A/59/PV.84 General Assembly

I should like, on behalf of all members of the General Assembly, to extend our deepest sympathy to the Government and the people of Indonesia for the tragic loss of life and material damage that have, once again, resulted from the recent earthquake in the area. May I also express the hope that the international community will show its solidarity and respond promptly and generously to any request for help from that country.

As indicated in his note, the Secretary-General has the honour to request, pursuant to rule 15 of the rules of procedure of the General Assembly, the inclusion in the agenda of the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly of an additional item, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan”. Owing to the nature of the item, and in the absence of objection, may I take it that the General Assembly agrees that the relevant provision of rule 40 of the rules of procedure, which would require a meeting of the General Committee on the question of the inclusion of this item on the agenda, could be waived?

May I take it that the General Assembly, on the proposal of the Secretary-General, wishes to include in the agenda of the current session an additional item, entitled “Financing of the United Nations Mission in the Sudan” under heading I, “Organizational, administrative and other matters”?

The item is therefore included in the agenda as item 164. In his note, the Secretary-General further requests that the item be allocated to the Fifth Committee. May I take it that the General Assembly, as requested by the Secretary-General, wishes to allocate this item to the Fifth Committee?

The Chairman of the Fifth Committee will be informed of the decision just taken by the General Assembly.

I request the Rapporteur of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), Mr. Kais Kabtani of Tunisia, to introduce the report of the Committee. Mr. Kabtani (Tunisia), Rapporteur of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) (spoke in French): It is an honour for me to introduce to the General Assembly the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), issued as document A/59/472/Add.1, submitted under agenda item 77, entitled “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects”. The Special Political and Decolonization Committee considered this issue at its 15th to 18th meetings, held from 25 to 28 October 2004, during the first portion of the fifty-ninth session of the General Assembly. At its 27th meeting, held on 23 March 2005, it resumed its consideration and examined the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (A/59/19). At that same meeting, the Fourth Committee adopted a draft resolution without a vote. The draft resolution submitted under agenda item 77 is contained in paragraph 7 of the report. By the operative part of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would welcome the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. It would endorse the proposals, recommendations and conclusions of the Special Committee, contained in paragraphs 22 to 154 of its report, and would urge Member States to take all necessary steps to implement them. It would reiterate the conditions under which the countries that provide personnel can become members of the Special Committee and would decide that the Special Committee should continue its efforts. The Assembly would also request the Special Committee to submit a report on its work to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session. It is my honour to submit to the General Assembly for consideration and adoption the draft resolution contained in paragraph 7 of document A/59/472/Add.1, entitled “Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects”.

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the report of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) that is before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendation of the Special Political and Decolonization Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.” I also wish to remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the draft resolution, I should like to inform representatives that we are going to proceed to take a decision in the same manner as was done in the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee), unless notified to the contrary in advance. I call on the representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in explanation of position before action is taken on the draft resolution.

