FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT UN
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
July 2, 2015
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms the July 2 terrorist attack on a United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) convoy near Timbuktu, northern Mali that resulted in the death of six peacekeepers and the injury of five other peacekeepers, all from Burkina Faso.
We express our condolences to the families of those killed and to the Government of Burkina Faso and wish those wounded a full recovery. We call on the Government of Mali to immediately investigate the incident and hold those responsible to account.
Such terrorist attacks threaten the stability of northern Mali and the well-being of all Malians. We take this opportunity to urge the Malian parties signatory to the 2015 Agreement for Peace and Reconciliation in Mali to stand united against these and all attempts to undermine the country’s march toward peace.
The United States reiterates its support for MINUSMA and its brave men and women, who work each day to assist the Malian people in the pursuit of lasting peace, security, development, and economic prosperity.
Showing posts with label AMBASSADOR POWER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AMBASSADOR POWER. Show all posts
Friday, July 3, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
U.S. AMBASSADOR TO UN TESTIFIES TO CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
FROM: U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
Testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Washington, DC
June 16, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Engel. Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for being here. Thank you also for your leadership in advancing America’s national security interests and our values in the world.
Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. At a shelter for displaced families in Kyiv, I met a mother who told me how her husband and two-year-old child had been killed in February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern Ukraine. The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by combined Russian-separatist forces – and the victims just two of the more than 6,300 people who have been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. Shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. Her plea – one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea – was for the fighting to stop, and for their basic rights to be respected.
As the members of this Committee know, we are living in a time of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine; a deadly epidemic spread across West Africa; and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa, committing unspeakable atrocities. These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to prevent and address. Yet it is precisely at the moment when we need the UN most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already.
This is true for the conflict in Ukraine – in which a permanent member of the UN Security Council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. It is true of the global health system that – despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own CDC – was slow to respond to the epidemic. And it is true of UN peacekeepers, who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack. Thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization.
Representing our nation before the United Nations, I have to confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet though I am clear-eyed about the UN’s vulnerabilities, the central point I want to make to this Committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the UN.
First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government, in 2010 the Obama Administration galvanized the UN Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately, to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon.
Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, thanks also very much to the support of this Congress, deploying more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May.
Second, we are reforming UN peacekeeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the UN’s sixteen peacekeeping missions around the world – that is a higher number than in any time in history – with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups, as we have seen in Mali. Yet while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating environments, we’ve also seen chronic problems, too often, as mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians.
We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to UN peacekeeping. That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened at the UN last September, where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments; and it is the message I took directly to European leaders in March, when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for European militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. This coming September, President Obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for UN peacekeeping.
Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the UN. Day in and day out, we push back against efforts to delegitimize Israel at the UN, and we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation – from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure Israel’s permanent membership into two UN groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it.
Fourth, we are working to use UN tools to promote human rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors – a light we kept shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April, with escaped victims of the regime. One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the “crime” of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from three generations of her family – her grandmother, her father, and her younger brother – had starved to death. This is important for UN Member States to hear.
Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the UN more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble – both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and because maximizing the efficiency of our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world’s most vulnerable people. Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost-per-peacekeeper by 18 percent, and we are constantly looking for ways to right-size missions in response to conditions on the ground, as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions.
Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met – from the mother who lost her husband and two-year-old child in the assault by combined Russian-separatist forces; to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the Maidan protests against the kleptocratic Yanukovych government; to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency – what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights. And, the belief that the United States could lead other countries – and the United Nations – in helping make their aspirations a reality.
I heard the same sentiment when visiting UN-run camps of people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak.
Some may view the expectation that America can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to – daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why it is more important than ever that we use the UN to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Washington, DC
June 16, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Congressman Engel. Distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. And thank you for being here. Thank you also for your leadership in advancing America’s national security interests and our values in the world.
