S/PV.7564 Security Council

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2015/846, which contains the text of a letter dated 5 November 2015 from the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Nations, addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. I very warmly welcome His Excellency Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon, to whom I now give the floor.

It is a pleasure to join members today. I am grateful to the presidency of the United Kingdom for organizing this important meeting. This is the first time the Security Council will consider the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Peace Operations and my recommendations in the implementation report (S/2015/682). I hope this will be the start of sustained dialogue and action to strengthen United Nations peace operations. I launched the peace operations initiative out of profound concern over the scale and intensity of conflict today. The human, political and financial costs of conflict continue to mount. Political failures are resulting in insecurity, injustice and deprivation for millions of people today and fuelling the conflicts of tomorrow. The demands of conflict are also putting enormous burdens on our peace and security tools, particularly United Nations peace operations. Peacekeeping and special political missions are deployed for more places, in more configurations, than ever before. They are struggling to implement complex mandates. Our systems are straining at the scale of operations. We are not always responding with the speed and effectiveness required. We have difficulty in keeping pace with the evolution of each conflict. We are finding it harder to end conflicts and to sustain peace. That is why I asked an eminent Panel chaired by Mr. José Ramos-Horta, former President of Timor-Leste, to look at how the full range of United Nations peace operations could be adapted to meet today’s challenges. Strengthening peace operations is a collective task that will require the collaboration of many actors. In my implementation report, I identified those areas where the Secretariat can take concrete actions. I also signalled those areas where the engagement of Member States, the General Assembly and the Security Council is essential. I also highlighted the importance of partnership to achieve our goals. The focus of the meeting today is on the role that the Security Council can play in strengthening peace operations. The Panel offered a number of recommendations, and I put forward concrete proposals for their implementation. The recommendations cover three broad areas: first, political engagement; secondly, the design and implementation of United Nations peace operations; and, thirdly, reinvigorated partnerships. Let me briefly address each. First, on political engagement, peace operations are political tools. They are deployed by the Council to advance and support a political settlement to a conflict. They are the signal of international commitment to help find and sustain political solutions. The Council’s political engagement even before authorizing a peace operation is critical and remains essential throughout the life of a mission. A central finding of the review is that prevention is the most effective means of tackling the escalating costs of conflict. It is also the best way of supporting national and regional partners who are and must be the front line of prevention. Committed efforts among Council members to unite around a shared political strategy to de-escalate tensions can have a powerful effect. The Council’s public statements and private messaging to the parties shape perceptions and actions on the ground. The Council’s engagement with regional and other stakeholders and, where appropriate, the use of sanctions, can change the incentives of key parties and play a role in reducing the flow of arms and money that fuel conflicts. The Council’s engagement can help prevent a conflict from spreading and enhance the support provided to affected civilians. Such early engagement is most effective when it is collective, when it is done in partnership with regional players and when it is sustained over time. The engagement of the Council with host Governments is also critical to ensure that they fulfil their obligations with regard to the safety, security and freedom of movement of uniformed peacekeepers and civilian staff. Time and again, we have seen missions prevented from performing their mandated tasks by an array of administrative obstacles and other restrictions. In order to act early, we need timely information. I have committed to provide the Council with frank and timely briefings on situations of escalating concern, particularly those situations where civilians are at grave risk. Regional offices and my Special Envoys are invaluable in supporting early and effective political engagement. My Rights Up Front initiative seeks to focus the attention of the United Nations system on the prevention of serious and large-scale violations of human rights. Where missions are deployed, we need to devote greater attention to the political strategies that they support. I will encourage my Special Representatives to focus their briefings on the status of political efforts and to identify risks, challenges and opportunities for progress. We will be more forthright on the role that the Council itself can and should play. That could include engaging members’ representatives in the countries that host our missions who can project the Council’s collective determination in their engagement with all parties. A second area where Security Council action can strengthen peace operations is in better design and implementation of our mandates. Mandates need to be better tailored to a specific conflict environment, and able to adapt as conflicts evolve. Good progress is being made to prioritize mandates so that missions are given realistic and achievable tasks. I also endorse the Panel’s recommendation for sequenced mandates. A sequenced approach can reinforce efforts to focus on urgent protection and political tasks. It can provide greater opportunity for the Security Council and peace operations to engage with national actors and regional partners, and better direct efforts towards national priorities. A sequenced approach can also better match capabilities to tasks and exposes gaps. Sequenced and prioritized mandates will depend on the Council receiving better and more regular assessments from the Secretariat. I am putting in place a range of measures to strengthen United Nations analysis and planning at Headquarters, in our field missions and across the United Nations system. I have directed my own Office to take on additional responsibility to help improve the way we develop  — and ultimately provide the Council with  — timely, high-quality analysis, options and proposed courses of action. We are also strengthening the quality and timeliness of our reporting. The Council has a responsibility to ensure that peacekeepers are equipped to carry out their tasks. That means ensuring that we have the range of capabilities required for increasingly complex and dangerous modern peace operations. High operational readiness, standby arrangements, agile field support and high-quality medical care are essential. Troop and police contributors need support in generating critical enablers, and United Nations administrative practices need to be streamlined and adapted. Equally, we need members’ engagement when things do not go well. Where United Nations peace operations have a mandate to protect civilians, they must use all tools, including, where necessary, the use of force. But that does not replace the search for political settlements; it makes the engagement of the members of the Council more critical. Likewise, when there is a failure to act in the face of threats to civilians, I will inform the Council. I request, in turn, that members engage, politically and operationally, to help redress such situations. I am making a similar request on issues of misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse. If the Security Council demonstrates that it will remain engaged in the conduct of a mission and actions by its personnel, that can be a powerful performance incentive. The third key set of recommendations focuses on strong dialogue with partners, which is crucial for devising more tailored mandates and strengthening the Council’s political engagement. Deeper engagement with regional partners is a must. We need to institutionalize consultation and dialogue and, where appropriate, collaborate in planning and conducting peace operations. We need to provide effective support to our partners, and that must start with the African Union, our key regional partner today. Similarly, the relationship between the Security Council and troop and police contributors is fundamental to effective peace operations. We need deeper understanding of our respective expectations, capacities and constraints. We need to engage well before a peace operation is mandated on what is required and what is available. I welcome the Council’s recent dialogue with contributing countries, and I encourage members to consider my proposals for further strengthening triangular consultation. The recent adoption of resolution 2242 (2015) sets out an agenda for stronger implementation of the Council’s landmark resolution 1325 (2000). Women and peace and security considerations have been fully mainstreamed throughout the peace operations initiative. My report on peace operations has also drawn upon and integrated recommendations from the Advisory Group of Experts on peacebuilding to ensure strong linkages. In that connection, consideration could be given to strengthening collaboration between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Taken together, those efforts can enable us to renew the instruments of the United Nations to address conflict, protect people and help countries find durable paths of peace. I hope that our discussion today will mark the first step in a continued engagement with all members of the Council in support of more effective and efficient United Nations peace operations. I stand ready to work with the Council in the months ahead.

I thank the Secretary-General very much for his briefing. I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council.

We thank the presidency for convening this briefing, as well as for its concept note (S/2015/846, annex). I also thank the Secretary General for his briefing. While we take note of the reports (S/2015/682) of the Secretary-General and of the High-level Independent Panel (see S/2015/446), we understand that this is one of several meetings to be held in conjunction with the membership, especially with countries contributing troops and police. In that connection, we recall the central mandate of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations when it comes to such operations. Turning to the particular issues requested by the President in his concept note, we endorse the use of the term peacekeeping operations proposed by the Independent Panel and endorsed by the Secretary- General, denoting the broad spectrum of work of the Organization on peace and security while also including tools and flexible instruments such as groups of experts and peace and security advisers. We agree with the observations in the reports that the Council must exercise its collective political influence for the benefit of political solutions. They must be at the centre of peacekeeping operations. The Council has the responsibility to detect early the emergence of conflicts and seek response mechanisms to avoid and overcome cycles of violence. Issues that are potentially disruptive to international peace and security must be considered under “Other business” in order to monitor crises and to make known to the countries involved the Council’s concern about the situations they face. Timely awareness on the part of the Council can be a powerful tool for deterrence and facilitate preventive work  — sometimes elusive to date owing to the lack of collective action. The political role of the Council should be complemented by strengthening the mediation of the United Nations, where possible, through its various mechanisms. Peacekeeping operations deployed by the Council must be part of a comprehensive strategy drawn up in support of the political process. We agree with the need for a sequential approach in developing mandates. In that regard, it is necessary to design medium- and long- term political objectives, including field verification mechanisms and implementation strategies. Mandates must be developed with consensus from the parties involved in the conflict, along with the Secretariat and the Council. All those aims must be able to respond to structural change that promotes peace, democracy and inclusive development. Revisiting the functioning of the Council’s Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations to maximize its links with troop- and police-contributing countries could also contribute to that goal. We also have to better address their contributions when drawing up mandates, because they have information on the situation on the ground and assessments of what can or cannot be achieved. In conclusion, we would like to point out that, in planning peace missions, we also have to address, from the very start, the incorporation and participation of gender advisers and advisers to protect women, children and human rights, as independent categories in order to ensure that people in vulnerable situations are protected.

