S/PV.4072 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Croatia, Egypt, Finland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Japan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, the Sudan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided.

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations. I now call on the Secretary-General.

I am delighted to take part in this vital meeting on one of the greatest challenges facing the United Nations, and one that, since the beginning It is clear that prevention is one of the main tasks of this Organization. And yet, far too often, we find ourselves dealing with the effects of conflict rather than its roots. As I wrote in the introduction to this year's annual report on the work of the Organization, we need to move “from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention”. (A/54/l, para.61) The case for prevention hardly needs restating. Quite simply, it is cost-effective, in financial as well as human terms. Most people now recognize this as a general proposition. But in a particular case, cogent arguments for refusing or delaying preventive action can always be found. Those directly involved may be unwilling to see the danger, or may resent interference from outsiders. This is especially likely to be true of States threatened with internal conflict. In some cases, one or more of the parties may actually believe that conflict will serve its interests. Outsiders, for their part, may well believe that the proposed action is unnecessary, or indeed that it will make matters worse. Thus, as Hamlet put it, “... the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action.” (Hamlet, Act III, scene l) That is what we mean when we say that the crucial element of political will is lacking. There is no substitute for the recognition by the parties themselves that their actions are moving towards conflict, and that preventive action is needed. But there are ways in which we, as an Organization, could and should do more to make that clear to them. Over the past two years, I have tried to strengthen our capacity for preventive diplomacy, preventive disarmament, preventive deployment and both pre-conflict and post-conflict peace-building. Our efforts, however, will fall short unless they are complemented by a renewed commitment to effective prevention on the part of the Council and of all Member States. I hope the Council will use this meeting to examine how it can make prevention a tangible part of its day-to-day work. Among the steps which the Council could take are the following: greater use of fact-finding missions, either by the Secretary-General or by the Council itself, at much earlier stages of a dispute — in accordance with the Council's Charter responsibility to “investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute” and “endanger the maintenance of international peace and security”; encouraging States which become aware of potential conflict within or among their neighbours to bring the issue promptly to the Council's attention; giving urgent attention to the problems of States which suffer acute economic, environmental and security strains, with consequent risks to their internal stability, because they are hosting large refugee populations from neighbouring countries — Guinea, with 500,000 refugees currently in its territory from Liberia and Sierra Leone, would be a strong candidate for such attention in the immediate future; establishing an informal working group, or a subsidiary organ, to study early warning and prevention issues and report back; and instituting regular meetings on prevention, at which the Council would identify areas that will require urgent preventive action. Finally, the United Nations needs to address the issue of resources. Cost-effective preventive action is not cost- free, yet, regrettably, there is an endemic paucity of resources for it. I think we all realize that operational preventive measures such as I have just outlined, while they must always be tried, will often be too late to make much difference. In the longer term it is even more important to address the deep-rooted causes of conflicts, which often lie in the social and economic sphere. Poverty, repression and undemocratic government, endemic underdevelopment, weak or non-existent institutions, political and economic discrimination between ethnic or religious communities: these are the long-term causes of many conflicts. It is Member States that must resolve internal differences peacefully and through negotiations. It is they that must allow dissent, establish the rule of law, protect the rights of minorities and ensure that elections are free and fair. It is they that must adopt enlightened economic and social policies that do not allow any group of the population to feel they are systematically excluded from their share of the country's wealth or denied any say in decisions affecting their lives. While war is the worst enemy of development, healthy and balanced development is the best form of long-term conflict prevention. If any of those present recognize that statement, it is because I said it last month in an address to the staff of the World Bank. That was, I believe, an appropriate forum in which to broach that subject. For all its awesome authority, the Council alone cannot help Member States to remove the long-term causes of conflict. Many of these fall within the terms of reference of other parts of the United Nations system, including the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations Development Programme, the Economic and Social Council and even the International Court of Justice. Effective action will often require joint action by many different organs and agencies, just as it requires joint action by different government departments within Member States. These different agencies often have separate agendas, and in the past have not been used to thinking — let alone working — together. This is now improving, but there is still scope for much closer coordination of policy among them, and also, in many cases, between them and non-governmental organizations or the private sector. The Council may wish to take the initiative in organizing discussion of the many and complex issues involved at the highest level, perhaps at a meeting to be held during next year's Millennium Summit. Allow me to conclude with one final thought. But it is perhaps even more important to do it on the collective level — and that is where the Council has its gravest responsibility. I really believe that, thanks to the prompt and effective decisions taken by the Council in 1990 and 1991, States all over the world are today in less danger of being treated as Kuwait was then. But we have also observed that these days many of the gravest conflicts which come to require the attention of the Council year after year occur not between States, but within them. That is why in my address to the General Assembly two months ago I appealed for a new consensus on intervention, defined in the broadest sense. In that address I noted that armed intervention is itself a result of the failure of prevention, and I stressed the value of deterrence in preventing conflict. Let me repeat, then, that nothing would be more effective in deterring States and other parties from resorting to the extreme measures that characterize too many present-day conflicts than a clear demonstration that the Council is indeed prepared to take decisive action when faced with crimes against humanity. It is my hope that this meeting today will help the United Nations forge a consensus on these vital questions and restore prevention to its rightful place as the first responsibility of the Security Council and of the Organization as a whole.

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement. I wish to add, Mr. Secretary-General, that your statement, your ideas and your proposals will certainly be an important source of inspiration for the Security Council in its future work.

Thank you, Mr. President, for calling this public meeting on such an important subject. I also want to thank the Secretary-General for his statement and all that he has done personally to strengthen the Security Council's role in preventing armed conflict and dealing with its consequences. The United States is pleased that the United Nations and regional and other international groups have decided to make conflict prevention a priority. We support these efforts. Before continuing, I would like to take this occasion — with your permission, Mr. President — to introduce an individual, seated behind me to my right, of enormous importance to our efforts: Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Frist is not only an outstanding member of the Congress and a member of the majority party who has given so much of his time to issues concerning Africa, but he is also a pioneer in open-heart surgery and heart transplants. Indeed, he performed the first heart-lung transplant in the United States. I am not saying that because I think anyone in the room might need this in the next hour, but, just in case, I wanted all present to know that we will be more secure as long as Senator Frist is with us. As members know, I am leaving tomorrow for Africa with Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and with the ranking minority member in that Committee, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Because Senator Frisk could not make that trip with us, but to illustrate the bipartisan importance we attach to Africa, he is spending two days with us and has met already with many of the Permanent Representatives here and with other members of the United Nations. I thank him for joining us today as a symbol — and I stress this — of the importance that both branches and both parties attach to Africa. I have just returned, over the weekend, from Indonesia and East Timor, and with your permission, Mr. President, I would like to give you a quick situation report on that area, because I think it is illustrative again, like Bosnia, of how the United Nations can contribute to an area. It is clear that in the month of September the Security Council actions broke the back of a tragedy of over 20 years and opened the door for a peaceful resolution of that problem. In my trip to East Timor I saw evidence of the success of the United Nations effort. First, I can report to you, Mr. Secretary-General, that your personal selection as Special Representative in East Timor, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is doing a magnificent job with his understaffed and overwhelmed team. They are deep into the planning for transition to what will be the first new country of the twenty-first century, and they are working effectively with all sides. I also want to single out the International Force, East Timor (INTERFET) forces, under the command of General Cosgrove of Australia, which have brought stability to the region. We met at the border between West Timor and East Timor to discuss opening the border for refugee flow, and effected the first meeting between the Indonesian military, the Australian leadership and the Commander of the guerrilla forces at that border. That was well reported by the media. In East Timor I can report some impressive and hopeful signs of progress among the debris of a city needlessly torn apart by war. I cannot, however, give as optimistic or upbeat a report about the situation in the refugee camps in West Timor. Over 100,000 East Timorese are still in those camps, being fed misinformation and inaccurate stories by the militia and therefore are afraid to return. I regret to say that there has been a massive public information failure on the part of the refugee effort in West Timor. There has been no effective effort to counter the propaganda that is being spread. I mention this in a meeting on the issue we are here to discuss for a simple reason: we can talk generalities as long as we want, but here is a specific example of where the United Nations is performing magnificently in East Timor, but, I regret to say, has not yet done what it needs to do in West Timor. We have worked closely with them, we tape-recorded messages by Bishop Belo and Xanana Gusmão, which are now being distributed in the camps, and I urge everyone involved in this situation to work hard to get those camps open. Those people should not remain in those camps, otherwise all the good words spoken in this meeting today will be meaningless in an area of the world where the United Nations has undertaken massive responsibilities. These challenges, like those in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and many other war-torn places, remind us how common war and violence remain. As we approach the question of how to prevent armed conflict, we must be clear on the distinction between its causes and its consequences. Much of what United Nations agencies such as the UNHCR do is to deal with the consequences, as do most of the non- governmental organizations. The Security Council deals both with consequences and, I would hope, increasingly would address conflict prevention by dealing with the causes. In East Timor, this took over 20 years. In Bosnia, the United Nations did not succeed, and it had to turn the process over to other organizations. It is our responsibility to address the underlying causes of conflict. The international record has been less than exemplary. I would, however, commend the Secretary-General for the brave and courageous report on Srebrenica, which illustrates both the tragedy and the leadership of the United Nations, and its willingness to deal honestly with what happened there. Rwanda as well deserves to get similar examination, as another recent tragedy where we could have, and Ultimately, government leaders must answer for their actions. Those of us who have the ability to prevent conflicts have a moral, political and indeed at times a strategic obligation to do so. The risks and dangers of acting do not justify simply doing nothing. Therefore, we must focus on the tools needed to mitigate tensions and commit ourselves to early, preventive action. Above all, we need a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention. The promotion of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, equal economic opportunity and market-based economic systems provides the surest path to long-term global stability and development. We have seen over the weekend a dramatic step forward in the longstanding, ancient quarrels in Ireland under this kind of patient, careful negotiations, encouraged and stimulated in this case by my friend and colleague George Mitchell. Here at the United Nations, the Secretary-General plays an important role in identifying and mitigating potential conflicts. The United States continues to encourage him to intercede in deteriorating situations as soon he feels it is possible to do so and to keep the Security Council informed of his actions, his views and his recommendations. The Security Council should also become more deeply engaged. The lessons of East Timor, and in particular Ambassador Andjaba’s superb mission, in which he was accompanied by several other people here, was instrumental in coordinating the international response. The Security Council should not hesitate to deploy similar missions to other conflict situations, if we think they can make a difference. And I would point out that when Ambassador Andjaba’s mission took off, no one thought it would do as well as it did. And that leads me to make a rather fundamental point, which is that sometimes one must take chances to achieve peace, as my friend Mr. Andjaba and his colleagues did two months ago. Having seen East Timor today, I can say that he can be proud of what he started. Both the complexity and volume of recent crises demonstrate the need for coordinated and broader responses. The United Nations cannot simply act alone. To maximize effectiveness, we should augment existing efforts. Secondly, international development and financial institutions are playing a growing role in the planning and implementation of conflict prevention activities. The United Nations should inform the international financial institutions of potential crisis situations so that they can respond appropriately. Thirdly, we should work together to enhance the capability of the United Nations to recruit, train and deploy international civilian police. Anyone here who has been in Bosnia or Kosovo knows that no issue is more important to the future success of those missions. The same will be true in East Timor. Equally important is the need for effective measures to combat the illicit trade in commodities — such as small arms and, especially in Africa, diamonds — that helps to prolong these conflicts and that is cynically promoted by regional warlords and local authorities. Without prejudice to the right of legitimate self-defence, we urge States to enact voluntary national moratoriums on the sale of small arms and light weapons to conflict areas. We invite our partners to work with us and with the diamond industry to develop a certification mechanism to combat the illegitimate trade in diamonds that has done so much to fuel and finance conflict, particularly in Africa. To fulfil its purpose and historic promise, the United Nations must maintain a leading role in preventing wars and other tragedies. To this end, the United Nations must effectively tap into its expertise and its other resources, and dedicate them to conflict prevention. And to this end, the entire United Nations system, particularly the Member States, should support the Secretary-General’s efforts to strengthen and mobilize resources for conflict prevention activities. The United States will welcome a ministerial- level meeting on conflict prevention during next year’s Millennium Assembly. It is vital that the Security Council, the Secretariat and all United Nations Members play an active role in ongoing efforts to prevent international conflict. True, in many places, particularly places such as the Balkans or the Congo or Rwanda, it is tempting to argue that future conflict is inevitable, that things have to get worse before they can be resolved — and I do not deny the fact that Hatred often seems too deep, brutality too prevalent and the memories of injustice too raw, which leaves people with the feeling that nothing can be done. But we must not give in to the seduction of moral disgust, followed by neglect and then by empty posturing and hand-wringing.

