A/70/PV.30 General Assembly

I thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this meeting. Let me also express our gratitude to the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations for its comprehensive and inclusive review (see A/70/95), and the Secretary-General for his valuable report (A/70/357) on the future of peace operations. Turkey aligns itself with the statement made by the observer of the European Union this morning (see A/70/PV.29). Today, we are confronted with increasingly complex challenges to international peace and security, which surpass the individual response capacity of any one Member State. The transnational threats against Member States, especially terrorism, constitute the major challenge in that regard. The latest terrorist bombings in Turkey have been a stark reminder of that threat. I would like to express our sincere gratitude to you, Mr. President, and to those *1531011* 15-31011 (E) who expressed their solidarity after those heinous terrorist attacks. Against that backdrop, we must acknowledge that the United Nations is also facing difficulties. We are aware that some of the difficulties that the United Nations is currently encountering stem not only from inadequate resources or organizational problems, but also from the deficit in political will among Member States for undertaking the necessary reforms. We must therefore adopt more effective strategies in order to strengthen our collective response capability without prejudice to the traditional bedrock principles of the United Nations. In that sense, both the key findings and the recommendations of the High-level Panel’s review and the road map set out in the Secretary-General’s report need to be thoroughly examined, as they offer clear guidance on a number of cross-cutting issues. Moreover, taken together with other review processes, notably the review of the peacebuilding architecture and the global study on resolution 1325 (2000), the overlapping findings of those reports may serve as an effective remedy for the long-standing problems in the United Nations peace and security architecture. We acknowledge the importance of peacekeeping operations, as they have become the flagship activity of the United Nations, and we concur with the idea that more has to be done to improve the effectiveness of those peacekeeping missions. We should devote more energy and, if necessary, more resources to that end, if we really want to live up to our commitmentsvis-à-vis the protection of civilians and human rights. With that understanding, Turkey made a new and solid pledge, in addition to its existing contributions, to support peacekeeping missions at the leaders’ summit on peacekeeping operations on 28 September. On the other hand, as one of the Co-Chairs of the Group of Friends of Mediation, we would also like to see the United Nations pay more attention to the growing need for effective mediation and conflict prevention. That would be the natural outcome of the primacy that the review of peace operations attributed to political engagement. The entire United Nations membership and its principal organs should see that obvious linkage as the crux of both the High-level Panel’s and the Secretary-General’s messages, if we really want to go beyond the narrow perspective of crisis management in an age where crises are turning out to be more and more unmanageable. At the sixth ministerial meeting of the Group of Friends of Mediation, which took place two weeks ago, we reaffirmed our commitment to address that need. In line with that approach, I want to touch very briefly on special political missions. Such missions should be seen as key mechanisms, given their proven relevance and cost effectiveness in the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the prevention of the relapse into crises. Let me therefore reiterate Turkey’s firm conviction that adequate funding for special political missions, as well as a clear-cut definition of their mandates in any transitional process, must be ensured in order to strengthen their performance. Fully aware of the divergent opinions among Member States, we acknowledge the difficulties impeding concerted action, even in efforts merely to procedurally advance that agenda. However, we believe that it would be a big missed opportunity if the reports in question were not given due attention and if they simply faded away owing to inaction. To the contrary, given the genuine interest among Member States, their consensual elements must be further examined with a sense of ownership. To that end, I would like to express Turkey’s readiness to support any course of action that will generate consensus.

Finland aligns itself with the statement made earlier today by the observer of the European Union (see A/70/PV.29). Today we have before us the excellent report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95), led by the former President of Timor-Leste, His Excellency Mr. José Ramos-Horta, as well as the follow-up report of the Secretary-General (A/70/357). Fifteen years ago, the Brahimi report (see A/55/305) introduced the concept of integrated peacekeeping operations, thereby changing the very nature of peacekeeping. Now Mr. Ramos-Horta and his High- level Panel are again shifting the United Nations peace and security landscape by elevating conflict prevention and political operations to the fore, together with peacekeeping. We welcome that timely approach. We also commend the Secretary-General for appointing the High-level Panel to assist peace operations, not merely peacekeeping. The key observation of the Ramos-Horta Panel is the paradigm change. First, politics have primacy and we must not lose sight of the search for political solutions. Secondly, conflict prevention and mediation must be given renewed focus in United Nations peace operations. Now we need to translate the findings of the High- level Panel into practice. In doing so, we wish to recall two existing tools in the United Nations peace and security toolkit, namely, special political missions and mediation. Special political missions have become an integral part of United Nations efforts to build and maintain peace. However, they lack the financial and administrative support needed to ensure the full use of their potential. We have to adopt a comprehensive and balanced consensus solution to such problems. The United Nations also needs more sustainable and reliable resourcing for its core mediation activities. Investing in prevention and mediation is a wise investment. A dime spent on prevention today can save us a dollar in peacekeeping in the future. Even more important are the lives that effective prevention and mediation efforts can save. We also have to work to strengthen partnerships in the field of mediation. I would also like to stress the obvious need for the participation of women in peace processes and peace operations. That is not just a question of gender equality; there is undisputed evidence that women’s participation contributes to the sustainability of peace. In our view, the protection of civilians is clearly a core task in peacekeeping. United Nations peacekeepers must be ready and able to engage in robust action and use force, if that is needed, to protect innocent civilians and prevent further casualties. We need better planning and analysis, support for force-generation processes, training and clear command structures. Support practices need to be more field-focused, so as to ensure the effective delivery of mandated tasks. The use of modern technology can help to protect civilians and improve the safety of troops. In rapidly changing and challenging conflict situations, we need to find more agile, effective and innovative ways of doing business. Future operations should be more nimble and flexible, diverse and limited in length. The recent cases of sexual exploitation and abuse have cast a shadow on the United Nations. It is unacceptable that those who wear the United Nations colours  — civilian or military  — abuse the people they are sent to protect. Both the United Nations and its Member States must take more robust measures to tackle such cases and make the zero-tolerance policy into a zero-case reality. We commend both reports for addressing that issue. The three ongoing reviews of peace operations, peacebuilding and Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) offer us an excellent opportunity to rethink the United Nations peace and security architecture. That opportunity should be seized, and we need to strive for coherent implementation. The United Nations, with its structures and tools and with its legitimacy, is uniquely positioned to play a central role in sustaining peace and preventing human suffering through its peace operations. It is important now to sustain the momentum gained in the peace operations review and to advance the process further, with a view to reaching results that can be put in practice. That calls for leadership from the current and future Secretaries-General and a sense of common purpose from his or her departments. It also calls for strong political commitment from Member States.

