[b]Recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent

Hello fellow delegates, my name is William Dorr, I represent the Russian delegation, and I’m here to discuss a very important issue which is the worldwide recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent nations. I would like to make it clear that Russia will use all its resources to protect Russian citizens in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and that Russia’s actions in the region are aimed at protecting civilians and maintaining peace.

Salut Russian delegate,
I am sorry to inform, but France is totally against your resolution, for not only France recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia undeniably and legally as part of Georgia since 1991, when the Soviet union collapsed and Georgia granted its independence, but also France condemns Russia’s past actions during august 2008, which has gone against the sovereignty of the independent nation. Although indeed there are conflicts between rebels in Georgia, it is of the concern of Georgia to fight for its territorial integrity, and by no means Russia has the right to intervene unilaterally. Further on delegate, France does not appreciate Russia’s attempt to “ try to impede” Georgia from joining NATO. For all these reasons, France does not support this resolution, but looks forward for the stability in the region and is very engaged in this issue for it has been doing its best to achieve its main goal, which is world peace =)

P.S: When the delegate says it " will use all of its resources.." this really brings a deep concern to the French delegation, what does the delegate really means with this…what are your “ resources delegate” ?

Hello,

First of all: France, the discussion only starts on November 17th. CALM DOWN!

Second of all: William, don't you think that it is complex to make South Ossetia an independent nation, what with their low amount of money and total lack of preparation to being another nation?

No Lucas, it is by no means a complex transition. South Ossetia drafted its own constitution 1993. On November 1996 the first South Ossetian president was elected. South Ossetia has a high level of autonomy but nations such as france and the US do not officially recognize them as independent which just adds to their image of hypocrisy. With the help of the UN, Russia is certain that this transition will go as smoothly and peaceful as possible.

Dear French delegate, i believe its to your interest for my resolution to pass. After all, you were the one, along with russia, to come up with the six point plan, the ceasefire.Keeping in mind that our efforts were aimed at stopping Georgian military actions against Russian peacekeepers and citizens in the breakaway regions. Delegate, we have a common goal, achieving peace in the region. And YES delegate, RUSSIA WILL USE ALL ITS RESOURCES TO PROTECT AND TO MAINTAIN PEACE. Whether its through humanitarian aid, peacekeepers, plans and or resolutions.

The United States is also against Russia's resolution.
Sovereignty is a principle endorsed by the United States and the United Nations. Georgia is a sovereign country, Russia; that should not have been forgotten or disregarded as happened.
That is all the US will say at the moment, in agreement with Lucas, that the heated debate shall wait.

South Africa is also against this resolution, since it is a country that values and endorses sovereignty. In addition to this, South Africa would like to point out, as France said, that the conflict is not only over South Ossetia, Abkhazia, but it is also due to Georgia’s NATO membership aspirations. Georgia obtained a clear NATO membership promise at the Bucharest Summit in spring 2008, and is already part of the European Neighbourhood Program. The South African delegation believes that Russia is concerned about losing control over its near abroad, especially on the border of its own North Caucasus.

As Ana said, lets keep the heat for the debate! Good luck delegates ;D

just for some clarification russian delegate, France has indeed worked together with Russia and Georgia to come up with peaceful approaches but at any moment it has supported the attack on natioanl sovereigty and it does not beleive imposing an "independence"will resolve the situation. However, France will continually try to enhance the issue...

Sorry to show up like this, but I love being a pain! ueehuheuheuhe
William please explain why you are in favor of the independece of South Ossetia from the Georgian territory, and against the "Kosovarian" independence from Serbia?
In the other hand why doesnt the West support the South Ossetian independe when the west itself supported the invasion of Servia to overthrow Milosevic which today led to the independe of Kosovo?

Kosovo was an effort by the international community. It's situation differed hugely from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which are a Russian attempt for annexation.

As the delegate of the United States said, South Africa believes that the situation in Kosovo was quite different, since it was an intervention by the international community and not only one country that is is concerned about losing control over its near abroad. For this reason, South Africa is against Russia's intervention in Georgia's sovereigty.

primarily, How can the delegates state they are against the russian resolution? You didnt even read it!! Its a PEACEFUL resolution delegates...

secondly, by no means did we state a plan to further annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Lastly, Russia is fighting for South Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence in order to reach peace. We are aware the consequences if South Ossetia and Abkhazia continue to be part of Georgia: hostilities and chaos.

Hello delegates,
The delegation of Georgia is truly disturbed with Russia's attempt to persuade other delegates with its hypocritical characterization of its resolution as a "peaceful" one. First of all: yes, there will be chaos if South Ossetia and Abkhazia continue being part of Georgia THE WAY THEY HAVE BEEN. And what the delegate means when she says "the way they have been" she is referring to Russia's imperialistic and egotistical way of "helping" these breakaway statelets. The Russian federation seems to be trapped in a web of contradictions, since the very same moment it endorses "peace", as delegate William has previously stated, it openly endorses the breaking of international law and sovereignty. The Georgian delegation is looking forward to be a counterexample of Russia's "altruism": instead of DISTRIBUTING passports and stimulating an ethnic cleansing in the breakaway regions, Georgia will DISTRIBUTE ideals of integrity and dignity -- things that the Russian Federation seems to lack.

