S/PV.4072Resumption1 Security Council

The President: The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Aboul Gheit (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): It gives me great pleasure at the outset to convey to you, Mr. President, my appreciation for giving the States non- members of the Council the opportunity to discuss directly with the Council the issues under consideration. The issue of the role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflicts, which the President of the Council has chosen to consider in an open debate, is Without any doubt one of the most important issues under consideration in the international arena. This question acquires a greater dimension by virtue of the nature of the subjects it raises. It is thus worthwhile to pause and consider this matter and give it the attention it deserves. Article 1 of the United Nations Charter charges us with preventing conflicts, as this is one of the purposes of the United Nations. The authors of the Charter realized that the prevention of crises was a better and more cost- effective alternative to dealing with conflicts than confronting them after they have taken place. This is particularly true with regard to issues affecting the peace and security of peoples. The authors therefore wisely and appropriately incorporated this principle into the edifice established by the Charter without deviating from it. In this way, the Charter requires the involvement of all major bodies of the United Nations, and not of the Security Council alone. In fact, the Charter details the role of the major bodies and conveys upon each its own competence to combat and remove the causes that threaten peace and to cooperate to solve the economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems that are usually considered to be the causes of armed conflict. For example, poverty and ignorance are usually considered to be two of the major causes of conflicts. Nevertheless, we find that dealing with these two issues and remedying them fall within the exclusive competence of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. If we consider the specificity of the tools available to the Security Council and the nature of its role, then we find that these two issues are far from its competence. The Council should therefore deal with these issues in the context of full respect for the delicate system of checks and balances between the major organs of the United Nations as established in the Charter, particularly the General Assembly, in addition to the other bodies within and outside the United Nations. In accordance with Chapter VI of the Charter, the Security Council may consider any conflict or situation that may lead to international friction or that may give rise to disputes, in order to determine whether the continuation of the conflict or the situation will jeopardize the maintenance of international peace and security. In implementing this provision, the Council has a mandate to take measures to prevent such disputes and situations. Yet, its means to do so are voluntary and fall Within the framework of the peaceful resolution of conflicts. This requires absolute respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and non-intervention in their internal affairs by attempting to obtain their approval before adopting or implementing such measures. International practice stresses this interpretation of the Charter. Chapter VII also enables the Council to assume a preventive role by calling on the parties to a conflict to take interim measures until the dispute is settled peacefully. Problems arise when the Council is either called upon or acts on its own to intervene and deal with situations within its mandate under Chapter VI by using the means provided by Chapter VII. Those Chapter VII provisions pertain to coercive and punitive measures and range from interim measures to the use of force. However, this transcends the authority of the legal system that outlines the elements under which action may be taken and the tools that may be used as established by the Charter in Chapters VI and VII. The structure of the edifice set up by the Charter is based on a careful and clear respect for the dividing line between those two Chapters. It is therefore absolutely important that the Council's preventive intervention not cause collateral damage to the parties directly involved or to third parties whose interests are linked to one of the parties to the dispute. The Council must give the parties directly involved an opportunity to present their points of view to it before it makes recommendations or implements specific measures. We also call upon the Council to permit States that are not members of the Council and that may believe that their interests may be harmed by the Council's action to discuss the measures under consideration, in accordance with Article 31 of the Charter. If for whatever reason the Council fails to fulfil its functions, then the only option is to resort to the General Assembly on the basis of the resolution "Uniting for peace". With regard to this resolution and the role of the General Assembly, we are astonished by the approach that has often been followed by some countries in avoiding using this resolution or in ignoring the role of the Assembly, especially since these same countries have occasionally resorted to this approach when their own interests and visions coincided or agreed with the framework of the resolution "Uniting for peace". The Security Council's endeavours to develop its role in the prevention of conflicts so that it may change its approach from responding to crises to establishing a culture of preventive policies to deal with disputes and defuse them before they become full-fledged conflicts forces all of us here to scrutinize the issue. The Council should work in this context in accordance with the rules accepted by the international community and by all members of the United Nations, and on the basis of commonly agreed principles. We believe that in its work the Council must not take up concepts that do not enjoy full acceptance by Member States, particularly those which remain controversial. Concepts such as humanitarian intervention and humanitarian security could prove to be more harmful than useful. I do not believe that many of us have a specific definition for these and other similar concepts. On the other hand, the Council should only adopt measures when it determines that a threat to peace exists or that an internal conflict may threaten international peace and security. It should do this in accordance with the provisions of Article 39 and with a full awareness of the serious implications of its actions if it decides to intervene by using force. The importance of the Council's abiding by this becomes more urgent in the light of the developments that have taken place in the international arena after the end of the cold war, since many of the ongoing armed conflicts are civil wars - intra-State rather than inter-State conflicts. This in turn raises the question of the United Nations ability to intervene to settle such conflicts. If a decision to intervene is taken, whether at the regional level through regional organizations or at the State level through the United Nations, we must then abide by certain basic elements, prominent among which are the following: First, there should be no distinction between one region and another, or one country and another. That is to say, all must be treated equally and be accorded the same importance. Currently, this is implemented only after much hardship and pressure. Secondly, there must be a determination to carry out the task in the face of any obstacles or challenges. Casualties, however large their number and despite their sensitive nature, should not lead to an impasse in peacekeeping operations or in controlling the situation in a specific location and in preventing further deterioration. Hence, no operation should be terminated because there have been casualties, or halted because of certain risks. Thirdly, the behaviour and commitment of the personnel of peacekeeping forces should not be limited exclusively to upholding the directives and concepts contained in the Secretary-Generals bulletin, issued at the beginning of August last, setting guidelines to the rules of international humanitarian law as it relates to peacekeeping operations, on which my delegation had certain reservations. However, this matter falls outside the scope of our discussion today. The peacekeeping force, or its personnel, should feel that the international community is not just backing them but is also monitoring their performance. Hence any military actions undertaken against them or any threat of action against them will have its consequences. There is no doubt that the tragedy of Srebrenica is one of the elements that compels me to mention this point. Fourthly, intervention in accordance with Chapter VI or VII of the Charter should not and must not negatively affect the territorial integrity or sovereignty of the State concerned under any circumstances. Many of the practices of the current decade involve many issues that require us to consider, inquire into and analyse their implications. Fifthly, it is important that the Council not rush to deal with a specific situation from a specific predetermined conception that could eventually lead to serious consequences. Let us take the events that occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina as an example of what should not be repeated. The Council adopted a resolution under the pretext of halting the confrontation and restricting the ability of the combatants to continue