We thank the President for having convened such an important meeting and also for the concept note (S/2015/846, annex) that he has circulated. We also thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing. The concept note focuses on two very specific recommendations, which were formulated in the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446) and taken up by the Secretary-General in his implementation report (S/2015/682). First, peacekeeping mandates should be subject to sequenced authorization and be specific to the context on the ground. Secondly, the Security Council must use its collective political leverage to achieve political settlements. Venezuela welcomes an approach based on the sequenced authorization of mandates and, in that respect, we believe that that process must consist of three stages. First, determine whether conditions on the ground are suitable for the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation. Secondly, if that is the case, deploy an operation with a mandate limited to offering protection and security, and thirdly, extend the mandate of the operation to other multidimensional areas. As part of the first stage, the Secretariat must deploy on the ground and carry out a thorough analysis of the context of the conflict, as well as the priorities and intentions of the parties and other relevant stakeholders. It must also determine the specialized military and police requirements for the implementation of the mandate, including options for rapid deployment and force generation. In issuing its considerations, the Secretariat must consider whether or not the conditions on the ground are suitable for the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation. In that respect, we would like to echo the concerns expressed by the High- level Panel regarding the deployment of peacekeepers in situations where there is no peace to keep nor even a political process under way. It must also be clear that peacekeeping operations were not established to begin or revive political processes, manage conflicts where there is no peace, participate in military operations against terrorist groups or assume the residual tasks of counter- terrorist operations or other types of offensives carried out by ad hoc coalitions or regional or subregional forces that have given up ground. In that regard, we highlight the precedent set out in the joint report of the African Union/United Nations on benchmarks for the deployment of a peacekeeping operation of the United Nations in Somalia. It determined that the security conditions on the ground were not yet suitable for the deployment of such an operation. Regrettably, as the report of the High-level Panel points out, the same precautions were not taken in other cases in which operations were deployed without a prior study of the political or security context on the ground and without an appropriate assessment of the physical and material requirements necessary for the success of the mission. As part of the second stage, and only if the Secretary-General has determined that the political and security conditions on the ground are suitable for the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping operation, then the Security Council could consider an initial, temporary mandate that emphasizes the security, political and protection dimensions. With that provision, the Secretary-General could keep the Security Council abreast of the progress made on the ground. As part of the third stage, once the Secretary- General has determined that conditions are appropriate for the establishment of a broader multidimensional mission, then the Security Council could consider expanding the mandate to other areas, including the promotion of human rights and gender equality, security-sector reform, monitoring the trafficking of small arms and light weapons and the coordination of efforts for capacity-building and the development of local institutions, among others. With respect to the use of the collective leverage of the Security Council in favour of achieving political solutions, Venezuela expresses caution. According to the concept note prepared by the President and in line with the contents of the report of the Secretary-General, in situations in which there are very few possibilities for a short-term political solution or if commitment from the host State is weak, it is hoped that the Security Council will use its political muscle to begin the process on the ground. In his note, the President proposes the use of the entire set of instruments and tools available to the Security Council, from the issuance of press statements to the imposition of sanctions and the deployment of troops on the ground. Venezuela is well aware of the importance of preventing and mitigating conflicts and of the fundamental role played by the Security Council in that context. However, we cannot help but reiterate what was expressed by the report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Future of the Peacebuilding Architecture (see S/2015/490), namely, that the United Nations, and in particular the Security Council, has not yet understood how to adapt its tools to the international context, and often prefers military solutions. In other words, Venezuela would consider the use of non-coercive elements in the set of instruments available to the Security Council, such as press statements, presidential statements, open debates and closed consultations. But we are deeply concerned about the frequent use of coercive and military solutions for conflicts  — a tendency that the Security Council has shown over the years. The Security Council should opt to use peaceful dispute settlement mechanisms in its role to strengthen international peace and security. In that respect, the Council must use more non-coercive measures more assertively and effectively, and employ the use of force and sanctions only as a last resort when all the other options have been exhausted and when there is a genuine chance for the latter to have a positive effect in achieving the objective of finding a solution to the conflict. In conclusion, as we have already done during the negotiations on the presidential statement currently under way, we would like to highlight the need to bear in mind that, although the Security Council plays a fundamental role in developing the mandates for peacekeeping operations, the Special Committee for Peacekeeping Operations, which is a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly, is the body authorized to design policies and doctrines in that area. An intergovernmental process is also under way in several of the Committees of the General Assembly to consider the recommendations of the report of the High-level Panel on Peace Operations and the report of the Secretary-General and to define the path to be followed for the implementation of the recommendations.

We thank the Secretary-General for his briefing today. We have read very carefully the reports prepared by the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations and on Special Political Missions (see S/2015/446) and the report of the Secretary-General (S/2015/682) with his vision for the implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Panel. Those documents will be a good starting point for a comprehensive and careful analysis by Member States of ways to further develop the peacekeeping architecture of our global Organization. We agree that today’s threats and challenges, as well as the changing nature of today’s conflicts, require appropriate adaptation on the part of the United Nations. We fully agree with the approach taken in the reports that there is a need for change in United Nations peacekeeping operations, in particular with regard to the political tools for resolving crises. Good quality and painstaking political and mediation efforts should be a priority for us. The experience of conflicts in various parts of the world has shown that such an approach is what helps to eradicate the root causes of conflicts and not just treat the symptoms. Otherwise, even after a temporary lull, crises are likely to re-emerge. We support the observation that there is a need to strengthen global and regional cooperation in the maintenance of international peace and security. The role of the United Nations and its significant authority in terms of peacekeeping potential is unique. However, it is also important that the degree of involvement of the Organization be carefully balanced depending on the situation in each specific country. Furthermore, the interests and needs of the people of the country must be taken into consideration as much as possible, through the organization of close dialogue with local Governments and communities. We are still convinced that the United Nations presence must seek to assist the host country only on the basis of the priorities identified by its Government. In that context, it is crucial to have constructive regular cooperation between peacekeepers and the local authorities of the host country, along with efforts to strengthen the capacities of the receiving State. We have paid particular attention to the ideas in the report stating that United Nations peacekeepers should not be used to combat terrorism and violent extremism. The international community has other tools at its disposal for that purpose. In that regard, it is encouraging that the recommendations confirmed the basic principles of peacekeeping. We cannot agree with the idea, which is being increasingly put forward at the United Nations, that there should be a flexible interpretation of peacekeeping. The protection of civilians is and remains one of the main aims of peacekeeping, but it cannot be the ultimate aim of the operation, because the need to protect civilians is a result of the conflict, not the cause. We must not forget that the responsibility to protect civilians should be borne by the States themselves. They alone ultimately can ensure the quality and stability of such protection. In that regard, one of the main aims of peacekeeping operations is to lend a hand during difficult times to the host country, when it is not able to assume that responsibility on its own. That assistance must be impartial and based on the consent and understanding of the host State. At the same time, we must not forget that, in any case, it is a temporary measure that is needed in order to allow time to find a political and diplomatic solution. We believe that it is important to be careful with regard to the excessive focus in peacekeeping on human rights issues, including the Human Rights Up Front initiative of the Secretary-General, and gender issues. We are not trying to undermine the importance of those issues, but we urge a responsible and rational approach to them. Otherwise, it may affect the execution of the primary peacekeeping tasks. There is also a need on the part of the various departments of the Secretariat to carefully respect their mandates and curb the practice of assuming others’ mandates and duplicating efforts. Such modern words as “links”, “coherence”, “coordination” and “flexibility”, which one encounters in nearly every United Nations decision, must not lead to everyone doing everyone else’s work. The inevitable result of that would be that no one does anything and no one assumes responsibility for anything. As a side effect of such an approach, we have seen a growth in the number of offices and increased costs and expenditure. United Nations mechanisms, including in the area of ​peacekeeping, need to be cut back, and additional mechanisms should not be established to do so. Furthermore, we must not artificially restrict the number of troop-contributing countries, and the Secretariat must not have too broad a