I thank the representative of the United States for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. President, your initiative to organize today’s open debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict is a most welcome and timely one. I wish also to thank the Secretary-General for having opened our discussion. His statement reflected his wise conception of his role and of the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations. It is the Charter that, in Article 99, gives the Secretary-General the power and the right to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. That role has sometimes been debated; the Secretary-General’s use of Article 99 and of his powers in that sphere have at times been criticized — with respect, for example, to the Middle East or to Africa. I find it perfectly splendid that the Secretary-General is here today to demonstrate his interest in the President’s initiative. During September’s general debate in the General Assembly and during the Assembly’s debate on the report of the Security Council, many Member States emphasized the importance of conflict prevention and the need to make better use of existing resources and procedures. That appeal is justified by the simple observation that it is always more costly both financially and in human terms to put an end to an armed conflict than to prevent it from breaking out. Hence the interest in this debate, which was clearly highlighted by the previous speaker. The Charter gives the Security Council a role in the prevention of armed conflict. Chapter VI, which relates to the pacific settlement of disputes, sets out the role the Council can play in assisting the parties, in determining whether the persistence of a dispute seems to threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, and in recommending procedures or methods of adjustment, or even what it deems as the appropriate terms of a settlement. Chapter VII deals with actions in the event of a threat to the peace. There, we are still in the preventive stage, and Yet the Security Council has encountered difficulties in playing its proper role in conflict prevention, and we should be fully aware of those difficulties. First of all, at a time that is powerfully influenced by the media, events leading to an armed conflict draw less attention than a conflict that is already under way. Unfortunately, news reports too often tend to define priorities. Moreover, preventive action often requires discretion and tenacity, virtues that are not well adapted to the constraints of an ultra-media-oriented world — about whose values a great deal has been said. In this area as in many others, good judgement is required. Sometimes it can be useful for the Security Council to deal openly and publicly with an issue so as to mobilize attention and to put pressure on the parties. That was certainly the effect of the Security Council mission to Jakarta and Dili, sent on the initiative of Ambassador van Walsum and led by Ambassador Anjaba in the outstanding manner that has already been noted. That mission made international intervention possible in East Timor before the situation was beyond repair. That was an example of the value of preventive Security Council action carried out publicly. But in other cases it can be preferable to act with discretion. While we understand the mounting wish for increased transparency in the Council’s activities, we must also be able to make use of discrete ways and means to settle a matter satisfactorily, and of the advantages offered by informal consultations among Council members or other procedures that can make possible direct, private dialogue with the parties concerned. I shall mention only one example of this, and indeed one in which the Council was not directly involved: the decisive action by the former Secretary-General in the settlement of the dispute between Eritrea and Yemen over the Hanish islands. From the initial steps by the former Secretary-General to the decision by a court of arbitration, this required long months of delicate negotiations carried out with absolute discretion. Indeed, my country played a role in that peaceful settlement, but sought no public advantage from this. That is an example of how discretion is sometimes necessary and how we should value it, however much we may regret the absence of the media’s cameras and flashbulbs. We should note in this respect that the text of the Charter, in legal terms, does not exclude the Council from debating an internal situation if, according to Article 34, “the continuance of the ... situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security” or, again, as in Article 39, if “the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace”. It is perfectly possible in the Council to debate, under these Articles of the Charter, a situation within a State. However, one must not confuse debate with having recourse to force, which comes under other provisions that are precise and limiting. The Council can take up an issue and take preventive measures without necessarily envisaging the use of force. This was done in the spring of 1998 in the case of Kosovo. The Council debated, preoccupied by a degradation during several months of the situation on the ground marked both by an intensification of repression by Yugoslav forces and by activities of the guerrillas of the UCK, and the Council adopted resolution 1160 (1998). This resolution included several demands addressed to the parties to put an end to violence and terrorism and to engage in a real dialogue, and coercive measures, in particular an arms embargo aimed at putting pressure on the parties and depriving them of the means of intensifying the fighting. The events which followed, unfortunately, showed that only even stronger action on the part of the international community could prevent the conflict from getting worse. This leads me to the third difficulty, which consists of taking adequate measures, in time, to confront a situation and give oneself the means to desired ends. Is not the Council reproached too often for doing too little too late? Retrospectively, it would have been necessary in Kosovo to intervene earlier and more forcefully. In what was formerly Zaire, in the autumn of 1996, the Security Council, after having authorised deployment of a multinational defense force to allow the sending of humanitarian aide to hundreds of thousands of refugees, Practically, that means two things: on the one hand, having the courage and the political will to act while it is still not too late; on the other hand — and this is not limited to preventive actions — watching to ensure an appropriate balance of means to ends and provide the necessary human, financial and material resources. On this subject, when it involves preventing an armed conflict — which I believe is the subject of today's debate — the financial aspect, as important as it is, should become neither a constraint nor a pre-condition for action by the Security Council. Fortunately, some examples show how the Council acted effectively in the past. We must not forget that, for example, with respect to the former Yugoslav Republic or Macedonia, the United Nations prevention force has been there from 1992 to 1999, the first example of the deployment of a force aimed at preventing conflicts and tensions in a region from overflowing into a neighbouring country. This must be credited to the United Nations, which has had successes as well in the Balkans. We cannot, with respect to preventive action, isolate the role of the Security Council from the responsibilities and functions of other organs of the United Nations and, beyond that, from regional organizations and from Member States. The Secretary-General, I have already said, has an extremely important role to play in alerting the Council to situations which seem to him susceptible of degenerating and in taking, in consultation with the Council, preventive diplomatic actions directly or indirectly through special envoys. Evidently, to accomplish such missions, the Secretary-General must be able to rely on expertise within Thus, the Secretary-General, in his report on Africa, has very justly said that the best prevention is through treating the underlying causes of conflicts, notably internal conflicts. That supposes that States, assisted by donors and international organizations, ensure sustainable development, being attentive to social redistribution, watching over good governance, power sharing, democratization, respect for human rights and protection of minorities. This highlights our sense of the need for directions currently taken by the United Nations Development Programme, based on this concept of good governance, that we would like to see involve respect for human rights, proper justice and protection of minorities. These areas are various and related. Growing attention is rightly being given to the problem of excessive and destabilizing accumulation of and illegal trafficking in light weapons and small arms. These weapons, of which 500 million are in circulation throughout the world, have been the principal instrument of killing occasioned by conflicts of the post-cold war period. They are responsible for 90 per cent of the deaths caused by these conflicts. The struggle against their accumulation and trafficking constitutes the prime example of a preventable situation. It is appropriate here to recall the conference scheduled in 2001 on the illegal trafficking in small arms at which France has the intention to propose negotiation of an instrument making obligatory the marking of these arms. It is also worth commending again, as we have done in other circumstances, the initiative of Mali, now a project of the Economic Community of West African States for a moratorium on importing, exporting and manufacturing light weapons in West Africa. In the same spirit, programmes of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants have both curative and preventive sides. The Council must continue to encourage such measures. But these will only have a limited scope if they are not completed by actions in other spheres related to the careful reintegration of ex- combatants. Reduction of the number of armed men presupposes that the economy offers real prospects of Regional organizations also have an essential role to play. Their coordination and dialogue with the United Nations — the Security Council in particular — must be strengthened. More frequent contacts between the Security Council and the leaders of the regional and subregional organizations would provide useful opportunities to exchange information and examine situations in which preventive action might be necessary and the involvement of the Security Council desirable. As can be seen, conflict prevention is an area in which we could do more and be more effective. France hopes that today’s debate will both increase the level of resolve and stimulate imaginations. In this connection, the presidential statement that you, Mr. President, are to make on behalf of the Council at the end of this open debate reviews the Council’s means and capacities for carrying out its conflict-prevention mandate. It will be useful to review them, but it is even more important to keep them in mind when we examine specific situations, as we do on a daily basis.

I thank the representative of France for the kind words he addressed to me and my delegation.

The holding of an open debate on the “Role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict” is highly timely. There is an urgent need to adapt to the new security environment, since today security is taken to mean more than arms regulation and disarmament. The concept of security is broader and more qualitative. For this reason the organs of the United Nations, with the goal of protecting human beings, are adapting to meet the challenges this changing reality presents. The starting point is democratic institutions, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance and development. The international transformations resulting from globalization have in the last decade offered new opportunities. But globalization also means shared risks, border conflicts, migratory movements, refugees, organized crime, ecological damage, and the rapid spread of technologies capable of creating weapons of mass destruction — to mention but a few problems. We must simultaneously confront the immediate, root causes of conflicts, most of which in stem from lack of economic opportunities and social inequalities. It is timely to recall that in parallel with this debate that is taking place in Seattle a meeting of the World Trade Organization. The Secretary-General, in his article today in The Wall Street Journal, and in his comments just a few minutes ago, states: “Practical experience has shown that trade and investment often bring not only economic development but higher standards of human rights and environmental protection as well.” In other words, the possibility of access to markets for the developing countries will be to the benefit of all, since it will lead to a reduction in the need for assistance. Trade is less onerous than aid. As the Secretary-General rightly stated in his report on the work of the Organization, “The main short- and medium-term strategies for preventing non-violent conflicts from escalating into war, and preventing earlier wars from erupting again, are preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament.” (A/54/1, para. 36) Likewise, as was already established in 1992 in “An Agenda for Peace”, preventive measures must be based on timely and precise knowledge of the facts. There is a need for understanding based on a correct analysis of global events and trends. It is also essential to have the political will to accomplish this. The power to adopt preventive measures in accordance with the Charter resides mainly in the Security Council. This is where the political will must be created. The Charter provides a series of measures whose timely use can resolve situations of potential danger: for example, prompt investigation, in accordance with Article 34; conflict assessment; where necessary, the application of the measures provided for in Chapter VII that do not involve the use of force; and the possible use of this last resort. The Secretary-General is also clearly contributing to this endeavour. We view as essential the current smooth collaboration between the Secretary-General and the Council for early detection of situations that may develop into a threat to peace and security, so that the Council can take appropriate measures in time. We would also like to emphasize the role that can be played by the International Tribunals in creating awareness that impunity will no longer be tolerated. This role will be enhanced when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court enters into force. The regional organizations are also called upon to play their role; it can be extremely useful to coordinate their efforts with those of the United Nations. Proof of this can be found in the initiatives of the various regional organizations in Latin America, Africa and Europe. In conclusion, we must ensure that in the realm of international security in the coming decades the interests of collective security prevail over national, regional and sectoral interests. Only in this way will it be possible to avoid conflict and maintain a stable and lasting peace.

Let me begin by commending you, Mr. President, for having organized today’s debate on the Security Council’s role in conflict prevention. Canada is a firm supporter of such initiatives, which enable the Council to consider multidisciplinary quotations concerning security and the Council’s mandate in an open, transparent and comprehensive manner. The subject on which you have focused our attention today is of pressing relevance to the Security Council. A quick glance at the Council’s day-to- day agenda unfortunately reveals the reality of the Council’s reactive approach to conflict. The results of the Council’s deliberations and of the action it mandates on the ground tell of the challenges of reversing, controlling or resolving conflict once it has broken out. The risks and costs, both human and financial, of this approach must lead us to a re-evaluation of how the Council works, how its mandate is interpreted and how it uses the tools at its disposal. Nothing in the Council’s Charter mandate precludes it from taking preventive action in the pursuit of international peace and security. Taking such action would, of course, require the Council to embrace a broader definition of security; taking into account the multiple factors that contribute to a conflict and thus suppressing it in its earliest stages and manifestations. That would mean focusing not only on aggression between States, but also on such intrastate security issues as gross and systematic human rights abuse or catastrophic humanitarian emergencies, utter failures of governance and the rule of law, and gross instances of economic deprivation. In short, it would mean paying greater attention to threats to human security which, as recent experience has shown, have been key sources of conflict in the post-cold-war era. Responding to such threats early and effectively requires a political decision by the Council which, after all, has the discretionary power to determine what constitutes a threat to peace and security. Early preventive action by the Council, whether persuasive or coercive, would help to pre-empt both the emergence and the escalation of conflict, thus providing an important deterrent effect. There are important precedents of Council action to build on. The United Nations first preventive military deployment — the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force — helped to prevent the spread of conflict in a region racked by strife. The Council should consider deploying more preventive missions, both military and civilian, drawing on this experience and that of recent post-conflict operations which play important preventive roles. Another innovative and progressive step was the creation of international criminal tribunals. They are an important signal from the Council that gross and systematic human rights abuses within States merit a robust response by the international community and that such abuses will not be allowed to stand. The tribunals, and eventually the (spoke in English) The Council is served by the Office of the Secretary-General with the ability to mediate, investigate disputes, promote dialogue, send peace envoys and, above all, bring matters which he deems threats to security to the Council’s attention. The Council should take full advantage of this preventive capacity by backing the Secretary-General in these efforts and ensuring that he has the necessary resources and political support to conduct them effectively. More importantly, the Council needs to take appropriate action in response to his advice. The Council should also make greater use of the provisions for the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter, in particular by launching its own investigations into potential conflicts and encouraging Member States to bring such matters to the Council’s attention. The practice of dispatching delegations of Council members to conflict situations to bring the will and commitment of the Council home to actual or potential belligerents should also be used — but sparingly — as a preventive measure. Clearly, the use of a Council mission when circumstances suggest success to be unlikely would quickly devalue its currency. The Council’s procedures and working methods can have a decisive impact on the effectiveness of its efforts at preventing conflict, for they speak loudly to the matter of the Council’s continuing credibility. For an institution dedicated to the pursuit of peace, the Council’s procedural and constitutional complexities often seem to conspire against that goal. Under current working methods, the Council often fails to allow the effective participation of Member States whose vital interests are indeed at stake. Further, given the way it operates, it is too easy to exclude from the Council’s agenda items inimical to the interests of one or more of its members. Conflict prevention calls for broad and inclusive dialogue. If the Council is to be an effective tool of conflict prevention, it must adapt its conclave and privileged working methods to the new security environment by broadening its range of interlocutors and In his report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the Secretary-General made a number of practical recommendations to the Council for preventing conflict. For example, he advocated greater responsiveness to the early- warning indicators of conflict by making use of human rights information and analysis from independent treaty body experts and the Commission on Human Rights, as well as reliable non-governmental sources. The challenge is not the availability of information, but bringing it to the Council’s attention and taking appropriate action in response. One approach might be to follow the practice used to keep the Council apprised of humanitarian issues and have regular briefings by special rapporteurs or, indeed, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We also support the Secretary-General’s recommendation to set up expert working groups of the Council to monitor volatile situations and consider options to prevent the outbreak of violence. The Secretary-General also set out factors which should trigger action by the Security Council to protect civilians in the face of massive human rights abuse or humanitarian emergency. Acceptance of these factors by the Council in its consideration of specific security situations, backed by action when needed, would have a significant impact on conflict prevention. Canada fully supports cooperation between the Council and regional and subregional security organizations in efforts to prevent conflict. The latter can play key roles in averting conflict because of their proximity to the issues and their intimate knowledge of the protagonists. There is, however, a continuing tendency for the Council to seek to devolve, or at least discuss the devolution of, its own security responsibilities to regional and subregional groups, often in the full knowledge that such groups or organizations are neither competent to assume nor capable of assuming such responsibilities. Even when such organizations can play a useful role, conflict prevention efforts conducted at the local or regional level frequently need the impetus that only the active engagement of this Council can provide. What is to be avoided at all costs is a situation where Council inaction creates a void which We will continue to be faced with situations in which our best efforts at conflict prevention fail. Over the years, we have developed instruments such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement and sanctions to respond in those circumstances. We believe that determined action to resolve and end conflicts, including those marked by humanitarian suffering or human rights abuse, can be an important deterrent against future conflicts. Renewed effort and, above all, adequate resources — financial and human — are a sine qua non to effective Council engagement. Unless the Council can count on the willingness of the general membership to provide the wherewithal to make the Council’s effective engagement possible and practicable, all the fine theory is for naught. At the very least, we must immediately take steps to enhance the effectiveness of the instruments available in such cases, particularly the United Nations capacity to plan effectively and deploy rapidly. Peace support operations must also be given the necessary mandates and resources to prevent the resurgence of conflict. Finally, the Council should further explore the deterrent qualities of the instruments which have been traditionally employed during or in the aftermath of conflict. Canada strongly believes that if these interventions are used as preventive measures, their impact and efficacy will increase as their costs diminish. Surely, however, our political institutions have matured to the point where intelligent cost-benefit analysis requires us to invest in those ounces of prevention which, if successful, would avoid the full horror of not taking early action.

I thank the representative of Canada for his kind words addressed to me. Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): The United Nations Charter is crystal clear about our first and most fundamental objective. It is “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Any success which we, the Member States of the United Nations, have had in achieving that objective can only be regarded as partial. Too often Security Council intervention comes too late to prevent widespread death and destruction. Modern war and internal conflict remain a blight on our planet. It is civilians who bear the brunt. Despite the efforts of this Council, too many belligerent groups target the innocent and the defenceless. Massive numbers of refugees are forced to flee for safety, The presidential statement which you, Mr. President, will deliver at the end of this debate, sets out a comprehensive framework for our own activity. But it also recognizes the essential role of the Secretary-General. He must be given the support he needs to work for peace on his own initiative. That means building the capacity of the United Nations Secretariat. It must be able to produce sharper analyses of potential conflicts. We must also reinforce the ability of Department of Peacekeeping Operations to deploy rapidly United Nations peacekeepers, police and civilians if fragile peace agreements are not to disintegrate. It also means a greater focus on conflict prevention in the funds, programmes and agencies of the United Nations system. The Secretary-General must have the freedom to work up more creative approaches to preventive diplomacy. He must be allowed to carry them forward discreetly and under his own tactical judgement if they are to succeed. As for the Member States, we too must play a stronger role, not least in Africa. We must help the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the other regional organizations take a more proactive role in conflict prevention. The OAU has recently published a plan for expanding the capacity of its conflict management centre. The United Kingdom has committed $1 million to support this, and we hope that others will contribute soon. In this whole area, the Security Council must work harder and show more initiative than others. It is a test of leadership and responsibility for this Council. In 1999, we have done our best. We should be proud of the success of Ambassador Andjaba’s mission to Jakarta and Dili in September. Ambassador Fowler should be congratulated on his ongoing work to tighten the enforcement of sanctions against UNITA. We have done well to address directly the fragile situation in Sierra Leone and to support the process of reconciliation there. But apart from addressing each issue on its merits, we have to think creatively about acting on our best intentions and about the policy instruments at our disposal. The Secretary-General has this afternoon given us four practical points for early consideration. This debate is raising more. Most pertinent is the Secretary-General’s point about the So, overall, this amounts to an ambitious agenda for the new millennium. We will not succeed straightaway, and we will have to face up to the consequences of our occasional failures. For a start, when the Security Council fails to prevent genocide and other massive abuses of human rights, others are encouraged to believe that they too can get away with crimes against humanity. The fact that so many of these conflicts are internal should not bar us from taking collective steps to resolve them. The Secretary-General set out this problem in his opening statement at this year’s session of the General Assembly. We will restore the United Nations to its rightful role in international peace and security only if we adapt to a world in which the sovereign State has already, as a matter of objective reality, been redefined by globalization, a world in which there is a new recognition that the State is the servant of the people, not the other way round. The British Government firmly shares the Secretary- General’s belief that we have a joint responsibility to act when confronted by genocide, mass displacement of people or major breaches of international humanitarian law. That does not necessarily mean the use of force. It may mean determined diplomacy, sometimes out of the glare of publicity when that would be more effective, sometimes more creative in its ideas and its implementation than has traditionally been the hallmark of the Council. Preventive action can take many forms, and military action will not always be desirable or feasible. But when the international community does use force in response to humanitarian crises, it needs a framework for that response: a common understanding within the Security Council and the wider United Nations membership of the circumstances and conditions of action. Force should be used as a last resort. It must be limited in scope. It must be proportionate to the humanitarian objective of preventing major loss of civilian life. We shall soon be sharing more detailed United Kingdom ideas on humanitarian action for discussion with our partners in the United Nations. Today’s debate should be the event which kick-starts our work in this whole area. We need to innovate, and we need to work together. With a shared commitment and a clear purpose, we will begin to make a difference. Thank you, Sir, for initiating this useful debate.

