the region. He also expressed concern about Crimean Tatars and others who had not supported the “so-called referendum”, stressing: “There is a serious threat to their lives.” Ukraine and the entire civilized world would never recognize the declared independence of Crimea. GÉRARD ARAUD (France) said that on 18 March, Crimea had been annexed by the Russian Federation in a “typhoon of aggressive nationalism”, the extent of which no one knew. Nationalism had often been used to mask the undermining of individual freedom, he said, pointing out that Russian soldiers were “everywhere”. The media were controlled, the Russian Federation had brought international observers in from among far-right European parties, and the figures provided had been so excessive as to be meaningless. How could 97 per cent of the population have voted when Crimean Tatars had called for a boycott? If human rights had been undermined, that had occurred under [former President] Viktor Yanukovych. Faced with a

40

Russian Federation that had not responded to good-faith solutions, “we’re forced to act to make it understand we won’t accept a fait accompli”, he said, calling upon that Government to prevent provocateurs in other areas from doing what had been done in Crimea. Moscow must also open direct negotiations with Kyiv, he stressed. USMAN SARKI (Nigeria) said today marked the eighth time in three weeks that the Council had met on the situation in Ukraine, underlining the seriousness with which it viewed events there. Nigeria stressed the need for dialogue to ensure a peaceful resolution of the situation, he said. All peaceful means, including mediation and arbitration, must be “used to the hilt” because heightened rhetoric could only lead to grave consequences, including military confrontation. VITALY CHURKIN (Russian Federation) said that his country’s historic reunification with Russian Crimea yesterday had been awaited for six decades. Through a free referendum conducted without outside interference, Crimeans had fulfilled what was enshrined in the Charter: the right to self-determination. Of the 82 per cent of voters who had participated, more than 96 per cent had chosen reunification. “This is an expression of the free will of Crimeans,” he said, noting that Ukraine’s representative had tried to discredit the referendum using Western propaganda. Of the 2.2 million people in Crimea, close to 1.5 million were Russian, while 290,000 to 300,000 were Tatars also in favour of the Russian Federation, he continued. “A historic injustice has been righted,” he said, adding that it had originated from the 1954 transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, without the knowledge of the Crimeans. Yet, Western partners could not rid themselves of “the colonial habit” of imposing their writ on other peoples and countries. Their reckless gamble had led to unexpected results, he said, declaring: “This choice must be respected by all.” He said he was puzzled by Mr. Šimonović’s one-sided assessment of the human rights situation in Ukraine, taking issue with his discussion of the Maidan snipers and other matters. In addition, yesterday, two dozen parliamentarians had pushed into the Cabinet and beaten up the Director General of Ukrainian national television. In Simferopol, sniper fire from an unfinished building had killed two people, a self-defence soldier and a Ukrainian soldier, he said, describing the killings as a “planned provocation”. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation stood ready to normalize the situation on the basis of broad internal Ukrainian dialogue that should include all political forces, he said. The creation of a multilateral mechanism could be promoted through the Russian Federation’s proposal to establish an assistance group on Ukraine. The Government of the Russian Federation intended to discuss such proposals in order to fulfil the 21 February agreement and end ultra-nationalism against Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population.

41

SAMANTHA POWER (United States) said the Russian Federation was known for its literary greatness, yet today its representative had shown more imagination than Tolstoy or Chekhov in extolling the conduct of the “so-called referendum”. The United States rejected the land grab in Crimea, which violated Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, international law and the United Nations Charter. The President of the United States had announced sanctions in response, and was preparing additional steps if the aggression and provocations continued. “This crisis was never about protecting the rights of ethnic Russians,” but rather, redrawing Russian borders, she said. Tartars were fearful of deportation or discrimination, she continued, noting that the First Deputy Prime Minister had stated that they would be evicted from their lands, which was needed for infrastructure projects. When found, the body of Reshat Ametov, a Crimean Tatar last seen at a protest, had shown signs of torture, she said. The United States supported the deployment of international observers in all parts of Ukraine, she said, adding that today at a meeting in Vienna, the Russian Federation had stood alone among 57 countries in blocking an OSCE monitoring mission. The international legal status of Crimea had not changed and what had happened there could not be recognized as valid, she declared, urging unity in opposing that illegal act and in ensuring that it could not be repeated in other parts of Ukraine. OCTAVIO ERRÁZURIZ (Chile), describing the referendum as unconstitutional, said there was need to restore the rule of law and to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, in keeping with the United Nations Charter. Regarding human rights, he expressed regret that the Assistant Secretary-General and observers had been prevented from entering Crimea, while voicing concern over ethnic minorities, including the Tatars, who had started moving to other parts of Ukraine. It was imperative that the Security Council contribute in ensuring moderation on both sides, he said, calling upon Ukraine and the Russian Federation to refrain from further actions so as to prevent the escalation of tensions. OH JOON (Republic of Korea) said his country would not recognize the referendum or the annexation of Crimea. He emphasized the need for dialogue towards a peaceful resolution, and expressed hope that a way forward could be negotiated. The Republic of Korea supported the United Nations and the efforts of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, he said, reiterating his country’s strong support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was vital to protect the rights of all Ukraine’s people, he added. MARÍA CRISTINA PERCEVAL (Argentina), stressing that the principle of territorial integrity must be respected, said her country took no position on Ukraine’s internal affairs because, according to the United Nations Charter, there should be no intervention in the affairs of other States. Human rights must be enjoyed by all, including minorities, she said, expressing concern about violence and rhetoric that could fuel tensions. Argentina supported mediation efforts by the United Nations, she said, recalling that the Secretary-General had stated that the

