A/55/PV.36 General Assembly

The heavy demands on the Security Council to respond to conflicts, threats and breaches of the peace, are evident from the enormous work load carried out by the Council between 16 June 1999 and 15 June 2000. The record number of 144 formal meetings convened, the 194 informal consultations held, the 57 resolutions adopted and the over 85 reports considered, constitute the body of the annual report (A/55/2), which the Council, pursuant to Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, is submitting to the General Assembly, on whose behalf it acts. The very submission of the report, which is expected to contain substantive, analytical and material information on the work of the Council is itself evidence of its accountability to the general membership of the United Nations. There is no doubt that the working methods of the Security Council have, in general, improved, although there is still room for further improvement. We welcome the inclusion again of the addendum to the report, the monthly assessments prepared by outgoing Presidents and the continuation of the daily briefings by the presidency, which are attended by a growing number of non-members of the Council. The numbers show that, despite the decrease of closed-doors meetings, there are still far more of them than regular open formal meetings. Although there may 00-69637 (E) ````````` be good reasons for these closed meetings to be called from time to time, by nature they lack openness and thus send a message of exclusion to the rest of the United Nations membership. No amount of briefings after the event can compensate for full transparency and the information received by witnessing the Council’s open meetings. Openness is of even more importance when peacekeeping operations are considered. The host country, whose consent is needed for the stationing of peacekeeping forces and which is therefore directly involved, and those participating as contributors or potential contributors to peacekeeping operations, have a right to be considered when these operations are discussed. On the substantive side, the report demonstrates the broad spectrum of activities with which the Security Council is seized. Conflicts and crises in the world have not diminished. What is more, many long- standing problems — including our own — remain unresolved, due to lack of political will and the lack of action to implement the Council’s mandatory resolutions and decisions. There should not be selectivity in the implementation of Security Council resolutions, for it shakes the faith of the general membership, especially that of the small States, in this main organ entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council must be strong. It must be able to face the new challenges of the new century. To do so, it must be primarily representative, reflecting the realities of a changed world. Increasing its membership on the basis of the equitable geographical distribution of seats, for both permanent and non-permanent members, will give the Council more legitimacy and strengthen its effectiveness. Secondly, the availability of funds and personnel is a necessary prerequisite for a strong Security Council, so that, as the Secretary-General stated, those who place their faith in it are never let down. Turning to some other parts of the report, we offer several observations. First, there should be more restraint on the part of the Security Council in considering issues which may fall within the domain of the General Assembly. The need for a good relationship and coordination between the responsibilities of these two main organs cannot be overemphasized. Secondly, the Security Council must become more sensitive to the collateral humanitarian impact of sanctions. Sanctions cause economic loss and create problems for innocent populations and for the neighbouring countries that observe such sanctions. We agree that sanctions should be very sparingly used, and we see a need to review the whole sanctions regime. Thirdly, we agree with India about the incorporation into the report of an assessment by the Security Council of the usefulness and helpfulness of its own actions. Fourthly, we continue to favour the German proposal with regard to giving explanations to the General Assembly after the exercise of a veto. Fifthly, except in extraordinary situations of urgency, decisions of the Council should be taken after the debate is completed, and not before. Such a sequence in the voting will contribute to strengthening the positive impressions of the Council within and outside the United Nations, erasing any possible impression that the Council’s decisions are taken routinely. Sixthly, we support greater collaboration between the United Nations and regional organizations, as long as this collaboration is based on the United Nations Charter and on the promotion of goals in line with its provisions. Finally, no reform, whatever its nature, can be more effective and useful than the will of the Security Council to implement its own resolutions and decisions. Representing a country whose problem has remained on the United Nations agenda for the past several years, long awaiting a just solution on the basis of resolutions of the Security Council, we express our appreciation to the members of the Council, and congratulate the five newly elected members — Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore — while pledging our cooperation and support. Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): The President of the Security Council has given a clear summary of the issues that have been before the Council in the past year. I would like to focus for a moment on the continent on which the Council spends the greater proportion of its time and energy: Africa. First, despite the attention which the Council is paying to Africa, we have to acknowledge the difficulty of achieving positive results on African issues. There are a number of reasons for this. Conflicts in Africa are rarely straightforward bilateral conflicts between States, demanding a classical peacekeeping response. Ethiopia/Eritrea is the only African conflict that fits that description. Elsewhere — for example, in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo — African conflicts have been characterized by a complex interlinkage of internal and external elements. This has required a much more sophisticated response from the United Nations system than in the past, and one in which the Security Council has to fit its decisions into a much broader international response. Nowhere is it clearer than in Africa that peace and development go hand in hand, or, to put it more starkly, that conflict and poverty feed off each other. It is in this context that the United Kingdom warmly supports the thrust of the Brahimi report (A/55/305), because it supplements our overall approach to development and the eradication of poverty, which is our number one United Nations priority. It is no coincidence that one of the most troubled countries in Africa, Sierra Leone, is by some measures the poorest country in the world. Leaving aside the physical devastation, the waste of manpower caused by war and the virtual collapse of a functioning State, civil conflict in Sierra Leone has diverted the country’s greatest and natural resource — diamonds — into the hands of the rebels. Diamonds, instead of fuelling Sierra Leone’s development, are fuelling its continuing bitter conflicts. The same is true in Angola and, applied to other natural resources, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As a consequence, the international community, including the United Nations, needs to develop a comprehensive approach to the problems of peace and development in the continent. In the jargon, we need our policy to be “joined up” — in other words, coordinated both within and between Governments and international institutions. Working with the United Nations, the United Kingdom is beginning to address this with a conflict prevention fund financed and run jointly by the Foreign Ministry, the Development Ministry and the Defence Ministry. The rationale is simple. There is no point in a development ministry pouring resources into a country ravaged by conflict unless the other deficiencies are also addressed. Similarly, it is important for those involved in the business of development to look ahead, to see potential conflicts and to think of ways to avert them or mitigate their effects. Otherwise, the fruits of years of hard work can be thrown away very quickly. We are bringing this “joined up” approach to our work at the United Nations. The Security Council, too, needs to operate within the wider United Nations context. But this comprehensive approach to policy needs to go beyond the United Nations. The United Nations is in some ways a small player in the overall African picture. The resources it has to spend on aid do not match those of the bilateral donors or the international financial institutions. Improving dialogue and coordination within the United Nations system, and between the United Nations system and the international community more widely, will pay greater dividends in Africa than anywhere else. The United Nations also needs to play its part on the wider issues that trouble Africa. The word that I hear most often spoken is “leadership”. The continent has thrown up some of the great men and women of this generation: Nelson Mandela, Kofi Annan and Graça Machel are three names that spring immediately to mind. But the overall weakness of leadership in Africa, manifested in poorly performing institutions, corruption and mismanagement, cannot be ignored, not least because they are problems that Africans themselves most often cite as dragging the continent down. It is good that African leaders themselves are increasingly ready to wake up to these problems and work productively to remedy them. None of them will be solved overnight. But the United Nations has a definite role to play. This is a difficult and sensitive agenda. What is particularly worrying is the way in which African problems, particularly in West Africa and the Great Lakes region, feed on each other. This is why United Nations engagement with regional organizations, such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) or the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is crucial, and why those organizations must be ready to exert pressure on their own members to find peaceful solutions before neighbouring States are drawn in. Those members who read the report of the Security Council mission to Sierra Leone last week will see that we have come up with one overriding and principal recommendation, which is that there should be a coordinated strategy for Sierra Leone that brings in the region. And it needs to bring in the region, because the international community cannot do on its own what needs to be done in Sierra Leone. That report is an example of what I am saying — that there has to be a deliberate attempt with regard to each of these problems to produce a coordinated strategy that everybody subscribes to, or the bits that we do not address will poison the bits that we do. I ask representatives to look at the Sierra Leone mission report in that light, because each conflict presents its own challenges. I have no doubt that but for the intensified engagement of the Security Council and the United Nations more generally the continent's problems would become more intractable. Finally, a word on the working methods of the Security Council, and in particular their transparency. It has for some time been an important concern of the United Kingdom that the Council should carry out its work with the maximum amount of innovation and transparency, and in a way which enables its deliberations to take place in a public setting, wherever possible. We believe that during the course of the period of this report the Council has made significant strides forward. On 30 December 1999, in my capacity as President of the Council that month, I issued a note (S/1999/1291), setting out a number of points to improve procedural practice. I believe this note has genuinely been put into effect under subsequent presidencies. Matters concerning the Middle East and the Balkans, African subjects, such as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and East Timor have been the subject of briefings and debates in public meetings in the Council Chamber, with the wider membership in attendance, when previously many of the events might have been held in informal consultations. The balance between public meetings and informal consultations may still not be quite right, and there is further work to be done on matters relating to participation. But the work of the Council has now become significantly more accessible to non-members, without any diminution of its ability to take effective action. The Council has, during the reporting period, been prepared to contemplate imaginative procedural innovations when the occasion requires, reviving the practice of private Council meetings, for instance. The Council has also shown that it can use new formats to take its work forward. An example is the ambassador- level meeting between Council members and troop contributors which took place in preparation for the Sierra Leone mission last week. I hope that the Council will continue this welcome trend towards openness and that it will be prepared to try procedural innovations when necessary in the course of the coming year. In response, it would be good to see the wider membership using the greater opportunities for addressing the Council to debate points more spontaneously and reactively. Both within the Council and outside it, we are making too many set speeches which pass each other by. No Council can produce results unless we all listen, as well as transmit. The United Kingdom will continue to encourage an evolution in this respect.

