S/PV.4970Resumption1 Security Council

The President: In order to optimize the use of our time, I will not individually invite speakers to take seats at the Council table. When a speaker is taking the floor, the conference officer will seat the next speaker on the list at the table. I now give the floor to the representative of New Zealand.

Mr. McIvor (New Zealand): Mr. President, may I first of all thank you for calling this open debate to discuss the critical issues currently facing United Nations peacekeeping. All Member States have a stake in peacekeeping. The principle of collective responsibility means that issues of the Organization's capacity to respond to threats and the nature of those threats need to be addressed by the membership as a whole. Peacekeeping should not be considered the sole preserve of the Security Council. The Security Council has been entrusted with the vital role of responding to specific threats or conflicts, but we should differentiate this from the need for a meaningful exchange on contemporary generic peacekeeping issues. For this reason, we have proposed elsewhere that the General Assembly plenary should debate peacekeeping issues on an annual basis. The purpose would be to contribute to the development of peacekeeping policy by the Security Council and to provide policy guidance to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and to the Fifth Committee's peacekeeping financial management discussions. Peacekeeping is one of the most important - and certainly one of the most visible - activities of the United Nations. That the General Assembly should not discuss peacekeeping at its highest level is arguably an abdication of responsibility. Complex peacekeeping missions are becoming the norm. It is now accepted that effective peacekeeping and peace support is likely to involve a multidimensional response incorporating security, law and order, support for civilian institutions and human rights and humanitarian components. We know, too, that development has a vital contribution to make to ensuring peace. The Security Council provides a fire- fighting mechanism. But a sustained effort will often be necessary to guarantee a durable peace. Recent developments in Haiti demonstrate this. Accordingly, we would encourage the Council to take a longer-term view of peacekeeping mandates and a more holistic approach to peacekeeping activities. The Council should consider ways to build into mandates the future role of the broader United Nations system, as peacekeeping operations evolve into peace- building and peace support. The Council could, for example, ask the Secretary-General to begin a dialogue with United Nations funds and programmes and develop a plan for the transition of a mission and its eventual exit strategy, for incorporation in the next mandate renewal proposal. There is also the question of whether the structure and internal consultation processes of the Secretariat are sufficient to ensure integrated, quality policy advice on the new peacekeeping challenges. We also think it is time for an honest assessment of existing consultative mechanisms between the Security Council and non-Council members. It is not enough to point to the existence of a mechanism. In order to be meaningful, consultation should produce results and recognize the shared responsibility of Council and non-Council members for its quality. We would like to see an evaluation of what has worked and what has not worked so that we can formulate specific proposals to improve consultation. Many observers have noted the emergence of multinational forces as a phenomenon distinct from blue-beret peacekeeping operations. Multinational forces have become more common as a means to respond to different types of security crises and to provide rapid deployment to deal quickly with an emergency prior to the establishment of a peacekeeping mission. Contributors to peacekeeping missions are now predominantly developing countries. Whether this trend continues remains to be seen, but for us the issue is not peacekeeping operation versus multinational force, so much as a perceived or real unevenness in the international effort in responding to humanitarian and security crises. New peacekeeping missions this year will place further strain on the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and will require additional financial contributions from Member States. We need to address this situation. We need a mechanism to ensure that, when a mission is mandated, there is explicit agreement that it can be adequately resourced and supported. And there is an additional challenge. The external security environment has changed significantly. The United Nations, which for many years has relied on its reputation for neutrality, now recognizes that it is a target. This has both financial and operational implications. The United Nations has become increasingly involved in regional conflicts, most recently in West Africa. These pose new challenges to a Council that is designed to consider peacekeeping mandates on an individual basis. The increase in regional responses to conflict requires the United Nations to forge meaningful relationships with key regional political and military institutions, especially where a United Nations intervention is a precursor or successor to a regional effort. Finally, let me assure the Council that New Zealand remains committed to United Nations peacekeeping. Over the years, we have made a significant contribution to a wide range of United Nations peacekeeping missions. We have contributed to other peace support operations, particularly in our own Asia-Pacific region. This includes assisting in the restoration of law and order in the Solomon Islands last year. We are also strong supporters of the international campaign against terrorism and have deployed a provincial reconstruction team in Bamyan province in Afghanistan.

The President: I now call on the representative of Japan.

Mr. Kitaoka (Japan): Let me first of all express my gratitude and commend you, Sir, for your leadership in convening today's Security Council meeting on peacekeeping issues in general, apart from individual operations. It is important because the expansion of peacekeeping activities has been posing difficult problems for the United Nations. Japan has participated in peacekeeping missions since 1992 and has made valuable contributions to the maintenance of peace and stability in many parts of the world. Through its engagement, Japan has discovered a number of problems related to peacekeeping and has proposed to the United Nations and the international community new ideas to address them. Japan is ready to discuss every aspect of peacekeeping, but because of time limitations I will confine my comments to a few issues which I believe are most important today. According to some reports, the peacekeeping budget may rise to $4.5 billion in 2005. Under current arrangements, Japan's share will be approximately $900 million. This exceeds its annual bilateral official development assistance to Africa. For any country, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assume such a huge proportion of the financial costs for peacekeeping while maintaining the same level in development assistance, which Japan believes is crucial to efforts to eliminate poverty and to prevent conflict from occurring. I believe it is necessary to draw an overall picture of the process of conflict resolution. In particular, for the purposes of funds allocation, it is useful if the anticipated financial requirements for all phases of conflict resolution are given in advance. At the Tokyo donor meeting on Timor-Leste, all the costs for peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, transitional administration and reconstruction were presented to donors. A similar effort was made in the case of Cambodia and was very useful. The recent surge in peacekeeping activities has not only created financial difficulties, but has also caused a shortage of human resources and other problems. Japan reaffirms its intention to continue its support, including the provision of civilian experts, for whom there is now a pressing need. Each peacekeeping operation should be given a clear mandate and have mission objectives with precise and realistic benchmarks, so that the parties to the conflict, the Secretariat, the Security Council and interested Member States can cooperate effectively to achieve them. This is the true meaning of the so-called completion strategy. It in no way amounts to the setting of an artificial deadline. An operation with a solid completion strategy will attract wider international participation and enjoy greater effectiveness. Needless to say, in a humanitarian crisis, action may be taken on an exceptional and emergency basis. Once deployed, a mission must be constantly reviewed and major changes in mission environments should be duly reflected in the review process. The United Nations operation in Timor-Leste, which has undergone a number of reviews and adjustments in light of the progress made, provides a good example of this approach. We appreciate the inclusion of references to the review process in many Security Council resolutions adopted since the initiation of the United Nations Operation in C6te d'Ivoire. There are also many operations that were established decades ago. These should be re-evaluated in order to determine the causes of prolongation and possible means of improvement. Such activities as disarmament, demobilization and reintegration and demining often play an important role in the area where a peacekeeping mission is deployed. In some cases, peace-building activities have been included in the peacekeeping mandate. Japan, advocating the concept of consolidation of peace, understands the importance of linkage between peace- building activities and peacekeeping. However, peacekeeping activities should not be expanded without limitation in the name of peace-building. Peace-building is to lead to reconstruction and development and requires expertise that is different in nature from that required for peacekeeping. It is desirable that a special representative of the Secretary- General be given a coordination role. Given the expansion of United Nations peacekeeping operations, the cooperation of various actors is of critical importance. The most vital role should be played by those people in the area of conflict. They should be encouraged to take the lead in the peace process. In addition, cooperation with regional and subregional organizations is indispensable in view of the impact of a conflict over the entire region. There should be an appropriate division of labour between the United Nations peacekeeping operation and regional and subregional organizations, and the capacity of those organizations should be further strengthened. The ongoing bilateral support is important, but Japan is of the View that those efforts could be more closely coordinated at the international level. We hope that the Secretariat will play a more active role in that regard. Finally and most importantly, reform is necessary in order to involve in the Security Council decision-making process those countries contributing human, material, financial and other resources. That is necessary to enable the Council to work to consolidate peace, from the peacekeeping phase to reconstruction and development, in coordination with other international agencies and bilateral programmes. Issues surrounding peacekeeping are diverse and complicated. The Security Council should promote discussion involving the Secretariat, contributors of human and financial resources and stakeholders including countries in the region. Japan, which is responsible for approximately one-fifth of the peacekeeping budget, is eager to participate in such discussions in order to fulfil its international commitments while maintaining accountability to taxpayers. The meeting of the Security Council working group on Burundi provided a unique opportunity for major stakeholders to state their views. Japan strongly hopes that meetings of this kind will be convened in future to discuss specific issues as well as more generic issues related to peacekeeping. Japan fully understands the fundamental importance of peacekeeping as a tool for conflict resolution and continues its active support. We are prepared to accept a new peacekeeping operation if it is justified and its mandate is appropriate.

The President: I thank the representative of Japan for his kind words addressed to me. The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Ireland. I give him the floor.

Mr. Ryan (Ireland): I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey; the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and Montenegro; and the European Free Trade Association country member of the European Economic Area, Norway, align themselves with this statement. The European Union welcomes the initiative shown by the presidency of Pakistan in tabling this discussion and the very helpful non-paper circulated in advance of the debate. Our debate is also very timely from a European Union perspective in that it takes place on the very day on which our Foreign and Defence Ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss development of European Union peacekeeping and crisis management capabilities, including in support of the United Nations. The European Union has actively supported and participated in peacekeeping and crisis management operations throughout the world, from the Balkans to Africa and Asia, manifesting its commitment to the United Nations and to maintaining peace around the globe. European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers, at their meeting today in Brussels, adopted conclusions which reflect the significant steps taken forward over recent months in the European Union's security and defence policy. I am pleased to report to the Security Council that good progress is being made in relation to both military and non-military aspects of European Union peacekeeping and crisis management capabilities. Last September, the United Nations and the European Union signed a joint declaration providing for deeper cooperation in those areas and which placed particular emphasis on the need for greater consultation and cooperation in relation to planning, training, communication and best practice. In January of this year, Minster Brian Cowen of Ireland, representing the European Union, met Secretary-General Annan to discuss how the joint declaration might be further implemented. Their exchanges cemented our collective resolve to see ongoing close collaboration between the two organizations. Meetings between the two sides have since taken place at the official level, and European Union-United Nations relations were the subject of a seminar held last week in Dublin, with the participation of Under-Secretary-General Guehenno, on the theme of synergy between United Nations and European Union on military crisis management. Those contacts are aimed at further concrete progress, most notably in the area of European Union capacity to respond rapidly to United Nations requests for assistance in short-term crisis management situations. Discussions with the United Nations on identifying modalities for cooperation in crisis management operations will continue. The European Union is ready to share in the responsibilities for global security and in building a better world. The European Union's approach in this area is informed in particular by the European Security Strategy, adopted by the European Council last December. The Strategy reflects the collective desire of the Union and its member States that the European Union should be better able to assist in responding to challenges to peace and security arising at the international level, while fully acknowledging that the primary responsibility in this regard rests with the Security Council. The European Union stands ready to work more closely with the Chair of the Security Council's working group, which could provide important impetus and ideas to the C34 process. The European Union welcomes the reform and strengthening of United Nations peacekeeping in recent years. We recognize, for instance, the significant progress made by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) to enhance its operational capacity. Certainly, it is clear that there are areas which require further strengthening, not least because of the complex nature of recent missions, coupled with the current surge in operational activity. In that regard, we welcome the integrated task force concept and recommend that it be further developed across all departments and involve all stakeholders, producing a mission concept of operations and component plans that are fully understood, integrated, rehearsed and owned. We encourage the DPKO to seek additional surge planning capacity from external sources such as existing regional headquarters, formations such as the Standby Force High Readiness Brigade for United Nations Operations (SHIRBRIG) or national staffs on a time-, objective- or mission-oriented basis. The European Union welcomes the creation of new types of partnerships and cooperation arrangements for peacekeeping between the United Nations and regional organizations. Regional organizations have unique and complementary capacities to offer in support of United Nations peacekeeping. Drawing from our positive experiences to date of seeking to implement the joint European Union-United Nations declaration of September 2003, we recommend that DPKO expand and deepen its contacts with regional organizations and their subregional partners, especially at the working level, in order to identify and implement practical means of tapping that potential for cooperation. We recommend that the Best Practices Unit, in consultation with regional organizations, continue to develop its catalogue of lessons learned from the European Union's Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Economic Community of West African States Mission in Liberia (ECOMIL), the Economic Community of West African States Mission in C6te d'Ivoire (ECOMICI) and the African Mission in Burundi (AMIB). It remains our collective responsibility to ensure that those lessons are fully reflected in future partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations. We welcome the United Nations own improved rapid-response capability and encourage DPKO to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of the United Nations Standby Arrangements System (UNSAS) and optimize the strategic deployment stocks system in the light of recent lessons learned. However, when the contingency arises to deploy a peacekeeping force at much shorter notice, DPKO should further develop partnerships with formations and regional arrangements that have the capacity to meet that specific need. The European Union welcomes DPKO's recent pre-deployment headquarters training initiative and stresses the need for the deployment of coherent, well-trained, pre-existing headquarters at the initial stages of a mission to afford optimum levels of command and control. There is a clear need to enhance African peacekeeping capacity as well as the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping in Africa. We welcome, and we support, renewed efforts by African States to strengthen conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building activities. We also welcome the recent developments within the African Union to create rapidly deployable capacities, and we encourage the United Nations to further develop its partnership with the African Union and African subregional organizations. The European Union is working with the African Union in the establishment of a peace facility for Africa. It is intended that the peace facility, which will be operational shortly, will assist the African Union and subregional organizations in their capacity for conflict prevention and resolution. At their meeting today in Brussels, European Union foreign and defence ministers underlined the importance of developing the potential of the European Security and Defence Policy, in both its military and civil aspects, to assist in effective conflict prevention and management in Africa, while encouraging and ensuring African ownership. We believe that peace-building elements are vital for the success of a peacekeeping operation in the short term, as well as being essential for sustainable peace and the long-term prevention of conflict. Accordingly, we believe that a more comprehensive and integrated approach to peace-building is required from all relevant United Nations bodies, Member States, the Bretton Woods institutions and non-governmental organizations to prevent the recurrence of conflict, to consolidate the gains wrought by peacekeeping and to enable long-term development. Re-establishing the rule of law and the provision of justice in post-conflict situations should be a core part of such strategies. We place the highest priority on strengthening the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel deployed in the field, and we welcome the steps taken by the Secretary-General towards a thorough review of the safety and security system of the United Nations. We recognize the need for an enhanced capacity for security assessment and risk and threat analysis. The European Union underlines the need for the establishment of a full-time focal point for safety and security in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and for the improvement of information management and sharing, at both mission and New York Headquarters levels. Such capacities are essential for an efficient and integrated approach to planning and managing United Nations peacekeeping operations. Once again, we stress the need for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations to ensure that adequate, customized medical facilities, supported by dedicated medical evacuation plans, are in place from the commencement stage of a mission. We trust that the draft presidential statement to be adopted at the end of this debate will help to highlight the recommendations outlined in the 2004 report of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and will inform and assist the deliberations of the General Assembly's Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee) this autumn.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Bangladesh.

