S/PV.8144 Security Council

In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkey, Tuvalu and Viet Nam to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite Her Excellency Ms. Joanne Adamson, Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, to participate in this meeting. 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/2017/1016, which contains the text of a letter dated 1 December 2017 from the Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. I wish to warmly welcome His Excellency Secretary-General António Guterres, to whom I now give the floor.

I thank Japan for using its presidency of the Security Council to focus on the increasingly complex drivers of armed conflict and instability. Let me also express my appreciation to the Government and the people of Japan for their hospitality during my visit to the country last week. I would like to make three main points today. First, we are seeing not only a quantitative but also a qualitative change in threats to international peace and security. The perils of nuclear weapons are again front and centre, with tensions higher than they have been since the end of the Cold War. Climate change has emerged as a threat multiplier. Water scarcity is a growing concern, as demand for fresh water is projected to grow by more than 40 per cent by the middle of the century. Inequality and exclusion fuel frustration and marginalization. Cybersecurity dangers are escalating, as some of the same advances in technology that have generated so many gains have also made it easier for extremists to communicate, broadcast distorted narratives of grievance, recruit followers and exploit people. The number of armed conflicts has declined over the long-term, but in the Middle East and parts of Africa conflicts have surged. Conflicts are becoming more intractable. They are longer — more than 20 years on average  — meaning that the people they displace are spending ever-increasing amounts of time away from their homes and communities. They are more complex, as armed groups compete for control over State institutions, natural resources and territory, and as extremist groups with absolutist demands leave little room for diplomacy. We are seeing a multiplication of political factions and non-State armed groups, with hundreds of armed groups in Syria alone. There is also an increase in the regionalization and internationalization of conflicts. External military and financial support to conflict parties prolongs civil wars and fuels wider tensions as local fights become proxies for larger rivalries. Conflicts are more linked with each other, and with the worldwide threat of terrorism. And transnational drug smugglers and human traffickers perpetuate the chaos and prey on refugees and migrants. Secondly, the changing nature of conflict means rethinking our approaches, both how we work and how we work with others. Our efforts must be coherent, coordinated and context-specific. We must work across pillars and across the peace continuum towards integrated action. It was with that goal in mind that I initiated three inter-linked reform efforts aimed at repositioning the United Nations development system, streamlining our internal management and strengthening the Secretariat’s peace and security architecture. I have also sought to forge closer links with regional partners, including the African Union, the European Union and others. The Joint Force created by the Member States of the Group of Five for the Sahel is an important step in that regard, as is the Joint United Nations-African Union Framework for an Enhanced Partnership in Peace and Security, signed earlier this year. Thirdly, prevention must be at the centre of everything we do. It is better to prevent conflict than to manage it — which avoids tragic human suffering and also saves money. Although hard to quantify and typically undertaken far from the media spotlight, prevention is a sound investment that produces ample, visible dividends. Development is one of our best instruments of prevention, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development gives us enormous potential. Development is an objective in its own right, and should not be mis-used in pursuit of other aims. But the steps we take towards achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals will also help build peaceful societies. Respect for all human rights — not only civil and political rights but also economic, social and cultural ones  — is an essential element of prevention. In the lead-up to the outbreak of widespread violence we often see increases in repression, the closing of space for civil society and the rise of sectarianism. We must invest in social cohesion so that all people feel they have a stake in society. We also know that gender equality is closely linked with resilience and that women’s participation is crucial to success, from conflict prevention to peacemaking and sustaining peace. Where women are empowered, societies flourish and peace processes have a better chance of taking hold. We must also do more to address the systematic violence faced by women before, during and after conflict, and to pursue justice for perpetrators as an essential part of post-conflict healing and recovery. Prevention also includes preventive diplomacy: efforts to respond promptly to signs of tension and to forge political solutions. The newly established High-level Advisory Board on Mediation has met for the first time to assess opportunities for engagement, and I expect it to begin its first formal, but discreet, undertaking soon. My own good offices are of course available to the Security Council at all times. The concept of human security is a useful frame of reference for this work, and I thank Japan for its long- standing advocacy. Human security is people-centred and holistic. It stresses the need to act early and prioritize the most vulnerable. Those must all be touchstones for our work. I welcome the efforts of the Council to explore new ways to monitor and address the risks of conflict. Let us work together to enhance the Council’s focus on emerging situations, expand the toolbox, increase resources for prevention and be more systematic in preventing conflict and sustaining peace. Finally, let me emphasize the need for unity on the part of the Security Council. Without it, the parties to conflict may take more inflexible and intransigeant positions, and the drivers of conflict will push situations to the point of no return again and again. But with unity, we can advance security and well-being for all.