S/PV.4970 Security Council

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, Fiji, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Peru, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Moldova, Serbia and Montenegro, South Africa, the Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Ukraine, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure. There being no objection, it is so decided.

In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council’s prior consultations and in the absence of objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Jean-Marie Guéhenno , Under- Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations. There being no objection, it is so decided. I invite Mr. Guéhenno to take a seat at the Council table. 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. Expression of farewell to Ambassador Inocencio Arias

I understand that this is the last occasion that Ambassador Inocencio Arias will participate in the Council’s deliberations in his current capacity as Permanent Representative of Spain. On behalf of the members of the Council, I wish to take this opportunity to express the Council’s deep appreciation to him as a colleague and a friend. Ambassador Arias’ sense of humour and jovial demeanour has made him popular among his colleagues. Members are well aware of his effective stewardship of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), which he has lead as Chairman, as well as his pivotal role towards enhancing the support structures of that Committee, which led to the adoption of Security Council resolution 1535 (2004). He will also be remembered for his passion for soccer, and particularly for Real Madrid, which he led as General Manager from 1993 to 1995. Armed with his leadership skills from the CTC, Ambassador Arias might be tempted to return to the Spanish capital to prepare Real Madrid for another run at the championship “La Liga”. In bidding him a fond farewell, the members of the Council and I wish him every success in his new endeavours. I now call on Ambassador Inocencio Arias.

I am very proud and honoured to be saying goodbye to the members of the Security Council at a meeting presided over by you, Sir, and attended by our much admired Secretary-General. I do not know which humanitarian said that if he had been present alongside God at the day of creation, he would have provided Him with some ideas on how to order the world differently. I could have said as much about the Security Council if I had been in San Francisco in 1945, particularly on 13 June. I would have offered some ideas on how to reform the Security Council to make it better, but what I would not change — and I say this with appreciation and fondness — is the human and professional quality of the people with whom I have sat on the Council throughout the past year and a half. We have experienced an agitated, volatile and tortured year and a half. There was a resolution in November 2002 that was a wonder of diplomatic architecture. However, a few months later it became the mother of all ambiguities. Sometimes technocrats are the best, and at other times we have to consider politicians. Personally, for some time I have been a member of the coalition, but not an occupying Power, and now I also believe I am not a member of the coalition. As I said, we have experienced times of flux, but I am firm in and serious about my appreciation for all the persons, all the colleagues-Ambassadors, Permanent Representatives, other representatives — whom I have had the pride and honour to have worked with during that time. If Lakhdar Brahimi were to come to study the members of the Council, and if he was not clear about whether he wanted politicians or technocrats, I do not know how he would categorize us, but I am sure that we, at least my colleagues, are honourable, serious, very professional people who have served the interests of their countries, always bearing in mind the importance of the values and the principles of the United Nations. When things clash, we are left with a bad feeling. I do not want to conclude without paying a tribute to Mr. Kofi Annan, who has always inspired my diplomatic work. I believe he is, if not the best — which he probably is — one of the best Secretaries- General the United Nations has had, and when we allow him, something we do not always do, he always does something that benefits humanity and the Organization. To conclude on a happier note, I wish, for two reasons, to refer specifically to the Ambassador of China. I want to offer him a small gift — first, because I admire Ambassador Wang — I wish he were here — and I want to offer him a gift that symbolizes Chinese diplomacy — something reflective, observant, fairplaying, yet, at the moment of truth, firm and decisive. My first reason is my admiration for him and for Chinese diplomacy. The second reason is because China is sitting in the very seat in which I would have sat had I finished my tour in the Security Council, which has been shortened because things are as they are. In summing up Chinese diplomacy, I would like to offer Ambassador Wang Ronaldo’s Real Madrid team jersey, which I believe symbolizes, as I have said, reflective, observant, fair-playing diplomacy, but which at the moment of truth is firm and decisive. I thank all members of the Council. I hope the United Nations will continue to be what we all want it to be, or even more.

I thank Ambassador Arias for his kind words addressed to me and to all of us. The Security Council is holding an important debate today. We are all aware of the recent surge in demand for United Nations peacekeeping operations in different parts of the world. It is indeed welcome news that the United Nations is being increasingly called upon to do what has been its raison d’être, that is, to keep the peace. At the same time, ensuring an effective response entails formidable challenges for the United Nations system. Pakistan believes it is both timely and appropriate to highlight the forthcoming challenges in peacekeeping and to help generate sufficient levels of political, financial, human and logistical support for Member States required in establishing new missions. It is equally important to evaluate the progress made in United Nations peacekeeping over the past few years, analyse future trends and consider ways of meeting the challenges and the strategic, operational and other aspects of peacekeeping operations. It is in that perspective that Pakistan proposed today’s debate. We hope that we will have a fruitful exchange of views that will help us all promote our shared objectives of better preparation for the coming challenges and for utilizing more effectively the instrument of United Nations peacekeeping in the furtherance of international peace and security. I welcome the presence of the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan, and invite him to take the floor.

Let me start by thanking you, Mr. President, and your delegation, for arranging this important discussion on a key topic for all of us. It is also good to welcome you back to New York. Let me, in my turn, add my words to yours, Sir, by thanking Ambassador Arias for the contribution he has made to the United Nations and to this Council. Mr. President, you have said it all, but I also agree with you that we will miss his sense of realism and his wit. With that wit he often pulls us back to what is possible, what is real, and he encourages us not to drift too far into wishful thinking. I think that is a quality that we are going to miss. I think I speak for all of us when I say that it has been a pleasure working with you, Ambassador. We will miss you. I understand you are going back to Madrid to arrange a championship match. I hope we will all be invited. All the best, Ambassador. We are facing a time of surging demand for United Nations peacekeeping. Last month there were more than 53,000 troops, military observers and civilian police serving in 15 United Nations missions around the world, the highest number of personnel since October 1995. Many of these missions are large and complex. Most go beyond the limited military functions that have marked traditional peacekeeping missions. Even more missions loom on the horizon. The Security Council has recently authorized a new mission in Haiti and has expanded the existing mission in Côte d’Ivoire. Missions are being planned for Burundi and the Sudan. By the end of the year, to absorb the new and enhanced missions, we may need an extra $1 billion for the United Nations peacekeeping budget, which is currently $2.82 billion. Our duty must be to meet this demand and to seize the opportunities to bring longstanding conflicts to an end. For millions of our fellow human beings, United Nations peacekeeping missions offers their best and sometimes only hope of emerging from conflict towards a safe and stable future. A recent study by Oxford University economists points out that the economic cost of civil wars, in terms of lost revenue and local and regional output, averages $128 billion year and that, measured against the costs of conflict, peacekeeping is extremely cost-effective. Mr. President, your laudable initiative in organizing this Security Council debate leads us to ask two broad questions. First, what is the nature of the peacekeeping challenge that we face? And second, is the United Nations able to do it — which really means, are you, the Member States, ready and willing to do it? Peacekeeping today has become increasingly multidimensional. The missions you mandate are implementing peace agreements, helping manage political transitions, building institutions, supporting economic reconstruction, organizing the return of refugees and internally displaced persons, assisting humanitarian aid programmes, supervising or even organizing elections, monitoring human rights, clearing minefields and disarming and demobilizing militias and reintegrating their members into civil economy. As the complexity of mandates has increased, so too have public expectations about what these missions can achieve. Peacekeeping operations are called to assist when peace is often new and fragile, but they must be part of a longer-term strategy to solidify the foundation of peace, lest we find that, as in Haiti and Liberia, we must return again. To this end, the international community must better integrate the security, political, economic and social levers that it has at its disposal to keep and build peace in the immediate post-conflict period and beyond. All the United Nations departments, agencies and programmes, not just the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, have their part to play in the peacekeeping process. We must also ensure that our efforts to build peace never lose sight of the fact that we are there to assist and that it is the local population that must take a lead in the decision-making that affects their lives. Especially as the United Nations moves into nontraditional aspects of peacekeeping, our peacekeepers become targets for people who seek to disrupt the political process, in the hope that further violence will enable them to achieve their aims. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that those who serve the United Nations Charter in peacekeeping missions are protected. To assess, guard against and manage such threats, the United Nations needs to have a clear picture of the environments in which it is operating. United Nations peacekeeping operations need not only information but the capacity to analyse this information and the means to conduct their mission. How do we deal with these challenges? First, and above all, we have to show commitment. The international community must be prepared to stay the course with political will and resources, particularly during times of trial, to ensure that peace processes do not falter and give way to renewed conflict. This Council bears a heavy responsibility as the body that mandates these difficult and dangerous missions. To succeed, our peacekeepers need your sustained solidarity and mandates that are clear, implementable and achievable. It is up to you to lead other Member States in ensuring that each mission receives the troops and the resources it needs. Your support is especially important when a mission faces challenges to the legitimacy of its mandate from would-be spoilers. United Nations peacekeepers must be equipped to withstand such challenges and to do their work effectively. For this they need a robust mandate, shaped by clear political objectives and backed by a strong international consensus. Furthermore, they must be provided with adequate resources and appropriate reinforcement so they can protect civilians, keep the peace and maintain security when confronted by significant opposition. With your help and that of the General Assembly, we have been able to implement many of the recommendations in the Brahimi report. We are definitely more efficient and better coordinated than we were five years ago. We are also better equipped, both here at Headquarters and at our logistics base in Brindisi, to support our field operations and to respond more rapidly to sudden developments. Notwithstanding these advances, the scale of the current surge may well outstrip our capacities to backstop the operations, and we will have to look at augmenting these capacities. United Nations missions remain hampered by a lack of specialized military capacities, generally available from the military forces of developed countries. Unfortunately, these countries today make only limited contributions of troops to United Nations peacekeeping operations. At the same time, many States that are willing suppliers of troops have great difficulty in deploying staff within the necessary time frames. I urge Member States to do their utmost to help fill these gaps so that United Nations peacekeeping operations are able to draw on specialized capacities and to deploy rapidly. The United Nations is also working with regional, subregional and international arrangements to ensure complementary capacities, for example with early temporary force deployments that can bridge the gap until the United Nations peacekeepers can deploy. Another critical gap is our urgent need of Frenchspeaking personnel, especially police, to tackle assignments in Francophone countries. As we add or expand missions this year in Haiti, Côte d’Ivoire and possibly Burundi, that pressure will only intensify. There is work to be done. I have outlined only some of the challenges. The non-paper before the Council provides a more comprehensive picture of the whole range of challenges that must be overcome if we are to meet the goals that we have set ourselves. Both in theory and in reality, peacekeeping embodies the spirit of the United Nations. Through United Nations peacekeeping, the international community comes together in a unique way to pursue peace, using some measure of military means. That was not originally envisaged in the Charter, as we all know, but it is entirely in keeping with the Charter’s vision. Peacekeeping sends a powerful signal of the international community’s intention to ensure that peace is preserved. But, to have real effect, that signal must be reflected in Member States’ presence on the ground. Peacekeeping does not relieve nations of their responsibilities. Rather, it pools national responsibilities for the greater good. The presence of peacekeeping troops sends a signal that is all the more powerful when they come from across the international community, from countries rich and poor. So I urge Member States across the United Nations to contribute troops. The signal sent by a peacekeeping operation must also be backed up by political commitment from Member States. They play a key role in supporting peace processes and encouraging the parties to continue on the path to peace. Especially in these difficult days, when our focus is on a few major crises, the surge in peacekeeping will stretch the international community’s attention. Each new mission, each new effort to resolve conflict, will depend for success on the sustained political engagement of Member States, participating directly in peacekeeping operations and through diplomatic, political and other channels. Our peacekeeping missions have a long history — one that includes times of great pride and times of great difficulty, if not failure. We must recall the hard lessons of the past and ensure that, as we enter this new period of surge, everything that can be done to ensure success is done. Today’s new missions must be guaranteed the necessary resources and commitment to handle the uniquely complex and challenging tasks to which they are called.

