S/PV.6238 Security Council

In my capacity as Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1132 (1997) concerning Sierra Leone, I would like to report to the Council on the work of the Committee during the period of 2008-2009 and share my assessment on the way forward. Since the adoption of resolution 1132 (1997), Sierra Leone has achieved tangible progress in the course of peace consolidation, socio-economic reconstruction and international reintegration. Despite the still fragile security situation, which requires sustained attention, the parties in Sierra Leone remain committed to a cessation of all acts of political violence and to a bipartisan consensus on important national policies. The Government has proceeded with its Agenda for Change, and incremental results have been achieved in the areas of combating corruption, reforming the security sector, creating jobs and empowering youth. The cooperation between Sierra Leone and the United Nations country team, the Peacebuilding Commission and other development partners has been further strengthened within the framework of the United Nations peacebuilding strategy for Sierra Leone and the Joint Vision of the United Nations family for Sierra Leone. However, Sierra Leone today is facing the emerging threats of piracy, drug trafficking, illegal trade in natural resources, uncontrolled migration to urban centres and other adverse effects of the global financial downturn, all of which have the potential to create an environment conducive to violence and instability. It is in that context that the relevant functions and activities of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1132 (1997) concerning Sierra Leone have evolved. The Council originally mandated the Committee to oversee the implementation of the sanctions measures set out in that resolution, which consist of an arms embargo on non-governmental forces in Sierra Leone and travel restrictions on members of the former military junta and of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The Committee was assigned amended mandates in resolution 1171 (1998) and then adapted its work with the lifting of the ban on the export of diamonds from Sierra Leone since 2003. As of December 2009, the work of the Committee has been confined to tasks related to the embargo on the export of weapons to non-State actors in Sierra Leone and the travel ban imposed on individuals included on the Committee’s list, who currently number six. Unlike some other sanctions bodies, the Committee has neither a panel of experts nor a monitoring group. During the time of Viet Nam’s chairmanship, while there have been no violations of the sanctions regime, a number of notifications of arms exports to Sierra Leone were brought to the attention of the Committee in a timely manner, in accordance with paragraph 4 of resolution 1171 (1998). In a letter dated 7 January 2008, the Chairman of the Committee informed the Registrar of the Special Court for Sierra Leone of the adoption by the Security Council of resolution 1793 (2007), whereby the Council decided to exempt from the travel restrictions the travel of any witnesses whose presence at trial before the Court is required. In the same letter, the Chairman sought the agreement of the Court on notification procedures for the travel of listed individuals, which would be modelled upon those agreed between the Court and the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia. In June 2008, upon the request of the Government of Sierra Leone and in light of overall developments in the country, the Committee held informal consultations to remove the names of 24 individuals from the list of those affected by the travel ban restrictions imposed by paragraph 5 of resolution 1171 (1998). The Chairman of the Committee addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone to the United Nations informing him of the Committee’s decision, and then conveyed the latter’s letter of request to the President of the Security Council for the attention and appropriate action of the Council. In 2009, although no meetings were held, the Committee continued to maintain positive cooperation with the Special Court of Sierra Leone and issued a waiver of the travel ban against five former members of the RUF convicted by the Court so that they might serve their sentences in Rwanda. Sierra Leone is now at a critical juncture of post- conflict peacebuilding, with many challenges ahead. The United Nations, regional organizations and Member States have a role to play in helping Sierra Leone to better fulfil its responsibilities under relevant Security Council resolutions, taking into due account the fundamental principles of respect for the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Sierra Leone. I maintain, however, that the spirit of targeted sanctions should be fully preserved so as to avoid adverse impacts on the livelihoods of civilians and that all sanctions regimes be reviewed and ultimately lifted once the underlying reasons for the imposition of such sanctions are no longer valid. Given the prevailing trend of peace and reconciliation in Sierra Leone, the Council may wish to initiate such a process and dialogue after the trials of Charles Taylor. In conclusion, I wish to thank all members of the Council for their support and cooperation in helping us to fulfil our duty. I also express my appreciation to the Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch in the Department of Political Affairs, in particular Mr. Kiho Cha, for their untiring assistance to the work of the Committee and the Chairman.