remit over staffing policy, including in the areas of early deployment and civilian personnel management. It is imperative that the United Nations cooperate with regional and subregional organizations and countries in the region and find other forms of cooperation. That cooperation could operate along various tracks: from an exchange of information and best practices to joint activities on the ground and providing resource support in order to quickly and effectively respond to existing and emerging challenges. We see great potential in developing that type of cooperation in almost all regions of the world. In conclusion, I would like to note that the whole range of issues, including those related to preventive measures, the principles of peacekeeping, structural changes in the Secretariat, as well as the use and redistribution of human and financial resources, demand significant and substantive consideration by Member States. That work should be carried out primarily within the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations of the General Assembly and the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing on his vision of the future of United Nations peacekeeping operations, a vision that we fully share. France fully shares the conceptual framework proposed by the Secretary- General in his report on the future of United Nations peace operations (S/2015/682), based on the report (see S/2015/446) of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations, led by Mr. Ramos-Horta. Those excellent reports call for a dynamic, engaged and sometimes, when necessary, robust peacekeeping that supports national political processes. The fine line that has been drawn in that regard is, in our view, good. In the context of this debate, I would like to highlight three aspects. First of all, within his prerogatives, the Secretary- General has the right and the duty to ensure that the United Nations is more effective, responsive and exemplary on the ground. Those needs can be addressed through simple and inexpensive measures for reorganizing and reforming procedures and can be carried out on his own initiative. With regard to effectiveness, we believe that the parties on the ground must be given responsibility and be empowered. The remits and capacities must be decentralized from Headquarters to the field. We are counting on the Secretariat to follow through with that. Along the same lines, we feel that the internal procedures of the Secretariat should be the focus of an in-depth analysis. Some rules for recruiting civilian personnel appear to us to be too cumbersome and slow. Finally, in terms of setting an example, France supports the proposals to strengthen the zero-tolerance policy for sexual abuse committed by Blue Helmets, and all efforts must come together towards its concrete implementation. Beginning in 2016, in line with the comprehensive training organized by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, we want to launch a training of trainers initiative for the specific purposes of peacekeeping operations, which will be conducted in French and open, of course, to a multinational audience. Secondly, France wants certain issues to be given fuller consideration. That can also be carried out by the Secretary-General with our full support. For our part, we are mobilized to provide the Council with our military expertise in the following priority areas. The first area is that of protecting Blue Helmets, who are called on to intervene in increasingly complex situations in which they often become targets themselves. Strengthening their security is a cross- cutting objective that is related to force generation and the smooth implementation of security measures, including the deployment of measures for protection against improvised explosive devices. Another area is the use of new technologies to improve reconnaissance, surveillance and information capacities, which should make it possible to better anticipate threats, bolster the activities of peacekeeping operations, ensure the safety of the staff and protect civilians. Similarly, some rules governing operational logistics could be improved in order to be even more responsive and better adapted to the needs in the theatres of the operations. Finally, there must be an improvement in medical care in peacekeeping operations, where, in the absence of any standards, the basic principles of transparency, accountability and performance evaluation have not, in our opinion, been sufficiently implemented, which exposes United Nations staff to risks that should be unacceptable. As a member of the Security Council and a penholder on a number of resolutions, we plan to do all we can in those efforts. That is why we intend to implement or to support the implementation of several initiatives in particular. They include strengthening consultations with regional players and neighbouring countries. That objective is in the Secretary-General’s report and we fully endorse it. Therefore, before we start negotiations on establishing or renewing the mandate for peacekeeping operation, we will bring regional players together to hear their views. We want there to be more dialogue with troop- and staff-contributing countries. Without those countries, and without triangular cooperation among them, the Security Council and the Secretariat, there can be no effective peacekeeping. As the Secretary-General has said, mandates must be well understood and accepted in order to be implemented. France therefore intends to bring together the main troop- and staff-contributing countries on a regular basis to hear their views on the implementation of mandates. Those consultations should be conducted over and beyond the work that precedes the renewal of mandates, thereby enabling mandates to be better targeted and prioritized. That is another area in which we plan to focus our efforts, in line with the recommendations of the Secretary- General. Finally, the negotiation of compacts with host States is something we feel should be encouraged, over and beyond the mandates conferred by the Security Council. We believe that reciprocal commitment leads to a common vision of what should be done. France will continue its wholehearted participation in, and support for, United Nations peacekeeping operations and will do all it can to help make them more effective and more relevant.

I thank you, Mr. President, for scheduling today’s briefing and for your concept note (S/2015/848, annex), and I thank the Secretary-General for attending today and for giving us his briefing. Today’s topic and the Secretary-General’s briefing address the role and effectiveness of some of the Council’s most powerful tools for maintaining peace and security. We welcome the reports and recommendations of the Secretary-General (S/2015/682) and the High- level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446). Both provide an important basis and opportunity for change. The reports set out useful recommendations to address long-standing challenges, including the growing mandate resource gap and the need for enhanced political strategies and engagement and more timely deployments, together with innovative and flexible support and financing arrangements, a number of which the Secretary-General touched upon this morning. Today I wish to focus on several issues New Zealand considers to be of particular importance. First, we support the calls for a much stronger investment by the Security Council and the wider United Nations system in conflict prevention, and for a way to better harness the Organization’s collective political leverage in pursuit of political settlements. New Zealand sees merit in making greater use of timely missions by the Council, including mini-missions to the field. They are both a concrete demonstration of the Council’s interest in a situation and a means for the Council to both influence and obtain a better understanding of conditions on the ground. Such missions should work with the relevant regional organizations. In our view, there should be standing arrangements for such missions so that funding is not at the expense of the on-the-ground operation. Secondly, the Council needs to put into practice its commitment to clear, focused and realistic mandates. We agree with the High-level Panel that we should use two-stage mandates for missions being established or reconfigured and allow for operations to be built up and drawn down according to clear priorities and the situation on the ground. Thirdly, the Council needs to consider changes to the way it develops, considers and approves mandates. In particular, there needs be more consistent and meaningful engagement among the Council, troop- and police-contributing countries and the affected States, as well as with the Secretariat. As the concept note indicates, New Zealand has been active in promoting informal discussions along these lines with positive results. Such interaction should be part of everyday Council and Secretariat culture and practice. Moreover, to be useful, the conversations need to focus on the practical and avoid formality. Formalistic and formulaic consultation is not useful for any us. Fourthly, we need to enhance the ability of the United Nations to ensure the safety and security of United Nations peace operations personnel. Countries will not make soldiers and police available if they feel their people may be exposed to unacceptable risk. As a recent International Peace Institute-organized workshop that New Zealand co-hosted with Chad and Uruguay, there was discussion about that method. It was concluded that there is no single answer to the issue. Rather, safety and security need to be key concerns in the development and review of mandates, along with the training and equipping of peace operations personnel, access to information, and the Secretariat’s planning and management practices. Fifthly, in order to be effective, mandates need to fit the real-world context. Understanding that context is critical to effectiveness. That means we need to enhance the Council’s access to the information necessary for making sound decisions. New Zealand has proposed options for addressing that issue. We have requested more regular informal briefings for Council members on specific missions, beginning with the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That has already proved valuable in providing operational-level information and insights. The Secretariat briefings provided in informal triangular consultations on specific mandate renewals have also been similarly useful, but we believe there is scope for a more systematic approach. We would see merit in the Council receiving regular situational awareness briefings, led by the United Nations Operations and Crisis Centre and supported by other United Nations stakeholders. That is consistent with what is called for in the High-level Panel’s report, several of the Secretary-General’s reports and resolution 2171 (2014). We understand that such a practice used to exist. It would provide Council members a more regular and relevant flow of information on key points across all United Nations peace operations to assist mandate implementation, safety and security, and the protection of civilians. Finally, we need to get much better at addressing ongoing allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations peacekeepers. We must get past ritualistic expressions of condemnation and zero tolerance. We think that a key missing piece of the puzzle is implementation of the recommendations of the 2005 report (see A/59/710) by His Excellency Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein for a more independent and confidential process to receive and register complaints in place in missions. The Secretary-General’s report and the report of the High-level Panel provide clear analysis of key problems facing United Nations peace operations and a wealth of useful proposals to address them. But the debate has never suffered from a dearth of problem definition or proposed solutions. What we need is a sustained commitment to fixing things in a real-world sense and to set aside narrow interests and fixations with doctrinal purity to make the changes that can make a practical difference. Pragmatism and practicality underlay the original conception of peacekeeping. It is important that they continue to inform our responses to modern realities.