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement and for the kind words he addressed to me and to my delegation. In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate the texts in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber.

We are pleased to see you, Sir, presiding today over this meeting devoted to United Nations peacekeeping operations. That reminds us of the important contribution being made by Pakistan to this effort of the international community. The Permanent Representative of Ireland will shortly make a statement on behalf of the European Union that I fully endorse. Therefore, I shall confine myself to a few remarks. I should like at the outset to emphasize that the implementation of the Brahimi report has enabled us to make considerable progress over the past four years in United Nations management of peacekeeping activities. I say that because we believe the Brahimi report remains relevant, and the few points I wish to make are within that context. We note a recent change of direction in the peacekeeping dimension. The complexity of operations is steadily growing. The number of operations and that of their staffs are constantly increasing. All of that leads us to think that these trends will only become more pronounced in future, because of the growing demands outlined in the non-paper issued by the Pakistani delegation. I am struck by the figures before us today: 14 operations under way; 51,000 staff, civilian and military combined; four new missions; an increase in expenditures that will bring the budget to more than $3 billion. In the light of those developments, we believe that the United Nations has thus far demonstrated a satisfactory capacity to adapt. We owe that to Jean- Marie Guéhenno. We also owe it to the mobilization and dedication of men and women who have come from many troop-contributing countries. This capacity to adapt has also been translated into conceptual innovations; I will cite three of them. First is the development of complex operations, which now include peace-building strategies. Peacekeeping operations thus find themselves entrusted with missions ranging from the implementation of rapiddeployment projects to disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) programmes, to strengthening the rule of law or even to human rights activities. The most recent mandates we have adopted with regard to Côte d’Ivoire and Haiti are good examples. I am also struck by the fact that the United Nations has improved its capacity to take into account a regional approach to crisis management. Missions within a particular subregion are now better coordinated, particularly in terms of sharing logistical support. Finally, the adoption of resolution 1353 (2001) has enabled us to enhance coordination among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troopcontributing countries. We should ask ourselves whether that progress is sufficient. We believe that it is not — that we must devote greater thought to the matter. Three questions can be posed in that connection. First, is it possible to limit the duration of peacekeeping operations? It is difficult to do so, but we must try hard, first of all by systematically assessing the duration and adaptation of mandates and the adequacy of mission staffing, depending on the development of the situation on the ground. Such assessment must be carried out regularly and thoroughly, regardless of a mission’s age. We believe that the Council must also regularly ask itself about a mission’s effectiveness: when has a mission attained its objectives? When can a peacekeeping operation result in depriving local actors of any sense of responsibility? Secondly, we believe it is important to make greater use of the approach taken recently in resolution 1528 (2004), on Côte d’Ivoire. That approach consisted of envisaging an exit strategy when establishing the mission. Such a search for a long-term view of the development of peacekeeping operations should, in our view, be accompanied by careful planning of handover to development and transition actors — particularly United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and international financial institutions. We believe that the Security Council must be increasingly firm on those two points; otherwise, estimates of heavy financial constraints will ultimately become the decisive criterion for the creation or extension of mandates. Secondly, is it possible to better distribute the burden of implementing peacekeeping operations? Whatever reforms may be envisaged, we feel that the main responsibility for the maintenance of peace remains with the Security Council and must do so. In the field, it falls to the special representative of the Secretary-General. One might consider, however, whether it would not be possible to further call on the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations to undertake certain civilian missions that would be integrated into peacekeeping operations. We know that a considerable number of civilian posts in missions are currently unfilled. One might wonder whether it might not be more appropriate to associate agencies with the implementation of certain civilian tasks in order to allow us to use our tools more coherently. In the same vein, cooperation with regional organizations, which frequently have faster reaction capacities than the United Nations, should be reinforced. The success of recent operations undertaken by the European Union in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the Economic Community of West African States in Liberia and by the African Union in Burundi attest to the effectiveness of such an approach. In the context of recent advances, we would also note the role played towards the successful outcome of such interventions by the European initiative on the rapid deployment of tactical teams or support programmes for the development of regional peacekeeping capacities, particularly African capacities. My third and last question is: How can we ensure better utilization of available resources? We must build on our progress by further improving the operational capacities of United Nations peacekeeping. The integrated planning of missions must be further developed. My delegation is convinced that the special representative of the Secretary-General should be appointed as rapidly as possible after the adoption of a resolution creating an operation, as was done with Mr. Klein in the Liberia operation, if memory serves. The special representative’s involvement in establishing the mission will allow operations to be deployed under his authority in a more coordinated fashion. Existing processes for cooperation with troopcontributing countries should be revitalized and other contributors, including the financial ones, should be more closely involved. To that end, we feel, on the one hand, that the provisions of resolution 1353 (2001) could be better exploited, and that, on the other, the working group on peacekeeping operations could be better utilized. Above and beyond the military aspects, we feel that two other ideas should be explored. First, with regard to the internal functioning of the Secretariat, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations already has considerable means and yet sometimes encounters difficulties, particularly with respect to deploying new operations in the field. It must be said that there are many new operations currently under way and that they involve very cumbersome work for the Department. In that regard, developing a checklist of the bottlenecks restricting the Department’s capacity might allow us to pinpoint areas for reform. We should already be considering ways of giving the Department of Peacekeeping Operations more budgetary flexibility, enabling it in particular to address the recruitment problems it encounters. We must also find ways better to inform Member States on the Department’s needs. The Secretary-General’s mention of the French-speaking police was quite appropriate in that respect. The British proposals on the establishment on a regular basis of a list of resources, both available and lacking, and of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations’s priorities are also, we believe, on the right track. Lastly, we must also consider ways to improve the political follow-up of missions. Not only is such follow-up important in and of itself for the Security Council’s credibility and the effectiveness of missions, but it could also contribute to better resource management. My delegation thanks you, Sir, for having convened this debate. In addressing the new demands before it, it is indeed important that the Security Council take the time to think, independently of the consideration of any particular conflict, about the conditions in which it organizes its peacekeeping activities and about how it is to meet these new challenges.

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

I would like at the outset, Sir, to welcome your presence in the Chair and the presence with us of the Secretary-General. I associate my delegation with the statement to be made by the representative of Ireland on behalf of the European Union later in this debate. As the Secretary-General has told us this morning, this debate is important and well timed. We are grateful to your delegation, Mr. President, for arranging it and glad that it provides us with an opportunity to pay tribute to Pakistan’s contribution to United Nations peacekeeping and, through you, to the contributions of other troop-contributing countries. It is important as a debate and it is well timed because we are in the middle of an unprecedented surge in demand for United Nations peacekeeping. We can see this as a sign of success. In some cases, it is a sign that conflicts are coming to an end, as in Burundi and the Sudan, for example. In many cases, it is a sign of the international community’s willingness to back indigenous efforts in Africa to keep the peace, and those are spurring complementary efforts by the European Union and the Group of Eight. In all cases, it is a sign of confidence that the United Nations can deliver multidimensional peace-building that the international community increasingly understands is necessary for sustainable security. It is, perhaps, a sign of success that the Council rather takes it for granted, when it mandates a mission, that the resources will be found and that the United Nations system will deliver. But the surge in demand for peacekeeping is also a grave challenge to the United Nations system and to each one of us Member States. It is unprecedented and, by the same token, so is the threat to continued United Nations success. The risk is that the United Nations elastic will be stretched too thin and that, somewhere, some time soon, it will snap. We should consider what this Council asks of United Nations peacekeeping. There are just 600 Headquarters staff members in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to plan, launch and oversee what are likely soon to be 18 operations. That is fewer than 35 staff of all grades per operation. By the end of the year, there will probably be fewer than one staff member in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations per 100 staff members in the field. All these operations are, by definition, international, in which special representatives of the Secretary-General, force commanders, contingents and civilian components from many different nations come together and have almost never trained together. Many of these operations are complex, multidimensional, evolving and unpredictable. All, by definition, are highly political. Very few have a back-up military reserve. No nation, no Member State would be prepared to do what we have instructed the United Nations to do. And what private-sector organization would decide to establish a series of major new programmes without exhaustive assessments first of the resources, requirements and risks involved? Certainly, overstretch brings risks. There are the risks of rushed planning of new operations and of inadequate oversight of existing ones. There are the risks that the Secretary-General has pointed to: inadequate resources, whether of personnel or funding. Civilian personnel looks like a particular challenge this year, and this is against the background of civilian undermanning in existing operations. What percentage, for example, of civilian staff have been hired so far for the United Nations Mission in Liberia? From overstretch, there are risks of inefficiency and ineffectiveness, and there are risks — and they are real — of diminished accountability, breaches of military discipline, corruption, political mistakes and even military failure. So, what is to be done? The United Kingdom is deeply committed to United Nations-mandated peacekeeping. We provide political support and a rapid response when necessary. We supply more troops to United Nations operations than any other permanent member of the Council. We pay more for United Nations peacekeeping than any country, except for the United States, Japan and Germany. My country is not going to argue for less United Nations peacekeeping in the face of United Nations success and in the face of continued humanitarian and international demand. Nor is it credible that the Security Council should ask for less. We agree with the Secretary-General that Member States must show commitment. So, the Council and United Nations Member States face a choice, as the excellent non-paper provided by the presidency has pointed out. We can continue as normal and face a growing risk of failure through overstretch, or we can embrace Under- Secretary-General Guéhenno’s call to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations to suspend business as usual for a while. It is not really a choice. It cannot be business as usual. Our goals are pretty clear. We all want forces smoothly generated into cohesive, coherent operations, including enablers and civilian components. We all know we need to sustain that force and cover all eventualities. We know we need better-informed strategic direction of the operation, linked to the effort on the ground. Therefore, we need clarity between New York and first-rate Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and Force Commanders in the field. The challenge is to be clear about what needs to change, and how. We believe that we can build further on the Brahimi panel report, and I would like to highlight some important elements, many of them reflected in the European Union statement to be delivered later in this debate. The first element is integrated mission taskforces. Peacekeeping in the context of post-conflict reconstruction requires delivery of rule of law and attention to the problems of women and children in armed conflict. It also requires development. That means an integrated approach by the entire United Nations family — not just the Department of Peacekeeping Operations but United Nations funds, agencies and programmes. It also means working in integration with the international financial institutions, regional organizations and relevant civil society organizations. We believe that full implementation of the integrated mission taskforce concept is needed, involving the leadership of future Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, who, in turn, need to be appointed much earlier in an operation than has been the practice to date. Secondly, we want to see the further development of new partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations under Chapter VIII of the Charter. With its ever-increasing peacekeeping portfolio, the United Nations cannot be expected to perform everything everywhere. Regional organizations have unique and complementary capacities to offer: rapid deployment, training, civilian police and specialized enablers. Such operations by regional organizations do not threaten the primacy of United Nations peacekeeping; the United Nations still mandates them. The organizational framework for a peacekeeping operation is less important for United Nations success than the quality and the availability of the capacity to deliver. Thirdly, we want to see further support for the developing capacity of African peacekeeping, conflict prevention and peace building. Fourthly, as the Secretary-General has underlined this morning, we believe that to ensure that United Nations peacekeeping operations are properly protected, there should be an enhanced United Nations capacity for security assessment and threat and risk analysis. Fifthly, we need to pursue value for money and the most efficient possible use of existing resources through regional synergies among peacekeeping operations. To do these things, we also need to overcome some immediate bottlenecks. We had previously heard that it took an average of 347 days to recruit civilian staff. What are the figures today? An extra six-and-ahalf thousand civilian staff are required. Would it be impossible to contract out the shortlisting of civilian candidates for those jobs? There needs to be additional surge-planning capacity. Should we look afresh at solutions to deliver that? External sources could provide some planning, and the United Kingdom is certainly ready to consider any such requests. We need a larger pool of the most able available Special Representatives and Deputy Special Representatives. Is it inconceivable to employ headhunters to examine new sources, such as chief executive officers from the private sector? A key recent improvement through the Brahimi report has been the strategic deployment stocks in Brindisi. However, we should ask whether it is big enough to cope with the new missions. And once stocks are expended, how can we rapidly replenish them to meet the increased tempo of demand? Indeed, perhaps we should take a fresh look at pre-mandate authorizations in general. They cover budget, personnel recruitment and other essential startup activities in missions. Perhaps we should look at that once more. How should we do these things? We believe, first, that there needs to be a stronger partnership among the Council, the wider United Nations membership, the Secretariat, United Nations humanitarian and development agencies and other United Nations bodies. Those bodies include the Fifth Committee and the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which have central and clearly defined decision-making powers for United Nations peacekeeping. Secondly, we would like to see a stronger focus by the Council on surge issues. The Council’s Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and its new mechanism for consultation have hitherto been underused. Over the period of the surge in demand, the Working Group should be used to underpin the partnership with the Secretariat and contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. Thirdly, to support this work there needs to be better information on surge issues. One tool, as new missions are planned and established, might be more extensive briefings, not only from the Secretariat but also from heads of United Nations humanitarian and development agencies. Another tool that could help many parts of the United Nations system to mobilize support might be short background assessments by the Secretariat on a regular basis, highlighting unmet requirements, critical shortfalls and key priorities for existing and new operations. We are glad that the draft presidential statement that we are considering calls for such assessments. It may not be easy to suspend business as usual. But it is necessary, and we believe it can be done with strengthened partnerships across the United Nations system and beyond.