We have studied with interest the conclusions and work of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95), led by His Excellency Mr. Ramos-Horta, on the activities of peacekeeping operations and special political missions, as well as the recommendations that the Secretary-General has provided in that regard. We think that document will set the tone for developments in United Nations peacekeeping, including within the conceptual and operational spheres. We share the conclusions of the High-level Panel that, in order to fully realize the potential and to improve the effectiveness of United Nations missions, we must have reform in four areas. First, we must strengthen the political tools for resolving crisis situations. Secondly, we must define the forms of United Nations intervention, be it peacekeeping operations or special political missions, depending on the situation in each specific country. Thirdly, we must strengthen global and regional cooperation in the maintenance of peace and security. Fourthly, we must reinforce the missions’ focus on the interests and needs of the populations in the countries where they are deployed through closer dialogue with local communities. We share the High-level Panel’s recommendations on the need to use political dialogue as a priority measure in settling conflict  situations and on the importance of strengthening regional mechanisms for settling crises. In modern times, it is necessary to also take into account the regional dimension of conflicts and the transnational nature of the threat when an outbreak of violence in one country threatens to spill over into neighbouring States, or even into the whole region. In that context, it is important to develop a format for cooperation among the countries of a region, as well as with regional and subregional organizations, including exchanging information and best practices and providing resources with a view to ensuring quick and effective responses to existing and emerging challenges. It is encouraging that the High-level Panel’s report has confirmed the traditional principles of United Nations peacekeeping, but we cannot agree with the need, posited in the report, for flexible interpretations depending on the changing circumstances on the ground, above all in the context of the possible use of force by the Blue Helmets. Furthermore, we fully agree that United Nations peacekeeping forces should never be used for combating terrorism or violent extremism. However, we believe that the set of issues relating to preventive measures, the principles of peacekeeping, the structural changes in the Secretariat and financial aspects require extremely close attention and substantive consideration by Member States, in particular within the framework of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and the Fifth Committee. We cannot allow a reduction in the role of Member States with regard to United Nations peacekeeping reform. That also applies to the use and reallocation of human and financial resources, where a lack of oversight by Member States could lead to a weakening of budgetary transparency and discipline and could negatively impact the quality of the delivery of Security Council mandates and the principles of neutrality and impartiality in the provision of services by the United Nations. We believe that it is also important to maintain a balanced approach and restrain the excessive focus on human rights issues, including references to the Secretary-General’s Human Rights Up Front initiative, and to gender issues. In that connection, there is nothing to be gained from artificially narrowing the circle of troop- and police-contributing countries, under various pretexts, including accusations of human rights violations. We must also approach with caution the proposal to give the Secretariat broader powers in its recruitment policy, including with regard to rapid deployment and the administration of civilian personnel. We remain convinced that the United Nations presence, regardless of what form it takes, must be of a supportive nature and provide assistance to host countries on the basis of the priorities set by host Governments themselves. In that context, it is imperative to establish constructive daily cooperation between peacekeepers and local authorities and to provide capacity-building support to host States. With regard to improving strategic planning during the deployment of United Nations missions, we would like to note that, although the High-level Panel’s report and the Secretary-General’s recommendations do not specifically refer to the Military Staff Committee, we believe that stepping up that body’s activities and conducting systematic analysis of the military-political situations in problematic regions of the world could significantly increase the level of the Security Council’s military expertise. We intend, for our part, to thoroughly analyse and discuss in detail in intergovernmental forums the recommendations of the Secretary-General, including on such issues as improving command and control functions, discipline and logistical support.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate on the review report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) and the Secretary- General’s implementation report (A/70/357). Let me take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Secretary-General for taking the initiative to appoint the High-level Panel to review peacekeeping operations in all their aspects. That was indeed timely and important in the light of the changing political and security dynamics and the need to make peacekeeping operations fit for purpose. My delegation aligns itself with the remarks delivered by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African States and by the representative of Morocco on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (see A/70/PV.29). We are pleased to note that the High-level Panel conducted wide-ranging consultations, both in New York and in various corners of the world, to engage Member States and other relevant stakeholders. It is in that context that consultations also took place at the headquarters of the African Union in Addis Ababa. No doubt, strengthening the cooperation and partnership between the United Nations and the African Union in the area of peacekeeping is absolutely critical, as most of the United Nations peacekeeping operations are deployed in the African continent. That is why Africa came up with a common position on the review, and we are happy that the High-level Panel seriously took into account the views and concerns of Africa as reflected in our common position. We commend the Chair of the High-level Panel, His Excellency former President José Ramos Horta of Timor-Leste, and the members of the Panel for their hard work and the important recommendations they have made to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping operations in all their aspects. They did so in a wise and balanced manner, taking into account the various views and concerns of Member States. The implementation of those recommendations is the key to achieving the objective of strengthening United Nations peacekeeping operations in a comprehensive manner. Accordingly, we find ourselves at an important juncture in the evolution of the role played by the United Nations in discharging its responsibilities for regional and global peace and security. That is why we thank the Secretary-General for presenting his implementation report, which should be considered holistically together with the High-level Panel’s report. Not only are we considering the review and the implementation report 15 years after the Brahimi report (see A/55/305) and at a time when we are marking the seventieth anniversary of our Organization, but we are also doing so at a very opportune time in that we have entered into a morally binding commitment to eradicate extreme poverty