Mr. Chowdhury (Bangladesh): Mr. President, Bangladesh applauds your leadership of the Council during the current month. Being close friends and regional neighbours, we share a modicum of the pride our Pakistani brethren must rightly feel on this occasion. Pakistan and Bangladesh, being two consistent partners in United Nations peacekeeping operations, also have a common interest in the theme of the day, for the choice of which we commend Pakistan. Let me also state that we believe that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations team and its very able steward, Jean-Marie Guehenno, deserve our highest praise for their relentless labours and for the quality of their work. Over five and half decades, United Nations peace-keeping has confronted and overcome numerous challenges and constraints. Bangladesh remains serenely confident that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations will perform admirably in meeting the surging challenges of 2004 - given, as a sine qua non, political support, enabling resources and secure financing. In the light of that positive prognosis, may I call the Council's attention to a number of areas where adherence to the following could buttress our capability to achieve our collective goals. First, there is palpable need for a strong message to emanate from this Council for the peoples of the world reaffirming the centrality, universality and legitimacy of the United Nations as the principal multilateral institution devoted to the maintenance of global peace and security. The dynamics of ongoing global conflicts make it imperative that the Council also reaffirm United Nations peacekeeping operations as the effective, impartial, acceptable and less costly collective security instrument enjoying global public confidence. Secondly, the Council, having the primary responsibility for international peace and security, must continue to act promptly and effectively to respond to global conflicts without compromising the principle of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States, impartially and with the consent of the parties. Mandates must be well defined, credible and achievable, and must be supported by enabling rules of engagement and command-and- control structures. Clear political direction by the Council, appropriate use of best practices and close consultation with troop-contributing countries while planning, changing, renewing, downsizing or terminating mandates are prerequisites for better cost management and task management. Thirdly, the United Nations must be supported in every possible way in responding to the upcoming surge and in preventing future conflicts. Mandates must be matched with the necessary enabling components, including a fully integrated mission planning capacity and pre-mandate operational, logistic and material preparedness to initiate a 30-day or 90- day rapid launch. The strategic stocks at the United Nations Logistics Base must be replenished rapidly to facilitate multiple multidimensional mission start-ups. The United Nations Standby Arrangements System, the on-call list and the rapid deployment level system should be put to better use to ensure ready availability of well-trained personnel as well as force multipliers and enablers. Complementarity of rapid deployment support from regional and subregional organizations must be encouraged. Where possible, better coordination and utilization of capacities and resources among adjacent missions should be explored. Fourthly, peacekeeping should not be seen as a substitute for sustainable peace and development. Rather, it should lay a firm foundation for phased transition to post-conflict reconstruction and for the prevention of the recurrence of armed conflicts. Inclusion, where appropriate, of peace-building elements in mandates, early integrated mission planning and the implementation of comprehensive strategies - including disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and repatriation, the rule of law and criminal justice - is key. Models for the active engagement of the Economic and Social Council in post-conflict reconstruction should be developed to lessen the Security Council's burden, with coordinated support from the United Nations Development Group, donors, the international financial institutions and civil society. Gender mainstreaming, empowerment of women and protection of children must constitute essential elements of any peace-building endeavour. Most important, a culture of prevention must overtake a culture of reaction, saving resources for investment in the Millennium Development Goals. Fifthly, the safety and security of United Nations peacekeepers must never be compromised; attacks on peacekeepers must never be condoned; and appropriate preventive measures must always be incorporated in mission mandates. The United Nations should be supported to enhance its capacity to strengthen safety and security in field missions. Mandates and tasks must also be matched by robust and uniform rules of engagement to deter the spoilers of peace, within the principle of non-use of force except in self-defence. Sixthly, lessons learned and best practices must be incorporated in policy development, planning, training and the implementation of strategies for peacekeeping operations, so that each new operation becomes more efficient and more cost-effective. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations and its Best Practices Unit should be provided the wherewithal to carry out this exercise effectively. Last but not least, it is a categorical imperative that there must prevail the political will and capacity of troop-contributing countries to undertake risks and rapidly deploy, and also the determination to stay the course until the mission is completed. At the end of the day, the United Nations must be able to confidently depend on troop-contributing countries that pledge to deliver on time and that can and will do so. For Bangladesh, United Nations peacekeeping is indeed a foreign policy priority and a window to reach out to strife-torn societies. When we do peacekeeping, we carry with us the conviction, learned from our own historical experience, that, for development to take root, conflicts must first cease and never recur. We seek to spread the values of pluralism, liberalism, human rights and gender justice. We wish to share with those societies our indigenously evolved paradigm of development, involving micro-credit and non-formal education. It is not just a coincidence that in the General Assembly our flagship resolution is on a culture of peace and non-violence, and that, as Council members, we were closely associated with resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1353 (2001). Our participation in more than 27 peacekeeping operations has amply testified to the fact that our words are matched by deeds. As a dependable and consistent troop-contributing country, Bangladesh has already demonstrated its flexibility and innovativeness in making some recent peacekeeping operations cost- effective through the inter-mission mobilization of assets and troops. In 2004, Bangladesh is among the few troop-contributing countries to have made substantive pre-mandate pledges to all four anticipated missions, including the offer to redeploy well equipped troops from Sierra Leone to Haiti, which would save the United Nations time and money and would facilitate early exit of the Multinational Interim Force from that island. We conclude with a tribute to those courageous men and women who have made the supreme sacrifice in the course of global peace and to other colleagues who continue to bring succour to suffering populations. We express the hope that the ideas we have put on the table will prove useful with regard to the draft presidential statement to follow, for we have gleaned them from our experience as we have trod the path to stability that we have helped to make by traversing it ourselves.

The President: I thank the representative of Bangladesh for the kind words he addressed to my delegation. I now call on the representative of Tunisia.

Mr. Hachani (Tunisia) (spoke in French): Permit me at the outset to tell you, Sir, how pleased my delegation is at the initiative you have taken in organizing this debate. I should also like to congratulate you on the remarkable way in which Pakistan and you yourself have been presiding over the work of the Council this month. This debate comes at a crucial time for peacekeeping operations. In fact, given the unprecedented scope of the missions already approved and of those planned, the number of troops deployed could, according to estimates, reach 70,000 on four continents by the end of this year. Therefore, it is imperative that Member States work together more on steps to be taken to strengthen our collective capacity to meet this challenge more effectively. The ideas presented by the delegation of Pakistan are very useful in that regard. The expansion of peacekeeping missions only reaffirms the importance that the international community attaches to United Nations actions aimed at peace throughout the world. Nevertheless, peacekeeping cannot replace the quest for just and definitive solutions or the addressing of the root causes of conflicts. In that regard, we appreciate the tireless efforts of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), under the leadership of Under-Secretary-General Guehenno and his colleagues, to deal with urgent and complicated situations. The close cooperation between Member States and the Secretariat helps to strengthen the peacekeeping capacity of the United Nations. However, those efforts are not enough to guarantee the success of peacekeeping operations if they are not accompanied by sufficient adaptation on the part of all other actors and partners. In that context, Tunisia favours more in-depth and more interactive consultation through the consultation mechanism among the Secretariat, the Security Council and troop-contributing countries to enable Member States to be better informed of the situation on the ground in a thorough and regular manner. In future, it is absolutely necessary to take further into account the concerns of troop-contributing countries, whose views should be more than merely consultative. The commendable efforts of developing countries- which alone constitute 70 per cent of United Nations forces - should be mentioned. Faced with the constantly increasing demand for troops for future peacekeeping operations, other countries are requested to share the burden with developing countries, particularly since they have the capacity to meet, as quickly as possible, the needs arising at the operational level. We also need to further strengthen Brindisi's strategic deployment stocks, which are now seriously depleted after being used successfully in the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL). That base, which unfortunately was planned to meet the needs of only one mission, must be strengthened to deal with the situations we now face. The safety of United Nations and associated personnel is of particular importance. My country, which is a party to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, takes this opportunity to pay a heartfelt tribute to all those who devote their lives to the service of peace and to the noble values of the Organization. It is imperative that the United Nations commit itself, in cooperation with Member States, to strengthening security systems and procedures and to improving the machinery for gathering information on the ground in order to increase threat prevention and management capacities. My delegation would like once again to emphasize its interest in cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union, particularly with a view to improving the latter's institutional capacities. Africa currently hosts three fourths of the Blue Helmets deployed throughout the world. Africa's efforts to manage its own affairs require increased support from the United Nations and the rest of the international community. The recent establishment of the African Union's Peace and Security Council with a view to establishing a regional conflict prevention policy will, we are convinced, greatly help African States. Nevertheless, international efforts aimed at strengthening the collective peacekeeping capacity of African countries do not relieve the international community of its collective responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, which entrusts the Security Council with the principal responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. For Tunisia, peacekeeping is an important element of our foreign policy and of our contribution to the United Nations system. Our more than 40 years of experience in that area and our participation in a large number of United Nations peacekeeping missions are an illustration of my country's commitment in that regard - a commitment that President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, President of the Republic of Tunisia, has repeatedly reaffirmed. Tunisia is currently participating in five peacekeeping missions, and we doubled our participation in the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo last year. We shall continue our contribution, within the limits of our resources, as part of a constant dialogue with the Secretariat.

The President: I thank the representative of Tunisia for the kind words he addressed to my delegation. I now call on the representative of Egypt.

Mr. Aboul Gheit (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): Let me begin by expressing my delegation's appreciation to you, Mr. President, for your initiative in organizing this open plenary debate on a most important issue. The delegation of Egypt has prepared a non-paper on the comprehensive concept of peacekeeping operations, which will be circulated to all Council members. In my statement before the Council, I shall therefore confine myself to highlighting its major points. First, the concept of peacekeeping incorporates temporary and transitional arrangements that should not obscure the general, more comprehensive role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security. That includes components of preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-building that are based on the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and within the overall framework of the two concepts of international multilateralism and international legality. Therefore, the proper approach to peacekeeping operations should exceed the operational aspects in terms of the planning, mandating, deployment, conduct, termination and downsizing of peacekeeping operations. All of those issues were discussed at length and in depth by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations at its most recent session, last April. Secondly, the experience of the past decade has demonstrated that the partial examination of armed conflict and multi-tiered complex crises from security and political perspectives has failed to achieve lasting solutions or enduring peace. Despite the fact that the Brahimi report has underlined the need to pursue an integrated approach to settling disputes and crises, the practical response to that trend, in our view, is related to reconsideration of the institutional framework and legislative mandates that regulate the relationship among all major organs of the United Nations system on the basis of their respective terms of reference, as contained in the Charter. It is a well-established fact that the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat and concerned States that have special interests politically and operationally related to conflict, as well as regional and subregional organizations and the community of international donors, all have a major role in developing a more comprehensive vision for dealing with the root causes of complex and multidimensional conflicts and for the means of their settlement. In that regard, we call for the development of balanced institutional coordination between the components and the mechanisms of the international community that deal with the legislative and operational aspects of peacekeeping operations. In Egypt's view, the capability and the efficiency of the United Nations in undertaking an effective role in maintaining international peace and security is closely linked to interaction between those components and mechanisms and to their ability to clearly set their respective responsibilities according to the nature and the requirements of a given situation and of a given conflict. Thirdly, we believe that it is difficult to ensure success of the operational aspect of peacekeeping operations separate from an integrated institutional and legislative vision that would define the parameters of conflicts and their causes and would enable peacekeeping operations mandates to be established on the basis of actual and practical needs, in order to achieve comprehensive peace and security that encompasses the political, security, social and economic components. Therefore, what determines the concept of rapid deployment and effective forces and their requirements in terms of financial, human and logistics needs depends on the objective vision of the ultimate goal of a peacekeeping operation. While we place on record our appreciation for the efforts of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in support of other departments of the Secretariat, I wish to stress that the dividends of the efforts and the human, logistic and financial contributions still fall below our expectations, as measured against the aforementioned institutional, legislative and political benchmarks. The topic of today's debate is closely related to the overall question of the reform of the multilateral international order. That is why we underscore the importance of reviewing the institutional and the legislative frameworks that define the role of the United Nations and its ability to fulfil its mission of maintaining international peace and security and to deal with current and future threats. All that is undoubtedly at the core of the reform exercise.

The President: I thank the representative of Egypt for his kind words addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Peru, on whom I call.

Mr. Balarezo (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate of the Security Council on a matter that is vital to the United Nations. This matter ultimately determines whether or not this Organization can promote and maintain peace. Accordingly, it requires deep political thinking on our part, rather than simply a technocratic approach. The United Nations was founded to avert international conflicts among Member States. Its big problem today is that most armed conflicts are not international, but rather are domestic, armed conflicts, intra-State conflicts. Since the end of the cold war, more than 33 civil conflicts have emerged in the developing world, leaving more than 5 million dead and almost 17 million refugees. Those conflicts are truly domestic infernos where respect for the basic principles of humanity vanishes and civil war becomes tantamount to mass crime. These are the most common types of situations that United Nations peacekeeping operations face today. In the face of the enormous proliferation of domestic conflicts and crimes against humanity, the Organization has confined itself to launching humanitarian interventions. Instead of intervening militarily to protect civilians and disarm rival groups, the Blue Helmets provided access for humanitarian assistance. They protected humanitarian assistance, but they did not protect people against massacres. In other words, in a rather surrealistic manner, they were providing food, medicine and blankets to potential corpses. The cases of Somalia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and the recent Rwandan genocide are clear examples of the United Nations inability to settle domestic conflicts. That situation is being corrected. The Security Council has organized peacekeeping operations in many countries where United Nations forces not only defend people, but where in many instances they are also mandated to intervene with force to avoid ethnic cleansing, mass human rights violations and genocide. Today we must embark on reform that consolidates and systematizes this tendency in peacekeeping operations. The strategic recommendations in the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) represent progress in that direction, but strong political measures must also be taken. In that regard, the five permanent members of the Security Council with the right to veto could agree, as part of a code of conduct, not to use the veto on matters related to peacekeeping operations, where there is a danger of genocide and crimes against humanity. As a counterpart to that code of conduct and to add substance, it would be agreed that the deployment of a peacekeeping mission would be requested by the Secretary-General at the request of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, of representative regional organizations or of a large group of countries. The idea is for the permanent members of the Council to cooperate in response to a request of the international community by not exercising their right to veto military interventions that could save thousands of lives. Often debates and negotiations in the Security Council delay the establishment of peacekeeping operations. Moreover, once they are approved, deployment can sometimes takes months. If we want the United Nations to really be able to take action quickly and avoid new tragedies, then we must move beyond the Brahimi recommendations. For that, troop- contributing countries should have units standing by, available to the Organization without conditions and with a pre-established mandate, to be immediately deployed. As Sir Brian Urquhart, a former United Nations Under-Secretary-General, has said many times, without these effective, voluntary standby units, the United Nations cannot realistically deal with a world where peace is being destroyed not because of wars between States, but because of real domestic infernos that are exploding in poor countries, where nation- States collapse and become chaotic non-governmental entities, turning into real factories of crimes against humanity. In this regard, we must also support regional and subregional organizations in preventing conflicts and in carrying out peacekeeping operations. The experience of the United Nations should be made available to regional and subregional organizations and this link should be prioritized in the deployment of standby volunteer units. Following the rapid deployment force should be a process of peace-building and rebuilding the State, in cases where it has collapsed. Reconciliation in such societies is a long and complex process of restoring the political and social fabric. This includes, most fundamentally, the creation of truly democratic institutions and the elimination of the scourge of social exclusion. Without tolerance and democracy and, most important, if social exclusion persists, poor societies will continue to harbour the seeds of conflict. Therefore, peacekeeping missions must not leave conflict situations prematurely. Missions must include multidimensional nation-building programmes and must remain in States until the foundations are laid for programmes that, at the least, ensure the following. First, they must ensure sustainable good governance, as agreed in political agreements that bring together the parties to the conflict. Secondly, they must build a legal system that restores the rule of law, guarantees access to justice and protects human rights. And thirdly, they must establish conditions of security in order to ensure public order and make it possible for economic activity to be carried out. These tasks certainly lie outside the scope of this debate. Yet they are factors that are being incorporated- and must be reinforced - in the mandate of peacekeeping missions. The United Nations and its peacekeeping operations are an indispensable mechanism for peace-building and for rebuilding States that have collapsed. The developed countries, the only ones able to provide significant financing for peacekeeping operations and their components, must also remember that it is better to invest in averting the collapse of States or in rebuilding States than in confronting global threats that are fed by these internal conflicts. For more than three decades, Peru has been participating in peacekeeping operations and is fully convinced that they are useful and needed. Our commitment was reinforced in November 2003 with the memorandum of understanding signed at Lima by the President of our republic and the Secretary-General on 11 November 2003. We also hope to contribute to the peacekeeping operation recently undertaken in Haiti. Ultimately, our contribution to this debate seeks to help ensure the success of these operations. Therefore, to sum up, we propose the following: a code of conduct whereby, faced with the threat of genocide or crimes against humanity, permanent members of the Security Council would not exercise their right of veto to prevent intervention. Secondly, we propose that the United Nations have volunteer standby rapid deployment units to restore peace and prevent these domestic conflicts from becoming the setting for the most savage violations of human dignity.