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

The Pakistani initiative to organize this open debate is highly commendable and timely. We are witnessing an unprecedented increase in the number and complexity of peacekeeping operations, on practically all continents. The presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan to direct the Security Council’s proceedings speaks eloquently of the topicality and importance of this item. We are honoured by the personal participation in today’s meeting of the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Kofi Annan. My delegation associates itself with the statement to be delivered later by Ambassador Ryan of Ireland on behalf of the European Union. Therefore, I will confine my intervention to highlighting certain aspects of particular significance to us. United Nations peacekeeping missions have evolved tremendously during the past 50 years. A great deal of experience has been accumulated; we should continuously take stock of and analyse it with a view to a permanent improvement of performance in the field. The mandates of United Nations peacekeeping operations have become increasingly complex, multifaceted and multidimensional. They stand out as an embodiment of the role that multilateral institutions can play in safeguarding peace and security. At the same time, this debate should also shed light on expectations that have not been met in United Nations peacekeeping and should explores ways and means to ensure further mobilization of the resources that are needed. As Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno stated recently in a contribution to the International Herald Tribune dated 19 April 2004, “There is a peace dividend to be had, but not without a clear-headed investment”. That was the vision that prompted Romania to change its policy and to start investing significantly in United Nations peacekeeping after 1990. My country now ranks within the first tier of troop-contributing countries. It also takes part in a series of other United-Nations-authorized missions of magnitude, at considerable risk and cost. Such contributions have to be recognized and factored in when evaluating how Member States shoulder responsibility in the overall efforts of the United Nations in the discharge of its peacekeeping function. We welcome the contribution of the European Union to these efforts and its recent initiative of setting up a peace support operations facility aimed at supporting African countries and regional organizations in conflict management and resolution. Of special importance is the Joint Declaration on United Nations-European Union cooperation in crisis management, signed on 24 September 2003, which sets out concrete measures with regard to peacekeeping operations. The role of regional organizations must be further emphasized. Romania believes in the benefits of cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations for efficient use of resources, better practices and enhanced long-term impact of peacekeeping missions. In its deliberations on specific conflicts or crises the Security Council is increasingly taking on board their wider regional aspects. This is matched by a similar perspective adopted on the ground by United Nations peacekeepers. As a case in point, the United Nations presence has reached critical mass in West Africa. Synergy among the peacekeeping missions in that subregion could be useful. The United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, the United Nations Mission in Liberia and the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire could increasingly share resources, particularly in terms of expertise, transportation, medical components and personnel. At the same time, the nature of conflicts in Africa requires coordinated regional strategies to approach cross-border issues such as: disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and repatriation or resettlement; control of small arms and light weapons; humanitarian services; and others. Such developments should not undermine the unity of action and political control of each separate operation. The planning of all peacekeeping activities must carefully mirror, primarily, the needs of the affected population. Each mandate must consider the social, economic and political context, the need to prevent the worsening of the conflict, humanitarian assistance, human rights, the organization of elections, transition towards a democratic society and economic development. The relationship among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries needs to be further strengthened. Resolution 1353 (2001) on Security Council cooperation with troop-contributing countries and the note by the President of the Council (S/2002/56) on joint meetings of the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and troopcontributing countries offer a valuable framework for sound decision-making in peacekeeping operations. Further steps should be taken to enable contributors to peacekeeping operations other than troop-contributing countries to have their views better incorporated into the respective decision-making processes. Generally, improving the basis for decisionmaking in the Security Council by identifying ways and means to involve major stakeholders would create a considerable additional incentive for the general United Nations membership to support peacekeeping operations. The Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations must be fully engaged in facilitating the development of a comprehensive Security Council approach to all peacekeeping issues and must work together with the Secretariat and with other Member States on how best to assess and address the long-term implications of its decisions. Romania also supports further work on improving complementarity among the main United Nations organs, as well as between them and the relevant United Nations agencies, programmes and funds. We should be innovative in order to find responses to present and future challenges, including the new set of threats. We must look beyond the immediate horizon towards stabilization processes and post-conflict peace-building. We must find a balance between exit strategies and long-term developments, including peace-building. Against that background, the lessons previously learned with regard to Haiti could, this time, make the Haiti case itself a success story. We also trust that the most recent United Nations operations will lead to a boost in conceptual and managerial development, and to enriching the stock of best practices in peacekeeping. We remain fully aware of the limited financial and human resources available. These inevitable constraints should entice us further to devise costeffective and innovative ways to make the most of what is available in various contexts — worldwide, regional or national — and thus to remain able to respond jointly to the totality of contemporary security challenges. I wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation for the many achievements of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations under the stewardship of Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guéhenno. I wish also to commend and praise United Nations troops and commanders, and to pay special tribute to those who have made the supreme sacrifice during peacekeeping activities. Our best tribute to them should be a meaningful outcome of today’s debate that takes stock of the experience gained by United Nations staff serving in field missions and integrates it into the planning of future activities. We welcome the draft presidential statement and remain ready to consider any follow-up that the Security Council might envisage on this matter.

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

First, Mr. President, I would like to welcome you and extend to you my delegation’s thanks for choosing this topic, which is important in every respect, and thank you for the preparation of the basic document. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his statement, which shows how urgent it is for our Organization to rethink the role and functioning of peacekeeping operations in this time of new challenges. Until recently, peacekeeping operations were confined to tasks linked to monitoring respect for ceasefire agreements, assisting with troop withdrawal, the delimitation of buffer zones and help with the implementation of conflict settlements. Today, peacekeeping operations have become complex and multidimensional, since the Security Council now has before it issues that reflect difficult conflicts, developing from conflict management itself through the establishment of a climate of confidence to peacebuilding after a conflict. Our debate should take a long-term approach and should thus take into account those elements that might ensure logistic, financial and political support appropriate for peacekeeping operations, especially since in the months to come thousands of military and police will have to be deployed, especially in Africa. For the United Nations to face efficiently and with respect for the principles of the Charter these challenges linked to one the major missions of the Organization — the maintenance of international peace and security — it must scrupulously respect the preestablished criteria to ensure the correct functioning of peacekeeping operation. These criteria are the consent of the parties, the principle of impartiality and the nonuse of force except for self-defence, as well as a clear definition of the mission’s mandate, supported by solid financing. The implementation of certain recommendations of the Brahimi report has enabled the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, on the recommendation of the General Assembly, to restructure itself and to enhance its operational capacities so as to be better prepared to respond rapidly and in a more adequate manner to the many requests made of it and to enable peacekeeping missions to carry out their tasks in the most effective manner. With regard to the creation of peacekeeping operations, we feel it is necessary that the Security Council take care to see that mandates are as clear and as rigorous as possible and are in accordance with the resources and objectives assigned to each operation. To maintain and consolidate peace in an area of conflict, and because of the increasingly multidimensional nature of current conflicts, peacekeeping operations must be designed not only to establish peace but also to deal with the root causes of conflict. This means that henceforth, when we create a mandate, we must take into account very diversified needs, be they political, social or economic in nature. From this standpoint it is important that the human rights dimension, including the protection of women and children, be adequately taken into account in any peacekeeping mission. In order to ensure the success of peacekeeping operations, Member States have to show a political will that would establish a solid financial basis for each operation. As the budgetary aspect is the exclusive responsibility of the General Assembly, in accordance with the Charter, it is important in cases of complex peacekeeping operations for the international community to mobilize the necessary resources in order to manage the demobilization and reinsertion programmes. To assemble the necessary staff, the Council, for its part, should encourage the Secretary-General to identify and consult those Member States that might be prepared to provide contingents to ensure the establishment of a mission. It is important that the military or civilian staff deployed have the necessary training and expertise in order to carry out their mission well, in optimum conditions of security and effectiveness and with respect for the norms of international humanitarian law and human rights. The conduct of staff, especially in their relationship with the civilian population — women and children in particular — should in every regard be irreproachable. The management of security for mission staff during the establishment of the rules of engagement should conform to the principles of international law. When the deployment of a mission has been decided on by the Security Council, it should take place as soon as possible. The provision by States of contingents, and of the police officers very much in demand today, with provision for their own needs and benefiting from support and international commitments would guarantee rapid deployment. Once established, any change or modification in the mandate of a peacekeeping operation should take place only in accordance with a well-thought-out, transparent process with the full involvement of the Security Council, whereby the imperatives for the success of the operation, on the one hand, and staff security and its environment, on the other, would be thought out at great length. The concerns of troopcontributing countries should also be taken into account. In that connection, if since the adoption of resolution 1353 (2001) briefings are now being organized regularly between the Council and troopcontributing countries every time a mission mandate is renewed, more should be done to take into account the concerns of those countries and involve them in the decision-making process to define or change the mandate of an operation to which their military units are committed. The withdrawal of a mission, once the mandate has been duly and completely accomplished, should finally be based on an exit strategy that ensures the consolidation of the peace achieved while avoiding any brutal disruptions in the local economic and security situation. It should be gradual, primarily in order to leave the countries concerned the time to take over. The Security Council’s other partners are the regional organizations, which can contribute to the peacekeeping effort within the framework of operations authorized by the Council. In our view, cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations in this regard is of crucial importance, particularly in those regions affected by recurrent tensions and conflicts. We note with satisfaction the development of cooperation, especially between the United Nations and the African Union through the joint efforts of those two organizations to prevent conflicts in Africa and to create optimum conditions for the success of peacekeeping operations deployed there. The Security Council cannot act in isolation. Its organic relations with the General Assembly are of major importance. The Assembly, because of its status as the body that approves the finance of operations and elects the non-permanent members of the Council, thus involves a maximum number of States in peacekeeping policy. By creating special advisory groups to study the situations of countries emerging from conflict, the Economic and Social Council, for its part, lends important support to peace. International financial institutions and agencies play an important role in peace consolidation. Finally, non-governmental organizations can play a very positive role in ensuring a smooth transition from a peacekeeping operation to peace-building after a conflict.