I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for his kind words addressed to me.

According to the stipulations of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council shoulders the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It is the major institution that the international community relies on for settling conflicts and crises and realizing peace. Now with the prevention of armed conflict becoming an important means of settling disputes peacefully, it is only natural that the Council should bear major responsibilities in this area. Besides, there seems to be a tendency in the work of the Council nowadays to put much emphasis on intervention, while neglecting effective prevention. All too often there is heated debate on intervention, indeed, even invocation of Chapter VII of the Charter, while neither the issue of prevention nor serious study into the root cause of conflicts is given adequate attention. The Chinese delegation has always believed that timely and effective preventive measures would get twice the result with half the effort, in that these measures not only help avoid loss of life or property but also save resources. We therefore appreciate that the President has chosen to have this open debate, which is both very timely and necessary. There are various kinds of measures that can be taken to prevent armed conflicts, but there is one general principle by which all of them must abide — that is, actions must be taken in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. If we look back at the history of United Nations involvement in settling regional conflicts, we can very easily see that success has always been the natural result of adherence to the Charter, while contravention of Charter principles has only led to failure and setback. In this connection, we are pleased to see that the Council has taken a series of positive measures, including sending fact-finding missions to conflict regions, holding more open debates on specific issues and continuing to put Article 99 of the Charter into practice by encouraging the Secretary-General to play his due role. All these commendable practices have, in one way or another, enriched the Council’s experience in handling issues bearing on international peace and security and should be affirmed. Therefore, we thank the Secretary-General for coming here to join in our discussion. The Chinese delegation maintains that all preventive measures should be taken only under the prerequisite of respect for the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and the will of the Government and people of the country concerned. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs is the primary principle guiding United Nations actions in conflict prevention. Preventive measures can be taken only upon the request or with the consent and cooperation of the country concerned. It is essential to obtain prior consent of the country or parties concerned on issues involving that country’s sovereignty, such as setting up early warning systems or sending fact-finding missions and other special missions. Before any major decisions are to be made, the Security Council must listen to the views of all sides in a neutral and fair manner. Secretary-General Annan pointed out in his report on the work of the Organization submitted to the current session of the General Assembly that if the primacy of the Security Council with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security is rejected, then the very foundations of international law as represented by the Charter will be brought into question. No other universally accepted legal basis for constraining wanton acts of violence exists. It is also emphasized in the report that conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacemaking must not become an area of competition between the United Nations and regional organizations. The Chinese delegation fully agrees with the Secretary-General on these points. We believe that any attempt to replace the Council in its leading role in conflict prevention is tantamount to replacing the Council in its primary role in Of course, the Council also has its limits; it is not a panacea. As is known to all, the root cause of conflicts is the unreasonable old international political and economic order. Changes to this situation could only be realized by concerted efforts by the Council, the whole United Nations system and the entire international community. The international community should be soberly aware that, although conflict prevention does not look as glorious as conflict resolution, the input needed in prevention is much lower than the losses caused by conflict, and the impact of successful conflict prevention is even more immeasurable. The United Nations should demonstrate strong political commitment and allocate adequate resources to ensure successful implementation of preventive measures. At the same time, the Security Council should recognize the important roles that can be played by the various regional organizations and cooperate more closely with them. Such cooperation, however, must be based on the adherence by regional organizations to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the stipulations of its Chapter VIII. Under the guidance and monitoring of the United Nations, regional organizations will be able to win the cooperation of the world body and even broader support from the international community, thus playing a constructive role in preventive diplomacy. In the 10 years between 1989 and 1999 alone, there have been more than 100 armed conflicts in the world, the majority of which have occurred in developing countries. This is no coincidence. For too long, the unreasonable old international political and economic order has seriously hindered the economic development and social progress of developing countries, putting them in a disadvantageous position in the new globalization wave. This is undoubtedly the major cause of the turbulence and frequent conflicts in some developing countries. Therefore, to prevent armed conflicts from occurring in the first place, we must take a long-term view and take meaningful steps to help developing countries in their economic development. Otherwise, preventive measures would only treat the symptom rather than eradicate the root cause, and there would merely be one passive reaction after another. Thus, the promotion of economic growth of developing countries is of important practical relevance in preventing armed conflicts.

I thank the representative of China for the kind words he addressed to me and my delegation.

Our delegation would also like to express its gratitude to you, Mr. President, for your initiative in organizing today’s open debate. We believe this discussion is both timely and useful, especially at this time when challenges to international peace and security are confronting the world community with the task of developing a strategy for early warning, timely monitoring and prevention of conflicts and crises. A key role in preventive diplomacy rightly belongs to the United Nations, which possesses substantial capabilities in this sphere. The main issues of preventive strategy as well as political monitoring of their implementation must remain exclusively within the purview of the Security Council. Such an approach closely coincides with the conclusion drawn by the Secretary-General in his report on the work of the Organization to the effect that undermining the primary role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security casts doubt on the very foundations of international law, such as the United Nations Charter. It is important that this idea underlies the Security Council’s draft presidential statement prepared on the initiative of Slovenia. In fulfilling its Charter role as the body that bears major responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security, the Council has the right — either at the request of States or on its own initiative — to use a broad set of instruments established within the framework of the United Nations to prevent disputes from erupting into armed conflicts. However, we are convinced that preventive services to Member States must be provided only with their consent and with respect for the principle of non- interference in internal affairs. Only the unequivocally In this connection, we proceed from the premise that any United Nations response, including in situations of a humanitarian nature, must be undertaken pursuant to the Charter and through a decision of the Security Council. The development of world processes undoubtedly dictates the advisability of developing norms of international law and adapting them to new realities. However, such work must be carried out collectively on the sound basis of the Charter, which would enable us to develop agreed upon decisions whose legitimacy would not be subject to doubt. Of special significance is the observance by States involved in a dispute of the obligations under Chapter VI of the Charter, providing for a broad set of instruments for the settlement of disputes through peaceful means. The Security Council can play an important role in preventing armed conflicts by enhancing the effectiveness of arms embargoes. As we have repeatedly emphasized, an arms embargo full of holes can only aggravate a military confrontation between conflicting parties. Preventive measures should also include steps to demobilize and disarm former combatants and reintegrate them into peaceful life, which might be an effective means for ensuring the irreversibility of peace processes in former hot spots. An example of this is the difficult situation regarding compliance with the Protocol on Military Issues in Tajikistan. Of special importance is assistance to the United Nations Mission in Tajikistan, along with adequate financial and material support from the international community. Without an effective arms embargo, we cannot stabilize the situation in Kosovo and in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The failure of efforts to disarm the combatants has, unfortunately, led to a breakdown of the peace process in Angola. The topic of preventive action is inextricably linked to the problem of the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons in regions of crisis. Russia is interested in stepping up the campaign against the unlawful spread of such weapons. We support the involvement of the United Nations in such efforts if relevant States agree and an appeal for assistance is made to the Organization. An essential element for early warning is now the multifaceted efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General to enhance the preventive capabilities of the United Nations. Regional organizations and subregional structures are playing an important role in early warning and in the prevention of conflicts. However, their activities must comply strictly with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter. The recommendations of the Secretary-General on a more rational and economical division of labour between the United Nations and regional organizations should be studied on the basis of that Chapter of the Charter. Emphasis here should be placed on the advantage of the use of political, diplomatic and legal means. The Russian Federation, with full recognition of its responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, is prepared to continue to promote a search for ways to enhance the activities of the Security Council with a view to preventing armed conflicts.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for the kind words he addressed to me and to my delegation.

First of all, my delegation welcomes the initiative taken to discuss this important issue. We hope that this effort will help us in our debates, especially since at the dawn of the third millennium the international community hopes that the Council will put an end to disputes throughout the world by laying the foundations for a world of peace and security based on cooperation and solidarity. Aware of the importance of preventing armed conflicts, the Security Council issued a presidential statement at its summit held on 31 January 1992, asking the Secretary-General to submit an analysis and recommendations on ways of strengthening within the provisions of the Charter the capacity of the United Nations to prevent armed conflicts. This was to be done under what was called preventive diplomacy and on the basis of the establishment and maintenance of peace. Preventive diplomacy is one of the most important ways of preventing conflicts. The “Agenda for Peace”, has shown that the roles of the Security Council and of the Secretary-General are important. The roles of the General Assembly, regional organizations, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system are also of importance in ensuring the success of efforts to prevent armed conflicts. The Secretary-General, the Security Council, the General Assembly, other bodies of the international Organization and regional organizations must all cooperate and coordinate their efforts. Selectivity and policies of double standards in dealing with conflicts should not prevail in the Council’s discussions, and mechanisms to avoid this should be developed. For example, we see that the issues of the Middle East, Palestine, the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the occupied Lebanese territories are not currently on the agenda of the Security Council, even though the basic principles for the continuation of peace negotiations taking place outside the Council are based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978). These resolutions of the Council have not yet been implemented, meaning that the occupying Power has flagrantly disregarded the will of the Council. In this connection, we should highlight policies and strategies to strengthen confidence and provide early warning on the basis of detailed analysis and of determining facts, particularly since many conflicts have economic, social and historical causes. In this regard, conciliation and post-conflict peace-building are of particular importance. The United Nations should encourage the international community to rebuild the economic infrastructure of States that have recently emerged from armed conflicts in order for them to avoid falling into a spiral of violence again. In accordance with the “Agenda for Peace”, fact-finding commissions should be increasingly used as special tools on the initiative of the Secretary-General, the Security Council or the General Assembly. Any request for a country to be There are many important tools available for the settlement of disputes under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and other peaceful means. Those peaceful means are generally effective and can play an important role in settling many disputes and preventing armed conflicts. There is no doubt that we are speaking about conditions in the best of all possible worlds. What is happening now, however, is that the most important United Nations bodies and institutions are working without proper coordination, a situation that has led to duplication of efforts, waste, contradiction and bad organization. The United Nations is a single Organization that has created many bodies to serve Member States. How, then, can one explain this contradiction and duplication of efforts? This is due to bad organization between efforts to build peace and to maintain it. We note that the Security Council works apart from other bodies and institutions of the United Nations system, whereas the subjects and issues discussed in the Council are complementary and cannot be separated from each other. For example, the Council examines the issue of the maintenance of peace, but its role ends at the signing of a ceasefire agreement. Peace-building institutions such as the Economic and Social Council then intervene, without any real coordination between the two bodies and without a discernible line between the beginning of the role of one and the end of the role of the other. Experience has shown that those roles are necessarily complementary. The lack of cooperation we are currently witnessing may lead to a dangerous renewal of conflict if the Security Council does not urge the Economic and Social Council to fill the gap left by armed conflicts by rebuilding peacekeeping institutions through the implementation of economic and social development programmes. There is no doubt that the Security Council is the principal body responsible for the maintenance of peace and for coordinating the substantial resources provided by Member States for the settlement of conflicts. But is it not better to prevent conflicts before they erupt? Is it not Another instrument available to the Security Council to stem conflicts is the committees on arms embargoes. It is true that the United Nations is not a Government and that it has no army. Its weight and prestige come from Member States. What happens, however, when there is a contradiction between the interests of the United Nations and those of certain Member States? We are all aware that certain areas of tension have existed for over 20 years. Those tensions continue. We know that arms flows have continued without interruption and that mercenaries exist. This leads us to believe that such internal conflicts can exist for long periods of time only through the provision of outside and continually flowing arms and munitions. In other words, the United Nations is powerless in the face of the interests of certain Member States or certain parties within those Member States that try to gain quick benefit at the expense of peoples’ lives and property. The role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflict also involves the protection of refugees and victims of conflicts. The Council should give serious consideration to their situation, even if this is not strictly within the framework of its responsibilities. In that case, we should coordinate the action of the Council with those of organizations that help refugees, because it is unacceptable for refugees, the victims of conflicts, to be forced to bear arms by one or the other party to a conflict. They should be given sanctuary and taken to protected areas until their final return and rehabilitation, so that they become active members of society rather than causes of conflict. Finally, what about the culture of conflict prevention? All that we see in the media is pictures of refugees in a state of despair and distress. The culture of conflict prevention is something more complex than that. It requires a heightening of awareness so as to instil in people's minds from childhood the harmful consequences of conflicts in order that they would not become involved in such conflicts. This would encourage us to ask for the creation of a detailed, targeted culture of peace in order to teach the harmful effects of conflicts. An important point is that there is still hope, and we should reiterate this. There is still hope that we might see coordination between the Security Council and other United Nations bodies. Indeed, the Security Council coordinated its activities with the Economic and Social Council by delegating to that body the task of building peace institutions in Haiti after a lengthy conflict. Indeed, a similar situation exists in Guinea-Bissau. By happenstance or coincidence, the Secretary-General appointed as Special Representative to Haiti the former Permanent Representative of Guinea-Bissau. We are convinced that these two peace-building operations, in Haiti and in Guinea-Bissau, will succeed and thereby convince those who have doubts about the Security Council that there is an organic link between peacekeeping and peace-building. Such expected success might be an example for other regions in the world that have been exposed to conflicts. Finally, the Security Council must be fully convinced of the need to ensure coordination and liaison between it and other United Nations bodies in word and deed, through its methods of work and its practices, mainly by implementing the following points: first, a more strict implementation of arms embargoes in areas of conflict; secondly, participation of the States parties to conflicts in the deliberations of the Council, pursuant to Article 31 of the Charter; thirdly, dealing with the status of refugees in a positive way, so as to prevent their participation in conflicts; and fourthly, creating a targeted culture which would highlight the harmful consequences of conflicts. The Security Council has a duty to play a role as coordinator in order to establish a complementarity with other United Nations bodies, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, so as to actively prevent conflicts before they erupt. The Council I have been a bit lengthy, but I felt it was necessary given the significance and gravity of the subject.

I thank the representative of Bahrain for the kind words he addressed to me.