the armed conflict. The resolution prohibited the supply of arms to the two parties despite the fact that one of the two parties - and the Council and its members were fully aware of that - had an overwhelming military superiority, which led to terrible massacres. This eventually forced the Council, after a period of inaction and flimsy pretexts, to actually intervene on an international level. The claim that we should let conflicts run their course and be finally resolved in the interest of one party or the other, as some have repeatedly said, should not be the approach adopted by the Council. We fully understand that what pushed the issue of the prevention of conflicts to the top of our agenda is the Council's desire to deal with the cases that have accompanied international changes. When the situation requires the intervention of the Council and the Council uses the appropriate tools Within the proper constitutional and legal framework, the Council will have succeeded in fulfilling its role in the maintenance of international peace and security. I refer here to the success of the Council in dealing with the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. What is alarming, however, is when the Council fails to act in matters that require its intervention, as witnessed in the events that took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo and others. Yet we must not forget that the Council itself was the real cause of this failure. Many of the obstacles that prevent the United Nations from taking up its role in the maintenance of international peace and security are due to shortcomings in the Council's methods of work. This is manifested in particular in the abuse of the right of the veto, or in the threat of using it, thereby impeding the work of the Council and precluding it from shouldering its responsibilities in accordance with the Charter. Other problems are double standards, selectivity, lack of transparency and giving priority to the political considerations of Council members, particularly the permanent members, over the collective joint considerations of the members of the Council and of the United Nations as a Whole. All this has led the Council to use force outside the legal framework of the Charter of the United Nations, which underlines the pressing need to reform the Council's methods of work. Expanding the role of the Council under the pretext that the Charter is a flexible document that can always be adapted to deal with What some consider to be urgent needs related to developing situations faces some reservations on our part, and is a matter that should be handled with extreme care. If a specific international concept is agreed upon, then amending the Charter must become one of the direct priorities of international action, and the issue should not be abandoned because of the difficulty of achieving it. Acting outside the Charter, whatever the considerations that are presented as a justification, will not necessarily lead to preventing the problems and risks that the international community faces today. In fact, it could lead to their exacerbation. The way to achieve this is to deal not only with the problems of poverty and the need for the economic development of societies but also, and to a great extent, to reform directly the working methods of the Council that prevent it from taking effective action. We have consistently called for regulating the use of the veto in order to ultimately limit its use to extreme cases and in accordance with objective provisions to be agreed upon. In brief, the Council must respond to the many voices calling upon it to reform its methods of work. The Council should respond to the recommendations of the General Assembly contained in resolution 51/193, as the Council, with its 15 members, represents the will of the full membership of the United Nations in safeguarding peace and maintaining security in the world, and should bring the necessary transparency to its work, particularly its informal consultations, which occupy most of the time and the debate of the Council. I would like to refer briefly to the important and effective role played by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. We encourage him to play his role, whatever difficulties may arise, since it stems directly from the Charter. Furthermore, that role should be based on and guided by the Charter. The role of the Secretary- General has become of such great importance - perhaps it has always been so - that we must ensure that he is free from pressure. It is only logical, therefore, within the framework of reforming the United Nations and safeguarding its effectiveness, to consider limiting the Secretary-General to one term of office, although such a term might last for 10 years. In that way he - or she, as the case may be - could undertake his or her responsibilities free from pressure. In brief, the issue before us should be included in the agendas of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, so that more detailed and comprehensive discussions in those forums can complement the beneficial initiative of the Council. The responsibilities and mandate of the Council stem from the Charter, and the implementation of the ambitious project formulated by the Secretary-General will require cooperation between the United Nations and the humanitarian protection organizations, because it exceeds the capabilities of the United Nations and the Security Council working alone.

The President: I thank the representative of Egypt for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Liechtenstein. I invite her to take a seat at the Council table and to make her statement.

Mrs. Fritsche (Liechtenstein): We wish to thank and commend you, Mr. President, for your timely initiative to hold an open debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. We fully welcome this debate as a first step in a continuing process which we hope will contribute to the enhancement of the capacities of the Council to fulfil its responsibility to maintain international peace and security. It is clear that prevention must be a key element in the work of the Council. Indeed, Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter mandates that "effective collective measures for the prevention of threats to the peace" be taken in order to achieve the goal of maintaining international peace and security. Prevention has thus been given a key position in the conceptual framework of the maintenance of international peace and security by the founders of our Organization. At the same time, it needs to be said that in the practical work of the Council, as well as of other organs of the United Nations, it has so far played only a minor role. The past few years have brought about an increased awareness that addressing root causes must be a crucial consideration in areas such as human rights violations, refugee protection, natural disasters and others. A brutal wake-up call in connection with the importance of prevention was the genocide in Rwanda, where prevention was feasible, but inaction led to the horrific events of 1994. One impetus - maybe the decisive one - to launch the ongoing debate was given by the Secretary-General in his thought- provoking and ground-breaking report on the work of the Organization. We would like to thank the Secretary-General once again for his courage and commitment and to recall the far-reaching role that he is given under Article 99 of the Charter. The ideas offered by the Secretary-General make it clear that prevention is important with regard not only to armed conflicts but to a wide variety of other areas; hence the call for a culture of prevention. It is of course appropriate that our debate today is focused on the prevention of armed conflicts, given the role of the Council in the area of peace and security. The context within which this debate is taking place, however, is a larger one. Prevention means acting in a timely manner in order to avoid disasters such as armed conflicts altogether, or to minimize their adverse consequences. It requires certain tools, such as effective and reliable early warning mechanisms. But first and foremost it requires political will and the readiness and willingness to realize that prevention is often the best way - sometimes even the only way - to tackle a problem. If it is carried out at an early stage and based on relevant expertise, prevention can be achieved with discretion, efficiency and at low cost. Furthermore, the disastrous consequences of armed conflicts can often be irreversible, and preventing their occurrence is thus the only way to provide effective protection to potential victims. In the cases where the Council has taken preventive action in the past, it has been quite successful. The United Nations Preventive Deployment Force is a brilliant example of the effectiveness of preventive action and is usually hailed as the first preventive United Nations mission ever. There are, however, some other small missions mandated by the United Nations which have been operational for a long time and have had a considerable preventive effect. Prevention has also been one rationale behind the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunals by the Security Council. The most important goal of the fight against impunity is always the avoidance of the commission of further violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. International law must have an important function in the area of conflict prevention, and the Council has made a significant contribution to this end, not least by helping pave the way for the establishment of an International Criminal Court. Once