Svyrydenko's statementa

26 February agreement.

Let's look at it:

1. Full ownership and control remain with Ukraine. All resources on our territory and in territorial waters belong to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian state that determines what and where to extract. Subsoil remains under Ukrainian ownership — this is clearly established in the Agreement.

That was never up for debate, it's actually a part of the agreement. In fact, for the agreement to work, the Ukrainian government has to own (directly or indirectly) the resource extraction projects and manage them: The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund, and will earn income from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government).

2. Equal partnership. The Fund is structured on a 50/50 basis. It will be jointly managed by Ukraine and the United States. Neither side will hold a dominant vote — a reflection of equal partnership between our two nations.

The February 26th agreement already states this, jointly managed fund, Ukraine 50%, and USA share the maximum amount permissible under US laws: The Fund will be jointly managed by representatives of the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the United States of America... The maximum percentage of ownership of the Fund’s equity and financial interests to be held by the Government of the United States of America and the decision-making authority of the representatives of the Government of the United States of America will be to the extent permissible under applicable United States laws...The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets.

3. National assets are protected. The Agreement does not alter privatization processes or the management of state-owned companies — they will remain Ukrainian. Companies such as Ukrnafta and Energoatom will stay in state ownership.

Again, this was already stated, current Ukrainian projects are not included: For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine.

4. No debt. The Agreement includes no provisions regarding any Ukrainian debt obligations to the United States. Its implementation allows both countries to expand their economic potential through equal cooperation and investment.

Debt obligations (such as the $500 billion clause or 2021 GDP match clause) were already removed prior to the 26 February agreement, at a cost to other areas. Also on co-operation and investment: The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

5. The Agreement complies with the Constitution and maintains Ukraine’s European integration course. It is consistent with national legislation and does not conflict with any of Ukraine’s international obligations. Importantly, the Agreement sends a signal to global partners that long-term cooperation with Ukraine — over decades — is not only possible but reliable.

Word for word what is written in the 26 February agreement: In drafting the Fund Agreement, the Participants will strive to avoid conflicts with Ukraine’s obligations under its accession to the European Union or its obligations under arrangements with international financial institutions and other official creditors.

6. The Fund will be financed exclusively from NEW licenses. Specifically, 50% of the revenues from new licenses in the field of critical materials, oil, and gas — generated after the Fund is created — will be directed to it. Revenues from existing projects or those already accounted for in the budget will not be included. The Agreement also outlines future strategic cooperation.

A rehash of point 3, and also already part of the February 26th agreement: The Government of Ukraine will contribute to the Fund 50 percent of all revenues earned from the future monetization of all relevant Ukrainian Government-owned natural resource assets (whether owned directly or indirectly by the Ukrainian Government), defined as deposits of minerals, hydrocarbons, oil, natural gas, and other extractable materials, and other infrastructure relevant to natural resource assets (such as liquified natural gas terminals and port infrastructure) as agreed by both Participants, as may be further described in the Fund Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, such future sources of revenues do not include the current sources of revenues which are already part of the general budget revenues of Ukraine. Timeline, scope and sustainability of contributions will be further defined in the Fund Agreement.

7. Legislative changes will be limited and targeted. Only amendments to the Budget Code are required for the Fund to operate. The Agreement itself will be submitted to the Verkhovna Rada for ratification.

The Fund agreement shall be ratified by the Parliament of Ukraine according to the Law of Ukraine "On International Treaties of Ukraine."... Contact persons responsible for preparing the Fund Agreement on the basis of this Bilateral Agreement are: from the Government of the United States of America: the Department of the Treasury; from the Government of Ukraine: Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Economy.

8. The United States will help attract additional investment and technology. The Fund is supported by the U.S. government through the DFC agency. This will assist us in attracting investments and technologies from U.S., EU, and other international partners that support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian aggressor. Technology transfer and development are a key part of the Agreement — because Ukraine needs not only capital, but also innovation

The Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ukraine intend that the investment process will lead to opportunities for distribution of additional funds and greater reinvestment, to ensure the sufficient supply of capital for the reconstruction of Ukraine as set out in the Fund Agreement... Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine...The Fund Agreement will include appropriate representations and warranties, including those necessary to ensure that any obligations the Government of Ukraine may have to third parties, or such obligations that it may undertake in the future, do not sell, convey, transfer pledge, or otherwise encumber the Government of Ukraine’s contributions to the Fund or the assets from which such contributions are derived, or the Fund’s disposition of funds...The Fund Agreement will pay particular attention to the control mechanisms that make it impossible to weaken, violate or circumvent sanctions and other restrictive measures.

9. The Agreement provides tax guarantees. Fund revenues and contributions will not be taxed in either the United States or Ukraine, ensuring maximum effectiveness of the investment process.

That's not a good thing if it's only revenue... Also: Neither Participant will sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of, directly or indirectly, any portion of its interest in the Fund without the prior written consent of the other Participant... The Fund will collect and reinvest revenues contributed to the Fund, minus expenses incurred by the Fund... The Fund, in its sole discretion, may credit or return to the Government of Ukraine actual expenses incurred by the newly developed projects from which the Fund receives revenues.