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

Mr. President, it is a great pleasure to see you chairing this important meeting of the Security Council on a subject to which your country’s proactive interest and dedication are well known. We therefore thank the Pakistani presidency and you personally, Mr. President, for the initiative to hold this public meeting on United Nations peacekeeping operations. The earlier presence of the Secretary-General and the depth of the opening remarks have provided us with very meaningful orientation for our debate. In recent years, the United Nations has made considerable progress in peacekeeping. The foundation for a new approach has been laid. Remarkable results have been achieved in Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kosovo and East Timor, to mention but a few. The capabilities of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations have been reinforced and the United Nations Standby Arrangements System has been strengthened. We can draw lessons from the rich experiences gained in a wide variety of peacekeeping theatres since 1948, the central one being that the international community needs to ensure that any given peacekeeping mission is provided with adequate financial and other necessary resources, but particularly political support, so that it can succeed and complete its assigned tasks. The United Nations is fielding 15 peacekeeping missions with about 53,000 peacekeepers and a very significant budget worldwide. Over the next few months, new peacekeeping operations will be deployed in Haiti and in Burundi. That will result in a substantial increase in the number of peacekeepers, as well as in a demand for additional financial, administrative and logistics resources for the exit strategies of existing missions and for support of the new ones. This meeting today is a very good opportunity to review our peacekeeping record and to look into ways of improving it. Some very valid proposals have been offered by previous speakers, and the Security Council may be advised to revisit some of those suggestions in the near future. Security Council resolution 1327 (2000), which embodies the follow-up to the recommendations of the Brahimi report (S/2000/809), the reports of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and the report of the Secretary-General to the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly under agenda item 85 (A/58/694) all provide us with a useful catalogue of priorities, as well as with food for thought. Support by Member States for the United Nations Standby Arrangements System also provides a very significant way of strengthening United Nations capacity for rapid deployment. While peacekeeping operations should not be used as a substitute for addressing the root causes of conflict, they should, in the meantime, address all challenges in a comprehensive way. If peace and development are indeed indivisible, as we keep reminding ourselves, the international community must improve its efforts to devote its resources to the economic recovery of the countries affected by or emerging from conflict in order to prevent conflict and promote international peace and security. We are therefore of the view that the inclusion, as appropriate, of peace-building elements in the mandates of peacekeeping operations, with a view to ensuring a smooth transition to a successful post-conflict period, is very important. Furthermore, quick impact projects, referred to in the Brahimi report in the context of peace-building, should also be used proactively for preventive purposes and should be linked to longer-term strategy. In that context, we welcome the growing cooperation between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, as experienced in the cases of Guinea-Bissau and, more recently, Burundi. In my delegation’s view, United Nations peacekeeping missions and their respective mandates must also incorporate programmes for populations with sensitive needs, such as refugees and internally displaced persons, and for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes, particularly for child soldiers. For instance, in Angola — and, we believe, in the majority of affected countries or countries emerging from conflict — mine action is providing employment opportunities in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes. A successful disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme has proved essential for the effective transition from civil war to sustained peace. While recognizing the primacy of the United Nations as the leading organization responsible for global peace and security, we should stress the importance of building regional and subregional capacities. Regional and subregional organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Southern African Development Community, for instance, have been proactive in developing regional organizational capacity, but often they suffer from lack of resources. We believe that the effectiveness of the forces deployed by ECOWAS in Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, the deployment of the Interim Emergency Multinational Force in Bunia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as the deployment of African missions in Burundi — although financial constraints impeded the deployment of the mission in full strength — testify that the focus of continued cooperation, including with the European Union, should be based on a long-term enhancement of the peacekeeping capacity of those regional and subregional organizations. Working more effectively in partnership with different actors, including troop-contributing countries, the Bretton Woods institutions, international donors and the international and local private sectors should be the foundation of United Nations peacekeeping operations, since that emerges as a key component of prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building. The African continent today has the largest number of United Nations-based peacekeeping operations. We therefore hope that, in a true spirit of international partnership for peace, all relevant actors will continue to work closely with the African Union regarding the establishment of an African standby force and a military staff committee, as called for in the Protocol relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union. The broad objectives of improving the planning process of peacekeeping operations continue to be effectively pursued by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We commend its ability to bring together the relevant United Nations departments and funds and programmes to advance coordinated and effective action, including the excellent work with regard to the follow-up of Security Council resolution 1308 (2000). Developing the capacity of peacekeepers to become promoters of and actors for awareness concerning the prevention of HIV/AIDS transmission in the context of peacekeeping operations is an important task, since the pandemic is a threat to the entire world. We therefore consider that every peacekeeping operation should have an HIV/AIDS focal point. Let me conclude by reiterating the continued commitment of my country, Angola, to United Nations peacekeeping operations. We pay tribute to the men and women who have admirably served and continue to serve in peacekeeping operations for their high level of professionalism, dedication and courage. A particular tribute is due to those who have given their lives for the maintenance of peace and security in the world.

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

We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. Minister, as President of the Security Council. We also welcome the participation of the Secretary- General in our meeting. Today the Council, on the initiative of Pakistan, is considering a very timely and multifaceted topic. Your country, Mr. Minister, is a major troop contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations. At the start of this month, 7,680 Pakistani peacekeepers were contributing to conflict settlement in eight peacekeeping missions. That clearly shows the important role played by Pakistan in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Our experience thus far clearly shows that peacekeeping operations, including those in their current, multidimensional form, are the most flexible and effective instrument for resolving the broadest range of tasks in the area of international peace and security. We can easily see the positive changes that are occurring in strengthening the ability of Member States, of the Secretariat and of the entire United Nations system to plan and carry out peacekeeping operations. We take special note of the effective activities of the General Assembly’s Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations with regard to the comprehensive study of tools to further improve United Nations peacekeeping potential. The report adopted at the Special Committee’s recent session is a good basis for efforts to build up United Nations potential in this sphere. It is important that this work be carried out in accordance with the United Nations Charter, with respect for generally recognized norms and principles of international law and with a rational division of labour between regional, subregional and coalition structures. This is especially timely as the demand for Blue Helmets throughout the world is growing. For Russia, the basic principles and criteria of United Nations peacekeeping operations remain inviolable and include the following: the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security, the need for constructive cooperation by parties to a conflict with the international missions of the United Nations, and United Nations interaction with regional structures pursuant to Chapter VIII of the Charter. Speaking at the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, the President of the Russian Federation, Mr. Putin, emphasized that our country is prepared to intensify its participation, both in peacekeeping operations under the aegis of the United Nations and in coalition operations that are approved by the Security Council. We advocate constructive cooperation aimed at improving the machinery for peacekeeping and post-conflict settlement. Within this framework, we would ensure the effective coordination of the peacekeeping component with the work of the social, economic and humanitarian structures of the United Nations system. There can be no doubt that one of the most serious problems facing United Nations peacekeeping today is that of ensuring the safety and security of peacekeepers in hotspots. The past year has given us many obvious examples of this: the terrorist act against the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad; the killing of two military observers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the attacks on the international presence in Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro; and the recent outbreak of rioting against ethnic minorities in that province. And this is hardly a complete list. In this connection, we support the need to enhance the relevant potential of both the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and, first and foremost, its field missions. We also emphasize that the receiving country’s responsibility for the security of contingents and United Nations staff in the area of conflict is not at all diminished in this regard. The complex nature of the problems encountered in current conflicts — most often with dangerous regional dimensions and social and economic consequences — requires constant attention to the task of improving the comprehensive planning and deployment of multidimensional peacekeeping operations. We must also strengthen coordination among the various components of missions and their interaction with other international presences, within the area under their responsibility. Of special significance, as the Secretary-General has stated, is the further improvement of a partnership of a new type between the United Nations, regional organizations and coalition peacekeepers. The use of multinational forces, approved by the Security Council, is especially effective in the initial stage of reacting to crisis situations and may allow the necessary time for the preparation and deployment of United Nations operations. Every crisis situation is unique and requires an appropriate set of instruments for a settlement, whether United Nations peacekeeping operations, coalition operations or missions of regional organizations. Indeed, this must take place in strict compliance with the United Nations Charter, which clearly sets out the key role of the Security Council at all stages, from the establishment, preparation and creation of a mandate until its conclusion. In this connection, it is fundamentally important to not allow any circumvention of the Security Council’s powers, especially in situations in which the issue arises of the use of force on behalf of the international community. In this regard, military action is, no doubt, an extreme recourse, and the nature of that action should be agreed upon and should be rational and sufficient. The experience of peacekeeping in Africa, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, clearly demonstrates the intricate linkage of the task of establishing peace with the full social and economic restoration of those countries that have suffered from conflict. In this connection, we support the importance of continuing an in-depth consideration of a rational division of labour between the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and specialized agencies and programmes during the transition from peacekeeping to peace-building. In this regard, it is important to not allow any watering-down of the prerogatives of those respective bodies or any overburdening of peacekeeping operations with tasks that are not incumbent upon them. We advocate the further improvement of the effective machinery for interaction between members of the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and the United Nations Secretariat. We fully agree with the view as to the need for the most effective implementation of the practice of Security Council operative consultations, pursuant to resolution 1353 (2001). This should take place within the framework of the special machinery of the Council’s relevant working group on the basis of the note by the President of the Security Council of 14 January 2002 (S/2002/56). In our view, one of the more effective ways to improve military expertise within the Organization could be to activate the work of the Security Council’s Military Staff Committee. However, this would not take place within the traditional understanding of the role of that body, but in an essentially expanded format. Our proposal is designed not to enhance the role of the permanent members of the Security Council, but rather, in accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 47 of the Charter, to finally fill out the activities of the Military Staff Committee with practical content, as a body not for five members, but for the entire Security Council. All members of the Council and other interested countries, including troopcontributing countries, would be included in it. The Russian initiative is designed to integrate into these measures others that are now being discussed as we enhance the professionalization and democratization of United Nations peacekeeping operations and strengthen interaction among the Security Council, troop contributors and the Secretariat. Russia, bearing fully in mind its responsibility within the peacekeeping efforts of the international community and as an active participant in United Nations peacekeeping activities, will in future continue, in close cooperation with all other interested States, to make a practical contribution to enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of this important international institution.