Last week I traveled to Ukraine, where I had the chance to see up close what happens when the rules undergirding our international peace and security are ignored. At a shelter for displaced families in Kyiv, I met a mother who told me how her husband and two-year-old child had been killed in February when a shell struck their home in a village in eastern Ukraine. The shelling, as you all know, was part of a sustained assault by combined Russian-separatist forces – and the victims just two of the more than 6,300 people who have been killed in the Moscow-manufactured conflict. Shortly after the attack, the mother fled town with her five surviving children in a van whose roof and doors had been blasted out. Her plea – one I heard echoed by many of the displaced families I met from eastern Ukraine and occupied Crimea – was for the fighting to stop, and for their basic rights to be respected.
As the members of this Committee know, we are living in a time of daunting global crises. In the last year alone, Russia continued to train, arm, and fight alongside separatists in eastern Ukraine; a deadly epidemic spread across West Africa; and monstrous terrorist groups seized territory across the Middle East and North Africa, committing unspeakable atrocities. These are the kinds of threats that the United Nations exists to prevent and address. Yet it is precisely at the moment when we need the UN most that we see the flaws in the international system, some of which have been alluded to already.
This is true for the conflict in Ukraine – in which a permanent member of the UN Security Council is violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity that it was entrusted with upholding. It is true of the global health system that – despite multiple warnings of a spreading Ebola outbreak, including those from our own CDC – was slow to respond to the epidemic. And it is true of UN peacekeepers, who too often stand down or stand by when civilians they are responsible for protecting come under attack. Thus leaving populations vulnerable and sometimes open to radicalization.
Representing our nation before the United Nations, I have to confront these and other shortcomings every day. Yet though I am clear-eyed about the UN’s vulnerabilities, the central point I want to make to this Committee is that America needs the United Nations to address today’s global challenges. The United States has the most powerful set of tools in history to advance its interests, and we will always lead on the world stage. But we are more effective when we ensure that others shoulder their fair share and when we marshal multilateral support to meet our objectives. Let me quickly outline five ways we are doing that at the UN.
First, we are rallying multilateral coalitions to address transnational threats. Consider Iran. In addition to working with Congress to put in place unprecedented U.S. sanctions on the Iranian government, in 2010 the Obama Administration galvanized the UN Security Council to authorize one of the toughest multilateral sanctions regimes in history. The combination of unilateral and multilateral pressure was crucial to bringing Iran to the negotiating table, and ultimately, to laying the foundation whereby we were able to reach a framework agreement that would, if we can get a final deal, effectively cut off every pathway for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapon.
Consider our response to the Ebola epidemic. Last September, as people were dying outside hospitals in West Africa, hospitals that had no beds left to treat the exploding number of Ebola patients, the United States chaired the first-ever emergency meeting of the UN Security Council dedicated to a global health issue. We pressed countries to deploy doctors and nurses, to build clinics and testing labs, and to fill other gaps that ultimately helped bend the outbreak’s exponentially rising curve. America did not just rally others to step up, we led by example, thanks also very much to the support of this Congress, deploying more than 3,500 U.S. Government civilian and military personnel to Liberia, which has been Ebola-free since early May.
Second, we are reforming UN peacekeeping to help address the threats to international peace and security that exist in the 21st century. There are more than 100,000 uniformed police and soldiers deployed in the UN’s sixteen peacekeeping missions around the world – that is a higher number than in any time in history – with more complex responsibilities also than ever before. The United States has an abiding strategic interest in resolving the conflicts where peacekeepers serve, which can quickly cause regional instability and attract extremist groups, as we have seen in Mali. Yet while we have seen peacekeepers serve with bravery and professionalism in many of the world’s most dangerous operating environments, we’ve also seen chronic problems, too often, as mentioned, including the failure to protect civilians.