in 15 years and to be faithful to a transformative agenda, which is embodied in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (resolution 70/1). There is no better way to lay a firm foundation for the realization of the 2030 Agenda than to carry forward the reform of United Nations peace operations. Peace and development can never be conceived separately, as the history of Africa, including that of my own country, Ethiopia, makes abundantly clear, as neither can succeed without respect for human rights. However, they must not be politicized. Double standards will never help us to make progress in any area. They will only impede what we need most, namely, the building of mutual trust and mutual confidence. In conclusion, permit me to say that we have been encouraged by what we witnessed during the summit on peacekeeping, where Member States made strong commitments to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping. We need to sustain that momentum as we embark on the important phase of implementation. It is in that spirit that we look forward to the discussion that will take place in the various intergovernmental committees to examine the reports of the High-level Panel and of the Sectary-General.

The Nigerian delegation congratulates you, Mr. President, on your election to steer the affairs of the General Assembly in this historic period marking the seventieth year of the inception of the United Nations. We commend your initiative to convene this meeting, which affords us an opportunity to share views on strengthening the United Nations system. We are especially thankful for the presentation by the Secretary-General (see A/70/PV.29) of his report (A/70/357) containing his proposals for implementing the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. The insights that his presentation has afforded us bears out the wisdom and importance of this discourse. At the outset, let me state that Nigeria aligns itself with the statements made this morning by the representative of Sierra Leone on behalf of the African States and by the representative of Morocco on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (see A/70/PV.29). As we take stock of the activities and reflect on the efforts of the United Nations to meet the challenges confronting the global community, we note the innovative events coinciding with the seventieth anniversary of the inception of the United Nations. Those events include the transition from the Millennium Development Goals to the post-2015 development agenda, as set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (resolution 70/1), the proposals for the revitalization of the General Assembly and the reform of the Security Council and the review of the United Nations peace operations and the peacebuilding architecture. I would like to share our perspective on the recent review of United Nations peace operations undertaken by the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. That review is opportune given the increased number of conflicts and new challenges in peacekeeping since the last significant assessment of United Nations peace operations was conducted in 2000 under the chairmanship of Lakhdar Brahimi of Algeria. We commend the extensive consultations undertaken by the High-level Panel, which has led to the broad acceptance of its report (see A/70/95). Efforts to meet the new challenges facing United Nations peace operations should draw from the array of suggestions raised in the High-level Panel’s report, including lessons learned from past and present peacekeeping operations. The ultimate goal should be to create resilience by identifying the conditions for peace operations that will effectively meet the challenges on the ground. As the majority of United Nations peacekeeping operations have been deployed in Africa, Nigeria welcomes the High-level Panel’s recommendations aimed at enhancing the cooperative relationship between the United Nations and the African Union (AU). Partnership is indeed the cornerstone of Africa’s effort to stabilize its vast region and shoulder its share of the global responsibility to maintain peace and security. It is important to highlight the funding challenges facing the African Union, as well as the need for the United Nations to assume the primary responsibility for the African Union-led operations initiated as bridging measures. That should not be misunderstood as unwillingness on the part of the African Union to manage its own operations. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that today’s armed conflicts require complex, nuanced and often high-technology responses that demand a particular level of infrastructure that the AU simply cannot afford. The need for support does not amount to dependency. Instead, it must be viewed as a vital partnership in the global quest for maintaining international peace and security. In that regard, we welcome the High-level Panel’s recommendations regarding the use of United Nations- assessed contributions on a case-by-case basis to support Security Council-authorized African Union support operations, including the costs associated with deployed uniformed personnel to complement funding from the African Union and/or African Member States. We also welcome the Secretary-General’s decision to prioritize the implementation of the High-level Panel’s recommendation regarding the development of stronger regional-global partnerships. That will require improving institutional collaboration between the United Nations and the AU by going beyond context-specific to more predictable mechanisms for cooperation between the two organizations. African nations can, and should, leverage the reforms to create the requisite stability and social order and to advance their developmental goals. Significant importance has been given to the protection of civilians in conflict areas. However, the different operating methods of the mission components — military, police and civilian — involved in the protection of civilians in conflict environments raise a number of issues. The autonomy to act and make decisions differs greatly among the components in the light of their different mandates, standard operational procedures, agendas and rules of engagement. Hence, there is the crucial need for strategic coordination among the various mission components for effective delivery on the protection-of-civilians mandate. That can be achieved through the development of comprehensive training on strategic coordination for the protection of civilians for all mission components. It is also expedient that greater attention be given to coherence among mission components. We welcome the High-level Panel’s suggestions underscoring the significance of protective measures to be adopted by local communities for the protection of vulnerable persons in conflict zones. We call for the development of strategies that reinforce those efforts and ensure that national institutions are empowered to enable the discharge of their primary responsibility to strengthen security and the rule of law in post-conflict areas. The tenuous stability and evolution in many post- conflict States underscore the need for invigorated efforts and concrete measures to prevent a relapse into crisis. In that regard, we appreciate the significance of the continued reforms undertaken by the Peacebuilding Commission to ensure stability in post-conflict settings. The 2015 review process would benefit from taking note of the peacebuilding efforts in Africa. Lessons may be drawn from the accomplishments in reforms in the security sector and the justice sector, food security, domestic resource mobilization, the curbing of illicit financial flows and the negotiation of balanced natural-resource contracts. In conclusion, I wish to reaffirm Nigeria’s abiding commitment to the tenets of the United Nations and its persustent efforts towards ensuring global peace and security.