(obs.: recalling to what delegates Ana and Felipe have said - the true debate shall wait)

Theoretically speaking, Colombia has no place in this discussion, but we still have a position to offer:
Colombia is against South Ossetia being independent. It belongs to Georgia, and we need to come to a peaceful conclusion before more blood is shed among the streets of South Ossetia.
If any of you want to feel sad and want to begin to understand the full measure of this reasonless war, go to
War in south Ossetia - the Big Picture:
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

The Russo-Georgian conflict and the subsequent declaration of independence by South Ossetia and Abkhazia should raise one important point:

The situation in which South Ossetia and Abkhazia find themselves in right now is the same as the one Kosovo experienced (and still experiences).

We cannot expect to come to terms on the issue if such an important issue as national sovereignty is dealt with double standards by the West. The European Union and the United States heavily supported Kosovo's iligetimimate declaration of independence from Serbia. They went back to the Versaille Treaty's concept of Self-Determination and made Kosovo their shining star of "democracy" in Eastern Europe. Since August, however, there has been no more talk about Self-Determination in Eastern Europe. Their shining star of democracy forgotten, the West has now placed great emphasis on Georgia's national sovereignty. Georgia has become the martyr of democracy. under the greedy hands of the Russian Federation.

Iran believes in fair standards when solving international disputes and determining national borders. If Kosovo has the right to self-determination, so does South Ossetia, so does Abhakazia. Denying them that right would be to show, once again, how biased and unfit to cope with the growing demands of the international community the Security Council has become!

Delegate of Iran, do you believe that South Ossetia has the capability of being independent? Do you believe they are seriously better off being independent from Georgia? Having another separate country could result in more poverty. South Ossetia has struggled economically since the 1990s and granting it worldwide recognition as an independent nation will definitely bring another nation in need of serious help to the world. If South Ossetia remains a part of Georgia, it'll fare better than as another country.

Most honorable colleague,

Not only do I think that South Ossetia is much better off as an independent state, but I also deeply appreciate the Russian liberation of its territory from a catastrophic Georgian administration. News may not have reached Colombia about the joy and thankfulness with which Russian troops were received by South Ossetians and Abkhazians, but it is a fact (based on plenty fo figures) that sovereignty has been welcome by those long-forgotten and long-suffering populations.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia have indeed struggled economically since the 1990's - that is unquestionable. Yet, the dear colleague appears to neglect the underlying reasons behind those two territories' economic hardship. Actually, for the sake of simplicity, I'll narrow those reasons to one: the illegitimate actions of the Georgian government. Yes, it all comes down to that. And I beg the pardon of all parties concerned for the sharp criticism, but there are times in the history of mankind when Allah demands that we behave honorably and, in pursuance of peace of prosperity for all, reveal the shameful truth about some.

Shameful, yes. Genocidal, maybe. Or has the world forgotten the war of 1990-1991, when Georgian tanks paraded across Tskhinvali, burning the city down and openly engaging in the ethnic cleansing of South Ossetians? And that wasn't enough for the Georgian government. One year afterwards, Georgian troops marched into the Abkhaz capital, Sukhumi, looting and pillaging Abkhaz territory because of the alleged kidnapping of Georgian interior minister. It didn't matter that no Abkhaz was ever found guilty of that crime - the loot was already stored in Georgian accounts, and both South Ossetians and Abkhazians had been taught not to revolt. Not to demand independence. Not to demand their natural rights of freedom and property.

Shameful, yes. Nonetheless, the Security Council did nothing to stop the Georgian attacks back then. On the contrary, it passed resolutions condemning Abkhaz violence. That should make one wonder how any group of people can simply stand by, watching its property be destroyed and stolen, and its youth be decimated by a government with illegitimate rights to that land.

The West should know better than to offer friendly hands to Georgia, when it so cunningly freed Kosovo from Serbia's authority. Do not all peoples have the right to self-determination? Last time I looked, it didn't depend on whether it was financially viable, but whether those people were ready to rise from the ashes of war, famine, and the shadows of oppressive rule on their way towards the development of a great and respected nation.

South Ossetia and Abkazia are NOT Kosovo.

Delegates, I am sorry to be absent from these discussions, but now things will change. Maybe the issue could be deeply reflected by those nations that considers themselves against the resolution. At first anyone has seen the resolution and the proposals from the Russian delegation. My tip is to read about the past of both nations. Some countries already have consider South Ossetia and Abkhazia independent. When some of the Security Council talks about sovereignty they are contradicting themselves. We have clear examples that nations around the world do not respect sovereignty. The world has change and now countries involve themselves with issues that have nothing to do with them. Be careful when you talk about sovereignty because in the past you may have not respected. Thank you and any questions I am available at any time. Guiorley Teixeira

United states, south Ossetia and Abkhazia are not Kosovo, but their conflicts are very similar. Just to fresh your mind the United States of America have supported the independence of this region. All these regions have appeared after the end of the soviet union. And all of them request independence.

