S/PV.4818 Security Council

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. In that connection, as President, I shall now make an introductory statement concerning peacekeeping operations. The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic, after the necessary consultations with the other members of the Council, has decided to devote today’s wrap-up meeting to the theme of United Nations peacekeeping operations. Our delegation took that approach for many reasons, most important among them the current developments in United Nations peacekeeping operations. We are confident that past and present United Nations peacekeeping operations constitute one of the main elements of the maintenance of international peace and security. We wanted to give the opportunity to the Council members to make their views known on the numerous positive aspects of peacekeeping operations. We also wanted to give them the opportunity to comment on how to create conditions in which we can try to remove all the obstacles facing peacekeeping operations, and on ways to overcome those obstacles. One of our main objectives was to address the issue of the protection of United Nations missions and peacekeeping operations in various parts of the world. This comes in the wake of the criminal act that took place in Baghdad on 19 August, claiming the lives of a number of the best people working for peacekeeping operations, and injuring many others. This was a great loss to the United Nations in particular, and to the international community in general. My delegation circulated a paper to all members of the Council, prepared along with our partners who wanted to tackle this question. But the paper also presents our view on the subject under consideration. As members will notice, we have affirmed that the Security Council must run the transitional stages of peacekeeping operations in an effective manner, whether in Africa or on other continents. We also stated that, when adopting a decision to establish a new operation, the Council must take into account all of its operational aspects. The Council must also take into account the protection of the operations. Furthermore, in order for the operation to fulfil its mandate, the necessary military power must be provided. We also talked about giving the Secretary-General the necessary flexibility with regard to initiating peacekeeping operations and have also made it clear that countries must be ready to launch operations anywhere, including in Africa. Finally, we spoke of securing the civilian elements that are necessary to support permanent peace, especially in humanitarian assistance and in the disarmament and demobilization of all combatants. The Syrian Arab Republic pays tribute to all those who have worked with our international Organization and supported its peacemaking efforts. There have been sad moments, such as the 1948 assassination in Jerusalem of Count Folke Bernadotte, United Nations mediator in Palestine, and the criminal act in Baghdad last week. Such events have resulted in men and women of United Nations peacekeeping operations paying the dearest price, their own blood, in order to maintain peace and security in the world. Syria believes that we must continue our debate into the next stage so that humanity can finally enjoy peace in every part of the world and so that we can attain the purposes of the United Nations Charter. I would like now to inform the members of the Council that this will be my last meeting as President and as representative of the Syrian Arab Republic. As members may know, I have been transferred to the Syrian Mission to Geneva as Permanent Representative of Syria to the United Nations in Geneva, the European headquarters. On this occasion I would like to extend my thanks to all of my colleagues and friends in the Council. I thank them for their continuous cooperation with me on all issues related to the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations. I extend my thanks also to all members of the Secretariat, including the interpreters and the others who facilitate our work during our meetings. I will never forget them, and would like to thank them especially for cooperating with me during my seven years at the United Nations here in New York.

First, Sir, let me thank you, as you approach the end of your presidency, for having convened this important wrap- up meeting on peacekeeping operations. I also wish to convey to you my delegation’s appreciation for your activities throughout the past two years, as we have worked together on the Security Council, and to wish you every success in your new post and your new responsibilities. The Council’s consideration of the question of peacekeeping operations is particularly timely and wise, because over the past few years, peacekeeping operations have proliferated throughout the world, becoming the very core of the United Nations collective security system. In the course of this month, the Security Council considered a number of questions related to the peacekeeping component of its work, as was the case with Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia. Another reason to welcome the choice of this topic is that, as the President has just mentioned, it gives the Council an opportunity to assess the efficiency of peacekeeping operations, which are the primary responsibility entrusted by the Charter to the Security Council. It is through these operations that the international community and public opinion can — to use the words of the Secretary-General — appraise the capacity of the United Nations to make the difference between war and peace. A number of prior conditions are indispensable for peacekeeping, and I will again quote the Secretary- General: a clear and achievable mandate and the strength and authority to defend itself and safeguard the mission. Moreover, the Charter makes available to the Organization a vast array of tools ranging from ways for the peaceful settlement of conflicts under Chapter VI to the coercive measures provided for in Chapter VII. I must underline that peacekeeping operations involve complexities that vary from one situation to another. They are therefore a permanent challenge for the Organization, requiring it unceasingly to explore new routes of action and new opportunities for streamlining. In that context, the analysis and recommendations of the study group on the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations, better known as the Brahimi report, are an essential contribution. That reference report helped raised awareness of the urgent need to reform peacekeeping operations and to provide them with adequate means for reaching the desired goals by taking into account all specific characteristics of a conflict when defining a mission’s mandate. While in some situations peacekeeping soldiers are rapidly mobilized and deployed with the appropriate resources, in other situations that are just as tragic, or more so, the international community has unfortunately wavered in deciding for the intervention of the United Nations. And when that decision is taken, the international community struggles to muster the necessary resources. That unfortunately hinders the effectiveness of the operations concerned, with all the consequences that entails, the humanitarian consequences in particular. Certain non-governmental organizations have not failed to denounce that sad reality. Several solutions have been proposed to remedy that situation. Today, many reforms have been introduced in peacekeeping missions: a realistic definition of every mission’s needs, without necessarily casting doubt on a newly enlarged mandate for that mission; ongoing consultation among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries — in this respect some are thinking of some form of joint decision-making, with the countries contributing troops or resources; the enhanced involvement of civil society and the relevant non- governmental organizations, in partnership with the regional organizations concerned; rules of conduct for United Nations personnel involved in peacekeeping operations; and measures to halt the spreading of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which is a major crisis for development. My delegation believes that the systematic use by the Secretary-General of missions to evaluate needs would be another very useful response to the concerns encountered. It often happens that the Security Council authorizes a State or group of States to intervene urgently and with their own resources in certain crisis situations. The results of that practice have not been completely conclusive, if one recalls the interventions in Somalia in 1992 and in Rwanda in 1994. Most fortunately, that approach seems to have had several convincing successes in recent years. I will give the examples of the deployment, in certain conflict zones in Africa, of Operation Unicorn and the mission of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Côte d’Ivoire, the Artemis Force of the European Union in Bunia in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and, more recently, the ECOWAS mission in Liberia. Endowing multinational forces with a robust mandate certainly enables them to deal urgently and very effectively with certain major crises. Therefore, we believe that it is healthy and prudent to define very clearly the duration of interventions. That demonstrates that a long-term response depends on the capacity of the United Nations to mobilize the appropriate resources for action rapidly and at any given moment. In the meantime, the Organization must rationalize its use of available resources. In that context, the current experience in Liberia opens a new path for reflection, mainly in relation to the regional management of Blue Helmet contingents and the logistical resources in response to neighbouring conflicts, such as is the case in western Africa. Such reflection can also take into account the need to set up regional warning mechanisms with sufficient autonomous capacity. That formula seems to be taking shape in certain regions. In that respect, we consider cooperation in the framework of Chapter VIII to be fundamental. The tragic events of 19 August — towards which we share the sentiment just expressed by the Council President — have reminded the Council that the measures taken thus far in response to the new challenges before the international community, are not adequate to protect United Nations and associated personnel and humanitarian personnel participating in the peacekeeping operations authorized by the Security Council. That is why my delegation welcomes the Council’s unanimous adoption of resolution 1502 (2003) on 26 August. With respect to the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes included in peacekeeping operations, while disarmament and demobilization are being handled better and better at the moment, much remains to be done with regard to reintegration. In that respect, the Council should continue the dialogue begun with multilateral financial institutions in order to develop a concerted and coordinated approach that simplifies and makes more flexible the eligibility requirements so that action is more rapid and more closely tied to reconstruction. In conclusion, strengthening the primary responsibility of the United Nations in peacekeeping and the effectiveness of its peace operations requires that States demonstrate their political will and that there be extensive cooperation between the United Nations and all actors of the international community.