operational, the International Criminal Court will have a major preventive effect worldwide. Preventive action taken by the Security Council has been selective in the past, but the success connected with these efforts should encourage the Council to expand its activities based on a preventive approach. We would like to offer several thoughts on how to further enhance the capabilities of the United Nations in the area of the prevention of armed conflicts. The need for enhanced cooperation and coordination with regional organizations, stated many times in the past in various contexts, becomes particularly obvious in connection with the prevention of armed conflicts. It is clear that regional organizations can and should play a major role through preventive activities if their capabilities in this area are developed accordingly. Avoiding competition between their activities and those carried out by the United Nations, and adapting a pragmatic approach, must be key elements in the joint efforts in this respect. An enhanced role of the Secretary-General seems to us a further key element of successful United Nations action in the area of prevention. Article 99 of the Charter, which I have already mentioned, gives a legally and politically sound basis for such an enhanced role. The Secretariat should be able to provide the Council with relevant early- warning information collected from various sources, including regional organizations, and with independent assessments on regions and areas where conflicts are emerging. In many cases, most of the relevant information is already available within the United Nations system, but needs to be presented in a compact and meaningful manner and in the right context. As a final element, we believe that more work needs to be done to provide effective tools to address the root causes of such conflicts. The past few years have been marked by a sharp increase in internal armed conflicts, and tensions among communities and between communities and central governments have time and again proven to be the reasons for these conflicts. We think therefore that it is very timely and necessary for the international community to develop, and indeed to offer, tools by means of which situations of this kind can in the future be addressed more effectively and at an early stage. Liechtenstein presented ideas on the effective and flexible application of the right of self-determination quite some time ago. Those ideas are designed specifically to address such situations in a preventive and pragmatic manner; they are based on existing international law and on dialogue between the parties concerned, and can be carried out, if desirable and requested, with international involvement. This could obviously be done in a very flexible manner and within the framework not only of the United Nations, but also of other intergovernmental organizations which are seized of issues of peace and security. We very much see our ideas in this regard as an element of the ongoing process of enhancing the role of the Organization in the area of prevention. Creating a culture of prevention is a process requiring a concerted effort by the United Nations membership as a whole, and indeed a change in our collective mindset, which is so deeply immersed in a responsive approach to crisis management. To this end, we should adopt a flexible notion of the term "prevention" comprising activities as diverse as early warning, disarmament measures and post- conflict peace-building. More often than not, prevention will be most successful if it goes almost unnoticed and is carried out with discretion and efficiency. On the one hand, this lack of limelight and headlines connected with effective prevention is probably one of the psychological obstacles which must be overcome. On the other hand, it also constitutes a major strength in that the discretion that comes with it should help overcome the reluctance of those who perceive prevention as intrusive. Collective responsibility for, and thus action on, the consequences of disasters through burden-sharing is, after all, one of the foundations upon which the United Nations is built. Prevention simply means the logical expansion of this collective responsibility to the causes of such disasters, in full accordance with the spirit and the provisions of the United Nations Charter. It seems to us that we can no longer afford not to address the causes of conflicts, and it is our hope that this debate will constitute one of the early stages in a new era of United Nations activities.

The President: I thank the representative of Liechtenstein for the kind words she addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Zambia. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kasanda (Zambia): My delegation is pleased to address the Security Council on this important subject: the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Under Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council is mandated with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. This debate serves to enhance collective commitment to the pursuit of peace, stability and cooperation among nations. The African continent has continued to provide one of the greatest challenges for the Security Council insofar as the prevalence of armed conflicts is concerned. Regrettably, this will continue to be so in the foreseeable future if the international community fails effectively to assist Africa to address the causes of armed conflict on the continent. As many speakers indicated yesterday, in order to address conflict prevention more effectively the Security Council needs to include in its strategy early warning mechanisms, preventive diplomacy and, where possible, preventive deployment and appropriate preventive disarmament. However, as with any other exercise, the timing of those measures is critical to the success of the whole process. The experience in our part of the world, however, is that, despite effective regional efforts with respect to early warning mechanisms and preventive diplomacy, Security Council action either has come too late or has been inadequate. The example of the events prior to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 is testimony to this. I wish now to turn to the matter of conflict situations on the African continent. The proliferation of small arms and light weapons has contributed to and prolonged many of the conflicts in Africa. My Government is concerned about the current high level of proliferation of and trafficking in small arms and light weapons in Africa. According to recent statistics released by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, conflicts in Africa have generated more than 8 million of the roughly 22 million refugees in the world. The situation is worse when one takes into account the additional millions who are internally displaced. This stark reality indicates that armed conflicts on the African continent deserve the urgent attention of the international community. There are clear roles for the Security Council in stopping the flow of the small arms that fuel armed conflict not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world. First, the Security Council, through the creation of appropriate mechanisms, should publicly identify private arms merchants and the zones of conflict that form the markets for their illicit arms. Exposure would constitute international condemnation and censure of these merchants of death and thereby help to stop the trade in this category of weapons. In his report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa (S/l998/318), the Secretary-General was unequivocal in urging the Security Council to address this issue of the identification of international arms merchants as a matter of urgent priority. The Security Council would do well to heed the Secretary-General's advice. The second role is that of strengthening sanctions regimes. In this respect my delegation would like once again to congratulate Ambassador Fowler, the Chairman of the Security Council sanctions Committee relative to UNITA, for breathing new life into the international sanctions against that illegal organization, which has caused so much suffering to the Angolan people and which has contributed to the destabilization of that region of Africa. Another area that holds a distinct role for the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict is that of peacekeeping. In this area, the Security Council should as a matter of principle give equal treatment to all conflict situations regardless of the geographical location of the conflict. The Council should be seen to be fair and even- handed as it executes its responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security. Last month the Security Council adopted resolutions establishing two peacekeeping missions, one in Sierra Leone and another in East Timor. For Sierra Leone, with an area of 71,740 square kilometres, the Security Council decided that the military component should comprise a maximum of only 6,000 military personnel, including 260 military observers. And yet in the case of East Timor, with an area of less than 5,000 square kilometres, the Council authorized a military contingent of up to 8,950 troops and up to 200 military observers. It is difficult for the Security Council to escape the perception of a double standard in the treatment of conflicts in Africa as opposed to those in other regions of the world. In this area of preventing and halting conflict, African leaders have shown willingness to take risks for peace. They have taken initiatives to deal with threats to peace and stability on the continent. Through its Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, and along with two subregional groupings - the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) - the Organization of African Unity has succeeded in concluding ceasefire agreements in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Sierra Leone. These initiatives, without doubt, are an indication of the determination of African leaders to search for lasting solutions to the continent's problems. These efforts, however, are complementary and are not meant to absolve the Security Council of its responsibility for maintaining peace and security in the world, Africa included. Having authorized a peace Mission for Sierra Leone, the Security Council now has a great opportunity to prevent the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from developing into a wider conflagration in Central Africa. As already noted, a Ceasefire Agreement is already in place and the Joint Military Commission (JMC) has begun to lay the basic infrastructure in the implementation of that Agreement. While on the subject, my delegation expresses gratitude to all those countries that have extended financial support to the Joint Military Commission. The JMC will need continued support from the international community for it to effectively carry out its responsibilities under the Lusaka Agreement. The successful implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement offers the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours a chance to enjoy genuine peace and stability. We cannot afford to miss this opportunity. The continued support of the Security Council is therefore not only expected but imperative. My delegation welcomes the positive steps already taken by the Council relative to United Nations deployment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I am referring to the Security Council's approval of the deployment of up to 90 military liaison officers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, as required, to the belligerent and other neighbouring States. Zambia is, however, gravely concerned that the Security Council is not moving quickly enough to authorize the second stage of the deployment of 500 military observers. We believe very strongly that the delay is sending the wrong message to all the parties involved in the conflict. There is a real danger now that the peace process, so delicately nurtured, could unravel. We call upon the Council to take action on the second stage of the peace process. Indeed, the third stage, involving the creation of a peacekeeping force, is itself unnecessarily being held hostage to preoccupations with demands for security guarantees. The situation on the ground demands quick action by the Security Council in order to prevent the development of a vacuum that could easily be filled by forces working against peace in the region. The Democratic Republic of the Congo has the largest land mass area in Africa. The nature of the conflict is also complex. Africa expects that the envisaged peacekeeping force to be deployed will be of an appropriate size with a clear mandate. Such a force must be deployed under Chapter VII of the Charter, as envisaged in the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. Indeed, such a peacekeeping force must be several times larger than that mandated for East Timor. We call upon the Council to summon the necessary political will to also commit the financial resources that will enable such a force to carry out its mandate. Failure to have a clear mandate for the peacekeeping operation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, failure to have a force strong enough to carry out the mandate and failure to deploy the force under Chapter VII will only serve to reinforce the perception that conflict in Africa does not command the same priority as that attached to hot spots elsewhere in the world. I would like to conclude my contribution by referring once again to the Secretary-General's report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa. The observations and recommendations made by the Secretary-General in that report continue to be relevant. They provide ready options for the Security Council in its role of enhancing peace and security by preventing armed conflicts.

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

Mr. Apata (Nigeria): I wish to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the able manner in which you have presided over the affairs of the Council in the month of November. This year marks the tenth anniversary of the end of the cold war, a landmark event that brought relief from the tension which characterized the international political system in that era. In spite of the benefit of that epochal event, the decade has regrettably been marred by the proliferation and intensification of intra-State conflicts. These conflicts, although regional in character, have often threatened international peace and security. The wanton destruction of life, the acute refugee crises, the plight of displaced persons and, above all, the destabilization of regional peace and stability should compel all members of the international community to seek appropriate tools to respond adequately to these conflicts. Nigeria regrets that Africa has a disproportionate share of these conflicts. Yet the region's capacity to effectively resolve these conflicts continues to be undermined by lack of resources and inadequate support from the international community. The best efforts of the United Nations, which finds itself challenged by the necessity to resolve these conflicts, are usually hindered by lack of financial resources and limited knowledge and familiarity with local situations. The relative weaknesses of the United Nations on this score should be an added reason for enhanced cooperation with regional and subregional organizations, such as the Economic Community of West African States and the Organization of African Unity. Ideally, the concept of conflict prevention would be the most efficacious approach for the maintenance of international peace and security. In our increasingly interdependent world and in the wake of the proliferation of armed conflicts, it has become more necessary for the Council to retool existing mechanisms and design innovative early warning systems to nip in the bud situations that would lead to a breach of international peace and security. Experience has shown that the surest and certainly the most cost-effective means of maintaining international peace and security is through the vehicle of preventive diplomacy. However, for the Security Council to enhance its role in the prevention of armed conflicts, it is imperative for the parties to a dispute to demonstrate the necessary political will and for the Council to provide adequate resources to enable the United Nations to respond in a timely fashion with preventive action. With the benefit of hindsight, we have learned, regrettably, that when preventive action is not taken or is delayed, a dispute leads to the outbreak of armed hostilities, as in the cases of Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Kosovo. In this way the credibility of the United Nations is dented, at a time when more is demanded and expected of it. Even from the point of view of relative human and material cost, prevention proves to be the prudent strategy. According to a recent estimate, the cost to the international community of the seven major conflicts in this decade, the decade of the 19905, excluding Kosovo and East Timor, was $199 billion, in addition to the unacceptable scale of human casualties. From this example alone, the dividend from preventive diplomacy is self-evident, as it ensures fewer conflicts and lesser humanitarian catastrophes. Conflict prevention as a major component of the maintenance of peace and security should be accorded the highest priority in the light of the monumental costs of peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building. This reality further underscores the imperative necessity of developing and fine-tuning common indicators for early warning and joint training of staff in the field of conflict prevention. In this light, the Nigerian delegation proposes that the United Nations should establish a conflict prevention and peace-building budget, similar to the peacekeeping budget. Such a standby financial facility would ensure availability of financial resources to promptly kick-start preventive and peace-making activities. This would be an improvement on the current situation, in which an appeal for donations has to be made before any significant progress can be recorded in the implementation of peacemaking and peace-building efforts. The current situation in Sierra Leone - where the implementation of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration has to wait for a special appeal fund, which was launched in Geneva on 23 November 1999 - is a clear example. The amount so far contributed to the special appeal fund, which is expected to provide the necessary resources for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process, has not been very impressive. If there were a budget in place for conflict prevention and peacemaking, there would most likely be funds available in that budget to enable the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process to get under way. In conclusion, while Member States of the United Nations must demonstrate greater political will in the area of conflict prevention, the Security Council has a vital role to play in giving preventive action the priority it deserves as the Council discharges its primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security.