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

I wish to welcome your presence, Sir, as you preside over this highly relevant and timely meeting suggested by the delegation of Pakistan. We are certainly grateful to the Pakistani presidency for that suggestion and for the valuable accompanying non-paper on this issue. I also wish to join in your words of farewell to Ambassador Inocencio Arias, a highly competent, effective and well-liked colleague. Ever since their inception in the late 1940s, United Nations peacekeeping operations have been a symbol of the challenges facing the Organization and of its resolve to overcome them. That now-crucial instrument was far from the minds of the men and women gathered in San Francisco to adopt the Charter. In fact, peacekeeping operations are the result of evolving experiments conducted by trial and error throughout a series of crises. Fortunately, accomplishments have outnumbered shortcomings and even occasional failures. From the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to the United Nations Multi-Dimensional Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), the process has involved long and sometimes painstaking attempts to multiply scarce resources and to meet pressing demands. Since our presence in the United Nations Emergency Force, Brazil has participated in peacekeeping with more than 12,500 soldiers. Almost 50 years of experience in the field has provided us with the means to assess operations and with the ability to suggest a few guidelines for the future. The fact is that, since 1989, the changed nature of conflicts has led the Security Council to deal with many internal confrontations and civil wars constituting threats to international peace and security or derived from earlier historical experiences. In those cases, the process of healing has proved to be even more difficult, as learned from the Missions in Angola and Mozambique, in which Brazil took part. The United Nations system gradually became aware of the need to address complex situations in a comprehensive manner. Not without difficulty, a whole new approach was developed for peacekeeping operations in order to tackle the root causes of conflicts. Social, economic, historical, ethnic, cultural and religious factors became part of the stakes in United Nations peacekeeping, and all of those factors needed to be addressed at the same time by peacekeepers. Missions had to work in environments that no longer ensured the safety of their personnel. The idea of robust peacekeeping, as a means of dissuading involved parties from engaging in conflict, sprang to life and became quite important. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), a whole new department of the United Nations, was created. New political and institutional challenges had to be overcome in a step-by-step process. The Security Council and the General Assembly were faced with the need to establish new and expensive missions and to deploy them at short notice. Member States were called upon to contribute to missions on an unprecedented scale, and they were up to the task. These first efforts in a changing environment culminated in the adoption of the 2000 Brahimi report, whose comprehensive assessment of the question led to recommendations that are still being implemented. Now we face yet another phase in this process. A new surge in peacekeeping operations has taken place since last year. The United Nations Mission in Liberia, the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire, MINUSTAH and the possible missions in Burundi and Sudan are part of our political reality and inspire both hope for the end of those conflicts and concern about emerging difficulties and the ability of the United Nations and of Member States to overcome them. I would like to emphasize four structural issues that seem crucial at this point. The Organization is at the brink of overstretching personnel for operations. The number of people in the field will have almost doubled by the end of this year compared with 2003. Some traditional contributors have reached the limit of their possibilities, yet the risk of leaving missions unmanned must be avoided. In that respect, a number of lines of action should be pursued. First, possible contributors should be identified, and the Secretariat should act decisively to assist them in overcoming the shortcomings that limit their contributions. Reforming legislation and enhancing public awareness about peacekeeping are two principal areas in that regard. Brazil is currently working on a new law to allow for a prompt and larger contribution, which we feel would be welcomed. We are eager to overcome our current financial and political constraints with the help of the Organization and of other Member States. Secondly, the Organization and its Member States should continue to enhance regional peacekeeping capacities, paying particular attention to the need for legitimate mandates and for proper operational standards for peacekeeping missions. The criteria for using Chapter VII to define mandates are a related issue. Brazil has traditionally advocated the position that allowances for the use of force should be limited to what is strictly necessary. Yet we believe that in recent years, the Council has tended to invoke Chapter VII far too often. Although that option may be derived from the intention to ensure that missions have the means to discharge their mandates and to protect themselves from violence, it should not infringe upon the higher need to preserve the spirit of the Charter. A possible solution could be provided through the creative use of both Chapters VI and VII to define mandates in an explicit form. But no solution will be comprehensive unless we succeed in reaching an equilibrium between mandates and the needs of robust operations working in an unfriendly environment. The swelling of bureaucratic structures is a third danger now faced by peacekeeping operations. DPKO needs to be strengthened — that fact is acknowledged by everyone, since areas such as the police apparatus and the prevalence of the rule of law are very new and increasingly important. But any growth that is conducive to ineffectiveness or inefficiency should be avoided. Public information is another case in point. Different approaches on the part of DPKO and the Department of Public Information (DPI) are frequent, and the possibility of duplication of work is a matter of constant concern. Strengthening coordination mechanisms and defining clearer mandates for United Nations departments are necessary strategies to overcome those obstacles. The fourth — and probably most thorny — issue is that of exit strategies. In all deployed missions, we are concerned about how to withdraw at the appropriate moment without compromising the time and money spent on the ground. Some have suggested that chronological components are necessary from the beginning. I do not necessarily share this line of thought. When the United Nations enters a war-torn country, the Council can hardly foresee a rigid timetable for departure. In some past situations, haste has proved damaging, as it induces restlessness and dissatisfaction. A better alternative could be the establishment of clear, substantive benchmarks from the beginning of a mission. These could be reviewed periodically, as needed. Above all, however, from the start peacekeeping missions should seek to share ownership with the peoples and Governments of the countries. Timor-Leste is an example. The remarkable success of the United Nations and its newest Member will be consolidated by the existence of the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor for only one additional year. It is important that the limitations of peace operations be understood and that other resources be available to complement them. In this sense, the role of the Economic and Social Council is crucial, as it promotes efforts and measures towards development. The ad hoc groups for Guinea-Bissau and Burundi are excellent instances of the Economic and Social Council’s contribution to peace-building in an integrated effort with this Council. Regardless of criticisms concerning the ability of this Organization to react to crisis situations, peacekeeping operations work. They save lives, they discourage conflicts and they help to rebuild peace. They are not solutions in themselves, but they have proven to be a powerful instrument in the work towards peace. They must always be coupled with the development efforts necessary to ensure long-term sustainability. Successful peacekeeping operations have shown the multilateral efforts of the United Nations at their best — an earnest collective effort, overcoming barriers of all sorts, to promote national reconciliation and to achieve the ultimate goal of peace and stability.

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

My delegation is pleased to welcome you, Sir, in chairing this special event under the Pakistani presidency on a subject of mutual importance to our two countries as troop contributors to United Nations peacekeeping missions. The concept paper prepared by your team for today’s debate has provided the Council with a valuable appreciation of the multidimensional scope of peacekeeping. Your presidency’s initiative in this regard comes highly commended. If we assess the outcomes of peacekeeping, the report card yields mixed results. High scores will be accorded to beneficiary countries currently experiencing stable peace and security or, at least, sustained cessation of hostilities; average scores to those that have gone through a roller-coaster experience, but have inched towards stability from a traumatic past; and low scores to those that have undergone protracted crisis or experienced a standstill for lack of political progress in their peace and security situations. These differences are attributable mainly to the complexity of the situations in different conflictstricken countries and to the difficulty of contriving appropriate peacekeeping policy measures, owing to resource constraints, on the one hand, and to the political dynamics attendant on evolving peacekeeping mandates, on the other. The Brahimi Panel report issued four years ago contained recommendations deserving not only serious but continuing consideration by the organs of the United Nations, the Security Council and the General Assembly in particular. Although a number of the Panel’s recommendations have resulted in new policies have strengthened the United Nations peacekeeping capability, the review process on the implementation of these policies should be given equal importance for many reasons, such as the upsurge in demand for peacekeeping operations and the accompanying need for rapid deployment. My delegation commends Pakistan for subjecting peacekeeping to a review by the Council. More than three years have elapsed since the Council adopted resolution 1327 (2000) on 13 November 2000 in response to the Brahimi Panel report. Considering the upsurge in the need for peacekeeping operations, the Council should consider reviewing resolution 1327 (2000) more often. My delegation endorses the presidential statement on peacekeeping operations which will be issued shortly. As reform is a continuing process, I would like to invite the attention of this Council to a few points my delegation considers important if peacekeeping is to be wielded as a veritable instrument to achieve the basic purposes of the United Nations. Two of them are doctrinal and the others policy-oriented. My first point calls for a doctrinal shift from the traditional dichotomy between peacekeeping and peace-building to a continuum as an integral process leading to a common end. It is similar to the continuums between security and development and between a secure political environment and sustainable development. Many argue that peacekeeping is the responsibility of the Security Council, while peacebuilding belongs to the General Assembly. That is a divisive argument and loses sight of the fact that these two organs are guided by common goals and functionally complement each other in pursuit of these goals. Peacekeeping and peace-building should therefore be planned in tandem with each other, a process also requiring closer coordination between the Security Council, the General Assembly and even the Economic and Social Council. The doctrine of equality among nations should not only be recognized, but also observed, particularly in peacekeeping. All countries potentially or currently under Security Council mandate should receive equal treatment. Influential global players should engage themselves in risky peacekeeping operations, even when the conflict-stricken countries do not fall within their spheres of vital interests. Success stories in peacekeeping are generally associated with the level of involvement of these important global players, whether military or logistical; the scope or scale of United Nations mobilization; the pace of deployment; and even the content or depth of Council mandates. We have to demystify any North-South divide by discarding selectivity and upholding the doctrine of equal treatment of States, notwithstanding their geographic location and strategic importance. At the end of the day, United Nations performance is gauged in terms of human lives protected from conflicts, notwithstanding the locus of such conflicts. Exit strategies for peacekeepers should stand out in policy formulation. However, we have to caution ourselves against precipitate withdrawal. The Council should guard against resorting to the termination of peacekeeping operations as an option due to resource constraints to allow the redeployment of troops or the rechannelling of resources for emerging crises. We have to learn lessons from the past to avoid the same pitfalls of having to cope with a relapse of conflict arising from precipitate withdrawal. Exit strategies should be linked to peace-building measures in order to ensure long-term peace and stability. Peacekeepers and peace-builders are therefore inextricably linked to each other. The lack of strong mandates and robust rules of engagement in hostile environments hampers the success of peacekeeping operations. Moreover, robust operations and clear mandates should not be limited to proactive measures to prevent killings and other destructive and violent actions against civilians, but should also give due regard to the need for the unhampered implementation of peace-building strategy in order to help enhance and ensure the success of a mission. Another policy area to be decisively addressed deals with rapid deployment. Despite all the merits of a United Nations rapid deployment capability, such as deterring the further escalation of conflicts, the final arbiter in decision-making is the availability of United Nations resources. To forestall this problem, many countries are willing to provide troops, self-sustaining for a limited period, for rapid deployment, but could be discouraged from doing so because of delays in reimbursements. In this connection, there is an urgent need to further strengthen Headquarters capability by infusing it with adequate and highly qualified personnel who should help provide solutions to troopcontributing countries’ problems. Allow me to stress one final point. There are a number of areas where progress can be made in ensuring the safety and the protection of United Nations personnel. They are key players, coordinating United Nations-wide programmes in the field such as serving as the conductor in orchestrating the delivery of direly needed assistance and services not only in the humanitarian, social and economic fields, but also in the rebuilding of political institutions and processes. In short, their crucial role can also be likened to a doctor who has to be protected to be able to continue attending to patients. Peacekeeping should therefore integrate the security of United Nations personnel into their rules of engagement and the overall discharge of peacekeeping mandates. In conclusion, in crafting mandates, the Council should consider looking beyond the cessation of hostilities to sustainable peace, which can be ensured if peacekeeping is complemented by peace-building and if a peace-building strategy allows for the maximum participation of concerned stakeholders — whether governmental or non-governmental, secular or sectarian — acting in synergy and in close coordination, overseen by impartial international civil servants - the men and women of the United Nations.