We thank the Secretary-General for presenting his report (A/70/357) on the implementation of the measures set out in the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95). We hope to have an opportunity to discuss those reports together in the framework of the discussions in the Fourth Committee, and in particular in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, and in the Fifth Committee with regard to their administrative and budgetary aspects. Argentina welcomes the recommendations contained in the report of the High-level Panel, led by His Excellency Mr. José Ramos-Horta. While we may differ on certain points, we recognize that they are part of a balanced perspective reflecting the differing positions taken by the various parties with regard to the many topics covered by peacekeeping operations and special political missions, defined as a whole as peace operations. With that in mind, we underscore the scope of the consultations that were held and the independence and intellectual honesty that the High- level Panel’s members and the Secretariat team have shown, and we congratulate them on their important work. The High-level Panel’s report is extensive and specific on each of the issues that it deals with, so I will refer only briefly to some issues to which my country attaches particular importance. First, we agree with the general perspective of the report aimed at giving greater importance to conflict prevention, mediation and the use of political tools in the design and implementation of peacekeeping tools. In that connection, the Secretariat’s efforts for prevention and mediation should be strengthened through a better allocation of resources in the regular budget. Moreover, we thank the High-level Panel for having assumed the responsibility of addressing the delicate issue of the use of force in peacekeeping operations. We believe that the three key principles of such operations  — the consent of the parties, impartiality, and the use of force in self-defence and to defend the mandate  — should continue to be the guide for the success of the missions, without being an obstacle to acting, in extreme cases, for the protection of civilians and to defend the mission. In that context, a clear understanding of the rules of engagement and a deepening of the triangular cooperation among the Security Council, the Secretariat and the troop- and police-contributing countries are essential. We also emphasize that extreme caution must be used in assigning exceptional peace-enforcement tasks to peacekeeping operations, as we are aware that they were not designed or trained for such purposes. We also agree with the High-level Panel that peacekeeping operations should not be involved in counterterrorism tasks. Another area in which the High-level Panel has made a valuable contribution is the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations. There was agreement not to consider that issue from a purely military perspective, but from a broader political and humanitarian perspective focused on creating an atmosphere of safety and security in which force would be used only in extreme cases to avoid a repetition of sad experiences such as those of Srebrenica or Rwanda, and as a last resort following the failure of other non-military alternatives. We share the High-level Panel’s recommendation aimed at giving top priority to strategies not requiring force for the protection of civilians, and we underscore the need to work together with the authorities of host States and with humanitarian organizations, which are carrying out important work on the ground. Furthermore, in line with the High-level Panel, we assert that the delicate task of the protection of civilians by participating contingents in peacekeeping missions requires special training and equipment, for which appropriate financial resources are required. My delegation attaches vital importance to the task of promoting and protecting human rights, since we are dealing with an increasing number of peacekeeping operations. We agree with the High-level Panel’s recommendations regarding the integration of human rights concerns into such missions, in particular so that the Secretariat can have resources to recruit and deploy specialized personnel in the field during the early stages of the missions to provide support to the human rights components and special envoys. We also support all measures aimed at implementing the agenda on women and peace and security, pursuant to Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), and at strengthening measures to combat cases of sexual abuse and exploitation in peacekeeping operations. Finally, I wish to address the issue of the financing of special political missions. It is worth remembering that both the Secretariat and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions have recommended timely measures to improve the funding arrangements and support from Headquarters, including the establishment of a specific and separate fund for special political missions. We welcome the High-level Panel’s recommendation, also contained in the Secretary-General’s report, calling for the immediate implementation of those measures, which will increase the efficiency and transparency of the budgetary process of the entire Organization, not only for the missions referred to. I conclude by emphasizing once again the work accomplished by the High-level Panel and the relevance of its recommendations. The responsibility now falls upon us, the Member States, with the Secretariat’s assistance, to work in harmony and transform those recommendations into concrete measures that will achieve effective results for the work of the 120,000 peacekeepers, various personnel and the special political missions on the ground and, above all, in shaping the reality and the destiny of the countries where they are deployed.