This discussion of the annual report of the Security Council offers us a good opportunity to address a number of issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security, the principal raison d’être of the United Nations. My delegation listened to the statement of Mr. Andjaba, the President of the Council for this month, who submitted this year’s report. The report of the Security Council before us today makes it clear that the world remains beset by many problems. The period under consideration in the report witnessed the continuation of old conflicts and the eruption of new ones, which confirms yet again that the international community remains unable to establish solid foundations for a world that enjoys comprehensive security. In following the efforts of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, my delegation remains fully confident that its role in putting an end to the acts of violence, conflict and widespread devastation prevailing in many countries would achieve more positive results if the Council cooperated with the other bodies of the United Nations. Most important is cooperation with the General Assembly, which the Charter entrusts with consideration of the general underlying principles that strengthen international peace and security. Current events clearly demonstrate that the General Assembly is not given the opportunity to assume its responsibilities in this area when the Security Council finds itself incapable of confronting threats to international peace and security. If the Council were to cooperate with the Assembly in these cases, in accordance with relevant principles of the Charter, it would be able to defuse many crises and find solutions to numerous problems and disputes, thus avoiding consequent tragedies and devastation. My delegation has noticed that some improvements have been made to the working methods of the Security Council. The practice of holding consultations with countries that contribute troops to peacekeeping operations, of informing the Chairmen of the geographical Groups of the Council’s programme of work, and of issuing the monthly assessment has been incorporated into the Council’s annual report. All these improvements, however, should prompt us to ask for more so that we may achieve full transparency and clarity in the Council’s work and activities. The introduction of the Council’s report states that Council members held 194 closed consultations of the whole during the year under review. It also cites the number of statements the Council has issued and the number of reports by the Secretary-General it has considered. We have noted a decrease in the number of informal sessions by comparison with previous years, but we are seriously concerned that the report includes no substantive information on what occurred in these consultations. We call for a radical improvement of this section of the Council’s report so as to ensure that it reflects comprehensively the statements made by Council members in these informal consultations, since the non-member States of the Council are interested not in the number of hours of consultations held, but in what occurred during these consultations. In previous sessions, we concluded our discussion of the annual report of the Security Council by noting the report’s contents. My delegation and, I believe, many others share the opinion that the General Assembly should not be satisfied merely with taking note of very important issues. We feel that the General Assembly and its member States should clearly state their views on the contents of the report and present specific recommendations to the Council, in accordance with the relevant Articles of the Charter — Articles 10 and 11 in particular — if we wish to attach due importance to this debate and to demonstrate our willingness to promote the Assembly’s work towards creating a stable and secure world. African issues have monopolized a large portion of the Council’s work. This has coincided with African activities that have had very important and tangible results. The Lusaka Agreement has been activated to address the dispute in the Great Lakes region. Agreements have been reached on the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the national reconciliation efforts in Burundi and the mediation efforts in Somalia, where a President and a Parliament have been elected. We believe that Africa needs more support to promote the solutions we have found and to find solutions to the other conflicts. This will require greater support for African mechanisms to prevent conflict and promote stability. Development is the other face of peace. Africa, needs development assistance in order to establish a comprehensive strategy to eradicate poverty and disease. International solidarity must become tangible. The African continent should be integrated into the world economy in order to be able to export its goods to the developed countries, to end the coercive economic measures imposed on some of its countries and to take concrete action to address its foreign debts. It is not enough for some countries to cancel some of the debts of the least developed countries; Africa’s entire foreign debt must be cancelled. That is what Africa requires, particularly from those who colonized it and plundered its natural resources. These needs are extremely important if we genuinely wish to assist Africa to achieve development and consolidate peace and stability. As reflected in chapter 6 of the report under consideration, in July 1999 the Security Council discussed developments concerning the Lockerbie incident, including lifting the sanctions imposed on my countries in accordance with Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993). According to the assessment of this month’s President of the Council, the representative of Malaysia: “During the discussion that followed, it was clear that there was no consensus on the question of the lifting of the sanctions. One permanent member was of the view that not all of the conditions had been met by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; it was quite prepared to exercise its use of the veto should a resolution be tabled proposing that the sanctions be lifted at this stage.” (A/55/2, p. 445) Further along, the assessment notes that “Others … underlined the need for members of the Council not to politicize the matter, as the Scottish court was already handling it.” (ibid.) More than a year has passed since the rejection of the draft proposal, put forward by the Security Council group of members of the Non-Aligned Movement, for the removal of sanctions against the Libyan people. Regrettably, the United States, which objected to it, continues to prevent the Security Council from adopting such a resolution under the oft-repeated pretexts that Libya supports international terrorism and that it must cooperate with the Scottish court trying the two Libyan nationals accused. My country has repeatedly condemned international terrorism and has supported all international efforts to halt it. We are cooperating fully with the Scottish court. I wish, however, to focus on one of the strangest pretexts put forward: the payment of compensation to the families of the victims of Pan Am flight 103. How can the United States ask for compensation while the matter remains in court? Does this not make a mockery of the legal principle involved? Does this not imply a premature assumption of the court’s decision? Ascertaining guilt or innocence is a prerogative of the court. Should not Libya be the one to receive compensation, since the sanctions imposed against it have cost it more than $30 billion? The fact that my country has complied with all the resolutions of the Security Council was confirmed in the report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council in July 1999. The report showed that Libya has fulfilled all its obligations and that the Council should lift the sanctions imposed on it. This conclusion in the report of the Secretary-General was reaffirmed by resolutions of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Summit, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Islamic Conference, the Arab League and finally the Group of 77 summit held last April. It was also reaffirmed by the five-member committee of the OAU, the Committee of Six of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Committee of Seven established by the Arab League, in their respective letters to the President of the Security Council, documents S/2000/881, S/2000/906 and S/2000/864. The lifting of sanctions has been delayed. The Security Council should take responsibility and implement the will of the international community, which calls upon it to lift the sanctions against the Libyan people. Fulfilling its own resolutions is the only procedure that would restore its credibility. Any delay means that the Security Council works not in accordance with the views of the majority of the international community, but according to the will of one country. The will of one country could not represent the will of the whole international community.

At the outset, I express our gratitude to the Permanent Representative of Namibia, President of the Security Council for the present month, for his presentation of the report of the Security Council. Serving as the current most effective tool to inform the general membership of the Organization of the important work of the Council in the past year, the report constitutes the upholding of the principle of accountability and offers a regular opportunity to non- members of the Security Council to reflect on the work of the Council and on how to further enhance its effectiveness and efficiency. With respect to the technical aspect of the report, we are pleased to note that it continues to cover the work of the subsidiary organs and to include the annual reports of the sanctions Committees and the statements to the press made by the Presidents following consultations of the whole. We also commend the Presidents of the Council for providing us with their assessment of the work of the Council during their respective presidencies. These positive practices are useful steps in making the work of the Council more transparent. The situations the Council had to address over the past year were very complex and diverse. They have demonstrated how difficult it is in some situations to achieve sustainable peace and security, and how great the demands are on the collective security system which was established over 50 years ago in circumstances which were a far cry from today’s. Despite the experience of over 50 years, there still are many lessons for the Council to learn from the crises it has had to respond to. These lessons tell us that meticulous preparations that envisage all conceivable contingencies are needed, and that full coordination and cooperation with all the actors are vitally important. Even then, as experience has vividly shown, any mission can go awry due to various factors resulting in losses in both human and financial terms. To prevent such losses is, as the Secretary-General stated in paragraph 40 of his report on the work of the Organization (A/55/1), to shift from a culture of reaction to one of prevention. Given the most lethal crises the Council has been seized with over the past year, we wonder how the Council can establish sustainable peace and security without changing the usual reactive approach. In this regard, we are much encouraged to note that measures have been taken to strengthen early warning and conflict prevention capacities at the United Nations and to enhance coordination with others. We hold the view that these capacities must also include the ability to show high sensitivity to early warning signals of an evolving situation so that unnecessary loss of lives will not be repeated. We firmly believe that the new culture of prevention will go a long way in helping the Security Council fulfil its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security. We also share the view that the Secretary-General should be authorized with funds to start planning before a mission is approved by the Security Council. This will certainly help accelerate the deployment process that will in turn prevent a situation from escalating into a crisis. Effective peacekeeping operations remain essential for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, these operations have, as recognized by all, become more complicated, and have been charged with an expanded range of tasks, thus becoming more demanding on the finite resource capacities of our Organization. We are distressed to learn that occasionally these operations have had to be carried out in precarious environments, putting at risk not only the success of the mission but also the personal security of the peacekeepers. It is unacceptable that our “peace crusaders” are being thus threatened. The situations over the past year clearly demonstrate the importance of taking measures to train and equip our peacekeepers adequately so that they can work with confidence and a greater sense of security. I take this opportunity to express our support for the view that United Nations peacekeeping operations need credible deterrent capacity, with what the Secretary-General calls, in paragraph 70 of his report, “robust rules of engagement” explicitly spelled out. Only then will our peacekeepers be able to determine when to intervene between warring parties or competing forces and when not to intervene. The credibility of our Organization is too valuable to be impaired again, as in the past, due to weaknesses in the mandates we establish. I now turn to two issues of immediate concern to us: small arms and HIV/AIDS. These issues have in their own way been contributing factors to undermining our efforts to maintain international peace and security. While small arms, with their easy availability, have been the weapons mostly and frequently used in armed conflicts, AIDS, with its high prevalence rate, has been the most destructive disease. These two issues cry out for a coherent and coordinated approach by the international community. Unless we address them effectively and as a matter of priority, they are bound to have devastating consequences for the socio-economic development of countries, especially developing countries. Therefore, we are greatly heartened that the Security Council addressed these two issues, among others, in its open thematic debates. The magnitude of these two problems and the urgent need to resolve them is reflected by the consensus we have reached on the convening of a special session of the General Assembly on HIV/AIDS and an international conference on small arms, both in 2001. We hope that, through them, we will be able to work out well-coordinated plans to combat these two evils that kill most people with equal vengeance. Concerning the thematic debate, my delegation wishes to reiterate its position. While we appreciate the value of these debates, we are concerned that over time they would insidiously allow the Council to move into areas that fall within the purview of other forums in the United Nations system. This would amount to an encroachment on their mandates. We are convinced that these debates will be confined to only those aspects that bear on the maintenance of international peace and security. As the Secretary-General stated in his report on the work of the Organization, sustainable peace and security for all countries and peoples remains a central objective of the United Nations at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The achievement of this objective is wholly the task of the Security Council, the unique organ in the United Nations system entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is a trust on the strength of which we, Members of the Organization, especially the small and the weak, mortgage our sense of security. It would be highly paradoxical if this trust were exploited in ways that undermined our sense of security. Although it is in the mandate of the Security Council to determine whether a given situation is a real threat to international peace and security, it is a mandate given to the Council as a whole, and not to individual members. It is the entire membership of the Council that must concur in a determination of a particular situation’s threat to peace and security, for it is the Council that represents the interest of the entire membership of the Organization in matters of international peace and security, not only one member or any group of countries. As the work of the Security Council over the past year has shown, there are serious situations that require an immediate response from the Council. All the membership of the Organization fully appreciates and supports the Council when it responds to such situations as expected of it because they are genuine threats to peace and security. However, to involve the Council in matters that clearly fall within domestic jurisdiction on grounds of perceived potential threat to peace and security is highly questionable and open to serious doubt about the real motive behind such an attempt. Coming from an organ like the Security Council, such attempts are bound to adversely affect the credibility of the Council, which we are making collective efforts to enhance in the ongoing process of United Nations reform. Myanmar, like other Members of the Organization, attaches great importance to the work of the Council, and we fully trust that the Council will continue to be capable of delivering what is expected of it by the international community, as it has done over half a century. To enable it to do so, it is important to reserve our attention and resources for where they are really needed, rather than to squander them on situations which do not present a real threat. Before concluding, I wish to make a few comments on an area which has assumed more importance over the past several years — cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations and other actors. Given a shift in the nature of the threat to peace and security, there is an obvious need to enlist cooperation with regional organizations and other relevant actors in dealing with very complex situations. Depending on the complexity of a situation, relationships between the United Nations and a regional organization may vary from time to time and from region to region. As evidenced by the events of the past year, some crisis situations needed the assistance of relevant regional organizations, and cooperation with regional organizations and other actors proved very useful and beneficial. However, cooperation with regional organizations usually involves extremely sensitive areas, in addition to normal organizational problems. As a result, such an undertaking may not always be smooth. Fortunately, the Charter of the United Nations has clearly spelled out the ground rules governing the relationship between the United Nations and regional organizations and the primary role of the United Nations. Without wishing to denigrate the important role of regional organizations, I wish to stress that any consideration of the involvement of a regional organization must be strictly based on the relevant provisions of the Charter. Finally, I wish to state that the consistent support of the international community is vital for the success of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. A decision of the Council must be seen as legitimate by the international community to enable it to support the work of the Council consistently. The report before us serves, to some extent, the purpose of enhancing our understanding of the work of the Council and the legitimacy of its decisions as well. This is positive indeed. I also take this opportunity to convey our congratulations to Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore on their election to the Security Council as non-permanent members. My delegation wishes them every success in their important endeavours as members of the Security Council.