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

I thank the delegation of Pakistan for their very timely convening of this meeting, and I thank you, Sir, for coming to preside over the meeting. My delegation associates itself with the intervention to be made by the representative of Ireland on behalf of the European Union. We find ourselves before an extraordinary opportunity to deal with this issue. The challenge to the United Nations is enormous, and in order to confront it most assuredly, it is important to take a number of factors into account. First, despite the fact that since the publication of the Brahimi report considerable progress has been made in strengthening the operational capacity of the United Nations, there remain some areas in which efforts should continue to be made. The nature of conflicts requires multidisciplinary mandates and increasingly complex missions. That requires the integrated planning of missions. In addition, the United Nations capacity for rapid deployment needs to be reinforced in terms of financing, materiel and personnel. We should emphasize the importance of continuing to improve the training of mission personnel. In that context, it is advisable to continue to promote the establishment of benchmarks and criteria to achieve homogenized and interrelated training. Secondly, we believe that cooperation with regional organizations can and should play an increasingly essential role in the reinforcement of the operational capacity of the United Nations. The recent experience of Operation Artemis is a good example of that approach. Thirdly, we must keep in view the evolution of the concept of peacekeeping operations, which is reflected in their multidimensional nature. For that reason, there should be a more systematic inclusion of peace-building components such as activities to strengthen the rule of law, security sector reform, financial assistance and the strengthening of respect for human rights. Fourthly, we believe that the Security Council should strive to adopt clear and realistic mandates. To do that, in addition to taking up the recommendations proposed by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, it is important to strengthen the relationship between the Council and those who ultimately carry out the authorized mandates. Fifthly, we believe that the emergence of new missions in bordering countries has opened up infinite possibilities for coordination among those missions, which are undoubtedly worth exploring. We encourage efforts in that respect. Finally, it is necessary to prepare an exit strategy in order to avoid the interminable continuation of missions. Resources are limited, and missions should have the goal of achieving a given mandate. The mission’s size, mandate and structure should be regularly modified based on the progress achieved.

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

At the outset, we welcome Pakistan’s timely convening of this meeting on United Nations peacekeeping operations. We are honoured by the presence of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan, with whom we had the opportunity to meet with in Islamabad a few months ago when representing the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). We join in the words of farewell to our dear colleague Chencho Arias of Spain. The issue of peacekeeping constitutes one of the most crucial responsibilities in the multilateral arena. It is no accident that this issue appears in the Preamble of the United Nations Charter and in its Article 1. Since 1948, there have been a total of 57 peacekeeping operations, and we know that now there are 14 active missions, with possibly four more missions to join them. The successive changes undergone in the world situation in the last decade have led to the formulation of new doctrines and principles such as preventive diplomacy and humanitarian intervention, which improve and strengthen collective international action in this area. A change in the nature of conflict can be seen, shifting from inter-State conflicts to intra-State conflicts with repercussions beyond the State’s borders. For that reason, the demands on and functions of current peacekeeping operations are greater, in accordance with their increasing complexity, which obliges them to be multidimensional in nature. Those operations should be viewed as integrating elements and as part of a process that includes prevention efforts, promotion of political dialogue, humanitarian assistance, the promotion of human rights, institutional capacity-building and support for social development, among other elements. In that context, the United Nations continues to be the principal international institution responsible for contributing to the settlement of conflicts. Lasting peace requires contingents of United Nations troops endowed with the necessary capacity. We therefore consider the search for initiatives to improve efficiency and speed of deployment to be a priority concern. The concept of State security has changed, coming to include non-military aspects of security. Human security, focusing on the individual as the subject of security, has gained great importance in the work of peacekeeping operations. Chile has participated in many missions, deploying military observers in various parts of the world. In the last decade, thanks to the modification of our national legislation, we have broadened our participation and are now able to participate in missions under Chapters VI and VII of the Charter, providing military and police personnel and medical evacuation, as was recently done in the area of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Either through direct participation or through integration of our troops with forces of other nationalities, we now have personnel in such countries as Cyprus and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, under resolution 1529 (2004), my country has deployed a battalion to Haiti to participate in the Multinational Interim Force in order to help stabilize that country and avert a bloodbath. And certainly, Chile will contribute to the follow-on United Nations peace-stabilization operation in Haiti, dispatching an even larger military contingent. Chile is also contributing as Chair of the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, where it is working to improve policies relating to these matters. It is more important than ever to enhance an element I mentioned earlier in my statement: the multidisciplinary nature of peacekeeping operations. The real challenge for such operations today is not merely to separate the conflicting groups but to help create the conditions necessary for eliminating the causes of conflict. To that end, it is crucial to abide by international humanitarian law and the principles of human rights. But we must also remember that it is impossible to build a stable and lasting peace without first establishing the rule of law. Here, we consider it indispensable to support the restoration of the judicial, police and penal systems and to ensure respect for human rights. Help with institution-building is also indispensable in nations devastated by long years of conflict and war. It is indispensable to insert reemerging societies back into the “virtuous cycle” of economic and social growth. In our view, that can best be achieved with the close cooperation of international and local civil society. It is also very important to implement policies of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. Close coordination is needed in the sequential implementation of those three processes: disarmament, demobilization and the effective reintegration of combatants, in many cases by making sure that they can participate in the labour market. As said earlier this morning, post-conflict reconstruction in the framework of a peacekeeping operation joins the Security Council’s own responsibilities with those of the Economic and Social Council, the United Nations Development Programme and the international financial institutions, which can make a decisive contribution to the attainment of stability. None the less, we still need an appropriate operational formula that will enable those bodies and institutions to work together and coordinate their activities both in conflict prevention and in postconflict reconstruction. In our view, the role of women in the maintenance of peace is also important. There has been progress since the Council’s adoption of its resolution 1325 (2000), on women, peace and security. But numerous reports indicate that much remains to be done to integrate women into peacekeeping operations and, even more important, to fight criminal violence against women in conflict zones. Here, my delegation attaches the greatest importance to exemplary behaviour on the part of participants in peace missions. We therefore encourage the formulation of a standardized code of conduct applicable to all peace missions and to all personnel working in peacekeeping operations. My country believes that conflict prevention must be paramount. We consider that priority must be given to implementing measures that would strengthen that element rather than controlling the damage caused once a conflict has begun. We must consider the creation of an early warning mechanism that will enable the international community to take preventive measures to contain a conflict at its earliest stages and then, along with the parties concerned, to find lasting solutions. Finally, we see post-conflict reconciliation as essential once war has ceased. This is something to which due attention and work should be devoted, with a view to preventing bloodshed and suffering from recurring after a time. That, indeed, has occurred several times, obliging us once again to dispatch a peacekeeping operation and to expend effort and resources because we had not paid the proper attention to the dimensions of dialogue and reconciliation among the parties to the conflict. We owe it to the thousands of innocent victims to improve our system of peacekeeping operations. Ultimately, that is how we will save more lives.

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

I wish at the outset to welcome you, Sir, and to thank you for your presence today to preside over this important Security Council debate. Let me also thank Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his statement. My thanks go too to the Permanent Representative of Spain, Ambassador Inocencio Arias; we are sorry that he is leaving us. During his tenure, he made an enormous contribution to the work of combating terrorism. His wisdom and his sense of humour have left a deep impression upon us all. United Nations peacekeeping operations are among the essential tools available to the Security Council to carry out its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Today, United Nations peacekeepers are actively carrying out their respective mandates on virtually every continent. To people in conflict zones, Blue Helmets are the embodiment of stability and a symbol of hope. Great importance is attached to their presence, and all sides welcome them. Peacekeeping operations are not only a salient feature of the United Nations; they are also a priority issue in the work of the Security Council. By further strengthening peacekeeping operations we can help enhance the authority of the Council and the effectiveness of the collective security machinery, augment the role and impact of the United Nations and promote multilateralism. Thus, today’s open debate on the question of peacekeeping operations is especially important. There has been notable progress as a result of reforms that the United Nations has carried out in recent years with respect to peacekeeping operations, in accordance with the recommendations of the report (S/2000/809) of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi. At present, peacekeeping operations are characterized by two prominent features: complex mandates rather than the traditional mono-dimensional mandate; and a surge in the demand for peacekeeping. New developments place higher demands on the Secretariat and pose greater challenges for Member States. The smooth and orderly execution of a peacekeeping operation requires the careful practical planning of all elements of the operation and a clear-cut strategy. On the other hand, bearing in mind the need for maintaining long-term global and regional stability, all nations should provide peacekeeping operations with timely and adequate political support, financial and human resources and equipment to create the conditions necessary for peacekeeping operations to be able to fulfil their mandates. Experience demonstrates that a successful peacekeeping operation enjoying broad support can be carried out only by strictly complying with the purposes of the Charter and the recognized principles of peacekeeping operations. At the same time, guided by a spirit to adapt to the times, it is also necessary to actively explore ways and means to further improve the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. We favour bringing fully into play the role of the Security Council Working Group on peacekeeping operations and enhancing communication and coordination among the Security Council, the Secretariat and Member States. It is equally important to further strengthen cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations and to encourage the latter to make a greater contribution to peacekeeping activities. The international community should also continue to assist them, particularly the African regional and subregional organizations, to strengthen their peacekeeping capacities. It must be pointed out that peacekeeping operations should by no means be relied on as the only means for conflict resolution. Greater attention should be given to addressing the root causes of conflicts, particularly issues such as economic development and capacityand institution-building. Relevant United Nations departments, bodies and agencies, international financial institutions and relevant regional organizations should give full play to their initiatives and respective advantages and adopt all those strategies. Only through those efforts will the countries concerned be able to put an end to conflicts once and for all and achieve lasting peace and stability. China is a staunch supporter of and participant in United Nations peacekeeping operations. China has dispatched engineering, transport and medical contingents respectively to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Liberia and a 100- to 125-member civilian police contingent to Haiti to support the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti. That represents some concrete action by China in support of the noble cause of international peacekeeping. Along with other countries, we will make our own contribution to strengthening the role of the United Nations and to maintaining world peace. Finally, I also wish to take this opportunity to pay a high tribute to those who have lost their lives in serving United Nations peacekeeping operations and to extend my best regards to all serving United Nations peacekeeping operations.