The President: I thank the representative of Peru for his kind words addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of the Ukraine, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Kuchinsky (Ukraine): Let me join previous speakers in congratulating the Pakistani presidency on the convening of today's open debate on this crucial issue. We would also like to express our appreciation to the Secretary-General for opening the discussion and to Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guehenno for his participation. Millions of people in many regions of the world continue to pin their hopes on United Nations peacekeeping efforts to help overcome conflicts and achieve peace. Moreover, the changing nature of conflicts has substantially broadened the scope of United Nations peacekeeping activities and has made them far more complex. This underscores the vital importance of ensuring that the United Nations has the necessary potential to effectively meet those expectations and challenges, on which, to a great extent, its credibility is - and will be -judged. Thanks to the peacekeeping reform initiated by the Brahimi report (S/2000/809), the United Nations today has the capacity to act more rapidly and efficiently then ever before. Both Member States and the Secretariat have contributed to this process. Today I would like to particularly acknowledge the role of the Security Council. Having affirmed at its summit meeting in September 2000 its determination to strengthen United Nations peacekeeping operations, the Security Council adopted a number of important follow-up decisions to implement the recommendations of the Brahimi report. Undoubtedly, a lot has been achieved in many areas. But we consider this reform to be a dynamic and continuous process, which should build on its results and adapt to new realities. The notable recent increase in peacekeeping activities, particularly the deployment of the first post- Brahimi United Nations mission, in Liberia, provides us with the opportunity to take stock of how the gains of the reform work in reality and what needs to be adjusted and improved. This is even more important in the light of the ongoing and expected deployments of several new missions. As has been underlined by a number of previous speakers, the international community is now at a critical juncture in its peacekeeping efforts. We are facing significant challenges in meeting the growing requirements for peacekeeping personnel, logistical support and financial resources, to name a few problems. If peacekeeping is to remain an effective instrument of the United Nations, Member States, the Security Council and the Secretariat have to work together closely to meet those challenges and to find the right answers to critical questions. Ukraine has always supported United Nations peacekeeping, both politically and practically. Over the past four years, Ukraine has been among the major troop-contributing countries to United Nations peacekeeping operations and the single largest troop- contributing country in Europe. I would like to reiterate our readiness to continue to remain a reliable partner of the United Nations in this area. Our response to the recent surge in peacekeeping vividly testifies to that. My country has deployed a significant helicopter detachment to the United Nations Mission in Liberia and reiterates its readiness to contribute a helicopter detachment to the new mission in Cote d'Ivoire, as well as a special police unit to Haiti. While welcoming the progress made in enhancing the United Nations rapid deployment capability, our latest experience shows that we are still far from meeting the agreed objectives of a 30-day to 90-day period. Among the major obstacles to the rapid deployment of troops in the field remain financial and logistical problems. While noting the considerable improvement in financial issues, further progress is necessary to meet the growing demand for personnel and equipment. We support the proposal to establish a working group aimed at considering the funding difficulties of troop-contributing countries and looking for ways to ensure timely reimbursements for troops and contingent-owned equipment. We recognize the role of strategic deployment stocks in reducing the deployment timeline for peacekeeping operations and believe that the functioning of this mechanism should be optimized, especially in view of the lessons learned from the recent deployment in Liberia. With respect to overcoming the equipment shortfalls faced by some troop-contributing countries, I would like to inform the Council of Ukraine's unique experience. For over three years, we have been providing hundreds of armoured personnel carriers and heavy cargo trucks, as well as maintaining them and providing training in their operation to the peacekeeping contingents of other countries in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). My country is ready to provide such equipment to other new and forthcoming peacekeeping operations. Ukraine believes that the development of new types of partnerships and arrangements between the United Nations and a number of regional and subregional organizations could help the United Nations to meet the new challenges. Over the last decade and most recently, there have been quite a few encouraging examples of how United Nations peacekeeping operations can be effectively supported and complemented by United Nations-mandated operations of other organizations or ad hoc coalitions bringing their comparative strengths and expertise. We therefore encourage the Secretariat, in cooperation with respective organizations, to study such recent experiences with the aim of working out the modalities for the future. We also call on the international community to continue to support the efforts of the African Union to strengthen its peacekeeping capacities. Despite the progress to date, which we welcome, there is still a need to further strengthen the relationship between the major bodies: the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries. We look forward to the full and effective implementation of the respective decisions of the Council in that area. We also see merits in increased consultations between the Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and troop-contributing countries on specific peacekeeping issues and on individual missions. We also expect the Security Council to consider giving new breadth to the activities of the Group. The importance of ensuring the appropriate level of security and safety of peacekeeping personnel cannot be underestimated, as has been stressed by many previous speakers. As one of the initiators of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, we call upon the States that have not done so to ratify or accede to the Convention as soon as possible. Ukraine supports the efforts aimed at strengthening and expanding the legal regime of protection of United Nations and associated personnel under the Convention. We also support the need for better information-gathering and analysis in the field aimed at preventing and managing the threats to peacekeeping personnel. In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention of the Council to a very important upcoming event that has special significance, both in moral and political terms, for the majority of United Nations Member States and for tens of thousands of their nationals. Every year on 29 May, the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers is now observed as a tribute to all the men and women who have served and continue to serve in United Nations peacekeeping operations for their high level of professionalism, dedication and courage and in honour of the memory of those who have lost their lives in the cause of peace. In our view, on that Day the Security Council could send its message recognizing the role and sacrifice of United Nations peacekeepers, to whom we owe every success the United Nations has achieved in its peacekeeping endeavours.

The President: I thank the representative of Ukraine for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I now call on the representative of India.

Mr. Nambiar (India): India welcomes this opportunity to participate in an open debate of the Security Council on United Nations peacekeeping operations. We were happy to see the Foreign Minister of Pakistan presiding over the morning segment of this meeting. The first question we ask concerns the appositeness of the present debate and the Council's precise locus standi in it. While the role of the Council is indubitable in the setting up and running of individual peacekeeping operations, we are not convinced that it is the most appropriate forum to discuss policy or even general operational issues related to peacekeeping. These have traditionally been vested with the General Assembly, and specifically with the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. Even as member States consider the question of United Nations reform and delegations bemoan the erosion of the role and activities of the General Assembly, my delegation notices a strange inability on the part of the Assembly to withstand the steady acquisitiveness of the Council in areas such as this. This is all the more disturbing when combined with the tendency in some quarters to View the whole process of coping with complex emergencies from a proconsular or even a mission civilisatrice perspective. Such an approach needs to eschewed, equally in the Council as elsewhere. It should clearly not infect the attitude of the Secretariat. We strongly urge that the constitutional separation of powers between the Council and the Assembly be respected. Peacekeeping operations are mandated to perform specific tasks. They are not meant to be missions in perpetuity. Upon the completion of these tasks, they must be drawn down and eventually wound up. The missions in Rwanda and Angola provide important and useful examples where the Governments concerned decided at a certain point of time that the peacekeeping operation had served its purpose. They welcomed the continuing United Nations presence, but not in the form of peacekeepers. Admittedly, the exit of peacekeepers cannot be allowed to take place in a hasty or injudicious manner, as that could jeopardize the very gains achieved. We are all aware of the case of Haiti in the mid-1990s. Missions could face premature termination when a ceasefire unravels, the pre-existing political will disappears or the Council refuses to recognize changed realities on the ground. At the same time, rebns sic stantibus cannot be characterized as a failure of the United Nations or its mission. As more and more demands are made for United Nations intervention in complex situations, diverse sets of actors are increasingly seen in theatres of conflict. Some demarcation of functions and responsibilities would therefore be useful for clarity. We should be conscious that there are limitations to the capacity of the United Nations in terms of material, personnel or financial resources. The United Nations cannot be everywhere. When considering the scope of peacekeeping, there is often a tendency to confuse peacekeeping with post-conflict peace-building. Approaches that involve an understanding of local ground realities and that are evolved with the participation of the Governments involved are likely to be more successful than those seen as imposed from outside. Post-conflict peace- building cannot be achieved through peacekeepers, the majority of which are groups of observers or formed contingents with no knowledge, experience or mandate to take on economic, social or other tasks associated with post-conflict reconstruction. While, perhaps, peace-building elements need to be integrated into the overall approach from the outset, peacekeeping can only lay the ground for post-conflict reconciliation, reconstruction and development. This further responsibility is best left to the funds and programmes of the United Nations system and, in the final analysis, must be locally owned. Indeed, as long as major contributors remain unwilling to pay for such activities through assessed contributions, such examples of mission creep would continue to be viewed with suspicion. Nor do we believe that peacekeepers have any intrinsic role in conflict resolution or in addressing the underlying causes of conflict, especially where these are largely socio-economic in nature, such as poverty and deprivation. A peacekeeping operation is an interim measure and of limited duration. It is part of a broader international engagement. It is not a substitute for the task of nation-building, economic development or international cooperation. It cannot be a stand-in for a negotiated political settlement. Peacekeeping mandates cannot and should not be intrusive or interventionist. There has been a predilection of late to lean towards regional solutions in peacekeeping, particularly in the context of Africa. While recognizing this reality, we must guard against such operations becoming franchised or subcontracted to a degree where the Security Council is perceived as using regionalization as a device to shirk the exercise of its global responsibility for peace and security. Further, there are those who advocate the transfer of the specialized assets and even the troops of a contributing country from one mission in the region to another. We regard such solutions as self-serving and contrary to the practices and provisions allowed under the Charter. Every mission is unique, established in pursuance of a specific Security Council mandate. We see a risk, sometimes, in regionalization in the peacekeeping context and feel there can be no confederacy of peacekeeping missions. For similar reasons, we see limited utility and a degree of risk in encouraging coordination among Special Representatives of the Secretary-General in a region. While some sharing of experiences, lessons learned and resources in a regional context might be useful, it must be remembered that Special Representatives are not free agents. Each is appointed for a specific mission, for a specific purpose and must operate within mission-specific mandates. Too much cross-feed can cause diffusion and even distortion of focus. Sharing of experiences must be done, where necessary, at United Nations Headquarters, Heads of Mission conferences or when senior officers of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations visit the region. With respect to increasing the effectiveness of Headquarters support, we stress the need for greater synergy in effective utilization of capacities already existing within the United Nations system. Where that does not happen, the systemic problems involved need to be addressed. The mere infusion of extra personnel or the creation of new divisions will not work. Other important issues include the continuing commitment gaps in the contribution of personnel and equipment to United Nations peacekeeping operations, the strengthening of existing mechanisms of cooperation with troop-contributing countries and problems concerning the safety and security of United Nations peacekeepers. On the issue of commitment gaps, we need only recall the fact that almost 80 per cent of the troops deployed in United Nations peacekeeping operations are contributed by developing countries. There is also a perceived imbalance between the roles and the responsibilities assumed by the United Nations in different regions and those assumed by non-United Nations operations. The recent activation of the mechanism of joint meetings between the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and troop-contributing countries is a welcome step. We look forward to more such meetings concerning individual operations in the future and to greater interaction with Council members in those meetings in such a manner that the Council takes cognizance of the views of the troop-contributing countries, thereby contributing to the outcome of decisions in the Council. India's performance in the field of peacekeeping under the United Nations flag is well recognized around the world, and I shall not dwell upon it in detail. We fully subscribe to concerns about the safety and the security of peacekeepers and associated United Nations personnel. This must, in all instances, receive the very high priority it deserves. Ultimately, however, the best guarantee of the safety and the security of peacekeepers is a properly planned and mandated mission, comprising well-trained, equipped and disciplined contingents, in which troops are not deployed in a void or in situations where the political process is either non-existent or compromised. It must express the priorities of the larger community of Member States and not those of a select few. In conclusion, we trust that today's deliberations in the Council will help to improve the quality and content of decision-making in the General Assembly on policy and operational aspects of United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Malaysia.