I begin by thanking the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Martin Andjaba, for his comprehensive presentation of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. My delegation also appreciates the exceptional effort made by the Secretariat to provide such a thorough and lengthy document on time this year, when the Millennium Summit might have delayed its release. We would also like to express our appreciation to the Security Council for all its hard work over the document’s reporting period to maintain international peace and security in various crises and conflict situations. The report of the Security Council is an important tool for ensuring coordination between the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter — in particular, Articles 24 and 15. In this regard, we find this year’s report to be highly informative and relevant. We would first like to note the general issues relating to sanctions. This subject will become increasingly important in the coming years, as smart sanctions are being developed to enhance the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions. Sanctions can cause unnecessary suffering, not only for their intended targets, but also for innocent civilians in neighbouring countries. For this reason, we believe that we should improve the current system of United Nations sanctions. Secondly, we would like to point to the issue of protection of United Nations personnel in the field. Since the introduction of this urgent issue by the Republic of Korea during its presidency of the Security Council in May 1997, a number of important follow-up measures have been taken. The recent increases in deliberate attacks on United Nations personnel are deplorable. We believe that all peacekeeping missions should be given sufficient mandates and ample resources to guarantee their safety, as well as their success. In this regard, my delegation joins many others in welcoming the Brahimi report (A/55/305) as the basis for discussion of new methods to increase the effectiveness of the United Nations peacekeeping operations. The report includes many valid recommendations. However, we believe that the financial burden of implementing these recommendations should be shared in a balanced way when they require new or increased budgets. My third point relates to the reform of the Security Council. In order to deal effectively with the daunting challenges of the new millennium, the Republic of Korea believes that the Security Council must be reformed in ways that will strengthen its representativeness, transparency and effectiveness. The Open-ended Working Group’s discussions of the question of equitable representation on an increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters have not yet produced an end result. However, the Group is making progress, and I hope it will be able to maintain its momentum for exploring creative ways to work out a formula that will satisfy most of the Member States. The Group’s goal is to make the views of Member States, particularly the view of those that are capable and willing to contribute to the purposes of the United Nations, systematically reflected in the decision-making process on important security issues. My Mission will continue to actively participate in the deliberations of the Working Group in the future. As my final point, I would like to touch upon three aspects of the Security Council’s proceedings. But first my delegation would like to emphasize the importance of allowing troop-contributing countries to participate appropriately in the decision-making process of United Nations peacekeeping operations. Secondly, we hope that the Security Council’s public meetings will become more frequent in order to increase the Council’s transparency and keep non-members better informed. Finally, we would like to point to the importance of the briefings by the President of the Security Council to non-members, especially after informal consultations. Whether such briefings are delivered by a member of the President’s Mission or on the Mission’s web site, they need to be implemented with continuity and in a timely manner in order to ensure their usefulness for non-member States that closely follow Security Council issues. Yesterday the General Assembly adopted the item entitled “Peace, security and reunification on the Korean peninsula” as an additional item on the agenda of the fifty-fifth session of the General Assembly. I would like to thank the President for this adoption, as well as the forty-seven other Missions that join us in the request for its inclusion. I would like to close by congratulating the newly elected members of the Council: Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore. My delegation wishes them every success in their new responsibilities. We look forward to working with them in the coming year.

My delegation would like to join the preceding speakers in thanking the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia, for his lucid introduction of the Council’s annual report to this Assembly. Consideration of the report of the Council (A/55/2), pursuant to Article 15 and Article 24 of the Charter, provides us with the opportunity to reflect on the work of the United Nations principle body charged with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. This discussion is important both in terms of making constructive recommendations for further improvement of the Council’s work, as well as for coordinating activities between this Assembly and the Council. With respect to the latter, yesterday and this morning many interesting and practical proposals have been made which, if implemented, could contribute to enhancing the effectiveness of this principle organ of the United Nations. Speaking of the proposals made in the past in the General Assembly on enhancing the effectiveness of the Council, my delegation wonders if or in what setting or format the Council considers them and whether this Assembly could have some feedback on the multitude of proposals made so far. As is evident from the report, the Council has constantly been seized with many crisis situations that have called for prompt attention and action. We welcome the Council’s responses to these situations. However, some crisis situations, such as we are witnessing now in the Middle East, are not on its immediate agenda, which raises questions about selectivity of approaches to some difficult crisis situations. My delegation fully appreciates ongoing efforts to enhance the Council’s effectiveness and to assure greater participation by the non-member States of the Council in its work through organizing open, thematic debates and discussions on such issues as the protection of civilians in armed conflict, protection for humanitarian assistance to refugees, the plight of children in armed conflict, and so forth. The report before us contains an impressive record of the Council’s activities during the period under consideration. Furthermore, the brief description of informal consultations of the whole, of the monthly assessments of the Council presidents, as well as information on the work of some of its subsidiary bodies, are well documented in the report. My delegation wishes to emphasize its support for the current attempts to introduce more transparency to the Council’s activities. However, concerning the report’s format, we would like to reiterate, as we did last year, that the Council should strive to make it more analytical, rather than present it mainly as a compilation of adopted, and to many of us very familiar, documents. We agree that the current international situation requires a comprehensive approach to maintaining international peace and security. In that respect, we recognize that in recent years the Security Council has made concrete efforts to focus on specific questions with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. I would like to stress in particular the time and attention the Council has dedicated to the African continent — not only to its ongoing armed conflicts, but also to the acute economic and social problems there and to the devastating impact of AIDS on many African countries. Peacekeeping was another area on which the Council focused its attention. During the last several years the Council has made important efforts in this field. My delegation would like to underline the fact that the Organization’s role in the area of peacekeeping must be further increased and improved in the foreseeable future. The lessons of Srebrenica, Rwanda and Sierra Leone have made it abundantly clear that a thorough and critical review is needed to make peacekeeping operations succeed in meeting our commitment under the Charter. Like others who are deeply indebted to the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, which is chaired by Ambassador Brahimi and whose report (A/55/305) presented a frank analysis of the prevailing situation and forthright recommendations for change, we believe that the Panel’s report deserves serious consideration and prompt action. My delegation views the Council’s organization of informal consultations with the participation of troop-contributing countries as an important initiative that could be useful for finding more practical and adequate ways to increase the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. Like many previous speakers, we believe that the question of humanitarian intervention should be approached with the utmost caution. We believe that, although the principle of State sovereignty should not shield massive and gross violations of basic human rights, it should also not be ignored by the Council or by any of its members. As we are considering the Council’s annual report, we have to focus on its reform process — or, rather, the lack of it — as well. The efforts made so far to reform the Council have not brought us closer to resolving some of the fundamental issues on the agenda of the Open-ended Working Group. There is a great demand, and indeed a need, for speeding up the reform of the Council. Like many others, we also continue to believe that the expansion of the Council should take place in both the permanent and non-permanent categories. In the former category — along with the major industrialized Powers — representatives of developing countries from Asia, Africa and Latin America should be represented on the Council. A reasonable increase in non-permanent seats should reflect the representative character of the Council and enable a growing number of Member States to contribute to its work. An essential part of the reform process should be to deal with the power of the veto, whose use should be considerably curtailed. My delegation shares the view that the sanctions imposed by the Security Council, as provided for in Article 41 of the Charter, must be resorted to as an extreme measure. We believe that such an enforcement mechanism should be reconsidered as soon as its target or primary objective is realized. My delegation believes that everything must done by the international community to protect civilian populations from the devastating impact of sanctions. In this respect, we fully associate ourselves with the concrete suggestions made earlier in this debate by many delegations. In conclusion, allow me to assure the President that the Mongolian delegation will fully cooperate with him and with Member States in our common efforts to increase the role and efficiency of our Organization — and especially that of its two main organs, the General Assembly and the Security Council — at the dawn of this century.

The Angolan delegation takes this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia on his presentation of the annual report of the Security Council. I also join others in welcoming the report, which shows us part of the work done by the Security Council from June 1999 to June 2000, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations. Taking into account the primary task of the Security Council, which is to maintain international peace and security, I would like to express our sincere appreciation for the role played by the Council in the prevention of international wars and conflicts. However, allow me to make some remarks in this regard. Although efforts have been made by the Council to maintain peace and security, in my delegation’s view it has to seek a more effective war-prevention mechanism in order to avoid so many armed conflicts — in particular in Africa, where conflicts have become ever more deadly and devastating. We cannot ignore the role played by the Security Council in the settlement of crises and conflicts, but it is necessary to reinforce the role of the Council and the roles of the General Assembly and the Secretary- General so that they may fulfil their mandate. In order to achieve peace and security, the Council must also strengthen further its relationship with regional organizations, such as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), so that it may, through them, more effectively provide a forum for the settlement of conflicts and disputes and be able to deal with armed conflicts more decisively. With regard to Angola, I acknowledge the efforts made by the Security Council to find peace and stability, especially with its adoption of resolution 1295 (2000). However, I am convinced that the Council can do more by continuing to require States, private organizations and others to implement its sanctions. The Security Council has to further reinforce its action — as it has already done in some areas of the world — especially with regard to respect for its resolutions and to having every Member State follow up on those resolutions. This is an obligation under Article 25 of the Charter. It is time to live in peace and to rebuild the destroyed economy of Angola, and to provide the people with all that they need. Finally, with a view to strengthening the role of the United Nations, including the Security Council, I would like to emphasize the role that can be played by the Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization, by the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council and by the report (A/55/305) of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi. We should welcome all proposals and suggestions on this matter. I am sure that the present report of the Security Council is a document to reflect upon as we work towards peace and security.