I should like to extend my delegation's sincere appreciation to you, Mr. President, and to the delegation of Slovenia for your initiative in organizing this open debate of the Security Council on the role of the Council in the prevention of armed conflict. My delegation also wishes to thank the Secretary-General for his opening remarks, which provide a useful framework for today's debate. This open meeting reflects the Council's continued commitment to engage in broader thematic debates that, hopefully, will expand its capacity to deal with the ever-evolving challenges to international peace and security. The wide participation of Members of the Organization today is a clear reflection of the usefulness of the open debate you have initiated on the subject. In addressing the issue before it, it is imperative for the Council to remind itself that in seeking to fulfil its Charter-mandated role, the Council must, at all times, fully respect the principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of disputes and action in respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. The Security Council acts on behalf of the entire membership of the Organization, and therefore responsibility, consistency and even-handedness must be the hallmarks of its actions. Believing in the adage that prevention is better than cure, my delegation joins the call for the Council to continue to enhance its capacity for preventive action. Clearly, as stated by the Secretary-General, building a culture of prevention is much more beneficial, long-lasting and less costly than reacting to catastrophes only after they have struck. The Council has time and again emphasized that the prevention of armed conflict begins and ends with the protection of human life and the promotion of human development. It is timely that in the context of a more proactive and creative approach in the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council should consider concrete and practical measures for preventive diplomacy. For this purpose, there is a need on the part of The prevention of armed conflict is multidimensional in nature, requiring the resources of a comprehensive and integrated United Nations system. Clearly, a cohesive and well-coordinated United Nations system is vital in any effort to prevent the emergence or re-emergence of armed conflict. In this regard, we note with appreciation the enormous contributions made by all the principal organs and agencies of the United Nations, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Development Programme and others. Their active engagement in post-conflict peace-building situations is important in preventing war-ravaged societies that are in transition towards peace from returning to armed conflict. In this regard, it is imperative for the Organization to oversee the successful implementation of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme of ex-combatants in all post-conflict activities, as it is for it to address the root causes of the conflict. My delegation believes that there should be greater recourse to the use of preventive diplomacy and the good offices of the Secretary-General. The positive outcome of the Council’s recent mission to Jakarta and Dili would argue for greater utilization of this mechanism by the Council in respect of future conflict situations, before they get out of hand. It is perhaps timely to dispatch such a mission to Africa, as has been proposed by a member of the Council. At the same time, there should be greater use of the Secretary-General’s good offices in the context of preventive diplomacy as well as of the resolution of ongoing conflicts. The Secretary-General is well placed to bring to the attention of the Council early evidence of threats to international peace and security, genocide and other manifestations of systematic and widespread human rights violations and other developments affecting international peace and security for its consideration and for appropriate action. This particular role of the Secretary-General in providing information to the Council is in conformity with the provisions of Article 99 of the Charter. We The alarming increase in intra-State warfare is fast changing the landscape and nature of modern-day conflicts. More and more, United Nations peacekeeping operations become embroiled in internal conflicts involving, on the one hand, legitimate Governments and, on the other, rebels and warlords under a loose chain of command. In these conflicts, the destruction not just of armies, but of civilians and entire ethnic groups or groups of people of different faiths or religion, is increasingly becoming the main, or the strategic, objective. This must be strongly condemned. In such conflict situations, the defence of imperilled humanity must be of paramount importance for the United Nations and the international community. We believe that in the context of the changing nature of current conflicts the Council must re-examine past and present approaches and strategies and formulate new ones in keeping with the demands of the times. Even in respect of classic inter-State conflict situations, it is regrettable that the Council has not been successful in bringing the warring parties to a negotiated settlement of their armed conflict. The Charter, of course, provides the Council with options, including the invoking of certain provisional measures not involving the use of force, in order to defuse such situations. One such option comes under Article 40, which provides an avenue for Council action, including the imposition of arms embargoes and targeted sanctions. However, in contemplating such actions, every effort should be made to ensure that they do not lead to any undesirable humanitarian impact on the general population. With the decreasing incidence of inter-State wars, the kind of intervention envisaged in the Charter has fallen out of use, while the notion of humanitarian intervention has increasingly been invoked to justify intervention in current conflict situations. The Secretary-General himself has recently raised this pertinent but contentious concept of intervention in the light of his increasing concern at the inaction of the Security Council and its failure to prevent the genocidal war in Rwanda, with its horrific consequences, and the forced intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the conflict in Kosovo, which saved thousands of lives and reversed the At the core of the issue is the effectiveness of the Council in responding to crisis situations, including humanitarian calamities. The contradiction between, on the one hand, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and, on the other, the moral and ethical imperatives to stop massacres within States, is real and difficult to resolve. In any consideration of possible Council intervention in such situations, there is a need for a balanced approach, lest the Council be accused of bias and selectivity and of intervening in conflict situations involving some countries but not in others. What is important is the ability of the Council to consider such situations in a dispassionate manner and to find the political will to act decisively to prevent or contain such conflicts whenever and wherever they occur. Regrettably, however, the narrow interests of some members of the Council have often got in the way of effective decision-making by the Council. Clearly, a more cohesive and united Council would make an enormous difference in addressing the issue of the protection of vulnerable populations in situations of armed conflict. There is much expectation on the part of the international community for the Council to effectively manage issues of international peace and security. Consequently, when the Council is seen to be paralysed in dealing with some important issues, there is great disappointment over its lack of efficacy. Unfortunately, in many situations the Council cannot act alone. It requires the cooperation of all the parties concerned, including that of regional organizations and arrangements. Indeed, in a number of conflict situations, particularly in Africa, regional and subregional organizations, such as the Organization of African Unity and the Economic Community of West African States, have been active players. However, this should not absolve the Council from playing its role. Regrettably, much of the impasse in and paralysis of the Council has to do with the peculiar decision-making process in the Council, so well known to members and non-members of the Council. In the face of the many complex challenges that lie ahead, the issue of the efficiency and authority of the Council will have to be resolved as soon as possible, lest there be further erosion of the Council’s efficacy and credibility. Clearly, what is required is reform of the Council to make it better reflect current realities, 54 years after its founding. A more representative Council, with a In this regard, I would urge the Council to put into concrete action the fine principles that have been articulated by many speakers in this debate, including the Secretary- General, particularly in the context of Africa, whose conflicts occupy much of the Council’s time. The draft presidential statement which we will adopt should serve as a powerful incentive towards that end. Thank you again, Mr. President, for organizing this important and useful open meeting.

I thank the representative of Malaysia for the kind words he addressed to me.

I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his statement, which contained very useful and precise suggestions on how to prevent armed conflict. In his report to the General Assembly at its fifteenth session, in 1960, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld pointed out that “in the end, the United Nations is likely to be judged not so much by the criterion of how successfully it has overcome this or that crisis as by the significance of its total contribution towards building the kind of world community in which such crises are no longer inevitable”. His words explain in an eloquent and brief way why we are gathered here today. But there is a more immediate reason. The long and difficult agenda of the Security Council demonstrates that the ideal of prevention has not been achieved; it is still distant. Instruments of prevention must be refined and strengthened. But, most of all, we have to curtail the deficit of collective will that is still the fundamental problem we face in creating a culture of prevention. That is why I wish to congratulate you, Mr. President, on convening this open meeting. Today’s meeting will mark another positive event in what has been a very fruitful and competent Slovenian presidency of the Security Council. Your initiative of also inviting the broader United Nations membership to discuss the issue of the prevention of conflicts should also be commended. As a contribution to prevention, Article 99 of the Charter offers the Secretary-General a most valuable instrument for engaging the Council in preventive actions. And the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, is fulfilling his mandate with responsibility, courage and wisdom. The role played by his special representatives and by his missions of good offices is also to be underscored. Preventive deployment, as occurred in Macedonia, and disarmament are equally useful means of prevention. We know well the destabilizing consequences of the illicit trafficking in and excessive accumulation of small arms. We should not forget the need to reestablish a global atmosphere propitious to the exercise of preventive diplomacy. The strengthening of all disarmament treaties can be a decisive factor in that direction. The current paralysis in the global disarmament agenda should be overcome. Conflicts are often caused by an abuse of power on the part of those in positions of authority. Justice is therefore very important for the maintenance of a climate of compliance with basic human values. The Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia are having an impact as instruments of deterrence. We are hopeful that this positive impact will soon be greatly enhanced by the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. In preventing conflicts, the United Nations can also have recourse to regional organizations and arrangements, on the basis of Chapter VIII of the Charter, which provides that no enforcement action shall be taken without the authorization of the Security Council. In this regard, we share the assessment of the Secretary-General that conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacemaking should not become an area of competition between the Brazil is of the view that the preventive action of the Council has to observe some basic principles in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, conflict-prevention measures have to be predicated on the consent of the Government or Governments concerned, with full respect for their sovereignty. Secondly, progressive engagement of the Security Council, in which preventive measures are adopted gradually, is always preferable. Thirdly, the Council should keep a sense of proportion between the situation it intends to address and the measures it considers applying. And finally, in the face of extreme situations the Security Council might be compelled to resort to enforcement measures based on Chapter VII. In those cases, everything must be done to preserve the authority of enforcement action taken in the name of prevention and to ensure that it is in conformity with the principles of international law. The means at the disposal of the Security Council are vast and should be applied without selectivity, because universality is the most solid foundation of legitimacy in any United Nations activity. But Security Council measures are not the only means available for the prevention of conflict. Other United Nations bodies too have a responsibility with regard to conflict prevention. There is no single formula for conflict prevention. Preventive action, thus, should be taken after an assessment of the specifics of each situation. If we are to develop an encompassing strategy, it will no doubt have to be based on a deep understanding of the multiple roots of conflict. The Secretary-General reminded us today of his recent remarks to the staff of the World Bank: “While war is the worst enemy of development, healthy and balanced development is the best form of ... conflict prevention”. (supra) Brazil fully shares the Secretary-General’s perception. Moreover, when prevention fails, the impact of conflicts has a negative effect on economic cooperation worldwide. Even regions not affected by conflict suffer from the lack of funding, since financial resources that should be devoted to development assistance are drained to conflicts. It is to be hoped that the conditions for a strong, concrete basis for a comprehensive, long-term conflict- prevention strategy will be created when the eradication of We recognize that present conflicts should be dealt with using the instruments now available and that we cannot wait to take preventive action until all conditions are present. The ideal of perpetual peace, devised by Kant, was founded on the universalization of republican ideals — in today’s words, the universalization of democracy. The realization that most of today’s conflicts are internal, although with obvious international impact, creates room for a renewal and an update of Kant’s concept of democracy as the key to peace. From that perspective, the establishment of democratic regimes is positive not only internally: it also carries its consequences beyond borders. More than ever, democracy is proving itself to be the most appropriate political model for a harmonious international order. The presidential statement we are to adopt confirms that the Security Council is committed to developing a culture of prevention, which will take root when a simple idea once clearly expressed by Elie Wiesel becomes universally accepted: that the other is not my enemy.

I thank the representative of Brazil for the kind words he addressed to me.

The importance of the subject that brings us here today — already discussed in some depth by previous speakers — is undeniable if we are to judge by the large number of delegations participating in this debate. I wish therefore to commend you, Mr. President, for having placed this item, “The role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict”, on the Council’s programme of work. That initiative is all the more timely as it enables the Council to discuss a subject that is crucial as we come to the close of the century and that has in recent years given rise to repeated criticism in times of conflict in various parts of the world, and particularly in Africa, with respect to the Council’s interpretation of its primary Charter responsibility for the maintenance of peace. “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. If I refer frequently to the Charter, that is because it contains the guidelines for United Nations action to promote and maintain peace and security in the world, and conflict prevention constitutes the best assurance of avoiding a given situation’s or tension’s deteriorating into an armed conflict that would be difficult and costly to resolve. We remain convinced that a good early warning system or mechanism would make it possible to detect advance signs of a threat to the peace and would offer a better opportunity for conducting preventive diplomatic action aimed at encouraging the parties to a dispute to turn to a negotiated solution rather than to an armed confrontation that might be difficult to control. The use of peaceful means, in other words, dialogue or legal settlement, is strongly encouraged and enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which stipulates in its Article 33, “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice.” “The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.” As the organ invested with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council therefore has the power to help stop a dispute before it turns into an armed conflict. However, the difficulty in this task involves, in our view, two areas: the swiftness of preventive action and the firmness of a real commitment. As for the swiftness of intervention, it seems absolutely imperative that diplomatic action be initiated as soon as the signs of tension are detected. The success of the Council in preventive action therefore depends on how promptly missions of good offices or of mediation are established. Any delay in doing this will create an opportunity for a crisis to deteriorate into an armed conflict. As for the Council’s involvement in crisis settlement or the deployment of peacemaking or peacekeeping missions, criticism has focused on the relative degree of procrastination and slowness observed, depending on whether the situation in question is in Africa or in other regions. Several conflicts, in fact, might have been avoided if at the initial stage the Council had not dragged its feet. Today, if the preventive deployment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is cited as an example of preventive action by the Council, it is because a firm resolve was expressed and the influential members of the Council were eager to see the conflict resolved before it led to a regrettable situation. This does not mean that the Council has not tried to erase the image of applying a double standard in terms of speed which it has done with more or less success. In fact, the Council has been able to show its growing interest in the field of prevention of armed conflict during the recent open debates and ministerial meetings on such subjects as the progress report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the recommendations contained in his April 1998 report on the causes of conflicts in Africa, post-conflict peace-building, small arms and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The statements made during those meetings clearly showed how great are the concerns of the international community over the rising tension in the world. In this enormous task of conflict prevention, not only does the Council not hold a monopoly, but it would not be right for the Council to confront the task alone. The This is all the more true since Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, to which I referred earlier, speaks of “collective measures”. We understand this to mean the combining of efforts among national administrations, individuals, regional or subregional organizations and so forth. In this spirit of solidarity and coordination, the United Nations not only should strengthen and improve its own early warning mechanisms, it should also contribute further to the establishment and functioning of similar systems within regional organizations or arrangements. It is regrettable that some of these already existing systems are facing the thorny problem of obtaining sufficient financing for appropriate operations. If there is another field that relates directly to prevention, it is certainly that of post-conflict peace- building. The tasks of demobilization and disarmament should receive special attention in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the risks of resumption of combat because of the presence of weapons, and above all of small arms. The question of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which are those most often used in conflicts, and especially internal conflicts, remains a major concern that must be faced by any post-conflict peace-building operation or any peacekeeping operation in the framework of a broadened mandate. This question was abundantly discussed in the debate on this subject held by the Council at the ministerial level last September. However, it is important, and indeed vital, that the countries that produce and sell arms transcend their unbridled desire to make a profit at any cost. They must support the collective effort to eliminate and prevent armed conflict. Nations do not develop by force of arms, but rather by the financing of vital projects. It is in this context that we invite those States to contribute to the strengthening of arms embargoes. In this respect, we are gratified by the recent decisions taken by certain Governments and certain companies to break all links with rebel movements that sow insecurity in Africa. It cannot be repeated often enough that preventing armed conflicts, most of which today are internal conflicts, means first and foremost eliminating the underlying causes, which are first of all economic, institutional and social. On In conclusion, while we recognize the importance of collective mobilization to prevent armed conflict, the parties in conflict must first show a sense of responsibility, seeking a negotiated solution to their dispute instead of opting for extreme courses of action. There should also be greater recourse to traditional means of dispute settlement, following the example of the founding fathers of the Organization of African Unity, who established committees of sages on the lines of African village councils. Furthermore, those who have influence on the parties to a dispute should also be involved in preventing armed conflicts.

I thank the representative of Gabon for the kind words he addressed to me.