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and the British presidency for having organized today’s meeting. By way of general comment, I would like to say that Spain fully supports the report of the Secretary- General (S/2015/682) and all its recommendations. The report comes at a particularly momentous time, just after we have thoroughly reviewed the women and peace and security agenda and as we are considering the review process of the Peacebuilding Commission. Therefore, the moment chosen by the United Kingdom President could not have been more timely. I will try to summarize the Spanish position in four main points. First, we particularly value the centrality of the political element in peacekeeping operations and the strengthening of prevention and mediation. The focus on prevention based on a thorough analysis of the local context, clearly indicates the path to be followed. Secondly, as the Security Council has acknowledged in its recent resolution 2242 (2015), we need to improve the integration of the recommendations on women and peace and security in the work of the various bodies of the United Nations system. The Secretary-General mentioned that point in his briefing. Thirdly, the protection of civilians must remain at the heart of our concerns. That is why we are pleased to see the progress made by introducing periodic assessments of the missions. The fourth main principle of Spain’s position concerns the need to improve peacekeeper training and to improve the accountability of our mandates. Mandates must be clear, coherent and realistic. I will now comment briefly on sequenced mandates. Such mandates must have better adaptation to the reality on the ground as an objective. Better sequencing does not lead to mandates of greater economy, but rather to mandates of greater efficiency. We must prioritize the goal sought through sequencing. Sequencing cannot sacrifice essential priorities, such as defending and promoting human rights or protecting civilians, which are crucial conditions in preventing conflict, and therefore in building lasting peace. The final objective guiding our work must be the implementation of inclusive political solutions and translating the ground-based, people-centred approach into reality, as called for by the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. The prioritization of ongoing tasks initiated by the Council, such as in the Central African Republic, is very useful in terms of focusing our future work. It would be suitable to increasingly make use of the potential granted by periodic mandate reviews in order to increase progress in that area. With respect to periodic mandate evaluations, the responsibility of the penholders is particularly important. I would now like to say a few words on the transparency of the Council and its mandates. To ensure the success of all of those initiatives, transparency in the Council’s functioning needs to be improved. First, as Spain stated on previous occasions, we support greater openness in the penholder system, with, as a general rule, the sharing of the that function among the elected members. We believe that would be a step in the right direction, in that it would facilitate the flow of information. Secondly, we believe it is important for the process of selecting mission penholders to be rigorous and, moreover, transparent. Thirdly, as proposed by New Zealand, we believe it would be suitable for the Council to be able to regularly receive briefings on the situation on the ground, in which the United Nations Operations and Crisis Centre would participate. With regard to special political missions, the report of the Secretary-General includes a recommendation to establish new regional offices, and notes the appropriateness of special political missions to strengthen the political element of peace operations. Spain of course supports those recommendations. I wish to conclude my statement by reiterating once again Spain’s commitment to United Nations peace operations, which has been steadfast in the past and will continue to be so in the future.

This morning many of us in New York woke up to the news of yet another terrorist attack, in yet another city, targeting yet another group of innocents. On behalf of the United States, I extend our condolences for those whose lives have been taken and offer our prayers for those whose lives still hang in the balance. We stand with the Government and the people of Mali and the nations and peoples of the world that are unwilling to bend to fear and will not flinch in the face of cowardly acts of terrorism. It does not scare us, it will not deter us, it only unites us. In Mali, the Security Council has deployed a peacekeeping mission, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), mandated with carrying out critical tasks that are essential to advancing peace. Today’s tragic attack serves to further illustrate the dangerous environment in which MINUSMA is deployed. While the nature of the threats they confront may be different, operating in dangerous environments is not new to United Nations peacekeeping. United Nations missions around the world are carrying out robust mandates designed to advance peace and protect peoples. Peacekeepers are operating in environments where terrorists operate freely, where host Government hostility is so pitched that it sometimes resort to tactics like denying United Nations troops food and rations, and where armed groups control territory and terrorize civilians each and every day. Those challenges are real and require us to ensure that United Nations peacekeeping and peacekeepers have the right equipment, the right training and the right support to perform their mission safely and effectively. Peacekeepers operating in such environments require active engagement from the Security Council, even when it means that we, as the Council, must stand up to those who are willing to play politics with food and access and cooperation. Those tactics endanger civilians’ lives, imperil the peacekeepers that we have deployed and frustrate the cause of peace. It requires leadership and commitment on the part of this body and Governments around the world. It requires clarity on how better to support the peacekeeping endeavour. It has been 15 years since the Brahimi report (see S/2000/809) was issued. The world has changed, and so, too, has what the world needs of peacekeepers. That is why the Secretary-General’s proposal on the implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (S/2015/682) is so important. All the more critical is our response to it. If, after receiving the report (see S/2015/446) of the High-level Panel, we end up repeating the same words and doing the same thing as we did before receiving it, then we will have not progressed very far. We need to make progress, we need to take decisions, we need to pony up resources and we need to engage. That is why I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and for his commitment to undertaking reforms of the United Nations peace operations that should significantly enhance the accountability, transparency, performance and responsiveness of those life-saving operations around the world. Reforms are needed because we need United Nations peacekeeping to succeed. This is not a challenge for the Secretariat in New York alone, it is a challenge for each of our Governments. That is why President Obama co-hosted a leaders’ summit here in September on the issue on peacekeeping, to help muster new contributions, new capabilities and new tools, to allow peacekeepers to do their job more effectively and safely. In connection with the summit, President Obama issued a policy to all agencies of my Government, the first policy of its kind in over 20 years, in which he directed us to do more in three areas: building partner capacity to support United Nations peace operations, including contributing United States diplomatic support; providing enabling capabilities and personnel to peace operations; and supporting the Council’s efforts to achieve peacekeeping reforms. I would like to make just a few brief points about the third area, namely, peacekeeping reform. First, the United States welcomes efforts to improve the analysis and planning of peacekeeping operations, including through the Strategic Force Generation and Capabilities Planning Cell. Our analysis and planning must not only take into account, but also be guided by, protecting human rights and countering threats to civilians, including responding to the most extreme forms of atrocity. Analysis and planning must be followed by action. Where peacekeepers fail to act, the Security Council must be engaged early and often. Only in that way can the Security Council ensure that civilians who are relying on United Nations peacekeeping for protection are in fact protected. In addition to more robust reporting and strengthened analysis, we welcome the Secretary- General’s call on the Security Council to re-energize its efforts to prioritize and sequence peacekeeping mandates so that capabilities are matched with the situation at hand, and ultimately lead to operations that are effective and efficient from mission start-up to mission exit. Secondly, when peacekeeping operations are deployed in environments with asymmetric threats that pose a risk to United Nations personnel or civilians, we must redouble our efforts to maintain sustained cooperation and dialogue with troop- and police-contributing countries. We owe it to the women and men who wear blue helmets to ensure that they arrive in theatre fully trained and fully equipped to confront the threats. When the Department of Peacekeeping Operations tells us that advanced technologies are needed to keep troops safe and able to perform their mandates, the Council should support the use of advanced technologies, not allow parties to play politics with them. We are pleased that the leaders’ summit on peacekeeping, which drew together more than 50 countries, including some of the largest contributors of troops and police, helped to generate new capabilities for peacekeeping operations such as MINUSMA, where 42 peacekeepers have been killed and 168 injured. But to better enable them to operate both effectively and safely, we encourage Member States that have pledged support to follow through on those commitments rapidly. Thirdly, we need to recognize that when the Security Council establishes a new peacekeeping mission, the Security Council’s work has only just begun. We have a responsibility to monitor the performance of our missions, including our personnel and uniformed presence. When underperformance results from a lack of training and equipment, we have a responsibility to work with the Secretariat and troop- and police- contributing countries to build those capabilities. When peacekeepers opt not to carry out mandates because of caveats from capitals, the people whom they are there to serve suffer. Civilians relying on United Nations peacekeeping for protection do not appreciate the distinction among commitments negotiated between New York and a troop-contributor’s capital. They see a