We are working aggressively to address these shortfalls. To give just one example, we are persuading more advanced militaries to step up and contribute soldiers and police to UN peacekeeping. That was the aim of a summit that Vice President Biden convened at the UN last September, where Colombia, Sweden, Indonesia and more than a dozen other countries announced new troop commitments; and it is the message I took directly to European leaders in March, when I made the case in Brussels that peacekeeping is a critical way for European militaries to do their fair share in protecting our common security interests, particularly as they draw down in Afghanistan. This coming September, President Obama will convene another summit of world leaders to build on this momentum and help catalyze a new wave of commitments and generate a new set of capabilities for UN peacekeeping.
Third, we are fighting to end bias and discrimination at the UN. Day in and day out, we push back against efforts to delegitimize Israel at the UN, and we fight for its right to be treated like any other nation – from mounting a full-court diplomatic press to help secure Israel’s permanent membership into two UN groups from which it had long and unjustly been excluded, to consistently and firmly opposing one-sided actions in international bodies. In December, when a deeply unbalanced draft resolution on the Israel-Palestinian conflict was hastily put before the Security Council, the United States successfully rallied a coalition to join us in voting against it, ensuring that the resolution failed to achieve the nine votes of Security Council members required for adoption. We will continue to confront anti-Israel bias wherever we encounter it.
Fourth, we are working to use UN tools to promote human rights and affirm human dignity, as we did by working with partners to hold the first-ever Security Council meeting focused on the human rights situation in North Korea in December. We used that session to shine a light on the regime’s horrors – a light we kept shining through a panel discussion I hosted in April, with escaped victims of the regime. One woman told of being forced to watch the executions of fellow prisoners who committed the “crime” of daring to ask why they had been imprisoned, while another woman told how members from three generations of her family – her grandmother, her father, and her younger brother – had starved to death. This is important for UN Member States to hear.
Fifth, we are doing everything within our power to make the UN more fiscally responsible, more accountable, and more nimble – both because we have a responsibility to ensure American taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, and because maximizing the efficiency of our contributions means saving more lives and better protecting the world’s most vulnerable people. Since the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year, we have reduced the cost-per-peacekeeper by 18 percent, and we are constantly looking for ways to right-size missions in response to conditions on the ground, as we will do this year through substantial drawdowns in Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, and Liberia, among other missions.
Let me conclude. At the outset, I spoke of my recent visit to Ukraine. Across the range of Ukrainians I met – from the mother who lost her husband and two-year-old child in the assault by combined Russian-separatist forces; to the brave students who risked their lives to take part in the Maidan protests against the kleptocratic Yanukovych government; to the young members of parliament working to fight corruption and increase transparency – what united them was the yearning for certain basic rights. And, the belief that the United States could lead other countries – and the United Nations – in helping make their aspirations a reality.
I heard the same sentiment when visiting UN-run camps of people displaced by violence in the Central African Republic, and South Sudan, and in the Ebola-affected communities of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone at the peak of the outbreak.
Some may view the expectation that America can help people overcome their greatest challenges and secure their basic rights as a burden. In fact, that expectation is one of our nation’s greatest strengths, and one we have a vested interest in striving to live up to – daunting as it may feel in the face of so many crises. But we cannot do it alone, nor should we want to. That is why it is more important than ever that we use the UN to rally the multilateral support needed to confront today’s myriad challenges.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
U.S. UNITED NATIONS AMBASSADOR POWER'S REMARKS ON UKRAINE
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
01/26/2015 03:37 PM EST
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
January 26, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President for convening today’s urgent meeting. Under Secretary-General Feltman, we are grateful for your thorough briefing on such short notice.
Just five days ago, we met in this Council and denounced the devastating consequences of attacks by Russian-backed separatists on civilians in eastern Ukraine, and we appealed to Russia to stop supporting, training, and fighting alongside separatist forces. Members of this Council pressed Russia and the separatists not only to recommit themselves to the agreements they had made at Minsk, but actually to honor those commitments in their actions. Unfortunately, we are back here today because Russia and the separatists have once again flouted these commitments.
The targets are fresh ones, but Russia’s end goal remains the same: to seize more territory and move the line of Russian-controlled territory deeper and deeper into Ukraine.