The President: I thank the representative of Nigeria for the kind words he addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of New Zealand. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Powles (New Zealand): I would like first of all to congratulate you, Sir, for arranging this open debate. The topic is a vitally important one. The question of how the international community, through collective action, can effectively prevent armed conflict has been much studied and discussed over the past decade. We remember that at the end of January 1992 the Security Council, meeting for the first time at the level of heads of State or Government, asked the then Secretary- General to prepare recommendations on strengthening the United Nations capacity for preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping. The result was "An Agenda for Peace", whose precepts were to be sorely tested in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia. Other contributors on the subject included the then Foreign Minister of Australia, Senator Gareth Evans, who put forward the idea of "cooperative security". A further substantial contribution was made in 1997 by the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict. Among other things the Commission identified some of the chief impediments to preventive action. These included on the one hand a reluctance of countries closest to a conflict to want preventive assistance at the time when it could be most effective and, on the other hand, a certain "intervention fatigue" on the part of those States most capable of offering assistance. Most recently we have to hand the valuable action plan offered by the Swedish Government in the pamphlet "Preventing violent conflict", written against the background of the human catastrophe in Kosovo. At the regional level, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum is doing important work on the concepts and principles of preventive diplomacy. This renewed focus and discussion, including today's open debate, is most timely, given the events of this year now almost passed and the considerable resurgence in United Nations peacekeeping. The United Nations Charter clearly envisages a strong conflict-prevention role for this Organization. Article 1, paragraph 1, speaks of "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". The second part of this paragraph also envisages the "adjustment or settlement" by peaceful means of "disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace". The Security Council is given primary - but not exclusive - responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It exercises this responsibility on behalf of the wider membership. In Article 33 an impressive bag of tools is provided within the Charter for the peaceful settlement of disputes. These include "negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements", and so forth. The Security Council is also empowered, under Article 34, to investigate any dispute or situation which might give rise to a dispute that might endanger international peace and security. The provisions of Chapter VII give the Security Council enormous powers to deal with threats to the peace or acts of aggression, and they impose serious obligations on the wider membership to assist the Council. Finally, the Secretary-General is given a particular role under Article 99, a role that would seem quite relevant to the idea of "early warning" so often mentioned in discussions of preventive diplomacy. He is able to bring any matter that in his opinion may threaten international peace and security to the attention of the Council. The Charter, although more than half a century old, therefore contains a comprehensive, relevant and entirely practical set of options for conflict prevention, in the Articles I have referred to and elsewhere. And it empowers the Council, primarily, to use them. If the Security Council has failed to carry out its responsibilities effectively in the past, it would not seem to be a failure of system design but a consequence of other factors. Two key factors of course are political will and resources. Member States look to the Council members to show leadership, given their special responsibilities. This includes, at the very least, timely, complete and unconditional payment of assessed contributions. It also includes a willingness on the part of Council members to ensure that the United Nations will have the wherewithal to do the job that has been mandated, whether it is sufficient troops to defend a "safe area" or money to pay for the restoration of public services in post-conflict peace-building under the Council's mandate. There is also a view that the Council's effectiveness in conflict prevention is hindered by its working methods. The Council does so much of its work these days, perhaps 90 per cent, through informal consultations. Non- members do not have access. We are aware that among some Security Council members there is concern that this practice denies the Council the opportunity to invite representatives of States directly affected by a matter which the Council is considering to participate in substantive discussion of it. We can also envisage that there might be occasions when the chance for Council members to deliver a strong, collective and private view directly to the parties to a dispute could be a very useful step towards resolving it. Finally there is that old incubus, the veto. As so many speakers observed during the general debate of the General Assembly, this instrument wreaked havoc on the Council's conflict-prevention capacity in 1999. It started with the untimely termination of the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP), a successful preventive-deployment mission in a highly sensitive area. It exerted its unwelcome influence when the Council was by-passed in the decision by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to bomb Yugoslavia. And it dogs the Council's efforts to arrive at a new weapons- inspection regime to replace the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), which departed Iraq before Operation Desert Fox almost a year ago. Against these persistent negative features, which we hope can be resolved in the future, I am pleased to say that from my delegation's perspective there have also been some very positive developments in the Council's recent handling of its conflict-prevention responsibilities. Perhaps the highlight was the rapid dispatch of a mission of the Security Council to Indonesia and to East Timor in response to the violence following the popular consultation. The mission was a crucial step in helping to end the bloodshed. And we acknowledge as we have before the distinguished leadership of the Permanent Representative of Namibia. The authorization of the multinational International Force, East Timor (INTERFET) - and, subsequently, of the Transitional Administration and peacekeeping force within it - were also done by the Council as quickly as the extraordinary requirements of one member's legislature would allow. New Zealand will remain a significant contributor to INT ERFET and to the peacekeeping operation that will succeed it, we hope very soon. While we are speaking on the subject of East Timor we would like to take the opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Holbrooke on his very recent personal contribution to efforts to ease the plight of East Timorese refugees in Indonesia. And, regarding a completely different theatre, we also wish to acknowledge the efforts of Ambassador Fowler, as chair of the Angola sanctions Committee, to investigate the illegal trade in diamonds and arms that has brought so much misery to that region. While the Council has primary responsibility for international peace and security, there are other important actors within the system. There is a strong link between international peace and security, on the one hand, and disarmament and development on the other. If, as we believe the Charter intends, "international peace and security" is to mean more than the absence of war or even an absence of the threat of war, the contributions of the other organs of the United Nations, including the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, are of obvious importance in laying the foundations which are necessary. Finally, there is the role of the Secretary-General's special political missions. These are typically small-scale but effective interventions, such as the United Nations Political Office in Bougainville (UNPOB), Papua New Guinea. UNPOB and the regionally provided Peace Monitoring Group play a critical confidence-building and indeed conflict-prevention role as the parties to the dispute engage on the political issues concerned. The Carnegie Commission, in its 1997 Final Report on preventing deadly conflict, wrote of the need to create a culture of prevention. This included such measures as preventive diplomacy and early warning to deal with imminent violence, and other measures, such as the promotion of well-being and justice, to deal with the root causes of violence. There can be no institution better placed than the United Nations to take on this multifaceted task. We look forward to the Security Council's continuing to carry out its key leadership role on behalf of Member States as part of this endeavour.

