S/PV.6457 Security Council

Madame President, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to share with the Council some personal observations concerning the Committees I have had the honour to chair. More specifically today, I will speak about the Sudan Sanctions Committee established pursuant to resolution 1591 (2005). I will also say a few words about the state of play within the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals, which Austria has chaired since January 2009. As members of the Council will remember, I already had the opportunity to give my assessment of the work of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) on 15 November (see S/PV.6424). I will therefore not reiterate what I said on that occasion; I will simply return to two points that I made in my personal capacity when I briefed the Council then. At that time, I said that, under the current guidelines, if consensus cannot be reached, any de-listing request may be submitted to the Council for review and subsequent majority decision. In my view, it would thus seem only logical to adopt the same decision-making procedures, that is, a majority vote for de-listing decisions of the 1267 Committee. I also referred in November to the point that the procedure of the triennial reviews of the 1267 Committee could be changed to require a positive reconfirmation of each list entry under review. That adaptation of the review process would have the same effect as the introduction of a time limit or sunset clause for listings and would thus put an end — from my point of view, in any case — to the question whether the sanctions regime is of a punitive or preventive nature. Turning to the 1591 Sanctions Committee on the Sudan, let me say that chairing the Committee was a challenging task. It is not easy, if I may put it in these terms, to monitor and enforce an arms embargo that covers only part of a State’s territory in an environment where every use of arms potentially violates the embargo and where arms are used quite regularly. While all members of the Council and the Committee share the objective of bringing peace and stability to Darfur, their interpretation of the nature of the conflict, the role of sanctions in resolving the conflict and the sanctions regime itself differs. The work of the Committee would benefit from a common interpretation of the regime. In that regard, resolution 1945 (2010) was an important step towards clarifying the embargo exemptions and requiring end-user documentation for arms supplies not prohibited by the embargo. A main objective during Austria’s chairmanship was to promote dialogue between the Committee and all relevant stakeholders. As Chairman, I maintained regular contacts with the Permanent Representative of the Sudan as well as with the Permanent Representatives of other relevant States. Such direct contacts proved to be very useful and, I believe, should be continued in the future. We also established a regular dialogue with the African Union-United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur (UNAMID) through Committee meetings with the Joint Special Representative. The Committee held close contacts with the Secretariat’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations on the development of provisional guidelines for peacekeeping missions to facilitate the work of panels of experts, which are used for all expert panels that interact with peacekeeping operations. The Committee also made headway regarding its contacts with the private sector. It heard briefings by the Executive Director of the Global Compact and by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on business and human rights. More needs to be done, however, to increase due diligence and create awareness of the sanctions regimes among companies operating in the Sudan and particularly in Darfur. As regards the travel ban and assets freeze, no persons have been designated on the Committee’s list since the adoption of resolution 1672 (2006). In my view, those responsible for attacks on the United Nations, especially UNAMID, clearly meet the listing criteria and should be considered for listing by the Committee in the future. I do believe that the Security Council has a special responsibility in protecting the missions it has mandated. In that context, I think that looking at listing people who have attacked those missions is logical and of key importance. It is also an important point for the credibility of the work of the Council. Let me also say that the same applies to individuals who commit sexual and gender-based acts of violence. Those crimes often go unpunished. We believe that the Committee can also play an important role in alleviating that situation. Regarding confidential annexes to reports received by the Committee, it would certainly facilitate the work of the Committee