Mr. Mohd Radzi (Malaysia): Mr. President, let me begin by joining others in thanking you for convening this meeting. Malaysia is pleased and greatly honoured to address the Council today under the presidency of Pakistan and especially to see the Foreign Minister of Pakistan presiding over this meeting this morning. At the outset, Malaysia would like to reiterate that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security resides with the United Nations, as envisaged in the Charter. We therefore consider United Nations peacekeeping operations to be a vital and indispensable element of the Organization. At the same time, we wish to emphasize that United Nations peacekeeping operations, no matter how successful they are, cannot be a substitute for a permanent solution. Nor are they to be used as an excuse to gloss over the need to address the underlying root causes of conflict. Within the limited time allocated in this debate I would like to raise a few of the points of concern and interest to Malaysia in relation to United Nations peacekeeping operations. First, the Security Council must strive to avoid selectivity and double standards in establishing United Nations peacekeeping operations in order to enhance its credibility in the eyes of the international community. That particular point was also stressed by leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) when they met at the 13th NAM. Summit in Kuala Lumpur last year. The Council will recall that in the past it has received proposals to intervene in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict by deploying an appropriate United Nations presence in the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem. On all those occasions, when an urgent United Nations intervention was most needed, regrettably, the Council was prevented from approving those proposals, hence indirectly allowing the continuation of flagrant and gross violations of international law and the brutal and wanton oppression of the Palestinians by the occupying Power. Malaysia once again urges the Council not to turn a blind eye to the current grave situation in the occupied Palestinian territory and to fulfil its long overdue responsibility under the Charter by seriously considering the deployment of a United Nations presence in the appropriate form and modality in the territory. We believe a United Nations presence in the occupied Palestinian territory would contribute immensely to the current efforts for peaceful settlement and the establishment of the State of Palestine, coexisting side by side and in peace with Israel, as envisaged by the road map. Secondly, high priority must be accorded to strengthen the safety and security of peacekeepers and associated personnel in field missions and respective headquarters. In that context, every effort must be made to further improve the safety and security system, especially in the field missions, in the face of the increasing threat to United Nations personnel. We welcome the Secretary General's recommendation for the creation of a full-time safety and security focal point and a mission security management unit within the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The capacity of the United Nations to collect, collate, analyse and disseminate intelligence reports in a timely manner must be enhanced. We welcome the formation of the Joint Mission Analysis Cell (JMAC) by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in four missions for the purpose of enhancing the capacity to gather information in the field and use it appropriately to assess the environments in which they are operating. The JMAC should be expanded to other peacekeeping missions as well, and this capacity should be optimized to the fullest. Thirdly, we note that cooperation and consultations between the Secretariat and troop- contributing countries (TCCs) have significantly improved at the formal and informal levels. The consultations have enabled the TCCs to share in advance vital information enabling them to adequately prepare their troops for their specific missions. We would like to encourage more frequent consultations and to widen the scope, where possible, of such cooperation and consultations. In that connection, we welcome the consultations between the Security Council and TCCs under the provisions of resolution 1353 (2001). We have noted, however, that the views expressed by TCCs during the consultations - sometimes on several occasions - were not taken into consideration when the Security Council made important decisions pertaining to the expansion of a mandate or the appropriate size of a peacekeeping force in a mission. We wish to draw the Council's attention to the fact that the TCCs' expertise and experience, acquired through decades of participation in peacekeeping operations, can serve as an invaluable input to the Security Council in all stages of planning and implementing peacekeeping missions. We urge that this matter be given its due attention. My fourth and last point concerns the resources and the budget of peacekeeping operations. It has become clear that the current allocation of $2.82 billion for the peacekeeping budget is insufficient. With new theatres of peacekeeping operations in the pipeline, an estimated additional $1.5 billion may be required. The Member States and the United Nations will certainly have to find ways and means to raise the required resources. It is our hope that in meeting this challenging task of mobilizing additional resources, the existing periodic payment of reimbursement and claims to troop-contributing countries will not be affected. We also draw the attention of the Council to the fact that there are still troop-contributing countries that have not yet received reimbursement for their participation in various missions that have ended, some more than a decade ago, such as UNOSOM. in Somalia and UNCTAC in Cambodia. We urge the United Nations to continue the efforts to settle the long- outstanding account while deliberating on innovative and practical modalities to raise the required resources for expanding peacekeeping operations.

The President: I thank the representative of Malaysia for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of Canada.

Mr. Rock (Canada): Thank you, Mr. President, not only for the opportunity to take part in this debate today, but also for the contribution that Pakistan makes, with over 7,000 military personnel and civilian police deployed in missions around the world. It is truly a remarkable contribution. If I may say so, this meeting is very timely for taking stock. As we look back over the past year, there has been a real enhancement in the manner in which United Nations operations are both planned and managed, whether one refers to Liberia, the expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cote d'Ivoire, Haiti or the missions planned for Sudan and Burundi. Over the short term, providing the United Nations with adequate financial resources is perhaps the single most important manner in which Member States can assist the United Nations to tackle the surge in operations that are expected. However, over the medium to long term, there are three pillars in the Canadian vision of how we as Member States of the United Nations can collectively address the challenge of improving peace support operations. First is the increasing importance to the United Nations of regional and multinational arrangements. Second is the need for capacity-building initiatives to enable a greater number of those arrangements to undertake peace support operations, and third is the priority that the United Nations system must attach to the rule of law within peace support operations. Let me deal briefly with each of those elements in turn. The increasing role of regional organizations and coalitions of the willing as partners of the United Nations is perhaps one of the most significant developments in the field of peace support operations since the early 1990s. In recent years the Economic Community of West African States, NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union and, most recently, the African Union have been playing greater roles in peace support operations. As an innovative arrangement - but without a regional basis, and one in which participation is open to all Members of the United Nations - the multinational Standby High Readiness Brigade, or SHIRBRIG, seeks to provide the Organization with rapid deployment capability. It has already proved its value and its flexibility in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Cote d'Ivoire and Liberia. With African leaders having agreed to develop regional standby brigades for peace support operations modelled on SHIRBRIG, and with the multinational peace force South-Eastern Europe - SEEBRIG - still evolving, we expect this trend will continue. What these arrangements have in common is that they seek to provide a cohesive force that can be used for peace support operations that have been authorized by the United Nations. Such arrangements are a proven way to overcome the problem of force inter-operability that has historically been a serious one for peace support operations. Such capabilities are all the more important as the Council increasingly recognizes the need for Chapter VII mandates that permit the use of force to establish secure environments, re-establish law and order, deter "spoilers" and protect civilians. I would also add here that Canada views the protection of civilians as integral to the Chapter VII mandates that are increasingly being provided to peace support operations. Here, lessons learned from recent missions should be drawn out, and we are confident that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs have much to offer in this regard. In implementing these mandates, it is of utmost importance for those deployed on mission to set the example and abide by the highest standards of conduct to gain the confidence of the people they are there to protect. I would also point out that regional and multinational arrangements are entirely consistent with both the letter and the spirit of Articles 43 and 53 of the Charter. They will have a critical role to play in the future of peace support operations and in both supplementing and supporting the capabilities of the United Nations itself. In this context we recall the Brahimi Panel recommendation that "Member States should be encouraged, where appropriate, to enter into partnerships with one another to form several coherent brigade-size forces, with necessary enabling forces" (S/2000/809, para. 117 (a)). It is in this context that Canada views the increasing role of regional and multinational arrangements for United Nations peace support operations and strongly encourages the Organization to continue to develop its partnerships with them. I turn to my second point, capacity building. Canada recognizes that it is not enough simply to encourage other nations to form regional arrangements. When the political will to do so is present but the resources and capacity are lacking, it is also in our interest to assist those organizations to develop their capability for peace support operations. Within the African context, the Joint G-8/Africa Plan to Enhance African Capabilities to Undertake Peace Support Operations, adopted at the G-8 Evian Summit in June 2003, provides the basis for ongoing initiatives to be harmonized and new efforts to be developed. While emphasis is placed on the role of G-8 countries and other donors in supporting this process, the centrality of the United Nations to the successful implementation of the plan cannot be overstated. Such arrangements must be consistent with the Charter. The United Nations has at its disposal a wealth of information on standards, operating procedures and best practices that should be drawn upon. Existing training centres such as the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, as well as those operating in Francophone Africa and in Kenya, can also be used. In short, there is scope for greater coordination of efforts between the G-8, other donors, the African Union and the United Nations. However, an underlying problem is the financing of missions undertaken by regional organizations, particularly in Africa. Though they may be mandated by the Security Council, they are paid for not through assessed contributions but through voluntary funding. As we all stand to benefit from such operations, we believe that there should be effective burden-sharing arrangements for donor support and that consideration should be given to whether such arrangements could be modelled on the United Nations scale of assessments, a pledging system of some kind, and/or whether the African Peacekeeping Trust Fund could be used. Finally, Mr. President, I come to the rule of law. Of equal importance to ensuring that the United Nations can draw upon the necessary resources to undertake peace support operations is that an effective exit strategy be realized. To create an environment in which a mission can close, leaving behind it a sustainable peace, the rule of law must be re- established. (spoke in French) Missions must be provided with specific mandates, strategic planning and resources to meet the challenges. Building greater rule-of-law capacities into the United Nations system in a manner which better integrates all of its elements - police, corrections, judiciary, legislation, transitional legal codes, etc. - should be a priority for us all. Critical in this regard is better coordination between the various actors and donors that contribute to the rule of law in the field. With that, allow me to close by reiterating how crucial it is for what we increasingly see as an interlocking network of peacekeeping and peace support arrangements and entities - albeit with the United Nations remaining at the centre - to cooperate in addressing the complex of security challenges which the international community currently faces.

The President: I thank the representative of Canada for the kind words he addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Guatemala, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Rosenthal (Guatemala) (spoke in Spanish): At the outset, Mr. President, I wish to congratulate you on Pakistan's initiative to organize this open debate and to thank you for the lucid non-paper you have circulated among all delegations. We are making this brief statement for two reasons: first, because Guatemala was the beneficiary of a small peace operation, authorized by the Security Council in its resolution 1094 (1997), within the framework of a broader mission authorized by the General Assembly to verify compliance with the peace agreements signed in December 1996; and secondly, because we agree with you, Sir, that the work of United Nations peacekeeping operations is at a crossroads and that it behoves us all to meet the challenge. The challenge, Sir, is clearly described in your non-paper. Given the rapid increase in the number, size and complexity of the peacekeeping forces required in various countries and regions, the question arises of whether the Organization has the management capacity, the financial resources, the availability of troops and the political will necessary to ensure that supply matches demand. Growing awareness of the risks that peace operations entail for the safety and security of the personnel assigned to them further complicates matters. In response to this challenge, there are only two possible alternatives. One is to adjust demand to supply, employing a sort of triage that deals only with the most salient cases; the other is to adjust supply to demand, thereby compelling the United Nations to address all the situations for which its participation is needed. We wish to express our decided preference for the latter alternative, which is in keeping with the Organization's lofty aims under the Charter but which has the drawback that it imposes grave responsibilities on all Member States - and, of course, on the Secretariat. Perhaps it is easy for a country of small size and low income, such as Guatemala, to take that position. But it would not be entirely fair to say that: if the United Nation were to undertake all the operations that are anticipated, our financial contribution to their expenses would reach an amount not far below that of our contribution to the regular budget, which would involve sums that would by no means be insignificant for my Government. But, we would shoulder the burden, in the full conviction that our contribution would strengthen world peace, which, in the long run, would benefit us all. It is in that spirit that on 12 November 2003 we signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations relating to the provision of standby peacekeeping forces. We believe that we know far more now than we did a few years ago about how best to meet the challenge. We have available valuable assets which are the fruit of lessons learned from the many complex operations carried out over the past 15 years. We also have the guidelines contained in the 2000 Brahimi report (S/2000/809) and the concrete steps taken to implement many of its recommendations, chiefly by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Interesting functional associations have also been established between the United Nations and regional organizations, particularly the African Union; we welcome these. No doubt, much remains to be done. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations must continue to develop its capacity to respond effectively and swiftly to sudden increases in needs and must adopt a new management culture. Above all, however, we must impress on public opinion in our respective countries the need for the supply of peace operations to keep pace with demand. In the long run, the investment will be a highly profitable one, because it is obvious that maintaining and building peace and preventing conflict are generally less costly than war. It may thus be that the crucial element in our efforts to strengthen the role of the United Nations in peacekeeping operations is convincing the Governments of Member States to provide their unstinting support to such operations.

The President: I thank the representative of Guatemala for the kind words he addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Argentina, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Mayoral (Argentina) (spoke in Spanish): At the outset, Sir, let me congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May and on your initiative to convene an open debate on a complex item that is of ever- increasing importance to the United Nations. I also want to thank you for preparing your non-paper, which has provided a very good basis for today's discussion. My thanks go also to Secretary-General Kofi Annan for having commenced the debate this morning, and to Under-Secretary-General Jean-Marie Guehenno for his presence at today's meeting. Like every other State committed to international peace and security, and having been a major troop- contributing country since 1958, my country, Argentina, has particular interest in improving and making more effective a tool that is truly vital to the work of the Organization: peacekeeping operations. Obviously, the past 12 years have seen a significant increase in peacekeeping operations. Although they are not specifically described in the San Francisco Charter, they have provided the Organization- and the Security Council in particular - with an effective response to new kinds of conflict. Moreover, these operations continue to be created in response to growing demand, precisely because the new mechanism is becoming increasingly effective. In that context, I wish to offer a few specific comments on matters that, in our view, should be taken into account if we truly want peacekeeping operations to continue to be successful over the long term. First of all, we believe that a clearly defined mandate is necessary. It is essential to reiterate once again that peacekeeping operations need to have clearly defined mandates. In that connection, we believe that the Security Council must reduce the use of Chapter VII of the Charter to what is strictly essential in defining the mandates of the forces it authorizes. We agree with the Brahimi report that mandates must be appropriate, realistic and adequately financed and that they must be implemented in a timely, effective and impartial manner. To that end, it is essential that we obtain information that enables us to assess the risks and challenges to be faced in various situations and develop appropriate deployment, adjustment and exit strategies. Secondly - although it may seem superfluous to say this - we believe that eliminating the root causes of conflict is paramount. No peacekeeping operation can be completely successful unless the conflict's root causes are eliminated. In that connection, working to eradicate poverty, to promote development, to protect human rights and to ensure the rule of law is essential to prevent worsening of conflicts and to lay the groundwork for recovery and normalization of the conflict situation being addressed. Thirdly, we believe that efforts must be coordinated. As new peacekeeping operations have been established, a certain fear has arisen that some aspect may have been neglected that should have been addressed. Hence, the mandates for such operations are increasingly complex. Because of the nature of peacekeeping operations, we tend increasingly to require more of them than they can deliver. Although it is important to maintain a multidimensional approach when we are trying to settle a conflict, the task of coordination is fundamental when tasks are being assigned. We have no doubt that closer cooperation and coordination of efforts among the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Secretariat would be very beneficial in that regard. Financial resources and political will - those two elements are essential if a peacekeeping operation is to be successful. It is financial resources and political will that can sustain the effort over the long term. I cannot fail to mention two aspects of peacekeeping operations that are of great importance to Argentina: the safety and training of personnel. Argentina has always been concerned about personnel safety, because we are convinced that that the men and women who work for the United Nations in peacekeeping should not be exposed to risks unnecessarily. Our country has raised the issue whenever it has had an opportunity to do so. Indeed, it was at Argentina's initiative that the Security Council adopted the presidential statement of 9 February 2000 (S/PRST/2000/4), which expressed concern over attacks against those personnel and considers such attacks to be grave violations of international law, including international humanitarian law. Furthermore, as the functions and objectives of peacekeeping operations become more complicated and sensitive, appropriate training of personnel for specific tasks becomes increasingly important. For that reason, our country has established two special training centres: the Argentine joint training centre for peacekeeping operations (CAECOPAZ) and the training centre for foreign missions (CENCAMEX), for civilian police training. One practice that was begun recently and that has proved to be positive is the inclusion of foreign staff in national contingents of peacekeeping operations. In the case of the Argentine contingent of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus, it has included, successively, officials from Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay. Argentine officials, for their part, have participated in the outstanding Brazilian contingent in Timor-Leste since 2001. Such joint participation encourages further participation by our countries in these missions. The United Nations must be able to fully meet the new trends on the international agenda and respond to threats to international peace and security. That is a long-term effort, and it will require of the international community sustained and long-term action, adequate resources, a common will and a coordinated policy. In conclusion, I should like to say that in the interests of brevity, I have referred to only some of the issues before us for consideration.