The United Kingdom is committed to supporting the United Nations peace operations architecture. I hope that we can all work together to ensure the continual improvements in the United Nations ability to deliver in this crucial field. The demand for effective United Nations peace operations has never been greater. That is why the United Kingdom warmly welcomed the Secretary- General’s announcement last year of an independent panel to conduct a comprehensive review of United Nations peace operations. The review has been an immensely valuable exercise. We commend the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) and welcome the Secretary-General’s response (A/70/357). We must take the opportunity now to push ahead with the vital reforms outlined. Some of the recommendations in the report may increase the United Nations peacekeeping budget. We are prepared to pay more for better peacekeeping, but we must avoid duplication, streamline processes and sharpen mandates. Peace operations must be efficient and effective. The United Kingdom has three priorities for reform, and we want to see rapid action on each of them. First is better protection of civilians. We need more transparency and accountability where missions have failed to protect civilians, so that we can learn from our mistakes and ensure that missions have the capabilities and the training to deliver. We support the Secretary- General’s intentions to initiate regular reporting to the Security Council on risks posed to civilians and on any capability gaps that might impede the protection of civilians. We support full disclosure to the Council of protection-of-civilian failures, and we support the appointment of protection-of-civilian advisers in missions. We were pleased to see the prominence given to women and peace and security, especially as we look forward to tomorrow’s high-level review in the Security Council. We must ensure that women are part of political and protection solutions. This is not about sectioning off women’s issues and placing them in a separate category when managing or addressing conflict; it is about an integrated approach. We therefore endorse the Secretary-General’s call for all senior United Nations staff to have specific job-performance indicators on gender and on women and peace and security, against which they should be held accountable. We also encourage the Secretariat to establish immediate response teams to gather and preserve evidence of sexual exploitation and abuse for use in investigations, which should be completed within six months. On that note, we fully support the Secretary-General’s position on the recent allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. States must take action. Zero tolerance means zero tolerance. Our second priority is better planning of missions and more targeted and focused mandating. The United Kingdom is committed to supporting the Secretariat in improving the way missions are planned and deployed. We are encouraged by the Secretary-General’s plans to establish a new strategic analysis and planning capacity. That unit will draw together expertise across the Secretariat and offer the strategic planning focal point that United Nations peace operations need. We must get better at understanding the situation on the ground, and we must be clear on what we want and on what we can achieve before we start mandating new missions. We must heed the advice that peace operations are led from the field and that policies and processes support that approach rather than work against it. Our third priority is a more strategic approach to force generation. The United Kingdom supports calls for a more flexible approach to deployments, embracing offers of specific technical assistance from Member States. As my Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced at the leaders’ summit on peacekeeping, the United Kingdom will make additional military deployments to the United Nations Support Office for the African Union Mission in Somalia and the United Nations Mission in South Sudan. Those pledges are part of the United Kingdom’s commitment to playing a greater role in supporting United Nations peace operations. We also fully endorse the establishment of the Strategic Force Generation and Capability Planning Cell in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The United Kingdom has provided donor support to the Cell and would encourage other Member States to do likewise. Following the many generous pledges we heard last week, there is much work for the new Cell to do so as to ensure that there is a smooth transition from pledges to deployments. Our top three priorities are, then, the protection of civilians, planning and mandating, and force generation. I would like to conclude by noting the great work done by the more than 100,000 peacekeepers and mission staff across the world and by honouring the sacrifices that so many have made in the quest for peace. Let us work together to make United Nations peace operations the best that they can be. The United Kingdom is ready and willing to play its part.

My delegation thanks the President of the General Assembly for convening this timely debate. We also thank the Secretary-General for his comprehensive briefing this morning (see A/70/PV.29), as well as for his report (A/70/357), which has set out an agenda for the future of United Nations peace operations, based on the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) The Republic of Korea shares the view, set out in the Secretary-General’s report, that the world today urgently needs new and stronger ways to address the international peace and security challenges. We strongly support the idea that, when designed and conducted in more people-focused and targeted ways — in other words, fit for purpose — United Nations peace operations can make a significant contribution to addressing the ever more complex challenges facing the international community. As a Member State that was aided by United Nations forces when our own peace and security were threatened 65 years ago, the Republic of Korea is fully committed to maintaining international peace and security together with United Nations peace operations. In that vein, we are a consistent supporter of United Nations peace operations around the world today, in terms of both troop deployment and financial contributions to the budget for peacekeeping operations. The Republic of Korea is a member of the Peacebuilding Commission, through which our contribution to conflict prevention continues to increase. Two weeks ago, my President participated in the leaders’ summit on peacekeeping and made pledges to United Nations peacekeeping operations, including a new assistance package to the African Union to enhance its peacekeeping capacities. Regarding the aforementioned report of the Secretary-General on United Nations peace operations, we believe that it will be essential for Member States to sustain the political momentum for the implementation of the recommendations made in the reports, as well as to build on synergies with the parallel reviews on peacebuilding architecture and the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), on women and peace and security. To that end, I am happy to inform the Assembly that the Republic of Korea is organizing an expert meeting in Seoul later this month to develop and refine a practical and shared understanding of key aspects of the reform agenda with regard to peace operations and to start thinking about a way forward for its implementation. We hope that that meeting will make a meaningful contribution to the ongoing discussions on peace operations for the remainder of this year.