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as representative of Japan. Let me begin by expressing my deep appreciation to Secretary-General Guterres for participating in today’s open debate and sharing with us his vision of how the United Nations, especially the Security Council, can effectively address complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. In the 25 years since the Cold War, some parts of the world have been enjoying the benefits of improvements in science and technology, from groundbreaking medicines to new frontiers in cyberspace and outer space. On the other hand, during the same period we have witnessed the rise in complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the expansion of terrorism, climate change, pandemics, transnational organized crime, including drug trafficking, and violent extremism. These challenges can manifest themselves as root causes and drivers of conflict that can destabilize countries, lowering the threshold to entering into violent conflict. They can also exacerbate and prolong existing conflicts. Examples of these threats abound. For instance, in the Sahel region, climate change has become a multiplier of existing challenges, which include food exhaustion and malnutrition. Between 2014 and 2015, we experienced pandemics that became direct causes of instability of those countries affected, while also seriously affecting their economies and societies, even regionally, thereby becoming multipliers of destabilized situations. Peace operations, such as peacekeeping operations and special political missions, are also facing non-traditional challenges, such as non-State actors and inter-State criminal organizations. The Security Council has been tackling these challenges, in most cases in the country or region-specific context. However, Japan believes that it is very important for the Council to discuss these complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security in a holistic and methodological manner, and to develop ways to better address the situation on the ground. There have already been a number of meaningful Council meetings that have taken such an approach, and we would like to encourage the Council to be bold, active and at times innovative. That does not mean that the Security Council will encroach on the responsibilities of other organs, as some may fear. The Council has a clear mandate to maintain international peace and security, and the Council cannot fully assume its responsibilities without addressing mutually reinforcing, multidimensional factors that are closely interlinked with peace and security. From this perspective, Japan would like to propose three ideas. First, the Security Council should take a more comprehensive and integrated approach by embracing perspectives of the peace continuum, as well as peace and security, development, human rights and humanitarian nexus. If the Security Council is to more effectively address complex challenges, it needs to increase its focus on effectiveness throughout the whole conflict cycle, that is, by preventing the outbreak, escalation, continuation and recurrence of conflict. At the same time, attention should also be paid to the fact that peace and security, development, human rights and humanitarian elements are closely interlinked. To that end, we believe that it would be helpful for the Council to receive more integrated analysis from the field and the Secretariat. Secondly, as a means to achieve the first point, especially from the perspective of sustaining peace, we would like to stress the importance for the Council to enhance cooperation with other organs within and outside the United Nations. A recent good example is the case of trafficking in persons in Libya, on which we have received briefings from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration, and sought coordination with the African Union. While there is no need to mention the importance of partnership with regional and subregional organizations, cooperation with other United Nations organs should be further enhanced. The Council also needs to listen carefully to the voices of non-Council Member States. For example, for small island developing States, sea-level rise caused by global warming is threatening their very existence. In addition, it may be helpful for the Council to be briefed by international development and financial institutions. Thirdly, we believe that the human security approach is highly relevant when addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. Human security places the individual at the centre, based on a cross-sectoral understanding of insecurities. Therefore, human security entails a broadened understanding of threats and challenges. Attaching great importance to this approach, Japan has consistently provided human-centred, comprehensive and preventive assistance through cross-sectoral efforts with a range of partners. We hope to see renewed attention paid to the human security approach when addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. We count on the Secretary-General’s strong leadership to that end. Finally, we would like to touch upon the ongoing initiative of Secretary-General Guterres to reform the United Nations. As we speak, a draft resolution (A/72/L.33) on restructuring of the United Nations peace and security pillar is being submitted for adoption at the General Assembly. Although the scope of this reform does not include Security Council reform, as has been mentioned by many, no reform of the United Nations will be complete without reform of the Security Council. The Council also needs to change so that the peace and security pillar of the United Nations can be more coherent, nimble and effective, and truly have positive impacts on the ground. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the fact that we are all responsible for continuously reviewing what measures and tools can be used in order for the Security Council to play its leading role more effectively as one of the principal organs of the United Nations, primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Today’s open debate is aimed not at drawing a conclusion, but instead at calling for continuous, thorough consideration on how the Council can better address complex contemporary challenges. There remains large room to be further examined and explored by Member States. We hope that today’s discussion will lay a good foundation for future ones, and of course Japan will continue to participate actively in discussions in the Council, as well as in the entire United Nations system, and to contribute to the peace and prosperity of the world. I now resume my functions as President of the Security Council. I shall now give the floor to the other members of the Council.