My delegation would like to join previous speakers in expressing its gratitude to you, Mr. President, and your delegation for arranging this open debate on such a broad and important topic, “Role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts”. We are also grateful to the Secretary-General for setting the tone of today's debate. There could not have been a better time, as we approach a new millennium, to collectively remind this important United Nations organ — the Security Council — of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, in order words, for our collective security. We have no doubt whatsoever that the Security Council, with its power and prestige, has both the capacity and the ability to fulfil this fundamental obligation. But the weight of power and prestige is only worthy if it draws inspiration from the principle of fair play and even-handedness in dealing with all conflicts, no matter where they occur on this planet that we all share. Then, and only then, could the Council continue to lay claim to the moral authority to offer solutions to problems of common concern to all. Since we joined the Security Council we have been insisting on the need to redouble efforts to demonstrate to those that we represent that, irrespective of their area of origin, all the Council members — permanent and elected It is certainly not by safeguarding our narrow national interests, to the detriment of the common good, that we can call this world a safe place. It is by safeguarding our collective security that our nightmares will end. Otherwise, we will continue to have sleepless nights. This is why my delegation commends you, Mr. President, and your delegation for coming up with a most comprehensive draft presidential statement, which in our view constitutes a blueprint for the Security Council, showing how it can play the preponderant role that the whole world expects it to play in the prevention of armed conflicts. The draft contains very useful guidelines to help the Security Council be more proactive, rather than being too often characterized as a helpless spectator as dramatic situations unfold. In this context, we would like to place greater emphasis on the usefulness of early-warning mechanisms, preventive diplomacy and preventive deployment. This includes, of course, Security Council missions abroad. Various examples have been cited in which the Security Council succeeded in defusing potential conflicts. But the Council must not be selective in its approach. Furthermore, as the old saying goes — and as my friend, the Ambassador of Malaysia, has already noted — prevention is better than cure. It is one thing, though, to be forewarned, but it is quite another to take urgent and appropriate action. In this regard, the role of the Secretary- General, as provided for in Article 99 of the Charter, gains added importance. Unfortunately, experience has shown that more often than not the Security Council does too little, too late, especially when the situation concerns Africa. This is sad to say, but nonetheless true. We have witnessed situations in which encouraging statements were made, only to be followed by the Council's developing cold feet later on, when the support and solidarity of the rest of the international community were most needed. While recognizing the primary responsibility of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace In this connection, my delegation notes with satisfaction the growing cooperation between the United Nations and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and its military observer group, the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), notably in Sierra Leone. We hope to see the consolidation of this cooperation in the months ahead, with the imminent deployment of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). A successful operation in Sierra Leone augurs well for other operations in other parts of Africa. We have in mind the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where we anxiously look forward to meaningful cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. It must also be recognized that for the Security Council to succeed in resolving problems around the globe the parties concerned must also cooperate fully and unconditionally — be they State or non-State actors. Other situations require concerted international efforts in the short and medium term in order to have an impact. In this context, we immediately think of the question of small arms, light weapons and arms embargoes — to mention only a few areas. Sustained, concerted international efforts are, however, not only desirable but absolutely necessary to tackle the more difficult problems of post-conflict peace-building and, more generally, the hardest nut of all to crack: poverty eradication. As you know, Sir, and as is widely recognized, poverty is one of the root causes of armed conflicts. My delegation is pleased that this point is raised in the draft presidential statement, which goes on to underscore the need for all United Nations organs and agencies to act accordingly to assist Member States to eradicate poverty. It is not necessary to emphasize the more urgent need to attain the target that was set many, many years ago to increase official development assistance to 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product. Perhaps that goal will be attained in the next millennium. It is so within reach, yet it is so difficult to summon the necessary political will to make it happen.

I thank the representative of the Gambia for the kind words he addressed to me.

In his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General rightly stated that “Taking prevention more seriously will help to ensure that there are fewer wars and less consequential disasters to cope with in the first place.” (A/54/1, paragraph 21) In fact, the Carnegie Foundation has put this into perspective. It has estimated that the cost to the international community of the seven major wars in the 1990s — not including Kosovo — was $199 billion, and that this was in addition to the cost to the countries actually at war. More important, it has been concluded that most of these wars could have been averted if more attention had been paid to prevention. My opening remarks are aimed at demonstrating the importance of preventing armed conflict and the significance of today's meeting in turn. My delegation commends you, Mr. President, for having arranged this important open debate. The primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rests with the Security Council. However, the prevention of conflict and its recurrence requires a multifaceted approach by the Security Council and other principal organs. In Africa, for the most part, the causes of armed conflict remain poverty and underdevelopment. Hence, as the Security Council considers its role in the prevention of armed conflicts to be within its primary responsibility, the principles and provisions of the Charter must be adhered to. Today, internal wars continue to take a heavy toll on civilian populations, especially the most vulnerable. Early warning is therefore the best way to avert tragedies in different parts of the world. The Security Council must continue to work to preserve peace at all times, irrespective of the fragility of the peace or the geographical location. Where peace agreements have been secured, the Security In Sierra Leone, swift action by the Security Council under the appropriate and adequate mandate would have the saved lives and limbs of thousands of innocent civilians. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while peace remains fragile, as in many other conflict situations, not only may a prolonged delay in deploying military observers to preserve the peace achieved by the peacemakers unravel the achievements of the regional peace process; but the recurrence of conflict holds real possibilities of engulfing the major part of the continent. Therefore, for peace to become real in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in neighbouring countries, the Security Council should show the same resolve, urgency and commitment towards African situations as it has and continues to do towards others. In the African situations and elsewhere, the Secretary-General has shown his determination to use his good offices to address armed conflict where it exists and my delegation commends him for that. Indeed, the Security Council's work is in part facilitated by the good offices of the Secretary-General. Fact-finding missions through the Secretary-General's office, such as the mission of his Special Envoy to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other relevant African States, have proven useful in enhancing the understanding and appreciation of that situation by the Security Council in particular. Similarly, the Security Council's mission to Jakarta and Dili this year — which I had the honour to lead — clearly demonstrated the usefulness of such missions. The Council should therefore utilize this type of mission whenever feasible. In this connection, I wish to thank my colleagues, in particular Ambassador Holbrooke, for their kind words addressed to me. Let me also state that the mission's success was the result of the collective effort of all the members of the Security Council, including you, Sir. However, in the end and to a great extent, it is the willingness of the Security Council to take appropriate action and the trust, confidence and cooperation between the Secretary-General and the Security Council that will determine whether armed conflict can be prevented or whether lives have to be lost first before action is taken. Equally important are the readiness and the willingness of At their last Summit in Algiers before the new millennium, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) heads of State and Government reaffirmed their resolve “to make the OAU the vital instrument of their collective action both within Africa and in relation to the rest of the world”. In that respect, they declared that the OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution is a valuable asset for the African continent which must be nurtured and consolidated. The heads of State and Government made it very clear that this Mechanism, which symbolizes the concerted resolve of the African continent to fully assume its responsibilities, does not release the United Nations from its obligations under the Charter as far as the maintenance of international peace and security is concerned. It is therefore important for the Security Council in particular to assist the OAU in its early-warning capacities. Regional arrangements can contribute to the maintenance of peace only if their actions are consistent with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter. It is in this context that we welcome the expanding relationship between the United Nations and the OAU, especially in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, peacemaking and conflict resolution. The tendency to undertake peace enforcement without specific mandate from the Security Council and without acting in accordance with the United Nations Charter should be discouraged, as it undermines the credibility of the Council and diminishes its role in the maintenance of international peace and security. In order to prevent conflict, a sound understanding of the underlying factors is necessary. For example, in Africa, the accumulation, through illicit trafficking, of small arms and light and heavy weapons, inter alia, needs to be prevented. Therefore, the relevant recommendations contained in the Secretary-General's report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa need to be implemented. In this decade, sanctions have been used more frequently, though with mixed results. Namibia supports the view that, before sanctions are imposed, their scope and purpose should be defined and their duration clearly specified in the resolution imposing them. Resolving problems arising from the application of sanctions must rest We have a real chance to ensure together that armed conflict is prevented and present conflict contained. But conflict is prevented by people and it is only logical that those who are entrusted to prevent conflict be safe and secure. This cannot be overemphasized. Furthermore, competition among United Nations Members and regional organizations cannot prevent conflict, nor can it enhance peacekeeping and peacemaking. The success of any peacekeeping operation rests on the pillar of consensus among all States members of the Security Council. The United Nations peacekeeping operations are indeed an essential component of the role of the Security Council in maintaining peace and security in the world. In addition, changing times and circumstances dictate that the international community needs a revitalized Security Council. We remain convinced that the presence of the African States in both categories of membership in the Security Council will help Africa to participate meaningfully in the prevention of armed conflict, particularly in Africa. It is in this context that the OAU Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Algiers declared: “We reaffirm our commitment to respect for the major role and responsibilities of the United Nations and its Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. In this connection, we once again call for a genuine democratization of international relations based on the active participation and balanced consideration of the legitimate concerns of all nations. We call, in particular, for the democratization of the United Nations and its Security Council and the recognition of Africa's legitimate place within this organ.” Words of intention alone are never enough. For the Security Council to play its role in the prevention of conflict, a strong political commitment from all Member States, complemented by adequate provision of financial resources, is key. Political commitment and allocation of adequate financial resources are integral parts of effective

I thank the representative of Namibia for his kind words addressed to me.

The Netherlands warmly welcomes the initiative of the Slovenian presidency to devote an open debate to the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. We regard conflict prevention as the core of the duties the Security Council is called upon to carry out on behalf of the United Nations membership. It lies, naturally and manifestly, at the heart of the Netherlands' integrated approach to the Council's agenda. The following remarks are complementary to those which will be made later on by the representative of Finland on behalf of the European Union, with whose statement the Netherlands fully associates itself. It is self-evident that preventing an armed conflict is preferable to dealing with it after it has broken out. The cost of an armed conflict in humanitarian, societal and economic terms will always exceed the outlay for even the most intricate preventive action. So why is it that so many opportunities are being missed in the field of conflict prevention? Conflict prevention by the Security Council rests on three pillars: early warning, early attention and early action. The Council has to be warned about an impending crisis early enough for it to be able to act; it has to give sufficient and timely attention to the case, and then it has to act effectively to prevent the conflict from erupting. The problem nowadays is not a lack of early warning of impending crises, but rather the follow-up to it, a point which was also made by the Secretary-General in his report on conflict, durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. Of fundamental importance, therefore, is the attitude of the 15 Member States on the Security Council. It is they who make or break the relevance of the Council to the maintenance of international peace and security. In this regard, the Charter has assigned a special responsibility to the permanent five, but it also singles out the non- permanent ten in that it expects them to have been elected with due regard to their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. Yet, positions are sometimes taken which stand in the way of effective Security Council action. All Council members subscribe to the purposes and principles of the Without wishing to stoke up a similar debate in this Council, we cannot help pointing out that everything the Charter has to say with regard to the prevention of armed conflict in Chapters VI and VII and in Article 99 appears to have been drafted with conflicts between States in mind, while the overwhelming majority of present-day conflicts on the Council's agenda are of an internal, domestic nature. Against that background, a rigid interpretation of Article 2, paragraph 7, would preclude adaptation to this reality and, in effect, make all the Charter's provisions on the prevention of armed conflict ineffectual. Rarely have we come across more convincing evidence that Article 2, paragraph 7, cannot possibly be the alpha and omega of the Charter today. One of the most telling indicators of impending conflict is the occurrence of rampant human rights violations. Such abuses reflect a breakdown of the rule of law and can be a prelude to violent domestic conflict with consequences for international peace and security. For that reason, the Security Council should treat the reports of the Human Rights Commission and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as potential early warning documents. In the context of conflict prevention, the Council cannot avoid addressing the internal situation of States wherever negative developments are apt to degenerate into large-scale atrocities and massive dislocation of civilians. This cannot be rejected on grounds of domestic jurisdiction. As the Secretary- General has made clear, ethnic cleansers and mass murderers are not protected by the United Nations Charter. In discussing the role of the Security Council in conflict prevention, one cannot escape the hotly debated issue of the veto. As the Netherlands Foreign Minister said in his intervention at the opening of the General Assembly, no matter when or how the debate on the veto will end, those who can wield it should exercise maximum restraint, in particular in situations of humanitarian emergency. If a permanent Council member uses or threatens to use its veto, it is duty-bound to explain to the world why it is blocking action by the The instruments the Council can employ in preventing armed conflict are partly to be found in Chapters VI and VII of the United Nations Charter. Council members should not feel restricted to those alone. After all, peacekeeping operations are not mentioned in the Charter, and they have become a major tool in the Council's hands. In view of the nature of current crises, often involving non-State actors and sometimes failed States, the Council has to be pragmatic and unorthodox as regards its tools and its interlocutors, as it was in September when it dispatched a mission to Indonesia and East Timor. When discussing the Security Council's role in conflict prevention, it is important not to lose sight of the Secretary- General's role in that field. These roles should be mutually supportive; the Council and the Secretary-General are partners, not competitors. Their joint endeavours in September to encourage the Indonesian Government to accept the deployment of a multinational force in East Timor were a notable example of effective cooperation between the Security Council and the Secretary-General. Article 99 had already been mentioned in passing when I drew the Council's attention to the precarious relationship between conflict prevention and domestic jurisdiction. My delegation strongly encourages the Secretary-General to make liberal use of his authority under that Article, including when the matter he wishes to bring to the Council's attention has not yet revealed its cross- border potential. The current debate is about the role of the Security Council in conflict prevention. However, given the nature of the security challenges that face us, it is evident that the Council cannot operate alone. Ideally, its political measures should be integrated with structural measures addressing the root causes of an approaching crisis, such as building democratic institutions, strengthening the rule of law and promoting development. Both nationally and internationally, the preventive impact of an effective legal system for the prosecution of human rights violations is obvious. It is in the first place at the national level that such a system should be in place and, if necessary, strengthened. For situations in which States themselves are unable or unwilling to prosecute and punish