Denmark aligns itself with the statement made by the observer of the European Union earlier today (see A/70/PV.29). Please allow me to make a few additional comments. In today’s world, the need for strong and effective United Nations peace operations has never been greater, and Denmark welcomes the review of such operations initiated by the Secretary-General last year. Denmark fully supports the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) and the Secretary-General’s report on the implementation of the High-level Panel’s recommendations (A/70/357). Combined, the reports represent a very timely, comprehensive and relevant basis for reforming and strengthening our common efforts at a time when we are faced with ever more complex security crises and threats. To counter those growing challenges, more needs to be done. United Nations peace operations remain absolutely essential in the world of today. Coherence must be a guiding principle in our reform effort. The peace operations review must be seen in connection with the review of the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), on women and peace and security and the peacebuilding architecture review (see A/69/968). Support for United Nations peace operations has been and will continue to be a central pillar of Denmark’s foreign policy. We have been actively participating in several United Nations peace operations as well as in capacity-building missions in countries affected by conflict and fragility. Our development cooperation seeks to contribute to stability and development and thus ultimately to prevent conflicts from evolving in the first place. During the high-level thematic debate on the maintenance of international peace and security two weeks ago, my Government announced its intention to make a number of new commitments to supporting United Nations peace operations. First, we have offered to deploy a military contribution to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) in order to address critical shortfalls there, as well as a police contribution to the same force of up to 12 officers. Denmark is also planning to make a $3 million contribution to trust funds managed by MINUSMA aimed at facilitating, among other things, the provision of quick impact projects for the population. Secondly, we have offered to make a contribution of $1.5 million towards improving and strengthening United Nations efforts to protect civilians in peace operations, including predeployment training of troops focused on effective mandate implementation. Thirdly, we have offered a core contribution of $2.7 million to the Department of Political Affairs for the next three-year period. Denmark fully agrees with the High-level Panel and the Secretary-General that the United Nations role in conflict prevention, mediation and the provision of political solutions to conflicts must be strengthened as an integral element in a coherent United Nations approach to peace operations. We fully support the Secretary-General’s call for the General Assembly to take early action in response to the report’s recommendations. In our work over the coming months, our ultimate goal must be to ensure that the United Nations can effectively provide security in the world of today. That means ensuring that the United Nations has the right instruments at its disposal for addressing today’s difficult security situation. We must take an honest look at the shortcomings and inefficiencies of the current peace and security architecture and carry forward bold and ambitious reforms.

Georgia welcomes the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) as a timely effort to provide a comprehensive assessment of the United Nations experience in peace operations. We hope that today’s discussion will make a positive contribution to the successful streamlining of the United Nations peace operations agenda. Georgia experienced the unfortunate termination of the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which played a crucial role in maintaining peace and stability in the Georgian region of Abkhazia, by a single veto exercised by a permanent member of the Security Council in the spring of 2009. That action set a dangerous precedent in the history of the United Nations. There is therefore a need to analyse the case of UNOMIG, including its successes and shortcomings, so as to provide the United Nations community with the appropriate lessons learned and to identify possible tools needed for the Organization to avoid similar failures in the future. The abolition of that important United Nations Mission was used by a permanent member of the Security Council as a means to achieve its expansionist geopolitical goals. Despite extensive consultations on all levels at the United Nations and elsewhere, on 15 June 2009 the Security Council failed to extend the mandate of UNOMIG for another term, as Russia vetoed a rollover draft resolution aimed at providing more time for negotiations on a new mandate. Nearly six years later, there is no adequate replacement for that dismantled international presence, namely, its main pillars: UNOMIG and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe mission in Georgia. And while the European Union Monitoring Mission continues its duties, further efforts to provide an independent, neutral and effective international presence on the ground for the purpose of peacekeeping has proven unsuccessful so far. UNOMIG represents a unique case in the history of the United Nations when a mission was terminated permanently, prematurely and against the will of the host nation prior to the achievement of the main goals set out in its mandate. Nevertheless, a comprehensive analysis of the causes and consequences of that unfortunate development has never been made in the United Nations. The presence of UNOMIG in Georgia was in accordance with Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations, and the deployment of peacekeepers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) peacekeeping force, with the Security Council’s authorization, was conducted in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter, as peacekeeping involving regional organizations acting in cooperation with the United Nations civilian monitors. Each time the Security Council has adopted a resolution on Georgia, it has reaffirmed the commitment of all Member States to supporting the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia within its internationally recognized borders, and reiterated the fundamental right of return for all refugees and internally displaced persons to Abkhazia, Georgia and their individual property rights. Unfortunately, UNOMIG’s role was limited to monitoring the CIS forces. The latter entity, consisting exclusively of Russian military personnel, violated the acceptable principles of peacekeeping outlined by Secretary-General’s 1994 report (S/1994/253). The report required that the regional force, under Chapter VII of the Charter, show respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia, the consent of the parties, impartiality, an international character, a clear mandate, transparency, an integral link to a political process for the resolution of the conflict and a plan for orderly withdrawal. Nonetheless, the Russian Federation, by hijacking the peacekeeping part of the United Nations mandate, has been in serious material breach of all those requirements for years. Unfortunately, Georgia’s every proposal aimed at making the CIS modus operandi multinational, transparent, impartial and accountable — that is, in accordance with the provisions of the Secretary- General’s 1994 report — was met with fierce objection by the Russian Federation. While the political segment of the United Nations operation in Georgia in the form of UNOMIG was highly effective and acted strictly in accordance with its mandate, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s report, the peacekeeping part of the operation, formally the CIS peacekeeping force but in reality a Russian military force, was extensively used by the Russian Federation to serve its geopolitical ends. The most significant demonstration of that conclusion was the transformation of the CIS peacekeeping force into a Russian occupation force, in itself a unique precedent in United Nations history, and the continued illegal Russian military occupation of Georgian territories, including the Abkhaz region. In the light of that experience, here are some of our recommendations. First, the effectiveness of monitoring of peacekeeping and other stabilizing institutions and arrangements depends on the trust and confidence in which they are held by the parties to the conflict. No party to the conflict, or party that is considered to be strongly supportive of any of the sides, should assume a position of command or serve as chair or arbiter or exercise any other control of an operation that depends on the notions of impartiality and even-handedness in order to be effective. Secondly, particular attention has to be paid to the ability of the international community to adjust the relevant security arrangements to the changing environment, as the needs on the ground may change with new developments. The international community must be prepared to reassess, readjust and reinforce the stabilizing arrangements and institutions that were put in place during or immediately after the crisis situation. Thirdly, special attention must be paid and support extended to the affected Member States, which, as they evolve into able and responsible players in the international arena, should be assisted in their transformation from mere recipients of security to providers of security in all its dimensions, including human rights and development.