Ukraine aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by the observer of the European Union. I would like to add the following remarks in my national capacity. We would like to express our appreciation, Sir, for your initiative to hold today’s open debate on a topic that is highly fitting, both for taking stock of the Security Council’s performance in its task of maintaining international peace and security, on one hand, and, on the other, for presenting forward-looking ideas about how to make the Council’s work more efficient and relevant in a rapidly changing international environment. I would also like to thank the Secretary- General for presenting his views and ideas. Let me start with some positive remarks. Despite all the criticism and negative assessment of the United Nations in general and the Council’s work in particular, which, regretfully, on a number of occasions is justified, there is no alternative to the United Nations and the Security Council in terms of a global entity to safeguard international peace and security. Moreover, in recent years, the Council has achieved some positive results in its line of work. For example, the Council should be — and I am sure is proud — of its contribution to the cause of peace in Columbia, where it continues to play an important role in ensuring a comprehensive implementation of the Final Peace Agreement between the Government of Colombia and the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia. We believe that the United Nations should carefully study the lessons learned in that regard and apply best practices in other parts of the world. In some instances the Council has demonstrated its openness and readiness to readjust its work when considering conflict situations in Africa, in the light of the emergence of new challenges and threats to international peace and security. On the heels of its visit to the Lake Chad basin region, it adopted resolution 2349 (2017), which highlighted the underlying causes of the complex crisis in the region to be extreme poverty, inter-ethnic and intercommunal tensions and climate change. The peaceful resolution of the constitutional crisis in the Gambia, which was achieved first and foremost thanks to the actions of the Economic Community of West African States and the unified position of other regional partners in West Africa, can also be put on the positive side of the ledger of the Council’s work. Over the past two years sanctions against Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia were lifted. The United Nations Blue Helmets left Côte d’Ivoire, as their presence was no longer required, although they remain in Liberia, in significantly reduced numbers, for contingency purposes. The Council has been particularly active in addressing the threat of terrorism. Numerous discussions were held and landmark decisions were taken on countering the efforts by terrorists to spread their ideology, recruit followers, raise funds and procure weapons and plan and perpetrate attacks. Ukraine contributed to the Council’s endeavour by raising the issue of protecting critical infrastructure from terrorist attacks. We are proud that, after the adoption of resolution 2341 (2017), several States Members of the United Nations have taken concrete steps to implement it at the national level. The agenda of the Council has expanded considerably, owing to the close interlinkage between threats to international peace and security and such challenges as human rights, development and climate change, to name just a few. We welcome that positive shift, since threats to international peace and security cannot be addressed effectively in isolation. Today’s debate is another confirmation of the growing understanding of that nexus. We hope that the Council will continue to explore this topic and discuss the ways to address the root causes and multipliers of conflict in a comprehensive manner. I must mention the progressive changes made in the process of selecting the new Secretary-General. Notwithstanding the glaring shortcomings and outdated practices that remain, in particular with regard to so- called non-disclosure or so-called confidential results of indicative votes on candidates, great strides have been made to ensure a level playing field for all candidates and to increase the overall transparency of the process. Another aspect that is probably not as visible from outside the Council, but is nevertheless just as important, is the improvement in the working methods of the Council. That is an area that never fails to attract harsh criticism from the wider membership of the United Nations, which has strong opinions on how the Council should or should not discharge its duties. In that regard, I would like to commend the dedication and hard work of the Japanese delegation, which provided impetus and leadership in the negotiations on updating presidential note S/2010/507 and the Handbook on the Working Methods of the Security Council and drafting presidential note S/2016/619, with regard to the selection of Chairs of the Council’s subsidiary bodies. We are pleased that those documents reflect several of Ukraine’s priorities, including making the Council’s field visits more transparent. Alongside those positive examples in the Council’s work, there is a much longer list of issues where the Council could have put its vast potential to better use. Such shortcomings, or even outright failures, are seen not only in cases when cross-cutting, thematic or new