42

situation could not be resolved through unilateral action. Any action that exacerbated it must be avoided, she stressed. EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASANA (Rwanda) said the current meeting reflected the will of the Security Council to find a solution to the Ukranian crisis. He was concerned about the prevailing rhetoric in the region and violence in eastern Ukraine. He hoped the SecretaryGeneral’s visit to the region would help all stakeholders find a diplomatic solution. He also welcomed the United Nations monitoring team as only an independent body could be able to objectively establish the facts on human rights violations. Rwanda continued to advocate for a diplomatic solution and for inclusive talks with all Ukrainian parties to ensure equal participation. He urged all international actors to avoid any action, including economic and military, that would worsen the situation. GARY QUINLAN (Australia) recalled that the Council had sought to adopt a resolution on Ukraine five days ago but the Russian Federation had voted against it. That country had then moved to annex Crimea, he said, emphasizing that President Vladimir Putin’s signing of a decree, a treaty and a bill on the issue did not validate the referendum. Instead, it was a violation of international law. The current escalating tensions, including the use of armed force, had raised the stakes, he said, warning that the Russian Federation would face consequences for its unlawful actions. Human rights violations must be investigated, he said, noting that the Crimean Tatar community felt vulnerable. However, it was not too late to turn from the path of isolation that the Russian Federation had taken, he said. LIU JIEYI (China) said his Government had consistently stated its respect for independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity concerning the current question. It had taken an objective approach to addressing the question of Ukraine, and would continue to promote peace talks and a political settlement of the crisis. Proposing the creation of an international coordination mechanism as soon as possible to explore the political possibilities, he said no action should be taken to exacerbate tensions. International financial institutions should explore ways to ensure Ukraine’s stability, and all parties concerned should refrain from actions that could cause the situation to deteriorate further, he said. MARK LYALL GRANT (United Kingdom) expressed hope that the Russian President would step back, allow monitors full access to Crimea and engage in dialogue with Ukraine. Emphasizing that it was inexcusable that Mr. Šimonović had been denied access to Crimea, he said the Assistant Secretary-General’s report was of serious concern as it cited cases of arbitrary arrest, disappearances and forced displacements, contradicting Russian claims. He said Ukrainians had also suffered gross human rights violations under the previous Government, and urged the rapid deployment of United Nations monitors across the country. The referendum in Crimea was a mockery of democratic practice and illegal under Ukraine’s Constitution, he said, adding that it met none of the OSCE standards for democratic elections. Neither that vote nor the succession of inconsistent legal arguments could conceal the stark