and indeed of the Council itself if those annexes, which mainly contain listing proposals, remain confidential. I would like to underline my full support for the work of the Panel of Experts in order to provide the Committee with high- quality information. We must assist their work and fully respect their independence. In view of my country’s strong focus on the rule of law, we were also pleased and satisfied to be able to chair the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals. Under our chairmanship, the Working Group held 26 meetings in 2009 and 25 meetings this year. The Group maintained a close dialogue with representatives of the affected countries and host countries. In order to increase transparency, raise awareness and provide an opportunity to hear the views of the broader United Nations membership, in October 2009, for the first time ever, the Austrian Mission organized an Arria formula meeting on residual issues of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that was open to all States Members of the United Nations. Moreover, at the biannual public Security Council briefings by the ICTY and the ICTR, I regularly briefed the Council on the activities of the Working Group. We started to publish annual reports of the Group and also included a chapter on the work of the Working Group in the annual report of the Security Council for the first time. Over the past two years, the Working Group has considered various requests by the Presidents of the Tribunals to facilitate their completion strategies. In 2009 and 2010, the Council has adopted nine resolutions on the ICTY and the ICTR introduced by my country after agreement was reached in the Working Group. The last two resolutions, as Council members will recall — resolutions 1954 (2010) and 1955 (2010) — were adopted just last week. After more than two years of negotiations, a final agreement on the establishment of an international residual mechanism for criminal tribunals is now, I strongly believe, within reach. The envisaged mechanism will continue certain essential residual functions of the Tribunals, including trials of fugitives, management of archives, protection of witnesses and supervision of enforcement of sentences. The package that I presented as Chairman, together with Legal Adviser Konrad Bühler, who supported me in these matters, consists of the following elements: a draft resolution to be adopted under Chapter VII, in which the Security Council would decide to establish the residual mechanism with two branches, one for the ICTR in Arusha and one for the ICTY in The Hague; an annex I, with the statute for the mechanism; and an annex II, with transitional arrangements. The establishment of the residual mechanism will send a strong message from the Security Council against impunity. High-level fugitives indicted by the Tribunals, such as Ratko Mladić or Félicien Kabuga, cannot hide and escape justice. At the same time, the draft resolution would send a clear signal of the Tribunals’ intention to complete their work expeditiously, prepare their closure, and ensure a smooth transition for the mechanism. I believe that it is in the interest of all delegations to use this window of opportunity to conclude the negotiations. There is a sense of urgency for the Council to reach agreement now in order to allow for sufficient time to make the necessary arrangements for a smooth transition to the mechanism, while avoiding any increase in costs. We have presented a carefully balanced compromise package that attempts to reconcile all the different views presented. All issues can be resolved with the necessary flexibility and political will. I therefore very much hope that we can adopt the draft resolution in the coming days, before the forthcoming holiday season. I would call on all delegations to support us in that endeavour. Before closing, I would like to express my gratitude to all delegations for their support and active contributions. I also thank the Monitoring Team and the Panel of Experts for their excellent work and cooperation. My sincere thanks also go to the Secretariat staff, in particular the sanctions Branch and the Office of Legal Affairs, for their invaluable support and advice over the past two years. I would like to thank my own collaborators, who have made it much easier and, in fact, possible for me to chair three of the Committees all together. More specifically, as I have already said, I want to say a word of thanks to our Legal Adviser, Mr. Bühler, who in fact led most of the work of the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals.

I thank Ambassador Mayr- Harting for his briefing. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Tsuneo Nishida, Chairman of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006), of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions.

I thank you, Madame President, for the opportunity to give my views on the subsidiary bodies that I have chaired. I shall try to be brief in order to promote the effectiveness of the Security Council. I briefed the Council in my capacity as Chair of the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1737 (2006) earlier this month. Therefore, I should like to say a few words on the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations and the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. First, it gives me great pleasure to address the Council in my capacity as Chair of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations. During the past two years, the Group issued four reports. I wish to thank all members of the Council for their constructive contribution to and cooperation with the activities of the Working Group. Japan’s commitment to the Working Group has been consistent. The overarching theme of the Working Group during Japan’s chairmanship was how to fill the gaps that between Security Council mandates and actual implementation on the ground. As we all know, we are faced with the challenges of historically high levels of deployment and increased complexity of mission mandates. This requires a renewed effort to minimize capability gaps, manage resource constraints, expand the contributor base and strengthen cooperation with other actors within and beyond the United Nations system. As stated in the last report, the most important contribution of the Working Group has been in bringing Council members closer to major troop- and police-contributing countries and, of course, the Secretariat. The interactive dialogue among a wide range of stakeholders at meetings has served to enhance transparency and accountability in the work of the Council. It also provided opportunities to create some common ground to meet various challenges. The report included three suggestions for the way Forward. The first was to further encourage inclusive dialogue among relevant stakeholders, especially in the context of the establishment, renewal or modification of the mandate of a peacekeeping operation. In our view, this is vital to ensuring the implementation of mandates. We hope that the current good practices, including the use of the diagram produced by the Working Group for scheduling a monthly programme of work, will continue. The second suggestion was to facilitate regular reporting on critical gaps affecting mandate implementation and to find ways to address them. The third was to build common ground on early peacebuilding tasks in a peacekeeping context in order to prepare for transitions and exits. We feel that there remains a lot to be done, and the Working Group can be a facilitating vehicle to generate practical solutions. Japan hopes that the Working Group can take these suggestions into consideration in its future discussions. We wish the next Chair every success. Japan will be leaving the Council, but will continue to be committed to all of these issues and stands ready to continue working with the Council members as well as other stakeholders. Allow me now to say a few words in my capacity as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and other Procedural Questions. I would like to thank all members for their cooperation and constructive input. The Informal Working Group initially worked on improving the implementation of previously agreed measures to improve the working methods of the Council, including presidential note S/2006/507 of 2006. The Informal Working Group focused on such issues as the Council’s interaction with non-members and other entities, including the Peacebuilding Commission; enhancing dialogue with troop- and police-contributing countries; the format of Council meetings; Security Council missions; and the timing of the issuance of reports of the Secretary-General. The Security Council held an open debate on its working methods in April of this year under Japan’s presidency (see S/PV.6300). Thirty-eight non-members participated, and statements were made on behalf of many regional groups. We believe that it was a constructive discussion. We hope the Council will periodically hold such Open Debates. Taking note of the views expressed by Member States during the open debate, the Informal Working Group worked to revise presidential note S/2010/507 and the new note (S/2010/507) was adopted by the Council on 27 July. In the new note, new measures to enhance the Council’s interaction with non-members and other relevant entities are of particular significance. The informal dialogue is a useful tool in this regard. Enhancing transparency, efficiency and interaction with non-Council members benefits Security Council members and non-Members alike. I hope that the Informal Working Group will continue its effort in these areas in the coming years. Japan recently finished printing the successor to the so called “Blue Book”. The new Book includes document S/2010/507 and other useful documents. We hope it will be a user-friendly guide to the working methods of the Council. We will make them available to all missions. I have brought a few copies here today, and hope that anyone who is interested will take one on his or her way out.

I thank Mr. Nishida for his briefing. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Claude Heller, Chairman of the Committee established pursuant to resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009), concerning Somalia and Eritrea, and of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict.

In keeping with the established practice concerning the end of the term of office of elected members of the Security Council, I should like to share my impressions and assessments on the work I have carried out at the helm of the subsidiary bodies over which I have presided in the course of my country’s membership of the Council. I will first turn to the Committee established pursuant to resolutions 751 (1992) and 1907 (2009), concerning Somalia and Eritrea. I will then refer to the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004), on the non-proliferation and weapons of mass destruction. Lastly, I will turn to my chairmanship of the Council’s Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict. In our two years in the chairmanship of the Sanctions Committee on Somalia and Eritrea, we faced and overcame significant challenges that no doubt were a reflection of the difficult situation that prevails in the Horn of Africa. In December 2009, with the adoption of resolution 1907 (2009), the Committee’s mandate was expanded to include the Eritrea sanctions regime and to give the Committee a regional focus. As a result, the Committee’s guidelines were reviewed and the Monitoring Group’s mandate was expanded to include reporting on violations of both sanctions regimes. Those changes and the results of the Monitoring Group’s investigations clearly lent greater and more specific weight to the Committee’s work with regard to the regional dynamic of the situation, including on very sensitive issues that have an impact on the situation in Somalia and on international efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region. With the support of the members of the Committee, I led a mission to the Horn of Africa last April, in which the delegations of the United States of America and Turkey also participated. On that occasion, we had conversations in Yemen, Eritrea and Kenya with pertinent officials and stakeholders on this issue. We also met representatives of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia and of the Puntland region, as well as with United Nations officials on the ground and members of the diplomatic community. It is important to underscore that the basic purpose of the visit was to attain greater understanding and help disseminate information in the region with regard to the sanctions regime and the implementation of the measures provided for in the relevant resolutions, including resolutions 1844 (2008) and 1907 (2009). As part of those efforts, I also held meetings in New York with senior officials from Ethiopia and Djibouti. I also maintained an ongoing and frank dialogue with the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia. Moreover, in an effort to promote transparency and a proper balance in the Committee’s decisions, I convened several meetings to provide the members of the Committee with an opportunity to receive information and exchange views with officials of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia and the Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, as well with officials from the World Food Programme and UNICEF. The Committee also took an important step by placing the names of several persons and entities on the consolidated sanctions list, in line with the provisions of the relevant resolutions. I should point out that, to date, more than 20 decisions have been taken with regard to exceptions to the sanctions regime, with a view to supporting humanitarian assistance efforts and those of the Transitional Federal Government. As Chairman of the Committee I aimed from the very beginning to ensure that there were clear decision- making processes and to provide timely and relevant information on the work of the Committee and its implications to the members of the Committee, the States of the region and other pertinent actors. The Mexican delegation’s initiatives in the Committee were always focused on further implementing the sanctions regime and ensuring its impact, all the while promoting its use as a tool for both control and incentives so that the relevant stakeholders would join a regional process conducive to peace and stability. It seems to me crucial that, in the future, the Committee’s chairmanship should promote the practice of duly keeping the Members of the Organization informed, including the various parts of the Secretariat and other relevant stakeholders, with regard to substantive and technical aspects of both sanctions regimes. The goal should be to produce a better understanding of the Committee’s work and ensure better cooperation in implementing the measures provided for in the relevant resolutions, as well as to prevent the recurrence of technical violations. I believe that the Security Council should use clearer language in its resolutions, especially with regard to cooperation between the organs of the Organization and their responsibilities, including Sanctions Committees’ groups of experts. Similarly, there should be special follow up in developing that cooperation as well as with regard to its results. With regard to the sanctions regime on Somalia and Eritrea in particular, some aspects deserve greater clarity in future mandates. Those include issues relating to the Committee’s formal function of attending consultations of the Organization’s Members and questions relating to potential gaps in the current sanctions regime, including the lack of provisions concerning the carrying of weapons by the security personnel of delegations visiting Somalia, to give just one example. Lastly, I would like to thank the Secretariat for its valuable support. I want to emphasize the importance of that support in carrying out all the administrative aspects associated with the work of the chairmanship. That support also serves to provide him with an environment conducive to productive work as head of the Committee, easing the burden and contributing to the fulfilment of his duties in line with his mandate and agreement on the part of the Committee’s members. Turning to the 1540 Committee, although on 15 November I made some personal observations in the Council from my perspective as Chairman of the Committee, I think it is important, given the upcoming renewal of the Committee’s mandate next April, to briefly and concisely highlight the main ideas and proposals to emerge from the various bilateral and multilateral consultations I have held during 2010. I should therefore like to reiterate the five points I raised in the Council in November, namely, areas that merit greater attention on the part of the Committee; the Committee’s relationship with the relevant international bodies; strengthening the Committee as a platform for cooperation and bolstering its capacity to facilitate the provision of assistance; the structure of the Group of Experts; and, lastly, the length of the Committee’s mandate. With regard to areas that merit greater attention by the Committee, in a wide-ranging assessment, the Committee found that, of the three categories of weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons were the subject of the fewest measures. Likewise, delivery vehicles, sanctions lists and the financing of prohibited proliferation activities were also identified as worthy of special attention. I reiterate my belief in the pressing need to further enhance cooperation with international entities, particularly with regard to information exchange, with full respect for the specific mandates of those entities and of the Committee. The Committee’s work on cooperation and assistance must, therefore, be further strengthened. Implementation of the provisions of resolution 1540 (2004) depends not only upon the political will of States but on the resources they possess to implement specific security measures. In that context, the Committee must continue to actively ensure that requests for assistance and offers to assist coincide. A structure to facilitate smoother functioning by the Group of Experts must be established. It should not be overly complex, and perhaps the appointment of a coordinator by the Committee or by the Secretary- General would be a first step in that direction. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the risks related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by non-State actors will cease to exist in the short or medium term. The Committee’s mandate could, therefore, be extended for a further 10 years, with a review five years from now, similar to the review cycle of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, in order to be able to draw on a long-term strategy to address challenges related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the resultant risks related to non-State actors, through cooperation with the international community. I assumed the chairmanship of the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict on 1 January 2009. That was the first time that a non-permanent member of the Council had the honour to hold such a distinguished post. I am pleased to share with the Council the progress that took place during that period. As part of the substantive work carried out within the Group we were able to convene two thematic debates in the Council, which were chaired by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico, as well as the subsequent adoption of two presidential statements on the subject in April 2009 (S/PRST/2009/9) and June 2010 (S/PRST/2010/10). Those decisions reflect the importance that my country and Council members attach to the problem of children affected by armed conflict, and our interest in promoting initiatives that will end the recruitment of minors or their being reinducted into armed groups; protect their physical safety through actions to prevent killing or maiming; eradicate the practice of sexual violence to which they are victim. We have also sought to promote measures aimed at ensuring access to such initiatives for States suffering the consequences of armed conflict so that they can establish programmes aimed at the rehabilitation, demobilization and reintegration of child soldiers into their communities and their families. Those efforts paved the way for the adoption of resolution 1882 (2009), whose negotiations were led by my delegation. That resolution constituted a milestone for the issue, as it extended the Secretary-General’s criteria for listing parties to armed conflict that recruit and make use of children and are thus involved in the murder, mutilation and sexual violation of those children. That extension was accompanied by the criteria for listing and de-listing that the Working Group had studied and that the Secretary-General duly included in his report on children and armed conflict this year (S/2010/577). Furthermore, we also held an Arria Formula meeting in April 2009 to further strengthen cooperation with non-governmental organizations. Additionally, the Working Group adopted 11 conclusions and recommendations on the situation of children in armed conflict in various parts of the world, including Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Sudan, Myanmar, Burundi, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Colombia, the Philippines and Nepal. Given the unique nature and complexity of each situation, each negotiation generated substantive documents which, in addition to providing an overview of efforts under way in those countries, established diverse recommendations that seek to protect children affected by armed conflict. Analysis of the situations addressed in the annexes of the Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict achieved a new level of understanding with the first field mission of the Working Group to Nepal, which I led from 22 to 26 November, where I was also joined by the delegations of Austria, the United States, France, Japan, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. We were also able to draw on the valuable support of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). The purpose of that visit was to take stock of the progress made in protecting children affected by armed conflict following the signing of an action plan by the Government of Nepal, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist and the United Nations on 16 December 2009 after the Working Group’s adoption of various conclusions on that situation. The Group also met with representatives of the Government and the military leadership in Nepal, the Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist and the youth wings of the political parties. We also met with United Nations agencies on the ground and components of the task force on monitoring and reporting for Nepal. We were also in contact with representatives of civil society, the Human Rights Council and national and international media outlets, and visited rehabilitation and reintegration centres for children affected by armed conflict. While the results of that visit will be described in greater detail at the formal meeting of the Working Group to take place tomorrow morning, I wish to emphasize that that first mission constituted a watershed with respect to the responsibilities entrusted to the Working Group, by shedding light on one of the situations addressed by the Secretary-General and by providing the Working Group with an opportunity to express in situ its commitment to children affected by armed conflict. It is thus a crucial tool for improving the recommendations issued by the Working Group. To that end, I suggest that the Working Group maintain that practice by ensuring the resolve and financial resources needed to give it effect. Finally, after various actions undertaken by the Chair of the Working Group, we were able just two months ago to ensure the provision of the administrative support needed by the Working Group in order to ensure that the Chair will have the necessary resources to enable the Working Group to better carry out its activities and responsibilities. Finally, I wish to commend for the record the excellent and outstanding support extended to my delegation by all members, allowing me to fulfil my work as Chair of the subsidiary bodies previously mentioned.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Ertugrul Apakan, Chair of the Counter- Terrorism Committee (CTC) and of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

I would like to thank you, Madam, for giving me the opportunity to speak in my capacity as Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) and of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006) concerning the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. At the open debate of the Security Council convened on 15 November (S/PV.6424), I provided detailed information about the work of the Counter- Terrorism Committee and expressed my suggestions for its future work. And this afternoon, I will brief the wider United Nations membership on the work of the two Committees. For that reason, I will limit my statement now to only a few points that I wish particularly to highlight in my personal capacity. Since I assumed the chairmanship of the Counter- Terrorism Committee at the beginning of this year, we have tried to make counter-terrorism and the work of the Committee more visible in New York and other parts of the world, and to look into the evolving nature of terrorism to identify issues and regions that require greater attention. In this understanding, the Committee has adopted a more strategic and focused approach. We have held detailed thematic discussions on all key areas indicated in resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1624 (2005) and organized regional discussions. We also brought together officials in the capitals of the Security Council members and key counter-terrorism figures of the United Nations system in Ankara in June. This was followed in September by a thematic meeting in the Security Council at the ministerial level (see S/PV.6389). As a result of all of these efforts, we now have a clearer picture of the thematic and regional challenges and what steps need to be taken. More transparency has been another priority for the Committee. This afternoon’s briefing will be my third to member States. So far, the Executive Directorate has made presentations to the wider membership on eight different areas. This afternoon, two more presentations will be held. The Committee should continue its strategic, focused and more transparent approach. This will help better monitor the full implementation of the relevant resolutions, identify the specific needs of each region or Member State, and enable the Committee to interact and cooperate more intensively with all Member States. I believe that the Committee should dwell more on the issues mentioned in resolution 1624 (2005), particularly incitement to terrorism. Prevention is another area that needs more attention. We have seen that capacity-building is still a challenge for many countries. This is an issue that the Committee should continue to focus on. With regard to the Working Group established pursuant to resolution 1566 (2004), which held its first meeting this year after a four-year interval, I wish to inform the Council that a report will be issued in the coming days on its work. Let me now briefly report to the Council on the work of the 1718 during the period 2009-2010, and share my assessment on its future work. Since last year, the 1718 Committee has encountered various challenges and, in my opinion, has been able to address them in an effective and credible way. In this context, the Committee has designated new entities, goods and individuals associated with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes. It has also adopted and implemented a comprehensive programme of work covering issues relating to compliance, investigations, outreach, dialogue, assistance and cooperation. On 26 November, the Committee adopted its new programme of work, which outlines important tasks for the Committee in the future. I encourage the Committee to continue implementing the new programme of work in a creative and constructive way in the coming months. Since last year, the Committee has received various reports from Member States about their inspection and seizure of contraband cargoes. I commend these Member States for acting in a responsible manner, consistent with resolution 1874 (2009). The Committee, with the support of the Panel of Experts, has responded to these reports, while also intensifying its awareness-raising activities with a view to preventing future sanctions violations. It goes without saying that the implementation of sanctions is a process that requires continuous and determined efforts on the part of the international community. Much has already been done to implement resolutions 1718 (2006) and 1874 (2009), but it is not enough. Indeed, the recent reports about the new nuclear facilities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, including a newly built uranium-enrichment facility, about which the Committee has recently been briefed, is a stark reminder of the challenges remaining ahead of us. Therefore, I very much hope that the Committee will continue to work in the same cooperative and efficient manner as it has done during the past two years under our chairmanship.

I thank Ambassador Apakan for his briefing. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Ruhakana Rugunda, Chairman of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa.

Uganda has served as Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Conflict Prevention and Resolution in Africa for the past two years. The Working Group, in accordance with its mandate, reviewed and considered issues that affect the Council’s work on conflict prevention and resolution in Africa, and that strengthen the Council’s cooperation with the African Union (AU) and subregional organizations. The priority issues were considering how conflict early warning and response mechanisms can be made more effective; considering how countries emerging from conflict can be better supported to build sustainable peace and avoid relapse into conflict; strengthening the working relationship between the Council and the African Union on conflict prevention and resolution in Africa; and African Union-United Nations strategic partnership on security sector reform. The Working Group held four meetings this year. On 20 July, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe briefed the Working Group on the proposed establishment of a United Nations office in Central Africa and the role it would play in promoting peace and security in the broader context of conflict prevention in the Central African subregion. The Working Group exchanged views on how the mandate of the proposed office could be streamlined, within the context of strengthening AU-United Nations cooperation, to discharge its role effectively and complement the efforts of the Economic Community of Central African States, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region and other subregional organizations. On August 16, the Working Group held an open interactive panel discussion on the role of conflict early warning mechanisms in the prevention and resolution of conflicts in Africa. The Directors of the conflict early warning mechanisms of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and the Economic Community of West African States, Mr. Kitevu and Colonel Kone, respectively, were invited by the Working Group as panelists. Participants included Council members, representatives of the Department of Political Affairs, the Office of the Special Advisor on Africa, non-Council members and observers. The panel discussion provided an opportunity for an exchange of views with the key practitioners of the conflict early warning mechanisms. It focused on how these mechanisms can be optimally utilized, the challenges being faced, and how the United Nations and the international community can support the African Union and subregional organizations to make these mechanisms function more effectively. The Working Group continued to focus on security sector reform as one of the key prerequisites for peace and stability, especially in fragile and post- conflict African countries. On 2 December, the Working Group held a panel discussion on the strategic partnership between the African Union and the United Nations on security sector reform. The Chief of the United Nations Security Sector Reform Unit, Mr. Adedeji Ebo, and the Permanent Observer of the African Union, Ambassador Téte António, briefed the Group on the progress made so far towards the finalization of the African Union security sector reform policy framework. The Council has recognized the value that the Ad Hoc Working Group continues to add to the process of embedding preventive-diplomacy practices in the United Nations conflict management architecture. I would like to recommend that the Working Group’s practice should be to hold as many open interactive meetings as possible, as that allows more Member States and stakeholders to participate and have an input. It is essential that the Council continue to support conflict prevention and resolution efforts in Africa in order to reinforce the commitment and resolve shown by the African Union in that regard. Finally, I am grateful to the members of the Working Group for the support and cooperation extended to me in the discharge of the Group’s mandate. I also thank the Secretary of the Working Group, Mr. Oseloka Obaze, and other members of the Secretariat who facilitated our work. A comprehensive report on the activities of the Working Group in the year 2010 is being finalized for submission to the President of the Council.

On behalf of the Security Council, I take this opportunity to express appreciation to the outgoing Chairmen for the manner in which they have discharged their important responsibilities on behalf of the Council. Ambassador Mayr-Harting, Ambassador Nishida, Ambassador Heller, Ambassador Apakan and Ambassador Rugunda, we are grateful for your leadership on those issues. 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. Before adjourning, I would like to invite Council members to consultations upon the adjournment of this meeting.