subjects are concerned — such as environmental degradation, links between human rights and security, the protection of civilians, the role of women and so on  — but also in clear-cut cases of difficult security issues, which are the traditional purview of the Council. For instance, the multifaceted challenges in the Democratic Republic of the Congo remain largely unresolved, despite the fact that the country hosts the largest United Nations peacekeeping operation. In current hotspots in the Middle East, including in Syria and Yemen, an array of tragic events are unfolding before our eyes. Even the Council’s most intense efforts on such issues garner results with only marginal influence on the overall situation. Even blatant violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention are yet to be dealt with in a decisive manner. Thus far, impunity appears to rule the day. The Middle East peace process remains in a perpetual deadlock. The composition of the Council changes but the messages and signals heard around this table for decades are by and large the same, with no progress on the ground. The ongoing development of nuclear and missile programmes by the North Korean regime remains a standing threat to international peace and security, despite the introduction of the Council’s most robust sanctions regime to date. That list is by no means exhaustive, as there are many other cases where the Council’s intervention was less than successful. In our opinion, it is important to bear in mind that perspective of the Council’s work when we consider issues such as the Council’s ability to address contemporary challenges to international peace and security. We believe that the Council should be able to do much more, but we also recognize the fact that it can do only so much. At the same time, debates are held, consultations are regularly conducted, numerous resolutions are adopted and press statements are produced — in an almost mechanized manner. That is not to say that all of this is not important; it is merely to underline the limited impact of the Council’s work. The Council is not as effective as the international community and many people around the world hope and expect it to be  — and not because it deliberately ignores some issues or does not work hard enough. On the contrary, the Council’s agenda is growing and, with every passing year, its members spend more and more hours deliberating in the Chamber or in the neighbouring Consultations room. That state of affairs is a result of the way the Council was conceived and constructed to function. First, the veto right of the permanent members of the Council means that substantive action is possible only when the interests of the five permanent members do not conflict, if not coincide. In other cases, the Council is left paralysed. Moreover, the lack of a mechanism to overturn a veto means that there are no incentives for a veto-wielding member to try to work out a solution on a contentious issue. Secondly, the scope of implementation of resolutions has always been limited by the level of readiness of countries to comply. Examples of non-implementation and outright violations of resolutions abound throughout the Security Council’s history, and the list of offenders is quite extensive. This selective approach to implementation does not bode well for the Council’s ability to make a real difference in various situations on the ground. Finally, the premise of an effective and efficient Security Council must be based on the assumed and expected respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the norms and principles of international law by all Member States. I would like to specifically underline the importance of the latter point. To our deepest regret, the world is currently living in an era of the erosion of the rule of law, in which the arbitrary application and selective or arbitrary interpretation of norms and principles of international law, with the respective obligations and commitments deriving therefrom, are becoming a routine occurrence. The most obvious manifestation of that is the aggressive policy of the Russian Federation towards its neighbours. In 2008, it occupied a part of Georgian territory; in 2014, it illegally occupied and attempted to annex Crimea and then expanded the armed conflict to the Donbas region of Ukraine. Has the Council been able to provide a fitting response? We are all well aware of the answer to that question. In anticipation of Russia’s usual tirades concerning a so-called referendum in Crimea and a civil war in the Donbas, I will just remind those who may have forgotten that it all started with the deployment of Russian troops without insignia in Crimea; with the sending of Russian-trained armed groups and Russian special operations forces into eastern Ukraine; with rocket salvos launched from Russian territory into Ukrainian territory; and with Russian regular army troops crossing into Ukraine. And it continues, with the constant sending of arms and ammunition to sustain the war and a de facto occupation of certain areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. The Russian delegation may also claim, as it usually does, that our remarks have no relation to the subject of today’s discussion. Our answer is very simple. Russia’s actions undermined and continue to undermine the international rules-based system, and they constitute a direct threat to international peace and security, which is the subject that the Council has to concern itself with. In conclusion, Ukraine is convinced that without a radical reform and complete overhaul of the Security Council as it stands, we can expect only more of the same — long discussions, sometimes even interesting ones, but which have a limited impact where real and concerted action is needed. Having said that, the Council is not beyond redemption. In fact, not much is needed — just a responsible attitude on the part of permanent members to fulfil their duties for the good of the world. So far, that aspect of the Council’s work has been found wanting.