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

Let me first thank you, Sir, for convening this morning’s meeting and for proposing such a timely and important topic for the Council’s discussion. This will be another highlight of the presidency you have held during the month of August in a very remarkable and impressive way. May we also wish you all personal success and professional satisfaction in your new assignment in the beautiful city of Geneva. Peacekeeping has a long tradition in the United Nations. It is almost as old as the Organization itself. Not surprisingly, the way peacekeeping is conducted has changed considerably over the decades. In general, peacekeeping mandates have become increasingly complex. Germany is sharing the burden of peacekeeping both as the third largest financial contributor to each mission’s budget and through troop contributions to United Nations mandated missions, totalling approximately 9,000 persons. This meeting gives us an excellent opportunity to remind ourselves of our responsibilities and to reflect on how best to exercise them whenever the question of a new peace mission, or the renewal of an existing one, arises. After all, those missions affect human lives, and they may even cost lives. The Council, as the only source of legitimacy for peace missions, carries a heavy burden. The multifaceted subject of peacekeeping has been dealt with extensively over the past years, both inside and outside the United Nations. The recommendations made by the panel of experts led by Ambassador Brahimi on the reform of peacekeeping have provided the United Nations system with invaluable guidance. I would therefore like to restrict myself to a few points. A well-designed mandate is no guarantee for the success of a mission. On the other hand, without such a mandate a mission is bound to fail. Rational decisions can be taken only if there is a solid, comprehensive and reliable information base. It may be worth thinking about ways and means of broadening that information base. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations in particular has a vast amount of expertise from which the Council has profited, and from which it may profit even more in the future. Apart from information and expertise, the role of women deserves heightened awareness. New or renewed mandates have to reflect the fact that in many conflict situations the majority of victims are women. Sexual violence is often used as a means of warfare, a fact that will certainly be of major relevance for the future work of the International Criminal Court. But we have to go a step further by appointing more women to high-level positions in peacekeeping operations, increasing the overall percentage of female personnel, including senior gender advisers in each and every mission and training peacekeepers. When dealing with the question of mandates, we should not altogether ignore the good old principle of “no taxation without representation”. Hence, better ways of involving contributing countries in early decision-making need to be considered, be they troop contributors or countries making other important contributions. Otherwise we risk not being able to generate the necessary public acceptance of and political support for these demanding operations in the future. My second observation is a more general one, applicable to each and every activity of the United Nations. Taking into consideration the resources of the United Nations, how can we make the best use of the specific capabilities and know-how of the United Nations system in the field of peace missions? We have already experienced various ways in which peace missions are organized, ranging from Blue Helmet missions to multinational forces and missions carried out by regional organizations. Each of those approaches has its advantages and disadvantages. It may well be worth studying them in more depth and developing criteria for a division of labour between the United Nations, regional organizations and individual Member States. Regional peacekeeping merits our particular attention. Regional peacekeeping stands for the ability of the regions of the world to take their fate into their own hands, coming to terms with conflict through specific means that are rooted in the culture and tradition of the respective area. Yesterday’s meeting with Foreign Ministers of the Economic Community of West African States made that clear once again. There are commendable efforts under way to strengthen regional peacekeeping, notably in Africa. Those efforts deserve our attention and support. The United Nations can provide valuable assistance through training and know-how. Sound financing needs to be provided to ensure the steady continuation of regional missions. When it comes to rapid deployment — a subject that has been on the Council’s agenda for quite a while — we need to ask ourselves what is feasible and what is not, at least within the framework of the budget that the United Nations has at its disposal. Would it not be worthwhile to reconsider that question in the context of a division of labour between the United Nations and national forces? There is yet another aspect to the division of labour, namely, the consideration of the different tasks that a mission has to fulfil. The various countries contributing personnel to a mission have different strengths and weaknesses, and they are operating at differing expense. Those factors cannot be ignored when a decision has to be made regarding which countries will contribute which types of units and services. However, let me stress one point in that respect, in order not to be misunderstood. Peacekeeping must, by its very nature, remain compatible with the universal role of the United Nations and the principle of international solidarity. My third observation is inspired by the concept of prevention. The United Nations system has been dealing with this matter since the issuance of the Secretary-General’s report on the prevention of armed conflict, and it will continue to do so. As we know, two resolutions have ensued, one of them emanating from the Council and another, more recently, from the General Assembly. That serves to remind us of the fact that peacekeeping is good but prevention is better. Provided that the Security Council issues a mandate or that the receiving State agrees to such action, preventive deployment is an effective instrument that should be considered more often. The case of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is a good example of the success of such a mission. My fourth point has to do with the phase following peacekeeping. Peacekeepers need to have an exit strategy. Peace will last only where it has been consolidated. The vital role of peace-building has long been recognized, as mandates for peace missions increasingly draw upon it. It is for good reason that the improvement of peace-building instruments such as those pertaining to disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, the rule of law, civilian police and justice are studied in great depth. Afghanistan and Iraq are only the most prominent examples of what it means to consolidate peace in countries that have to be rebuilt. I would like to conclude my remarks by paying my respects to all those men and women who have given their lives in the course of peacekeeping and peace-building duties. They have died for a cause that will live on as long as the United Nations exists. Protecting the lives of peacekeepers is of great concern to us all. Baghdad has been a cruel reminder of how vulnerable United Nations personnel often are. Harming personnel in peace missions is a crime against humanity, and it should be punishable as such under international law.

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

I also would like to thank you, Mr. President, for having chosen the very timely subject of peacekeeping operations as the theme of our meeting at this critical and tragic moment in the history of peacekeeping operations following the terrorist attack against the Baghdad headquarters of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq. We believe that, whatever we do after 19 August, the Security Council must consider the security of United Nations personnel and peacekeepers when drafting mandates for peacekeeping operations. I would also like to thank you warmly, Mr. President, for the very dynamic and effective Syrian presidency of the Council in the month of August. It has been a much busier month that we thought it would be at the beginning. Personally speaking, I would like to tell you that I was saddened to learn that you will be moving to Geneva, and that working with you in the Council and in the United Nations has been an enriching experience for me. I also wish to tell you how impressed I have always been by your demonstrated mastery of Bulgarian. The issue of peacekeeping operations is extraordinarily vast and it is impossible to cover it in one statement. I will therefore confine myself to some general comments on points of importance to my country. The Brahimi report is a very important basis for any discussion in the Council and the Secretariat of the evolution and future of peacekeeping operations. Its value is inestimable and I believe that we must continue to base our judgements on its analyses and conclusions. What ultimately emerges in any consideration of peacekeeping operations is the fact that the Security Council is the body with the final say in defining the modalities of the mandate of any peacekeeping operation. It is the political organ that makes political choices and takes political decisions. Obviously, such decisions cannot be taken without ongoing dialogue with the Secretariat. Bulgaria is particularly grateful to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations for the most valuable contribution our colleagues in the Department make in analysing the practice of peacekeeping operations and their prospects. Another issue of importance to us, at a time when the expectations for and complexity of peacekeeping operations are increasing, is that we must not forget the basic principles of such operations. We must not forget the history of the emergence of this phenomenon of contemporary international affairs. Any peacekeeping operation today must be based on the consent of the parties concerned, the minimum use of force and the perfectly neutral implementation of its mandate. The watchword for peacekeeping operations, we believe, is “realism” and the Council should accordingly draft any mandate in that spirit. Previous speakers, in particular the representative of Germany, mentioned the importance of cooperation between the Security Council and international, regional and subregional organizations in what has increasingly evolved into a division of labour. We feel that the principle of subsidiarity is highly relevant in that respect. The role of regional and subregional organizations is important both before any peacekeeping operation is deployed — we see this happening in Liberia — and after the operation is concluded. We often find that the role of a coalition of countries seeking such a United Nations mandate — Afghanistan is a case in point — can be very positive. I have said that peacekeeping operations are becoming increasingly complex. That is a fact. United Nations peacekeepers are no longer merely responsible for monitoring ceasefires, but — as we have seen in Sierra Leone and elsewhere — are actually working as administrative authorities. They organize and observe elections and, increasingly, ensure access for humanitarian organizations to stricken populations. The increasing complexity of peacekeeping operations requires increasingly detailed planning and complex coordination among the various United Nations agencies, while non-governmental organizations are sometimes the first on the ground. Doubtless, one critical dimension is the increasingly significant role being played by police contingents, since restoring the rule of law has become ever more important to the Council. We feel that the training of local and national police forces is a commendable practice that should be reinforced. Bulgaria should like to see peacekeeping operations focus on increased respect for human rights. The conflicts with which the Council is seized, unfortunately, involve extremely serious violations of human rights. The presence of a human rights component within United Nations peacekeeping missions, working very closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is therefore especially important. Another key dimension is the role of women in restoring peace and, as I said earlier, increasingly close cooperation between the United Nations and non- governmental organizations.

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

My delegation welcomes the holding of this wrap-up meeting devoted principally to the issue of peacekeeping operations. The Charter of this Organization entrusts the Security Council with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In this regard, the Council remains the principal organ responsible for establishing the mandates of peacekeeping operations. Accordingly, the Council is required to draw lessons from past and current operations and to make active efforts to strengthen the United Nations capacity to maintain and promote peace. Since the launch of the first peacekeeping operation in 1948 the international community has acquired broad experience. The new nature of conflicts, in particular intra-State conflicts, has lent peacekeeping operations another dimension. Until the beginning 1990s, peacekeeping operations fundamentally relied on the classical principle of interposition between rival forces of two countries. The change has been reflected in the diversification of the role of the protagonists and of peacekeepers. It has also prompted the United Nations to engage in in-depth reflection on peacekeeping operations. The Brahimi report is an eloquent illustration of this change and has the virtue of shedding fresh light on the challenges that we face and the steps that must be taken to tackle them. Our consideration of this item is taking place in a context marked by an increasing number of peacekeeping activities, the success of which — as a number of speakers have noted — relies on respect for the basic principles, which are the consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in cases of legitimate self-defence. However, it should be noted that the failure of certain peacekeeping operations is due to many and very complex factors, including the underestimation of what was at stake, poor definition of certain mandates, inadequate resources and, in particular, the absence of political will among the parties in conflict. To tackle this situation, my delegation would like to note the importance of sending multidisciplinary fact-finding missions to conflict zones. Such missions could evaluate all the ramifications of the crisis so as to make it possible to establish a suitable mandate. We believe that better planning and a more precise concept of operations and rules of engagement, as well as the possibility of rapid deployment, will promote success among these operations. This is why the United Nations policy on a system of stand-by forces is worthy of our full attention. Coordination among the various departments of the Secretariat, on the one hand, and, on the other, between them and the other actors concerned, and the availability of human, financial and logistical resources fall within the same approach. From this standpoint we encourage strengthened cooperation between the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries in the context of implementation of resolution 1353 (2001). Moreover, particular attention should be given to the question of training and arrangements for regional cooperation. On the question of Africa, a continent particularly affected by armed conflicts, my delegation favours bolstering regional and subregional capacities. My delegation welcomes and encourages the strengthening of cooperative relations between the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, and the organs and institutions active in the area of peace and security on the African continent. Developing activities to prevent war and build peace in Africa requires financial, logistic and training support, which the United Nations should provide to the African Union and to its regional organizations, especially the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which is playing a leading role in bringing peace and stability back to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire. Given the importance of peacekeeping operations in the maintenance of international peace and security, periodic evaluation of such missions, in order to adapt and redefine them as necessary, is essential. In this context my delegations welcomes the fruitful results of the fact-finding mission and exchange of ideas yesterday by the five ECOWAS Ministers for Foreign Affairs, together with the ECOWAS Executive Secretary. We support the recommendations made, individually and collectively, by that mission with a view to adapting the international community’s peace efforts so as to meet the concerns of the West African region. We are grateful to all our friends, in particular all the members of the Security Council, for their support for the actions of that subregion. I would be remiss if, in concluding my statement, I failed to pay a tribute to United Nations and associated personnel, as well as humanitarian personnel, working in difficult circumstances at the risk of their lives. We wish to take this opportunity to reiterate our unreserved condemnation of the criminal attacks on United Nations and humanitarian personnel. Once again we address our condolences to the family members of the victims of the attack on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. We welcome the Security Council’s recent adoption of resolution 1502 (2003) and the declaration of 29 May as International Day of Peacekeepers. Lastly, allow me to convey to your delegation, Mr. President, and to you personally my delegation’s gratitude for the quality of the work accomplished and for your skill and diplomacy throughout this month.