This time, though, statements by the separatists are complicating Russia’s strategy. On Friday, January 23, the de factor leader of the Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk, Alexander Zakharchenko said, and I quote: “Today the offensive on Mariupol begins.” He also said, “There will be no more ceasefires.” He said the separatists would not stop their attacks until they had, “reached the borders of the former Donetsk region,” bragging that separatist forces were now “able to attack in three directions simultaneously.” The Representative of the Russian Federation today said that these are statements we have taken out of context. What context possibly justifies a massive offensive against a civilian populated town? I would note, also, that attacking in three directions, as the separatist leader said he now had the capability – his forces had the capability to do – takes a lot of weapons and forces. This capability reflects the difference made by the substantial, months-long influx of Russian personnel and heavy weapons.
We know that Zakharchenko said these things because he was filmed when he said them, and quoted by the official Russian news agency, TASS. On Saturday, Zakharchenko told people at a rally in Donetsk, “Today the attack on Mariupol began.” He added that, “In a few days we will encircle Debaltseve,” a city that is twelve kilometers outside the ceasefire line established at Minsk.
If only the separatist’s words had been empty bravado. Unfortunately, on Saturday, the world witnessed the horrors that resulted from the separatists’ attack on Mariupol, a city 25 kilometers outside of the Minsk line. On Saturday alone, more than 100 people were injured in rocket attacks on the city. Approximately 30 people were killed, including women, elderly, and children, one of whom was a four-year-old boy. Some 40 rounds of rockets struck the city, hitting a market, homes, and a school, among other civilian structures. The impartial OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine examined blast craters and concluded that they had been caused by Grad rockets fired from multi-rocket launcher systems in separatist-controlled areas.
Why do these locations matter to the Russians and the separatists? Mariupol is a port city, which would provide Russia with another means of supplying separatists. And controlling the city would be another step toward creating a land bridge to illegally-occupied Crimea. Debaltseve is a strategic rail and road hub, and serves as a key link between Donetsk and Luhansk regions. It is no accident that these strategic cities are in Russia’s sights.
When, on Saturday, members of the Council tried to issue a joint statement denouncing the civilian casualties and expressing concern about the separatist’s statements, as we’ve heard, Russia blocked it. No wonder, given that less than a day earlier Russia had been perfectly content disseminating Zakharchenko’s statements in its state-run media. It would be strange to be concerned about statements one had encouraged and publicized.
But when your state news agency circulates announcements relishing a new offensive and your diplomats refuse to express concern about them, you own not only the statements, but also the offensives.
Now sometimes, perhaps given the fog of this bloody war, the separatists are too explicit about their objectives. Indeed, after initially blasting around the separatists’ Mariupol ambitions in the news service, Russia began to see the same ghastly images and reports of the carnage that the rest of us saw. At that point, perhaps knowing the source of the weaponry used, Russia tried to deny any tie between the separatists and the attacks. The Russian news service, TASS, even tried to erase from official news stories all quotes from Zakharchenko speaking about the separatists’ attacks.
It is not hard to understand why Russia does not want the world to hear separatists’ statements. Last Wednesday, the Representative of the Russian Federation told this Council that, “the Russian Federation is ensuring full compliance with the Minsk accords.” On Saturday, though, Zakharchenko openly admitted his forces were violating those same accords. He appeared not to have gotten the Russian memo, which clearly calls for violating the accords while pretending you are not.
Despite Zakharchenko’s statements, Russia continues to try to play the international community for the fool, and blame the violence on the Ukrainians. As recently as yesterday, Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “The worsening situation in Ukraine was the result of constant attacks conducted by the Ukrainian government troops, which breached the Minsk agreements.” We heard the same here today from the Representative of the Russian Federation.