When Canada ran for election to the Security Council, we promised that we would promote human security, strive for a more transparent Council and work towards a more effective and credible Council. In the intervening months we have worked hard to deliver on those commitments, and it is time for us to take stock. Canada has worked hard to help adapt the Council’s mandate and its working methods to the security and political realities of our day. We have sought to expand the traditional definition of security to include human security. The overwhelmingly civilian toll of modern conflict makes this not only a practical necessity but a moral imperative. (spoke in English) We have made some progress towards such a broader definition. Canada has consistently argued that the Security Council must give greater weight to human rights and humanitarian principles in deciding when to act. To that end, we promoted the protection of civilians in armed conflict as the major theme of our Council membership. The protection of civilians now figures more and more both in the Council’s discourse and in the actions it takes. The Council must ensure, however, that its engagement on these issues is not just rhetorical, but substantive and action-oriented. Kosovo was a hard lesson on the changed nature of security and the response it demands. That demand was faced again with the civilian suffering in East Timor. Each experience must lead us towards a more consistent approach to addressing new forms of conflict, particularly those marked by gross violations of human rights or massive human suffering. In the global age, mass victimization and abuse of people are not tolerable. State sovereignty cannot be a shield behind which such acts are perpetrated with impunity. There must be accountability, or there will be no stability. In addition to addressing fundamental questions of the Council’s mandate, Canada has supported efforts to reform the Council’s basic instruments for promoting peace, namely peacekeeping and sanctions. We remain concerned that mandates are not always equal to the realities on the ground, and that the resources provided to achieve those mandates are not always adequate. Too often, peacekeeping operations are unduly influenced by political considerations or financial considerations rather than by operational necessities. There are serious capacity problems within the Secretariat that must also be addressed. We therefore welcome the report (A/55/305) of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, which tackles these issues directly, with practical and practicable recommendations. We are pleased that the Security Council is now actively following up on the report, and we will do our part, both on and off the Council, to see that the Brahimi recommendations are implemented. We are encouraged by recent steps to improve the instrument of sanctions. In Angola, the Council has launched an unprecedented effort to make the sanctions against UNITA work. I am happy to take this opportunity to applaud the work of my predecessor, Bob Fowler, a friend of many in this Hall and, more important, a friend of the United Nations. He succeeded in showing that the United Nations means business when it imposes sanctions and that sanctions can have beneficial effects on the people in the targeted countries. I have no doubt, having just returned from Angola, that the work Bob Fowler has done has had very beneficial effects for the people of Angola. The new monitoring mechanism to promote compliance with the sanctions against UNITA provides a model that should be applied to other sanctions regimes to make them more credible and more effective. In Angola, we have seen how the identification of sanctions-busters — the naming and shaming of people who have flouted the will of the international community as expressed in the United Nations — can lead to tighter and better implementation of sanctions. We hope the Council will continue to build on that precedent. Canada has also been pleased to play a leading role in efforts to sharpen what has historically been one of the Council’s blunter instruments. We also welcome recent debates in the Council that have contributed to creating a culture of prevention. The risks and costs, both human and financial, of reacting to conflict once it has broken out must lead us to focus more sharply on prevention. But when our best efforts fail, the international community will be confronted again with the question of whether and how to step in to end and resolve conflict. This dilemma becomes more acute in the case of intra-State conflicts, particularly those involving human rights abuses or humanitarian emergencies. To help advance the debate on these questions, Canada has spearheaded the launch of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, the results of whose work will be made available to the General Assembly a year from now. Speaking here last month as Foreign Minister, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy expressed the hope that the Commission would defuse the concerns that surround the issues of intervention and sovereignty — which we understand — and help the international community grapple with this key security challenge of our day. As the Brundtland Commission did for economic development and environmental protection, we hope the new Commission will take two policy objectives considered by some to be incompatible, sovereignty and intervention, and produce a synthesis that we can all work with. We expect that the Commission’s findings will be of benefit to the Security Council and, in fact, to the United Nations membership as a whole, in the fulfilment of the Organization’s global security mandate. A word on Security Council reform. The global trend towards greater openness and democracy must be reflected in the Security Council. The legitimacy of its decisions hinges more and more on the way those decisions are reached and on the voices that are heard in the making of those decisions. Canada firmly believes that any expansion of the Council should be in the non-permanent category only. While the Council needs to mirror United Nations membership better, it is equally important that Security Council members be democratically elected and accountable to the membership as a whole, not merely to their own capitals. More vetoes would only give the Council political sclerosis. As for methods of work, the credibility of the Council and the action it mandates can only benefit from greater interaction with, and inclusion of, those who must ultimately give effect to its decisions. Since Canada joined the Council, we have seen positive steps towards more inclusive and flexible meeting formats and more thematic debates involving the wider United Nations membership. There have been inroads made into the Council’s traditionally secretive mode of operation. These gains must be carefully guarded and continually built upon by other reform-minded Council members. We strongly support, for example, meetings with troop-contributing countries whenever mandates are being drafted or revised. We also believe the Council should have available to it the best possible military advice and briefing before making peace operation decisions. The Council also needs to benefit more from interaction with regional organizations. Increased coordination and communication are required to ensure that regional efforts can get the backing they need from the Council. There is a particularly promising opportunity, which we discovered during our trip to West Africa last week, to work cooperatively with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). We should help strengthen that organization strengthen itself so that it can cooperate better with us. The sheer volume of the Security Council’s report to the Assembly reflects the reality of a heavy global security agenda and an increasingly busy Council. During our time on the Council, we have seen it become more deeply engaged in today’s security challenges, and that is only to be applauded. Canada supported, and continues to support, the sending of Council delegations to trouble spots, and has participated in some of them, most recently to Sierra Leone, in West Africa. That was a most timely initiative and can only benefit the Council and the Organization as a whole when it makes some of the more difficult decisions it is going to have to make in the coming days. We welcome such activism, and we commend it to others. (spoke in French) We believe it is fair to say that there is now greater convergence in the Council around common goals. The Council is increasingly united on which issues require its engagement and how that engagement can be most constructive. In Sierra Leone, there is a growing unity of purpose that can be harnessed to address in a resolute way the conflict and its regional dimensions. It was quite fitting that the first session of the General Assembly of this millennium should have been launched by a Summit of the world’s leaders. That Summit resulted in a renewed commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and a determination to adapt the Organization to the challenges of the new century. That same pledge was made by the leaders during the Security Council Summit. While many of the overarching issues of peace and security of the cold-war era have receded, the advent of new forms of conflict and human misery pose new challenges not only to world peace, but to our humanity. When we ran for election two years ago, we asked for the Assembly’s trust. We hope it will agree that we have done our best to merit it. (spoke in English) We congratulate the five countries elected to serve on the Council in 2001 and 2002 — Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore. We wish them and the 10 continuing members of the Council every success in making the Security Council a still more effective and more transparent instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security, including the security of people.

I would like to note that for a number of years New Zealand has been fortunate to have had a close working relationship with the delegation of Argentina on the working methods of the Security Council, particularly on issues relating to transparency. That delegation has informed me that it is happy to continue that relationship and that it wishes to be associated with this statement. I would also like join with others in expressing our appreciation to the Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Andjaba, for his presentation of the report contained in document A/55/2. The report continues the trend towards greater comprehensiveness. This too we welcome. We particularly appreciate the clear organization of the contents of the report, which allows for ease of reference by topic, chronology or theme. The period under review has been a very busy and productive one for the Council. We applaud, for example, the initiatives it has undertaken, including the dispatch of missions to East Timor and Indonesia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Kosovo, and most recently, of course, to West Africa. In this regard we would emphasize the importance of the Security Council mission scheduled to go again to Indonesia next month, as has been agreed with that country, given the continuing security problems in West Timor. We also greatly welcome the establishment by the Council over the past year of working groups to review or make recommendations upon thematic issues of particular importance, including the protection of civilians in armed conflict and improving the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions. We are very pleased to observe that there have also been significant strides made over the past year towards enhancing the Council’s working methods, thereby allowing Member States that are non-members of the Council some of the rights afforded them in the Charter. I refer in particular to the note by the President of the Council (S/1999/1291) issued one day before the eve of the new millennium, and for which Ambassador Greenstock acknowledged paternity in his statement earlier this morning. The note includes several measures designed to enhance the access of non-members to information and to participation in Council meetings. The fact that the note begins by recalling a presidential statement of December 1994 — when New Zealand and Argentina were last serving together on the Council — which contemplates an increased recourse to open meetings, is rather poignant. But then, what is six years in the scheme of things? As the Assembly knows, the measures unveiled at the end of December last year include: making available draft resolutions and presidential statements to non-members as soon as they are introduced to informal consultations of the whole; improving the quality of presidential briefings to non-members; distributing briefing notes on field operations to non-members in a timely manner; and the stipulation of a range of meeting options whose formats provide for greater participation by non-members. I would also like to mention the note by the President of the Council (S/2000/155), issued on 28 February during the Argentine presidency. This note formalizes a proposal, put forward by this delegation, that newly elected members of the Council be invited to observe the Council’s informal consultations for a period of one month immediately preceding their term of membership. This proposal will provide for more transparency and allow new members to acquaint themselves in advance with the customary procedures and practice of Council members at these informal meetings. These steps towards increased transparency, even if slow in coming and representing a delicate compromise, are nevertheless very welcome. My delegation, no doubt like many others, especially values the opportunity to attend briefings of the Council by senior Secretariat officials on items of importance to us, particularly in cases where we are contributing troops. In our view, the measures regarding the participation of non-members in Council meetings should be incorporated into the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, which in turn should be reviewed and finalized. Nevertheless, despite this progress, implementation of the new procedures has at times seemed incomplete and uncertain. In addition, the undue preponderance of informal consultations of the whole, as compared with formal meetings, continued to be a feature of the Council’s conduct of its business throughout the period under review. We accept that such consultations can have their uses, but these should not include closing off the real business of the Organization to the public. Rule 48 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure states that “Unless it decides otherwise, the Security Council shall meet in public”. In the view of our delegations, this rule makes it very clear that the Council should, as a general rule, meet in public. Only under exceptional circumstances should it meet in private or, indeed, in informal consultations. This year’s report, however, suggests that over 60 per cent of the Council’s business was conducted in informal sessions. We would also remind the Secretariat that the Security Council comprises 15 members and that its practice of sometimes consulting on certain issues with the five permanent members only must stop. The improvements in transparency that I have touched on have not come about easily. We thank those members of the Council that have successfully promoted change over the past year. We wish the new elected members — Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore — every success in the continuing effort to make the Council more democratic and accountable. We also pay tribute to the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform, which has worked tirelessly to bring issues of transparency to the fore. We would reiterate that the Open-ended Working Group continues to be the appropriate forum in which to pursue reform of the Security Council. If, as one delegation suggested yesterday, there is indeed a minority holding reform hostage, then clearly it is the five permanent members on the question of the veto. In this regard, the Permanent Representative of Canada earlier referred to the problem of sclerosis in the Council. Finally, we look forward to the implementation of many of the improvements suggested in the Brahimi report and we are pleased that the Council has established a working group on this important subject. The implementation of the recommendation in paragraph 64 (d) of the report that countries that have committed military units to an operation should have access to Secretariat briefings to the Council on matters affecting the safety and security of their personnel is of particular importance to us. We recall that our delegations were at the forefront of efforts in 1994 to establish the practice of regular consultations with troop contributors. The influence brought to bear by some members of the Council and by the General Assembly has achieved results. We are all aware of the heavy responsibilities of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security, and we have recently been reminded by our leaders of the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy- making and representative organ of the United Nations. We are confident that under our President’s guidance further progress will be made in improving the relationship between the Security Council and the wider membership, particularly the General Assembly, which is so critical to the overall health of the Organization.