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

I would like to express to you, Mr. President, my delegation’s pleasure at seeing you presiding over our work and to thank you for organizing this open debate. I would also like to welcome the Secretary-General’s outstanding contribution to our discussion of this item, which relates to an area where he has made his own mark. For more than 10 years peacekeeping operations have been at the centre of fruitful consideration. The Brahimi report (S/2000/809) at one time brought together the results of this thinking. Today we must take stock of the progress achieved in the implementation of the recommendations contained in that report. But beyond taking stock, we must recognize that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has made a remarkable effort to go above and beyond the new challenges identified since then. It is a fact that the steps taken since the release of the Brahimi report have largely contributed to streamlining practices for the planning, deployment, conduct and drawdown of peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping operations are increasingly perceived as part and parcel of a broad programme of normalization, reconstruction and post-conflict reconciliation, and they include the long-term development concerns of the countries concerned. We have also unanimously agreed that peacekeeping operations should not be concluded before they have helped provide the countries concerned with solid, democratic institutions and an environment that is favourable to sustainable development. Dialogue between the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries has become a common practice, and it is essential to the improvement, the preparation and follow-up of missions. We also agree on the importance attached to training and logistics support, which enables greater effectiveness of field contingents. The success of all peacekeeping operations necessarily depends not just on the quality and professionalism of troops, but also on available resources. In general, the complex nature of situations that peacekeeping operations are called on to meet requires improved coordination between the activities of the military and civilian police, as well as civilian training, including the feasibility of establishing a single multidimensional training programme. Regarding challenges to be met, I would also mention the request that has increased following the growing number of peacekeeping operations and the increase in non-traditional aspects of peacekeeping. The United Nations will need to make considerable efforts to bring together the energy and resources of the international community in order to fully assume its responsibility in consolidating a fragile peace process. Among the financial considerations, we would like to draw attention to difficulties that some missions are facing. We believe it is important to clearly define financing machinery that will allow for the necessary resources for missions to carry out their mandates. There are also increased risks, to which the complexity of the international situation exposes the staff of peacekeeping operations, whose inviolability is being increasingly threatened by repeated targeted attacks. Today’s open debate gives us the opportunity to condemn those attacks with the utmost vigour. This situation requires that the Organization be better able to proceed to a correct evaluation of the threats and the risks linked to the conduct of those operations. In that regard, we must strengthen the capacity and the means for action of the United Nations security coordination unit so that it can inform troop-contributing countries of the types of situations to which peacekeeping staff are exposed. We note with satisfaction the efforts to enhance African peacekeeping capacity, and we look forward with interest to the results of the assessments now under way. We welcome the decision taken by the African Union summit in Maputo last year to establish a standing African force, as well as a military staff committee, within the context of developing peacekeeping capacities in the African continent. This initiative, fortunately, has benefited from the support of the Group of Eight (G-8), which adopted at its summit in Evian in June 2003 a joint African-G-8 plan to strengthen African capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations over a 10-year period. This joint plan will ultimately allow for greater synergy between the United Nations and subregional organizations. Once again, we underline the importance of cooperation with regional and subregional organizations and the usefulness of strengthening their capacity for action in the area of peacekeeping, as has been proven so well by the outstanding experience of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). From another standpoint, we welcome the Secretariat’s receptiveness to new ideas, such as adopting a regional approach to the settlement of conflicts, something that has shown itself to be particularly relevant in West Africa. This approach has considerably influenced the mandates and new practices developing within the framework of the three peacekeeping operations under way in that subregion. Peacekeeping operations could be further improved in the following areas: increasing the coordination of United Nations missions at the subregional level; making joint border patrols in conflict areas more systematic and widespread; strengthening disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and resettlement or repatriation (DDRRR) programmes in their repatriation and reintegration of former combatants into civilian life in their countries of origin, in order to address the real risks which they represent — in this regard, the employment of young people is a priority; the deployment, as soon as possible, and the mobilization of adequate financial resources; the development of a regional training programme for peacekeeping operations; providing contingents with equipment that is up to par; and the adoption of a flexible exit strategy, to the extent that a conflict, due to its inherent instability and the instability it generates, might not allow us to rigorously determine and foresee developments in the situation on the ground. Finally, I would like to pay a well-deserved tribute to all of those men and women who, within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and in the various missions, have tirelessly devoted their energy and intelligence to the service of peace.

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

I would like to thank Ambassador Arias, as did other delegations, for his cooperation and his friendship in the past. My delegation would also join others in wishing him well for the future. I would like to associate myself with the statement to be made later in this debate by Ambassador Ryan of Ireland, representing the presidency of the European Union. I would like to thank the Pakistani presidency of the Council for having convened this very timely debate on a key topic. We would like to welcome you, Mr. Foreign Minister, in the chair, since your presence here testifies to the importance that you attach to this subject, especially as Pakistan is one of the main troopcontributors in peacekeeping operations. Since last August’s public debate on peacekeeping, a whole series of new peacekeeping operations have been or are in the process of being decided upon. The number of new peacekeeping operations is growing faster than the number of missions accomplished. Soon, we will have reached an all-time peak number of peacekeeping personnel. The ongoing debate on peacekeeping and related policies has made it clear that Member States see a need to respond to this surge in peacekeeping operations. However, as the last session of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has shown, we need to discuss the conclusions that should be drawn from this and whether and how peacekeeping policies need to be reshaped. Obviously, resources are the key issue. The Secretariat is in an increasingly difficult situation, having to staff new missions on short notice and depending entirely on the willingness of Member States to help out. Rapid response capacities are exhausted, the arsenals in Brindisi empty. Many Member States, Germany among them, already have sizeable numbers of troops in the field. Some countries — and again, Germany is among them — are in a process of restructuring their forces, reducing their sizes due to tighter budgetary restraints. Clearly we must recognize that our resources are limited. Mentioning this is not an attempt to dodge solidarity with those in need: solidarity must remain our guiding principle. Solidarity is a necessity if we want to preserve the institution of peacekeeping altogether. But every mission must be subject, on a regular basis, to scrutiny with regard to the cost-benefit ratio. Along with this goes the difficult question of how long and at what size a peacekeeping operation must stay in order to prevent a resurgence of violence and armed conflict. There are no easy answers to this. But we must develop policies in that regard and be more flexible than in the past, in order to match the demand for peacekeeping operations with available capacities and resources. One solution may be a gradual transfer of peacekeeping responsibilities to regional organizations. Increasingly, it is accepted that a division of labour may improve resource allocation. In the initial phase of a peacekeeping mission, especially when a rapid response is called for, the strength of an approach in which operations are led by one or a few nations has been proven. Also, the inclusion of regional organizations in peacekeeping operations has proven to be an asset. By involving organizations located in a region in which a peacekeeping operation is under way, a feeling of ownership is created. This, in turn, serves as an important motivating factor. Therefore, helping to build regional capacities and transferring know-how through training programmes are important contributions that Member States can make to strengthen regional capacities. Germany tries to make its own contribution through its Centre for International Peace Operations, located in Berlin. The ever-increasing complexity of peacekeeping operations results from the experience showing that military operations alone cannot provide sustainable peace. A whole range of humanitarian and peacebuilding elements has been included in the more recent mandates. The list of such activities seems to grow with each new mandate. Certain peace-building elements are indispensable, from the outset of a mission, to guarantee its success. Basic preconditions of civilian life need to be restored, and combatants need to be taken off the streets through effective measures of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR). The funding for such elements needs to be secured for the sake of the whole mission’s success, regardless of whether they fall under assessed or voluntary budgets. Midto long-term peacebuilding, however, will have to remain under voluntary funding. By holding an open debate on the role of the private sector in peace-building, the Council has heard proposals on new strata in peace-building. New models for the structure, organization and conduct of peacekeeping operations deserve our consideration. The concept of Provincial Reconstruction Teams, now being tested in Afghanistan, could open up new avenues for how to make the best use of limited resources. One area in which we cannot make compromises is the security of mission personnel. The horrible events of August last year made it clear once more that peacekeepers live a dangerous existence. Clearly, all means of gathering and analysing the necessary information in the field, within the chain of command and at United Nations Headquarters here in New York, that help to correct assessments about the security situation in the areas of operation must be provided. Also, means of safe transport, especially air transport, must be furnished. Health care for peacekeepers must always meet the necessary standards. We need to be more inclusive in making our decisions on peacekeeping. The motivation of Member States to participate in peacekeeping operations should not be taken for granted. Member States need to be motivated to contribute and, if necessary, to make sacrifices. Member States may have different ways of participating in a peacekeeping operation. The engagement of troop contributors has traditionally been honoured by their inclusion in the planning of a mission. However, Member States contributing to peacekeeping through means other than troop contributions should likewise participate in the planning and debate preceding a mission. Procedural regulations such as those contained in resolution 1353 (2001) and in the note of January 2002 provide for that possibility, but it is not yet sufficiently established in the practice of the United Nations. At the beginning of this year, the Security Council received a letter — signed by a number of countries from around the world, all of them associated with peacekeeping — requesting greater participation. In our view, it is in the best interest of peacekeeping to heed that call and to give all major stakeholders a forum to express their views. The Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations could and should provide such a forum. Let me conclude by expressing the notion that preventing armed conflict is better than quelling it. How many human lives could have been saved had the international community reacted in time to clear signs of imminent unrest and violence? Conflict prevention is a difficult task. Germany therefore welcomes the Secretary-General’s step of appointing a special representative on genocide. A next logical step could and should be to institutionalize an office dealing with early warning and conflict prevention. Improving our activities on prevention is not only a way to save lives, but also an important tool to keep peacekeeping manageable in the future.