Zakharchenko’s statements are a problem for Russia because they are too straightforward. As members of this Council know – and as, increasingly, all the world can see – the separatists he claims to lead are trained and equipped by Russia, and fight with Russian forces by their side. So when Zakharchenko brags about seizing territory beyond the Minsk ceasefire line; when he announces at rallies that separatists will strike Ukrainian forces without provocation; when he says he is not interested in negotiating; he is not only speaking about the separatists’ intentions, but also about Russia’s intentions. This offensive is made in Moscow. It is waged by Russian-trained and Russian-funded separatists, who use Russian missiles and Russian tanks, who are backed up by Russian troops, and whose operations receive direct Russian assistance.
Since December, Russia has transferred hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, including tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, heavy artillery, and other military equipment. And in recent weeks, Russia has resupplied the separatists with hundreds of pieces of advanced weaponry, including additional rocket systems, heavy artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles.
In mid-to-late January, notwithstanding the shoot down of MH-17, Russia even deployed into eastern Ukraine advanced surface-to-air missile and antiaircraft systems, marking the highest level of Russian air defense presence in eastern Ukraine since September 2014. There is a direct correlation between the movement of heavy weapons, the surge in that movement across the border, and attempts by separatists to take more ground.
The horror wrought by this arsenal has been deadly. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, January 13th to the 21st was the deadliest period on record since the September 5th agreement was signed in Minsk. During this time, an average of 29 people were killed each day. More than 5,000 people have been killed and almost 11,000 maimed since the conflict began in April 2014. And today, this very day, the attacks continue on the civilian-populated areas over the Minsk Ceasefire lines – not only in Mariupol and Debaltseve, but also in Pisky and Stanychno-Lunhanske.
To the Russians, Mariupol and Debaltseve may just be strategic chess pieces in their effort to move the line of territory that they control. But these cities are also home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Nearly 500,000 people live in Mariupol, the second biggest city in the Donetsk region, and more than 25,000 live in Debaltseve. Mariupol is home to 92 pre-schools, attended by 13,000 children.
We continue to believe that the only solution to this situation is a political solution, not a military solution. To that end, we continue to support the efforts of the Trilateral Contact Group, as well as the Normandy group of foreign ministers. We welcome the Normandy group’s agreement in Berlin, which recognizes the need for full, immediate implementation of the Minsk agreement.
If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t Russia condemn the statements by separatists that they will attack Ukrainians first and accept no more ceasefires, instead of trying to erase those statements from its state-run news services? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it pull its tanks and Grad missiles out of eastern Ukraine, instead of sending in more? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it withdraw its forces at least to the lines agreed upon at Minsk, rather than sending in a huge infusion of Russian heavy weapons so as to carve out new lines.
Only if Russia takes these steps will there be a chance for the political solution that is so desperately needed.
Thank you.
01/26/2015 03:37 PM EST
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
New York, NY
January 26, 2015
AS DELIVERED
Thank you, Mr. President for convening today’s urgent meeting. Under Secretary-General Feltman, we are grateful for your thorough briefing on such short notice.
Just five days ago, we met in this Council and denounced the devastating consequences of attacks by Russian-backed separatists on civilians in eastern Ukraine, and we appealed to Russia to stop supporting, training, and fighting alongside separatist forces. Members of this Council pressed Russia and the separatists not only to recommit themselves to the agreements they had made at Minsk, but actually to honor those commitments in their actions. Unfortunately, we are back here today because Russia and the separatists have once again flouted these commitments.
The targets are fresh ones, but Russia’s end goal remains the same: to seize more territory and move the line of Russian-controlled territory deeper and deeper into Ukraine.
This time, though, statements by the separatists are complicating Russia’s strategy. On Friday, January 23, the de factor leader of the Russian-backed separatists in Donetsk, Alexander Zakharchenko said, and I quote: “Today the offensive on Mariupol begins.” He also said, “There will be no more ceasefires.” He said the separatists would not stop their attacks until they had, “reached the borders of the former Donetsk region,” bragging that separatist forces were now “able to attack in three directions simultaneously.” The Representative of the Russian Federation today said that these are statements we have taken out of context. What context possibly justifies a massive offensive against a civilian populated town? I would note, also, that attacking in three directions, as the separatist leader said he now had the capability – his forces had the capability to do – takes a lot of weapons and forces. This capability reflects the difference made by the substantial, months-long influx of Russian personnel and heavy weapons.