blue helmet, and they appropriately expect help. It is incumbent on us to deliver. We must take steps to ensure clarity and accountability when there is a question of conduct and discipline, refusal to follow command and control or failure to implement mandated tasks, especially when they call for the robust use of force to protect civilians. Every week, we are learning of more cases of sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeeping personnel. That demands a swift and urgent response from the international community and the United Nations leadership. When peacekeepers victimize the very individuals and communities they are deployed to protect, it is nothing short of horrific and undermines the credibility and legitimacy of the United Nations. The Security Council must do more, and the United States remains committed to working with the Secretary- General to ensure that we are fully able to implement the United Nations zero-tolerance policy on all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. We welcome the call on the Security Council to include issues of misconduct, including sexual exploitation and abuse on its agenda so that the Council can review follow-up action on all reported allegations. Leadership is, of course, essential. The success or failure of our peacekeeping missions hinges on the experience and qualifications of their senior leaders and the support they receive from United Nations Headquarters. We support the Secretary- General’s efforts to improve and enhance the selection of senior leadership for peacekeeping missions globally. Fourthly, the United States recognizes the importance of developing new and deeper relationships among the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations. With nearly 63 per cent of United Nations peace operations and 87 per cent of all uniformed peacekeepers serving in Africa, we view our partnerships with regional organizations — in particular with the African Union — as critical to ensuring that we are structuring missions with the requisite support and oversight to be effective. Fifthly and finally, we welcome the emphasis of the Panel on the need to redouble efforts to achieve political solutions. We agree with the Secretary- General that political settlements that promote peaceful and inclusive societies and help advance human rights are key to preventing conflict and interrupting cycles of violence. We have a vested interest in ensuring that, in those places where we have deployed peacekeeping missions, we are equally engaged in advancing the political process. The challenges before us are serious, but so too are the opportunities. We need United Nations peacekeeping to succeed, and together, by pursuing the reforms that we have discussed today, we can do much to advance the ability of the United Nations and the community of nations to advance peace and security.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting and for the concept note (S/2015/846, annex) provided to guide our discussions. We are also grateful to the Secretary-General for his insightful briefing. We commend the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) for consulting widely with Member States, regional organizations and the United Nations committees in the course of its work. That, we believe, has led to the broad acceptance of its report (see S/2015/446). We note the broad themes under which the Panel examined the challenges faced by United Nations peace operations, namely, partnerships, politics, prevention and people. Nigeria welcomes the Human Rights Up Front action plan, proposed by the Secretary- General to implement the Panel’s recommendations, which renew focus on prevention, mediation and stronger regional and global partnerships. Those entail new ways of planning and conducting United Nations peace operations to make them faster, more responsive and more accountable to the needs of countries and people in conflict. In prioritizing areas of the HIPPO report for implementation, it is pertinent to proceed from identifying propositions to providing immediate and enduring solutions to targeted challenges and United Nations peace operations. We underscore the vital needs to address evolving challenges of peacekeeping in the context of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations. In that connection, we emphasize the importance of strengthening triangular cooperation among the Secretariat, troop- and police- contributing countries and the Security Council to foster common acceptance and appreciation on the part of all stakeholders for the effective implementation of the United Nations peacekeeping initiatives. We welcome HIPPO’s recommendations aimed at enhancing the cooperation relationship between the United Nations and the African Union (AU). Partnership is the cornerstone of Africa’s efforts to stabilize its conflict zones and to shoulder its share of the global responsibility to maintain peace and security. In that regard, it is important to highlight the funding challenges faced by the AU, and the need for the United Nations to assume primary responsibility for AU-led operations initiated as bridging measures. That should not be misunderstood as unwillingness on the part of the AU to manage its own operations. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that resolving armed conflicts in the world of today often requires complex, nuanced and high-technology responses that demand a particular level of infrastructure that the AU might not be able to immediately make available. The need for support does not amount to dependency. Rather, it should be viewed as a necessary element of the vital partnership for maintaining international peace and security. We welcome the Panel’s proposal regarding the use of United Nations assessed contributions to support Security Council-authorized African Union peace-support operations, including the causes associated with deployed uniformed personnel to complement funding for the African Union and all African Member States. We also welcome the Secretary- General’s decision to prioritize the implementation of the Panel’s recommendation regarding developing stronger and original global partnerships. That would require improving institutional collaboration between the United Nations and original bodies that would go beyond context-specific to more predictable mechanisms for cooperation. In that regard, we look forward to the early finalization of the joint African Union-United Nations framework for an enhanced partnership in peace and security. Nigeria supports the proposal for tailoring and sequencing mandates for peacekeeping missions. That will enable planners to take into consideration realities on the ground when reformulating mandates and assessing the resources needed to achieve the required tasks. Sequencing also helps to ensure that the dialogues among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop- and police- contributing countries are not limited to the predeployment phases of missions, but sustained as an integral and periodic component of the mission’s work. The United Nations peace operations have, since their inception, been a vital part of the global security architecture. They are a source of inspiration and hope for the victims of conflicts. Ensuring that peace operations remain relevant now and in the future will require the collective efforts of United Nations Member States to surmount existing and emerging challenges. As we consider the HIPPO report and that of the Secretary-General (S/2015/682) and seek a way forward, the Security Council is again charged primarily with the maintenance of international peace and security and must demonstrate leadership by expediting action on recommendations directed to it. I would like to conclude by offering our deepest condolences to the families, friends and Governments of peacekeepers who have lost their lives in the line of duty. I also would like to express our commiseration with the families of those who have been affected by the recent terrorist attacks in France, Lebanon and Mali.

I thank the presidency of the United Kingdom for convening this meeting. China strongly condemns the terrorist attack that took place in Mali. Terrorism is the common enemy of all humankind. The international community must strengthen coordination and cooperation and fight together against terrorism. China thanks Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his briefing and welcomes his implementation report, submitted on the basis of the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (S/2015/682). Peacekeeping operations are an important means for maintaining international peace and security. They should both remain faithful to principles and also progress with the times. In that connection, China wishes to stress the following four points. First, peacekeeping operations should abide by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and the three principles of peacekeeping. They should respect the sovereignty of the countries concerned and their wishes. They should help the countries concerned, on the basis of their specific needs, in realizing peace and stability and enhance capacity-building in the sphere of peace and security. Secondly, the Security Council should strengthen the macromanagement of peacekeeping operations to ensure that the mandate is practical and feasible, with clear goals, focus and priorities. The Council should be able to adapt the scale and mandate of peace operations in accordance with the developments on the ground and to formulate an exit strategy at the appropriate moment. Thirdly, the United Nations should enhance the efficiency of peacekeeping operations, expedite force generation and deployment, optimize logistics capabilities and improve the effectiveness of the use of peacekeeping resources. The United Nations should strengthen the training of peacekeepers and reinforce discipline and monitoring procedures so as to safeguard the image of peacekeeping operations. Fourthly, the United Nations should strengthen coordination and cooperation with regional organizations in peacekeeping, giving full play to the latter’s unique advantages so as to form synergies. In the long term, the United Nations should increase support to the African Union and other regional organizations to enhance Africa’s own capacity for peacekeeping, so as to help Africans settle African problems in African ways. As a permanent member of the Security Council and the largest developing country, China has been a firm supporter of United Nations peacekeeping operations, and is one of the major troop contributors and donors to peacekeeping operations. China has announced that it will join the new United Nations Peacekeeping Capability Readiness System, take the lead in setting up a permanent peacekeeping police squad and build a peacekeeping standby force of 8,000 troops. China will deploy more personnel with engineering, transportation and medical expertise. In the next five years China will train 2,000 peacekeeping personnel for various countries and implement 10 demining assistance projects, including providing training and equipment. China will provide the African Union with a total of $100 million of free military assistance and deploy the first helicopter squadron to United Nations peacekeeping operations in Africa. Some of the resources in the China-United Nations Peace and Development Fund will be used to support United Nations peacekeeping operations. China is making every effort to implement the above-mentioned initiatives. We are willing to work with all those concerned to put into practice the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and contribute further to the maintenance of international peace and security.