I guess sole discretion of the fund decided on tax free.

The United States will contribute to the Fund. In addition to direct financial contributions, it may also provide NEW assistance — for example, air defense systems for Ukraine.

To promote the safety, security and prosperity of Ukraine...Further contributions may be comprised of funds, financial instruments, and other tangible and intangible assets critical for the reconstruction of Ukraine.

The education of 800 students in occupied East Jerusalem is at risk as Israel moves to close their schools next week, a senior official with the UN agency for Palestine refugees, UNRWA, said on Wednesday.

“It's a grave threat to the right of those children to education,” Roland Friedrich, Director of UNRWA Affairs for the West Bank, told UN News.

The development follows two Israeli laws that went into effect in late January which ban UNRWA from operating in its territory and prohibit Israeli authorities from having any contact with the agency.

UNRWA is the largest provider of healthcare, education and other services for nearly six million Palestine refugees across the Middle East, including in war-torn Gaza.

This week the International Court of Justice – the UN’s highest court - began hearings to examine Israel’s restrictions on the work of the UN and other international organizations in Gaza and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Mr. Friedrich spoke about how the affected students are anxious over the prospect of being shut out of the classroom. He also underlined UNRWA’s commitment to continue to deliver in East Jerusalem “as long as we can.”

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Roland Friedrich: Roughly four weeks ago we received notifications from the Israeli Ministry of Education that the three schools we operate in Shu’fat refugee camp and another three schools we operate inside East Jerusalem shall be closed.

We have 800 students in these schools and these children have no adequate access to education beyond these schools. This is very concerning for the children, for their families, and it comes while the school year is still ongoing. So, this is unprecedented. It's a grave threat to the rights of those children to education and it's very concerning particularly because these closure orders are supposed to come into effect on 8 May, which is less than a week from now.

UN News: What other UNRWA programmes are at risk in the West Bank?

Roland Friedrich: I think we have to make a distinction between our work in occupied East Jerusalem, which according to the Israeli legislation is banned, and our work in the rest of the West Bank where, according to Israel, all our work is not banned.

In East Jerusalem we operate, in addition to the six schools with 800 children, two health centres – one in the Old City and another in Shu'fat refugee camp – with roughly 60,000 patients: vulnerable patients who have no adequate access to other health facilities, patients with non-communicable diseases, patients who have West Bank ID who have no access to alternative health facilities, and low-income patients.

We are also responsible for garbage collection in Shu’fat refugee camp, which is on the Palestinian side of the so-called separation barrier.

In addition to that, we also operate a vocational training centre in the north of Jerusalem, also on the Palestinian side of the barrier, with 350 trainees, all from the West Bank.

Our main headquarters in occupied East Jerusalem is in the Sheikh Jarah neighbourhood. We currently cannot operate from it because of continuing security threats: threats to the safety and security of our staff, ongoing attacks against the compound.

We again had an arson attack against these facilities three weeks ago, and continuous destruction of the fence, of cameras, of security infrastructure with high material damage.

So that’s a place that’s not safe for our staff to work despite the fact that it is a facility protected by the privileges and immunities of the United Nations.

When it comes to the West Bank overall, our operations there largely continue. That means our 90 schools, our 41 health centres, our microfinance installations, continue to operate.

But we do have a severe humanitarian crisis in the northern West Bank due to an ongoing Israeli security forces operation that started in late January and that has led to the displacement of more than 40,000 Palestinian refugees from three refugee camps.

UN News: What messages did you hear from students, parents and teachers during your latest visit to Shu’fat camp? How is the community coping with this uncertainty?

Roland Friedrich: There is anxiety among children. They are worried that they can’t continue the school year, which runs until the end of June. They’re worried that they will be separated from their friends.

They're worried that they will lose access to education. They are worried that they will have to be placed in education facilities that are maybe very far away or not available at all.

These are free schools, and we teach from grades one to nine. A lot of them are young girls who feel safe there in an appropriate learning environment that they will possibly lose.

Parents are also concerned. UNRWA has been delivering services in that refugee camp since the 1960s, predating Israeli occupation of East Jerusalem, so there’s a history of UNRWA teaching in that place and an appreciation for the quality of the services we deliver.

Given the fact that all international UN staff have not received visas from the Israeli authorities since late January, it’s our local staff on the ground who are taking high risks in continuing to serve their communities.

UN News: In this challenging environment, what steps is UNRWA considering to support the continuity of its services in East Jerusalem?

Roland Friedrich: We’ve been very clear since these laws against UNRWA entered into effect on 29 January. We’ve been seeking to live up to our humanitarian commitment, to our mandate to continue to deliver these services to communities in East Jerusalem.

There have been legal efforts by Israeli civil society organizations before the courts against these laws and against these disclosure orders. Some of these proceedings are still pending.

We clearly call upon all actors to respect the obligations under international law, particularly to respect the inviolability of the premises of the United Nations in East Jerusalem.

We are providing these services based on a mandate by the General Assembly.

UNRWA clearly enjoys full privileges and immunities like any other UN agency, and our staff there are taking grave personal risks.

We are assessing the situation on a daily basis. Is it still safe for our staff to operate or not? As a matter of principle, we will be there as long as we can.