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

First of all, on this day when we are holding the last meeting — well, maybe the last meeting — of August, I wish to express my gratitude to the delegation of Syria for its work and to thank you personally, Mr. President, for your contribution to the work of the Security Council throughout Syria’s membership in this body. We shall miss you, Mr. President. We will remember how you cooperated with all delegations, the contribution of your delegation and your personal contribution to attaining consensus in the Security Council in the consideration of the very complex questions we took up, and how you always sought unity in the Council on these very serious problems. That was helped by your diplomatic art, your experience and your personal qualities as a person aware of his responsibility for the fate of the world — I am using these lofty words — someone who is interested in strengthening this Organization. We shall miss you, but we know that in Geneva someone will be involved in the work of the United Nations, furthering our common cause and facilitating the close coordination of the process between New York and Geneva in the best interest of our common objective: to strengthen the United Nations. Turning to the theme of today’s meeting, let me say that one of the key instruments available to the Security Council in the settlement of disputes and conflicts is peacekeeping operations, carried out either under the United Nations flag or by multinational forces acting under a Council mandate. In Council decisions of recent years, a consensus has emerged about the need for a comprehensive approach to conflict resolution. It is crucial that the practicalities of such an approach be worked out with the active involvement of all States Members of the United Nations and that the outcome reflect their views. The peacekeeping strategy emerging in the Organization is based on decisions of the Security Council, which bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security, and on recommendations of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, as endorsed by the General Assembly. Among the very important principles of that strategy are the following: the parties to conflict must cooperate with United Nations missions; there must be interaction between the Organization and regional arrangements, in keeping with Chapter VIII of the Charter; and the Security Council must authorize any operation involving coercion. The mechanisms of peacekeeping operations are gradually being improved. Cooperation is gradually developing between members of the Security Council and troop-contributing countries, and the use of United Nations missions in conflict areas is on the increase, as are activities by Special Representatives of the Secretary-General. Coordination among the various elements of the United Nations system is progressing as modern peacekeeping operations become increasingly multifunctional. More specific account is being taken of the underlying reasons for today’s conflicts, such as socio- economic problems and religious, ethnic or other clashes. A differentiated approach is gaining ground — an approach reflecting the specificities of each individual crisis situation. Practical methods for peacekeeping and peace-building are being developed in areas such as reforming the security sector; strengthening borders; the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants; promoting economic reform; assisting law enforcement and judicial organs; helping to organize and conduct elections; and, sometimes, helping to reshape the political structure of a country in crisis, including through constitutional reform. Among the key guidelines in all those areas of peacekeeping are ensuring that the people of a State in need enjoy normal living conditions and helping them fully to exercise their sovereignty in conditions of peace and stability. Thus, the entire international community is outraged at attempts to impede the noble work of United Nations peacekeepers — who, unfortunately, are increasingly becoming targets for attack by terrorists and bandits, as occurred in Baghdad on 19 August. Resolution 1502 (2003), unanimously adopted two days ago, sends a clear signal that the Security Council, acting on a solid foundation of international law, has no intention of tolerating attempts to torpedo United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian activities and will do everything to ensure that crimes committed against United Nations personnel do not go unpunished. I mentioned the situation in Iraq, and this relates directly to the theme of today’s discussion. It poses a serious challenge to the United Nations. Our wealth of peacekeeping experience certainly can and should be drawn on in that country. Given the unprecedented complexity of the challenges faced in the Iraqi situation, imaginative new approaches will unquestionably be required — in addition to peacekeeping methods already approved — in order to effectively promote a post-war settlement that will be in the interests of the Iraqi people. Attaining that goal will require a truly comprehensive approach, along with a further significant enhancement of the role of the United Nations, including giving the United Nations mission established by resolution 1500 (2003) the authority to participate directly in the political process: the introduction of constitutional reforms; the organization of elections; and the formation of an internationally recognized Government on the basis of a clear plan for restoring the sovereignty of Iraq within a specific time frame and as soon as possible. As part of such a comprehensive approach, it would be realistic to consider the status and parameters of an international military presence, whose mandate should serve the goal of providing safe conditions conducive to the Iraqi people’s exercise of their right to determine their own future. Such a decision would be an important contribution by United Nations peacekeeping to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region. As an active participant in United Nations peacekeeping, Russia is ready to do all it can to promote the attainment of that goal.

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

I wish at the outset to congratulate the Syrian delegation on its leadership of the Security Council this month. In particular, I pay tribute to you, Mr. President, for your personal role and wish you every success in your new diplomatic post. We shall miss your professionalism, your experience and your good humour. But since you are only going to Geneva you will not really be all that far away. I thank you, Sir, for this opportunity for the Security Council to reflect on so important a topic as United Nations peacekeeping operations. It is no accident that the first purpose set out in the first paragraph of the preamble of the Charter is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. This is followed soon by that of maintaining international peace and security, responsibility for which lies with the Security Council pursuant principally to Chapters V, VI and VII. In our view, it must be acknowledged that since the end of the cold war the international community has witnessed a clear trend — reflected in the Security Council — towards increasingly broad and effective use of the mechanisms and means set out in those chapters, particularly Chapters VI and VII, with the assistance of the Secretariat and other United Nations organs, and with that of the specialized agencies. Consistent with that trend, we have also noted the formulation of new doctrines and principles such as preventive diplomacy and humanitarian intervention, which further build on collective international action. Those matters too call for further consideration. Our impression is that, ultimately, the United Nations — especially the Security Council — will be judged or evaluated by world public opinion and by the person on the street according to the extent to which it prevents conflict, curbs killings, delivers humanitarian assistance in conflict situations and mediates between warring groups — precisely through peacekeeping operations. Hence the pressing importance of this subject of peacekeeping operations for the Organization’s present and future. For that reason, on this occasion, my delegation cannot fail to reaffirm once again my country’s resolute commitment, with the authority and legitimacy of the United Nations, to the exercise of this responsibility of maintaining peace and security. In our view, the practice of participation by regional organizations in crisis or conflict situations is a very important factor contributing to the fulfilment of these responsibilities, but one which must always be subordinate to the overarching global mandate and functions of the United Nations in these areas. Moreover, it is necessary to adjust appropriately the application, capacity and nature of assistance and security forces not operating under the mandate and direct coordination of the United Nations so that they can be very positive and not affect or undermine the authority of United Nations peacekeeping operations. I should like to touch on a number of new elements of peacekeeping operations that have recently arisen with particular force: with the metamorphosis of the concept of security, the evolution of the very nature of conflicts and the emergence of situations for which traditional tools do not seem the most appropriate. First is the concept of security. I believe it is already commonplace to acknowledge that that concept includes non-military threats and concerns about the security of persons — Chile is a member of a network of United Nations Member countries dedicated to exploring the concept of human security — that there is an interdependence among the various components that apply both to rich and to poor countries, and that the concept of security also encompasses the new phenomenon of globalized terrorism. As far as conflicts are concerned, it seems to me that they have evolved from inter-State conflicts with repercussions within other States to intra-State conflicts with outside repercussions on other States. That is a much more complex reality, which United Nations peacekeeping operations must face. It is not so easy to deal with an intra-State conflict that has a domestic origin but that, nevertheless, spills over to neighbouring countries or affects the international community. In order to address these new needs, the Secretary-General made available to Member States the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) — mentioned by a number of previous speakers — which recommended that the whole peacekeeping mechanism, both of the Secretariat and of Governments themselves, be broadly updated. In our judgement, that report and the resolutions to which it gave rise are an example of the ability to adapt, with which we must face the changing demands of peacekeeping. Against that backdrop, we note that new challenges have recently arisen. I have already mentioned the increasing role of regional organizations in peacekeeping, and I should now like to emphasize the particular importance of better integrating the dimension of human rights into peacekeeping operations. That involves a number of components, including humanitarian intervention, where we still need to try to find a solution or an appropriate balance between objections related to sovereignty on the one hand and the moral obligation to protect defenceless persons from abuses of power on the other. The time is past when a sovereign Power can act according to whim with regard to citizens in a globalized world, which, furthermore, imposes commitments that obligate us with regard to human rights. Another point is the relationship that should exist between peacekeeping operations and international criminal procedures. Here is often the challenge — as we have recently seen — of how to achieve peace in order to avoid more deaths while, at the same time, bringing to justice those responsible for humanitarian situations in which the United Nations must intervene. It is a question, then, of not forgetting to bring to justice those who commit crimes against humanity, and of not allowing impunity, without failing to maintain the realism necessary in order to act appropriately and to stop killings, which is obviously the priority for the Security Council and the entire Organization. Finally, the integration of human rights into peacekeeping operations demands active cooperation between civilians and military personnel and better understanding, tolerance and respect with regard to the distinct functions of each sector. That is a challenge still facing us. But there are also other favourable elements: not only cooperation between civilians and military personnel, but also greater cooperation and shared knowledge among the military personnel of various countries, traditions, regions and cultures. My country, at least, has benefited greatly from participating under the command of other countries, other military establishments. We have Chilean military contingents under Argentine command in Cyprus; we have Chilean military personnel under the command of the United Kingdom in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Right now, we have Chilean military personnel under the command of Bangladeshi troops in the Congo. So that is another by-product of peacekeeping operations that we must not overlook; perhaps we should think about how we can benefit from that experience. Finally, the role of women in peacekeeping is also very important for us with regard to this subject. There has been progress since the Security Council’s adoption of resolution 1325 (2000), but we believe that there is still much to do in order to integrate women into peacekeeping operations and peace processes and to fight criminal violence against women in conflict areas. Until resolution 1325 (2000), gender-related problems were addressed in the United Nations from the economic, social and human rights perspectives. Perhaps it will be necessary to employ the security dimension in gender structures — for example, incorporating the security dimension into the mandate of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on Gender Issues, or — as has been suggested on more than one occasion — establishing the post of special representative of the Secretary-General for women, peace and security, with a role similar to that of the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. Another element of the question of the maintenance of international peace and security is post- conflict peace-building in the context of a peacekeeping operation. Very often the easiest part is to bring in forces to separate the conflicting sides, to stop the killing. But the real task is achieving peace and rebuilding the country. That is where the responsibilities of the Security Council combine with those of the Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Development Programme and the international financial institutions. The Council has been addressing these issues for a long time without finding the right approach which would make it possible for these organs and institutions to work together and coordinate their functions, both in conflict prevention and in post- conflict reconstruction. We believe that we should make proper use of Article 65 of the Charter whereby the Council can call for the assistance of the Economic and Social Council. We need to keep in mind the multidimensional nature of peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction operations. It is becoming more and more necessary to find formulas for cooperation between those organs. The Economic and Social Council has created Ad Hoc Advisory Groups for two countries emerging from conflict, Burundi and Guinea-Bissau, and not long ago there was a joint mission of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council to Guinea-Bissau. That is an important step, although we feel much still remains to be done. In short, peacekeeping operations must continue; they must evolve; indeed they must, when necessary, change — for the benefit of peace, security, for the benefit of international development, and especially for the benefit of the millions of people who are barely able to survive and who are the chief victims in conflict zones.