First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s meeting, which enables us to exchange points of view, especially on the reports on peacekeeping operations, and to than the Secretary- General for his presentation this morning (see A/70/ PV.29). My delegation is also grateful to the High- level Independent Panel on Peace Operations and the Secretary-General for their respective reports (see A/70/95 and A/70/357). They represent a key contribution to the intergovernmental discussions to be held. In that connection, we believe that discussions in the relevant forums on the reviews of resolution 1325 (2000), of peacekeeping operations and of the peacebuilding architecture should be carried out with a holistic focus that establishes synergies among the various processes. Uruguay, as a troop-contributing country, notes with particular interest the processes under way. We recently co-hosted the summit on peacekeeping operations, at which we committed to making more concrete contributions to the system, including, to use just one example, a mechanized infantry company. We also support the Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians — the outcome of the International Conference on the Protection of Civilians, organized by Rwanda last May — because the protection of civilians is so important today for maintaining the physical and moral integrity of people during conflict situations, especially the most vulnerable. Our troops have been protecting civilians in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for a number of years. From our experience on the ground, we know that that is one of the activities that brings the United Nations closest to local populations suffering from the impact of violence. Uruguay is strongly committed to the zero-tolerance policy in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse and therefore recently approved a protocol for action in dealing with reports of sexual abuse and exploitation and paternity communicated by the United Nations that was considered by a disciplinary unit as a model for other States to follow. That protocol seeks to provide guarantees, responses and support to persons who have been victims of situations of sexual exploitation and abuse because of the possible misconduct of Uruguayan forces. A focal point has been appointed within the Uruguayan Foreign Ministry for the treatment and handling of possible cases of sexual exploitation and abuse, and we have also appointed a focal point on the ground for any such cases that could occur. Given our commitment to peacekeeping, we will make the most of the opportunity and the momentum to engage in discussions in the appropriate forums with a view to improving the efficiency to the system. Uruguay will continue to bring its constructive vision to the General Assembly, and also, if the membership so decides, on 15 October, to the Security Council for the period 2016-2017.

The Netherlands aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer for the European Union and its member States earlier today. The Kingdom of the Netherlands is grateful for the Secetary-General’s initiative last year calling for a review of the way the United Nations does business when it comes to its peace operations. We welcomed the subsequent establishment of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations under the able leadership of Mr. Ramos-Horta, and we have actively supported the work of the Panel. Today’s debate in the General Assembly on the High-level Panel’s report on United Nations peace operations (see A/70/95) and the Secretary-General’s implementation report (A/70/357) is very timely. With conflicts on the rise and more refugees and internally displaced people than ever, we need a United Nations that can deal with the demands of today. Successful peace operations in a broad sense are the core of what the United Nations is expected to deliver in that regard. We endorse the valuable and concrete recommendations in the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations, and we welcome the Secretary- General’s report, which sets firm and specific priorities for conflict prevention, partnerships, planning and the support of peace operations. Let me highlight four aspects. The first priority should be better protection of civilians in situations of conflict. The effective protection of civilians is what should make the headlines. Lack of protection — or worse, crimes being committed by peacekeepers  — is detrimental to the reputation of the United Nations and to the people involved, not because it harms the Organization’s image, but because the United Nations then fails to deliver on its core business. The Security Council and the States Members of the United Nations should respond more consistently and more proactively to requests for support to protect civilians and should engage at an earlier stage of conflict prevention. Also, a comprehensive approach and close coordination with the relevant actors, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, are essential. The firm and proactive commitment of all involved to working closely with local communities, non-governmental organizations and especially with women is equally essential. We witnessed that ourselves during the training at the European Union Police Mission in Afghanistan. Secondly, we welcome the Secretary-General’s proposals regarding the further institutionalization of and more integrated approaches by regional and global partnerships, in particular with regard to the African Union. Thirdly, it is particularly urgent for the United Nations, with the support of Member States, to improve the planning and implementation of mandates and missions. We need a comprehensive approach, including close consultation with troop- and police-contributing countries. The Security Council has an important responsibility in this regard. We also need field-based, flexible and people-centred missions, with strong leaders and well-trained troops. Fourthly, numerous conferences on and reviews of the women and peace and security agenda have taken place. The time for the implementation of that agenda has come. We all have a responsibility here. The States Members of the United Nations are also responsible for international peace and security. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has been and remains an active partner worldwide, helping to build a safer, more peaceful and more sustainable world. Since 1947, our country has been involved in more than 60 United Nations-mandated missions in over 30 countries, deploying more than 125,000 men and women. In 2013, the Netherlands returned to United Nations peacekeeping with a large and innovative contribution to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, focusing on high-value intelligence capabilities. Our contribution consists of 450 military personnel, who are working on the Mission’s intelligence capability, and civilian experts and police officers. Our experience shows that the effective use of information and intelligence can contribute meaningfully to achieving the mandated goals and can save the lives of peacekeepers and civilians. We stand ready to help modernize United Nations missions and make them more effective. To achieve those objectives, the United Nations needs Member States to provide more resources. To encourage other countries, the Kingdom of the Netherlands hosted a European regional conference on peace operations in Amsterdam last February. Together with Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Rwanda and Uruguay, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was co-host of the recent leaders’ summit on peacekeeping, organized by the United States and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has also made a considerable donation to the Department’s Strategic Force Generation and Capability Planning Cell in order to further improve planning and outreach to Member States. As mentioned earlier, we welcome the Secretary- General’s implementation report as a follow-up to the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. We call on all States Members of the United Nations to collectively support its swift implementation. With the report on the peacebuilding architecture (see A/69/968), the global study on the implementation of Security Council resolution 1325 (2000), and the reports on peace operations, we have an important and not-to-be-missed opportunity to strengthen and improve the United Nations peace and security architecture in an integrated and comprehensive way. In that context, let me quote from the statement of the observer for the European Union this morning: “No one reform should be undertaken in isolation from the others. The search for coherence, synergies and complementarities among these reviews should guide our work ahead.” (A/70/PV.29, p. 6) Let me assure you, Mr. President, that the Kingdom of the Netherlands will continue to be a constructive partner in the process ahead of us.