First of all, I should like to associate myself with previous speakers in thanking the President of the Security Council, the Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Martin Andjaba, for his introduction of the report of the Security Council. We attach the greatest importance to consideration of this question, as the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, has the major responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The report paints an impressive picture of the serious efforts of the Council to respond to critical situations that have emerged in various parts of the world and have represented a threat to peace. The figures relating to the number of formal meetings, informal consultations, resolutions adopted and presidential statements issued not only bear witness to the ever-increasing volume of work that the Security Council is now carrying out under an extraordinarily heavy schedule, but also attest to the growing expectations of the international community regarding the Council’s responses to conflicts emerging throughout the world. The situation in the Balkans, Abkhazia, Georgia, the Middle East, East Timor and Cyprus, on the African continent, and in Afghanistan are only some of the urgent issues on today’s political map that remain the focus of the Council’s attention. We cannot fail to note that during the period covered by the report, the Security Council significantly expanded its agenda, and is now dealing with such pressing and drastic problems of our time as the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the spread of light weapons and the threat of the large-scale spread of AIDS, among other issues. We believe it to be significant that the subjects taken up by the Council for discussion have not only reverberated widely throughout the world but — and this is particularly important — have promoted the adoption of new, consolidated approaches and in search for answers to contemporary challenges. Unfortunately, during this period there was no decline in conflicts throughout the world. The number of problems that, directly or indirectly, affect the maintenance of international peace and security has not declined. The evidence tells us that in the twenty-first century the Security Council will have to step up its efforts to alleviate human suffering. Judging by the challenges of our time, the range of questions will remain rather broad and cover all the fundamental aspects of the maintenance of peace and security, including some that today we can only guess at. The delegation of Tajikistan believes that the enormous experience acquired by the Council during the past decade, including that based on trial and error, requires in-depth analysis and reflection. With the end of the cold war, the situation on our planet has radically changed. The number of States in which democratic forms of Government has been established has doubled. At the same time, however, humankind has witnessed numerous, often violent challenges to democratic rule. The Security Council has energetically and creatively responded to the new political realities of our time. It was, in fact, during the last decade of the twentieth century that the Council’s activity showed many new features that significantly enriched its work, including a higher level of transparency. A study could be prepared, with the involvement of the Ambassadors of States participating in the work of the Security Council, to cover not only all aspects of the activity of this key body of the United Nations but also progress achieved in improving the working methods of the Council and non-standard approaches to resolving the complex issues facing the Council at the threshold between eras. Let us take, for example, the Council agenda item entitled “The situation in Tajikistan and along the Tajik-Afghan border”. The few brief lines of the Council’s report cover the seven-year history of my country, which includes the efforts of many people and States aimed at assisting in settling the inter-Tajik conflict. Today there is peace in Tajikistan. There has been a consolidation of power, whose mandate, for the first time in our new history, has been to hold multi- party pluralist elections. There has been a strengthening of democratic institutions, making the gains of the peace process more durable, but the road to this achievement was no simple one. It required enormous political will, not only from the parties to the inter-Tajik conflict, but also from all States interested in a peaceful settlement. Tajikistan could not alone have coped with all of the problems facing it. Comprehensive international assistance and support have played an enormous role in overcoming the crisis period that Tajik society went through. Today’s meeting provides us with an excellent opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all States that have made a contribution to the establishment of peace in Tajikistan — first and foremost, this applies to the Members of the Security Council, which includes, over the years that the situation in Tajikistan was on the agenda, the representatives of more than 40 States. We should like also to express gratitude to the Special Envoys and Special Representatives of the United Nations Secretary-General, to the leaders of United Nations groups and missions, to all the men and women who have given of their talents and themselves, and sometimes given their lives, for the cause of peace in Tajikistan. The United Nations and the Security Council can rightfully and proudly add to the list of their positive, peacekeeping achievements the assistance they provided to Tajikistan in the pursuit of a political settlement to an armed conflict. As a direct party to the joint seven-year-long search for a formula for peace in Tajikistan, I would like to pay due tribute to the Security Council, which, in a most worthy manner, rose fully to meet the challenges of this exceedingly complex work. It is important that the Council not only assisted in the establishment of peace and stability in my country, but also responded positively, upon the conclusion of the peace process, to the Secretary- General’s proposal to establish a United Nations office to promote post-conflict peace-building in Tajikistan. We are confident that the activity of that office, as well as focused support for Tajikistan from the international community, will play an important role in the economic revival of the country and will assist in the strengthening of peace and stability throughout the entire region of Central Asia. In conclusion, allow me once again to express the highest praise for the activity of the United Nations Security Council. I would like to wish the recently elected new members of the Council — Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore — success in their extremely important activity to further the cause of peace and stability on our Earth.

I should like to renew the warm congratulations of the Nigerian delegation and reassure you, Sir, of our support and cooperation. May I also express our appreciation to the current President of the Security Council, Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia, for his important statement introducing the comprehensive report of the Security Council. We equally commend the Secretariat for the quality of the report. The report of the Security Council provides the General Assembly with an invaluable insight into the activities of the Council in the past year. Our debate on the report should reflect the cooperation that exists between these two principal organs of the United Nations charged with the promotion of international peace, security and development. As the first report of this new millennium, it deserves our special attention. This is even more true in light of the historic decisions taken by our leaders at the Millennium Summit last month. In this connection, I wish to recall that at that Summit, Member States reaffirmed their faith in the Organization and its Charter as the indispensable foundation of a more peaceful, prosperous and just world. The Security Council has, in recent times, operated and discharged its obligations under the United Nations Charter with greater sensitivity to the interests of Member States of our Organization. Significantly, the report indicates that some of the measures taken by the Council with regard to the conflict situations in the African region, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Ethiopia/Eritrea and Sierra Leone, are beginning to have some salutary effects. We wish to commend the Security Council for the initiative of sending Council members to conflict areas in different parts of the world. In our continent, Ambassador Richard Holbrooke of the United States led a team to Central and East Africa last April. Another team of the Council, led by Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock of the United Kingdom, has just returned from West Africa as part of the search for durable peace and security in that subregion. These visits have certainly exposed members of the Council to the challenges present in the theatre of conflict, as well as boosted the morale of peacekeepers, whom we highly commend for their selfless service and sacrifice. In our region, we have also endeavoured to maintain regular contacts and consultations with the Security Council. It is important to recall that some African leaders met with members of the Council in January of this year concerning the restoration of lasting peace to the Great Lakes region, particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Twice, the Council was honoured by the presence of President Nelson Mandela, who is deploying his best efforts to bring peace to Burundi. Last June, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Ministerial Mediation and Security Committee on Sierra Leone, led by the Malian Foreign Minister, Mr. Modibo Sidibe, held extensive consultation with Council members on the current situation in Sierra Leone. Undoubtedly, the close consultation resulting from these visits and contacts has contributed to a greater appreciation of all the issues involved in the conflicts in our region. In addition, it has played a significant role in renewing the confidence of our subregion and, indeed, our continent, that the Security Council is truly responsible for international peace and security. This approach of holding consultations with regional leaders should therefore be sustained. Our efforts at addressing conflict situations in the world, especially in Africa, will not yield the desired results unless we can confront new security challenges posed by poverty and disease, intolerance and discrimination, human rights abuses and disregard of the rule of law. Happily, it is gratifying to note that the Security Council is increasingly turning its attention to non-military threats to international peace and security, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The Nigerian delegation is of the view that malaria poses as great a threat as HIV/AIDS to international peace and security and therefore invites the Security Council to address this scourge. It is equally reassuring that the Security Council is seized with the problems arising from children and women in armed conflicts. The concern of the international community with these problems has been amply captured in the report of Ambassador Olara Otunnu. We commend him for all his efforts to sensitize the world community to the plight of children in armed conflict. The international community needs to be more forceful in bringing to justice all those who commit war crimes, particularly against women and children. It is our firm belief that, once it is generally acknowledged across the globe that such crimes will not go unpunished, the potential perpetrators of such heinous crimes will be deterred. In Africa, we have initiated measures to address the root causes of conflicts with a strong commitment to launching the continent on the path of sustainable development. Within the past year, the ministerial Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa has been established to enhance and reinforce our capacity for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts within the framework of the Organization of African Unity. We are confident that this initiative will receive the desired support of the international community. Another area of concern that requires the immediate attention of the international community is the current political situation in our subregion, particularly in Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia. We hope that the recent visit of members of the Council to the subregion will contribute to the amicable resolution of the differences between Liberia and Guinea. In our view, members of the Security Council can and should play a major role in supporting the efforts of ECOWAS and African leaders in the peaceful resolution of the current crisis in Côte d’Ivoire. In this respect, preventive diplomacy dictates that the United Nations should take urgent measures to reinforce the efforts of ECOWAS and African leaders, such as the deployment of a good-offices mission to that country. In recent years, States members of the Economic Community of West African States have demonstrated the political will to assume responsibility for peace and security in our subregion. ECOWAS leaders have actively participated in the search for peace in crisis- torn countries. They have, in the past few years, deployed peacekeeping forces within the subregion at enormous cost in men and matériel. Our experience in Liberia and Sierra Leone has proved that such regional peacekeeping operations, undertaken by ECOWAS through its Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), can be effective tools for the maintenance of international peace and security, thereby complementing the work of the Council, as envisaged under the Charter. We therefore urge that such regional initiatives receive commensurate support to enable them discharge their mandate. One positive development that deserves commendation is the smooth transition between the ECOWAS peacekeeping operation, ECOMOG, and the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone. This clearly shows that, where there is political will, subregional and regional organizations and the United Nations can work together in furtherance of international peace and security. The role of the Secretary-General in facilitating this process should be commended. The experience of our Organization in the area of peacekeeping and peace-building over the years has demonstrated the urgency of the need to review and strengthen the mechanism for achieving our shared goals in this vital area. We therefore commend the Secretary-General for his foresight in constituting the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi, to address the attendant challenges. The Panel’s recommendations deserve careful attention, particularly those aspects that seek to protect and maintain the integrity of the United Nations peacekeeping forces. As a troop-contributing country, Nigeria is of the firm belief that Member States should never tolerate situations in which the safety and security of United Nations peacekeepers are compromised. This commitment we owe to the brave and dedicated officers and men, as well as the civilian personnel, who serve under the United Nations blue beret. The reform of the Security Council constitutes one of the major challenges facing the United Nations in the new millennium. We reiterate that, for the Council to discharge its Charter obligations effectively, it must be truly representative of the States Members of this Organization. It should continue to improve its working methods and make them transparent for the benefit of all countries. That is the only way that the Council can enhance the legitimacy of its decisions, as well as attract the broad support of Member States. May I at this juncture extend the warm congratulations of the Nigerian delegation to the newly elected non-permanent members of the Security Council for the period 2001-2002: Mauritius, Singapore, Colombia, Ireland and Norway. In conclusion, I wish to convey the appreciation of the Government and people of Nigeria to the Secretary-General for the efforts he has deployed and continues to deploy towards the resolution of conflicts across the globe, particularly on our continent.

