S/PV.4207 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received a letter from the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in which he requests to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In accordance with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite that representative 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. Members of the Council have before them the fourth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, document S/2000/888. Members of the Council also have before them document S/2000/979, which contains the text of a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council’s prior consultations. It is my understanding that the Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the draft resolution before it. Unless I hear any objection, I shall put the draft resolution to the vote. There being no objection it is so decided. I shall first call on those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting.

Canada remains greatly concerned over the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and in particular over the difficult path to implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. Today marks the third time that the Security Council has met to renew the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Yet the Ceasefire Agreement that MONUC was created to help implement remains the object of wholesale violations by all sides more than a year after it was signed. These same parties continue to hinder the deployment of MONUC, without which these violations cannot be reported credibly and thus deterred. The principal political elements of the Agreement also have yet to be implemented, with the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo falling short of honouring its commitment to participate in a genuine inter-Congolese dialogue, and with foreign forces, most notably those of Rwanda and Uganda, remaining on Congolese soil in violation of United Nations resolutions. It should be noted by the international community, and particularly by our friends in Africa, that the Security Council has spared no effort in encouraging and exhorting the signatories of the Lusaka Agreement to honour their commitments under the Agreement. Since January, the tireless and commendable efforts of the Secretary-General and of his Special Representative have been supported through special Council meetings with the signatories and with the Political Committee and the Joint Military Commission; through a Council delegation visit to the Great Lakes; through a number of extraordinary meetings; and most recently, through the timely involvement of the Special Envoy of the Secretary- General, General Abdulsalami Abubakar. And throughout, the Council has stood ready to give the full measure of its support through the deployment of a peacekeeping force. Yet the signatories of the Lusaka Agreement have not seized the Council’s engagement as an opportunity to bring an end to this devastating conflict, and valuable time and countless lives have been lost during a year of delay. It saddens me to say this, but upon reflecting on the events since January, I am obliged to note that the main parties to the Agreement have not demonstrated sufficient commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Indeed, the continued pervasiveness of premeditated attacks throughout the country suggests that force, rather than dialogue, remains the parties’ preferred means of interaction. Until this changes, there will be little that the Security Council can do to stabilize the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or to move the countries of the region towards a common understanding of the need for peace. At present, MONUC is unable to deploy its personnel to the regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo where its presence is needed. In the first instance, it is the responsibility of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to get the peace process moving again by finally honouring its repeated commitment to allow MONUC full freedom of movement. While Canada is ready to support all further efforts by the Secretariat and the Security Council to impress upon Congolese authorities the need for unhindered deployment, we also look to the allies of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to further manifest their desire that the Government should agree to a meaningful United Nations presence and to use their influence to that end. In that regard, we encourage the Secretariat to explore all diplomatic avenues, including among key regional actors, to secure the cooperation of the Government. It remains the responsibility of all parties, however, to acknowledge, in word and in deed, that the United Nations presence is necessary and that it cannot be made secondary to strategic calculations. The signatories of the Lusaka Agreement must realize that the Security Council will not consent to a process in which cooperation with MONUC or with the Joint Military Commission is selective or is used to legitimize gains made through armed aggression. While Canada encourages the parties to continue bilateral discussions on the margins of the Lusaka Agreement, we reiterate that that Agreement remains the central basis of Canada’s support for a United Nations peacekeeping role in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Canada believes that the Security Council and the Secretariat have demonstrated a commendable degree of patience in nurturing every positive development in the peace process in the hope of reaching a breakthrough. Clearly, the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the human stakes involved, justify this sustained approach. We also believe, however, that the parties to the Agreement, through their unwillingness to commit fully to the process, are threatening the international community’s investment in the peace process. If the parties do not desist from this destructive approach, we believe that the Security Council will need to re-examine whether MONUC as now conceived is the most appropriate instrument for helping to stabilize the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In the wake of the report (S/2000/809) of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, we question whether the current level of commitment to the Lusaka Agreement meets baseline standards for a United Nations peacekeeping presence. (spoke in English) As we agree to renew the mandate of MONUC for another two months in the hope that forward progress will soon be realized, Canada believes that the Council should reflect on the assumptions that informed the mandate of MONUC upon its creation. Specifically, we should examine whether the Mission’s concept of operations, shaped as it was by the expressions of good faith of the Lusaka signatories, can now be reconciled with the dire situation on the ground. Canada believes further that the Council should invite potential and actual personnel contributors to MONUC to participate in this discussion, in keeping with recently adopted practice. We repeat, however, that, even under current circumstances, it is not too late to realize the promise of Lusaka, and we call again on the parties to stem the progression of lost opportunities and to make a genuine commitment to peace.

Like all other members of the Council, the United Kingdom strongly supports the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), and we want to see it deployed. One way in which we can make sure that MONUC is ready is to hold an early meeting of Council members and troop contributors to review the status of MONUC deployment and the concept of operations. But, as the Secretary-General has made clear in his report (S/2000/888), the real problem is that MONUC is unable at present to do its job. Efforts to get the right conditions in place for MONUC deployment have so far been unsuccessful. The situation cannot be allowed to drift further. The Council is about to agree on a two-month extension of MONUC’s mandate. There must be progress during that two-month period. It is for the parties to decide whether they want Lusaka. If they do, they must apply themselves fully and unreservedly to its implementation, because, if there is no forward movement, MONUC’s position will be untenable. The prospects of our losing MONUC are very real. This would have devastating consequences for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for its people and for the region. The parties have got to make a decision. They have to decide whether they want peace or whether they want to continue with a war that cannot be won.