My delegation aligns itself with the statement to be made later today on behalf of the European Union and with the Nordic statement. I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. President, and the Japanese delegation for scheduling today’s open debate, which provides us with an opportunity to continue our important discussions on the increasingly complex security challenges facing the world today and how the Council can better address them. I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his, as always, insightful briefing on the subject and for the visionary reform agenda that he has put forward, which is, in many ways, aimed at improving the United Nations response to many of the challenges that we face. Multidimensional poverty, climate change, transnational organized crime, food insecurity, weak governance, abuses and violations of human rights and growing inequality are only a few of the challenges that are increasingly influencing the situations that appear on the Council’s agenda. The negative impacts of those threats to international peace and security are likely to intensify. As the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security, the Security Council’s preventive role is perhaps now more important than ever. However, prevention will not be possible without a comprehensive and holistic strategy to address those challenges. The evidence in support of more comprehensive and holistic approaches to prevention and sustaining peace is building. The recent joint United Nations and World Bank report, entitled Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict, identifies exclusion, inequality and power imbalances as the principal causes of many of today’s conflicts. A lack of opportunity provides fertile ground for conflict, radicalization and instability. During our visit to the Lake Chad basin region, we saw first hand the adverse effects of climate change on the stability of the region. That has also been obvious in the Council’s consideration of the situations in Darfur, Somalia and the Sahel. In our work on Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Sahel region and Colombia, among others, we have seen how organized crime, illicit financial flows, the drugs trade and trafficking in persons and natural resources fund warfare and have a devastating impact on civilians. True conflict prevention requires an understanding of the structural nature of such challenges and their interplay with political decisions. Building on the sustaining peace agenda and in line with the United Nations reform processes, what then is needed to put conflict prevention at the core of our actions and to enhance our collective ability to deal with those contemporary complex security challenges? I would like to make three suggestions. First, we need a thorough understanding of the drivers of risk, the political will and adequate resources to address them early on, and a United Nations system that has the flexibility to respond. Frank, timely and cross-pillar analysis and information are critical if the Security Council is to be effective at preventing, managing and resolving conflicts. Enhancing the United Nations system’s joint analysis and integrated strategic planning capabilities, including improved risk assessments and risk management strategies, would allow the Council and the United Nations system as a whole to address conflicts in their early stages. We are confident that the ongoing reform efforts, led by the Secretary-General, will better position the United Nations system in that regard. As highlighted by numerous countries at the Arria meeting on climate and security last Friday, there is a clear need for the United Nations to enhance its capabilities to better foresee, understand and respond to climate-related security risks. That includes identifying and responding to the risks of instability and insecurity that arise from how the effects of climate change interact with social, economic and political factors. Secondly, research and experience show that conflicts are more likely to become armed in unequal societies. The promotion of gender equality and women’s participation in peace and security efforts is therefore essential to sustaining peace. For that reason, it is important to consistently integrate a gender perspective into our long-term strategies and, when responding to complex challenges ahead, to understand how they affect women and men and better target responses. Finally, there is an evident and inherent link between respect for human rights and international humanitarian law and the maintenance of international peace and security. Respect for and protection of human rights contributes to efforts to address the root causes and drivers of instability, thereby helping to prevent and resolve conflicts and to sustain peace. A general erosion of respect for international humanitarian law is straining the credibility of