I wish to thank Ambassador Martin Andjaba, President of the Security Council, for his presentation of the fifty-fifth annual report of the Council. The consideration of the report provides a formal occasion for the General Assembly to deliberate on the work of the Security Council — its substantive content and the working methods. We shall try to give our impression of the Council’s work as an elected member since January this year. Before we start, however, let me convey our warmest congratulations to the newly elected members of the Council: Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore. We look forward to working closely with them in the Council. The reporting period — mid-June 1999 to mid-July 2000 — represents significant developments in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security. First, the period saw the Council playing a more proactive role. This has been discernible from the Council’s assumption of primary responsibility in major crisis situations: Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Kosovo, the United Nations has assumed an Interim Administration Mission. In East Timor, the United Nations is providing for transitional administration, assisting the people to emerge as an independent nation. In Sierra Leone the Council has authorized the largest of the current peacekeeping operations. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo it mandated a sizeable peacekeeping mission to assist implementation of the Lusaka ceasefire agreement. However, the deployment and operation of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have been facing difficulties, as the parties to the peace agreement have failed to commit themselves to its effective implementation. Elsewhere, the Council remained actively seized of the situations and took appropriate action. The Council mission to Dili and Jakarta led by Ambassador Andjaba has been crowned with success. Earlier this year, the Council demonstrated its active pursuit of peace by sending a special mission to Kosovo. It sent another mission of critical importance to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the subregion under the leadership of Ambassador Holbrooke. The mission was also dispatched on an emergency basis to Ethiopia and Eritrea before the outbreak of war in that part of the world. These initiatives notwithstanding, the Council’s inability to act on the situation between Eritrea and Ethiopia in time has been criticized, perhaps justly so. Bangladesh, an elected member, made its endeavours in vain for Council action before another conflagration took place. The Council did assign its Democratic Republic of the Congo mission to make ultimate démarches at Asmara and Addis Ababa. But if the initiative was not considered too little, it appeared to come too late. The responsibilities are, as we all know, shared. The war in the Horn demonstrated once again the need for closer coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. Secondly, we note a substantive evolution in the Council’s perception of peace and security. The Security Council, as has been argued, is no longer seen as a fire brigade, acting only when a conflict flares up. During the period under review, the Council devoted a considerable amount of its time and attention to areas beyond peacekeeping — conflict prevention, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building. The challenge of maintaining international peace and security is now recognized as a continuing process requiring an integrated approach and involving all actors. There is a growing recognition that while the Security Council has the primary responsibility in matters of war and peace, all other organs of the United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the regional and subregional organizations, the non-governmental organizations and other members of civil society have their role and responsibility in promoting and sustaining international peace and security. Bangladesh has contributed to the evolving trend, including during our presidency of the Council in March. The concept of international peace and security has been revisited during several open debates that focused on protection of civilians in armed conflict, humanitarian issues before the Council and protection of children in armed conflict. The question of State sovereignty and humanitarian intervention was raised in this context. The debates have revealed that peace and security should ultimately be conceived in terms of human security. The third major development we would note is the growing collaboration between and among the major organs of the United Nations, specialized agencies and other bodies and the Bretton Woods institutions. It is recognized that durable peace cannot be achieved without effectively addressing the root causes of conflicts. It is also recognized that each of the actors has its respective role to play. The decisions and deliberations of the General Assembly have found greater reflection in the work of the Council, and cooperation between the two bodies has expanded. In the context of collaboration between the General Assembly and the Security Council, we would mention the participation by three Council Presidents in the 8 March meeting of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council. The Council’s continued commitment to and support of post-conflict peace-building support missions are examples of the exercise of responsibility shared with the Secretary-General, the Economic and Social Council and the specialized agencies. The Secretary-General has remained deeply involved in the work of the Council, participating in its deliberations, sharing information and analysis, providing advice and bringing his own contribution to the peace efforts. His initiative in having a seminal report on United Nations peace operations by the Brahimi panel has been greeted as an outstanding contribution. The Council has deepened the scope of free exchange of views with the Secretary-General through such mechanisms as the monthly luncheon, tour d’horizon meetings, monthly wrap-up sessions and the annual retreat with the Council members. The growing cooperation with non-governmental organizations is a distinct and welcome development. The Council has recognized the need for an effective partnership by engaging in dialogue with the non-governmental organizations in its Arria Formula meetings. The fourth area of notable forward movement is the sanctions regime. The sanctions regimes and their effectiveness and impact formed one of the major concerns voiced in the General Assembly. The Security Council has set up for the first time in its history a Working Group on General Issues on Sanctions. The deliberations of the Working Group are expected to produce practical recommendations for streamlining sanctions regimes and setting standards for United Nations sanctions. In addition, the implementation of recommendations contained in the 29 January 1999 note by the President of the Security Council will be treated as an independent item along with the clusters agreed upon by the Council. There has been remarkable progress in making some of the sanctions regimes more effective and more targeted, those in respect of Angola and Sierra Leone in particular. Ambassador Heinbecker of Canada referred to these positive developments. The fifth area on which I would say a few words concerns transparency, openness and participation. Ambassador Powles of New Zealand focused on the issues in great detail. As the statistics show, during the period of the report, the Council had 144 public meetings and 194 informal consultations. This is significant change compared to the previous year, when it had only 121 public meetings as opposed to 239 informal consultations. The briefing of the non-members of the Council by the presidency has been greeted as a real-time transparency. During Bangladesh’s presidency we briefed the non-members after each informal consultations, without exception. This was part of our commitment to the broader membership to keep them properly informed of the substantive content of the discussion at the informal consultations. By raising the level from our side we hoped to attract greater participation of the broader membership for whom the briefing is meant. We would strongly plead for strengthening this institution as a forum for information exchange between the Council and the broader membership. During the Bangladesh presidency, we submitted draft notes proposing improvement in some aspects of the Council’s documentation and procedures. The Council agreed on the basis of our proposal for distribution of the text of statements within the Council Chamber to all participants, thus making copies of statements instantly available to all members. As a member of the Council, we have actively sought to promote wider participation of the broader membership in the work of the Council. The participation of members of the Peace Implementation Council in the open briefing on Bosnia and Herzegovina marked a departure from the oft-followed practice of having consultations or private meetings on the issue. The holding of a public meeting on the humanitarian situation in Iraq marked a major breakthrough in several years on this issue. Public meetings were held on such sensitive issues as Angola sanctions. We believe that Council meetings on consideration of the reports of the Secretary-General that are public documents can be also held in public. The public meetings on East Timor, Tajikistan and Guinea-Bissau held in March followed this logic. We have touched briefly on some of the major trends and developments in the Security Council and its work. First and foremost, the Security Council will be evaluated on its success in peacekeeping. Members of the Council, meeting at the highest level on 7 September, expressed their commitment to that end. But the Council cannot do it alone. The Security Council Working Group on the Brahimi Panel report (S/2000/809) is examining the recommendations on matters within the Council’s responsibilities. The Council will certainly agree to most of the recommendations, and it will possibly reach consensus on transforming them into decisions. But most of the recommendations will remain on the shelf, unless conditions for their effective implementation are met. The removal of the budget cap is fundamental to any substantive forward movement in this regard. Resolution of the question of the scale of assessment will also be essential. We believe that this issue can be resolved with a courageous, open-minded and positive approach. For us, strengthening the United Nations should be the primary consideration. A basic problem facing peace operations is the commitment gap in terms of troops and other personnel, particularly civilian police. The problem of equipment is also serious. These problems cannot be resolved by procedural manoeuvres. Their resolution will require the assumption of shared responsibility by all Members of the Organization in accordance with their undertaking in Article 43 of the Charter. In recent months increased emphasis has been placed on the deployment of well-trained, well- equipped and well-motivated troops. The Brahimi recommendations for a clear, credible and achievable mandate and robust rules of engagement for peacekeepers to protect themselves and other mission components have strengthened that demand. In military doctrine, the United Nations peacekeeping forces must have effective deterrent capability. The question arises: Where do these troops come from? We believe that participation by the most capable Members of the United Nations is essential in order to render peace operations credible and achievable. One way to close the commitment gap would be to have each of the permanent members of the Council — given their special status, responsibility and capacity — contribute 5 per cent of the troops required for any peacekeeping mission, thus providing 25 per cent of the total needed. That would ensure a quarter of the well-trained, well-equipped and well- motivated troops. They would be ready for rapid deployment, and would bring the power of deterrence as well as the capacity for emergency rescue and evacuation. Let me conclude by saying that saving people from the scourge of war is the basic purpose of the United Nations. The objective is to create a situation allowing the employment of international machinery and resources for the economic and social advancement of all peoples. Bangladesh will continue to play an active role in promoting this objective.

At the outset my delegation would like to thank the President of the Security Council for the month of October, Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia, for his comprehensive report on the work of the Council covering the period from 16 June 1999 to l5 June 2000. It is also my pleasure once again to extend my congratulations to the delegations of Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore on their election as non-permanent members of the Council. We are sure that they will discharge their tasks in a way that will strengthen the work of the Council. Consideration of the report provides an opportunity to strengthen relations between the Security Council and the General Assembly in the maintenance of peace and international security, as it is also the major mechanism under the Charter for the follow-up and evaluation of the work that the Council carries out on behalf of Member States and in implementation of their recommendations and decisions. The report includes the Council’s intensive activities over the year that has just elapsed in the context of its discharge of its responsibilities in the area of international peace and security. We are gratified to note that the Council has given due priority, as required by the community of States, to the settlement of disputes in Africa. I also note with satisfaction the new orientation of the Council in discharging its tasks and in recovering its role regarding problems that have been outstanding for many years, particularly the implementation of Security Council resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978), by which Lebanon has been able to restore its sovereignty in southern Lebanon. The fact that the Council is discharging its responsibilities regarding events in Palestinian occupied territory by adopting Security Council resolution 1322 (2000), with its request to the Secretary-General for a close follow-up of the situation, is an important indication of the pivotal role of the Council in considering issues of peace and security. This responsibility of the Council is indispensable and cannot be marginalized. We also take note of the increased awareness of the Council of the challenges faced by the international community in the area of peace and international security. The summit meeting held by the Council on 7 September was an opportunity for identifying these challenges and for taking the necessary measures to ensure the effectiveness of its role in this vital field especially in Africa. We hope that during consideration of the issues before it the Council will hold to the commitments of the summit, in accordance with the letter of the Charter, and will step up cooperation with other United Nations bodies — in particular, the General Assembly. It should do so on the understanding that the maintenance of international peace and security is a multidimensional concept that requires the intervention of various specialized organs of the United Nations in terms of an integral and global strategy aimed at preventing conflicts and putting an end to their root causes, which are economic and social factors — above all, poverty and marginalization. Moreover, we hope that the Council and the Assembly will attach due attention to the recommendations of the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) on peacekeeping issues and will consider those recommendations in depth, in order to take the necessary measures and decisions based on the principle of collective responsibility for issues of peace and security throughout the world. This report, issued at approximately the time of the holding of the Millennium Summit and the Council Summit, shows that there is a dialectic within the issues of international peace and security in the light of the new problem before us, and shows how to tackle this problem in a more realistic manner, given the specific characteristics of each conflict and area of tension. I take this opportunity to reaffirm our principled commitment to international peace and security and our support for peacekeeping operations, in which we have been participating since the 1960s. Like other delegations, we are aware of the progress made in the working methods of the Council and efforts to increase its transparency. We support this approach, which has become evident in many plenary meetings during the period covered by the report. We have also noted that the Council has made use of direct consultations with parties to conflict at high levels, which can improve decision-making mechanisms in the Council. The measures undertaken by the Council to improve its working methods have often contributed to helping it carry out its responsibilities in a more effective and positive manner by listening to the viewpoints of the parties to conflict. We believe that sending Security Council missions to areas of conflict is one of the Council’s working methods that have made it possible for members to become aware of developments in such areas of conflict and to adopt the necessary strategies to settle these effectively, especially since reports of these missions have been discussed at plenary meetings with the participation of Member States of the Organization. Finally, it is important that the Council discharge its mandates more effectively. This requires greater transparency, particularly when we take into account the great number of issues under consideration and the need to resolve them effectively. We attach great importance to the need to consider the proposals made within the framework of the General Assembly Working Group on Security Council reform in order to strengthen its credibility. We hope that by enhancing the transparency of its work we shall make the Council’s working methods more effective. In this context, we believe that the Council should do the following: first, improve the annual report so that it is no longer a ritual presentation of resolutions and decisions adopted, but rather an analysis, allowing non-members to familiarize themselves with the motives behind the Council’s decisions and positions; secondly, allow non-members to participate in its work by holding more plenary meetings open to all Members of the United Nations; thirdly, respect Articles 31 and 32 of the Charter, concerning the participation of non-members that are parties to disputes under consideration or that have interests at stake, to enable them to participate in the work of the Council during consideration of such disputes; fourthly, intensify direct consultations between the Council and troop-contributing countries at all stages of maintaining peace, particularly when changing the mandate of such peacekeeping operations; and, fifthly, improve sanctions regimes so that they may achieve the desired results by imposing binding measures in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter. In this context, we would like to emphasize the need to make recommendations on sanctions regimes within the relevant Working Group and to submit them to the Council. We emphasize the importance of setting standards and objectives for those sanctions as well as a temporal framework and mechanisms for lifting sanctions, especially considering their harmful effects on the people of the targeted country as well as on third countries. Once again, we urge the Council to implement the mechanism in Article 50 of the Charter in this regard. In any case, the Council’s initiative for suspending sanctions against Libya has had a positive effect. This is a timely initiative on the path to a final and complete lifting of sanctions. The challenges posed by peace and security require greater cooperation and coordination between principal United Nations bodies and a strengthened role of the Council to meet the needs of Member States through greater transparency in its working methods and by guaranteeing better representation, in accordance with the will of the international community. This must be done with respect to the mandates of the various United Nations bodies in accordance with the Charter. My delegation hopes that the Council will include these principles in its upcoming reports, as well as the will to take into consideration the constructive ideas submitted by Member States.