The President: I thank the representative of New Zealand for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker is the representative of Bangladesh. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh): There has been express need for holding open discussions on the role of the Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Several considerations have made this expedient. We appreciate the initiative taken in this regard by Slovenia and the wise leadership provided by you, Mr. President. We thank the Secretary-General for the very important statement he made yesterday as we commenced this debate. His statement contains a number of specific suggestions which should receive the Council's attention, in particular the one relating to the expert working group on early warning. The political, humanitarian and economic imperatives of conflict prevention do not require elaboration in this forum. I shall limit my observations to a few suggestions and some interrogations. First, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. It is also mandated to ensure prompt and effective action. There is considerable international public opinion behind the demand that the Council be proactive and play an avant-garde role in matters of international peace and security. It is expected that the Council's role should be visible before a situation develops into a crisis; before hostile campaigns degenerate into armed conflicts; before a carnage has taken place; before a war has broken out. It should be there in the true realization of its responsibility. The role of the regional organizations is recognized in the Charter. In recent years, these organizations have played a critically important role in preventing or containing armed conflicts. But then, the Council has been criticized for subcontracting its peace and security mission. We believe that such a perception requires our serious attention in the context of our debate today. We must examine the benefits of formulating appropriate mechanisms and elaborate policy guidelines for the involvement and intervention of the regional organizations. They must, of course, be specific to a given situation. In this context, we encourage the initiatives of the Secretary-General in pursuing preventive action. While such traditional instruments as good offices, mediation and conciliation may be tried as the case may be, we would support more vigorous actions by the Secretary-General. Secondly, the question of sovereignty is one with which the Council will be increasingly confronted. For us, the question would be how to balance between the principles of political independence, sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and the humanitarian and legal imperatives of maintaining international peace and security. The two imperatives are not necessarily contradictory. The Charter, in my reading, tends to treat them as complementary. The task before us would be to find out the parameters of this complementarity. There is a difference of opinion on how to address intrastate conflict which the Charter does not seem to have envisaged. What should the United Nations do with a State in civil war, a country plunged into intractable ethnic strife, a failed State? The preventive measures prescribed in Chapter VI are subject to the consent of the parties involved. What happens when the parties remain determined to fight out their claims or control? What happens when the leaders in a given State fail their people? When they violate the provisions of humanitarian law? When they disregard the recommendations of the Council? In this context, I wonder if we should not rethink the way the question of peace and security is addressed. The responsibility of actors within States has to be determined and necessary redress should be available. The United Nations cannot keep a peace that does not exist, as the Secretary-General said. The international community cannot be expected to pay for wars of attrition fought in total disregard for law and civilized norms. A global consensus should be reached on the evolving concepts and mechanisms to address these complex situations. Thirdly, on the question of uniformity and consistency in practice, the protection of the Security Council should be available equally to all. To be credible, the Council must be guided by a consistent approach in addressing all conflicts. To be effective, it should work on both current and potential threats to peace. To be true to its purposes and functions, it should use all the power and authority conferred upon it by the Member States. Fourthly, on the question of delayed action, the Secretary-Generals exasperation in quoting from Hamlet is understandable. The Council has been discredited in world public opinion in this regard. The United Nations rapid-deployment capacity should be enhanced. The Council should employ all the instruments and measures available and adopt newer and innovative strategies within the purview of the Charter provisions. The credibility of the Council must not be further compromised by its failure to act promptly, effectively and consistently. The impediments to the proper functioning of the Council should be identified, analysed and debated. Fifthly, the Secretary-General has proposed the institution of a culture of prevention. A comprehensive approach to the prevention of conflicts may be taken through the implementation of the Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace. Success will depend on the United Nations system-wide integration of the Programme of Action and national implementation, as well as on the active participation of civil society and the media. Bangladesh believes that international peace and security can best be strengthened not by the actions of States alone, but through the inculcation of a culture of peace and non-violence in every human being and in every sphere of our activity. We regard the culture of peace as an effective expedient to minimize and prevent violence and conflict in the present-day world. My delegation strongly recommends that the culture of peace be given due consideration in the context of conflict prevention. Finally, with respect to the role of the Council in relation to those of other major organs, it is often said that the United Nations success is more pronounced in the economic and social areas than in the field of peace and security. The Council's primary responsibility notwithstanding, its role should be seen within the broad framework of the principles and purposes of the United Nations, in which specific roles are assigned to each of the principal organs. Their contribution should converge on the goal of the common progress of mankind in a world of peace. The multiplicity of crises and conflicts across the world in the past decades reveals a different reality. We are far from achieving our objective of building the foundation of sustainable peace. The role of the Council in conflict prevention in the medium- and long-term perspective should also be seen in this broad framework. The human and the material price of wars should serve as pointers in our policy decisions. In today's world the narrow national-interest-centric approach to crises and conflicts is certainly anachronistic. We cannot adopt the policies of the nineteenth century in today's globalized and interdependent world. In conclusion, I would say that giving priority to dispute resolution and conflict prevention goes to the heart of equipping the United Nations for taking its rightful place as the pre-eminent cooperative security institution in the post-cold-war era.