We know that Zakharchenko said these things because he was filmed when he said them, and quoted by the official Russian news agency, TASS. On Saturday, Zakharchenko told people at a rally in Donetsk, “Today the attack on Mariupol began.” He added that, “In a few days we will encircle Debaltseve,” a city that is twelve kilometers outside the ceasefire line established at Minsk.
If only the separatist’s words had been empty bravado. Unfortunately, on Saturday, the world witnessed the horrors that resulted from the separatists’ attack on Mariupol, a city 25 kilometers outside of the Minsk line. On Saturday alone, more than 100 people were injured in rocket attacks on the city. Approximately 30 people were killed, including women, elderly, and children, one of whom was a four-year-old boy. Some 40 rounds of rockets struck the city, hitting a market, homes, and a school, among other civilian structures. The impartial OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine examined blast craters and concluded that they had been caused by Grad rockets fired from multi-rocket launcher systems in separatist-controlled areas.
Why do these locations matter to the Russians and the separatists? Mariupol is a port city, which would provide Russia with another means of supplying separatists. And controlling the city would be another step toward creating a land bridge to illegally-occupied Crimea. Debaltseve is a strategic rail and road hub, and serves as a key link between Donetsk and Luhansk regions. It is no accident that these strategic cities are in Russia’s sights.
When, on Saturday, members of the Council tried to issue a joint statement denouncing the civilian casualties and expressing concern about the separatist’s statements, as we’ve heard, Russia blocked it. No wonder, given that less than a day earlier Russia had been perfectly content disseminating Zakharchenko’s statements in its state-run media. It would be strange to be concerned about statements one had encouraged and publicized.
But when your state news agency circulates announcements relishing a new offensive and your diplomats refuse to express concern about them, you own not only the statements, but also the offensives.
Now sometimes, perhaps given the fog of this bloody war, the separatists are too explicit about their objectives. Indeed, after initially blasting around the separatists’ Mariupol ambitions in the news service, Russia began to see the same ghastly images and reports of the carnage that the rest of us saw. At that point, perhaps knowing the source of the weaponry used, Russia tried to deny any tie between the separatists and the attacks. The Russian news service, TASS, even tried to erase from official news stories all quotes from Zakharchenko speaking about the separatists’ attacks.
It is not hard to understand why Russia does not want the world to hear separatists’ statements. Last Wednesday, the Representative of the Russian Federation told this Council that, “the Russian Federation is ensuring full compliance with the Minsk accords.” On Saturday, though, Zakharchenko openly admitted his forces were violating those same accords. He appeared not to have gotten the Russian memo, which clearly calls for violating the accords while pretending you are not.
Despite Zakharchenko’s statements, Russia continues to try to play the international community for the fool, and blame the violence on the Ukrainians. As recently as yesterday, Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “The worsening situation in Ukraine was the result of constant attacks conducted by the Ukrainian government troops, which breached the Minsk agreements.” We heard the same here today from the Representative of the Russian Federation.
Zakharchenko’s statements are a problem for Russia because they are too straightforward. As members of this Council know – and as, increasingly, all the world can see – the separatists he claims to lead are trained and equipped by Russia, and fight with Russian forces by their side. So when Zakharchenko brags about seizing territory beyond the Minsk ceasefire line; when he announces at rallies that separatists will strike Ukrainian forces without provocation; when he says he is not interested in negotiating; he is not only speaking about the separatists’ intentions, but also about Russia’s intentions. This offensive is made in Moscow. It is waged by Russian-trained and Russian-funded separatists, who use Russian missiles and Russian tanks, who are backed up by Russian troops, and whose operations receive direct Russian assistance.