43

reality of Russian actions: annexation of the territory of an independent State through the use of military force. The country must face further consequences for its actions, he stressed. RAIMONDA MURMOKAITÉ (Lithuania) said the referendum had been held in a region cut off from its mainland by another country’s armed forces. The OSCE, Council of Europe, United Nations and key regional representatives had been prevented from entering Crimea, and not a single international observer had been present. The more than 100 independent observers granted access were hardline nationalists, anti-Semites, deniers of Srebrenica and Islamophobes, she said, pointing out that the Tatar population had boycotted the vote and asking about their right to self-determination. The referendum constituted a land grab in total disregard for international and bilateral agreements. It was a sham to rubber stamp the illegal annexation of Crimea. Recent events showed that territories were up for grabs and international norms could be rewritten by force. “Who will be next? she asked. EIHAB OMAISH (Jordan) said all regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, fell under Ukrainian sovereignty, and the Constitution was the instrument that governed Ukraine, guaranteeing its territorial integrity and unity. It was unacceptable to split off part of the country for annexation by another, and the international community should prompt the parties to reach a solution that would protect their legitimate interests and rights, while restoring Crimea to Ukrainian control, he said, emphasizing that minority rights must be protected. For its part, the United Nations should help to reconcile the two sides and devise a mechanism for dialogue. The time had come to establish an international contact group. MAHAMAT ZENE CHERIF (Chad) said Ukraine’s territory had been undermined, stressing that his Government was “wedded” to the country’s unity and territorial integrity. Chad urged respect for the United Nations Charter, notably Article 2. All parties must give “pride of place” to a peaceful settlement of the situation. SYLVIE LUCAS (Luxembourg), Council President, spoke in her national capacity, saying Crimea had been occupied and cut off from the rest of Ukraine while the media had been seriously impeded and access by United Nations officials prevented. The actions of the Russian Federation over the last three weeks were in flagrant violation of international law and the commitments undertaken in the Budapest Memorandum, she said, adding that the crisis urgently needed to be defused. The death of an Ukrainian officer yesterday was a great concern, and reports today showed that attacks had been launched on Ukrainian military bases. Voicing regret that Mr. Ivan Šimonović had not been able to reach Crimea, she encouraged human rights monitors to establish the facts and put an end to unfounded allegations geared towards exacerbating tensions. The representative of the Russian Federation, taking the floor a second time, said that the statement delivered by his counterpart from the United States had started with Tolstoy and Chekhov, and ended with “tabloid journalism”. That was insulting, and the United States

44

delegation should remember that if it expected the Russian Federation’s support on issues before the Security Council, he said. The representative of Ukraine, taking the floor a second time, discussed the difference between the freedom of expression and access to information in Ukraine and the Russian Federation. In the former, he said, all Security Council meetings were broadcast without editing, and included remarks that were critical of the country. “We are ready to listen to this.” By contrast, only Russian statements were heard in the Russian Federation. He said he had met women from Odessa and Donetsk yesterday, and they had asked about the lies in the Russian statements. He went on to describe comments by his Russian counterpart about the Ukrainian military’s use of weapons as “blasphemy”, explaining that the Russian Federation had deployed its forces throughout his country three weeks ago. Reiterating his Government’s readiness for dialogue, he said Ukraine had begun with a request to the Russian Federation, inviting all guarantors of the Budapest Memorandum to a meeting, in accordance with that instrument. The Russian Federation had refused, and he had been disappointed with its proposals, which in reality were demands as to how Ukraine should build its future. “We don't like ultimatums,” he said, describing them as open interference in domestic affairs. The representative of the Russian Federation took issue with his counterpart’s “cynicism” in alleging an attack on a Ukrainian base. “There has been no attack on a Ukrainian base,” he emphasized blaming that event on local self-defence forces. A sniper on a nearby building had killed one person on both sides, after which Kyiv had underlined the need to target Russian soldiers. That was cynicism, he said, adding that the well-trained snipers in Kyiv had come from Maidan Commandant. The Russian Federation had provided a vision for extricating the parties from the crisis in a manner that would ensure that everyone felt secure, he said. All regions of Ukraine must feel that their rights were protected within the framework of the Ukrainian State. That was not an ultimatum, he stressed, adding that his Government was ready to continue dialogue. The representative of France said he wished to hear the proposals that the Russian Federation’s representative said were being drafted. “We didn’t say no to the Russian proposal,” but only to any effort to annex Crimea. The representative of the Russian Federation said he believed that his French counterpart did not like something in his country’s proposal, and if that was the case, he should say so.

Fonte: http://www.un.org/apps/news/docs.asp?Topic=Ukraine&Type=Meeting

45

A/68/L.39 Sixty-eighth session Agenda item 33 (b) Prevention of armed conflict: strengthening the role of mediation in the peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution Canada, Costa Rica, Germany, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine: draft resolution

Territorial integrity of Ukraine

The General Assembly, Reaffirming the paramount importance of the Charter of the United Nations in the promotion of the rule of law among nations, Recalling the obligations of all States under Article 2 of the Charter to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, and to settle their international disputes by peaceful means, Recalling also its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, in which it approved the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, and reaffirming the principles contained therein that the territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force, and that any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of a State or country or of its political independence is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter, Recalling further the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki on 1 August 1975, the Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, of 5 December 1994 (Budapest Memorandum), the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation of 31 May 1997, and the Alma-Ata Declaration of 21 December 1991,