The President: I thank the representative of Bangladesh for his kind words addressed to me and my delegation. The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Senegal. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Ka (Senegal) (spoke in French): As this is the first time I have addressed the Security Council under your presidency, Sir, I should like first to congratulate you on your assumption of your important post, and repeat my delegation's commendation of your personal commitment and the commitment of your country, Slovenia, to the attainment of the noble objectives of the United Nations Charter. Your welcome and timely initiative to include on the Council's agenda the item we are discussing today stems from that commitment. By organizing this discussion you have sought not merely to stimulate discussion about the activity and the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security, of which prevention is an essential part, but also to create a climate conducive to improving transparency in the work of the Council, something rightly sought by many countries that are not members of the Council. This debate arises from one of the relevant issues raised by the Secretary-General in his report (S/1998/318) on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, which was that since the establishment of the United Nations conflict prevention has been, as it remains, a source of major concern, even if circumstances have considerably changed its nature. When the idea of preventive diplomacy was introduced by a former Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, it was closely linked to the threat of a nuclear escalation between the two super-Powers. Today we must recognize that this idea of preventive diplomacy is no longer, mutatis mutandis, the monopoly of professional diplomats and military experts alone. Over the years its scope has expanded considerably, following the proliferation of inter-State and domestic conflicts, which are in many respects the main causes of the destabilization of States and the causes of humanitarian disasters. Therefore, the United Nations - particularly the Security Council, which bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security - has sought to improve considerably its methods and strategies for conflict prevention. The push towards joint coordinated action, which emerged at the end of the cold war, is gaining ground and strength at all levels: international, regional and subregional. The need to act is becoming increasingly imperative as the list of the new generation of intra- national conflicts, particularly in Africa, is growing with the ever-lengthening procession of civilian victims, refugees and displaced persons. The painful and tragic events of Rwanda, and to a lesser extent in Somalia, have also helped make the international community more aware of the urgent need to consolidate domestic peace and to prevent the risk of violent conflict breaking out again. In view of the emergence of new intra-State and inter-State conflicts, and given the re-emergence of old conflicts, with their aftermath of displaced persons, and the need to preserve political stability and ensure the economic development of the African continent, nothing, we feel, is more important than to focus on the prevention of conflicts in order to create the conditions for lasting peace in Africa. However, this awareness of the need to prevent the outbreak or worsening of violent conflicts led African leaders to organize flexible mechanisms for the prevention and management of conflicts at the continental and subregional levels. African leaders increasingly believe that the international community must give substantial support to their laudable efforts to prevent African crises and that it has no choice but to react to existing crises. It is in this context that we welcome the initiative taken by Japan, which organized in January 1998, in Tokyo, a conference on preventive strategy, whose recommendations need to be revisited, pursued and amplified. In the ongoing search for a solution to what appears to be a global threat, because peace and security are a concern and a challenge for both the South and the North, the recurrent question is whether it is possible to think today of an effective conflict-prevention policy to prevent conflicts without directly tackling other important questions intrinsically linked with it. In his report of 13 April 1998 on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, the Secretary-General rightly recognized that the prevention of conflict was not an end in itself and that it must take into account and incorporate the various functions of peace-building and political and humanitarian activities designed to root out the underlying causes of conflict: economic destitution, social injustice and political oppression. In this context, I wish to make the following comments. Today we all recognize the close correlation between the need for peace and the objectives of sustainable harmonious economic development. We agree that development can only be effectively attained in an environment of peace, security and stability. Likewise, the results obtained in the development process may easily be jeopardized by instability or lack of peace. Poverty, disease, famine and oppression are still ravaging the world, as evidenced by the millions of refugees and displaced persons. These problems are both the source and the consequences of armed conflict. The attention given to them by the Security Council must not slacken, and efforts devoted to them must remain an absolute priority. The thorny question of illicit trafficking in and increasing circulation of small arms is a challenge to us all, and we need to move beyond sterile debates about the misleading question of whether these arms are the cause or the consequence of conflicts. In this respect, it is undeniable that today everyone agrees that the flow of weapons feeds and increases insecurity and leads to the outbreak of conflict. The increasingly systematic use of weapons causes the militarization of part of the civilian population, which ultimately creates a new equation of force between the various groups and takes them, de facto, away from the framework of negotiation. These new armed civilian actors often weaken existing institutions and pose a long- term threat to peace and stability in the regions where they operate. Controlling, restricting and limiting the illicit trafficking in weapons is therefore a priority within the context of conflict prevention, and the international community must give special attention to this problem. Obviously the ideal approach would be to develop within the framework of the United Nations an international treaty limiting conventional arms transfers. That is why my country, Senegal, strongly supports the convening in the year 2001 of an international conference on all aspects of illicit trafficking in and proliferation of small arms and light weapons. It is useful to recall here that in his "Agenda for Peace", published in January 1995, Mr. Boutros Boutros- Ghali, Secretary-General at that time, proposed the establishment of "micro-disarmament", based on the collection and subsequent destruction of stockpiles to prevent their reuse. In November 1998, the member countries of the Economic Community of West African States, aware of the magnitude of this scourge, decided on a moratorium on the import and export of small arms. The third comment I would like to make is based on a logical approach. In order to prevent armed conflict, should we not establish a special fund with the sole purpose of supporting strategies of preventive diplomacy? Such a fund would finance prevention mechanisms that are already operational in various subregions of the world, rather than spending vast sums on peacemaking, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace-building operations. Conflict prevention has become an absolute priority for the African continent, which is paying a high price for its armed conflicts. That is why in 1993 the Organization of African Unity (OAU) established its Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution, which also has a Peace Fund designed precisely to finance African capacity-building for conflict prevention and settlement. I wish to pay tribute here to the many donor countries that have lent assistance to the OAU in pursuit of this goal. I should also like to thank the Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and France for their commitment to African countries, under the tripartite initiative known as RECAMP, designed for swift, effective intervention in peacemaking and peacekeeping operations, as well as in emergency humanitarian relief operations. Other such initiatives will always be welcome if they remain open to any African State that wishes to participate in them. Conflict prevention is a very complex field. It requires both the mobilization of various actors and the combination of various political, economic and social factors. It requires a comprehensive, concerted and resolute approach and the participation of the various United Nations bodies, each operating in its area of competence. One of the major challenges to be faced in the next century and one of the key sectors where Member States must pool their ideas in order to strengthen the credibility of the Organization in the twenty-first century definitely relates to the capacity of our Organization to establish a flexible, open mechanism, responsible on a permanent basis for alerting the international community to potential crisis situations in the world and for recommending appropriate emergency measures. At the end of this twentieth century, we must recognize ultimately that our culture of reaction to crises that shake the world must be replaced by another type of culture, one of crisis prevention. Today's discussion must help us delineate the contours of this important matter, which in our view must remain on the agenda of the Security Council.