The Argentine Republic will vote in favour of the draft resolution submitted for our consideration whereby the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) is extended until 15 December. We believe the extension is necessary, but we also feel that MONUC’s presence, at least under the current concept of operations, cannot be indefinite. As long as reasonable guarantees of freedom of movement and security for MONUC do not exist and serious violations of the ceasefire persist, we believe the second phase of MONUC deployment is not possible. We call upon all the parties to use this two- month period to unambiguously reaffirm their commitment to MONUC and to the Lusaka Agreement. We are convinced that there is no military solution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In our view, the Lusaka Agreement represents the basis for a stable solution that respects the territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and takes into consideration the legitimate security interests of all the States in the Great Lakes region. Therefore, all possible formulas and alternatives to bring about the real implementation of the Lusaka Agreement should be explored. We have said this before, and we wish to repeat it once more today: the United Nations has a historic role and responsibility in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that cannot be circumvented, but the United Nations cannot replace the parties’ political will to make peace and live in peace.

The Netherlands will vote in favour of the extension of the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) for a period of two months. The extension of the mandate for a brief period will put the parties to the conflict on notice that for the United Nations to remain involved in the peace process on the basis of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, which, in our view, remains the most viable basis for the resolution of the conflict, we expect the parties to demonstrate their full commitment to the Lusaka process in the months ahead. In this respect, we call in particular on the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to facilitate effectively the MONUC deployment and to commit itself fully to a meaningful dialogue with the Congolese parties. Furthermore, the Netherlands calls on the parties to start, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1304 (2000), the withdrawal of troops and to end all military offensives. The Netherlands strongly supports the Secretary- General in his efforts to help establish peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and looks forward to his recommendations on the future of MONUC operations, including its concept of operations.

Last February, in resolution 1291 (2000), our Council authorized the phase two deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). Nine months later the implementation of this peacekeeping operation remains blocked by the persistence of hostilities, in particular in the Equateur province, and by the parties’ lack of cooperation with the United Nations. On several occasions, our Council has had to remind the parties of their obligations. Security Council resolution 1304 (2000), adopted four months ago, insisted “that Uganda and Rwanda, which have violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, withdraw all their forces from the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo without further delay, in conformity with the timetable of the Ceasefire Agreement and the 8 April 2000 Kampala disengagement plan”. (resolution 1304 (2000), para. 4 (a)) The Council also demanded that all the parties, and in particular the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cooperate in the MONUC deployment by lifting all restrictions on the freedom of movement of its personnel and by ensuring its security. Unfortunately, the Council’s demands have not been heeded by the parties. The Security Council is deciding today to extend the MONUC mandate by two months. France, along with the Secretary-General, hopes that the parties will make good use of this extension to show that they are committed to advancing the peace process in the Congo. The message sent once again to the belligerents is clear. There are four points, which were recalled in the statement (S/PRST/2000/28) adopted by heads of States and Government at the Security Council Summit in September: first, an appeal to the parties to cease hostilities and to fulfil their obligations in accordance with the Lusaka Agreement and Council resolutions; secondly, an appeal to speed up the withdrawal of Ugandan and Rwandan forces, as well as all other foreign forces, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1304 (2000); thirdly, an appeal to all the Congolese parties, and in particular to the Government, to engage fully in the national dialogue; and finally, an appeal to all the parties to cooperate with MONUC so that its deployment will be possible. It is now the responsibility of the belligerents to take concrete actions in response to this appeal addressed to them at the highest level by the Security Council. The United Nations is no substitute for the parties if the parties themselves do not display their willingness to arrive at a peaceful settlement of the crisis. Let us also recall that the continuation of this conflict, fed as it is by the plundering of the country’s natural resources, has brought about tragic consequences for the Congolese people. The massacres of civilians, particularly in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the lack of health-care services and food mean that the conflict in the Congo today is undoubtedly the most serious humanitarian crisis in Africa. Humanitarian organizations and the Secretariat have witnessed the scope of the crisis. In two years the number of victims has reached the hundreds of thousands. It is urgent that the parties end the conflict.

The United States also lends support to the decision by the Security Council to extend the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) for two additional months, through 15 December. However, our support for extending the Mission is tempered by our deep concern about international peacekeeping efforts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the light of the continued reluctance of the parties to implement the Lusaka Agreement. There can be no peace in the Congo unless and until the parties to the conflict uphold their Lusaka commitments. There will be no further deployment of United Nations personnel as long as volatile confrontations between the belligerent parties continue. Our collective efforts to restore peace and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are further eroded by the severe restrictions imposed on MONUC personnel already deployed in the region. As noted in the Secretary-General’s report of 21 September, the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has yet to implement an acceptable arrangement to permit unimpeded movement of United Nations officials. There can also be no peace as long as MONUC continues to be the target of inflammatory propaganda condoned by the Congolese Government. The critical humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo cannot be properly addressed either — despite our collective efforts — as long as humanitarian agencies are denied safety and freedom of access to all areas, including the eastern part of the country. Emergency assistance cannot be delivered to the 1.8 million Congolese who have been displaced from their homes and to the 16 million persons who are in immediate need of food for survival. All belligerent parties in the Congo must permit full, safe access at once to all humanitarian workers in order to prevent further human suffering and tragedy. We have just 60 days in which to renew our own efforts to encourage a recommitment by the parties to peace and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. If efforts to block MONUC’s mission continue, and should the parties fail to demonstrate their commitment to the peace process, we will have little choice but to review closely the utility and purpose of a continued United Nations presence as defined in MONUC’s current concept of operations. We therefore call on all the parties to use this short-term extension of the Mission to relaunch the peace process and demonstrate their firm commitment to renewed stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

I shall now put to the vote the draft resolution contained in document S/2000/979.

There were 15 votes in favour. The draft resolution has been adopted unanimously as resolution 1323 (2000). There are no further speakers inscribed on my list. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.