I thank the representative of Chile the kind words he addressed to me. Sir Emyr Jones Parry (United Kingdom): I join others, Mr. President, in wishing you every personal success in your translation to another part of the United Nations family, in Geneva, where we know you will carry out that function with the same distinction as you have done in New York. I personally thank you for both your welcome to me and the help you have given me as a new member of the Council. The discussion today is very welcome, and the United Kingdom is very content with the background paper you have set out. Today is the right opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women who today are undertaking, and have in the past put themselves at risk, to carry out peacekeeping operations — in many cases in more difficult circumstances today than in yesteryear, where we have intra-State conflict as well as inter-State conflict, as was pointed out by the representative of Guinea earlier. I will begin by locating peacekeeping in a wider context. The international community needs effective, efficient targeted efforts across a spectrum which ranges from conflict prevention, the early warning of impending crises through peacemaking, peacekeeping, defence sector reform, peace-building — whatever you call it — towards the creation of democratic, sovereign, stable States. Let us face it: peacekeeping post-conflict is a consequence of earlier failures. We need an overall approach with constant surveillance so we get warning of problems and the opportunity to act promptly and to intervene as necessary. I follow the logic of Ambassador Trautwein’s point: prevention is very much better than cure. Peacekeeping itself has to be part of an integrated, multidimensional approach covering all the aspects: policing, humanitarian, civilian expertise, how to develop a judiciary, and the social, economic and political aspects, among many others. An essential element is the development of justice in transition, with all that entails — in effect, a continuum of peace operations in a thoroughly integrated approach to achieve the goal of a peaceful, stable State. Who are the partners in peacekeeping? The United Nations normally and properly takes the lead, but works with regional organizations, the European Union, the troop-contributing countries, countries in need of help, their neighbours and so on. In our discussions yesterday, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) showed how the effort on the ground can be much improved by regional input. In our view, the regional contribution is crucial. But picking up a point made by the Chilean representative, let me say that where regional organizations undertake peacekeeping operations, or where an individual State does, it is of course preferable that they should be covered by a resolution of the Security Council. But that is not always possible. What is always necessary is that anybody acting should do so in a way consistent with the United Nations Charter. Are we doing enough to help regional organizations? Is there enough practical military support, training in issues such as doctrine, communications, command and control and means of deployment? Those are among the many aspects which you need actually to cover in order to deploy a coherent military force, and to do so in a way that when it hits the ground, as a multinational presence, it can operate militarily, and in such a way that the security of the people you deploy is actually guaranteed. It is a formidable task, and the question is whether we are giving enough support to the regional organizations, for example, to the efforts of the African Union. Where people are prepared actually to come together, we ought to be absolutely sure we are doing what we ought to be doing. What do we need to do? We need readily deployable trained troops with clear rules of engagement as robust as necessary for a given situation. We need early preparation, firm good leadership, prompt decisions by the Council, and above all a strong political will. History demonstrates only too clearly that prompt intervention can actually quench the appetite for conflict. You posed the question, Mr. President, of how the Council can help. We certainly need to use the tools at our disposal to identify and address the root causes of conflict: better early warning and analysis. Mandates for peacekeeping operations need to be realistic, but with clear objectives. Resolution 1493 (2001) on the Democratic Republic of the Congo was a good example of a robust and comprehensive mandate which should give the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) the necessary tools. The Council can and should contribute more in the critical planning stages. Recent dialogues between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Security Council members on Bunia were extremely beneficial in their result. Perhaps we could repeat that on the Democratic Republic of the Congo and on Liberia. There is a case to be made for extending consultations on strategic assessments and the planning and concept of operations at critical stages of the preparation of the mission. We very much applaud the renewed focus on the accumulating of existing expertise by the Best Practices Unit within DPKO. The United Kingdom supports very strongly the efforts of DPKO to ensure that thorough pre- deployment United Nations mission headquarters training is undertaken. The use of pre-mandate authority within the Secretariat to effect rapid deployment is very welcome. Similar pre-mandate action would also be required by troop contributing countries on occasion, if challenging timelines are to be met. At the heart of this, the essence is that contributing countries need deployable troops who can be made available at very short notice. That is the essence of the sort of defence sector reform that we all need to undertake in order to be up to the job. Finally, the United Kingdom fully supports the efforts made to ensure that not only human rights in general but, specifically, the rights of women and children are respected in conflict situations and are addressed in peacekeeping mission activity across the board. Sadly, the demand for peacekeeping operations is more likely to increase than to decrease. Our challenge is to profit from experience and to strengthen the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations, so that where the need exists, operations can be speedily agreed upon and implemented. That will require, perhaps above all, political will as well as resources and capabilities. But discussions such as this one and the efforts of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations are helping to identify the goals and the systems we need. We have to work together to achieve now the ends and to do even better. But the bottom line is that the United Nations itself can do only so much. In the end, confronting crises out there depends on the political will of the nations to deliver in response to what the United Nations asks.

We are sad to learn, Mr. President, that you will be leaving us. We seek consolation by telling ourselves that the very good cooperation between our country and you will continue in Geneva, which is one of the beautiful capitals of the French-speaking world. We will also seek consolation in the fact that your authorities have made a good choice for your successor. We thank you, Sir, for organizing this debate, which we think is entirely appropriate and which is also an interesting way to review the Syrian presidency, which, although it took place in the month of August, was especially rich and well managed by you and your delegation. Since the Brahimi report (S/2000/809), United Nations peacekeeping operations have made great progress. We must welcome that. But it is useful to continue seeking to improve our action in that domain. The paper that you prepared, Sir, and to which we fully subscribe, contributes usefully to that end. For my part, I will perhaps focus my comments on a particular situation, the specific case of what we have been doing in recent weeks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, because we think that several general lessons can be taken from it. First, by adopting resolution 1484 (2003) concerning the Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia and resolution 1493 (2003) providing the new mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), the Council has been able to respond to two constraints. On the one hand, the Council acted on an urgent basis to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Bunia without boxing itself into an approach to the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that was exclusively security-oriented. On the other hand, the Council’s actions underlined the privileged position of the political dimension in the peace process, with an emphasis on getting the transition under way. I would like to add that the Council mission to the region took place between the adoption of the two resolutions, resolutions 1484 (2003) and 1493 (2003). That mission undoubtedly proved to be particularly useful for relaunching and refocusing the peace process. It reminded the Congolese and foreign parties to the conflict of all their responsibilities. The mission also reaffirmed forcefully that a military solution is not an option and that there can be no impunity for criminals. An important episode was Operation Artemis authorized by resolution 1484 (2003), with the deployment of French troops and, above all, with the action of the European Union, which proved to particularly effective. That operation once again demonstrated that when circumstances require it, the decisive involvement of Member States can give the United Nations the necessary time to deal with difficult and rapidly unfolding situations on the ground. As was underlined by the representative of Cameroon in particular, it is also clear that interventions of that type — such as were taken by the United Kingdom in Sierra Leone and now by the United States and the Economic Community of West African States in Liberia — must be the exception and must be narrowly focused. Otherwise, they could quickly lose their credibility. Basically, it is not a question of taking the place of United Nations peacekeeping operations. Rather, it is a question of enabling the United Nations fully to discharge its mandate. I also wish to refer to one subject covered by several speakers, including, so convincingly, by Ambassador Jones Parry. This was the fact that increasingly we are dealing with peacekeeping operations that are more and more complex. We can clearly see that in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In complex operations of this kind, there has be close consistency among the actions of the international community: support for the political process, the disarmament programme, the reintegration of former combatants, restructuring security and police forces, electoral assistance and so on. In this kind of problem, the experience of MONUC has shown how crucial the United Nations role of coordination is, in particular the crucial role on the ground of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General. During the mission to West Africa led by Ambassador Greenstock, one of the things that struck me personally was that at every stage of the mission, we met officials belonging to the United Nations system, very often highly qualified and very competent, who played a fundamental role, as did, for example, the representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. But one rarely had the feeling of united action by the United Nations. Despite our Organization’s extraordinary contribution, its influence on the ground was not felt as forcefully as could be possible and desirable. It is therefore useful to give thought to strengthening the coordination of action on the ground through the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and to give thought to the very clear mandates that should be given by the Security Council in that regard. Many current peacekeeping operations are taking place in Africa. I think it is important that countries outside Africa continue to be concerned with Africa’s security. We welcome measures being taken in that regard. It is also important that we continue to encourage Africans to organize themselves. What we saw in Sierra Leone and Côte d’Ivoire, and what we now see in Liberia, is African soldiers working hand in hand with soldiers from elsewhere. That is a very good thing that should be built upon. Finally, as others have said, we cannot consider future peacekeeping operations without bearing in mind the essential need of providing security for humanitarian personnel and other personnel working under the flag of the United Nations. The resolution we adopted under your presidency, Mr. President, constitutes a first step in that regard. However, providing security will be an ongoing responsibility of the Security Council in the future. It is therefore crucial that future peacekeeping operations include that essential need as part of their mandates, in order to confront any attacks on human rights. Such attacks increasingly constitute a basic element in the security, or lack of security, of the crises we deal with.