Delegates please don’t forget that the Russian Federation has taken a unilateral action. Against its major principal.. that is the respect of national borders… In question when the United States has invaded Iraq in 2003 with a unilateral action. One of the countries that have most criticized the United States was Russia, making it contradicting itself at this action against the Georgian territory. Please don’t forget that what we are discussing in this caucus will be example to others. Sovereignty can be questionable in various ways. The united states is not respecting Iran’s sovereignty when demands the stop of the enriching uranium program. The independence of both territories will be one of our focuses on this mun. Don’t forget that we are deciding the future of millions of lives.

Please lets reming ourselves that even though the USA is part of the NATO, and the so-called "West", the NATO nor the "West" are exclusively the US. In other words... USA is not equal to NATO or "West".

The delegate of Iran cheerfully welcomes the Chair's position that the United States' wishes to undermine Iran's nuclear program is a clear breach of Iranian sovereignty. Hopefully, that position is shared by other Member Nations, which would critically hasten negotiations with Iran.

My government believes it to be crucial to any kind of international negotiation that there be no pre-conditions or any form of belligerent feelings between the negotiating parties. The European Union has previously accepted that concept of diplomatic "fairplay", and it would be greatly appreciated if the USA would follow suit.

Regarding the issue at hand, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, my governments once again reiterates the importance of following the Americans' idea of self-determination (even if the Americans themselves do not give it much thought. Though that will hopefully change when they elect their first Black/Arab President!). Post-Soviet history has seen Georgia encroaching on South Ossetia and Abkhazia's rights as autonomous nations.

The issue is fairly simple. Let me put it in a way that it will be easy for the West to understand: Imagine that Georgia is 18th Century Great Britain, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia are the Thirteen Colonies (in this case, only two). Once Great Britain started levying illegitimate taxes, looting American villages, encroaching on Americans' natural rights, destroying American properties, and killing Americans, the Thirteen Colonies declared independence based on the right to revolt (for further details see Locke). South Ossetia and Georgia have similarly revolted and now seek to prosper as a great, sovereign nations - much like the U.S.-protégé Kosovo.

That's how simple the issue is. Now, should the U.S. want to upset its historical background and support Georgia, that's part of American sovereignty. But please spare this Council of any further moralizing tales intended at excusing a "War for Democracy" whose losses for the international community have by far outweighted the gains.

France would only like to make clear some important aspects in this issue,
First delegates, it is important to once again reinforce that although situations in Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia are similar they are NOT the same. Several points differ both situations, an example is the government: for the Georgian leader is one elected through democratic means while Mr. Slobodan Milosevic, was an oppressive dictatorship which much disadvantages brought to Serbia regions. When it comes to international issues, it is also important to keep an open mind and judge each situation for what they are and not follow a narrowed minded procedure...Another fact to take in mind is the unilaterally action of Russia to interfere in Georgia. France strongly believes that actions should be taken by the international community as a whole, in the hope for achieving ultimate peace. Once more, France urges that Georgia and Russia abide with the peace-plan by Mr. Sarkozy, an attempt to solve the problem the best way possible. Unfortunately some nations lack the diplomacy needed to abide with treaties that aim peace…
Au revoir =D

With utmost eloquence I must agree with the French delegate's point that "some nations lack the diplomacy needed to abide with treaties that aim peace…". It is a clear fact, which history further helps us to corroborate. After all, did the United States not reject membership to the League of Nations, hampering the WWI peace efforts, hurting the League, and giving way to the rise of Nazi-Fascist regimes in Europe and Asia? Even more recently, did France not blatantly breach the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by supplying Israel's heavy water under cover of salinization machines? Yes, France critically violated Articles I and II of the Non-Proliferation Treaty when it purchased heavy water from a third party and sent it to bolster Israel's (illicit) nuclear program back in the 1960'd and 1970's.

Doesn't the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty aim at peace? Hasn't France violated it? Therefore the delegate of France is absolutely right to say that "some nations lack the diplomacy needed to abide with treaties that aim peace"; she merely forgot to mention that she was referring to her own nation.

Take your conclusions delegates, what kind of image does this Council wish to display before the world and to itself? Is it to be branded as a tool for the hegemony of a few in detriment of the liberty and sovereignty of others? Or is it to be regarded as an unbiased body wherein lies the greatest hopes of mankind for the establishment of a peaceful and secure global community? Is it to be the nemesis of progress? Or is it to be the almighty protector of national rights to develop and raise their populations' standards of living?

I speak on behalf of all the Iranians, South Ossetians, Abkhazians, North Koreans who starve as we log into this forum. I speak on behald of those who perish so that a few may have plenty. I speak on behalf of my country and of those countries that share our perilous and outrageous situation of being forced by certain nations to give up our sovereignty for the sake of their pursuit for world dominance. And I, and all the people I speak for are anxious to know:

Will the Security Council live up to its sacred mission? A lot more than the Iranian nuclear program or the sovereignty of Caucasian states depends on the answer to that question. Lives and hopes depend on the answer to that question. So let's take a deep breath, analyze the situation, quit the bluffing and pressure, and answer a BIG YES, the Security Council will work for a secure, fair, and peaceful international community!