The next speaker is the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

At the outset, I would like to express my congratulations to you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month and on your wise leadership of the Council. I would also like to express our gratitude to your predecessor, Ambassador Lavrov, and the members of his delegation for his able and successful stewardship of the Council during the past month. An extremely important matter is before the Council today — namely, the role and contribution of the Security Council in achieving a fundamental objective of the United Nations: the prevention of armed conflicts. Like any other organ of the United Nations system, the Security Council is governed and guided by the purposes and principles of the United Nations, as set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter. One of the main purposes of the United Nations as a whole, as defined in Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Charter, is the maintenance of international peace and security. That paragraph also provides that to that end, a purpose of the United Nations is “to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. The principles governing the work of the United Nations and its organs are set forth in Article 2 of the Charter, which provides for, inter alia, the sovereign equality of all its Members, settlement of disputes by peaceful means, Members' refraining from the threat or The Charter entrusts the maintenance of international peace and security to both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Under Article 11, paragraph 1, the General Assembly may consider the general principles of cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security, and it may make recommendations with regard to such principles to its Members, to the Security Council or to both. Under Article 24 of the Charter, Members of the United Nations have entrusted the Security Council with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and Member States agree that the Council, in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, act on their behalf. In discharging these duties, the Security Council shall act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations and the powers vested in the Security Council. Hence, the mandate for maintenance of international peace and security is a joint responsibility of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Thus, the primary responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security is not an exclusive function of the Security Council. The Security Council fulfils its responsibility on behalf of all Member States and in their collective interest, and not on behalf of or in the interest of one or some of the members of the Council. I feel the need to state and to clarify the terms of reference of the Security Council as a primary organ of the United Nations system: compliance with the mandate delineated by the United Nations Member States in the Charter and adherence to the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter are the only admissible legal basis accepted by Member States for the functions of the Council. The Security Council's deviation from its mandate or non-compliance with the principles set forth in the Charter could, indeed, undermine the credibility of the Council if a larger United Nations membership felt that the Security Council was not acting on its behalf, nor in its collective interest, but rather was acting in the interest of a few Member States or a single State. In addition, the preservation — indeed, the enhancement — of the credibility of the Council depends on total compliance with international law as well as with international treaties and conventions. This is embodied in Article 25 of the Charter, which states that Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. The starting point is the reform of the Security Council itself — in particular, and in a speedy fashion,its working procedures. Its procedures and methods of work must ensure that the Council’s decisions reflect the will of the majority of the Member States represented in the General Assembly. It is perhaps useful here to recall that many speakers today, as well as the Secretary-General, emphasized this point. The majority of States represented in the General Assembly must participate in the open debates held by the Council from time to time before the adoption of any important decisions by the Council, or when the Council takes up a new subject. These discussions must form the basis of any resolution to be adopted by the Council; the basis must not be closed-door discussions among a limited number of States, which discussions do not represent the collective will of the international community, as is the case in addressing many issues, including the issue before the Council today. The text of the draft presidential statement was drafted and discussed before this meeting was convened. The question that arises is as follows: what is the impact and significance of the opinions of the Member States of the United Nations in this forum today — indeed, every day? To enhance, or rather to restore, the credibility of the Council, it must comply with the resolutions that it adopts. Indeed, the Council must be the first to comply with its resolutions and the last to breach them. Otherwise, how can the Council call upon States and other organs to comply with those resolutions if the Council itself modifies its resolutions, or reinterprets them, or changes their interpretation, in response to the wishes of this or that party? It is our view that nuclear threats and risks, even as a result of human error or a technical malfunction, remain the greatest threat to international peace and security. Removal of such threats cannot be achieved without total elimination of nuclear weapons. To focus only on nuclear non- proliferation has proved to be impractical. As long as there are States that have nuclear capabilities and that insist on possession of nuclear weapons, the world will not be free of nuclear weapons, since other States will seek to acquire a similar nuclear capability. The Security Council could play a crucial role in achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons, especially since the nuclear-weapon States are permanent members of the Security Council. If they are genuinely serious about carrying out their pledge to eliminate nuclear weapons, they can act, and do so through the Security Council. The Council can firmly confront acts of aggression and occupation of territory by other States, but it cannot gain the confidence of the larger membership when it remains idle in the face of such gross violations. Where is the credibility of the Council, when it has done nothing in the face of Israeli acts of aggression against Arab States for over 50 years and has taken no measures to deter such aggression? The Council was satisfied to pass resolutions that were totally disregarded. In the meantime under various fabricated pretexts and with astronomical speed, it hastened to impose sanctions against Arab States. Why did the Security Council not act against the military aggression of the United States against Libya in 1986? That aggression was absolutely unwarranted and targeted civilians, who were massacred by the scores. That aggression was condemned by the majority of the Members Indeed, Israel struck United Nations posts and massacred civilians that had sought refuge in United Nations facilities in Qana, Lebanon. Did the Security Council not adopt a resolution calling for Israel’s withdrawal from Southern Lebanon? There is a contrast here that stands in stark relief. Are Security Council resolutions binding in certain cases and non-binding in others? What did the Security Council do in order to put an end to the daily bombardment of Iraq, which bombardment is not in implementation of a Security Council resolution? This is what we expect the Security Council to do to prevent the outbreak of armed aggression: to deter aggressors and to hold them accountable by punishing them, and to complete its role afterwards by building and maintaining peace and by deploying peacekeeping forces and clearing the way for other international organs to perform their functions in order to promote and build durable peace. The Security Council should not deal with subjects that it has started to take up, such as the illicit arms trade, human rights and drugs, because there are other competent organs in the United Nations system that can adequately deal with, and should address, such subjects. Even the deployment of peacekeeping missions has been subjected by the Council to considerations and criteria that vary from one region to another in accordance with the whims and interests of some States, and not in the interests of international collective peace and security. Suffice it to cite here the way in which the Council addresses many ongoing conflicts, especially in Africa, which are virtually ignored except for meetings regarding Africa or statements or resolutions that favour support or appeal for support for Africa. But, in actual fact, the Security Council failed to adopt long overdue resolutions. The representative of Namibia has referred to many relevant and indeed important questions in this regard that the Security Council must seriously consider. How long does it take the Security Council to take a decision to deploy observers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Sierra Leone, using various pretexts? The Council is treating the case of Somalia as if it were on another planet. It seems nowadays that the Security Council is driven by certain Western mass media campaigns and the interest that lies behind that media. The Council does not really act on the basis of international security, or in the interests of the majority of the Members of the United Nations. This situation must change if the Council indeed wants to play a constructive role in the prevention of armed conflicts. We expect the Council to respond to genuine potential threats anywhere in the world, in the real interest of world peace and security. In closing, I wish to say that we have heard time and again references at today’s meeting to the question of humanitarian intervention. Let me repeat that for a situation to be called “humanitarian” it must be dealt with seriously and dispassionately by those who have addressed this point today. But this is not the case. It is not difficult to cite the problems in a given country in order to justify and provide cover for an intervention that has implicit and predetermined purposes that affect the interests of those who would intervene, and not the humanitarian situation of those affected. For instance, Libya lost exactly half its population in order to gain independence. We are therefore not prepared to accept any resolution that would contravene paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, conveying the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of any State, even under the lofty pretext of humanitarian considerations. Where were humanitarian considerations when we were under colonial rule? This is one instance of bad intentions we can cite. Kosovo is not the only example in this regard and East Timor will not be the last.

I thank the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Finland. I invite her to take a seat at the Council table and to make her statement.

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Central and Eastern European countries associated with the European Union — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia — and the associated countries Cyprus and Malta, as well as the The European Union welcomes the initiative by Slovenia to hold this meeting and the opportunity to participate in this important debate on conflict prevention. We acknowledge the importance of this link in the chain of thematic debates that the Security Council has organized in the past few months. We welcome the effort demonstrated by the Council in bringing this issue up for debate in order to generate new ideas and visions of how to prevent conflicts and increase the awareness of prevention. Conflict prevention is a complex concept that encompasses short-term operational and long-term structural measures. The former include early warning mechanisms, preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament whereas the latter include peace-building measures that go deep to the roots of conflicts. The United Nations Charter provides a number of tools that can and should be used in conflict prevention. We need to build on them and further develop them. Existing methods, such as those enumerated in Article 33 of the Charter, should be strengthened and complemented. A ladder of prevention would facilitate identifying suitable preventive measures to be taken at each stage of an evolving conflict. The idea of a ladder of prevention is partly, but not exclusively, based on the principle of proportionality; that is, that preventive measures should be taken in proportion to the level of conflict. The European Union is strongly committed to the primary role of the Security Council in the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security. The Security Council should actively direct its attention to areas of potential conflict, including the regular holding of forward looking discussions, and in this regard maintain a high degree of readiness to take preventive action. Certain preventive measures — like the establishment of demilitarized zones or preventive disarmament — belong to the traditional inventory of the means at the disposal of the Council. After the indisputable success of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the first-ever preventive deployment mission, there is a wider acceptance of this tool among the Member States of the United Nations. The Preventive disarmament is a subject that has received extensive attention on the part of the European Union. We have adopted a Joint Action on small arms and light weapons as a complementary measure to the European Union programme for preventing and combating illicit trafficking in conventional arms. To combat the destabilizing accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons is also an integral part of the European Union’s emergency aid, as well as of its reconstruction and development programmes. The European Union strongly believes that in the search for a long-term solution to conflicts — especially in Africa — high priority should be given to curbing arms supplies and the illicit trafficking of small arms and light weapons, as well as that of diamonds, gold and other precious materials that provide finance for them. On the question of arms, the European Union encourages the Security Council to consider using its powers in a more decisive way to impose arms embargoes at early stages of emerging crises. The European Union also supports the central role of the Secretary-General in preventive diplomacy, including fact-finding missions, good offices and other activities. We support the Secretary-General’s efforts to improve the United Nations early warning system and to place increased emphasis on preventive diplomacy. We believe that the possibilities of the Secretary-General and his Secretariat are still not fully utilized. In this context, we wish to recall Article 99 of the Charter, which provides the Secretary-General the possibility of bringing to the attention of the Security Council any matter that in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. For that purpose, the European Union considers that the Secretariat’s capacity needs to be enhanced to enable the Security Council to conduct regular surveys of potential conflict areas. We encourage Member States and regional organizations increasingly to share early warning information with the United Nations. The Secretariat should be made capable of providing the Security Council with an independent assessment on different regions, including early warning on emerging crises, as well as proposals for action. In this process, the Secretariat should make full use of all available information within the United Nations system. The European Union commends the Secretary-General for highlighting in his report on the work of the Organization the humanitarian challenge facing the United Nations. He rightly points out that the prevention of armed conflict is the highest goal of the United Nations. His ideas for improving and strengthening strategies for prevention deserve our attention and support. The European Union also fully agrees with the wish of the Secretary-General, as expressed in his report, that conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-making must not become areas of competition between the United Nations and regional organizations. It is important that conflict-prevention be approached in a pragmatic manner. We therefore fully support the Secretary-General's efforts to further improve coordination and cooperation with the regional arrangements. The United Nations and the regional organizations possess various strengths and capabilities in the area of conflict prevention. Focus should be on achieving greater complementarity as mutually reinforcing institutions, making use of their comparative advantages. The European Union plays an active role in the area of conflict prevention, early warning and crisis management, in cooperation with the United Nations and regional organizations. With the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty on 1 May 1999, the European Union has enhanced recourse to new measures of conflict prevention. The establishment within the European Union of the Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit as well as the appointment of Mr. Javier Solana to the new post of High Representative will contribute to the European Union's capabilities. The Policy Planning and Early Warning Unit should serve as the European Union's focal point vis-à-vis the United Nations in the area of conflict prevention. The European Union looks forward to the next meeting between the United Nations and the regional organizations in order to explain in detail the changing role and capacities of the European Union in the field of crisis management and conflict prevention. The European Union launched the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe, which was signed in Cologne on 10 June 1999. Furthermore, the European Union will also contribute to security and prosperity in Europe through its enlargement. The European Union is convinced that the best strategy to maintain peace and security is to address first and foremost the root causes and the triggers of conflicts. Long-term structural prevention tries to address the underlying economic, social and other causes of conflict. It pursues the creation of equitable access to economic growth, economic opportunity, social cohesion and development. It promotes greater respect for human rights, maintenance of the rule of law and strengthening of democratic institutions. Today, conflict situations are often internal in nature and associated with violations of human rights, in particular those of persons belonging to minorities. The European Union attaches great importance to the promotion and protection of human rights for the prevention of conflicts. We should develop a more targeted use of the instruments of development cooperation in addressing the root causes of violent conflicts and redressing inequalities. Such activities must build on and strengthen local capacities and institutions. Development cooperation may have unwanted effects if deployed in disregard of the overall political situation. Therefore, regular analysis of the impact of development and humanitarian assistance policies is needed. In this connection, the European Union welcomes the proposal of the Secretary-General exploring the idea of conflict impact assessments of development policies. Restoration of security and order as well as the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants into society are also vital. Since arms and combatants move easily across the border in most conflict areas, the Security Council should try to formulate mandates in such a manner that disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes could be addressed in a regional context whenever possible. The European Union welcomes with appreciation the increased role and contributions of non-governmental organizations in conflict prevention. The European Union emphasizes the important role of international law in conflict prevention. International criminal tribunals serve important accountability, reconciliation and deterrence functions. They also provide a legitimate process through which individuals are held The European Union has actively supported measures to ensure accountability for criminal acts under international law. The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was a particularly important milestone in this respect, and we urge all States to sign and ratify it as a matter of priority. It is to be hoped that in the long run the main function of the International Criminal Court will be that of prevention. Increased awareness of the Court's ability and determination to try to punish those responsible for serious violations of human rights and humanitarian law should effectively contribute to the prevention of such crimes. The report of the Secretary-General on Africa of April 1998 comprised important elements and strategies for conflict prevention. Unfortunately, the situation in Africa has yet to improve significantly, and much remains to be done. The European Union has sought to develop an active, comprehensive and integrated approach to the issue of violent conflicts in Africa, based on the 1997 common position and the European Union Council conclusions on “Conflict prevention and resolution in Africa”. One-third of African countries are at present, or have recently been, involved in civil wars. The European Union welcomes the Security Council's strong commitment to prevent conflicts in the continent and looks forward to further Council activity in this respect. The European Union is ready to assist in building capacity for conflict prevention in Africa, particularly through the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the subregional organizations. For the European Union, sustainable development in Africa is the priority. An enabling political environment conducive to human rights, good governance and a vibrant civil society are essential for sustainable development. The European Union is the world's leading source of development assistance to Africa. This assistance should also be seen as a long-term contribution to stability and conflict prevention. We are all aware of the human suffering and the humanitarian and economic costs if we fail to prevent conflicts. Prevention may not be visible and make no headlines, but it is and will remain the supreme task of this organization and of the Security Council. Let us shift focus from acting only when a serious conflict has broken out to giving appropriate early responses to early warning. There are a number of speakers remaining on my list. In view of the lateness of the hour, I intend, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, to suspend this meeting at 8 p.m. today, with a view to resuming at 10 a.m. tomorrow. The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of the United Arab Emirates. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Allow me at the outset to express my appreciation and gratitude to you, Mr. President, for holding this open debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Allow me also to express our thanks to the Secretary-General for the role he has played in the maintenance of international peace and security. Although we are living at a historic time, on the eve of the third millennium, certain problems remain unresolved and the challenges facing humankind continue to grow. They result from the pursuit of armed conflicts, both civil and regional, as well as from instances of occupation and the effect that occupation has on regional and international peace and security. This means that the international community, and in particular the Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, must act transparently, methodically and with no double standards whatsoever in order to resolve these problems peacefully and in accordance with Security Council resolutions, the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. While we support proposals aimed at further coordination and cooperation between the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice and international regional and subregional organizations so that peacekeeping and preventive forces can be swiftly deployed with the aim of resolving existing crises or preventing others from erupting, we also reaffirm the need to further develop the role of the Security Council in post-conflict peace-building. That role should involve joint and neutral programmes to disarm, demobilize and rehabilitate ex-combatants as well as to ensure the return of refugees and provide development aid to meet the growing needs of the countries affected. Support must also be provided for the human, economic and social development of the peoples in those countries. The United Arab Emirates has noted the humanitarian assistance provided in the regions affected by conflicts. However, we believe that this should not be an alternative to resolving such conflicts and violations of human rights, but rather an integral part of peacekeeping operations and programmes and initiatives for national reconciliation. We reaffirm the need for neutrality and transparency in the activities of the Security Council and other parties involved so as to limit the suffering of civilians in armed conflicts. This should be carried out with full respect for the sovereignty of States, their territorial integrity and political unity and in accordance with the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of States, which is stipulated in international law. We reaffirm the need to respect the security and safety of United Nations staff as well as those of other international missions in such territory. In this regard, we call for appropriate training for those working to provide humanitarian assistance during armed conflict. Finally, we reaffirm the need to respect all international efforts aimed at furthering the role of the Security Council in the peaceful settlement of armed conflict and the protection of civilians in time of war, recognizing that this role should not violate the principles enshrined in the Charter and the provisions of international law. We reiterate the need to strengthen the consultations between the Council and interested States, in particular in coordinating joint efforts, in information exchange and in the dissemination of the culture of peace so as to ensure a better international understanding of human rights, thereby enabling humankind to live in prosperity and peace.