I think the representative of France for his kind words addressed to me.

When the Syrian presidency commenced, we were promised that this would be a slow month, enabling us to take vacations. Unfortunately, Mr. President, it has been anything but slow. We, of course, know that this is not your responsibility. But I would like to congratulate the Syrian presidency, as well as you yourself and Mr. Mekdad, for the effective and efficient way in which you have guided the Council through some very difficult issues. The news that you, Mr. President, will soon be moving to Geneva can be received with mixed feelings. We will be sad because you have been a colleague who has demonstrated both firm convictions and complete integrity in our every exchange. We will certainly miss you. But you are going to a place that is not only beautiful and serene; it will also require the deployment of your great energies and vigour when addressing issues pertaining to disarmament, trade and human rights. We wish you well and look forward to seeing you often at that location. At the outset, I would like to convey the sympathies of the Government and the people of Pakistan over the tragic incident of 19 August that claimed the lives of Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello and his colleagues, the servants of the United Nations. Pakistan deplores such attacks carried out against United Nations peacekeeping and humanitarian officials, in Baghdad and elsewhere. We would like to welcome the recent adoption of resolution 1502 (2003), initiated by Mexico, on the protection of humanitarian personnel in armed conflicts. It is a timely resolution, given the backdrop of the recent events in Baghdad and the threats faced by humanitarian personnel in various war zones all over the world. Peacekeeping is an essential tool for maintaining international peace and security. While the recent history of peacekeeping has not been without anguish and pain, we must not forget our successes. United Nations peacekeepers have successfully assisted in the transition of both Cambodia and East Timor from war- torn societies to viable States, as well as in restoring a semblance of order and stability in various parts of the world, such as the Balkans. Most recently, Sierra Leone has become an encouraging success story of United Nations peacekeeping, despite initial setbacks. Pakistan is proud to have been associated with each one of those peacekeeping missions. There has been a greater tendency of late to authorize peacekeeping missions in intra-State, rather than inter-State, conflicts. The question we must ask is, why? — especially when inter-State conflicts pose a greater threat to international peace and security than inter-State conflicts do. We believe that the Security Council has a responsibility to address all threats to international peace and security and, at the very least, to prevent potential armed conflicts from turning into actual ones. Traditionally, peacekeeping has meant the insertion of a military force to separate warring parties and to create the necessary political space for peace to emerge. While ceasefires remain central to any peacekeeping operation, imposing them has been difficult — as we saw in Sierra Leone, Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia — especially without the intervention of major and regional Powers. Enforcing ceasefires requires a robust and sustained peacekeeping presence on the ground. Experience has shown that it is essential that a robust posture be accompanied by equally robust rules of engagement that are uniformly applicable across the mission. Those are the best deterrents against any spoilers or would-be attackers, and the key to maintaining security. However, peacekeeping in many parts of the world is becoming more complex and broader in scope. The military aspects of peacekeeping, as crucial as they are, need to be augmented by a host of tasks aimed at ensuring that a fragile peace becomes a permanent one. Those include not just peace-enforcement but also the facilitation of humanitarian assistance, disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, support for the rule of law, electoral assistance and even the monitoring of human rights violations and the creation of the necessary environment for economic reconstruction. The role of civilian police and civilian expertise in many of those fields is also becoming essential in such operations. The transition from conflict to peace and from peace to stability — encompassing peacekeeping, peace-building, political and socio-economic recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction — is a task that the Security Council cannot accomplish alone, and one that requires a more composite and comprehensive approach. The Security Council therefore needs to explore how it can work with other organs of the United Nations, especially the Economic and Social Council, to develop composite mechanisms for the purpose of ensuring that the initial steps taken towards peace when peacekeepers are deployed will eventually lead to permanent peace. Peacekeeping is also an expensive task requiring resources as well as manpower. While the requirements of peacekeeping, along with its complexity, are ever increasing, the will to provide the necessary resources is, unfortunately, on the decline. Yet the success of any peacekeeping operation depends as much on the quality of troops as on the amount of resources available to it. The international community therefore needs to ensure that a peacekeeping mission is provided with adequate financial and other necessary resources to complete its assigned tasks. We need to improve the triangular cooperation between the Council, the Secretariat and troop- contributing countries. The troop-contributing countries are an essential element of any peacekeeping operation. It is they who put their sons and daughters in harm’s way and it is they who need to be heard at all stages — planning, implementation, modification or termination — of peacekeeping mandates. In authorizing a peacekeeping mandate, the Security Council needs to provide a clear, realistic and achievable mandate. This mandate must be fulfilled before the deployment of any peacekeeping mission. My delegation has consistently cautioned, both inside this Council and outside, against any premature withdrawal of any peacekeeping mission, regardless of any political or financial considerations, such as in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor. We will continue to emphasize the principle that, once deployed, no peacekeeping operation should be disbanded without completing the tasks assigned to it. The Council needs to carry out a cost-benefit analysis as to where and how political attention, resources and forces should be deployed among the series of conflicts across the world. The Council’s response needs to be more symmetrical and commensurate with the threat posed to international peace and security. In Bosnia and Kosovo, with a combined population of less than 6 million people, the Security Council authorized the deployment of multinational forces, each of which was originally 30,000 strong. In contrast, it took the United Nations three years to deploy 10,800 of its own peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a country of over 52 million people with an area the size of Western Europe. In Liberia, the Council had to wait two weeks to deploy a few thousand troops, while hundreds of people died in the streets of Monrovia. Only 45 military observers are deployed in Jammu and Kashmir, which has been called the most dangerous place on Earth. The Council, in authorizing peacekeeping mandates, must also be consistent in upholding cardinal principles for which this Organization stands, such as human rights, addressing the root causes of conflicts and the implementation of the resolutions of the Security Council. Some peacekeeping operations encompass this comprehensive and integrated approach — for example in East Timor, where self- determination was promoted, and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where human rights violations are investigated. In other operations, such endeavours to address the root causes of conflict and to create conditions for political solutions are, however, studiously avoided. While upholding general principles, the Security Council must also show flexibility in its operational approaches to peacekeeping missions. Each operation must be tailored according to its requirements, in accordance with the nature of the crisis and its political and security context. In Afghanistan, for example, the requirement is one of stabilization, not traditional peacekeeping. Security in Afghanistan is not achievable in the immediate future without the geographic extension of the mandate of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There can be no extension of the ISAF effect without the expansion of ISAF itself. The troops required would be far fewer than those currently deployed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in either Bosnia or Kosovo and less than the number in UNAMSIL at its peak. Similarly, Iraq also requires a stabilization force. However, such a force obviously will have to be based on the consent of the Iraqi people. It must be visibly seen to be promoting the interests of the Iraqi people. The force must also have the support and consent of regional States, as well as of those that have affiliations with Iraq and a legitimate national interest in ensuring stabilization and improvement in the security of Iraq. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of the most complex peacekeeping operations. In fact, many have likened it to three peacekeeping operations — in Kinshasa, in Ituri and in the Kivus. Here, the key element is flexibility — not just operational, but also political and structural — to address the complex issues and rapidly emerging developments in different parts of the Congo. Liberia is a new mission which has its own requirements. It is essential that the operation in Liberia be carefully planned and executed. It needs to benefit from the lessons learned from past missions. The ghosts of Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda still haunt us today. We must not repeat Liberian history, in which two periods of chronic instability were punctuated by a brief period of peacekeeping in-between. The asymmetry in the way the Security Council approaches peacekeeping could not be more vivid than it is in Kashmir. Only 45 observers, as I have pointed out, are expected to maintain the most tenuous of ceasefires in that dangerous flashpoint. The observance of Security Council resolutions is an obligation on all Member States, including the obligation to accept United Nations peacekeeping missions authorized by those resolutions and to cooperate with them. It is also a duty of the Council to carefully consider the reports submitted to it by the peacekeeping missions. These requirements are not fulfilled in the case of the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP). Nor can the mandate of United Nations peacekeeping missions be reduced to the bare minimum. UNMOGIP’s mandate is, no doubt, to observe the implementation of the ceasefire in Kashmir, but the larger purpose of the operation and the larger purpose of the Security Council are to ensure conflict prevention and to promote conflict resolution. A strengthened UNMOGIP operating on both sides of the Line of Control in Kashmir can and should be utilized not only to observe and report on the ceasefire along the Line of Control, but also to monitor allegations of cross-Line movement which are often advanced by one party; to observe and report on the implementation of confidence-building measures which may be agreed by the two sides; to report on the massive violations of human rights which are taking place in Jammu and Kashmir; and to address the root cause of the conflict — that is, the demand of the right of self-determination by the people of Kashmir, which has been promised to them by the Security Council in several of its own resolutions. Pakistan is one of the oldest, largest and most consistent contributors of United Nations peacekeeping troops. Pakistan has participated in over 25 United Nations peacekeeping operations in the past four decades, including the most dangerous missions in Somalia, Bosnia and Sierra Leone. Thousands of Pakistani troops have donned blue helmets and 64 of them have made the ultimate sacrifice for peace. When we speak on peacekeeping, we speak not only as a member of this Council, but also as a major stakeholder with a considerable peacekeeping interest and experience. Pakistan will continue to contribute as it has always done, both inside and outside the Security Council, to supporting United Nations peacekeeping operations and to making them more effective.