this body and putting the people whom we send into the field at great risk. Constant attacks on humanitarian workers and the assault against the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo earlier this month are shocking examples. Responding early to violations of international humanitarian law and violations and abuses of human rights can effectively prevent conflicts before they become a threat to regional and international peace and security. When conflicts do occur, accountability for such violations is vital for both justice and reconciliation. In conclusion, the best way to prevent societies from descending into violence and crisis is to ensure that they are made resilient through investment in inclusive and sustainable development. With the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the sustaining peace decisions, we have a strategy. What we now need is political will, including in this organ, commitment to multilateralism and a reinvigorated United Nations to implement it.

At the outset, I express Egypt’s appreciation to the delegation of Japan for convening this important open debate. I also thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his comprehensive briefing. Emerging and new challenges facing the world  — including terrorism, the proliferation of extremist groups, organized crime, migration and environmental and other unconventional issues — require an innovative approach to addressing them. Given the nature of those challenges, there is a need to coordinate all efforts of the United Nations. Evolving and increasingly complex contemporary challenges require us to avoid adopting short-sighted approaches and silo mentalities in favour of a comprehensive approach to ensuring peace and sustainability by focusing on the root causes of those challenges. In order to confront those interrelated contemporary challenges, we must uphold the following principles. First, we need to develop the analytical capacity of the Secretariat to develop comprehensive solutions that take the nature and dimensions of every challenge and their various contexts into account. Such a flexible, analytical approach would allow the Organization to identify the best means and tools for addressing those challenges on a case-by-case basis. Secondly, we must enhance the effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) so that it becomes a forum in which to coordinate national, regional and international work and provide advice and proposals to the Security Council, thereby allowing the Council to design mandates that would support the implementation of comprehensive strategies aimed at building and sustaining peace and laying the ground for sustainable development in countries that require the PBC’s assistance. Thirdly, we need to develop regional approaches to transnational challenges by enhancing coordination and cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations to avoid duplicating regional and international efforts to that end. Fourthly, we need to fully honour the principle of the national ownership of efforts to confront contemporary challenges. National institutions must shoulder the responsibility of setting their own priorities and implementing their own follow-up when confronting the challenges facing them, while the international community can contribute to supporting such national efforts. Fifthly, we must make full use of States’ expertise at the national level and the lessons learned by the United Nations system by focusing on building national institutions and capacities, thereby enabling States to confront such challenges in a comprehensive manner. In conclusion, in order to address such contemporary challenges comprehensively, the United Nations must coordinate the work of all its bodies without confusing their mandates. That means that all United Nations bodies must respect each other’s mandate without encroaching upon it, in particular with regard to the development pillar

First of all, we thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his briefing today. We take this opportunity to reiterate our support for his important work. The challenges to international peace and security facing the international community, in general, and in particular to the Security Council in carrying out its mandate, are undoubtedly manifold and complex. Nevertheless, we believe that those that truly threaten to undermine the Council’s efforts to prevent breaches of international peace and security are linked to the inadequate implementation of the mechanisms provided for under the Charter of the United Nations. Accordingly, it is important to remain focused on the responsibilities and mandates assigned to each organ in carrying out coordination tasks so that the best options can be agreed upon in addressing problems arising from conflict, avoiding unnecessary duplication of work and, above all, preventing overlap and impingement upon the specific mandates of each one. We unequivocally believe that one of the challenges that the Council must address in order to improve its work is the effective implementation of mediation, prevention, reconciliation and good offices for the pacific settlement of disputes, as well as the pre-eminent use of the provisions of Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter. In that context, we believe that important tools such as the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, adopted as General Assembly resolution 37/10, must be considered with a