I thank the representative of the United Arab Emirates for the kind words he addressed to me.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Since tomorrow is the last day of your presidency, let me also, on behalf of my Mission, thank you, personally, and the staff of your Mission, for the commendable work you have done during the term of your presidency of the Council. The United Nations was established in 1945 with the primary aim of preventing armed conflicts between States. Over the past 54 years, unprecedented growth has taken place in the social, political and commercial interaction between States. These many and complex processes of globalization have in effect amounted to a period of rapid change, which, while holding out the prospect of many benefits, has often placed profound strains on States and their constituent parts. To paraphrase the Secretary-General, we have been moving towards an era in which there is a near-universal acceptance that States exist to serve their citizens rather than the reverse. The stresses generated by these processes have often been so great that many countries have been unable to deal with the ensuing contradictions. More often than not, existing tensions within States have been exacerbated by the processes of globalization, and violence within States and societies has become epidemic. My Government believes that the recent proliferation of intra-State conflicts demonstrates that there is a fundamental connection between the inequalities generated at the level of States and those generated within States. We also believe that unless there is a simultaneous commitment to address these fundamental inequalities within the system of international relations through reform and democratization, it will be difficult to attain their universal implementation at a national level. It is no secret that the United Nations Security Council, established over half a century ago, is also struggling to come to grips with this new reality. Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, the aim of which is to promote and institute appropriate methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes, has made some valuable contributions to the prevention of armed conflicts. Its principles should continue to constitute a fundamental starting point in our resolve to effectively empower the However, if we examine the major crises the Security Council has addressed this year, we must conclude that the United Nations still focuses the bulk of its efforts and resources on stopping, rather than on preventing, managing and resolving conflicts. We need to shift this focus on conflict intervention more towards conflict prevention, management and resolution. In this context, it is worth noting that the United Nations has only twice in its history authorized the relatively inexpensive preventive deployment of United Nations peacekeepers to the field: in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and in the Central African Republic. Only once efforts under Chapter VI are exhausted is the Council meant to turn to other methods, such as enforcement. Past experience has shown, however, that by the time Chapter VII actions are contemplated, let alone implemented, the costs are normally stupendous: in terms of civilian casualties and abuses of human rights; in terms of displaced persons; and in terms of stress and damage to the infrastructure, economies and ecosystems of entire regions, if not their outright destruction. On top of this, one must then add the costs to an already financially enfeebled United Nations system of bringing peace to full-blown conflicts. The South African Government would like to reiterate, as we have previously done before this body, the urgent need for all of us to renew our commitment to the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts. In this context, there are three things which we believe the Security Council needs to do — and do consistently — to demonstrate its resolve in the prevention, management and resolution of armed conflicts. The Council should commit itself to: promoting and supporting the efforts of regional early warning mechanisms; responding to the recommendations of such warning mechanisms with appropriate early action; and facilitating the establishment of an environment in which the root causes of a conflict may be addressed. We have heard many times before that early warning mechanisms are critical for conflict prevention, perhaps so many times that the message appears to have become lost in the medium. We must acknowledge also that there is an ongoing debate within the United Nations on early warning mechanisms, where questions are often raised by Member States concerning issues of legitimacy and None of these constraints, however, should be allowed to call into question the premise that early warning mechanisms should play a valuable role in preventing armed conflict. So what needs to be done? The Secretariat and the wider United Nations system need to continue holding themselves to the highest standards when collecting, collating and disseminating information on conflict situations. Given the need to address the sensitivities surrounding the question of information gathering for early warning purposes, the United Nations should continue to focus its primary efforts on building early warning and conflict-prevention partnerships with regional and subregional organizations. For our part, States Members of the United Nations need to consider, collectively or individually, appropriate ways and means of contributing to the early warning capacity of the United Nations system, whether generically or for specific conflict situations. For the benefit of the conspiracy theorists out there, this need not translate into the creation of a global intelligence-gathering system. That is not to say that non-governmental organizations and the media do not have a role to play in the provision of early warning information; they clearly do. Collectively, non-governmental organizations and the media typically command far greater information-gathering resources than all of our Governments combined. Certainly they command far greater resources than the United Nations. The key to the provision of useful, credible information for the purposes of early warning for conflict prevention lies in the timely dispatch by the Secretary- General and the Security Council of United Nations fact-finding missions to conflict situations. Where regional or subregional organizations are involved in such initiatives, the Security Council should express its early and unambiguous support for such initiatives. Conversely, this places an obligation on Member States to accept such The Secretary-General stated last year in his report to the Security Council on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (S/1998/318) that no amount of early warning will prevent conflicts unless it is backed up by early action. This, as we all know, is more often than not dependent on the capacity of the Security Council, and of the wider United Nations membership, to demonstrate the appropriate political will. In this context, early diplomatic intervention is typically the most useful and cost-effective means of intervention. Where possible, such international mediation should take place in cooperation with established regional and/or subregional governmental organizations. South Africa and its regional and subregional partners are investing heavily in early warning and conflict prevention. In return, and where appropriate, especially where capacity constraints exist, efforts by regional and subregional organizations to resolve conflicts should be supported and backed up both politically and materially by the United Nations at an early stage. Where regional and subregional organizations have made explicit recommendations to the Security Council on measures to address a specific conflict, such recommendations should receive early consideration and should be acted upon with appropriate speed. At the same time, and in the words of my President to the General Assembly in September, we believe that: “the requirement on the United Nations to make such interventions to prevent the outbreak of hostilities imposes an obligation on the United Nations that it should be seen by Governments and peoples as a truly even-handed interlocutor and peacemaker”. (A/54/PV.4, p. 9) To this subject I will return later. In order to consolidate the gains made by successful diplomatic interventions, it is imperative to address the root causes of conflict. Armed conflicts, whether inter-State or intra-State, are not spontaneous expressions of violence. Typically their genesis can be traced to a combination of contemporary and historical factors including colonialism, poverty, underdevelopment and a lack of access to — or the denial of — socio-cultural, political and economic resources. Of course, it is not the role of the Security Council to do all of these things. It is, however, the role of the Security Council to ensure that an appropriate environment exists for the parties to a dispute to address these issues, with the cooperation of their regions and the wider international community. A number of factors have traditionally constrained the United Nations, and the Security Council specifically, in the pursuit of its conflict-prevention mandate, perhaps the chief amongst which is the lack of representativity and transparency of the Security Council. The Council’s considerable array of powers are conferred upon it by the Members of the United Nations, via Article 24 of the Charter. In conferring those powers, the Members expect that the Security Council’s approach to dealing with conflicts should at all times be informed by the universally applicable norms espoused by the United Nations Charter. However, as we approach the end of the millennium, we must acknowledge that by the majority of Members of the United Nations the Security Council is perceived as unrepresentative. To others it is merely an anachronism. By some even, it is perceived as a hegemonic instrument. These perceptions, which have grown over the past 54 years along with the growth in the number and diversity of the membership, have at times contributed to a grim atmosphere within the United Nations, in which the very principles and ideals of the Charter appear to have been brought into question. A matter that has frequently dominated discourse at the United Nations is this: Whilst it may be our highest goal to promote and maintain peace, democracy and human rights, the questions "Whose vision of peace? "Whose vision of human rights?" and "Whose vision of democracy?" remain bitterly contested. The intersection of this reality with the pursuit of the noble ideals of the United Nations means that this disclosure has most recently found At a time when this Organization should be celebrating the attainment of peace underpinned by universal norms of democracy and human rights, we are instead divided; many seem to fear that such ideals mean instead the imposition of a global mono-culture on the less powerful. One of the chief reasons for this state of affairs can be traced to the lack of representativity and transparency of the Security Council. In order to be truly empowered by the membership to act consistently in defence of the ideals expressed within the Charter, the Security Council must be perceived to be legitimate in both form and function. This means that the composition of the Security Council, its powers, and its methods of functioning and decision- making must be representative of, and accessible to, the universal membership of the United Nations. Only when the Council is perceived to be fully legitimate will it be able to pursue its mandate of preventing armed conflict effectively and consistently. In conclusion, in an era in which the majority of conflicts are intra-State conflicts, and in which many inter-State conflicts have intra-State origins, it is vitally important that interventions to prevent, manage and resolve conflict take place within the context of globally recognised criteria and norms, and with global support. This support will clearly not be forthcoming unless all the Members of the United Nations believe that they and their regions are adequately represented on the Security Council, for only by our simultaneously reforming and democratizing our system of international relations will our search for peace and security succeed.

I thank the representative of South Africa for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Australia. I invite her to take a seat at the Council table and to make her statement.

A political cartoon in a major United States daily newspaper some months ago depicted the Security Council deep in debate over its response to a dispute that had already broken into violent conflict. One delegate is pictured saying to his anguished Council colleagues, “No, no, no. First comes earnest hand-wringing, and then comes ineffectual soul-searching.” It is also true that effective preventive action involves a complex combination of mechanisms. No single action can on its own ensure the absence of violent conflict. While timely remedial action can pull disputing parties back from the brink of conflict, the most effective prevention ensures that this point is never reached, and potential disputants are able to resolve their differences before the use of force is conceived of as an option. In a sense, all international cooperation contributes to prevention, both by creating mechanisms to resolve differences between us and by addressing in practical ways many of the underlying causes of conflict. The interdependent networks of international cooperation in which we are all engaged, all the time, in economic, social, humanitarian, legal, security and other fields - even sporting fields - all play a part in building a culture of prevention. Strong global norms are a crucial part of this equation. International law must be consistently applied and rigorously enforced. The role of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia has underlined the importance of effective enforcement of international criminal law, in ensuring that justice is done and in deterring similar inhuman and criminal behaviour in the future. The adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court represents a milestone in the development of a stronger international legal system and a stronger international culture of prevention. The network of international non-proliferation and disarmament machinery is equally important. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), arms limitation and reduction treaties, the Conventions on biological and chemical weapons and other international security treaties are all threads in the fabric of our collective effort to prevent conflict. When one of these threads breaks, the fabric can start to fray. That is why Australia, like so many countries committed to the goal of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, was so concerned by the recent decision of the United States Senate to vote against ratification of the At a local level, conflict can be provoked and fuelled by illegal and excessive stockpiling of and trafficking in small arms. More needs to be done in this area as a contribution to the prevention of armed conflict, and Australia is ready to contribute to international efforts to this end. Because armed conflict has its greatest impact on the countries and people immediately around it, conflict prevention is in part a regional responsibility. There is great potential for practical, cooperative action to be taken at the regional level to complement wider international efforts. Australia is working closely with its Asia-Pacific neighbours, through the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum (ARF), to explore ways of preventing disputes escalating into armed conflict. The work that the ARF is doing is still at a relatively early stage, but nonetheless it is relevant to this debate. There are two aspects to our work. The first is to develop a common understanding of the concept and the principles of preventive diplomacy as they might apply in the ARF context. The second is to explore the overlap between preventive diplomacy and confidence- building measures, focusing on two specific practical proposals: an enhanced good offices role for the ARF Chairman and the establishment of a register of experts or eminent persons. On the concept and principles for preventive diplomacy, a useful input to ARF discussions has been a set of principles identified by the second-track Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific as being suited to the circumstances of the Asia-Pacific region. It includes the principles of non-interference, peaceful methods, consent of the parties to a dispute, consistency with international law and of course timeliness. One challenge ahead is for the ARF to devise a good-offices mechanism that would be useful in reducing the likelihood of conflict, while remaining fully consistent with those principles. The responsibilities and functions of such a mechanism could include, for example, initiating contact with the parties in disputes where conflict is imminent; facilitating information exchange, exploring underlying issues and causes of conflict; fact-finding; facilitating contact and dialogue between the parties in neutral venues; mediation, conciliation and The ARF is also introducing a practical tool that is both an early-warning and a confidence-building measure. This is something called the annual Regional Security Outlook. The document will include voluntary contributions from ARF participants, identifying what they see as notable developments in the regional security situation and their perception of it. A number of speakers this afternoon, I have noted, have referred to the value of such early warning mechanisms. The work of the ARF in promoting peace and security in the Asia-Pacific region should of course - and I emphasize this - be seen as supporting and complementing global efforts to achieve the same goals. But there are circumstances where regional approaches may be more appropriate, and there are others where the United Nations may be better placed to act. The role of the Security Council is, self-evidently, a central one, in keeping with its authority under the Charter. It is a role that must itself build on and complement other international and regional mechanisms that contribute collectively to the prevention of conflict. It is an area in which Australia believes the Security Council can, and should, do more. Early warning is one area where the Council could play a stronger role. Early attention to potential conflicts not only enables better-informed judgements about preventive action, it can itself be a powerful moderating influence on the behaviour of potential combatants. We have argued before, including in the recent General Assembly debate on the report of the Security Council, that the Council should be ready more often to deal directly with the parties to a dispute. Such dialogue might take place here in New York or through special missions, such as the recent highly successful Council mission to Indonesia to discuss the situation in East Timor, which was led by Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia and in which you yourself, Mr. President, participated. Such contacts, we believe, can help ease tensions, can provide a very important circuit-breaker for a dispute or can clearly inform both sides of the risks of escalation and of the possible responses of the Council and of the international community should conflict ensue. These contacts can support and complement the good-offices role of the Secretary-General and of his special envoys and representatives. The Security Council also has special responsibilities in the areas of preventive deployment and post-conflict peace-building. The United Nations Preventive Deployment Force demonstrated the effectiveness of preventive deployment. The effort that the United Nations and the international community are making in support of post-conflict peace-building in Kosovo and East Timor illustrates the importance of this part of an overall preventive approach - not just in response to humanitarian imperatives, but as a crucial tool, used deliberately in the prevention of recurrent conflict. We all acknowledge that these are not easy or straightforward prescriptions. The task of prevention is a complex and difficult one that requires persistent effort and vigilance. Like so many other forms of international cooperation, it also requires political will and a determination occasionally to confront sensitivities in the interests of effective collective action - rather than falling back on that earnest hand-wringing and ineffectual soul-searching described by the critical cartoonist. It is a challenge that we believe the Security Council can and must meet. In conclusion, I would like to express my delegation’s appreciation to you, Mr. President, and to the Slovene delegation for taking this initiative. We believe this debate is a very valuable contribution.

I thank the representative of Australia for the kind words she addressed to me and my delegation.