Since December, Russia has transferred hundreds of pieces of military equipment to pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, including tanks, armored vehicles, rocket systems, heavy artillery, and other military equipment. And in recent weeks, Russia has resupplied the separatists with hundreds of pieces of advanced weaponry, including additional rocket systems, heavy artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles.
In mid-to-late January, notwithstanding the shoot down of MH-17, Russia even deployed into eastern Ukraine advanced surface-to-air missile and antiaircraft systems, marking the highest level of Russian air defense presence in eastern Ukraine since September 2014. There is a direct correlation between the movement of heavy weapons, the surge in that movement across the border, and attempts by separatists to take more ground.
The horror wrought by this arsenal has been deadly. According to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, January 13th to the 21st was the deadliest period on record since the September 5th agreement was signed in Minsk. During this time, an average of 29 people were killed each day. More than 5,000 people have been killed and almost 11,000 maimed since the conflict began in April 2014. And today, this very day, the attacks continue on the civilian-populated areas over the Minsk Ceasefire lines – not only in Mariupol and Debaltseve, but also in Pisky and Stanychno-Lunhanske.
To the Russians, Mariupol and Debaltseve may just be strategic chess pieces in their effort to move the line of territory that they control. But these cities are also home to hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian civilians. Nearly 500,000 people live in Mariupol, the second biggest city in the Donetsk region, and more than 25,000 live in Debaltseve. Mariupol is home to 92 pre-schools, attended by 13,000 children.
We continue to believe that the only solution to this situation is a political solution, not a military solution. To that end, we continue to support the efforts of the Trilateral Contact Group, as well as the Normandy group of foreign ministers. We welcome the Normandy group’s agreement in Berlin, which recognizes the need for full, immediate implementation of the Minsk agreement.
If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t Russia condemn the statements by separatists that they will attack Ukrainians first and accept no more ceasefires, instead of trying to erase those statements from its state-run news services? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it pull its tanks and Grad missiles out of eastern Ukraine, instead of sending in more? If Russia is serious about peace, why doesn’t it withdraw its forces at least to the lines agreed upon at Minsk, rather than sending in a huge infusion of Russian heavy weapons so as to carve out new lines.
Only if Russia takes these steps will there be a chance for the political solution that is so desperately needed.
Thank you.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
U.S. AMBASSADOR POWER'S REMARKS IN PORT-AU PRINCE, HAITI
FROM: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Port-au-Prince, Haiti
January 23, 2015
Thank you. I am Samantha Power, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and co-lead of this trip with my colleague, the Chilean Ambassador, Cristián Barros.
Each of the 15 individuals standing here have the privilege of representing countries on the UN Security Council and the privilege, in that role, of trying to support the Haitian people in their journey toward stability, prosperity and democracy.
The United Nations, as a community of nations and as MINUSTAH, and the 15 counties here each have stood with the Haitian people through good times and bad times.
Haiti has experienced many challenges throughout its long and rich and vibrant history. What always defines the Haitian people’s response is the spirit of resilience and determination.
We have just had a very important meeting with President Martelly and his Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Over the next two days we will meet with civil society, with opposition parties, with senators and with Haitians outside of Port-au-Prince in Cap-Haitien and here as well, in the capital.
In our meeting with President Martelly, we expressed our collective appreciation for his efforts before the Parliament lapsed to try to (inaudible) consensus in order to maintain the functioning of the Parliament and to pass electoral legislation.
This Council also expressed to President Martelly and his ministers the same disappointment that the Haitian people probably feel, that these efforts to seek consensus and to find a path forward did not prevent the Parliament from lapsing and did not produce the necessary compromise.
We support the President in his efforts to find a solution to the political stalemate and his efforts to ensure fair, transparent and inclusive elections in 2015.
Haiti has made tremendous progress in recent years in terms of health and education, and the President described much of that progress and more, in terms of the development of his country.
The democratic contract between the government and the governed is a critical part of Haiti’s development and we, on the UN Security Council, want to offer Haiti all of the support we can to ensure that elections take place, as they need to, in 2015, and to ensure that all Haitians are invested in the democracy and in the economy and in the development of this rich country.
We are very encouraged by the effort at consultation with the opposition, with civil society, that the President has made, and out of this meeting, even more encouraged by his determination to continue those consultations even after the lapsing of the Parliament.
And it is clear that even as this political stalemate frustrates people in this country, it is not getting in the way of the government continuing to focus on health, on the economy and on the other functions that the Haitian people count on the President and his ministers to advance.
And my last point is simply that we are very pleased that the Provisional Election Council[i] has been formed, which is of course a critical and necessary step to the holding of elections and we hope it is just the beginning of the kinds of mechanisms that can evolve here in this untraditional period where the Parliament is not functioning.
(Of mic)
Simply to say that we…were pleased by the creation of the Provisional Election --
(Of mic)
It is an example of the kind of compromise among civil society, the opposition and the government that will create a path forward.
And lastly, you have our full support on behalf, again, of the broader international community. We are privileged to be here to see what more the United Nations and each of our nations can do to help the Haitian people through another difficult chapter, but one we are confident that they will come out stronger for having been through on the other side. Mèrci.
Samantha Power
U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Port-au-Prince, Haiti
January 23, 2015
Thank you. I am Samantha Power, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and co-lead of this trip with my colleague, the Chilean Ambassador, Cristián Barros.
Each of the 15 individuals standing here have the privilege of representing countries on the UN Security Council and the privilege, in that role, of trying to support the Haitian people in their journey toward stability, prosperity and democracy.
The United Nations, as a community of nations and as MINUSTAH, and the 15 counties here each have stood with the Haitian people through good times and bad times.
Haiti has experienced many challenges throughout its long and rich and vibrant history. What always defines the Haitian people’s response is the spirit of resilience and determination.
We have just had a very important meeting with President Martelly and his Prime Minister and his Cabinet. Over the next two days we will meet with civil society, with opposition parties, with senators and with Haitians outside of Port-au-Prince in Cap-Haitien and here as well, in the capital.
In our meeting with President Martelly, we expressed our collective appreciation for his efforts before the Parliament lapsed to try to (inaudible) consensus in order to maintain the functioning of the Parliament and to pass electoral legislation.
This Council also expressed to President Martelly and his ministers the same disappointment that the Haitian people probably feel, that these efforts to seek consensus and to find a path forward did not prevent the Parliament from lapsing and did not produce the necessary compromise.
We support the President in his efforts to find a solution to the political stalemate and his efforts to ensure fair, transparent and inclusive elections in 2015.
Haiti has made tremendous progress in recent years in terms of health and education, and the President described much of that progress and more, in terms of the development of his country.
The democratic contract between the government and the governed is a critical part of Haiti’s development and we, on the UN Security Council, want to offer Haiti all of the support we can to ensure that elections take place, as they need to, in 2015, and to ensure that all Haitians are invested in the democracy and in the economy and in the development of this rich country.
We are very encouraged by the effort at consultation with the opposition, with civil society, that the President has made, and out of this meeting, even more encouraged by his determination to continue those consultations even after the lapsing of the Parliament.
And it is clear that even as this political stalemate frustrates people in this country, it is not getting in the way of the government continuing to focus on health, on the economy and on the other functions that the Haitian people count on the President and his ministers to advance.
And my last point is simply that we are very pleased that the Provisional Election Council[i] has been formed, which is of course a critical and necessary step to the holding of elections and we hope it is just the beginning of the kinds of mechanisms that can evolve here in this untraditional period where the Parliament is not functioning.
(Of mic)
Simply to say that we…were pleased by the creation of the Provisional Election --
(Of mic)
It is an example of the kind of compromise among civil society, the opposition and the government that will create a path forward.
And lastly, you have our full support on behalf, again, of the broader international community. We are privileged to be here to see what more the United Nations and each of our nations can do to help the Haitian people through another difficult chapter, but one we are confident that they will come out stronger for having been through on the other side. Mèrci.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)