The President: I now call on the representative of the Republic of Moldova.

Mr. Grigore (Republic of Moldova): At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the current month and to express our appreciation for your skilful guidance of the Council's work. Like previous delegations, we commend the efforts of the Pakistani presidency in convening this open debate on peacekeeping operations, and we share its position on the need to evaluate the strategic direction of peacekeeping operations and future trends. The landmark documents in the area of peacekeeping - such as the 1992 Agenda for Peace and the 2000 Brahimi report - highlighted the significant importance of peacekeeping and assessed the existing system, providing specific recommendations on the political, strategic and operational levels of peacekeeping operations. At the same time, with the recent surge in demand for peacekeeping operations, we foresee the need to review the effectiveness and efficiency of the entire United Nations peacekeeping system. The Republic of Moldova fully shares the assessment of the challenges identified by the Secretary-General in his remarks today and in his recent report to the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. We find the questions formulated in the President's non-paper for this open debate to be of the utmost importance, and we look forward to cooperating in identifying adequate solutions to those challenges. Peacekeeping operations have now become more complex and multidimensional. Meeting these multiple challenges requires not only greater resources in personnel, logistics or finances, but also enhanced operational effectiveness and efficiency through constant improvement of the planning, the organization and the management of United Nations peacekeeping operations. In that regard, we appreciate the actions undertaken by the Secretariat in order to improve its capabilities in the field of peacekeeping and to enhance the effectiveness and the timeliness of its peacekeeping operations. With the increasing demand for peacekeeping operations, we need to ensure that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) carries out its heavy responsibilities efficiently and that available peacekeeping resources are used in the most beneficial manner possible. In that regard, we commend the efforts of DPKO to strengthen United Nations operational peacekeeping capacities in the fields of integrated planning, rapid deployment, coherent command and control, as well as the considerable advancement made in strengthening the United Nations Standby Arrangements System (UNSAS). The expected increase in the number of deployed peacekeepers will require from troop-contributing countries well equipped and properly trained units. In that respect, we note the significant achievements of DPKO in the area of training and would encourage it to continue the practice of providing timely information to potential troop-contributing countries on future training sessions and wide dissemination of materials on lessons learned and best practices. We support further development of standardized training modules, and we welcome the Department's steady efforts to develop a new process for recognition of United Nations training courses delivered by representatives of experienced troop-contributing countries, as well as the measures to establish new peacekeeping training centres. I would like to emphasize the continuing commitment of the Republic of Moldova to United Nations peacekeeping as an important instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security. Despite the fact that my country's ability to contribute effectively to peacekeeping operations is often impeded by financial constraints and shortfalls in training capabilities and equipment, the Government of the Republic of Moldova is willing to provide its full support, in political, human and logistical terms, to United Nations peacekeeping operations. Here, I wish to inform the members of the Security Council that Moldova, as an emerging troop- contributing country, is currently a participant in United Nations peacekeeping efforts, with military observers and staff officers in the United Nations missions in Liberia and C6te d'Ivoire. Military officers are also taking part in various peacekeeping missions within regional arrangements. The national authorities are undertaking the necessary steps, with a view to proper training and providing logistics for the national peacekeeping contingent. In the forthcoming period, the Republic of Moldova will consider strengthening its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping by concluding a memorandum of understanding and providing national troops in accordance with its pledges to UNSAS. In conclusion, I would like to touch upon the question of safety and security of United Nations personnel, which should be addressed as an absolute priority. The United Nations has to enhance its efforts to review its systems and procedures for safety and security, both at Headquarters and in the field, and must develop better capacities to prevent and manage threats by improving mechanisms for gathering information in the field. As previous speakers have mentioned, in less than two weeks we will observe the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers. Paying tribute to those who served and continue to serve with dedication and courage in United Nations peacekeeping operations, we must do our utmost to ensure their safe return to their families and home countries.

Ms. Ndhlovu (South Africa): My delegation would like to extend its congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council this month, and we also wish to convey our appreciation for convening this important debate on peacekeeping operations. Recent dilemmas with conflict prevention and resolution in Africa and elsewhere have confronted all of us with new challenges and threats that have not existed before. This has required us to think creatively about problems that still claim hundreds of lives. If thinking creatively implies that we redefine the paradigms of conflict prevention and resolution, we should be courageous enough to do so. South Africa believes that conflict cannot be resolved only by addressing the symptoms. As a short- term response, immediate relief of the symptoms might be helpful, but we need to delve into and understand the causes of conflicts so as to prevent escalation or recurrence of the violence. South Africa believes that an early integrated application of political, economic and military measures to restore or enhance the ability of conflict-ridden societies to look after themselves, politically and economically, is what the international community should be striving for. We believe that the prevention of conflict should be the main goal of the United Nations. That could only be possible by strengthening the early warning mechanisms through voluntary sharing of information among States. Prompt action based on proper analysis of early warning signals could serve us better than containing an already existing conflict and also save us from spending much- needed resources on peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping is an expensive exercise and should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive solution to conflicts. It should be a vehicle towards the creation of better conditions for socio-economic development and good governance. These are essential ingredients in the prevention of incipient and ensuing disputes from escalating into deadly conflicts. South Africa believes that no Government can be stable and legitimate without hope flowing in from prospects of a growing economy, rising employment, reduction of illiteracy levels and a better life for all. The resolution of conflicts will create the right environment for creating strong States and will also prepare countries for sustainable development. One of the most important innovations in the management of international security in the post cold- war era is the concept of shared responsibility between the United Nations and regional organizations for the effective management of conflicts within the regions of the world. Lessons learned from that cooperation show that United Nations capacity is enhanced by it. The African Union and other regional organizations have shown their commitment towards resolving long-standing conflicts on our continent. The actions of Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in Liberia and C6te d'Ivoire and of the African Union in Burundi and recently in Sudan are clear examples of how regional organizations can intervene and help prevent conflicts from escalating. However, that active role by the regional structures should not be perceived as absolving the United Nations of its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In that regard, my delegation looks forward to the early approval of a peacekeeping mission in Burundi. However, it is a well-known fact that the scope for regional peace operations is limited by the lack of funds and logistics capabilities. Therefore, we should be creative enough to work out a strategy to enhance that cooperation with the provision of logistics and equipment. A credible mission would be one authorized by the United Nations in support of regional initiatives aimed at bringing peace and stability. More importantly, there must be participation from the developed world, including logistical and material support. That would serve as a useful resource on which the United Nations could rely when circumstances demanded. The Brahimi report (S/2000/809) provided us with a clear set of specific, concrete and practical recommendations to improve the functioning of the United Nations. In the course of implementing the Brahimi recommendations, we have learned that success depends on political will and on the availability of a number of other resources, including logistical and financial resources. Knowledge of an impending conflict does not always translate into the political will to act. The decision to intervene is more often based on a political calculation by States of where their interests lie. In that regard, my delegation would prefer that the Security Council acted in the interest of the international community and intervened in a timely manner. These interventions should also be commensurate with the problem on the ground. The goal should be to resolve conflict by providing appropriate mandates and adequate resources to ensure that conflicts do not escalate or recur.

The President: I thank the representative of South Africa for her kind words addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Australia, on whom I call.

Mr. Tesch (Australia): Australia joins with others in thanking you, Mr. President, for this welcome opportunity to discuss the future of peacekeeping, particularly in the light of the recent increases in the number of peacekeeping operations and of further anticipated deployments of peacekeepers in the year ahead. Time constraints prevent me from commenting on more than a few fundamental principles that should underpin peacekeeping operations. Australia has been a core contributor to these operations since they were first undertaken. Our contribution in East Timor has been highly regarded and serves to demonstrate that we remain committed to carrying our share of the international peacekeeping burden. We are conscious, though, of the growing difficulties we all face as demands for new peacekeeping resources increase. In this situation, different models of burden sharing have become more important - coalitions of the willing, for example, which do what Blue Helmet peacekeepers may not be able to do. In this respect, it could be instructive, as many delegations have noted today, to look closely at the efforts of regional countries in maintaining peace and security in their neighbourhoods. The Australian-led mission in the Solomon Islands, to which most Pacific Islands Forum countries have contributed, is an example of what can be achieved on a regional basis. The demand for more peacekeepers underlines the urgency of resolving long-standing disputes. Much more needs to be done on conflict prevention. And, as the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) suggested, early intervention remains crucial if we are to avoid conflicts and to prevent them from escalating. In all these areas we need to ask if we are doing enough. It goes without saying that efficient and cost- effective management of peacekeeping operations is crucial. Solid gains have been made under Mr. Guehenno's leadership since the Brahimi report was released, but we cannot rest on our laurels. We must create a culture of continuous improvement. We must also hold peacekeepers to the highest standards of accountability, and we need to spare no effort to ensure the safety and security of peacekeepers and United Nations personnel. Real cooperation, including in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, is needed if we are to make progress in these areas. The Security Council itself also bears a heavy burden and must ensure that new missions have clear, well-designed mandates, adequate resources and credible success and exit strategies. Genuine consultation with interested countries and with troop- contributing countries will help the Council get its strategies right, and governance issues need to be given careful thought. We have regularly advocated that justice and rule-of-law considerations be treated as core components of United Nations missions. Australia has done more than just advocate that. To help build effective rule-of-law institutions, we are developing an International Deployment Group of 500 Australian police, available to participate in peacekeeping and law-enforcement missions. We urge other Member States to consider similar mechanisms. The bottom line is that we have achieved much since the Brahimi report was issued, though the challenges before us have multiplied. We need, therefore, to look beyond the Brahimi report. We must continue to find smarter ways to address threats to our security. Debates such as this can help. So too can an open-minded attitude to new ideas and solutions, such as, for example, any that may emerge from the Secretary-General's High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change.

The President: I call next on the representative of Kazakhstan.

Mr. Kazykhanov (Kazakhstan): We are pleased to see you presiding over this meeting of the Security Council, Sir, and we commend your initiative in organizing this important debate on United Nations peacekeeping operations. Kazakhstan firmly supports United Nations peacekeeping and the Organization's efforts to reinforce its peacekeeping capacity. This year Kazakhstan has fully paid its outstanding contributions to the peacekeeping operations budget and intends to regularly meet its financial obligations in the future. The establishment of a comprehensive mechanism designed to prevent destructive conflicts and their spread throughout the world remains a key objective and a challenge in peacekeeping. Since the release of the Brahimi report (S/2000/809), considerable progress has been made in this area, but much more must be done in order to improve United Nations peacekeeping capacities. This need is highlighted by the very nature of numerous conflicts and the growing demand for United Nations peacekeeping, especially in Africa. Kazakhstan fully supports efforts to reinforce the Organization's capacity to conduct peacekeeping operations in precarious security environments, including by the provision by Member States of direct and over-the-horizon rapid response capability. We need to develop close cooperation among the Security Council, Member States and regional arrangements in the search for ways and means to ensure an effective response to emerging complex conflict situations when measures to keep peace and promote development often have to be taken simultaneously. Issues of the security and safety of peacekeepers are growing in importance. The Organization is faced with increased direct threats to civilian staff of United Nations missions. In that context, Kazakhstan supports the steps by the Secretariat and its Department of Peacekeeping Operations to increase security and ensure better planning of peacekeeping operations by consolidating the efforts of various United Nations bodies, funds and programmes. We welcome the measures that are being taken to further expand the mandate of the United Nations Standby Arrangements System. Last October the Republic of Kazakhstan signed a memorandum of understanding with the United Nations concerning its contribution to the United Nations system of preparatory activities. We also would like to participate more actively in the United Nations system of procurement for peacekeeping missions. Efforts to advance coordination between the United Nations and Member States in the conduct of multidimensional peacekeeping exercises and to promote integrated training of peacekeepers by Member States are commendable and should be supported. As indicated in the Secretary-General's report on the work of the Organization (A/58/1), peace agreements by themselves mark only the first step in bringing lasting peace and prosperity to war-torn societies. For such States, creating or rebuilding civil society is a crucial long-term commitment and it is essential to establishing and consolidating democracy. In that context, we believe in the importance of the Organization implementing a local security concept encompassing a broad range of issues, starting with human rights and eradication of poverty and ending with development promotion and democratization. Recent experience has underscored the fact that peacekeeping operations lead to progress not only in the political field, but also in social and economic areas. It is gratifying to note that the understanding of the role of women in the establishment and maintenance of peace has increased significantly in recent years. We must continue to enhance the capacity of all actors to work in harmony in order to achieve our main goal of a world free of conflict. We believe that in conflict-prone regions the international community should much more vigorously promote policies to strengthen security, and primarily human security, because minimum security standards are a prerequisite for development. In concluding my short remarks, I would like to stress that the Republic of Kazakhstan remains firmly committed to its peacekeeping obligations and will continue to take steps to enhance the United Nations peacekeeping capacity.

The President: I thank the representative of Kazakhstan for his kind words. I call next on the representative of Fiji.

Mr. Savua (Fiji): The increasing challenges confronting the United Nations in addressing the upward surge in peacekeeping activities call for constant review and reform of peacekeeping operations, and the call by Pakistan for a debate on the issue is timely and to be commended. Any peacekeeping operation should strictly observe the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter, and should not be used as a substitute for addressing the root causes of conflicts. Any new or ongoing mandate should be based on thorough reconnaissance, proper assessment of completion time lines and sound intelligence, and must provide for a sound financial basis to meet its needs. While assessed contributions have served us well in the past, continued demands on the same sources of State funds has placed undue pressure on Members, causing them to reconsider their priorities with renewed focus. We should be looking at new methodologies for funding peacekeeping operations. Added to that is the need to strengthen the operational capacity of United Nations peacekeeping organs and their relationship with resource- contributing and troop-contributing countries and with the Security Council. A closer working relationship will ensure sustainable and effective operations. Australia and New Zealand, together with neighbouring States of the Pacific, have been active players in regional operations in the Solomon Islands, Bougainville and East Timor. We believe that with increased United Nations facilitation and assistance, more active and effective partnerships can be established for long-term peace and stability in any region. Regional and subregional entities have to complement United Nations initiatives and fulfil specific assignments, such as the provision of rapid reaction troops or standby battalions. It is thus imperative that further efforts be made to strengthen and deepen the relationship between United Nations peacekeeping organs and regional and subregional entities. Recent media reports of brutal killings of peacekeepers and other United Nations personnel of field missions continue to bring home the fact that safety and security are paramount in any operation. That should be of the highest priority for the United Nations. Fiji is gravely concerned about the continuing attacks and other acts of violence against United Nations personnel, and calls for the cooperation of everybody concerned to ensure that all appropriate steps are taken to ensure the safety and security of all United Nations staff. Accompanying that is the importance of maintaining a high standard of discipline and professionalism by peacekeepers in field missions. The United Nations and troop-contributing countries can ill afford to be sending troops who are not physically and mentally prepared for such operations. A strong emphasis on pre-deployment training and counselling is important if peacekeeping troops are to be exemplary in the discharge of their duties in mission areas. Acts of misconduct can impede progress and have a very negative effect on the fulfilment of United Nations mandates in the achievement of international peace. All operations demand adequate logistics and administrative support. However, while the need to be accountable and transparent is important, more critical is the need for all missions to be performance-focused; periodic and regular reviews should ensure that value- for-money service is produced. The pressure on the United Nations to produce results is mounting, and success will be measured by how well we can respond to it. Peacekeeping is indeed a necessary burden and sometimes a thankless task; it is our ability to weather the storms and bring forth new dimensions and enhanced capacities for peacekeeping that will silence our most vocal critics. Fiji subscribes to the view that international peace can be attained only if the collective will and the commitment of all are effectively harnessed and exploited to a level commensurate with the new challenges. The Government of Fiji extends its unwavering commitment and support to the United Nations peacekeeping and peacemaking processes.