I should like at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. I take this opportunity to commend your initiative to convene this meeting, which allows Members of the United Nations that are not members of the Security Council to express their views on an issue of great importance to the future of the Organization. We also thank you for the initiative of making the activities of the Security Council available on an Internet website within the context of your efforts to promote transparency and clarity in the Council’s work. In the same vein, I convey my thanks to the delegation of the Russian Federation for the outstanding manner in which it conducted the presidency of the Council last month. The United Nations Charter sets down the principles that determine the role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflicts within the context of its work in the maintenance of international peace and security. This is carried out through the application of effective collective measures to remove the causes that threaten international peace and security, as reflected in Article 1 and Article 33, paragraph 2, of the Charter. The latter authorizes the Security Council, when it deems necessary, to call upon the parties to settle their dispute by peaceful means. Articles 39 to 51 also give the Council the authority to take enforcement measures under Chapter VII with respect to threats to international peace and security. In his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General points out that preventing disputes is one of the most important commitments of the United Nations, but that little interest is accorded to preventive measures. Instead, huge resources are spent on efforts to resolve disputes. In his report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, the Secretary-General also stresses the positive aspects of conflict prevention, such as social and economic justice and the requirements of economic and social development in the context of the establishment of peace and stability. In “An Agenda for Peace”, the former Secretary- General highlights the roles of the Security Council and the General Assembly in conflict prevention and of the United Nations in this regard within the framework of the commitment to international law and collective security In this regard, the Sudanese delegation welcomes the presidential statement, to be issued following this discussion, on the Secretary-General’s consultations with the Council on the analysis of all threats to international peace and security along with recommendations, throughout the world. We would point to the important role assumed by regional organizations in the prevention of conflicts, since greater cooperation is required between the United Nations and these organizations in the promotion of joint action, cooperation and coordination to prevent conflict. Sudan believes that there is a very close relationship between the prevention of conflict and the actions of the international community to take further steps to eliminate the causes of conflict by helping the developing countries to end poverty and to foster economic development and national reconciliation and stability. Each of these elements is closely linked to the prevention of conflicts that arise from economic and social causes. In this context, we must strengthen cooperation between the Security Council and all the bodies of the United Nations system, in particular the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The primary role of the Security Council, according to the Charter, is first to focus on urging the parties to a conflict to settle it through peaceful means. This must be undertaken in full respect for the principles of the Charter, in particular those of the sovereign equality and independence of States and non-intervention in the internal affairs of States or in any other purely national concerns. We believe that the Council will be unable to assume its full role in the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly in the prevention of conflicts, until it is transformed into a more democratic body with a fair geographical representation of today’s international community, instead of that of 1945. In many issues that it has considered, especially those linked to aggression, the Security Council has exercised a policy of double standards. At times, it has used the language of condemnation and denunciation, Before the Council is the issue of the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which is an act of aggression undertaken by the United States. This issue has remained on the Council’s agenda for over a year, while the very simple request of Sudan for the dispatch of a fact-finding mission — nothing more — has gone ignored. It is clear to me that the presidential statement to be issued will concentrate on the issue of fact-finding. The American aggression against the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant was a blatant violation of the principles of the Charter. The United States has failed to provide any convincing proof to persuade American public opinion — let alone that of the international community represented in the Security Council — that the aggression was justified. Sudan shares the international community’s interest in quelling the escalation, exacerbation and expansion of conflicts and civil wars in many areas of the world and in stemming the human tragedies and economic disasters they entail. Sudan emphasizes the importance of taking collective measures and redoubling efforts to suppress the causes of conflicts before they erupt. We believe, however, that these measures and means must be taken with the agreement and full understanding of the States involved and within the framework of the United Nations Charter. The absolute call to intervene in the internal affairs of States outside such framework and in the absence of a just, democratic and transparent world order is in fact a call of the Council to an era of chaos and the hegemony of the mighty over the weak and the law of the jungle. We would like to recall here what His Excellency President Abdul Aziz Bouteflika, the current President of the OAU, said when he expressed the fears of small and vulnerable countries regarding humanitarian intervention. When addressing the General Assembly at the fifty-fourth session, he said: “we remain extremely sensitive to any undermining of our sovereignty not only because sovereignty is our final defence against the rules of an unjust world, but because we have no active part in the decision-making process in the Security Council nor in monitoring the implementation of decisions.” (4th meeting, p. 14) Sudan — which calls on the Security Council to reject such double standards in the humanitarian domain and which attaches equal importance to any acts of violence perpetrated against all civilians all over the world, instead of following a selective approach — has great hopes that the Council will take up its functions in the maintenance of international peace and security within commitments to the principles of political independence and territorial sovereignty of all States in accordance with the United Nations Charter. It is really ironic that when the Security Council meets to study and consider ways to promote its role in the prevention and containment of conflicts, the United States, which is a permanent member of the Council and a supposed safeguard of international peace and security, is trying today to fuel the fires of war in southern Sudan. The American Administration today has announced that it intends to provide direct humanitarian assistance to insurgents in southern Sudan. This is a blatant violation of Operation Lifeline Sudan, which is undertaken by the United Nations in the Sudan in the framework of transparency and in full cooperation with the Government of Sudan. This was expressed in all General Assembly resolutions in this area, which have commended the cooperation of the Government of Sudan. The most recent of these resolutions was 53/10, which stipulates in paragraph 1: (spoke in English) “Acknowledges with appreciation the cooperation by the Government of the Sudan with the United Nations, including agreements and arrangements achieved to facilitate relief operations with a view to improving United Nations assistance to affected areas, and encourages the continuation of that cooperation”. (spoke in Arabic) We pose a very legitimate question: why does the United States fuel, through feverish attempts, the fires of This is in addition to the Sudan's commitment to other initiatives aimed at promoting the IGAD initiative, prominent among which are the Egyptian-Libyan initiative and a series of acts undertaken by the Government of Sudan on all levels to promote national reconciliation. The most recent of these took place last week, with the signing of the Djibouti Agreement, an agreement with one of the major opposition parties achieved through a valuable initiative by His Excellency Ismail Omar Guelleh, the President of Djibouti. The agreement has had a positive impact within and outside the Sudan and on many countries interested in Sudanese matters. We had expected a super-Power such as the United States, with great responsibility in the maintenance of international peace, to support such efforts to bring about peace in the Sudan through positive participation, by including divergent view- points and seeking peaceful negotiations with other regional parties to bolster a peaceful settlement. However, it is now clear that the United States, through this latest step, is trying to destabilize the Sudan, destroy its unity and divide it into smaller States by attempting to destabilize the entire African continent through the very limited views of some of the African policy makers in the American Administration. As the Sudan presents these facts before this historic meeting of the Security Council on the Council's role in the prevention of conflict, it is warning against this latest American step, which is considered a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law and contradicts the principles of international neutrality in transferring and transporting humanitarian assistance. The Sudan hopes the Security Council will assume its duties in order to bring about stability and peace in the region and the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the United Nations Charter. We would also like to stress that the Sudan will defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity and will not allow any party, whichever it may be, to violate its territorial integrity and sovereignty. The next speaker on my list is the representative of the Republic of Korea. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

I would like to begin by thanking you, Mr. President, for your initiative of organizing another open debate today on one of the most important and urgent issues before the United Nations. This being our last opportunity to address the Council under your presidency this month, we wish to pay tribute to you for your exemplary contribution of bringing about greater transparency in the work of the Council, as illustrated in the number of open meetings and briefings of the Council under your distinguished presidency. We also thank Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his inspiring statement at the beginning of this meeting and in particular for the practical steps he suggested, with which my delegation fully concurs. Contrary to the general expectation of peace after the end of the cold war, armed conflicts have persisted in many parts of the world at the national, regional and subregional levels. Any form of war has grave humanitarian consequences, but in this post-cold war decade, intra-State conflicts have proven particularly tragic and devastating. In such places as the Great Lakes region of Africa and the Balkans, we have witnessed large-scale ethnic cleansing, the dislocation of vast segments of the population and the devastation of civil institutions and the socio-economic infrastructure — all leaving huge numbers of refugees and displaced persons in horrendous conditions. The reality is that the international community as a whole, and the United Nations in particular, have not always been successful during the post-cold war era in preventing such conflicts and atrocities in many corners of the globe. It is therefore clear that now, more than ever, the Security Council, pursuant to its primary responsibilities under the Charter, should make further serious efforts to reinforce its role in conflict prevention to avert such human tragedies. Having said this, I would like to focus my comments on the following points to which my delegation attaches particular importance. The first is the need for the Security Council to develop an effective early warning mechanism for conflict prevention and, if necessary, to Secondly, it is our view that the Security Council and the Secretary-General have primary responsibilities under the Charter to play a central role in taking initiatives for conflict prevention. The Secretary-General should be encouraged, in close consultation with the Council, to make greater use of preventive actions as an indispensable tool in coping with potential conflict situations. In this regard, the Security Council and the Secretary-General could strengthen their collaboration in monitoring and assessing potentially combustible situations and in elaborating measures to prevent armed conflicts before they ignite. The Secretary-General could also draw upon his experience in countries like Guinea-Bissau and Liberia to set up an effective mechanism within his authority to monitor ongoing and potential conflicts, devise preventive measures and make recommendations thereon, as necessary, to the Security Council. In this context, my Government welcomed the establishment of the United Nations Trust Fund for Preventive Action by the Secretary-General and has continued to contribute to the Fund since its inception in 1997. We call upon other Member States who have not yet done so to make their financial and other resources available to this Fund in order to enhance the Secretary- General’s capabilities to take much-needed preventive measures. Thirdly, we believe that strengthening the international legal framework will also serve as a deterrent to future conflicts. We are encouraged by recent trends and developments in the international community to combat collectively the culture of impunity. My delegation was particularly pleased to see the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court at the Rome Conference last year. The Security Council has also set unprecedented examples by establishing ad hoc Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Along these lines, we agree with the Secretary-General that it is necessary to consider enforcement measures to facilitate the arrest and surrender of those accused by these Tribunals. Last but not least, we see that armed conflicts are too often the manifestation of unsustainable social, political or economic situations. Thus, short-term palliatives have more often than not failed to address the root causes of conflicts. The effective prevention of conflicts therefore requires that the international community devote greater resources to longer-term initiatives for development and good governance, making collective efforts to remove the root causes of conflict and promote capacity-building in countries and regions of potential conflict. We hope the many constructive viewpoints and suggestions put forward in the course of today’s debate will be reflected in one way or another in the Presidential Statement to be adopted by the Council at the end of this meeting. I would like to conclude by reiterating my Government’s strong support for and firm commitment to the common cause of preventing international armed conflicts by strengthening the role of the United Nations, and the Security Council in particular. As we stand at the cusp of a new millennium, the international community is now called upon to rise above narrow self-interest and a short-sighted world view and to seek a global, long-term common interest with a view to preventing armed conflict and building lasting peace and prosperity for all humankind.

I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea for his kind words addressed to me and my delegation.

The delegation of the Republic of Belarus is grateful to you, Sir, for holding today’s open debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Today the universality of local conflicts and the vulnerability of the international community to any outbreak of aggression or violence require the establishment of a reliable mechanism for preventive diplomacy. The delegation of the Republic of Belarus agrees with the conclusions contained on this in the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization. The place and role devoted to this problem in Mr. Annan’s report are commensurate with the urgency and magnitude of the item, moving from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. Defined as a priority goal for the future development of the United Nations, this should be the basis for our subsequent work. Although at the present time the number of armed conflicts has gone down, the nature of the conflicts is becoming ever more complex, moving away from classic stereotypes and traditional models. However, we feel that a serious analysis of recent confrontations makes it possible to collate the reasons and motives of why they arose thus making it possible to create the basis for working out a systematic approach to the preventive processes. In our view, serious deliberation on the nature of modern armed conflicts should be the basic element in the programme for preventing wars. This will make possible the early identification of the main areas of danger in the world which could become focal points of conflict and the devising of special actions by the international community to suspend, localize and then fully halt confrontation. An important element in preventing emerging crises is early warning. The role of the peacekeeping potential of the United Nations in this area is hard to overestimate. The peacekeeping contingents of the United Nations, military and civilian observers, United Nations missions and special representatives of the Secretary-General should become central links in this prevention. Other United Nations organs should also be involved. We believe that the interaction between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council is very important. Last year was particularly complicated for the Security Council from the point of view of its function in the maintenance of international peace and security. Conflicts in Kosovo, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, East Timor, Sierra Leone and other hot spots have significantly stepped up the Council’s search for new ways to prevent violence and armed confrontation. However, in order to enhance the speed in reaction to a situation, the members of the Council, together with all other States Members of the United Nations, must continue their intensive search for new diplomatic measures for early warning of conflicts, based on strict compliance with Chapter VIII of the Charter. Belarus supports the concept of preventive diplomacy, whose central point is the human person. People’s security is the basis of the security of the entire nation and of the world as a whole. However, the concept of preserving the individual human right to security and making it an absolute principle lying beyond the sovereign borders of States cannot guarantee the required peace and security. The history of human society is intrinsically linked with the emergence and existence of nations and States, with their inalienable attributes — their sovereignty and territorial integrity. In this context, the world community must take as a basis the primary respect for the sovereignty of a State as the only mechanism which can most effectively guarantee within the confines of its borders protection of the rights of its citizens. This is the thrust of the existing system of international law and international relations. A new approach to questions of interference in the internal affairs of other States and attempts to bring in humanitarian principles, the defence of human rights, affecting the sovereignty of a State, in my Government’s view should be carefully considered and studied by the entire world community. A proactive approach is impermissible when one State or a group of States can unilaterally, and particularly in circumvention of existing mechanisms for the maintenance of international peace and security, decide on this question. The Republic of Belarus supports the proposal made by many States during the general debate at this session of the General Assembly regarding the need to discuss within the General Assembly questions of humanitarian intervention. We believe in the need for a just, fair, collective discussion, which is the fundamental basis for the work of the United Nations. In our view, the General Assembly should set up a special open-ended working group, which could institutionalize discussion and possibly work out general conclusions and recommendations on this matter. One cannot quarrel with the axiom that prevention is better than cure. Today’s discussion in the Council is an important link in the chain of building the concept of United Nations preventive diplomacy. Our job is seriously to analyse its outcome and to determine ways for moving further forward in this direction. For our part, the Republic of Belarus is prepared to take an active part in this work.

I thank the representative of Belarus for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker on my list is the representative of Japan. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for taking the initiative to convene this meeting to consider the role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflicts. The importance of this issue is evident, particularly when we consider the need for the United Nations, especially the Security Council, to start making the transition from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention, as the Secretary-General stressed in his most recent report on the work of the Organization. Conflict prevention requires a combination of broadly varying efforts, which range, for example, from early warning and preventive diplomatic actions to reconciliation between conflicting parties and rehabilitation of societies, including the reintegration of demobilized ex-soldiers, and to development and poverty eradication. To strengthen governance in the countries concerned is often vitally important for conflict prevention. So are the efforts to place the sale of small arms under control. While causes of conflict vary with the region, cooperation among the countries in the same region to build confidence in each The international community must try to make progress in these and other areas that have significant implications for conflict prevention, in order to nurture the culture of prevention. And it is the Security Council that must act to prompt and promote such efforts on the part of the members of the international community. I want to stress here that the Council, although working with what one might call a culture of reaction, has already devised a number of measures that served the purpose of preventing the occurrence and recurrence of conflicts. The deployment of the United Nations Mission to Macedonia, for example, was effective in preventing the conflict in neighbouring Kosovo from spreading across the Macedonian border. The post-conflict peace- building activities in the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone have been working, at least so far, to prevent the recurrence of the conflicts in these countries. Most recently, the Security Council mission to East Timor last September was effective not only in ensuring that the Security Council’s debate was based on firsthand information, but also in gaining the cooperation of the Indonesian Government for the deployment of an international force to East Timor. Needless to say, the Security Council has recourse to a number of means, such as the adoption of resolutions, the issuing of presidential statements and the holding of open debates, which, if used appropriately and in a timely manner, would also be effective in preventing the occurrence and recurrence of conflicts. With all these factors in mind, I would like to emphasize that it is timely action that is most required of the Security Council when we consider its role with regard to conflict prevention. And it is in this context, I am sorry to say, that the record of the Council’s recent actions is not one of total success. In the case of Iraq, for example, it has now been almost a year since the United Nations Special Commission inspectors left the country, but the Security Council has so far not been able to reach a decision as to how to deal with the situation there, only to let the authority of the Council suffer. We earnestly hope that the negotiations now under way in the Council will be successful in resolving the issue as soon as possible. Although the Security Council was able to act more quickly on East Timor, we would have welcomed an even quicker response. Both Kosovo and East Timor need the accelerated and increased support of the international community for their rehabilitation and construction efforts in a wide range of areas, from humanitarian assistance to administration and the economy. In the context of the subject we are discussing today, we all know that the success of such efforts is essential in both cases in order to prevent the recurrence of conflicts and disorder. The Security Council can and must play a catalytic role in mustering international support for both cases. With regard to East Timor, Japan is planning to host the first donors’ conference in mid-December in Tokyo. The conference will be co-chaired by the United Nations and the World Bank, and will provide an opportunity for members of the international community to demonstrate their willingness to assist East Timor’s nation-building efforts. Efforts by the Security Council to ensure continued international attention to the problems in East Timor would be very helpful for the success of the conference. As all of us know well, the recurrence of conflicts and the prevalence of poverty are the two major issues that have been hampering the development of Africa. Conflict prevention is therefore a matter of special importance for many countries on that continent. We have to note in this context that there are some encouraging examples of local initiatives to stop fighting. In Sierra Leone, for example, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and its military sub-organization, the ECOWAS Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), as well as the countries in the region, have played a significant role in restoring and maintaining peace. The tireless leadership of the late President Nyerere must be recalled as a driving force for peace in the process to bring stability to Burundi. Furthermore, the efforts of the countries concerned and of the Southern African Development Community were conducive to a ceasefire agreement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. But it is obvious that African countries need much support and assistance from the developed countries in order to cease the recurrence of conflicts and engage Given all this, there is no doubt that stronger than ever leadership by the Security Council in focusing international attention on crises in Africa is now needed. It would be advisable for the Security Council to use African crises as test cases to develop a culture of prevention. The culture of prevention remains yet to be developed. It is also true that the prevention of conflicts cannot be achieved by the Security Council alone. It is a task that involves other actors within the United Nations, most importantly the Secretary- General, as well as regional organizations and all the countries concerned. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Security Council must play the central role in preventing conflicts. This is particularly true since the culture of prevention will have to be nurtured through the experiences of crisis management which the Security Council will undergo in the coming years. The Council’s leadership in shifting the focus from reaction to prevention is therefore most wanted.

I thank the representative of Japan for his kind words addressed to me. There are a number of speakers remaining on my list. In view of the lateness of the hour, I intend, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, to suspend the meeting now. The Security Council will resume this meeting after the short informal consultations of the Council that will be held tomorrow, Tuesday, 30 November 1999, at 10 a.m.