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

We thank you, Sir, for organizing this meeting on a subject of the greatest importance and whose incidences constitute a great deal of the daily workload of the Security Council. The issue of peacekeeping operations is undoubtedly one of the most delicate facing the Security Council. Before taking decisions on peacekeeping operations, which must be very carefully weighed, the Council must analyse crisis situations in all their variables. It must obtain the unanimous political support of its members and of the international community. It must be able to mobilize the needed resources — human, financial and logistical — so that, when the decision to launch a peacekeeping operation is taken and despite the risks that such an endeavour always involves, the Council and the international community can face the situation with confidence and the greatest possible assurances of success, because failure brings disaster in its wake, the worsening of the situation the operation was expected to contribute to solving and meagre prospects of a sustained solution in the foreseeable future. It is clear that, in the very first stages of considering a crisis issue, the Security Council must determine whether peacekeeping is the appropriate option to resolve a given crisis situation. The Council must be sure that there is indeed a peace to keep — to paraphrase the Brahimi report — and that the parties to the conflict agree to pursue their objectives by political means and agree to United Nations involvement. In the event such conditions are met, the Security Council — and especially its permanent members — must show resolve and a clear sense of purpose and must lend their unreserved political support to the decision to launch a peacekeeping operation. The core question with regard to such an operation is the mandate entrusted to it. That mandate — as suggested in the background paper prepared by the Syrian presidency — should be clear, credible, realistic and achievable. A clear mandate translates the Security Council’s unity of purpose, establishing clear guidelines while formulating the goals and missions of the peacekeeping operation. It is credible if it translates the identity of the goals and missions of the operation, if there is unreserved political support for it and if the requisite resources are provided for the accomplishment of the operation. It is realistic if the goals and missions entrusted to the operation are in line with the wishes and expectations of the recipient country and of all the involved parties, particularly the neighbouring countries. Finally, it is achievable if the appropriate number of adequately trained and equipped troops are deployed and if it is made flexible enough by combining a robust military capacity, prepared for the contingency of a worst-case scenario, with a strong element of deterrence in order to send a clear message to spoilers tempted to destabilize the peace process. Concerning the question of appropriate rules of engagement and their uniform application within missions, it is established that the restrained use of force is one of the most important principles of international peacekeeping operations, with very strict rules for caring for and storing weapons and for the justifiable use of force. The concept of peacekeeping operations with a robust military capacity overtakes, in large measure, the traditional concept of the rules of engagement for peacekeeping operations. Such was the case with the deployment in strength of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), which is viewed as having given concrete meaning to the concept of robust peacekeeping — that is, a peacekeeping force deployed, not to wage war, but prepared to exercise the option of war. The case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo — where the United Nations Mission was entrusted with a robust mandate and where its military capacity was strongly reinforced — also represents a change in the traditional rules of engagement of peacekeeping operations. Thus, we do not see the need to apply uniform rules of engagement to all missions, it being our view that the question must be seen with a certain degree of flexibility and in accordance with the specific mandate entrusted to a mission. United Nations peacekeeping operations must be part of a comprehensive strategy to help resolve conflict. Humanitarian aid, economic and technical assistance, security-sector reform, institution-building, the promotion of good governance, promotion of and respect for human rights, adherence to the rule of law and the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants are some of the crucial elements of a comprehensive strategy to deal with the root causes of conflict and to ensure a sustainable and lasting peace. We should like to highlight the importance of supporting peacekeeping missions with a regional strategy. The meeting that the Council held yesterday with the delegation of the Economic Community of West African States on the situation in Liberia showed the important role that regional organizations can play when they are committed to dealing with issues that have the potential to affect a whole region. Cooperation between the Security Council and regional and subregional organizations — which the Charter of the United Nations recognizes and encourages — has enormous potential that must be developed and strengthened to enhance the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. Before concluding, I should like to underline the issue of security for personnel in peacekeeping operations. That issue was raised with renewed intensity by the recent criminal terrorist attack against the United Nations in Baghdad — a development that was translated into the recent adoption by the Security Council, led by the Syrian presidency, of resolution 1502 (2003) as an expression of the concern and resolve of the international community to address that important issue. Finally, we should like to congratulate the Syrian delegation on its great competence in presiding over the work of the Security Council during this month. In the short period of time that my delegation has sat on the Council, Mr. President, we have learned to appreciate your competence and wisdom. We particularly appreciate your resolve and conviction in the defence of your country’s positions under extremely difficult circumstances. Please accept our expression of admiration and our best wishes as you carry out your new responsibilities.