46

Stressing the importance of maintaining the inclusive political dialogue in Ukraine that reflects the diversity of its society and includes representation from all parts of Ukraine, Welcoming the continued efforts by the Secretary-General and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international and regional organizations to support deescalation of the situation with respect to Ukraine, Noting that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014 was not authorized by Ukraine, 1. Affirms its commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders; 2. Calls upon all States to desist and refrain from actions aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including any attempts to modify Ukraine’s borders through the threat or use of force or other unlawful means; 3. Urges all parties to pursue immediately the peaceful resolution of the situation with respect to Ukraine through direct political dialogue, to exercise restraint, to refrain from unilateral actions and inflammatory rhetoric that may increase tensions, and to engage fully with international mediation efforts; 4. Welcomes the efforts of the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and other international and regional organizations to assist Ukraine in protecting the rights of all persons in Ukraine, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities; 5. Underscores that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014, having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol; 6. Calls upon all States, international organizations and specialized agencies not to recognize any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on the basis of the above-mentioned referendum and to refrain from any action or dealing that might be interpreted as recognizing any such altered status.

Fonte: http://guam-organization.org/attach/resukr27032014en.pdf

47

Position Papers Model UN Preparation Many conferences require that each delegation submit a position paper—an essay detailing your country's policies on the topics being discussed in your committee. Writing a position paper will help you organize your ideas so that you can share your country's position with the rest of the committee. If you conduct extensive research, a position paper should be easy to write. Most conferences that require position papers ask for them about one month before the conference so that staff members can read them and get a feel for the direction debate will take. If the conference you are attending does not require a position paper, you should still consider writing one to help you organize your research and prepare your speeches. Many delegates use their position papers as their opening remarks.

How to Write a Position Paper Writing a position paper might appear to be a daunting task, especially for new delegates. But with enough research, you will find that writing a position paper will be easy and useful. Position papers are usually one to one-and-a-half pages in length. Your position paper should include a brief introduction followed by a comprehensive breakdown of your country's position on the topics that are being discussed by the committee. A good position paper will not only provide facts but also make proposals for resolutions. Many conferences will ask for specific details in a position paper, so be sure to include all the required information. Most conferences will provide delegates a background guide to the issue. Usually, the background guide will contain questions to consider. Make sure that your position paper answers these questions. A good position paper will include:  A brief introduction to your country and its history concerning the topic and committee; 48

 How the issue affects your country;  Your country's policies with respect to the issue and your country's justification for these policies;  Quotes from your country's leaders about the issue;  Statistics to back up your country's position on the issue;  Actions taken by your government with regard to the issue;  Conventions and resolutions that your country has signed or ratified;  UN actions that your country supported or opposed;  What your country believes should be done to address the issue;  What your country would like to accomplish in the committee's resolution; and  How the positions of other countries affect your country's position.

Position Paper Tips 









Keep it simple. To communicate strongly and effectively, avoid flowery wording and stick to uncomplicated language and sentence structure. Make it official. Try to use the seal of your country or create an "official" letterhead for your position paper. The more realistic it looks, the more others will want to read it. Get organized. Give each separate idea or proposal its own paragraph. Make sure each paragraph starts with a topic sentence. Cite your sources. Use footnotes or endnotes to show where you found your facts and statistics. Read and reread. Leave time to edit your position paper. Ask yourself if the organization of the paper makes sense and double-check your spelling and grammar. 49





Speech! Speech! Do you plan to make an opening statement at your conference? A good position paper makes a great introductory speech. During debate, a good position paper will also help you to stick to your country's policies. Let the bullets fly. Try not to let your proposals become lost in a sea of information. For speechmaking, create a bulleted list of your proposals along with your most important facts and statistics so that you will not lose time looking for them during debate. Fonte: http://www.unausa.org/global-classrooms-model-un/how-to-participate/modelun-preparation/position-papers

Modelo de Position Paper 50

Committee: Topic: Country: Romania

International Globalization

Labor and

Organization Development

*This sample position paper was submitted by the delegation of Romania at the 2007 UNA-USA Model UN Conference in New York City. In the past two decades the rapidly growing world trend has been toward globalization. With the emergence of the internet as a means of communication and the increasing accessibility of international trade physical barriers are not the only barriers withering away. Protective tariffs are plummeting and free trade agreements are becoming more prevalent. Romania appreciates that globalization creates favorable situations for expansion of commercial as well as economic assets. In the past year Romania has seen a foreign direct investment (FDI) increase of 199%. Inward FDI increased from EURO 234 million in 2005 to EURO 699 million in 2006. However, Romania realizes that increased globalization does not automatically produce more equality. Globalization and Development can contribute to the advancement of the overall international human condition; however, the delegation of Romania recognizes that without proper regulation the potential for advancement will remain limited to an elite few individuals, businesses, and nations. Unless checked and aimed toward the common good, globalization cannot effectively serve the global community. Crucial in dealing with the complexities of globalization, good governance must act with solidarity and responsibility. Romania believes that in involving people in globalization we must promote moral values, democratic principals, inclusive global political culture, institutions that safeguard both individual civil rights and inherent freedoms, and the common good. In addition, coping with the influx of information from globalization governments must act with solidarity and insight. Access to digital education will undoubtedly result in the confidence of citizens in their respective administrations and allow for a greater degree of transparency, and therefore a lesser degree of corruption. Romania believes the multinational business community has the ability and the obligation to support pertinent values in human rights, labor standards, and environmental preservation. As stated by the president, Mr. Traion Basescu, Romania feels a "heartfelt attachment to multilateralism, as an effective instrument designed to identify the adequate answers to the challenges 51