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation to the Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Martin Andjaba, for introducing the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly. We attach great importance to the presentation of the report, pursuant to Articles 15 and 24 of the Charter, which entrust the General Assembly with considering the account of measures the Security Council takes to maintain international peace and security. This responsibility emanates essentially from Article 11, which authorizes the General Assembly to consider general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security. Article 24 of the Charter states that the Members of the United Nations confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. As we enter the new millennium, there is a need to reflect on how the extent to which the Security Council has fulfilled its Charter obligations in creating a secure and peaceful global environment. There is a widely held view that the Security Council has finally come out of its cold-war inertia. It now meets more often and seems to be performing a more proactive role than before, though not necessarily a more effective one. Hence, there is considerable scope for further improvement. In the post-cold-war era, the number of internecine and intra-State conflicts, and their devastation, has increased manifold, which is a matter of concern to all of us. At the same time, long-standing disputes and conflicts in various parts of the world remain unresolved. We believe that the intensity and number of conflicts could be minimized if a sufficient degree of commitment, concern, engagement, objectivity and even-handedness were demonstrated by the Security Council. The Council is empowered to call upon parties to settle their disputes, for which ways and means are provided in the Charter — including a mechanism for conflict prevention. Responsibility in this regard should not be evaded on the pretext that disputes should be resolved only bilaterally by the parties concerned. If that were the case, then the question would arise as to what the role of the Security Council is in the maintenance of international peace and security. Selectivity in the implementation of Security Council resolutions has also raised serious questions about its credibility and authority. The general impression that the Council applies different standards to conflicts in different parts of the world must not be allowed to become a general conviction. All resolutions of the Council must be implemented without any discrimination. The Jammu and Kashmir dispute, involving the destiny of 10 million people, is a case in point, where the Council’s resolutions pledging them their right to self-determination have remained unimplemented for over half a century. The progress achieved in East Timor must serve as a model for resolving the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir, in conformity with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The Security Council has also been subjected to criticism recently for not having been able to put up rapid and effective responses to crisis situations. This has been so owing to various reasons, including lack of determination on the part of the members of the Council. The report of the Brahimi Panel has aptly highlighted that point. We would like to emphasize the need for early and effective responses to crisis situations, irrespective of their geographical location. Such a course of action would obviate the possibility of bypassing the Security Council, as we observed during the crisis in Kosovo, due to differing perceptions among its members. The credibility of the Security Council is undermined each time it ignores a conflict and leaves it to the parties to resolve, or when regional organizations are asked to field for the United Nations. While cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations should be improved, we firmly believe that regional organizations can play only a limited role in the prevention of armed conflict, in consonance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. It is the Security Council that has the primary responsibility for conflict prevention and dispute resolution. We are disappointed at the failure of the Security Council to list political disputes as one of the root causes of conflict in its presidential statement issued after its open debate on 20 July 2000. That statement listed only economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems as the root causes of armed conflicts. Is that the reality? This is not an adequate assessment of ongoing conflicts. The Secretary-General’s notification to the General Assembly, contained in document A/55/366, pursuant to Article 12 of the Charter, which we considered in this forum earlier this week, lists all the issues that are on the agenda of the Security Council — the overwhelming number of which are political in nature. We have also noted recently a growing propensity to expand the role of the Security Council beyond its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. Efforts are being made to broaden the Council’s agenda by including HIV/AIDS, civilians and children in armed conflict, women and peace and security, protection of humanitarian and United Nations personnel, human rights, international law and disarmament issues. These subjects clearly fall in the domain of the General Assembly and its various bodies. Another aspect that needs in-depth review is the issue of sanctions imposed by the Security Council, because of their enormous adverse impact on common people. It is an established fact that sanctions often tend to violate the fundamental rights of common people in targeted countries, such as the right to live, the right to freedom from hunger, the right to education and the right to development. We therefore hesitate to subscribe to the view that there can be any so-called smart sanctions. I will now briefly touch upon some of the current working practices of the Security Council. Closed- door, or informal, consultations remain the rule rather than the exception for meetings of the Security Council. Open, or public, meetings take place only after behind-doors agreements have been reached. In the process, we have witnessed the invisible use of the veto time and again. This practice of informal consultations runs contrary to the requirements of transparency and accountability. Another recent innovation in Council meetings is the holding of open thematic debates. We wonder about the utility of such meetings. As we understand it, that practice was introduced to enable Member States to express their views on any given theme or issue, which then would be taken into account by the Council at the time of decision-making. In reality, in most cases members of the Council finalize draft resolutions or presidential statements in advance of the holding of an open meeting. The script is already decided, only to be subsequently enacted. In the event, such debates in an open meeting become a sterile exercise in which Member States are heard but not listened to. The United Nations, which is facing grave and real challenges of peace and security, cannot afford this dramatization. Having said that, I must also place on record our appreciation to the members of the Council who have contributed to bringing about greater transparency in the Council’s working methods and practices. That trend needs to be further encouraged and reinforced. In our view, these progressive changes will strengthen the credibility of the Security Council. During the Millennium Summit, our heads of State or Government issued a call for the comprehensive reform of the Security Council in all its aspects. Such reform must encompass the issues of expansion, of the Council’s decision-making and the related question of the veto, and of the Council’s working methods. In our view, the objective of the reform exercise should be to make the Council more democratic, representative, participatory and accountable. Special powers and prerogatives are anachronistic and are not consistent with the principle of sovereign equality or with the values that provide the legal and moral basis of the Charter of the United Nations. There is no room for an increase in the existing oligarchy within the Council. We must avoid aggravating the existing imbalance. The general membership’s trust and confidence in the Security Council can be reinforced only by strengthening the Council’s democratic and participatory character. I would like in conclusion to congratulate Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore on their election to membership of the Council last week. We look forward to working very closely with them in pursuit of global peace, security and prosperity. I would also like to pay tribute to the outgoing members of the Council for their important contribution to enhancing the role and effectiveness of the Council and to the promotion of international peace and security.

As this is my first statement before the historic Millennium Assembly, I wish warmly to congratulate Mr. Harri Holkeri of Finland on his election to the presidency of the Assembly at its fifty-fifth session. We are fully confident that he will lead our deliberations to a successful outcome. I take this opportunity also to congratulate the States that were elected last week to membership of the Security Council, and to wish them every success. My thanks go to the outgoing members of the Council for all their efforts in the service of international peace and security, which we greatly appreciate. I am sure that all members will recall that one of the most important elements of the Millennium Declaration was its reaffirmation of the need to enhance the central position of the General Assembly within the United Nations system. We believe that it up to us, at this Millennium Assembly, to translate the words of the Declaration into reality. That is the context in which I shall address the item entitled “Report of the Security Council”. I call for improvements in the report so that it can contribute to enhancing the role of the General Assembly. Before turning to details, let me thank Ambassador Martin Andjaba, Permanent Representative of Namibia to the United Nations and current President of the Security Council, for his introduction of the Council’s report (A/55/2) to the General Assembly. States Members of the United Nations have the right to ample and comprehensive information about the activities of the Security Council at the proper time, when that information is needed to enable them, through the General Assembly, to participate effectively in the search for solutions to threats to international peace and security. That, unfortunately, is not the case at present. All that is available is this annual report to the General Assembly, and this does not give rise to vital, effective interaction between these two important organs — the General Assembly and the Security Council — in keeping with the hopes of the entire international community. In our view, one of the most important factors limiting the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council is the nature of this annual report. Besides being submitted only once a year, it is no more than a chronological listing of the items and matters before the Security Council, and contains no explanation of what took place on the sidelines during the informal meetings that have in fact become the basis of the Council’s work. Unless it fully reflects the deliberations of the members of the Council in their informal meetings and contains details about how resolutions came to be adopted, the report will be of little importance and of little practical use to the Assembly, and will only confirm the belief held by many both within and outside the United Nations that the Council’s work is marked by secrecy and a lack of transparency. Let me recall an article that appeared in The New York Times of 6 March 1998 on the Security Council’s culture of secrecy. As we carefully followed the work of the Open-ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation on and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters related to the Security Council over the past four years, we submitted a number of practical proposals on enhancing and promoting the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council. These included consultations between the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council, with regular meetings whenever an event occurs that needs the participation of the entire membership of the United Nations to find a solution. Unfortunately, such meetings have not taken place. We also proposed periodic reports to the General Assembly, whenever necessary; nor has this proposal been implemented. Article 24 of the Charter, which entrusts the Security Council with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, on behalf of all the Members of the United Nations, also requires the Council to submit annual, and, when necessary, special or periodic reports to the General Assembly in order to enable it to consider those vital matters relating to international peace and security. The purpose of the Charter in this respect is very clear: that the Security Council’s mandate has been given to it by all the States Members of the United Nations, which are represented by the General Assembly. Consequently, it is incumbent on the Council to submit to the General Assembly detailed reports on its work. However, this has not occurred, and the only report submitted is this annual report, which, as we said earlier, is simply a compilation of documents issued by the Council over the course of the past year. It does not reflect any essential elements that would be useful in clarifying what took place during the Council’s meetings or in its subsidiary organs, such as the sanctions committees and other entities. A large number of delegations have, on more than one occasion, stated that in their view this annual report does not contain an in-depth assessment of how the Council deals with the vital topics under consideration and that it is not useful in its present form and does not allow the General Assembly to undertake a careful examination and an in-depth analysis of, and consequently submit recommendations on, matters related to international peace and security. Certain matters in the report must be attended to so as to achieve the desired interaction between the General Assembly and the Council. For instance, there must be an explanation of how resolutions were adopted in the Council. Here I should like to quote the former Permanent Representative of Italy, my friend, Ambassador Fulci, who, speaking about the way resolutions are adopted in the Council, said: “I think that we are entitled to know who said what in the Security Council.” There is yet another issue that should in future be reflected clearly in the report: to what extent is consideration given to General Assembly resolutions concerning issues of joint interest to both the Assembly and the Council when such issues are discussed in the Council, and is due consideration given to them in the process of adopting a resolution? In conclusion, I should like once again to affirm that the Sudan, as one of the first African States to participate in peacekeeping operations, beginning in the early 1960s, and in its capacity as an active and participating member of the peacekeeping operations, would like to reconfirm its commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security and its willingness to participate in such activities in future.