I thank the representative of Germany for the kind words he expressed to me and to my delegation.

The United States would like to join others in congratulating Ambassador Arias on his work, and we wish him well in the future. My delegation would also like to pay tribute to the United Nations staff who contribute so courageously to peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts and to the contributors of troops and police to peacekeeping operations. All play a vital role in helping the United Nations to carry out its mandate of maintaining international peace and security. The tireless work of United Nations humanitarian and bilateral assistance agencies, nongovernmental organizations and regional actors merits recognition, and the work of journalists in shining the spotlight on the forgotten conflicts that destroy so many lives should be applauded as well. We salute Pakistan for holding this discussion and for its role as the leading contributor of troops to the United Nations, and we welcome your participation, Mr. Minister, which highlights the degree of importance that you attach to these issues. The United States views the peacekeeping operations and activities of the United Nations as most significant in furthering the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. The United States is pleased to be the largest financial contributor to peacekeeping operations worldwide. This year, exigent circumstances have led to the creation of new peacekeeping missions in Côte d’Ivoire and Haiti; another, for Burundi, is under active consideration in the Security Council. All build on efforts by regional organizations to support the restoration of peace and stability. Those new missions will tax existing capabilities and budgets. Today, other delegations have described some of the capacity challenges that will affect the United Nations and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and how those challenges can be addressed. We support exploration of innovative solutions to address some of those complex issues. We are also looking at ways to address these needs. Last Friday, Secretary of State Powell announced that the Group of Eight (G-8) Foreign Ministers had agreed to advance an initiative at the Sea Island Summit to increase the world’s capacity to deal with post-conflict situations, especially in Africa. The Council will be hearing more about these initiatives in the coming months. They will focus on training peacekeepers — particularly in Africa — in addition to the development of a gendarmerie training centre and a logistics support arrangement. The member States of the Security Council carefully consider each new mission, drawing on important assessments provided by DPKO regarding its mandate and composition. We appreciate DPKO’s input most when it presents the Council with a range of possible choices at decision points such as the establishment of missions and the renewal of mandates. Planning for and managing a multinational military mission are tasks of great complexity. We commend DPKO for getting the United Nations in Liberia (UNMIL), the world’s largest United Nations peacekeeping operation, up and running in just six months. In that regard — and with regard to other missions, such as that in Côte d’Ivoire — we would like in particular to focus on and salute the work of regional organizations such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which provide valuable augmentation for our peacekeeping forces. The United Nations is expected to have a wide array of services available in its toolbox for international crises. Often, the United Nations is called in to monitor a ceasefire between two States or between groups within a State. That is traditional peacekeeping. Now, of course, as we have discussed today, there are new multidimensional missions that respond to threats presented by failed States and to the need for assistance with the disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and rehabilitation (DDRR) of former combatants. The DDRR tasks we assign to some of our United Nations peacekeepers are daunting. The most important thing they must do is to provide a sense of hope — a sense that things will improve in the long run. Job training, schooling, counselling, stipends and dialogues between excombatants for their new or former communities all have a place in creating that sense of hope and a new beginning. But, just as there is no single factor that causes war, there is no single factor that guarantees a lasting peace. While it is tempting to expand United Nations peacekeeping mandates to respond to all aspects of complex crises, we must be careful not to assign to peacekeepers tasks for which they are not prepared or that they are not adept at doing. We must recognize that there are many other players in the DDRR process, including United Nations agencies, regional organizations and non-governmental organizations. For example, in the reintegration process, humanitarian aid workers and agencies are among the heavy lifters. After a uniformed peacekeeper receives surrendered weapons from combatants and registers those weapons, it is usually humanitarian workers who begin the long and complex task of helping the new excombatant to find a place in the civilian population. The fact that uniformed peacekeepers and humanitarian workers derive their funding from different sources and operate under different sets of rules frequently causes disconnects. Greater numbers of moving parts provide greater numbers of opportunities for breakdown. Yet it is particularly vital that the handover of newly disarmed combatants to their new life beyond the barrel of a gun be as smooth as possible. If the task is mishandled, memories of the previous life are close enough to draw the ex-combatant into a life of crime, with or without a weapon. Smoothing over the bumps requires sufficient logistical funding and preparation; it requires that the message about the DDRR process be transmitted to combatants as early as possible; and it requires that those administering the process — be they uniformed soldiers or not — have a degree of confidence in all others involved in the trust. It also requires that all concerned treat ex-combatants with a sense of dignity. Reintegration alone cannot succeed in making a gun-toting rebel into a productive member of his or her society. Economic development alone cannot work, for it can take too long to produce new jobs for excombatants ready to commence a new life. Both are necessary, and ex-combatants must be made to understand that DDRR is a process that takes time to complete. The expertise of various organizations, including non-governmental organizations, and of various United Nations agencies outside the realm of peacekeeping proper needs to be recognized, for many of those groups and agencies will be on the ground long after the last United Nations peacekeeper has left. In closing, we look forward to studying the recommendations that have been brought forth in this important debate. For our part, we will continue to support effective, focused, secure and successful peacekeeping operations, and we look forward to supporting the draft presidential statement.

I thank the representative of the United States of America for the kind words he addressed to me and to my delegation. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Pakistan. First, I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his introductory statement, which has set the tone for this important debate. The Charter of the United Nations describes its central purpose, “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”. Although the concept of collective security, as originally envisioned, did not prove to be feasible, especially in the midst of the cold war, United Nations peacekeeping has emerged over time as the most visible and effective instrument for preventing and containing conflicts and building the foundations of peace. Since 1948, the United Nations has deployed 57 peacekeeping missions, many in difficult war zones. While United Nations peacekeeping has had some well-advertised failures, its many successes deserve greater public acclaim. In 1988, the Nobel Peace Prize was presented to United Nations peacekeeping forces for their unique role in “making the ideas which were the very reason for the establishment of the United Nations a reality”. In his Nobel Lecture, Secretary-General Pérez de Cuellar stated: “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war ... Their strength is that, representing the will of the international community, they provide an honourable alternative to war and a useful pretext for peace.” Peacekeeping traditionally consisted of the insertion of a military force to separate warring parties and to create the necessary political space for peace to take root. Peacekeeping was most often restricted to monitoring ceasefires. Even today, seven of the 14 current United Nations peacekeeping missions involve these traditional tasks. However, more recently, United Nations peacekeepers have been deployed in complex conflict situations that require a multidimensional approach encompassing military, political, humanitarian, social and economic actions. The current United Nations peacekeeping expenditure on its 14 missions, involving 51,000 troops and over 3,000 police personnel, stands at $2.82 billion. This may rise further once the three or four new peacekeeping missions are deployed. Although peacekeeping is an expensive undertaking, it is far cheaper than its alternative — war. Hostile military operations can entail immensely larger costs, including economic, social and human costs, as we are witnessing today. The cost of civil wars alone has been estimated at $128 billion a year. Peacekeeping remains the most cost-effective way of maintaining peace, preventing conflict and facilitating the transition from war to peace. Pakistan is proud to be one of the oldest, largest and most consistent contributors to United Nations peacekeeping. Since 1960, Pakistani peacekeepers have served in 28 out of 57 United Nations missions. Presently, over 7,500 Pakistani troops are serving in eight peacekeeping missions. Sixty-six Pakistani peacekeepers have paid the ultimate price while serving under the flag of the United Nations. Pakistani soldiers have served in some of the most difficult and most dangerous United Nations peacekeeping operations. They have acquitted themselves commendably, with honour and professionalism. Our participation in the United Nations Security Force in West New Guinea from 1960 to 1964 was instrumental in preventing war between Indonesia and Portugal. The decisive action of our peacekeepers with the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia helped the consolidation of peace in that country. In Bosnia, Pakistani troops defended the United Nations safe area of Tuzla and its ethnically-mixed civilian population against the repeated onslaughts of ethnic-cleansing militias. In Sierra Leone, an unsteady United Nations presence was transformed into a major United Nations success story, in large measure — if I may say with humility — as a result of the participation of Pakistani peacekeepers whose actions, apart from stabilizing the situation, included the construction of roads and playgrounds and the renovation of schools, hospitals and places of worship. In neighbouring Liberia, Pakistani troops, deployed in Lofa County, are also providing humanitarian and medical assistance to 20,000 people. Their approach, I am very proud to say, was explained simply by one of our soldiers: “We cannot be eating while the vast majority of the population are hungry.” In the Ituri district of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistani troops are providing security to thousands of civilians exposed to brutal ethnic violence. Three years ago, speaking in Islamabad of our peacekeepers, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said: “Your soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of world peace, and the United Nations. I salute this record of global idealism because I believe it reflects a determination among the Pakistani people to serve the world.” Pakistan has a vital stake in the success of United Nations peacekeeping operations. The United Nations success will be our success. The following are essential for success. First, United Nations peacekeeping operations should be well conceived and well executed. Their mandates should be clear, realistic and achievable, and conducted with the full support of the international community. Secondly, they should have well-trained, well-equipped and disciplined peacekeepers. The considerable experience of Pakistani peacekeepers in different parts of the world has given us a certain expertise in peacekeeping, which we are willing to share with others. Thirdly, United Nations peacekeepers must be provided with full financial, administrative and logistical support. Fourthly, they must have accurate and timely field intelligence and, where necessary, robust rules of engagement. Fifthly, they should address the root causes of conflict so as to ensure durable peace and stability and to prepare the ground for post-conflict reconciliation, reconstruction and development. Sixthly, once deployed, United Nations peacekeepers must complete their tasks. This debate has crystallized the challenges the United Nations is facing due to the unprecedented surge in demand for peacekeeping. Four new complex missions in Côte d’Ivoire, Burundi, Haiti and, possibly, the Sudan will have to be deployed over the next few weeks and months. These will need the commitment of additional human financial, administrative and logistical support by the international community. Several new suggestions have been advanced in this debate, including by the Secretary-General today. I am confident that the presidential statement that the Council will adopt shall reflect these ideas and suggestions. Pakistan is not only one of the major contributors to United Nations peacekeeping; we also host one of the oldest United Nations peacekeeping missions. The United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) is responsible for monitoring the ceasefire along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. It continues to make a substantive contribution to the preservation of peace in Kashmir. In the Islamabad Declaration of 6 January 2004, Pakistan and India agreed to resolve all disputes between them, including that on Jammu and Kashmir, through a peace process to the satisfaction of both sides. It is obvious that, in order for there to be durable peace, the solution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute should be in consonance with the aspirations of the people of Kashmir. UNMOGIP can help in promoting a just and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. Apart from reviewing the status of United Nations peacekeeping to improve its performance, this special event is designed to pay high tribute to all the men and women who have served or continue to serve in United Nations peacekeeping operations. This debate honours their professionalism, dedication and courage and the memory of those who lost their lives in the service of the United Nations and the noble cause of peace. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I propose to suspend the meeting now and to resume it at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, when the Council will hear the rest of the speakers inscribed on my list.