I have the honour to address the General Assembly on behalf of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in connection with agenda item 77. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government and the people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, to convey our most heartfelt condolences to the people of Indonesia in connection with the recent tragedy that has once again struck that country. I would like to place on record before the Assembly that our delegation will not oppose the draft resolution endorsing the report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (A/59/19) that was adopted by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee). However, we would like to make the following explanations. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela would once again like to make known in the Hall its opinion regarding peacekeeping operations as they are currently constituted in line with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. We reaffirm that we have no objection whatever to peacekeeping operations whose provisions and strict purposes are the maintenance of peace, just as such operations have taken place historically. However, we are concerned about, and are compelled to express our disapproval of, the emergence of a new generation of peacekeeping operations that are conceived to address post-conflict consequences and that seek to include civilian tasks having to do with rebuilding or re-establishing States that have been involved in conflict and that are described, in one way or another, as “failed” or “collapsed” States. The argument is implicitly put forward that a collapsed or failed State cannot be rescued expect by what is referred to as the international community. A look into the ideological construct underpinning the new type of peacekeeping operations prompts us to make a few observations. The fact is that the idea of a collapsed, failed or impotent State that is employed as the basis for those new operations is devoid of any historical perspective. That idea tacitly implies that the collapse of a State is the responsibility of the people and Government that find themselves in that situation. To the contrary, we know that many States that are today labelled as failed States have been failed States from their very beginnings, as they were in the main created as fronts for what in fact were dependent entities that were economically and politically subordinate neo-colonial foreign protectorates or quasi- protectorates. Their disintegration, which presupposes the need for them to be rebuilt, can therefore more properly be attributed to their original lack of viability as States in the strict sense of the word. It is therefore a fundamental mistake to think that the international community has the capacity, or is entitled, to determine what institutions must be put in place or created as alternatives to a failed, inoperative or inept State that cannot carry out its basic public functions. To the contrary, we believe that — as the Charter itself guarantees — that power belongs solely to peoples exercising their collective and inalienable right to self-determination. Peacekeeping operations whose goal is to rebuild a State, as appears to be the trend at the United Nations, therefore in fact curtail the right to self-determination of the people who are the object of such operations. Moreover, by definition such operations are acts of intervention that contravene the Charter that governs the Organization. Nor do we accept the excuse of humanitarian intervention or the political use of human rights as grounds for the imposition on any State of enforcement measures falling outside the Charter. A serious precedent in that regard is the recent proposal by the Secretary-General to grant powers to the Security Council, on the basis of the supposed principle of the responsibility to protect, to punish States for crimes stipulated in the Statute of the International Criminal Court. We are sufficiently aware of the double standards employed by, and the undeclared goals of, those who have a monopoly on labelling such actions. United Nations peacekeeping operations are solely a tool to carry out the provisions of the Charter. In order for that to be a reality, peacekeeping operations must strictly adhere to the principles of the consent of the parties involved, impartiality and non-use of force except in cases strictly pertaining to legitimate self- defence. The mandates of peacekeeping operations must therefore not be ambiguous, so as to avoid skewing the operation and making it possible for the powers it is given to be usurped by United Nations bodies that have no right to them. Similarly, peacekeeping operations should have the necessary logistical resources to achieve the desired result of lasting and sustainable peace. Moreover, peacekeeping operations must not take the place of resolving the real underlying causes of conflict. They must therefore not be a substitute for addressing the root causes that are usually at the heart of major socio-economic problems. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela therefore favours the prevention of conflicts by overcoming the serious problems that lead to instability and to conflict situations, as there can be neither lasting peace nor strengthened democratic institutions without development. Every decision taken with regard to peacekeeping operations must abide by the fundamental principles of international law as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In other words, there must be full respect for sovereignty, non- interference in internal affairs and self-determination for peoples. That position is based upon the mandate enshrined in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, whose preamble commits us to promoting peaceful cooperation between nations and the strengthening of Latin American integration in accordance with the principles of non-intervention, the self-determination of peoples, universal and inalienable guarantees of human rights, democratizing international society, nuclear disarmament, ecological balance and the preservation of legal and environmental well-being as humankind’s common undeniable patrimony. The peacekeeping operation in Haiti deserves special mention. Venezuela does not support any action that could damage, infringe upon, alter or impair the ultimate right of the Haitian people to take decisions for itself with regard to its future, its social and political institutions and its path to development in order to overcome poverty. Finally, we cannot fail to refer to the responsibility incumbent upon the Security Council when it decides to carry out a peacekeeping operation. So long as the right of the veto exists, which confers a privilege upon a mere handful of States, doubts and suspicion will continue to exist with regard to the political and economic motivation behind any intervention. There will also be doubts as to whether it is possible to intervene in any State — or just in weak ones. My delegation therefore reaffirms that, until the international community achieves the genuine democratization of its own decision-making bodies, peacekeeping operations will continue to have further difficulties, such as those to which I have referred whereas they should be efficient tools that contribute to the attainment of the supreme goal of the United Nations: the maintenance of international peace and security.

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) in paragraph 7 of its report (A/59/472/Add.1). The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same? The draft resolution was adopted (resolution 59/281).

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 77.