I thank Ambassador Le Luong Minh for his briefing. I now give the floor the Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1373 (2001) concerning counter-terrorism and of the Working Group established pursuant to resolution 1566 (2004).

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me the opportunity to speak today in my capacity as the Chairman of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. I have had the honour to preside over that important Committee in the second part of this year, so the comments I am about to make are my personal observations based on my experience. They are not attributable to any other delegation, nor should they be seen as a record of the work of that subsidiary organ. For a factual account of the work achieved over the past two years, I refer to the biannual briefings by the Chairman to the Security Council, the most recent of which was delivered on 13 November (see S/PV.6217). I am pleased to note that Croatia has inherited the Committee in good standing from previous Chairs. Our basic approach to the new function was to keep the momentum going and to focus on achieving concrete results and fulfilling realistic objectives. We have benefited from the constructive atmosphere in the Committee. Any positive accomplishment is the result of all 15 members’ working together. In the same vein, fulfilling our mandate would not have been possible without continued support and cooperation of Member States. In addition, we have established close working relationships with the Executive Director of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) and his expert team, as well as with the Secretariat, and I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for their valuable assistance. When the Croatian Permanent Representative took on the chairmanship in January 2008, she did so in the wake of the adoption of resolution 1787 (2007), which postponed the review of the mandate of CTED due to the appointment of the new Executive Director, Mr. Mike Smith. In January 2008, he presented to the Committee a revised organizational plan for CTED, which included several welcome innovations, such as more consistency in CTED’s assessments, the establishment of five cross-cutting functional groups, a proposal to carry out flexible visits, stronger linkages with donors and enhanced cooperation with other Security Council subsidiary bodies as well as within the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force. The implementation of those initiatives has brought new energy and focus to the operations of the Committee and CTED. The organizational plan charted the way forward for CTED and served as a necessary element of Security Council resolution 1805 (2008). The resolution not only extended the mandate of CTED until the end of 2010, but also set the direction for the Committee for the next few years. Among other things, the resolution encouraged informal briefings for all interested Member States on the work of the Committee. Since we strongly believe that transparency is one of the guiding principles in our work, we have heeded this call of the Council and organized such briefings at regular intervals. I wish to inform the Council that I will give the final informal briefing, together with Mr. Smith, this coming Wednesday. Over the past two years, the Committee has devoted a significant part of its operations to analysing and adopting, through its subcommittees chaired by France, the Russian Federation and Viet Nam, the Preliminary Implementation Assessments (PIAs). This new tool has greatly enhanced the dialogue with Member States on the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001). It also serves as the basis for two major initiatives, namely, the stocktaking of the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) and the drafting of the report of the Committee on the survey of the implementation of resolution 1373 (2001) by Member States. Stocktaking may be best described as the Committee’s second reading of the PIAs after it has received responses from Member States to the original documents. It has proved to be a complex and lengthy exercise, which is putting to the test the Committee’s and CTED’s resources, especially at the subcommittee level. I would like to commend all those involved in this effort. Having said that, I believe that the cooperation of Member States is essential, and I call on them to remain committed to the dialogue with the Committee and CTED in this ongoing process. Regarding the survey, allow me to stress that I am particularly pleased that it was during the Croatian chairmanship that the Committee adopted that report, the first of its kind since its establishment in 2001. The second, updated version has recently been approved, and the Council will hold consultations on that issue immediately after this morning’s meetings. I believe that the survey should become the principal outcome of the Committee’s work, useful for its outreach not only to counter-terrorism practitioners, but also to the wider public. We have tried to keep the work of the Committee more relevant and interactive by organizing, on the basis of a CTED proposal, a series of thematic discussions of all major areas of implementation of resolution 1373 (2001), as well as by intensifying its dialogue with international, regional and subregional organizations. Since the beginning of 2008, the Committee has heard briefings by a dozen relevant organizations and United Nations bodies, including, for example, the European Union, NATO, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the South American Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. At our last meeting, which will be held on Thursday, 17 December 2009, a representative of the Council of Europe will brief the Committee on the major developments in the counter- terrorism field in that partner organization. Furthermore, I would like to report that the Committee is currently testing a new paperless document distribution system, based on the self-service work space designed for team collaboration already in use in most Main Committees of the General Assembly. Before concluding, allow me to express my appreciation to the delegation of France, which assumed the function of Acting Chairman of the Committee and played a crucial role in preparing the interim review of the work of CTED. Finally, regarding the Working Group established pursuant to resolution 1566 (2004), I can report that the Group has neither held any meetings nor submitted any documents to the Council in the past two years.