I would like to begin my statement by expressing Jordan’s strong condemnation of the terrorist attacks that took place in Mali today, and by extending our condolences to the families of the victims. Allow me to express my thanks and appreciation to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his comprehensive briefing and tireless efforts in peacekeeping. This discussion is taking place at an important time. The Secretary-General’s report on the future of peacekeeping operations (S/2015/682) and the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446) have acquired a high degree of importance in view of the exacerbating conflicts around the world. Those conflicts have changed in nature over the years and have spread to the extent that now they threaten areas that used to be safe. They are not confined geographically and have developed faster than the ability of the United Nations and the international community to deal with them. What we seek now is not only to limit those conflicts and alleviate their efects, but also to deal with their root causes and prevent them from erupting in the first place. Jordan appreciates the efforts of the Secretary-General and the High-level Independent Panel on Peacekeeping Operations, welcomes their reports and agrees with most of the recommendations contained therein. They have looked at the future of peacekeeping operations from a new and vital perspective. I would like to focus on the four most important recommendations in the reports, which we deem to be of the utmost priority for the Security Council and the General Assembly. The first of these is the promotion of mediation, prevention and support of political processes. Peacekeeping operations are not an alternative to national political settlements but rather pave the way for the establishment of a conducive environment for a peaceful settlement among the conflicting parties in a manner that takes the interests of everyone into consideration and bridges the differences between them. Such a settlement cannot be achieved unless it reflects the true will of the parties to the conflict. Therefore, mediation can play a major part. The Security Council’s role in that regard is extremely important owing to its political leverage and its mandate to support political processes in many different ways, including through mediation and communication with the parties to the conflict. We believe that we could establish a mediation panel composed of experts and consultants that have wide-ranging relations with the parties to the conflict, or with the local communities in the host countries, and that such a panel should be one of the elements taken into consideration in the design of future peacekeeping operations. The advisability of sequenced mandates is the second important recommendation in the reports of the Secretary-General and the Panel. This recommendation should be given consideration in the context not only of new peacekeeping operations but of current ones as well. Developments on the ground should serve as the compass by which the Security Council determines the type of response that is suited to the particular requirements of each conflict. We believe that sequenced mandates will help the Security Council to save time and effort in dealing with emerging conflicts and preventing their eruption in the first place, particularly in the case of the two most dangerous phenomena: violent extremism and terrorism, and diseases such as Ebola. Sequenced mandates can also play an important role in identifying ways and means of providing protection to civilians, such as increasing the police or military component, or of assisting political processes that require further support or further participation by women. The second phase of any sequenced mandate should include exit strategies that would avoid leaving a security vacuum in the host country. We therefore support the idea that peacekeeping operations should be designed in such a way as to be commensurate with the threats they face. To reach the necessary level of preparedness, peacekeepers must be adequately trained and equipped, particularly when they are required to deal with cross- border conflicts that exposes them to extremely dangerous and potentially explosive situations. We believe that the Secretariat and the Security Council should later on determine the steps to be followed in this regard, such as increasing the number of specialized consultants in peacekeeping operations who could provide analyses and recommendations to the Security Council to help in the formulation of future mandates. Thirdly, deepening cooperation with regional and subregional organizations, particularly the European Union, the African Union and the League of Arab States, is also extremely important for bridging divisions among nations and furthering international and regional responses to the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa that have been deteriorating over the past few years. We encourage the Security Council to promote and expand its cooperation with the League of Arab States in dealing with crises in the Middle East. Fourthly, with respect to accountability for human rights violations resulting from violence or sexual exploitation, we should not allow a few individuals to disgrace peacekeeping operations. We should make sure that necessary and firm measures are adopted so that violations can be investigated and perpetrators brought to justice. Lastly, we stress the importance of coordination and cooperation between the Security Council, all relevant United Nations entities and the troop- and police-contributing countries. This would make for better-prepared peacekeeping operations and the enhanced prioritization of their tasks. Countries with broad experience would be particularly helpful in this exercise, which would further the implementation of the recommendations of both the Secretary-General and the High-level Independent Panel. Jordan takes pride in its participation in peacekeeping operations, which proceeds from its moral and humanitarian commitment to the United Nations, the prevention of conflicts and their settlement. We rank first among police-contributors and have contributed 1,580 officers so far. We salute all those who work in peacekeeping operations and appreciate their sacrifice in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions. They have shown the highest level of professionalism, dedication and courage in the interests of international peace and security.

I, too, would like to begin my statement with a firm condemnation of the terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in Mali. On behalf of Chad, I would like to express our deepest condolences to the families of the victims and to the Government and the people of Mali. I thank the United Kingdom presidency for convening this meeting on the report of the Secretary- General on the future of United Nations peace operations. I also thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for his briefing. Seventy years after the founding of the United Nations, the world seems still to be far from the goal of a world without war, given the increasing number of conflicts and the difficulties deterring their prevention and resolution. Chad takes note of the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations and the priorities set out therein (S/2015/682). I will make some brief observations in this regard. We agree that United Nations peace operations, including special political missions and peacekeeping operations, should give priority to finding political solutions to conflicts. In this respect, my country supports the call of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations for the Security Council to draw upon its collective political influence to promote these solutions. However, for a political solution to be successful, it is important that the priorities and needs of the host State be taken into account and that its cooperation and that of other relevant actors be a given. Pursuing political solutions should not exclude the proportional use of force when it is necessary. In some situations, non-State actors, such as armed or terrorist groups, deliberately undermine peace efforts and threaten the lives of civilians. In such cases, the use of force cannot be ruled out. In this respect, we welcome the experiences of the Intervention Brigade of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the African Union Mission in Somalia, which are successes that many people recognize. If the United Nations is not equipped to impose peace, the regional and subregional organizations that are willing to intervene for the sake of peace must be able to receive the support needed from the Security Council and the General Assembly. This is particularly necessary, given that the current nature of conflicts is such that that type of intervention is required sometimes, and also because of the rigid approach of traditional United Nations peacekeeping. Chad is in favour of the better prioritization and sequencing of tasks in peacekeeping operations. In this regard, the Security Council should conduct meaningful consultations with the host States and subregional and regional partners and also with neighbouring countries. Chad strongly supports the request formulated by New Zealand and France that peacekeepers be better protected. In this regard, we urge the Security Council to address the issue of safety and security as a highly strategic issue. Like other countries, Chad has lost many of its soldiers deployed in the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). Despite its experience and substantial resources, the United Nations cannot meet alone the numerous challenges it faces in terms of peace and security, particularly in Africa. It is therefore essential that the United Nations strengthen its strategic partnership with the African Union (AU). There is no need to recall that the overwhelming majority of United Nations peace operations, including uniformed personnel, are deployed in Africa. The African Union is a key strategic partner that needs to be supported in its efforts. It must be closely associated, in particular, with all United Nations initiatives on peace operations on the African continent. Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations makes provision for regional organizations to play a role, and the African Union performs such a role brilliantly. As an illustration, it should be noted that the African Union is currently operating in the Sudan as part of the African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur, in Somalia and elsewhere. Recently, the AU first deployed in Mali and in the Central African Republic, facilitating the later deployment of MINUSMA and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic in those countries, respectively. Furthermore, the comparative advantages of the African Union, such as geographical proximity, legitimacy, knowledge of the root causes of conflict and the ability to respond quickly in crisis situations, are well established. With respect to burden-sharing, the United Nations should support the AU, particularly by financing its peacekeeping operations authorized by the Security Council, as recommended by the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations and the Secretary-General in their respective reports. In conclusion, we express our gratitude to the High- level Independent Panel and the Secretary-General for their reports replete with recommendations. Chad supports all the relevant recommendations contained therein, in particular those on the issue of financing the peacekeeping operations of the African Union authorized by the Security Council.