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

My delegation would like at the outset to express our satisfaction that you and your delegation, Mr. President, decided to hold this wrap-up meeting and that you chose as its theme issues related to carrying out the purposes of the United Nations by establishing missions in conflict zones in various parts of the world. Like previous speakers, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on the way in which you, your team and Mr. Mekdad have conducted the work of the Council this month. What had looked like a tranquil month, in which most diplomatic and other United Nations personnel would take a vacation, in fact became a series of very intensive days of work to keep the Security Council attentive, alert and active in various parts of the world where the presence of the United Nations did not allow vacations. I should also like on this occasion to indicate that, after a year and a half — or a bit more — of working with you, Ambassador Wehbe, on the endeavours of the Security Council, we have been able to appreciate your great diplomatic skill and virtues and your personal convictions. The collective decision-making process involves not only defending the positions taken by each of our countries, but also ability, understanding, perception and sensitivity on the part of the diplomats that advocate those positions so that they truly relate closely to the events with respect to which we must act. They must also be in line with our fundamental obligation to take decisions as a collective body that represents the interests of the entire international community in the quest for peace and security. With regard to all of this, Sir, you have left a testimony and an example that this body will always remember and appreciate. I wish you every success in the task that you will face in your country’s diplomatic service, as you continue to work on these issues in the United Nations in Geneva. It is very important for the Security Council regularly to reflect on its tasks and its missions. Frequent review of the way in which the tasks of the Council evolve in the area of United Nations peacekeeping missions is necessary in the light of the responsibilities that we bear and the new responsibilities that the Organization will have to shoulder in the future to address events around the world. International conflicts have not ceased to occur. Perhaps the new issue is that now, more than any other time in history, the international community is looking to the United Nations for the leadership, capabilities, impartiality, experience and resources needed to tackle those conflicts. The United Nations thus has a growing presence around the world — a dynamic and very productive presence which is a tremendous resource for peace-building. But that growing presence poses a challenge that needs to be tackled with an increasingly clear understanding of everything at stake in each mission, of how better to organize them and of how to set clearer priorities. It is also a challenge because of the limited and sometimes scarce resources of the Organization, and because of the various methods whereby resources are obtained. Those circumstances make it difficult properly to define priorities, the scope of mandates, and the use of United Nations capacities and resources in a way that will ensure that objectives are matched with the international community’s investment in attaining them. For that reason, my delegation takes the view that this exercise enables us to exchange views on how better to organize United Nations missions around the world, upon which hinge international peace and security, the survival and well-being of large groups of people and economic and social development — and ultimately the prevention of conflict by attacking its fundamental causes. That thought process also means that we should consider the Council’s decision-making machinery. As some delegations have noted, there is a lack of symmetry in the capacity of the international community and the Council to respond to challenges arising in different parts of the world. On some occasions, due to specific circumstances, we have the ability to respond rapidly. In other circumstances, the processes are protracted, the decision-making process is often difficult — sometimes tortuous — and conflicts develop, the numbers of victims rise and humanitarian circumstances become acute, as has recently been the case in Liberia. And the international community has been unable to find a way to take decisions as rapidly and resolutely as events warrant. A whole series of recent experiences — the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the establishment of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), the case of Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, the circumstances of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo and the conditions in which the Organization is fulfilling its mandate in Afghanistan — are all experiences that should help to set up a model or a programming mechanism, in which we can take into account varied factors in designing, planning and implementing our new missions. In this regard, we need a very clear and precise demarcation of the scope and extent of each mission. We must therefore very clearly define the legitimate objectives. Without question, the main motivation of the United Nations in promoting peace and security is to meet the needs of populations affected by conflict and to build a basis for averting such crises in the future. The United Nations needs to define clearly the extent and scope of its task, and the scope of the task of the countries in question and of their nationals, who need to pursue such peace efforts to the ultimate end. United Nations missions demonstrate the need for increasingly flexible and supple methods of coordination, better ways of establishing agreement and understanding, with a view to engendering partnership. We also need to strengthen our work with the Economic and Social Council to explore the fundamental causes underlying and motivating conflicts that require the intervention of the Security Council and the establishment of these operations. We also need to work with the Bretton Woods institutions, to coordinate with them and understand how they work. We need to facilitate their coordinated cooperation with the United Nations in tackling situations that have very deep-rooted economic and social causes. These require responses in the economic and social field, which we cannot ignore if we are truly to establish a secure underpinning for our peace efforts. It is also very important, as yesterday’s meeting demonstrated, for the efforts of the Security Council to be coordinated with those of the regional organizations. Reference has been made today to the involvement of troop-contributing countries in peacekeeping operations. Many efforts are being made by the international community, and not only in terms of contributing troops to peacekeeping operations. In many ways, Member States are present or active in peace operations, carrying out very diverse tasks ranging from sending contingents to serve as Blue Helmets and working in multinational missions to setting up hospitals, caring for refugees, preparing for elections, institution-building, training, education, health programmes and so forth. We need to draw on and benefit from the experience and professionalism these countries can contribute for the design of our missions. The Security Council should be more aggressive in seeking the advice and counsel of countries, members of the Security Council and members of the General Assembly, who regularly, with many years of experience, participate in these operations and have a very clear understanding of the conditions and challenges that arise and of the best way for the international community to tackle those challenges. That experience should be more systematically incorporated into the design of the Council’s missions. We should also strive to involve more countries in those missions. We should expand the scope of participation so that the international community enthusiastically takes up the work of peace-building. Countries possess a wide range of capacities that can complement one another. They can not only send troops to peace operations but also participate in many other ways compatible with their specific characteristics, with their foreign policies and with their political arrangements. Those countries can be encouraged to participate more actively and to contribute more dynamically — not only in a hesitant way — in the development of the United Nations efforts to build peace in the world. In the light of all these experiences and factors, we must create a much more dynamic process of accumulative learning. Meetings such as ours today are very important for that process. They enable us to apprehend new ways of organizing United Nations missions and to take better advantage of the existing capacities of the Organization. We should put more emphasis on new elements and on factors that we can identify as contributions. They could be much more effective and could make a meaningful contribution to the deployment of United Nations capacities for peace- building. In that regard, my country believes that it is especially important for the Organization and countries to be increasingly receptive to the mainstreaming of gender issues in United Nations peace missions. This issue has been well studied, and there is testimony and experience that the Organization understands well. The contribution of women to the decision-making process and to carrying out United Nations peace missions is important not just in terms of quantity, but also of quality. For that reason, we need to ensure that more women, either already a part of the Organization or to be recruited, are placed in leadership positions both in the Secretariat and in the Organization’s missions. It is notable that there are very few women in leadership positions in United Nations missions. The Organization must make an extraordinary effort to take advantage of their talents, skills and vision in peace building in the world. I would like to conclude by referring to an issue that is of great importance and which has been tragically demonstrated this month: the most significant issue, that of security. It is added to the list of concerns in designing United Nations peace missions, in particular following the events of 19 August, which have left a profound mark on the United Nations — the loss of human lives, the loss of United Nations workers. Men and women who dedicated themselves to peace-building efforts for many years never imagined they would encounter such a tragic and dramatic end as in what took place in Baghdad. In particular, we should remember the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello, who died in that event. In this very Chamber, on various occasions, most recently as the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in Baghdad, he shared with the Council some very important thoughts that should be the basis for our understanding of the design of peace missions in the future. This matter has indeed underlined the importance of carefully studying the ways to provide adequate security for United Nations missions, without affecting the image of the United Nations held by the nationals of the countries where the Organization is active: the image of the United Nations as a neutral actor open to communication, close cooperation and working directly with the local communities, and ready to offer them assistance and help in the peace efforts, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. That image should not change. It should be strengthened even as we seek to implement security measures to protect humanitarian personnel. However, we should never underestimate the conditions of insecurity and instability in conflict areas in the world today. Mission personnel should not be left unprotected due to discrete security measures. We realize that it is not easy to find a balance among all these factors, but we are certain that, with the appropriate advice and assistance, it will be possible to find measures that ensure the security of personnel and that preserve the integrity of United Nations missions. Security measures are particularly important in composite missions involving unarmed civilian personnel in charge of tasks such as the observation of elections, reconstruction and humanitarian assistance. In that regard, the experience of Baghdad should provide a very instructive lesson. The Security Council took an important step yesterday when it strengthened the protection of personnel by adopting resolution 1502 (2003) on the protection of United Nations personnel, associated personnel and humanitarian personnel in conflict zones. That is only a first step, which organizes already existing mandates and underlines how important it is for the Security Council in particular to place the situation of humanitarian personnel on its agenda, to always take it into consideration and to remain attentive to the issue. The security of the humanitarian workers is inherently essential to the work that they carry out in conflict zones. It is also an essential component of international peace and security. Accordingly, ensuring the personal safety of humanitarian workers and the security of their organizations and their working systems is an obligation that the Security Council must shoulder under the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. As we have indicated, we have a clear responsibility to provide protection to those working on the ground and carrying out work in peace-building in high-risk situations. That responsibility includes not only both the States involved and the Organization taking all the necessary preventive measures. It also requires investigation, accountability and adopting strict punitive measures in cases where attacks affect personnel of the United Nations or other humanitarian personnel. In effect, attacks on humanitarian workers in conflict zones are war crimes, and all States must strive to ensure that the authors are brought to justice and punished accordingly. It is now incumbent on the Security Council to ensure that this resolution is fully implemented in all situations and circumstances. The security issues of all missions should be reviewed by the actors involved, including the contributing countries. We must protect our personnel: it is a key responsibility of the Organization.

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

Like other colleagues, I too regret your impending departure from New York, Mr. President. We have always greatly respected your wisdom and leadership skills. We thank you for guiding the work of the Security Council during the month of August. When you arrive in Geneva, another centre of United Nations activity, you will deal with disarmament and economic issues as well as with the important issue of human rights. We believe that in Geneva you will make an important contribution to those fields. In addition, Mr. President, please allow me to thank you for convening this public meeting. It is our hope that this discussion will be of assistance to the Security Council in its wide-ranging search for ways to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping operations in order that it may better carry out its duty to maintain international peace and security. Over the years, peacekeeping operations have played a very positive role in contributing to the resolution of many regional disputes and in improving stability in the regions concerned. Their use as an important tool to maintain peace and security at the disposal of the United Nations is increasingly appreciated. I would like to take this opportunity to convey my great appreciation to the personnel of peacekeeping operations, especially to those who have given their lives in the performance of their duties. We owe our gratitude to them for their contribution in bringing relative peace to many parts of the world that had lacked peace and security. Last June, I took part in the Security Council delegation visiting Central Africa. In addition to their selfless sacrifice, I saw with my own eyes how difficult it is for peacekeeping personnel to carry out their work. Their spirit deserves our appreciation and respect. As other colleagues have done, I too would like to strongly condemn the actions of those responsible for the terrorist attack of 19 August against United Nations personnel in Baghdad. I firmly believe that such terrorist criminal activity will not succeed in achieving its aims. The Security Council and the international community will further strengthen the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations. An important practical challenge confronting us is how to continue our efforts to enhance the efficacy of United Nations peacekeeping operations. I would like to make three points in that regard. My first comment pertains to further improving the ability of the United Nations to conduct peacekeeping operations on its own. As the overall situation evolves, the tasks faced by peacekeeping operations are increasingly complex. Traditional peacekeeping operations cannot meet the real challenges that exist in certain regions. The situations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia suggest that, under certain conditions, the United Nations should become involved earlier, faster and more forcefully. To that end, the United Nations should enhance its peacekeeping capacities, mechanisms, sources of troops, logistical support, training and command structure in order to better meet actual requirements. Secondly, the Security Council should further endeavour to guarantee the success of its peacekeeping operations. To a large degree, the success of United Nations peacekeeping operations depends on the level of support they receive from members of the Council. We believe that the Council should first make a greater effort to help regional parties to make better use of the conditions created by peacekeeping operations in order to find political solutions. That is the only way that peacekeeping operations can play their true role. Furthermore, members of the Council in a position to do so should continue to support peacekeeping operations in the areas of logistics and personnel. Moreover, the mandates of peacekeeping operations should be well defined, clear and achievable, so as to improve their effectiveness. In that regard, the existing consultation mechanism should be fully utilized. In addition, communication between troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat should be strengthened and expanded. Thirdly, the African Union and subregional organizations in Africa should receive assistance to enhance their peacekeeping capabilities. Africa is a focus of United Nations peacekeeping operations. Regional and subregional organizations in Africa have contributed a great deal to regional peacekeeping operations. They have also achieved positive results. However, some peacekeeping operations have not fully fulfilled their mandates due to logistical, technical and financial constraints. It is our hope that the United Nations, and Member States with the capacity to do so, will increase their contributions to the African Union in the areas of enhancing its institutional capacity, the exchange of information, financing and the training of personnel. In doing so, they would be improving the Union’s overall capacity in the areas of early warning and peacekeeping operations. China has consistently supported United Nations peacekeeping operations, and favours enhancing their effectiveness. Last year China decided to contribute non-combat military units to the United Nations standby arrangement for peacekeeping operations. An engineering company and a field hospital were deployed last March from China to the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. More recently, with the initiation of the peace process in Liberia, China has supported United Nations activities there, and is studying the question of how we can make our contribution. In short, China shall continue actively to support United Nations peacekeeping operations, to the extent allowed by its own capacity, in order to contribute to maintaining lasting peace and security.