The President: I thank the representative of Fiji for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I call next on the representative of Namibia.

Mr. Andjaba (Namibia): I would like to join previous speakers, Sir, in extending to you my congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of May. Allow me also to extend to your predecessor our appreciation for the excellent manner in which he guided the work of the Council last month. Namibia attaches great importance to United Nations peacekeeping operations. In that connection, we commend you, Sir, for the initiative to have this matter debated in the Security Council and for the non- paper which is the basis of our discussion today. On 29 March, the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations held a debate on this matter, which focused on issues presented in the report of the Secretary-General, contained in document A/58/694, on the implementation of the recommendations of the Special Committee. Important and fundamental issues were discussed, with a view to finding solutions to the challenges facing the Security Council, Member States and the Secretariat. We agree that peacekeeping operations have become not only a huge responsibility of the United Nations, but also a multidimensional exercise that requires shared understanding and continuous cooperation among the Security Council, Member States and the Secretariat - without which success may be in jeopardy. In that regard, my delegation welcomes the positive efforts aimed at enhancing the cooperation and the consultations among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop-contributing countries, as outlined in the Security Council resolution 1353 (2001). I wish to stress that the maintenance of international peace and security is the primary responsibility of the Security Council. However, it is our firm belief that enhancing regional peacekeeping capacities, especially in the regions mostly affected by armed conflict, particularly in Africa, will immensely complement the efforts of the United Nations in achieving international peace and security. In that connection, we welcome the ongoing efforts of the international community aimed at enhancing Africa's regional and subregional capacity for conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building. As we stated at the meeting of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations on 29 March, the security and safety of United Nations peacekeeping and associated personnel should be enhanced. That is a priority. Therefore, we are pleased that the United Nations has embarked on a review of its system and procedures for safety and security both at Headquarters and in the field. The ability of the United Nations to deploy peacekeepers rapidly so as to meet the agreed requirement of deploying within 30 to 90 days after the adoption of a Security Council resolution must be further improved. The Security Council must give clear, specific and robust mandates, which should include the protection of civilians and address the root causes of conflict. And this is of paramount importance: adequate resources must be made available, and peacekeepers must be well trained and well equipped in order to be effective. We are concerned by the delays in the Security Council in authorizing the deployment of a peacekeeping mission in Burundi, despite repeated calls by the African Union. The selective approach that we have often seen in implementing some peacekeeping operations - especially in Africa - undermines the credibility of the Security Council. The Council should move swiftly in responding equally to all situations that threaten international peace and security. In conclusion, my delegation is fully convinced that, with the necessary political will and commitment of all Member States, the Security Council and the Secretariat, we can achieve remarkable success. Namibia stands ready to continue to make its contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations.

The President: I thank the representative of Namibia for the kind words he addressed to me and to my delegation. I now call on the representative of Lebanon.

Mr. Kronfol (Lebanon) (spoke in Arabic): Permit me at the outset to congratulate you, Sir, and your country, Pakistan, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month. I thank you for choosing as the subject for this open debate the issue of United Nations peacekeeping operations, to which we attach great importance. Indeed, we were one of the first countries to become truly aware of the importance of peacekeeping troops when the first United Nations force - the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) - was established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict in Palestine. To this day, UNTSO continues to carry out its mandate on the ground. Following the Israeli invasion of southern Lebanon in 1978, another international peacekeeping operation was established: the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Both missions have been doing commendable work over the long term: for 56 years in the case of UNTSO and 26 years in the case of UNIFIL. However, despite their best efforts, they have not yet attained the objectives entrusted to them. Therefore, we believe it essential that they remain in place until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is achieved in the Middle East - that is, after Israel completes its withdrawal from Lebanon, from the Syrian Arab Golan and from the occupied Palestinian territories. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretary-General and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations for their ongoing efforts to achieve stability in southern Lebanon along the international border. Those forces comprise soldiers and civilians who are doing their utmost - often in difficult and dangerous conditions - to achieve peace in a region that has been suffering from instability as a result of Israeli aggression and Israeli mines. We pay tribute to the memory of those who have died for the sake of peace in the region - 249 officers, soldiers and international civil servants - and to all those who have suffered personally in the service of the principles of the United Nations as they have striven to replace war and conflict with peace. As a result of the lessons, both positive and negative, that Lebanon has learned from its cooperation with international forces, we have particular interest in the subject before us today, especially given the increase in the number of missions and troops and the many different kinds of situations in which they are deployed throughout the world. The prestige of the United Nations and the success of those missions are inextricably linked to respect for principles and for the forces deployed on the ground. Any failure to comply with fundamental principles negatively affects the standing of the United Nations and the work of the troops. The only weapon that actually protects the forces and international peace is the moral authority that the United Nations still possesses in the world. We must strive to give peacekeeping operations every possible chance for success by providing the troops, training and material and moral resources necessary for those operations to be successful, even without the use of force. We must tirelessly and constantly support the work of international peacekeepers both politically and diplomatically with a view to finding solutions that are acceptable to all parties. That can be done through negotiations, good offices and arbitration; we also have recourse to international law and international courts. We can also undertake humanitarian efforts, promote economic, social and media development and increase public awareness of the situation - all to ensure that missions can carry out their mandates. The costs of all such efforts pale compared with the costs incurred by war in terms of both loss of life and military expenditures. We must always remember that peacekeeping forces are temporary. The international community must do its utmost to ensure that missions are as brief as possible by providing everything they need to ensure their success. Troops cannot be a replacement for permanent solutions or for international treaties and agreements. We must require all parties to a conflict to provide all necessary assistance to and respect for international forces, including protection, in order to facilitate their tasks. The broader international community too must support peacekeeping forces to ensure their credibility and indeed the credibility of the United Nations itself. Every country in the world that is able to do so should contribute troops - officers and soldiers - or make other contributions. It should not just be a small number of developing countries that provide the bulk of the personnel serving in these missions. Countries that finance missions have a duty and a right to also participate in decision-making. We extend our deepest thanks and appreciation to the countries that make contributions. Today more than ever, Lebanon believes in the work of the forces on the ground in Lebanon. They must remain there until the task mandated to them by the Security Council has been completed and until a just, comprehensive and lasting peace is established in the Middle East on the basis of the resolutions, the principles and the Charter of the United Nations. Unfortunately, the troops will not be able to complete their mandate until all of the political, diplomatic, media, humanitarian, and development bodies of the United Nations work together to resolve the pending issues. However great the sacrifices of these international peacekeeping forces, their work will not be complete until those mandates are successfully completed and until we are able to achieve peace wherever those forces are stationed.

The President: I thank the representative of Lebanon for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

Mr. Jenie (Indonesia): The delegation of Indonesia would like to express its appreciation for this special event initiated by the Pakistani presidency of the Security Council on United Nations peacekeeping operations. In that connection, we thank the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, His Excellency Mr. Khurshid Mehmud Kasuri, for taking the time to personally preside over the meeting this morning. We also thank the Secretary-General for his remarks. Before I continue with my statement, permit me to also pay tribute to those United Nations personnel who, since the Organization's first peace supervision, in the Middle East in 1948, have given their lives for the cause of peace. Indonesia would like to remind the international community of the importance of ensuring that the price those brave men and women have paid for all of us is never forgotten. One of the main preoccupations of the United Nations is peace. Indeed, peace is the first desire of the heart of every one of us. That is why the United Nations Charter begins with a strong declaration of the determination of the peoples of the world to safeguard the future for peace. In that regard, peacemaking continues to be a desirable feature of, and contribution to, our efforts at the United Nations to fulfil that promise to our children and to ourselves. Peacemaking is one of the main pillars of the maintenance of international peace and security and deserves our support. In that respect, my delegation reiterates that peacekeeping operations must continue to observe the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and must respect the basic principles of peacekeeping. For that purpose, my delegation shares the view that, given various developments in the peacekeeping arena in recent times, it is now appropriate for Member States to take a close look at the issue, evaluate the strategic direction of peacekeeping operations and future trends and redefine the way forward. Peacekeeping has been, and will always be, a series of important, interrelated tasks that require a good deal of coordination. Like every other area of the work of the United Nations, it is also an evolving process. As part of that evolution, peacekeeping has grown in the past five decades, not only through the work of the Security Council, which is charged by the Charter with the maintenance of international peace and security, but also through the work of the Secretariat, the General Assembly and other bodies. In the case of the Secretariat, for example, the Secretary- General has periodically written seminal reports that have contributed in no small way to developing and guiding the field. In that connection, the acclaimed 1992 report "An Agenda for Peace (S/24111)" and the 2000 report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (S/2000/809), widely known as the Brahimi report, have become landmark documents in the evolution and development of the practice of peacekeeping. Similarly, the General Assembly's Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, working under the agenda item entitled "Comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations in all their aspects", has continued to deliberate on the Brahimi report. In its report of 28 March 2003 (A/57/767), the Special Committee requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on progress made in the implementation of its recommendations, a request fulfilled by the Secretary-General in his report dated 26 January 2004 (A/58/694). The Brahimi report was a timely response to the challenge of improving the capacity of the United Nations to undertake the increasingly complex peacekeeping operations that arose in the 19905. While the recommendations contained in the report are still being discussed or implemented, Member States and the Secretariat must both continue to strive to improve the planning, conduct and management of peacekeeping operations. A key success story of the Brahimi report has been the successful establishment of the Peacekeeping Best Practices Unit. We must ensure that the Unit continues to gather the best lessons from existing operations and that those lessons are swiftly implemented. Let me also say a word about the role of regional organizations. My delegation believes that United Nations peacekeeping would do well to take advantage of the potential of those organizations in working for peace and stability. Since a regional organization is always closer to any theatre of conflict and has a better understanding of its region, we endorse partnership and cooperation between such organizations and the United Nations. The objective of peacekeeping is peace, but it must be sustainable. Looking closely at recent developments on the subject of peacekeeping, it is the view of my delegation that, while a lot of very useful work has already been accomplished, much more remains to be done to ensure the achievement of sustainable peace by peacekeeping missions. In that context, it is also important to pay attention to the root causes of conflicts. My delegation supports the endeavour to review the effectiveness of mechanisms governing the planning, establishment, deployment and conduct of peacekeeping operations. Likewise, it is important to evaluate the level of logistic, financial and political support for peacekeeping operations and future requirements. Finally, Mr. President, it is our hope that this timely debate under your leadership will yield constructive and purposeful contributions towards more effective peacekeeping.

The President: I thank the representative of Indonesia for his kind words addressed to my Foreign Minister, myself and my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of C6te d'Ivoire.

Mr. Djangone-Bi (C6te d'Ivoire) (spoke in French): Mr. President, my delegation is grateful to you for giving us this opportunity to take part in this public meeting of the Security Council and to offer our views on an issue as important as it is timely: United Nations peacekeeping operations. As we all know, Pakistan has long been one of the major constant providers of troops for the operations of which we are speaking. Through your highly appreciated presence in this body, Mr. President, you show, once again, the steadfast commitment of Pakistan to supporting United Nations peacekeeping missions to engaging in active and effective solidarity with fraternal countries whose peace and security have been painfully disturbed. Thank you, Sir, for this reassuring display of compassion. The irrepressible and almost exponential numerical increase in United Nations peacekeeping operations, the impossibility of predictably controlling their duration or location, their growing complexity and the increased global burdens they impose on the international community require us periodically to take a fresh look at their founding principles, their mode of conduct and the evaluation of their results. The fall of the Berlin wall seemed to mark the end of the cold war and of revolutionary wars that almost exclusively affected young countries, such as Cote d'Ivoire, that were just embarking on their experience of national sovereignty and independent development. The welcome triumph of pluralist democracy, the free-market economy and human rights, reinforced by the shaping force of the globalization of economies and cultures, seemed to add to that hope for international and intra-national peace, for full human development in solidarity with our peoples and nations united by a common destiny. Unfortunately, we must now think again. Armed conflicts, most so-called internal ones, have again locked developing countries into a straightjacket of immediate concerns and reactions that take them ever further from the path of shared growth and invalidate all their efforts to catch up with the wealthy nations. The human, moral, intellectual, material and financial resources of the international community are now being spread thin in the settlement of armed conflicts, rather than helping to achieve the necessary millennium objectives: a sustainable and significant reduction of poverty, the elimination of known diseases, the closing of the digital divide, and access for all to information, drinking water and energy, to name but a few. Is it not time to move from a culture of reaction, ruinous for us all, to the more universally gratifying one of prevention, as recommended four years ago by the Secretary-General? He noted quite rightly that: "Conflict prevention lies at the heart of the mandate of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security [and that] preventive action by the international community can contribute significantly to strengthening the national sovereignty of Member States". (5/2001/574, p. 3) I would add that this unity of preventive action - undertaken in a multilateral framework, in support of national initiatives, in respect for international rules and with global and consistent strategies - remains in all respects the best and most economical way of promoting lasting peace and establishing a climate conducive to fostering human development that is both holistic and sustained. My delegation is available to the Council to contribute, in due course, to any future debate in the Council on this topic. As beneficiaries of the United Nations Operation in Cote d'Ivoire (UNOCI), the people and Government of Cote d'Ivoire wish once again to convey its profound gratitude to the international community, and especially to those friendly countries that have provided contingents to the Operation. Our ongoing experience allows my delegation to attest that United Nations peacekeeping operations must take every precaution to ensure their full effectiveness in the maintenance and consolidation of peace, as well as in the critical phase of the reconstruction of stricken nations and subregions. United Nations peacekeeping operations, which are irreplaceable, must, in the name of international peace and security, enjoy the contribution, the support and the timely, consistent and proactive backing of all Member States. The lack, inadequacy, tardy involvement or early depletion of the resources of those peace missions can jeopardize peace processes under way by reining in their momentum and, often, by reducing to naught the benefits of the cumulative effects of the results already achieved. While it is highly desirable for a lead nation to take charge of the coalition entrusted with any peacekeeping operation under consideration, we must reduce to a minimum any conflicts of interest in choosing that nation and the high-ranking officials of the mission in question. The necessary additional political support of the international community for the implementation of a peace process being consolidated by a peacekeeping operation should be offered in full respect for national sovereignty and established institutions, with no influence other than that of the international community itself. Such support should, of course, be given in coordination with the crucial activities of the regional and subregional organizations concerned, as has been eloquently noted by previous speakers in this debate. The success of a peacekeeping operation depends on it.