The delegation of Malta would like to express its gratitude to the Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Andjaba, for his comprehensive and informative presentation of the annual report of the Security Council. Allow me also to offer to the members of the Secretariat our sincere thanks for the significant work and effort that must have gone into the publication of this year’s voluminous report. May I also extend our congratulations to the representatives of the newly elected non-permanent members of the Security Council and wish them every success in the discharge of their responsibilities. Our tribute goes also to the outgoing members for their most relevant contribution to the work of the Council. Last year, when my delegation took the floor to speak about the report of the Security Council for the years 1997-1998, we stressed the need for the members of the Council to work not in their own interests but in the interests of the international community as a whole. My delegation had then also pointed out the Council’s recent failures in fulfilling its role as the guarantor of peace and security on this planet. If the first step in addressing a problem is to decipher its true nature and root causes, the publication of the incisive reports of the Secretary-General on the Organization’s dismal performance in Rwanda and Srebrenica was indeed the right point of departure. On the basis of these findings as well as the experience and dedication of its members, the high- level Panel charged with the review of United Nations peace and security activities was able to take us to the next step, with the presentation of what has become known as the Brahimi report. This incisive and forthright document provides us with clear indications of the tough decisions that need to be taken if the United Nations is to obtain for itself the political, technical, organizational and procedural means to fulfil the peacekeeping mandate that makes up the lion’s share of the work of the Security Council. The Brahimi report points in no unclear terms to the present methods of work and practices of the Security Council which need to be reformed or entirely replaced. It is of primary importance to ensure that the mandates emanating from the Security Council are realistic in view of the history of the situation at hand, the present realities on the ground and the real, as opposed to fictional, resources available to the United Nations. The Panel’s suggestion that the Council resolutions specifying troop levels be kept in draft form until the Secretary-General is assured of their actual availability is certainly worthy of serious consideration. The procedural changes in the modus operandi of the Security Council may be challenging to implement, but it is the Panel’s call for the Council to exercise more judgment that is likely to prove the most challenging to satisfy. The Council should not mistake its duty to employ a policy of impartiality for an approach in which it divests itself of the obligation to point a finger when the actions of one or another party to a conflict so demand. Malta shares the Panel’s reading of the situation when it states that: “No failure did more to damage the standing and credibility of United Nations peacekeeping in the 1990s than its reluctance to distinguish victim from aggressor.” (A/55/305, p. ix) My delegation believes that to lay the blame for peacekeeping failures solely at the doorstep of the Security Council would be to misunderstand the depth of the changes that must take place throughout this Organization if this reform is to succeed. There is no doubt that the Charter of the United Nations places a very particular responsibility on those who are elected to the Council and, by virtue of their permanent membership of the Council, even more burdensome demands on five particular States. Nevertheless, the dearth of resources at the disposal of the Organization charged with a fast-growing peacekeeping responsibility calls for a renewed commitment from all of us. It is this reality that led the Prime Minister of Malta, in his address to the Millennium Summit, to intimate Malta’s intention to significantly increase its contribution to the peacekeeping budget. My delegation is encouraged to note that a Security Council committee has already begun to deliberate on the manner in which the recommendations of the Brahimi report pertinent to the Security Council can be implemented. My delegation looks forward to reading about the implementation of these recommendations in forthcoming report of the Council. The ongoing discussions within the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform have not yet achieved any tangible results insofar as an increase in the membership of the Council is concerned. However, not a few proposals were put forward and agreed upon with respect to the Council’s working methods. My delegation welcomes the manner in which the Council has implemented some of these new working methods before their formal adoption, as well as the increased interaction between the Council and the troop-contributing countries. If the non-members of the Security Council are to better appreciate what leads the Council to take decisions that they are often called on to implement, it is crucial that, to the extent practicable, its deliberations take place in a transparent manner. In conclusion, my delegation believes that the success of the Security Council’s actions depends very much on the level of credibility and respect that it commands. In enhancing its level of transparency, the Council would be moving in the right direction.

It is an honour for me to address the Members of this Organization on the annual report of the Security Council. It is a particular privilege to thank the President of the Security Council, my friend and colleague, Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia, for introducing it. Before we discuss the report, we wish to express our sincere gratitude to the outgoing non-permanent Council members for their dedication, and to warmly welcome the newly elected members. We thank those Council members who continue to brief non-members on the issues before the Council and who regularly consult with us. We are sure that the new members will continue to follow the commitment displayed by their predecessors and will continue to work with the wider United Nations membership on the issues on the Security Council agenda. We wish to reaffirm the role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security. We believe that when we address issues of poverty and underdevelopment, we also minimize the potential for conflict. The Council needs to be infused with a fresh sense of urgency and renewed commitment to fulfil its mandate of maintaining international peace and security. We need the Council to create conditions of peace and security so that we can nurture them and pursue the critical task of alleviating poverty and promoting development. The continuous growth of the work undertaken by the Council signifies to us how far we have yet to go to achieve the goals of peace, security and development. As we review the discussions held by our heads of State and Government during the Millennium Summit, including the round-table discussions and the Security Council Summit, we need to focus on the task of implementation and actions which give meaning to those important discussions. We welcome the establishment of the Security Council working group on the Brahimi report. We hope the Council will fulfil its Summit pledge, “to enhance the effectiveness of the United Nations in addressing conflict at all stages from prevention to settlement to post-conflict peace- building”. The Security Council now faces the twin challenges of dealing with a larger number of situations threatening international peace and security, and more complex situations involving more than mere military deployment. This demands a deeper examination of the different needs of each situation and a greater commitment of political will and necessary resources to prevent and end conflicts. The Council’s recent open debates on the prevention of armed conflicts is a welcome starting point. We note that the Security Council, in conjunction with other United Nations bodies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, has also addressed a wider range of challenges which may threaten peace and security, such as the spread of communicable diseases like HIV/AIDS; the use of children in armed conflict; disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation; and the protection of civilians. We further note that other issues that received serious consideration in the Council include the need to improve the protection of humanitarian personnel and the need to safeguard natural resources, particularly from illegal exploitation, as well as the role that such exploitation plays in fostering instability and conflict. We would like to see the Council support a total prohibition on the use of anti-personnel landmines, as well as efforts to prevent the proliferation of and illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons. These weapons are not only used in conflict situations, but they are also the weapons of choice of drug smugglers and poachers long after conflicts have been resolved. These weapons are involved in the killing of many more innocent people than have ever been killed by weapons of mass destruction. We welcome the renewed focus on dealing with conflict in Africa, but we remain concerned that the political will and resources are not sufficiently forthcoming to match the rhetoric. The move towards democratization and sustainable development will promote peace and stability. The vicious cycle we face, however, is that democracy and sustainable development also depend on peace and stability in order to flourish. For example, disarmament, demobilization and rehabilitation programmes can succeed in the longer term only if we address the needs of peace-building and poverty alleviation. The international community’s responsibility, therefore, cannot simply end with the cessation of hostilities or even with elections; sustained assistance for good governance and economic development through post- conflict support are also required. The mandate of the Council requires varied responses, including making peace, keeping peace and sustaining the peace. There is clearly a need for the Council to review the modalities of applying sanctions in order to protect civilian populations from prolonged suffering and also from being punished for the crimes of others who caused the suffering in the first place. Sanctions are an instrument that should be used only after careful consideration of their impact and should be targeted carefully to effectively achieve the desired outcome. In the Middle East, the Security Council has a responsibility, not only in terms of its own resolutions but also in terms of observing international instruments, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. The Non-Aligned Movement summit held in Durban in 1998 reiterated that the observance of these international instruments would relieve the suffering and provide protection to all victims. Surely the Security Council cannot ignore the call, in article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances”. Post-conflict societies cannot by themselves undo the effects of conflict, as well as repair the damage done by sanctions to infrastructure and the economy. The biggest hurdle faced by developing countries in post-conflict situations is to overcome isolation and to stimulate investment and economic growth. Otherwise, new-found freedom can very quickly give rise to further instability. It is necessary to recognize the full extent to which the issuing of resolutions and getting involved in conflict situations requires the commitment and involvement of the international community, the conflicting parties and also the victims of conflict. We commend the Council for the increased use of open debates and open briefings on the work of the Council. Thematic debates are, of course, essential, but we are pleased to note the trend towards addressing practical issues. As examples, the open briefings on Kosovo and East Timor helped to keep United Nations members abreast of developments and better able to support and affect the work of the Council. We believe that it was important for Member States to have been present for such important briefings as that of Mrs. Ogata, the High Commissioner for Refugees, and to have participated in the debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflicts. The present report provides us with a compendium of the work done by the Council during the past year, but once again it fails to give an analysis of the issues and the Council’s performance. It is essential for the Council to provide such analysis, because the Council is accountable to the General Assembly. The failure of the report indicates a lack, or an unwillingness, to engage in this critical aspect of review and accountability. This, of course, would raise the issues of the necessity to reform the working methods of the Council and the great need for transparency and accountability, which we all can agree is an important element of giving the Council the credibility it must have. Certainly, after seven years of debate on the reform of the Council, we should be able to recognize the challenges we are faced with and be bold enough to make the necessary reforms. In conclusion, let us recall that, during the Millennium Summit, our heads of State and Government acknowledged the importance of addressing the uneven distribution of the benefits of globalization. Our deliberations and decisions have to result in better living conditions for those who suffer aggression and violations of their most basic rights. While the Security Council does not have direct responsibility for development issues, or even the sole responsibility to protect civilians, the Council cannot be absolved from the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. We should not forget that many people, mostly civilians, are dying daily in conflicts in Africa and elsewhere. However, the absence of conflict will not solve the daily struggle faced by those same people in the face of poverty and disease. We cannot claim to have any higher priority for this Organization than to muster the collective will and the necessary resources to end their suffering.