Mr. President, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address such an important issue as the review of peacekeeping operations. This review comes at a time when peacekeeping operations have tripled since the year 2000. In other words, it is obvious that we are going through complex times in international relations. We therefore welcome the report of the High- level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95), headed by former President Ramos-Horta of Timor-Leste, and the subsequent report of the Secretary General (A/70/357). We align ourselves with the statement made by the representative of Morocco on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (see A/70/PV.29). We no wish to set out a few thoughts on behalf of Chile. The report of the Secretary-General covers many areas in which we can improve peacekeeping operations. Chile values the emphasis placed on mediation and facilitation. We believe that they are important tools that can prevent the outbreak of conflicts and consequently save lives. We also deem important the focus on the political aspect, since initiatives in peacekeeping operations must not be centred solely on the military aspect. There is a need for a comprehensive strategy that covers social and economic aspects and full respect for human rights — in short, a road map that will lead to lasting peace. Chile also notes with much interest the aspect of preparation in improving the training of the troops of peacekeeping operations. We are prepared to cooperate in that area. Furthermore, we think that the participation of women is indispensable, not only in terms of numbers, but also in terms of occupying higher-ranking posts. We were present when Mr. Jan Eliasson presented the report of the Secretary-General a few weeks ago. In so doing, he constantly refered to the need for the international community to have the will to make successful the review process that we are now initiating. We believe that the success of that process will depend to a great extent on its being discussed in an open and transparent fashion; in other words, all States Members of the United Nations must be able to participate. Only in that way will we get a solid and legitimate mandate that will enable us to operate more easily in the new context of peacekeeping operations.

My delegation extends its appreciation to you, Sir, to the Secretary-General for the initiative and presentation of his report (A/70 357), and to the Chair of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. Indonesia extends its appreciation to President Ramos-Horta and his outstanding team for their exemplary work. My delegation associates itself with the statement delivered this morning by the representative of the Kingdom of Morocco on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (see A/70/PV.29). During the high-level week, Indonesia took part in the leaders’ summit on peace operations that was chaired by President Barack Obama. During the summit, Indonesia pledged to deploy by 2016 a military composite battalion and a formed police unit that includes 100 individual police officers, including 40 female police officers. That pledge was made when we co-hosted the Asia-Pacific regional meeting on peacekeeping operations held in Jakarta this year. In that regard, Indonesia remains steadfastly committed to realizing our vision of 4,000 peacekeeping troops by the year 2019. We concur with the view that the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see A/70/95) and the Secretary-General’s report must be addressed because of the ever-increasing demand, change and developments in peacekeeping operations. My delegation believes that both reports should be implemented by all Member States with a view to strengthening ownership by all Member States in a transparent manner. We therefore support further intergovernmental deliberations in the areas of concepts, policies and strategies within the framework of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which is mandated to formulate policymaking in peacekeeping. Recommendations related to peacekeeping should be addressed at the Special Committee. With regard to the recommendations related to special political missions, we consider it appropriate that they be addressed in the Fourth Committee, while issues pertaining to financial implications should remain within the purview of the Fifth Committee. As we celebrate the seventieth anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations, we are cognizant that fulfilling its mandate remains a challenge. Each country may contribute differently to United Nations peacekeeping. Even the smallest contributions matter, as they can make a difference in maintaining international peace and security. First and foremost, deploying a United Nations peacekeeping mission is a reflection of international commitment in the face of current threats to international security. We must work hard to enhance international cooperation and mutual trust between countries. Indonesia continues to be committed to peacekeeping operations in all their aspects, and stands ready to take that process forward within the United Nations, through an intergovernmental process.

We have now heard the last speaker in the debate on agenda item 122. I thank all of you for your contributions, and for the candid and positive spirit in which you have engaged in that debate. Many welcomed the work of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations and the subsequent report of the Secretary-General as useful contributions to our discussions on how best to ensure that United Nations peace operations are as effective as possible. In the light of today’s debate, I intend to explore with Member States the notion of advancing a procedural resolution that should recall in particular that relevant bodies will assess the recommendations in accordance with established procedures. I look forward to the General Assembly’s further active consideration of those proposals.