The President: I thank the representative of Senegal for his kind words addressed to me and to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Norway. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kolby (Norway): According to one estimate, 5.5 million people have died in war during the 1990s. Many more have had their lives ruined. The vast majority of these conflicts occur in the developing world, where many countries also have taken on a heavy burden by accepting refugees from conflicts in neighbouring nations, often without receiving due credit for their efforts. Norway has no doubt that the international community needs to pay far more attention and direct far more resources to resolving the many conflicts hampering development, creating human suffering and burdening the response capacity of developing nations, not least in Africa. We are convinced that preventing conflicts clearly contributes to lasting and sustainable development, just as poverty alleviation and social progress may reduce the risk of war and conflicts. It goes without saying that the United Nations and the Security Council have a pivotal role to play in this regard. I would therefore like to express Norway's appreciation, Mr. President, for your timely initiative and for the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflicts. Norway welcomes the measure of transparency and openness involved in allowing non- Council members to present their views and to inspire fresh ideas in open thematic debates like this one. We encourage the Council to further expand the practice of meeting in open formats rather than behind closed doors. There can be no doubt about Norway's commitment to upholding the primary role and responsibility of the Security Council in the maintenance and promotion of international peace and security. The Security Council, acting on behalf of the universal membership of the United Nations, has been given the pre-eminent position and obligation to take effective and collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, in accordance with the United Nations Charter. Early consideration and preventive action by the Security Council in disputes or potential conflict situations should thus remain the primary instrument of the international community's conflict prevention efforts as we enter a new century. The higher the readiness of the Council for preventive action, the more likely it is that disputes can be settled peacefully, in accordance with Article 33 of the Charter. The role of the Secretary-General is vital in this regard. The Secretary-General, being provided the possibility, in Article 99 of the Charter, to bring to the attention of the Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, has a crucial early warning function in crisis situations. Norway shares the view that the preventive capacity of the Secretary-General should be strengthened further, including through the allocation of human and financial resources. To assist in this regard, Norway has contributed to the Trust Fund for Preventive Action, with a total of $4 million since 1996. In addition, in the same period, Norway has also contributed some $4 million to other trust funds and activities of the United Nations Secretariat related to conflict prevention worldwide. Preventive diplomacy and peacemaking are highly cost-effective activities for the maintenance of international peace and security. The financing of this activity should no longer be dependent on exchange rate gains, vacancy rate management and trust funds. Norway therefore welcomes the inclusion in the Programme Budget for 2000 and 2001 of funds for special political missions, which Norway considers to be of great importance. Preventive deployment and preventive disarmament are other strategies that have proved successful in later years. Norway participated from the beginning with peacekeeping troops in the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) in Macedonia, the first preventive United Nations deployment mission ever. Norway supports efforts to combat the illicit proliferation of small arms and the various initiatives to curtail this lethal trade that are currently being pursued within the United Nations and elsewhere. Norway believes in continued efforts to counter the culture of impunity for serious violations of humanitarian law. The International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia represent important new building blocks in international jurisprudence with regard to the prosecution of the most serious international crimes. The experience obtained is also a stepping stone towards the establishment of the International Criminal Court, in accordance with the Rome Statute. Norway urges all States to ratify the Rome Statute in order to ensure early establishment of the Court. The existence of a permanent, global institution of this kind will significantly enhance deterrence against the most heinous international crimes. As current Chairman-in-office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, Norway has worked to develop further cooperation with the United Nations. Close and cooperative relations between the United Nations and regional organizations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter is of paramount importance to successful conflict prevention internationally. Norway has a long tradition of assisting efforts at development and poverty alleviation in developing countries, both bilaterally and through the United Nations. Furthermore, we are actively involved in efforts to provide humanitarian relief and assistance in solidarity with the victims of natural disasters, wars, and other violent conflicts. And we have been engaged in various peace and reconciliation processes in conflict areas around the world. Increasingly, we have realized the need for an integrated approach to our peace and development efforts. Conflict prevention, humanitarian aid and development assistance must go hand in hand. We must deal with the root causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Effective crisis management and long-term conflict prevention must include assistance in promoting lasting and sustainable development, combating poverty and relieving poor countries of their unsustainable debt burden, as well as efforts to promote democratic and economic reforms, good governance and human rights. Norway has adopted a national strategy combining humanitarian assistance, including demining, with conflict prevention, peace and reconciliation, and development. We will be proactive in the further development of coordinated efforts. We must involve bilateral donors, multilateral organizations like the United Nations and its agencies, regional organizations, and national Governments in constructive partnerships. Unless we can devise approaches to prevent conflicts and foster reconciliation, our development efforts will be undermined or even reversed. Building a culture of prevention is not easy. But the approach taken by the Secretary-General, notably in his report on Africa, is without doubt a most constructive way forward. Poverty, underdevelopment and violent conflicts are closely linked. We cannot address one without addressing the System Name: W:\WP51DOC\FINAL\9986581E System Filetype: WP5.1 Document Name: 9986581e Document Type: Creation Date: 11-30-99 08:12p Revision Date: 11-30-99 11:22p Author: ed (F) Typist: Subject: SfPV.4072 (Resumption 1) Account: 28 pp. Keywords: Abstract: C:\WP51\WP)WP[DS.000581EH-'