The President: I thank the representative of Cote d'Ivoire for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Mr. Atieh (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in Arabic): At the outset, my delegation congratulates you, Sir, on Pakistan's presidency of the Security Council. We thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan for presiding over the morning segment of today's meeting. We also thank the Permanent Representative of Germany and the members of his mission for their tireless efforts to make the work of the Council a success last month. We thank the Secretary-General for his statement this morning. We also thank Mr. Guehenno for participating in this meeting and express our satisfaction with and appreciation of the cooperation between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and Syrian authorities. The Security Council is today debating one of the most important mechanisms of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. United Nations peacekeeping operations have enabled the Organization in recent decades to contain and end many conflicts through their deployment wherever conflicts and tensions may erupt throughout the world. On that basis, peacekeeping operations are a very important tool allowing the United Nations to maintain international peace and security, play a vital and effective role in reducing tensions and contribute to the settlement of disputes and to post-conflict peace- building and peacekeeping. Over the years and decades, such operations have proven to be effective in implementing their entrusted tasks, from the traditional monitoring of ceasefire agreements to addressing the huge and complex challenges of territorial administration. They have shown themselves to be effective bulwarks against threats to international peace and security. It is worth noting that the first United Nations peacekeeping operation was launched over 50 years ago in the Middle East. The United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO) is still exercising its role in full responsibility and undertaking its functions capably and effectively. The Syrian Arab Republic pays tribute to the sacrifices made by the leaders, members and units of peacekeeping operations throughout the world and, in particular, in the Middle East. While they play an important role, peacekeeping operations should not be seen as substitutes for permanent solutions to conflicts. Peacekeeping operations are temporary arrangements to prevent the escalation of conflicts pending the attainment of drastic solutions in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy. In the case of the Middle East, however, they have endured for decades. UNTSO has existed for 56 years. Peace has been difficult to attain because Israel has insisted on pursuing aggressive policies and because the Security Council has been particularly unable to exercise its role or to ensure implementation of the relevant resolutions. The papers submitted for discussion under the Pakistani presidency include objective questions and opinions of great importance. There can be no doubt that providing our countries with the opportunity to express their opinions would constitute a real contribution to a collective assessment of strategic approaches towards peacekeeping operations and their future orientation. It is also worth mentioning here the important role played by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations within the framework of the General Assembly, whether in formulating general policies for the United Nations in the area of peacekeeping or in finding solutions to outstanding problems. The Syrian Arab Republic attaches particular importance to adherence to the principles and main guidelines for peacekeeping operations, as well as to rapid deployment, recruitment and the reimbursement of initial arrears to troop-contributing countries. In this respect, we would like to reaffirm our belief that peacekeeping operations must abide by their mandates and respect the basic principles set out in the Charter, including respect for the principle of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States. The mandates of such operations should also be well defined and should include a clear-cut time frame. Security measures at the headquarters of United Nations missions should also be strengthened in order to ensure the safety and security of the personnel who dedicate their lives to the goal of peace in the world. We would like to reaffirm the need to enforce the tripartite partnership between the Security Council, the Secretariat and the troop-contributing countries in planning, organizing and deploying peacekeeping operations. We believe that the mechanism referred to in resolution 1353 (2001) has a very important role to play in making peacekeeping operations successful and in achieving their purposes and objectives.

The President: I thank the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic for his kind words addressed to my delegation. The next speaker is the representative of Serbia and Montenegro, on whom I now call.

Mr. Kaludjerovic' (Serbia and Montenegro): I should like to thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this meeting and for providing the wider United Nations membership with an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the increasingly complex issue of United Nations peacekeeping. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General for his statement. The presence at this morning's meeting of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Pakistan underlines the importance of this discussion, as well as of Pakistan's own role in many peacekeeping operations throughout the world. My delegation aligns itself with the statement made earlier today the European Union. In the framework of the excellent guidelines offered by the presidency, I would like briefly, from our own national standpoint, to focus on what has worked and what has not worked in present-day United Nations peacekeeping. The United Nations is ever-more-frequently launching peacekeeping operations of a far-reaching and multidimensional nature. Some of them are carried out alongside regional or multinational authorized forces. Many are working in close cooperation with regional organizations, thus offering helpful opportunities to meet the challenges of complex peacekeeping operations, given the experience of such organizations in certain areas and their ability to pursue a more local, sensitive approach. For five years my country has been host to such an operation - the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK). Although officially a peacekeeping operation, UNMIK is in effect a complex mission engaged in post-conflict peace-building. Allow me, therefore, to speak of some of the fundamental issues of peacekeeping that our experience has highlighted. By its very nature, peacekeeping is aimed at achieving security with a view to creating a solid basis for long-term stability. This is no trouble-free task. The precarious security conditions in which peacekeeping is generally conducted are particularly volatile in cases of internal conflict, where armed elements are often only partially under control and where there are many spoilers who would exploit perceived United Nations weaknesses to derail a peace process. However, there can be little doubt that without security there will be no stability and very little chance of building democratic institutions. Regrettably, security has not been achieved in Kosovo and Metohija. After years of more or less regular attacks on non-majority ethnic communities, in March we witnessed a wave of organized, brutal, ethnically motivated violence during which - in less than 48 hours - many people were killed or injured, KFOR and UNMIK personnel were severely attacked, entire villages were burned and Christian religious and cultural sites - many of which belong to the world cultural heritage - were destroyed. The targets were members of non-majority ethnic communities, particularly Serbs. Insecurity is further exacerbated by the large quantity of small arms existing illegally in the province. A small arms survey, entitled "Kosovo and the Gun", commissioned in 2003 by the United Nations Development Programme, found that the total holdings of guns by civilians in Kosovo can be estimated at between 330,000 and 460,000, almost all of them held illicitly. Obviously, it is hard to envisage that as a foundation upon which durable peace and a stable democratic society can easily be built. On a related issue, I would like to remind the Council that resolution 1318 (2000), on ensuring an effective role for the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, underlined the need for respect for human rights and the rule of law. In addition, the Brahimi report recommends a doctrinal shift in the direction of an increased focus on strengthening rule-of-law institutions and improving respect for human rights in post-conflict environments. That is evidence of the growing realization that the establishment of the rule of law is a key aspect of peacekeeping operations, since the experience of virtually all post-conflict societies has shown that sustainable peace cannot be built in the absence of the rule of law. We believe that that essential aspect of peacekeeping can determine the success or failure of peacekeeping missions, because it constitutes the key element of a strategy for the long-term settlement of conflicts. This is clearly a difficult task. After the March violence in Kosovo and Metohija, more than 200 perpetrators were arrested, but, to the best of our knowledge, charges have been brought against very few - if any - of them. Even before those events, no perpetrators of ethnically motivated crimes - whether murder, arson or any other crime - committed since the establishment of UNMIK had been brought to justice. The consequence is the establishment of a culture of impunity surrounding violence against minorities that further exacerbates insecurity and reduces the possibility of the return of a quarter of a million refugees and internally displaced people who were forced to flee the province after the arrival of UNMIK. It is self-evident, therefore, that the focus on the protection of human and minority rights necessarily needs to be reinforced in peacekeeping operations. Situations in which the basic right to life is not established for non-majority ethnic communities are clearly not an environment conducive to society- building and inclusive discussions on major political issues. If long-term stability and durable political settlements are the ultimate aim of United Nations involvement in peacekeeping missions, then much more resolve and consistency are needed in addressing those issues, on the part not only of peacekeepers themselves, but also and primarily, of the Security Council that defines their mandates.

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of Nepal.

Mr. Sharma (Nepal): My delegation congratulates you, Sir, on the excellent manner in which you have been conducting the business of the Security Council. I also thank you for convening this open debate on United Nations peacekeeping operations and for the superb background paper that you prepared for this purpose. Nepal is committed to world peace and to peacekeeping. Our commitment is apparent and abiding. We have contributed more than 40,000 military and police personnel since 1958, helping bring peace to Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe; 43 of our young nationals have lost their lives in the line of duty. Peacekeeping is an instrument of peace, not a panacea. To have durable peace, the world community should help conflict-ridden and other vulnerable nations come to grips with the root causes of conflict: poverty, illiteracy, disease and injustice. Central to effective peacekeeping is an optimal mix of human, material and financial resources and a seamless partnership among nations that bring those contributions. The United Nations, pivotal in this partnership for peace, should bridge the resource gaps and manage missions to produce the desired results. The Security Council must respond to crises in time, adequately and objectively. Its mandates must be tailored to the realities on the ground, with achievable goals, clear entry and exit strategies and practical time lines. Lessons learned, too, could help in that process. Fully integrated mission planning ought to be pursued to foster understanding, cooperation and ownership among all players involved in a mission. The Integrated Mission Task Force should encompass not only the relevant United Nations departments but also other key stakeholders, including troop- contributing countries. The command and control structure of a mission ought to be efficient, effective and, of course, inclusive. The principles of quality, equity and representation should determine the composition of staff in missions and at headquarters, including in senior positions. To build quick deployment capacities, standby arrangements and strategic deployment stocks ought to be strengthened. Resources should be provided to poor nations so that they can keep their pledged standby troop strength ready to deploy. Enough supplies should be stocked at Brindisi to launch two missions at a time, one large and one medium-sized. Clearly, all countries must pay their assessed contributions to peacekeeping missions in full and on time. To leverage the start-up of missions, the Peacekeeping Reserve Fund should be doubled. Quick impact projects are necessary to win people's hearts and minds in a mission area and should be consistent with local development priorities. Every peacekeeping mission should be followed by a smaller stabilization mission to help the country emerging from conflict to find its feet. The disarmament, demobilization and reintegration process is a key mission component for preventing a relapse into violence. The transfer and integration of ex-combatants into a restructured security apparatus could be part of the solution in that respect. Regional cooperation is crucial from two perspectives. First, it is crucial to stemming the spread of conflict from one country to another and to addressing the root causes of conflict. The Security Council should ask adjacent missions to coordinate implementation of common elements of their mandates. Secondly, it is crucial to creating synergy based on shared training, expertise and, in some cases, even compatible weapon systems, as well as to building and augmenting regional capacities for quick force generation and deployment. Once implemented, the Secretary-General's recent proposal will enhance the safety of United Nations personnel and the security of its premises. The Organization should do more to achieve that paramount goal; the cost should be shared with its beneficiary agencies and host countries. At a different level, the United Nations should preserve its image as an unbiased and objective player in order to enhance its security. It must be - and be seen by all law-abiding nations and peoples to be - an objective arbiter of peace and development. Nepal believes that all human, logistic and financial resources are essential to peacekeeping missions. But the human lives that troop-contributing countries bring to the equation of this partnership for peace should receive the respect they deserve.

The President: I thank the representative of Nepal for the kind words he addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to the representative of Armenia.

Mr. Martirosyan (Armenia): Allow me to begin by extending my congratulations to you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council and to assure you of my delegation's full support for the Council's work. This open debate on United Nations peacekeeping operations is of paramount importance as the Organization is currently planning at least four new peacekeeping missions and is contemplating a possible expansion of its activities in Iraq. This debate is being held at a time when questions are being asked about the efficacy of current peacekeeping operations in Africa, Asia and Europe and about the ways and means to improve them. It is being conducted as the Organization is taking its first steps to address security and development challenges in conflict areas through integrated peace-building approaches. It is indubitable that peacekeeping operations have made great headway during the past decade, evolving from classic peacekeeping operations into extremely complex ones encompassing conflict management, confidence-building and post-conflict peace-building. Sometimes, inadvertently, the United Nations has found itself carrying out peacemaking functions in rather complicated situations, raising doubts about the legitimacy and successfulness of its actions under such circumstances. Despite the fact that all those issues have been duly analysed by the high- level Panel headed by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi and subsequently reflected in its report of March 2000 (S/2000/809) we still ponder the same issues when the question of a new peacekeeping operation comes up. Armenia is taking its first steps in this field. In 2003, my country made a decision to participate in the NATO-led peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. Since February 2004, a platoon of 34 peacekeepers from the Armenian armed forces has been operating as part of the Greek forces of the United States-led multinational brigade of the Kosovo Force (KFOR). In 2003, Armenia hosted NATO Partnership for Peace exercises - known as Cooperative Best Effort 2003 - the main goal of which was the planning of interaction between Partnership nations during peacekeeping operations. As we become part of an international community that strives to bring peace to different parts of the world, we want to make sure that the efforts are well spent and rewarded by the creation of self-sustaining peace in those areas. In this respect, my delegation would like to raise several issues that it believes could be considered as necessary precursors for effective intervention. First, the issue of the regionalization of conflict or the regional dimension of conflict has to be taken into account when planning for peacekeeping operations. Transborder armed groups, illegal trafficking and trade, and transborder social networks are issues that should not be overlooked when considering the establishment of a security environment, humanitarian assistance, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration. Such an approach, despite its extreme complexity, may prove to be more effective if it is duly considered in all its aspects for its impact in such operations as that currently being discussed for the Sudan. Secondly, for the past decade United Nations peacekeeping operations have evolved into multifaceted and multidimensional missions. Yet, the time has probably come to contemplate the idea of the establishment of multi-phased operations as well, where a gradual development from peacekeeping to peace-building is planned in advance as part of an operation. Apart from providing an opportunity for better planning for the transition from the military to the development phase of a peacekeeping operation, it would also send the right message to war-torn communities about the sound commitment of the international community to helping to reconstruct the social fabric of the country in such a manner that it will be able to sustain the hard-achieved peace and advance on the path to democracy and the rule of law on its own. The identification of the end state that the peacekeeping operation aims to achieve might set the right agenda for the programmes and projects to be implemented on the ground. In this respect, we cannot overstress the need for tangible results to keep hope from dwindling and to prevent the resumption of conflict. Quick-impact projects could be one way of making a real difference in the lives of people, and consequently in their minds. Thirdly, we realize that this kind of planning would require a proper analysis of the situation on the ground and of the roots and causes of the conflict, yet we believe that it should be a priority in the consideration of a peacekeeping operation in the first place. As past experience shows, no operation is successful if it does not address deep-rooted grievances and the causes of the conflict or take its dynamics into account. A holistic understanding of the range of security and development challenges in conflict areas, as well as developing programmes based on those realities, and sometimes on worst-case scenarios, and not on the theoretical models of best assumptions, might help to address the need for the urgent improvement of the ways the United Nations deals with conflict situations. Honouring pledges made, be they political or financial, would help to transform the United Nations into an Organization that is capable of successfully fulfilling its founding mandate "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".

The President: I now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea.