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

Since this is the last time you will be with us, Sir, I want to say that we appreciate the effectiveness with which you and your colleagues have led our work this month. We wish you well with your new responsibilities in Geneva. I can be brief, I think, because I agree with much of what has been said this morning and do not want to repeat it. I want to focus only on a couple of points. The first is that, as some colleagues have noted, perhaps the most important factor as we look to the future is that peace operations are becoming more complex in a number of ways. We in the Security Council and those who are conducting peace operations are experimenting and learning as we go, and by and large we are improving. One lesson to be drawn, I think, is the importance in many cases of regional political and military support for peace efforts and, sometimes, indirect involvement in a peace operation. The United States has encouraged other countries to develop their capacities for peace operations and, in some cases, is providing direct assistance. Our African Contingency Operations Training and Assistance programme — formerly known as the African Crisis Reaction Initiative — has provided field and command-staff training, as well as critical equipment, to 12,000 soldiers in nine sub-Saharan African countries since 1997. Since 1998, under the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities Initiative, we have also trained approximately 200 officers a year, both at the Center for Civil-Military Relations in Monterey, California, and through military training programmes. We are encouraging regional and subregional organizations to assume greater responsibilities for peace operations and believe also that there is real value to exploring how the more demanding operations can be undertaken by multinational coalitions under the direction of a strong regional leader. As a particular example, we have for some time now been supporting the Economic Community of West African States politically, financially and militarily in its efforts in West Africa. The second point I want to address is that every conflict is unique. Not all threats to international peace and security are amenable to United Nations peace operations. As we have said before, each conflict is unique and the same applies to the peacekeeping operations that follow, including the structure of their specific mandates and rules of engagement and organization. We believe that there is a role for different types of peacekeeping: United Nations peacekeeping operations, regional peacekeeping missions and multinational coalitions. All conflicts should be evaluated by integrated planning teams consisting of military, police, humanitarian and other agencies. There are no fixed formulas for peacekeeping, nor are fixed formulas desirable, especially in such matters as the national origins of peacekeeping contingents or coalition leadership. Each case is unique and driven by realities on the ground, as well as by the other commitments of potential troop contributors. Each case merits close examination based on the needs and possibilities presented by the specific situation and can be addressed through flexible mechanisms. The third and last point I want to raise is that of the overall security of United Nations missions and their personnel. We have been reminded tragically of the importance of this issue and of the difficult circumstances in which this Council, the United Nations and both military and civilian personnel operate. We welcome the adoption of Security Council resolution 1502 (2003), which moved beyond previous measures by focusing the Security Council’s attention on prevention of attacks on humanitarian, United Nations and associated personnel and on the accountability of those who commit such acts. Clearly, in the wake of last week’s barbaric attack in Baghdad, we all — Member States and the Secretariat — need to review how security is provided for United Nations personnel, both humanitarian and peacekeeping, to counter the threat of additional terrorist acts. That effort has already begun and richly deserves the support and active participation of Council members.

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

I should like to express my thanks for the Syrian presidency of the Security Council this month. I commend you, Sir, for your serious and effective work, as well as Ambassador Mekdad and the entire Syrian delegation. On a sadly personal note, I very much regret your imminent transfer to Geneva. While you will remain within the United Nations, working on behalf of Syria and the Organization in an important post, we will sorely miss your candour, earnest approach and skills. Geneva’s gain is New York’s loss, and I regret that. The Brahimi report was issued three years ago. It considerably improved the United Nations capacity to address the first of the charges established by the Charter: the maintenance of international peace and security. Today, the Organization has greater resources for planning, deploying and managing peace operations and can do so more professionally, promptly and, undoubtedly, effectively. Much remains to be done, but the advances that have been made in only three years are certainly remarkable. Very little can be said that is not already in the Brahimi report, but today’s meeting offers an excellent opportunity to underscore certain fundamental points. First, it is important that work in the conception, design and preparation of a mission be coordinated and effective, because without proper planning a mission cannot succeed and the lives of the local population and of international personnel are put at risk. Proper planning means awareness of developments on the ground. The Secretariat needs enhanced capacity to compile and analyse existing information, as well as the ability to transmit it in a coherent manner to decision-making bodies, this Council in particular, so that the purpose and objectives of the operation may be clearly understood. In this regard, it remains necessary for the Council to strive to ensure that the mandates it adopts are clear, convincing and backed by adequate resources. Secondly, once the concept and planning have been appropriately developed, United Nations missions must be able to deploy rapidly. We are aware of the serious and significant efforts being made by the Secretariat to generate a genuine rapid-deployment capacity. Thirdly, the Secretary-General has demonstrated his ability to select the appropriate competent people to manage missions in the field. The appointment of Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello in Iraq was undoubtedly the best such example. This is critical. Management in the field must make the crucial decisions that ensure a mission’s success day after day. Fourthly, a peace mission nowadays is of necessity multidisciplinary. In its mandates the Council must incorporate fundamental elements to ensure that peace missions are effective and that they can really make a contribution to securing peace in a country or a region. Elements such as disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, mine clearance, electoral assistance, promotion of human rights, gender issues — the presence and the role of women are often overlooked — all these must of necessity be included in these mandates. Fifthly, those elements are in themselves an advance, or, better, a bridge towards what will have to be the future of peace-building activities. Although they are tasks that often fall to other funds or programmes, the Council should not fail to ensure that the transition is sufficiently smooth so as to make possible an effective follow-up. A peacekeeping mission that transfers its activities smoothly to the peace-building operations coming afterwards is in itself a success. Lastly, I would like to refer to the question of the continuum established in the Brahimi report. I refer to conflict prevention. Effective prevention of armed conflicts will very often make it unnecessary for the United Nations to commit itself to the maintenance of peace and security. Of course, the best way to resolve a conflict is to prevent it from arising. The General Assembly is making progress in equipping the Organization with serious capacity in this regard. The Council can only welcome that.

I thank the representative of Spain for his kind words addressed to me. There are no more speakers inscribed on my list. I will speak now in my national capacity. Peacekeeping operations represent an important instrument for the United Nations in its task of maintaining peace and security in the world. They play a vital and effective role in reducing tension and contribute to the settlement of disputes, peacekeeping and securing an environment propitious to post-conflict peace-building. Those operations have proven their effectiveness in past years in the diverse tasks mandated to them, ranging from traditional monitoring of ceasefire agreements to complex challenges involved in administering territories. They have demonstrated that they are a vital instrument that can deal with dangers that beset peace and security in the world. Peacekeeping operations achieved successes in Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Prevlaka. We hope that those operations and their activities will extend to other areas that have remained marginalized, such as in Somalia. Despite the important role played by peacekeeping operations, they are not an alternative to a permanent solution to a conflict; they may be a temporary measure to prevent conflicts from escalating. They contribute to ending hostilities and reducing the potential for conflict escalation, providing an appropriate environment for ending them. Consequently, we believe they must be time-bound. They must be guided by the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Those include respect for the principles of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States. The focal role of the Security Council contributes to the success of those missions. That role should be carried out by defining clear mandates for those operations and by following up developments on the ground. For example, the Council this month has adopted resolution 1493 (2003), which reinforced the mandate of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC). For the first time since the Mission was established, it is now authorized to use all necessary means to enforce the mandate given to it in the area of Ituri and in North and South Kivu. The Council adopted resolution 1497 (2003), which authorized Member States to establish a multinational force to support the ceasefire agreement and achieve stability in Liberia, taking into consideration the regional aspects and their importance in that respect. We affirm the importance of enhancing cooperation between United Nations missions and regional and subregional organizations. Such cooperation — with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), for instance — has led to more stability in Sierra Leone and Liberia. MONUC has worked with the African Union in establishing the Joint Military Committee to monitor the ceasefire and to undertake the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes. United Nations missions also cooperate with the African Union in Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Western Sahara. In the Balkans, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo represents an important model for coordination with regional organizations — the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. We have every hope that the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will support the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan in achieving security in Kabul and the rest of Afghan territory, which would bolster the economic and political process. The United Nations started its peacekeeping operations more than half a century ago in the Middle East. It still plays its role in peacekeeping responsibly and implements its tasks with all efficiency and precision. In this respect, Syria values highly the sacrifices made by the commanders and the members of the peacekeeping operations throughout the world, and in our region in particular. Syria expresses its appreciation for the cooperation between the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and Syria, and also between our Permanent Mission and the Secretariat’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Recently we have witnessed heinous crimes against members of United Nations missions and its agencies in different places, such as Jenin, Qana and, most recently, Baghdad. Those acts of aggression against United Nations offices and personnel represent aggression against all the members of the United Nations. Consequently, the international community must hunt down the perpetrators of these crimes and punish them. Security measures must be enhanced to protect the security and safety of those who have dedicated their lives to achieving world peace. The Security Council’s unanimous adoption of resolution 1502 (2003) was a clear expression of its determination to undertake every possible measure to protect those who serve in United Nations missions and offices. It reflected the Council’s determination to pursue and punish the perpetrators of what the resolution describes as war crimes. In that connection, we propose that the Secretariat prepare a comprehensive study on ways to protect United Nations missions and on taking the necessary measures to prevent attacks against them, in accordance with the provisions of resolution 1502 (2003). In conclusion, the delegation of Syria affirms the importance of establishing a genuine three-way partnership among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop contributors in the areas of mission planning, preparation, organization and security. We stress the need for consultation with troop contributors when and if changes in the tasks or structure of a mission are contemplated. We believe that Council meetings and the machinery established by resolution 1353 (2001) will play effective roles in the success of United Nations peacekeeping operations. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. Once again, I should like to express my sincere thanks to all Council members for their valuable and rich contributions to today’s meeting on peacekeeping. Those contributions have provided a degree of perspective, and perhaps some possible solutions, for the Secretariat and its Department of Peacekeeping Operations. A number of proposals were made by Council members; they will enrich Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi’s report (S/2000/809) and its recommendations in that regard. Finally, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the United Nations staff in every peacekeeping operation and to all Secretariat and Security Council staff. I would be remiss if I did not thank the interpreters — the real force in the booths — who make it possible for our voices to be heard correctly by the United Nations and the rest of the world; their efforts are nothing short of mighty. I thank the Secretariat staff for making our work in the Council easier; they are always available in and near the Council Chamber. Finally, I should like to thank the United Nations security staff as well as members of the media, including photographers and television camera operators. In conclusion, I express my sincere thanks to my colleagues on the Security Council who have addressed very kind words to me; I shall not disappoint them. I trust that they will continue their cooperation with the Mission of the Syrian Republic, which will be headed by my colleague, Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad, who is very well known to them, having worked with me throughout these eight years in New York. Colleagues, I thank you all. 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.