view to achieving that goal. On the other hand, the implementation of the provisions of Chapter VII for settling disputes must not be considered until those under Chapters VI and VIII have been exhausted, and must be implemented only as a means of last resort. In that regard, the Security Council must always act within the framework of the Charter and of respect for the multilateralism  — the principle upon which our Organization is based. Therefore, we believe that one of the greatest challenges facing not only the Security Council but the Organization in general is unilateral action that, in flagrant violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter, recklessly risks undermining the work of the Council and even threaten to exacerbate situations on the ground, thereby entailing consequences that could potentially negatively affect entire regions. Regrettably, such unilateral actions are among the root of governance vacuums and the weakening of the forces of law and order. They have created in humanitarian crises in various regions and led to the loss of millions of lives. Against that backdrop, the number of terrorist groups and irregular fighters who have found the space in which to commit destabilizing acts and crimes against humanity has increased and become a clear and current threat to international peace and security. We believe that action taken by the international community must be robust so as to confront that threat, while contributing effectively to its eradication in accordance with the United Nations Global Counter- Terrorism Strategy. Moreover, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction is another important challenge facing the Security Council and the international community. In that regard, we all face the great challenge of urgently implementing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by the General Assembly on 7 July. In order to achieve that goal, it is essential that States commit to banning the development, testing, production, acquisition and possession of nuclear arsenals and explosive devices, and refrain from engaging in any act of provocation or unilateral action that is clearly outside international law. Finally, Bolivia wishes to reiterate that, in its dedication to respect for international law and as a pacifist State, it advocates the implementation of peaceful means of conflict resolution, good offices, preventive diplomacy, multilateralism, non-interference, and respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of States, which are universal principles recognized by the international community and effective tools for avoiding the scourge of war and its consequences.

I thank you, Mr. President for holding this important debate. It gives us the opportunity both to reflect on the past year and to look to the year ahead. I want to thank the Secretary-General for his excellent briefing, which clearly demonstrates that the contemporary challenges we are addressing are highly relevant, not just to the Security Council or the rest of the United Nations, but to the whole world. The Security Council has engaged this year on a number of conventional threats to peace and security, including North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme and Da’esh in Syria and Iraq, but those conventional threats have been fueled by contemporary challenges that we all face. North Korea’s illegal missile programme is partly funded by modern slavery. Syrian terrorists spread their poisonous messages and plan transnational attacks using the Internet. In fact, it is hard to find a situation on our agenda where peace and security dynamics are not bound up with contemporary transnational challenges. The illicit trading of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the enslavement of migrants in Libya, smuggling in the Sahel, drug flows in Colombia, ecological and climate stress in the Lake Chad basin — the list goes on. If we want to tackle these conventional threats effectively, the United Nations and its Member States must also consider contemporary transnational challenges. These challenges do not care about national borders. As our world becomes more connected, so too will the challenges that we face. Therefore, to succeed we must confront them together. To counter these challenges, we must act at home, in partnership and multilaterally. We cannot hope to prevent conflicts, sustain peace or enable development otherwise. I should like to illustrate the action that the United Kingdom is taking in each of these areas with three examples. First, at home we are tackling illicit financial flows. Globally, these are estimated to be worth up to $1.6 trillion a year. Our national crime agency believes that tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars are laundered through the United Kingdom. They include the proceeds of armed groups, terrorists, organized crime and corrupt officials in predatory States. These proceeds fuel further conflict and are a barrier to peace and stability. This year, we passed the Criminal Finances Act, which ensures that we are better able to tackle this illicit financing and consequently promote peace. Secondly, through our partnerships we are tackling climate change, which is recognized by the Security Council as a factor that can aggravate existing threats to international peace and security. We have partnered with others to improve their resilience to the impacts of climate change. In one project, we support 13 countries in