Mr. Kim (Republic of Korea): I join previous speakers in thanking you, Sir, for convening this open debate on peacekeeping operations. The Republic of Korea attaches the utmost importance to peacekeeping operations as a vital instrument for the United Nations in discharging its primary responsibilities in the maintenance of international peace and security. Our strong and sustained commitment to the United Nations and its role in maintaining peace around the globe is evidenced by our active participation in various peacekeeping operations, from Somalia and Angola to the Western Sahara and Timor-Leste. While the United Nations mandate spans nearly every aspect of international life, peacekeeping remains the most visible and prominent responsibility of the Organization and the activity to which the bulk of the Organization's resources are devoted. As such, the performance of peacekeeping operations serves as the primary yardstick by which the United Nations relevance and credibility are judged by the global community. The Republic of Korea commends the Department of Peacekeeping Operations for its relentless efforts to strengthen its operational and managerial capacities. Despite the important progress and many valuable lessons learned from past setbacks and achievements in the field of peacekeeping, United Nations peacekeeping operations today face multiple challenges. As the demand for and complexity of United Nations peacekeeping operations increase, the Organization's resources are becoming overstretched and overstrained. Moreover, the concurrent increase in multilateral peacekeeping by coalitions of the willing in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq further restricts the availability of the most capable troops for United Nations peacekeeping operations. At the same time, inhospitable and dangerous operational environments have raised serious concerns about the safety and security of peacekeepers. In light of these challenges, the Republic of Korea would like to make the following observations. First, the daunting challenges facing United Nations peacekeeping require enhanced operational effectiveness and efficiency through constant improvements in the planning, organization, training, logistics and management of its peacekeeping operations. Secondly, we emphasize the importance of empowering regional organizations and the need to establish an optimal division of responsibilities and partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations. Given the ongoing dire need for United Nations peacekeeping in Africa, we attach particular importance to empowering African regional and subregional organizations in order to tap their unique and complementary capacities. In this regard, we strongly support the creation of new types of partnerships and cooperation arrangements between the United Nations and regional organizations. We also welcome and support efforts of the African nations to strengthen and intensify conflict-prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building activities. Thirdly, given the severe resource constraints currently plaguing the United Nations, the Organization is not in a position to resolve each and every conflict arising around the world. Instead, the Organization must concentrate its efforts on situations where it enjoys comparative strength over other actors and where it has a reasonable chance of making a difference on the ground. Those conflicts requiring a robust or rapid response that exceeds the United Nations capabilities may be farmed out to coalitions of the willing or regional organizations. Finally, in the light of the dramatically surging demand for United Nations peacekeeping expected in the coming months and years, one task for the Organization is to recruit properly-trained, well- equipped and disciplined forces. Another challenge will be to secure the financial resources to meet the resulting increase in peacekeeping costs. In this connection, we underline the importance of the Security Council's consulting with major financial contributors before it makes decisions with significant financial implications. Such a courtesy would be helpful to these financial contributors in galvanizing their domestic constituencies in support of timely budgetary appropriations. In closing, the Republic of Korea would like to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of all personnel who have served or are serving in United Nations peacekeeping missions around the world, in particular those who have made the supreme sacrifice of their lives for the noble cause of peace.

The President: I thank the representative of the Republic of Korea for his kind words addressed to my delegation. I now give the floor to Mr. J ean-Marie Guehenno, who has patiently sat through our extensive debate, and request him to offer his comments on the various issues raised in this discussion.

Mr. Guehenno: My thanks go to Pakistan for organizing this debate at such a critical time for peacekeeping. The fact that no less than 43 countries have participated in this debate shows the importance that the membership of the Organization attaches to peacekeeping. It has been very encouraging, throughout this day of discussions, to hear so many words of encouragement and support for the work of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and - more important, I would say - for our colleagues in the field who support the ideals of the Charter. Many important and very substantive ideas and proposals have been expressed throughout the day. At this late hour I do not think I should comment on each and every idea that was expressed during the discussion. Let me just say that we will certainly follow up carefully with all the ideas that have been discussed today. At this hour, I want to make just five short points. First, a point that came through in many of the statements: the Organization - whose rules and regulations, after all, were designed to manage Headquarters activities - has to adjust the rules and regulations that govern it to accommodate the requirements of field operations, which are often quite different from the needs of Headquarters. The need for flexible means of early financing, replenishment of strategic deployment stocks and the possibilities of economies of scale through the provision of common services are some of the ideas that need to be further developed. I would like, in that respect, to stress that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is now managing more than 11,000 civilian personnel. I am not talking about the uniformed personnel or the police, only the civilian personnel. They are more than 11,000, and that could go up to 15,000. That is much more than the whole of the Secretariat. We see, every day, that the rules and regulations that govern this personnel - who work side by side with personnel from the funds and programmes in the field - are not always well adapted to their work in the field. This is one of those practical things that will need to be adjusted if we want to have the best and the brightest serving in our difficult peacekeeping operations. Secondly, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, at a time when peacekeeping is becoming increasingly multidimensional, does not want to - and should not - become a jack of all trades, so to speak. The Department has some core capacities that it needs to strengthen and continue strengthening, but, indeed, it has to serve as an integrator, drawing on the resources, capacities, capabilities and expertise of the whole United Nations system. Our strategy is certainly not to try to duplicate competencies and expertise that exist outside the Department, but to make sure that we have the right entry points so that we can mobilize in an effective manner all of these resources that already exist within the system or, sometimes, within Member States, and so that these resources can be part of a comprehensive and coherent plan. In the field, I think this integrating function already works and has seen some very serious improvements. The fact that the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary- General - or one of the Deputy Special Representatives of the Secretary-General in a multidimensional mission - is often the Resident Coordinator as well as the Humanitarian Coordinator provides the kind of integration of the United Nations presence in the field that makes our operation more effective. With regard to Headquarters, many speakers stressed the need to improve the functioning of the Integrated Mission Task Force to make it more effective. At Headquarters, we have to work harder to bring together the whole system. Thirdly, there is a need for stronger partnerships. This, in a way, is an expansion of my previous point. Confronted with such huge challenges, we will not succeed unless we mobilize all the resources, not just within the United Nations system, but from all Member States. This means more and more interaction with the troop contributors, more interaction with the major financial contributors, more interaction with the Bretton Woods institutions and more interaction with regional organizations. We strongly believe in transparency and in finding more ways to intensify relationships so that Member States have a better understanding of what our needs are - and of what our weaknesses are, so that these can be corrected. I think it is in the interest of all of us that we share with Member States in the most transparent manner what our concerns and needs are. Fourthly, whatever improvement we can bring to the management of peacekeeping operations, the end point of all of our efforts is the commitment of the membership of the United Nations at large. The efforts of the United Nations Secretariat can only go so far. There is no standing army. This means that there must be an improvement in the standby arrangement system so that it becomes something really effective and so that the arrangements have really been made beforehand and so that we can mobilize military resources quickly. We know how important that is. We need more specific capabilities. The Secretary-General mentioned this issue this morning in his statement. This means that, in challenging military environments, we need to get the kind of capabilities from Member States that we now very often find are stretched. We need enabling capacities and force multipliers, which multiply, as the name indicates, the capacity of a force far beyond the numbers provided; we need them in the present situation. My last point is a broader one: long-term success requires that peacekeeping deployments be accompanied by and embedded in a broader strategy. Many have stressed the need not to transform peacekeeping forces into a long-standing presence. Peacekeeping must be a phase in the return to peace. Peacekeeping must be as short as possible. Peacekeeping must not cost too much money, because the resources, both financial and human, are not unlimited. I would like to make a comment here. Yes, it is possible that if new missions are mandated, the peacekeeping budget could get close to $4 billion. That is a lot of money. But it can be looked at in several ways. Four billion dollars is less than half of one per cent of world military spending. After all, the bulk of peacekeeping costs are military costs, and so the reference to military spending makes some sense. It means that still only a tiny percentage of overall military spending is focused on United Nations peacekeeping. At the same time, I recognize that, when compared with the figure for official development assistance, $4 billion is a very significant figure: it is a lot of money compared to official development assistance. There cannot be sustained peace if there is conflict. There cannot be the beginning of peace if there is conflict. But peace that has been imposed, that has been consolidated by peacekeeping operations, will not grow roots if there is no development. So the tension that is sometimes observed between peacekeeping and development is not actually a tension. You will not see investment and development aid in a country that is afflicted by conflict. But you will not see peace being sustained if a real, broader strategy does not accompany the peacekeeping mission. Peacekeeping is a fragile bridge towards peace. That bridge is essential. But if it is not anchored in a broader strategy, with the Member States making sure that the country that has been afflicted by conflict gets much broader support than the support that peacekeepers can provide, then no indeed, our costly investment in peacekeeping will not bear fruit. I would like to conclude on that point. Sometimes we have the feeling that the left hand ignores what the right hand is doing. The left hand invests in peacekeeping, and it is an important and necessary investment. But that investment has to be complemented by broader investments. It is not one or the other; I am afraid it has to be both.

The President: I thank Mr. Jean-Marie Guehenno, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, for his comments and clarifications with regard to the debate that we have had. After consultations among members of the Security Council, I have been authorized to make the following statement on behalf of the Council. "The Security Council recalls its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and reaffirms its commitment to the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular, of the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States in conducting all peacekeeping and peace- building activities and the need for States to comply with their obligations under international law. "The Security Council recognizes that, as experience confirms, United Nations peacekeeping operations play a critical role in the maintenance of international peace and security, preventing and containing conflicts, promoting compliance with international norms and Security Council decisions, and building peace in post- conflict situations. "It further notes that United Nations peacekeeping missions are charged with increasingly difficult and complex mandates assigned to them by the Security Council and recognizes in this regard the need for a continued review of United Nations peacekeeping. "The Security Council notes that, in addition to the existing 14 United Nations peacekeeping operations, there has been a recent surge in demand for new peacekeeping operations. It is cognizant of the challenges this represents for the United Nations system in terms of generating necessary resources, personnel and other capabilities to meet the increased demand. "The Security Council calls upon Member States to ensure that the United Nations is provided with full political and financial support to meet these challenges effectively, keeping in View the specific requirements of each mission and bearing in mind the human and financial resource implications for the United Nations. The Council also stresses that it is important to ensure that, while meeting demand for new peacekeeping operations, the resources available for, and effective management of, the existing operations are not adversely affected. At the same time it underscores the need for efficient and effective management of resources. "The Security Council calls upon Member States to contribute sufficient levels of trained troops, police and civilian personnel, including those with specialized capabilities and skills, bearing in mind the need for an increased percentage of female personnel at all decision- making levels, as well as mobilization of logistic and administrative support, to allow the multiple operations to start optimally and fulfil their respective mandates in an effective manner. Enhancing the Secretariat's capacities and using them in a rational and efficient manner will constitute a crucial element of this response. "The Security Council stresses also the need for improved integrated mission planning, as well as enhanced capacity for rapid deployment of personnel and materiel to ensure efficient start-up of peacekeeping operations. The timely and adequate replenishment of strategic deployment stocks is essential to meet current and future demands. "The Security Council recognizes the need to work, as appropriate, with regional and subregional organizations and multinational arrangements in peacekeeping operations in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations to ensure complementary capacities and approaches before and during the deployment and after the withdrawal of United Nations peacekeeping missions. "The Security Council recognizes its responsibility to provide clear, realistic and achievable mandates for peacekeeping missions. The Security Council values, in this regard, the assessments and recommendations provided by the Secretariat for informed decisions on the scope and composition of new peacekeeping operations, as well as their mandates, concept of operations and force levels and structures. "The Security Council believes that there is need to strengthen the relationship between those who plan, mandate and manage peacekeeping operations, and those who implement mandates for these operations. Troop-contributing countries, through their experience and expertise, can greatly contribute to the planning process and can assist the Security Council in taking appropriate, effective and timely decisions on peacekeeping operations. The Council recognizes, in this regard, that the meetings and mechanisms established by its resolution 1353 (2001) serve to facilitate the consultation process. "The Security Council recognizes that in peacekeeping operations there are contributors, other than troop-contributing countries, whose views should also be taken into account as appropriate. "The Security Council stresses that, in challenging environments, United Nations peacekeepers may need to be provided with sufficiently robust rules of engagement and the necessary military resources to enable them to fulfil their mandate and, if necessary, to defend themselves. In all cases, the Security Council considers the safety and security of all United Nations personnel to be a priority. It stresses, in this context, the importance of enhanced capacity to gather and manage information in the field. "The Security Council takes note of recent efforts to increase coordination between missions in adjacent countries and encourages Special Representatives of the Secretary-General to explore synergies to ensure effective management of peacekeeping missions in the same regions or subregions. "The Security Council stresses the need to regularly assess the size, mandate and structure of peacekeeping operations with a view to making the necessary adjustments, including downsizing, where appropriate, according to progress achieved. It also encourages the continued commitment of the international community to consolidate and sustain the peace on the ground during and beyond the life of the mission. "The Security Council further recognizes the importance of a gender perspective, including gender training for peacekeepers, in peacekeeping operations, in accordance with Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) and the importance of protection of children in armed conflict in accordance with Security Council resolution 1379 (2001). "The Council recognizes the increased risk of the spread of communicable diseases and certain criminal activities in post-conflict areas. The Council welcomes efforts by the Secretariat to sensitize peacekeeping personnel in the prevention of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases, in compliance with Security Council resolution 1308 (2000), and encourages the Secretariat to continue implementing its guidelines on prostitution and trafficking. "The Security Council recognizes that effective peacekeeping operations should be part of an overall strategy to consolidate and sustain peace. In this regard, it stresses the need to ensure from the outset the coordination, coherence and continuity between the different parts of this overall strategy, in particular between peacekeeping on the one hand and peace-building on the other hand. To this end, the Security Council encourages closer cooperation between all relevant United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and international financial institutions, regional and subregional organizations and the private sector. Ensuring lasting peace in the aftermath of conflict may require sustained support from the United Nations and its humanitarian and development partners. "The Security Council notes that training is increasingly becoming a critical element in peacekeeping operations and recognizes the need to utilize the expertise of experienced troop- contributing countries. It encourages international cooperation and support for the establishment of peacekeeping training centres, which could provide a wide range of training opportunities to new and emerging troop contributors. "The Security Council recognizes that meeting the demands of an increasing number of United Nations peacekeeping missions will require the concerted efforts of the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Member States of the United Nations and the Secretary- General so as to ensure that the necessary resources and operational support are provided. The Council encourages follow-up consultations on the surge in demand and invites the Secretary- General to provide regularly in a timely manner to Member States assessments of evolving needs and shortfalls in United Nations peacekeeping in order to identify critical gaps and unmet requirements as well as steps required to meet these. "The Security Council underscores the useful role of its Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations in the consultation process at different stages of peacekeeping operations. It encourages the Working Group to pay special attention to matters relating to the surge in demand in United Nations peacekeeping over the coming year and, as necessary, to report to the Council. "The Security Council pays high tribute to all the men and women who have served and continue to serve in United Nations peacekeeping operations for their high level of professionalism, dedication and courage. It honours the memory of those who lost their lives in the service of the United Nations and the noble cause of peace." This statement will be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/PRST/2004/l6. There are no further speakers inscribed on my list. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda. The meeting rose at 7.35 pm.