I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and his views on the future of United Nations peace operations, which we have heard with much interest. I also wish to express our appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report (S/2015/682), which we find comprehensive and forward- looking. We consider today’s meeting very timely and we thank the United Kingdom presidency for producing a detailed and useful concept note (S/2015/846, annex), which could help guide our deliberations towards a productive end. Malaysia has been a regular troop contributor to United Nations peacekeeping since 1960, three years after achieving its independence in 1957. That is proof of our belief in multilateralism and the principle of collective action. Since then, we have seen the scope, role and functions of United Nations peacekeepers evolve tremendously, certainly going much further than was envisioned in the Charter of the United Nations. In the context of ongoing peace operations, particularly those with aspects of so-called frozen conflict, we believe the Security Council could do more to capitalize on its political leverage with a view to accelerating political settlements among belligerents on the ground. In certain situations, such as Lebanon, the Sudan and Western Sahara, for example, we believe that there is room for the missions on the ground, as well as the Council, to improve and build on relations with the parties concerned, with a view to moving the political procses forward. We are also seeing an increasing number of instances where conflict settlement processes occur outside the Council, with regional actors and organizations playing a leading role. That is an encouraging trend, and we believe that the capacity and capabilities of regional organizations to continue doing so should be supported and reinforced. That said, mindful of the role and responsibility entrusted to the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, and in the context of such processes, it is important that the full Council, and not just some of its members, be involved. The Security Council cannot be reduced to a rubber-stamping authority. That would only weaken its credibility and diminish its political leverage. As rightly noted in the concept note, the Security Council has an array of tools it can deploy to ensure that it fulfils its mandate. More important, perhaps, is that it needs a shift in thinking from a conflict- management mode to a problem-solving one. At the same time, the Council could refresh its existing tools, in the way that, for example, New Zealand has given new meaning to consultation between the Council and troop-contributing countries (TCCs), which we fully support. In our view, such informal engagement does add value, and it is worth considering whether it could be institutionalized. And by institutionalized, I do not mean formalized. With regard to the issue of mandate sequencing, Malaysia is not opposed to the idea in principle and could readily support it. That said, we believe that several prerequisites must be met before such operations could be deployed. In essence, such prerequisites mean more comprehensive treatment of all the issues outlined in the reports of the Secretary-General and of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446). From an operational perspective, areas such as logistics support, force generation and deployment and mandate design, among others, must be given due priority while at the same time a keen eye must be kept on aspects of practicality such as mission footprint and, of course, financial costs. Mandate design is particularly important. In our view, it should be focused and tailored specifically to the situation. Missions must be able to interpret and apply their mandates at the technical level on the ground. At the same time, troops must be deployed with assets that are adequate and appropriate to effective execution of their duties. In the context of the increasingly complex nature of the situations in which peace operations are deployed, another key issue that must be addressed when considering the issue of mandate sequencing is that of caveats. In our view, if peace operations are to effectively implement their mandates, more clarity is needed on how caveats imposed by specific TCCs can either help or hamper a mission’s success. In that regard, a focused discussion involving TCCs on the subject of caveats and the protection of civilians, leading to a complete and agreed-on understanding, would be highly useful. On a related issue, we would like to emphasize that proposals for consolidating missions, particularly their civilian components, should not compromise the roles of protection advisers, particularly of women and children. In conclusion, we greatly appreciate today’s opportunity for the Security Council to discuss the implementation of the outcomes of the United Nations peace operations review exercise. We hope that in future similar discussions can be convened that take up other areas and aspects touched on in the review. In that regard, we welcome the presidential statement currently being negotiated on the issue and look forward to its adoption soon. We owe nothing less than a full consideration of such issues to the brave men and women who risk their lives every day in some of the world’s most deplorable and dangerous conflict situations, which we, as the Council, have a duty to address.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the victims of the terrorist attack in Mali today. We strongly condemn such criminal acts. We commend the United Kingdom presidency for organizing today’s meeting, which affords us an opportunity to assess the proposals for enhancing peace operations at a time of unprecedented challenges to international peace and security. We thank the Secretary- General for introducing his report (S/2015/682) on the future of United Nations peace operations and the implementation of the recommendations of the High- level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446). We commend him for his review of reform efforts with a view to strengthening the effectiveness of the United Nations system and specifically its peacekeeping operations. We also commend the High- level Panel for the expeditious and admirable manner in which it carried out its comprehensive review of peace operations, and for its far-reaching recommendations. In the Security Council’s recent open debate on the prevention of conflict, its root causes and building peaceful societies (see S/PV.7561), Member States dwelled extensively on the growing insecurity around the world, which is characterized by civil wars, asymmetric conflicts, terrorism, intolerance and hatred, as well as on how to prevent conflicts and transition to peacebuilding. The assessments of the High-level Panel and the Secretary-General’s report form the basis for today’s discussion of the review and the future of United Nations peacekeeping operations. In the near future, the entire membership will focus its attention on the Panel’s recommendations and on the priorities and key elements outlined in the Secretary-General’s plan for translating them into action, centred on the three pillars of prevention and mediation, regional and global partnerships and the planning and conduct of United Nations peace operations. We fully agree with the Secretary-General on the advantages of ensuring the Security Council’s early involvement as one of the most effective tools we have for preventing and mediating conflicts. We agree with the Panel’s recognition of the impossibility of effectively responding to the multiplicity of crises and of the problems of overstretching conflict management, and with its call for renewed efforts in conflict prevention and mediation as a core United Nations function. We also agree with its recognition of the need for Member States’ support as a signal of our global determination to reduce armed conflicts. To that end, the report identifies a range of tools and capacities for strengthening and creating faster and more cost-effective responses to conflict through early action, including envoys, regional offices, good offices, standby mediation experts and support to United Nations country teams. Originally, after an outbreak of conflict, a political settlement was traditionally seen as the fundamental prerequisite for the deployment of a peacekeeping operation, since it would mean having an actual peace to keep, with a political agreement and the consent of the parties as a basis. Currently, however, most peacekeeping operations are deployed in environments where all-out conflict is raging, with egregious violations of human rights, a scenario that radically contradicts our traditional understanding of the deployment of peacekeeping operations. The Panel quite rightly insists on the need for political solutions as a central part of such operations, based on the premise that United Nations engagement must be designed and implemented to help the parties to a conflict reach and sustain a political settlement, given that the use of force is not at the core of United Nations peace operations and in our view should be used only when civilians are subjected to violence and abuse. The establishment and strengthening of regional and global partnerships is another pillar identified as a critical element for the future of peacekeeping operations, through further institutionalized cooperation and enabling consultation on early warning and conflict analysis. Since most peace operations are deployed in Africa, the African Union must be a key partner of the United Nations. Thus Angola reiterates the Panel’s call for sustained, predictable and flexible funding mechanisms in support of African Union peace operations, even as more resources for these operations should be mobilized by the Africans themselves. Moreover, the African Union should continue to receive technical and planning expertise in conflict prevention, military and police planning, and financial and logistics management, as well as in integrating human rights issues into African Union operations. Taking into account the recent experience of United Nations and African Union peacekeeping operations, it is essential to institutionalize a consultative process and joint mechanisms. The planning and conduct of United Nations peace operations is the third pillar prioritized in the report, which recommends — and we fully subscribe to this — a sustained dialogue between the Security Council, the Secretariat, troop- and police-contributing countries and regional partners for a better understanding of the prospects, expectations, capabilities and constraints of a given peacekeeping operation. On the role of the Security Council, we share the view that this organ should pursue a more critical prioritization when evaluating mandates and reviewing peacekeeping operations and, where appropriate, should consider with rigor sequenced or phased mandates or establish new peacekeeping operations. Before concluding, we deem it necessary to call for concerted action in the implementation of the areas identified as critical in the United Nations capacity to sustain peace, among which the prevention of conflict assumes primacy. Concerning peacekeeping operations, we reiterate the key importance of pursuing political solutions to conflicts and the non-imposition of solutions by coercive means or violence; the need for political and operational support for peacekeeping missions, particularly in cases of attacks and violence against civilians; and, finally, the need for increased partnerships and the strengthening of cooperation with regional organizations, the African union in particular. The comprehensive process of reviewing peacekeeping operations, the peacebuilding architecture and the women and peace and security agenda are crucial initiatives in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the United Nations in the quest for world peace and security. The Summit that took place on 28 September on the margins of the General Assembly, where more than 30 countries reaffirmed their support and made specific pledges of assistance to peacekeeping operations, was an excellent opportunity to reflect on and seek new ways of addressing the growing threats to peace and security that the world is facing.