brought by globalization." Romania is party to the majority of multilateral treaties and conventions identified as such by the Secretary General in the context of the Millennium Summit in 2001. Romania has always supported innovative and effective ways of establishing cooperation within and between regional organizations. As one of the newest members of the European Union, Romania is an active member of the World Trade Organization, and looks forward to offering its support to the redirection of globalization to best benefit the global community. See more at: http://www.unausa.org/global-classrooms-model-un/how-toparticipate/model-un-preparation/position-papers/sample-positionpaper#sthash.FRXQvMmU.dpuf Fonte:

http://www.unausa.org/global-classrooms-model-un/how-to-

participate/model-un-preparation/position-papers/sample-position-paper

52

Universidade Federal de Roraima - UFRR III Semana Acadêmica de Relações Internacionais Resolution – Security Council Security Council Topic- Crisis in Darfur Submitted by China

The Security Council,

Reaffirming the sovereignty and equality of Sudan guaranteed by Article 2 of the UN Charter, Noting the recent democratic elections in Sudan, and their affirmation of confidence in the government of Mr. Bashir, Recognizing the plight of Sudanese nomads due to drought and desertification; 1. Urges member states to respect Sudanese sovereignty and independence of actions while participating in the resolution of the conflict; 2. Calls Upon UN members to support UNAMID through personnel and equipment donations; 3. Recommends assistance in building infrastructure to support sustainability and development in Darfur including: a. Water treatment facilities b. Medical facilities c. Irrigation technologies d. Communications infrastructure; 4. Requests the implementation of new cease fire negotiations between belligerent rebel factions within 1 year; 5. Calls for the provision of new land in Sudan for use by nomadic tribes such as the Abbala and Baggara; 6. Implores all parties to participate in the peaceful distribution of lands in Darfur; 7. Decides to remain actively seized on the matter.

Fonte: https://sites.google.com/a/cherrycreekschools.org/cths-model-unitednations/resources (adaptado).

53

Universidade Federal de Roraima III Semana Acadêmica de Relações Internacionais Resolution – Security Council Security Council Topic- Crisis in Darfur Submitted by Bosnia

The Security Council, Recalling the deaths of over 64,000 Bosniaks including over 33,000 civilians in the Balkan conflict of the early 1990s, Reminding the council of the consequences of its slow, weak, and lethargic action against the attempted genocide in Bosnia, Noting the persistent impotence of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur and the continuing casualties in Darfur, Reminding the council of its responsibility under the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine: 1

Declares the conflict in Darfur an immediate, imminent threat to international peace and security;

2 Considers measures undertaken under Article 41 of the UN charter including UNAMID, to be ineffective; 3 Authorizes under article 43 of the Charter, the deployment of the Joint Military Command in Darfur (JMCID) on behalf of the United Nations that will: a. Be comprised of the armed forces of UN member states, b. Act under the leadership of the Nigerian Army, c. Actively separate groups in conflict/belligerent factions, d. Establish the free entrance of humanitarian aid and NGOs into Darfur e. Provide strong, robust security to refugee camps; 4 Requires a formal review of the actions of JMCID by the office of the secretary general every 90 days;

54

5 Recommends that the General Assembly, acting under Article 5 of the UN Charter, suspend the membership privileges of Sudan indefinitely; 6 Decides to remain actively seized on the matter.

Fonte: https://sites.google.com/a/cherrycreekschools.org/cths-model-unitednations/resources (adaptado).

Para outras alternativas, dicas e sugestões quanto a verbos e construções de frases operacionais utilizadas nas Resoluções do Conselho de

Segurança,

recomenda-se

a

consulta

ao

sítio

de

internet:

http://www.carthage.edu/model-united-nations/writing-resolutions.

Acerca de relatórios sobre a Ucrânica e relativos à atuação do Conselho

de

Segurança,

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/ukraine/

55

recomenda-se: