Conclusion 5th Round of Syrian Constitutional Committee 29 January 2021

Syria Constitutional Committee - Syrian opposition presser - 29 January 2021

24:25

MP4

2.6 GB

29-01-2021

Edited News , Press Conferences , Images | UNOG , UNITED NATIONS

Conclusion 5th Round of Syrian Constitutional Committee 29 January 2021

ENG

Shotlist Story

Continuity of Syria Constitutional Committee press conference - Syrian Gov Group & Syrian opposition have audio original on CH1 (L) and English interpretation on CH2 (R)

SHOTLIST OF EDITED STORY

Exterior wide shot, Palais des Nations
Wide shot, press briefing room with cameramen
SOUNDBITE (English) — Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria: “I think it is fair to say it was an open, frank and direct assessment of where we are. And I told the 45 members of the drafting body that we can’t continue like this, that the week has been a disappointment”.
Medium shot, podium with screen in room
SOUNDBITE (English) - Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria: “The reason for that is that there has not been a proper understanding on how we are going to make progress in the Committee”.
Close up, view finder in camera
SOUNDBITE (English) - Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria: “So my summary today is that this week has shown that such an approach is not working and we cannot continue to meet if we do not change this”.
Close up, journalist in press briefing room at the UN Palais
SOUNDBITE (English) - Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria: “We need the two co-chairs to work better together, via me, or they sit down and discuss, and we need to produce then a work plan for all the meetings that will be organized in the future”.
Medium shot, journalists in the room
SOUNDBITE (English) - Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria: “This is not a debating Committee. You know, you can continue debating forever. We need to move this into a manner where the members themselves start to identify areas where they agree or disagree and then move into the drafting phase and this is what is missing for the time being”.
Medium shot, journalists and cameramen in press briefing room
Medium shot, Geir Pedersen at podium and on monitor of laptop screen
Close up, journalist taking photo in press briefing room
Medium shot, podium from behind

Office of the United Nations Special Envoy for Syria

Subject:
Press conference following the conclusion of the fifth round of the Small Body of the Syrian Constitutional Committee

Speaker:

Geir O. Pedersen, UN Special Envoy for Syria
Syria Constitutional Committee - Syrian Gov Group
Syria Constitutional Committee - Syrian opposition

Five days of talks on new Syrian Constitution end in “disappointment” –UN Special Envoy for Syria

As a fifth round of talks on Syria’s future constitution concluded today, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria Geir Pedersen expressed his disappointment at the fact that the 45-member committee had failed to even start drafting a new charter after a weeklong meeting in Geneva.

“I think it is fair to say it was an open, frank and direct assessment of where we are. And I told the 45 members of the drafting body that we can’t continue like this, that the week has been a disappointment”, Geir Pedersen, U.N. Special Envoy for Syria told journalists at a press briefing at U.N. premises in the Swiss city.

“The reason for that is that there has not been a proper understanding on how we are going to make progress in the Committee,” he explained.

A proposal on working methods submitted by the Co-chair of the Syrian Opposition group, Mr. Hadi al-Bahra, has been rejected by the Co-chair of Syria’s Government Group, Mr. Ahmed Kuzbari. Another suggestion made by the UN Special Envoy’s office had been accepted by Syria’s opposition group but rejected by the representatives of the Government of Syria.

“So my summary today is that this week has shown that such an approach is not working and we cannot continue to meet if we do not change this,” the UN Special Envoy said.

The so-called Small Body of the Constitutional Committee refers to the 45 people (15 representatives from each of three groups: the Syrian government, the opposition, and civil society) who undertake the talks in Geneva on behalf of the larger Constitutional Committee (also known as the “Large Body”, comprising the same three group with 50 representatives each), who are charged with drafting a new constitution ahead of UN-supervised elections.

Pedersen emphasized that he thought it would be possible to identify what he calls “commonalities” between the factions.

“We need the two co-chairs to work better together, via me, or they sit down and discuss, and we need to produce then a work plan for all the meetings that will be organized in the future”, he said.

Many topics on the agenda of the i Constitutional Committee have been under discussion for more than a year.

“This is not a debating Committee”, the UN Syria Envoy said. “You know, you can continue debating forever. We need to move this into a manner where the members themselves start to identify areas where they agree or disagree and then move into the drafting phase and this is what is missing for the time being”.

No future meetings of the Small Body have been planned so far. The Syria Envoy said he would aim to go to Damascus for further talks.

Transcript of remarks by Mr. Geir O. Pedersen, UN Special Envoy for Syria, following the conclusion of the Fifth Session of the Small Body of the Syrian Constitutional Committee

Thank you so much Jenifer and good to see you all. And also good afternoon or good morning to all of those of you I cannot see.

We have just concluded the fifth session of the drafting body of the Syrian Constitutional Committee and I gave a statement to all 45 Committee members. I think it is fair to say that it was an open, frank and direct assessment of where we are.

And I told the 45 members of the drafting body that we can’t continue like this, that the week has been a disappointment. I set out a few things I thought we should be able to achieve before we started this meeting, and I am afraid we did not manage to achieve these things. I believe the reason for that is that there has not been a proper understanding on how we are going to make progress in the Committee.

You know, and I also said to the Security Council, that I had received a proposal from the Co-Chair from the SNC, [Mr] Al-Bahra, on sort of working methods for the Constitutional Committee. And these proposals were submitted to Co-Chair Kuzbari.

On Sunday, I had extensive discussions with the two Co-Chairs trying to get an agreement on how we can move forward. Co-Chair Kuzbari made it clear very early on that the proposal from [Mr] Al-Bahra was not acceptable, but he accepted that I could forward some proposals for how we could move this process forward. I then presented a proposal to the two Co-Chairs hoping that we could achieve a consensus for the work on the two first days of the Committee. My proposal was also then rejected by Co-Chair Kuzbari, nominated by the government, but accepted by Co-Chair Al-Bahra. We then started the meeting on Monday morning without an agreed methodology for how to continue, in other words that we would continue the meeting in the same manner as we had with the four previous meetings.

So, my summary today is that this week has shown that such an approach is not working, and we cannot continue to meet if we do not change this. This is what I had told the 45 members of the Committee, and also followed-up with discussions with the two Co-Chairs. And I explained that we need the two Co-Chairs to work better together, via me – or they sit down and discuss. And we need to produce then a workplan for how the meetings will be organised in the future.

I hope that it will be possible for me to go to Damascus, in the not too distant future, and to have discussions on these, but of course also to have discussions in Damascus with the government on how to implement all the broader aspects of Security Council resolution 2254.

I will, of course, also have that discussion with the SNC, and as I already had this week, I will also be meeting, of course, with the Russians, with the Turks, with Iranians, with Arab friends, and of course also Europeans, and hopefully also with the new US Administration. But first and foremost, this is of course something I hope to be able to sort out with the two Co-Chairs.

So, as for now there is not obviously an agreed time for a new meeting, I hope then to be able to get back to you later, but before that I will also be briefing the Security Council -- most probably on the 9^th of February. And I will then also, of course, go into more details on what was discussed this week.

Thank you.

Question: I imagine you are very disappointed in this, can you confirm whether the government representatives engaged at all in terms of actual drafting, or was it just discussions, I mean did you get down to the heart of the matter, was there any engagement on their side and did they present anything meaningful during this session. And you also said you are expecting to discuss it with the new US Administration, and I wonder if you have any sort for hopes for that contact, and whether anything is planned for in the near future?

Mr. Pedersen: I said to the 45 Committee members that during these five days there have been many excellent interventions, but what we are missing is a mechanism where we can use these interventions through what I call textual submissions into a process where we can start identifying areas where we agree or where we disagree and then move that into what I will call a proper drafting process. My main challenge is that this is what we are lacking. At the very end of the session, the government-nominated delegation presented its paper, it hasn’t been possible for me to read that paper yet, because as I said it was presented at the very end, and earlier during the process the SNC presented quite a few constitutional principles, nine principles and then there were also discussions and also members of the Middle Third presented constitutional principles. And there was an exchange of views on this in the room, absolutely, and as I said, it will take a little bit of time for me to analyse what we have received from the government side.

And to the possible interactions with the new incoming US Administration, we will get back to you when that has happened.

Question: As far as we understand the government side disappointed you the most, and the opposition already submitted some articles to draft the constitution to the Committee, so did you have the chance to talk with Iran, the Russian delegation here, who has influence on the government side, if you talked to them, what did they tell you about it?

Mr. Pedersen: I wish life was so easy so that I could tell you everything I am discussing with my diplomatic interlocutors, but that is obviously not possible. But you are absolutely right, I had good meetings with my Russian interlocutors, also with Iran, also with Turkey, but as I said of course, also with a wider group of countries. And that will of course continue and indeed be intensified during the next few days.

Follow up question: So, is it correct that you are disappointed the most over the government side during these talks this week, is that correct?

Mr. Pedersen: Listen, I gave you I think a pretty honest description of where we are in the process.

Question: I wonder if you could just give us a heads up on what were the things that you actually thought were achievable and also whether in the discussions that followed on the constitutional principles submitted by the SNC, whether you saw any serious engagement from the other side with those principles that you think makes them useful for possible future discussions?

Mr. Pedersen: Listen, it is a little bit early for me to go into detailed discussions about the different submissions along the lines that you indicated. But let me just say this: I know from my interactions with members of the Committee that, based on what we have heard so far, with the right mechanism in place it will be possible to identify what I call commonalities. But we need this mechanism in place. And this is what I am asking for. So you know, this is not a debating Committee. You can continue debating forever. We need to move this in a manner where the members themselves start to identify area where they agree or disagree and then we can move into the drafting phase, and this is what is missing for the time being.

Question: During the 10 meetings, the opposition provided about 10 texts and the civil society also provided many principles, whereas the government delegation confined itself to a general discussion, my question is how did the Astana track influence this session, and will there be a meeting in Sochi next months?

Mr. Pedersen: I will not even attempt to describe how the Astana three are working, so I think you better ask them on this. But I was informed by the three members of the Astana group that indeed there will be a meeting in Sochi next month, so I do believe that that is confirmed but maybe check with the Astana three about the exact timing for that.

Question: Thank you Mr. Pedersen, it seems that Jenifer didn’t want me to put my question. You talked about changing the methodology in order to move this process forward, and we have noticed that these discussions are stagnating and are not moving forward, what is the methodology that you suggest in order to move these discussions forward?

Mr. Pedersen: Thank you for your question. I have been rather detailed in my discussion with the two Co-Chairs on this and they have already received a few ideas from me that is actually more detailed than what I have told the Security Council, so I have now, in my follow-up discussions with the two Co-Chairs, encouraged them to continue dialogue with me on this so that we can work this out together. And as I said it is my hope that it will be possible for me to continue this discussion with the SNC, and I also hope to continue that discussion when I go to Damascus.

Thank you.

Geneva, 29 January 2021

Teleprompter

I would like to thank you all for coming to this meeting, to this gathering.

And as you know, we came here to Geneva in order to take place in the fifth round of the meetings of the Syrian Constitutional Committee.

We came here while carrying the concerns and sufferings of the displaced and refugees.

Hundreds of thousands of displaced and refugees have have been in the refugee camps for more than 10 years, suffering and winter conditions, harsh winter conditions.

A few services provided to them and we are suffering deep in our hearts for the sufferings of the detainees, men and women and the continuation of their sufferings and the prisons of the regime, as well as not having any information about the forcibly disappeared persons, without seeing any results to the efforts of the international community.

In this context, we are aware of the sufferings of their families and we suffer with them.

We also carry the sufferings and concerns of all Syrian men and women wherever they are.

In Syria, 80% of the stadiums are now suffering from poverty, **** prices, expensive prices, deteriorating levels of income, widespread corruption, systematic corruption, which is now found all over society and IS confiscating the very few resources they still have.

We need to deploy our utmost exert all our efforts in order to alleviate these sufferings.

We believe and objectives and ambitions of the serious people, Syrian people, to achieve justice, dignity, responsibility, equal citizenship, for the sake of which they engaged in a kind of evolution and sacrificed a lot.

We cannot ignore these principles and aspirations and we are also committed to these objectives as well as doing our utmost in order to turn them into reality.

No sustainable political solution can exist but the full and strict implementation of all international resolutions pertaining to Syria.

This is what led us to take part in the Syrian Constitutional Committee, shouldering our national responsibility and fully committed to Security Council Resolution 2254 of 201522, another resolution.

This committee was what established according to the Geneva communique, and this resolution is part of the political process and it's also part of the implementation of UN Resolution 2254 of 2015, which is holding its meetings and the UN headquarters as part of the political process sponsored by the United Nations office in Geneva before the fifth round of meetings.

The special envoy of the United Nations has deployed his good offices and efforts in order to help the Syrian parties to submit a proposal for a methodology that will lead to starting the drafting constitution.

Drafting of the constitution so that we as a Syrian Constitutional Committee can fulfil our only mandate which is to draught a Syrian constitution, a new constitution for Syria, a constitution that well deserved by the Syrian people after all the sacrifices they have provided.

As a response, with the efforts of the Special Envoy, our representative submitted a proposal regarding the methodology of discussions for to reach a meaningful purpose.

However, the other party did not submit any proposal.

Then we were told officially that our proposal was rejected by them and the two Co chairs having a proposal submitted by the special invoice.

He thankfully submitted a proposal which we accepted while the other party rejected it.

We started our meeting and our representatives submitted many proposals for drafting basic principles of the Constitution and we continue to work while exerting our utmost efforts in order to reach tangible and complete reasons.

Unfortunately, the other side or party refused to start the drafting of the Constitution based on the fact that they wanted to see all parties submitting proposals about the constitutional principles and some accepted formula and then to allow some space for discussion regarding the submitted proposals on the constitutional content.

We have tried and exerted our efforts for the sake of adopting A methodology for work of the small body and to submit proposals that can be adopted and later submitted to the large body of the FCC.

Our national responsibility, our duty towards our people, is to see the Syrian Institutional Committee fulfil its mandate within the shortest terms.

Based on that, we have asked, and are still continuing to ask, to have the rounds of the meetings of the small body of the SEC extended to three working weeks and that there will be only one week as the week of Greek between one round and another.

Continuing along the current rhythm is a prejudice to our people.

We have also to remind the Security Council member states that more than a year has passed since the establishment of the SEC and we have held only 5 rounds of meetings without being able to start to fulfil our mandate, which is to draught the new Constitution of Syria and to engage in a comprehensive reform of the Constitution, including the constitutional practises.

Stopping the humanitarian in Syria is a duty to us all and our contribution to fulfil our task, our mission clearly and the shortest possible terms, namely not exceeding a few months.

Whatever are the circumstances, however, procrastinating under some pretext is something unacceptable.

We ask the Security Council, through the UN Secretary General and his special info to Syria, to implement the content of Resolution 2254 of 2015 pertaining to the to the constitutional process.

Article 4 of Resolution 2254 stipulates that the political process facilitated by the United Nations should lead to an agreement about the process to draught a new constitution and to determine a timeline.

It stays **** coach determining a timeline and a practical timeline for the drafting of a new constitution.

That's why we need to deploy immediate and we as a main opponent and part of the Syrian Constitutional Committee, we have been asking for a clear timeline or schedule to fulfil the mission in a complete manner.

Any lengthening of the process or any obstruction of the process will also deepen the sufferings of our inferior people in Syria.

No solution can end the sufferings of our people inside Syria and outside Syria except through one way, that is the following.

The Security Council should shoulder its responsibilities vis a vis the Syrian men and women and fine expeditious ways for the full and strict implementation of UN Resolution 2254 and 221 8 for the year 2015 and 2013, respectively, including the Geneva Communique.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you Mr Bahra Musa, ASI from Mayadin Channel in the troika statement yesterday for there was a an idea about not imposing a timeline on these negotiations and to refrain from any interference.

Now you are calling for the necessity to have a timeline.

Is your position different from the position of and who is responsible for the fact that this round of negotiations did not read any concrete results?

[Other language spoken]

The SCC was established as per Resolution 2254, which clearly stipulates as I mentioned earlier that we within six months we need to reach an agreement through the political process to achieve A credible, inclusive and non sectarian governance and also to establish a constitutional process and a timeline.

We cannot take parts of the resolution and keep other parts.

What we are calling for is at the core of resolution 2254 which calls for the necessity of a timeline and as owners of this process, as leaders, as leaders of this process, partly leading this process because as we know this is an intra Syrian process which is Syrian LED and Syrian owned.

That's why we say that we are calling for is purely Syrian request.

We are asking as members of the SEC to have a timeline.

This is a national Syrian request.

And we also call for a full implementation of the Security Council resolution and not part of the resolutions.

Regarding the second part of your question, we have deployed our utmost, we have our utmost in order to reach a methodology for the discussions.

But unfortunately, our methodology was rejected.

And as you know, a methodology has nothing to do with the constitutional principle or a political idea.

We are speaking about a methodology for achieving something.

And those who ****** such a methodology for work are very clearly those who think that they have no interest in seeing the SEC fulfilling its mandate and the shortest terms.

After the rejection of our proposal for a methodology, we have submitted constitutional contact, constitutional principles under Chapter one of the Constitution, and we started with a text, then an explanation and interpretation of the text and we were open to all comments.

However, the second entity refused to submit any constitutional draftings or principles.

They said they are still in the process of doing that and this requires time before they reach a level whereby they can submit proposals.

If you have a question away from the first round, Mr Peterson, if you could please lower your hand.

If not, I'll be coming to you after this next question in the room.

[Other language spoken]

Hold on somebody.

That both parties have reached their objectives.

The delegation attracted the FCC and you also have reached objectives.

Until when are we going to be hijacked in this vicious circle, Mr.

[Other language spoken]

Our people is happier with what we do.

We know the sufferings of the Syrian people all over the Syrian territory.

We feel that we are not fulfilling our task.

However, injustice prevails in this world and the international order is unjust, unfair and sometimes they take decisions that they cannot implement the reality and that's why we need to deal with this regime despite the fact we do not like the way they work, the slow pace they adopted.

This is the reality.

We need to deal with the reality.

When I say the reality, this does not mean we are abandoned objectives.

However, we are looking at the tools that are available to us so that we can achieve our objectives, what with whatever tools are available on the ground.

That's why we have been engaged with all concerned countries we have exposed, we have explained to them the developments of the situation.

No one is accusing the forces of the revolution and of opposition that they had a negative impact or obstructed the process.

On the contrary, everyone was able to witness the positive attitude and the tremendous efforts we deployed in order to accelerate the work of the SEC.

And it's clear who was obstructing the process.

As we said earlier, this round is essential for us if we wanted to show the intent of every party.

We know the intent of every party.

However, it's up to the international community to see which entity.

Hanford and blocked the work of the SEC.

And I think this objective has been reached and we hope that they will take all necessary measures in order to bring the train back to its spot.

[Other language spoken]

Laurent, I saw your hand first.

[Other language spoken]

And then, yeah, thank you for taking my question.

Mr Could you tell us what was the ability that you proposed to the special and was rejected by the and then also maybe the these 9 principles, constitutional principles that were submitted by the Syrian National Council?

I have from the start, we picked a very simple process, straightforward, which is obvious.

If anybody read it, they wouldn't see a reason to refuse it.

It's it was very simple that each we have three parties in the committee.

Each party would come up with up to five basic constitutional principles, put them on the table, and each party would explain why they see these principles are important to be included within the new constitution.

Defend them the first day.

Second day we open the ground for each party to be questions and to discuss their drafting with other committees.

And at the end of each day, we build up on principles that cross matched since we don't know each party which principles they will suggest.

So we assumed there would be at least 234 principles would be mentioned by the three parties.

And we continue to build up on this consensus into actual draughts to be acceptable by the whole group and based on what principles our delegation we were, we talked proposed about sovereignty, about separation of power, about dignity and freedom of rights, about the Free Political freedom Political parties association.

We talk about the state of law, judicial authority and independence and other issues regarding group and personal freedoms.

I think I saw a final question over here on my right.

Thank you Mr The the only positive aspect may be that the three states sponsoring also.

Mr Peterson also said that it was a disappointing round and you also seem to blame the other side for stalling.

How can we reactivate work, especially for the next session?

And we don't know when that next session will take place.

Is there an end to the SEC?

Do you feel that this is the end, that the SEC is concluding its work?

[Other language spoken]

It's not a question of blaming, it's a question of reality.

This is, it was quite clear from what Peterson said.

Mr Peterson said that there was one party that interacted positively and engaged positively and another side that did not engage positively.

And of course, the success of any political process or any negotiation process requires the existence of two sides that wish to come to to an agreement.

However, ever since 2014, the first attempt for direct negotiations, until today, we have noted the same situation.

There is a party that comes in, engages positively, produces papers and proposals and engages positively with the UN, whereas the other side does not present anything or submit anything, refused uses to engage positively and insists on procrastinating.

And we are trying to show our good intentions in order to and enforce international law.

As to your question regarding whether the SEC is concluding its work, we are committed to the SEC and we fully are fully aware of how important the SEC is as part of the Security Council Resolution 2254, and This is why we are trying to keep it alive.

To keep the SEC alive, however, we have had to inform all states that that our efforts do not fight to keep the SEC alive, and we consider the SEC is a patient in intensive care on a ventilation system, and if the patient is not treated properly, nobody will be able to keep it alive.

We know that it is in the interest of our people for this SEC to continue to exist, However, it needs to be productive.

Therefore, now the ball is in the court of the international community, the United Nations, the representative, the Special Envoy, Mr Peterson and the members of the Security Council.

Mr Peterson has to inform the Security Council of the situation and the Astana sponsoring states must provide support for the implementation of Resolution 2254 and support the work of the United Nations and this.

And we hope that the next session proposals will be submitted in order to allow the Special Envoy to fulfil his mandate by facilitating the work of the SEC and to allow the SCC also to fulfil its mandate.

[Other language spoken]

Appreciate your time and appreciate your time.

[Other language spoken]