I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and for his report on the future of United Nations peace operations (S/2015/682), in which he proposes ways forward to implement the recommendations submitted by the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. We appreciate the presidency’s efforts to focus this briefing on a few specific recommendations and hope that this will contribute to a more streamlined conversation among Council members. The need to refocus the efforts of the United Nations on prevention is a constant refrain in our discussions. However, the gap between declarations and actions remains wide. The Panel has hit the nail on the head by describing the United Nations as focused more on bringing ambulances to the bottom of the cliff rather than trying to prevent the actual fall. Preventive measures are manifold and include early-warning and alerts capacity, the Council engaging early to address emerging threats, mediation and good offices, and better partnerships with regional organizations and with their respective early-warning mechanisms. We are aware that at times proactive United Nations engagement may not be enough to stop a conflict from erupting, as evidenced by the unending human tragedy in Yemen. However, the risk of failure is not an excuse for not trying. The Council should remain proactive and flexible in quickly bringing up emerging issues for discussion, whether through re-establishing some form of horizon scanning, through informal briefings by the Department of Political Affairs, or through the use of “Other business”. The Secretary-General’s Rights Up Front Initiative should also be further developed and applied systematically as an early-warning tool, providing prompt, reliable and unsanitized information about serious human rights violations. In this context, let me stress that the need for rapid deployment cannot serve as grounds for compromising on the zero-tolerance policy towards all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations and related personnel. A preventive approach is paramount, including pre-deployment training, adequate mission staffing with gender mainstreaming, women advisers, child protection advisers, viable complaint and disciplinary mechanisms, and adequate vetting procedures. The recommendations of the 2005 Prince Zeid report (A/59/710) on making the complaints investigation mechanism more independent from missions also remain valid. To have a meaningful impact on the ground, as the Panel notes, the United Nations should be able to deliver more “right fit” rather than “template” missions. The Council and the Secretariat must ensure that mission mandates are sufficiently clear and robust, adequately financed and supported by the necessary materiel. Peacekeepers must have the will and the capacity to act in defence of those they are mandated to protect. As the United Nations is forced to operate with insufficient capacities and drawn-out force generation, prioritizing and sequencing might indeed be the most suitable approach in situations where every day of inaction means more deaths and displacement. Recently, such sequencing was introduced in the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic and was welcomed as an example to follow. While fully appreciating this innovation, we believe that we should continue to carefully observe the impact of sequencing where it is applied and draw lessons for improvement. On the ground in the Central African Republic, concerns have been expressed about the impact of such sequencing on the Mission’s capacity to support security-sector reform (SSR) efforts at a time when this issue is causing especially heated reactions in political circles as well as among the population. As security in the country continues to suffer setbacks, the need to invest in the SSR process, to promptly carry out vetting procedures and to proceed with building viable and professional security and defence forces could not be more urgent. Furthermore, lack of progress on the matter could have a negative impact on the protection mandate, especially as elections are approaching. In South Sudan, with almost 190,000 civilians seeking protection at United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) sites, the Mission’s urgent protection tasks are as relevant as ever, yet it is expected to deliver more. We have heard the Special Representative of the Secretary-General plead for flexibility and mandate adjustments in order to be able to deliver some low- hanging fruit in an environment where hostility to UNMISS is still high. In October the mandate was adjusted to support the implementation of the peace agreement. Next month the Council will once again revise the mandate to reflect the need for greater political engagement. How best to balance the core priorities with measures needed to build trust with the host country while ensuring the necessary resources and force enablers is for the Council to decide. In Mali, the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali is facing a complex set of tasks and challenges, operating in an environment under constant terrorist threat, of which we were once again reminded this morning. How to adjust and update the Mission to best protect not only civilians but also the peacekeepers themselves calls for intensified discussion by all stakeholders. Finally, as Jordan has rightly underlined, mandate sequencing is a concept that should be explored not just when a peace operation is deployed but also as it prepares to leave. Building on the accomplishments made by Côte d’Ivoire in the areas of national reconciliation, stability, economic recovery and the successful conclusion of the presidential elections, the Council employed benchmarks to measure progress that served as the basis for gradually phasing out the mission and handing over authority to the host Government and the United Nations country team. We should apply this model more regularly, since it offers all sides concerned a clear path towards completing the involvement of the United Nations and encourages a sense of ownership over the reforms needed to take complete charge of the country’s future. Sequencing and the use of benchmarks could be employed to prevent the hasty and premature induction or even departure of peacekeeping operations. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the elaboration by the Government and the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo of a gradual exit strategy, bound to benchmarks and indicators in the security, economic and political fields, is clearly a better course of action that can minimize the risk of squandering the gains achieved at a great cost by the Congolese people and the international community. Had we embraced such benchmarks in the case of the United Nations Office in Burundi, we may have had a different situation in Burundi today. To conclude, we encourage the Council to continue discussion on implementing the recommendations of the High-level Panel and the Secretary-General, and we hope that it will be followed by concrete action very soon.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of the United Kingdom. Let me begin with some comments on the situation in Mali. Like others in the Council, I have been shocked by the hostage crisis in Bamako today. I express solidarity with the Malian Government and its people in their fight against terrorism. I offer my sincere condolences to the victims of the attack and deep sympathy for the fear and injuries inflicted on those held hostage. We commend the swift and decisive action by the Malian security forces, supported by French forces and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). The Security Council will remain closely engaged in the stabilization of Mali through MINUSMA, and the Government and the people of Mali have our full support at this difficult time. I would like to thank the Secretary-General not just for his briefing but also for his initiative in setting up the peace operations review (see S/2015/446) and his follow-up to that review, including through this meeting of the Security Council. As we have heard today, the Council needs to play a significant role in empowering peace operations if we are to meet the challenges of current and future conflicts. For the United Kingdom, this means improving the way the Council mandates missions and changing how we discuss the work of the United Nations in fragile and conflict-affected States. At its best, United Nations peacekeeping can save lives, rebuild communities and replace fear with hope. But not all United Nations peacekeeping is as good as the best. In particular, the United Nations must respond robustly to all allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse. Like New Zealand and others, we therefore support the Secretary-General’s recommendations and stand ready to help implement them. On this and all other issues related to peace operations, it is time now to stop talking and to start taking action to make a real difference. Let me make three practical suggestions on how we can do so, focusing on the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) as an example. First, we need better phased or sequenced mandates with more prioritization of mandated tasks. The Council initiated that in the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic, and I hope that we can continue by looking at greater prioritization and sequencing of tasks when we come to renew the mandate of UNMISS next month. We must set a clear direction for UNMISS as it evolves over the coming months to support the peace agreement. We will, of course, be guided by the technical assessment of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We should also take this opportunity to think hard about UNMISS priorities, how they are sequenced and how best to expand the Mission so that it delivers what is needed on the ground. Secondly, we need to get our political messaging right. When the Council speaks, it is the voice of the international community. We must use that voice to support the work of our missions across the globe, as well as the peace processes that we and others lead. We must make use of all tools at the Council’s disposal to speak out when there are repeated violations of status-of-forces agreements. We also need to keep in mind the impact that our political messaging can have in preventing conflicts and in responding to situations of emerging conflict. This means using press statements, resolutions and Council visits to the region to send clear and unambiguous messages; and yes, it means being prepared to impose sanctions and arms embargoes where appropriate. It also means that if States demonstrate and deliver a firm commitment to peace, we should respond to that commitment with equal determination. Finally, the United Kingdom believes that we need more feedback and better analysis to improve our ability to protect civilians. To inform the phasing of the Mission, the Council needs to be provided with evidence of how the Mission is fulfilling its tasking and why there are shortfalls. This should include whether or not the current Mission configuration and military components are sufficient to deliver. All of this requires greater strategic analysis and planning at earlier stages by the Secretariat. We fully support the Secretary- General’s proposal to enhance those capabilities and to engage with the Security Council at an earlier stage. We can put this into practice by thinking about what tools UNMISS needs to protect civilians better. What additional or different police or military capabilities are required? What levels of good offices are needed to support the parties’ political commitment to the ceasefire so as to reduce the threat of violence against civilians? Engaging with the local community will also be vital — putting people at the centre of what we do and really thinking about what the United Nations Mission can do to deliver for those who live there. We should listen carefully to the local community about how it can support the work of the Mission. I look forward to continuing these discussions as we approach the mandate renewal for UNMISS in the coming weeks. If we take these steps and more, I believe that we can make a tangible improvement in the work both of UNMISS and United Nations peacekeeping more broadly, and in doing so we can help improve the lives of the people of South Sudan and beyond. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.