I thank Ambassador Vilović for his briefing. I shall now deliver the report of Burkina Faso on the Security Council Committees established pursuant to resolution 1518 (2003) and 1636 (2005). I have the honour of addressing the Council first on the activities of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1518 (2003), which I chaired in 2008 and 2009. I would like to thank the delegations of Japan and of Belgium for having effectively fulfilled the functions the Vice-Chairmanship of the Committee. Established on 24 November 2003 as the successor to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 661 (1990) concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, the 1518 Committee is charged with continuing to identify, in compliance with paragraphs 19 and 23 of resolution 1483 (2003), individuals and entities whose funds or other financial assets or economic resources shall be frozen and transferred to the Development Fund for Iraq. Under paragraph 23 of resolution 1483 (2003), that freeze and transfer apply to the funds, other financial assets and economic resources of individuals and of entities associated with the former Iraqi regime, that is, funds, other financial assets and economic resources removed from Iraq or acquired by Saddam Hussein or other senior officials of the former Iraqi regime or their immediate family members, including entities owned by those individuals or by other persons acting on their behalf or at their direction or controlled directly or indirectly by them, as well as funds, financial assets and economic resources of the former Iraqi Government or bodies, corporations or State institutions located outside Iraq. In resolution 1518 (2003), the Security Council also decided that the Committee’s mandate would be kept under review and that the Committee would establish whether Member States fulfilled the obligations incumbent upon them with respect to the arms embargo against Iraq, as reaffirmed in paragraph 10 of resolution 1483 (2003). Since the beginning of our mandate in 2008, the Committee has actively monitored actions regarding the issue of the repatriation of certain Iraqi funds. In a note verbale dated 23 May 2008, the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Iraq to the United Nations confirmed to the Committee the third transfer of funds to the Central Bank of Iraq. Although not having believed it necessary to hold meetings, the members of the Committee have continually consulted among themselves and considered several relevant issues brought to the Committee’s attention, in particular with respect to requests for the de-listing of individuals and entities targeted by the freeze and the transfer of assets, transmitted by the focal point established under resolution 1730 (2006), as well as to be informed of the communications of States with regard to two de-listing requests submitted for an individual and an entity, respectively. Through the focal point, the Committee strove to provide the relevant information on its rules of procedure. After considering those requests, the Committee decided to keep that individual and that entity on the list, which now comprises 89 individuals and 208 entities. In 2009, the Committee received a communication from a Permanent Mission expressing its concern about the difficulties encountered by its country in implementing the Security Council’s resolutions, as well as a letter from a Permanent Mission requesting information on the decisions taken by the 661 Committee, whose work was terminated by paragraph 19 of resolution 1483 (2003). Although the latter request did not fall under its purview, the Chairman of the Committee contributed to providing follow-up by working with the Secretariat. I note nevertheless that one request for listing and one for de-listing have remained pending since 2007. As Chairman of the Committee, I have initiated informal steps vis-à-vis the members involved in order to address that question, which could happen in the near future. With respect to the arms embargo imposed under paragraph 10 of resolution 1483 (2003), it remains ineffective because of the new context in which Iraq finds itself and the lack of a monitoring mechanism within the Committee. We therefore recommend that consideration be given to the Committee’s mandate, despite the fact that resolution 1546 (2004) reminds States of the need to comply with their obligations in that regard, and the Government of Iraq to ensure implementation of the measures. To conclude, I thank the members of the Committee for their constructive contribution to its work and for the quality of their cooperation. Allow me also to commend all the relevant parties for their understanding and cooperation. Lastly, I would like to thank the Secretariat for its tireless and diligent support to the Committee. On behalf of the delegation of Burkina Faso, I wish every success to the next Chairman of the Committee, whose work contributes significantly, as I said, to Iraq’s reconstruction. The second report is on the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1636 (2005). The 1636 Committee is charged with listing, under the travel ban and asset freeze measures provided for in paragraph 3 (a) of that resolution, individuals designated by the International Independent Investigation Commission or the Lebanese Government as being suspected of involvement in the terrorist bomb attack of 14 February 2005 in Beirut, which claimed the lives of the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, and of 22 other people. In the same resolution, the Council also decided that the Committee would approve case by case requests for exemptions from the travel ban and the asset freeze measures, and the de-listing of an individual so that they are no longer affected by the travel ban and the asset freeze measures. It also decided to inform all Member States of the identity of individuals subject to those measures. On 1 January 2008, when Burkina Faso assumed the chairmanship, the Committee had not listed any individual. Similarly, during Burkina Faso’s chairmanship, the Committee held no meetings, given that, as affirmed in its reports to the Security Council, the International Independent Investigation Commission and the Lebanese Government had designated no individual subject to the measures provided for in paragraph 3 (a) of resolution 1636 (2005). We believe that the administration of justice in the Hariri case will be an important element in consolidating peace in Lebanon. That is why we continue to believe that with the successful transfer of confidential information on this case between the International Investigation Commission and the Special Tribunal, the 1636 Committee will surely be called upon to play a more significant role in the future, in particular when the investigations and judicial procedures relating to the terrorist attack of 14 February 2005 enter a decisive phase. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I give the floor to Ambassador Urbina as Chair of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004).

At this time, as Costa Rica is about to conclude its term as an elected member of the Security Council, and thus as I conclude my work as Chair of the 1540 Committee, I take special satisfaction in addressing the Council to share some ideas and opinions arise from my management of that Committee. I am aware that my main responsibility today as outgoing Chair of the Committee is not to review the achievements, which will be reflected in pending reports, but instead to share with the Council the conclusions I have reached after these two years and thus to contribute to the decisions that should be adopted in the future in order to attain the objectives of the resolution. The most important and urgent recommendation that I can make, as obvious as it may seem, is that if the Security Council really wants to achieve the objective of preventing the possibility that weapons of mass destruction could fall into the hands of non-State actors and be used by them, it is absolutely necessary to devote greater energy and greater resources to guaranteeing the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). The international community should no longer be satisfied to hear again and again that the implementation of the resolution is a process that will take many years. I believe it is necessary to summon the will in the Council, and in the Organization as a whole, to invigorate the instruments that contribute to the implementation of the resolution. In my opinion, the five years that have passed since the adoption of the resolution have not allowed the progress we had hoped for as a direct consequence of the resolution. Certainly, better results could have been achieved. But what is important now is not what we have not achieved, but what we have been able to learn in order to improve the work of the Committee and to increase its efficacy. The Committee’s mandate was amended twice in five years, through resolutions 1673 (2006) and 1810 (2008), changes that significantly increased the workload but did not provide the new tools or resources to carry it out. Moreover, all the components of that mandate involve a large number of specific tasks that overburden the Committee and exhaust the availability and capacities of the team of experts that supports its work. The Committee, which began as an instrument to inform the Council about the implementation of the resolution by Member States in its first two years, was later entrusted with working on outreach and dialogue with Member States and international, regional and subregional organizations, and with acting as a catalyst for the process of sharing experiences and lessons learned. The Committee was also asked to establish relevant technical assistance capacities and to match the needs for and availability of such capacities. The Council also invited the Committee to pause its work and consider undertaking a comprehensive review on the status of the implementation of the resolution. I cannot conclude this review without mentioning that representing the Committee in meetings around the world takes up the time of the Committee’s members and experts, as well as a large part of its resources, which could be better spent. The Committee has attempted to deal with the workload by creating three subcommittees and four working groups. However, the members, consultant experts and the Committee as a whole are not able to carry out all the tasks for which they are responsible. It is essential that the Security Council pay particular attention to the 1540 Committee and give it sufficient means to carry out the tasks entrusted to it. The comprehensive review of the status of implementation produced several ideas that could strengthen the capacity of the Committee to better fulfil its mandate. In my opinion, the Committee should not build a much more extensive structure, nor should it become a direct provider of technical assistance. Rather, the Committee should have the means to become the centre of a network that shares the general purpose of the resolution. I have worked in this direction through working visits to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the World Customs Organization and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. I have also met with regional organizations and many non-governmental organizations which have resources and expertise at their disposal to collaborate in the strengthening of global security. This network is possible, but the Council would have to give the Committee the means to make it a reality. In my opinion, the building of such a network, the design of the relevant shared tools that would enable joint work and the negotiation and implementation of agreements to foster cooperation all justify expanding the number of experts supporting the Committee to ten. That increase should also take into account the other recommendations I will make later. In my view, the expert capacity of the Committee, once it has been expanded, should focus primarily on dialogue with States, specialized bodies and regional and subregional organizations in order to build a network responsible for designing and implementing differentiated strategies for accelerating the process of implementation. An indispensable component of any strategy to strengthen the Committee is mechanisms to facilitate the voluntary financing of activities to speed up its implementation. I should now like to set out some observations and recommendations on the expertise that supports the Committee and how it might be reinforced. I believe that such reinforcement must take into account the quantitative aspect that I have already mentioned: the number of experts must be increased in order to fulfil the mandated tasks. But I believe that the legitimacy of the Committee must also be reinforced through the assurance that such expertise be delivered by United Nations staff members, observing the Organization’s regular procedures. The consultants of the 1540 Committee are the only experts supporting a subsidiary body of the Council that are not selected by the Secretariat. During the process of appointing three of the experts, that led to situations that I, as a representative of a Member State of this Organization, consider extremely irregular. I am pleased to recognize the work, professionalism and dedication of the Group of Experts, but I believe the interests of the Committee would be better served if the Office for Disarmament Affairs were to be in charge of providing the substantive support that is currently provided by this group of consultants. I am also pleased to confirm that the questions that were initially posed regarding the legitimacy of the resolution seem to have disappeared, as have the initial doubts on the need for the Committee. This represents a concrete achievement by the Committee and the Group of Experts that supports it. It is now up to the Security Council to contribute to consolidating the perception of the Committee as a body that promotes global security by adopting decisions that further favour ownership of the process of implementing the resolution and the exercise of responsibility by every Member State. I conclude by offering a few considerations on the general implementation strategy. I regret that the comprehensive review of the status of implementation of resolution 1540 (2004) did not provide all the answers it was supposed to. Identifying the evolving risks and threats is still a pending issue. Perhaps the need for compromise on the scope of the exercise prevented the Committee from having the instruments necessary to obtain the desired information. However, the comprehensive review did offer alternative approaches to facilitating the implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). For example, it affirmed the enormous potential of regional and subregional organizations to support the purpose of the resolution and the work of the Committee. In my opinion, it is imperative to break with the approach according to which one single strategy can guarantee results in all situations. The nature of resolution 1540 (2004), unprecedented for the Security Council, justifies very close cooperation with the aforementioned international organizations. It is thus a question of promoting the adoption of new legislation in all countries, the implementation of new measures, the establishment of new controls, and their guaranteed effective enforcement. Such an ambitious undertaking cannot be achieved without a broad process of international cooperation that necessarily includes regional and subregional organizations. There are already a few examples of successful regional cooperation that with time will prove to be efficient instruments in achieving specific goals, such as the inclusion of implementation as a national priority, the widespread creation of local focal points, the broader use of national implementation plans, requests for assistance and, generally, the establishment of higher-quality dialogue between the Committee and Member States. Finally, as I leave the chairmanship of the 1540 Committee, I respectfully urge the Council to discuss the following suggestions. First, the Security Council should instruct the 1540 Committee to focus its efforts on building and making operational a worldwide cooperation network involving specialized, regional, subregional and civil society organizations, as well as the private sector and academia. Secondly, the Security Council should increase to 10 the number of experts supporting the work of the Committee. Thirdly, the Council should take the necessary steps to ensure that the expertise supporting the Committee’s work is delivered through established United Nations procedure through the Office for Disarmament Affairs. Fourthly, the Council should instruct the Committee to design and implement additional mechanisms for the voluntary financing of its activities. Fifthly, the Council should assess and monitor the evolving risks and threats concerning the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-State actors. Sixthly, the Council should instruct the Committee to strengthen its cooperation with regional and subregional bodies in the joint design and application of differentiated implementation strategies. Personally, and on behalf of my country, I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on the 1540 Committee and urge Council members to promptly review those suggestions whose only intention is to transform our ongoing movement into genuine action.

I thank Ambassador Urbina for his briefing. I now give the floor to the Chairman of the Security Council resolution 1521 (2003) concerning Liberia.

Permit me to take this opportunity to share with the Council some observations relating to the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1521 (2003) on Liberia and the relevant sanctions regime. Libya has had the honour to chair the Committee over the past two years. We are all aware of the sensitive situation in Liberia following a period of instability, war, confrontation and destruction. In May, we visited the United Nations forces in Liberia and witnessed first- hand the difficulties, changes and challenges they are facing. The Group of Experts entrusted to follow up on the sanctions on Liberia specified a number of tracks to assess and monitor: the diamond trade, the arms embargo, forestry, trade and investment, frozen assets and the movement of persons. The Group created an accurate position and framework of reference for all those tracks. With regard to forestry, for example, there has been progress in the bidding on thousands of hectares of lumber and rubber for investment. There is some discrepancy in the numbers, but it does not represent a significant problem. We are all aware of the situation in the region. The neighbouring States Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea remain unstable and subject to the movement of illicit arms initiated not by Governments but by individuals. With regard to certain frozen assets, I can say that they are generally under control, while the Committee has effectively followed up and monitored the movement of persons. I can also say that the team of experts has gathered accurate information in that regard. The Committee’s report notes that while the Government is trying to achieve a considerable level of transparency in exports, imports and taxation, it is facing logistical difficulties that it cannot fully overcome. The report of the Group of Experts contains recommendations that I consider to be practical, and we call on the members of the Council and the Committee to voice their opinions on these recommendations. I believe the report’s recommendations to be objective and operable. The report is comprehensive, long and detailed, and we have transmitted it to the President for distribution. I wish to thank him and all the members of the Council for the confidence they have shown in my country by inviting it to chair the 1521 Committee. I also wish to thank the Secretariat for its assistance to us. I wish our successors on the Committee great success. In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to you, Sir, and the other members of the Council.

I thank Ambassador Shalgham for his briefing. I would like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Security Council, to express appreciation to the outgoing Chairmen for the manner in which they have discharged the important responsibilities entrusted to them by the Council. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.