integrating risk-reduction and climate adaptation into Government policies and institutions. This reduces their instability and safeguards our collective security. Finally and perhaps most importantly, we are acting multilaterally, including here at the United Nations. Let us consider the universal issues of modern slavery and human trafficking. We know that these appalling human rights abuses are most prevalent in conflict zones and that they feed instability. We have sought to respond and will continue to do so through the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. Working through these multilateral organizations allows us to connect the dots and to better address the complex and multifaceted challenges that we are confronted with. We must all endeavour to do more and do it better here at the United Nations. If the United Nations itself is the rise to the challenge, we must support the Secretary-General in his ambitious reform programme to join the United Nations up so that it can act more effectively and more efficiently at the heart of a rules-based international system. The risk of too much reform or too rapid reform is dwarfed by the risk of not enough reform or too slow reform. We need to get on with the reform to sustain peace better, to meet the Sustainable Development Goals and to protect the human rights that we cherish. Success in these interlinked areas will depend on our ability to escape silos and tackle the challenges coherently. I have a simple wish for the year ahead. I hope that as Member States deliberate over the Secretary- General’s reform proposals, they will remember that as we sit and debate this important issue, millions of far less fortunate people confront insecurity, forced displacement, rights violations, hunger and poverty as a single reality. They do not recognize them as isolated issues, and neither should we. Let us therefore take responsibility at home, build partnerships overseas and, most importantly, enable the United Nations to respond ever more effectively to these challenges so that we can achieve a safer and more secure world for all.

I should like first to thank the Japanese presidency of the Security Council for having taken the initiative to convene this debate, which is especially welcome in the current context, and the Secretary-General for his enlightening briefing. The debates and discussions that we have held throughout this year have shown that the current challenges to peace and international security are both complex and multifaceted and that they call for a response that is comprehensive its approach and diversified in its application, and that is able to adapt to the specificities of each crisis. As the world has globalized so, too, have the threats it faces. Terrorism knows no borders, while epidemics or climate change sometimes have very real effects on the stability of countries and can threaten the security of an entire region. The United Nations must be able to respond to them, using all of its tools and acting in an integrated manner on the root causes of these threats. That is the entire purpose of the Secretary-General’s reform, which seekss to endow the United Nations with the capacity to work in an integrated manner to prevent conflicts and address their root causes. The Member States must also respond, acting collectively, just as the Council is mandated to do. Without seeking to be exhaustive, I would like to refer to two of these complex challenges and one major issue: The first challenge is terrorism. Terrorism today is one of the main threats to international peace and security. Be it groups such as Al-Qaida, Da’esh and Boko Haram, or individuals inspired by their barbaric ideology, the terrorist threat has never been so high. The phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters and the massive use of the Internet and social media for recruiting, financing or calling for action has also added a new dimension to the threat. While nothing justifies terrorism, we know that it feeds on poverty, insecurity, displacement and economic and social imbalances. It also feeds on transnational organized crime and its many forms of trafficking. Faced with a threat of this magnitude, it is essential that States adopt a holistic approach and consider all economic, political, cultural and social comprehensive. Against those who oppose barbarism to our way of life, our freedom and our democracy, we must wage together an implacable frontier fight on multiple fronts, with respect of our values ​and with the weapons of the law. Terrorism is now one of those major global challenges that States can no longer meet alone. France is convinced, as President Macron reminded the General Assembly in September (see A/72/PV.4), that multilateralism is the right answer, with respect not only to legitimacy but also to its effectiveness in meeting these challenges. The situation in the Sahel illustrates the dangers of terrorism and the need for a comprehensive response. The security threat to the States of the Sahel concerns us all and calls for a collective response. On the security front, the Joint Force of the Group of Five for the Sahel (G-5 Sahel) is an example of a joint and concerted response to this threat, which calls for strong and coordinated support from the United Nations and all of us. That is the meaning of resolution 2391 (2017), which the Security Council adopted recently. This response must go hand in hand with strong support for development, which can bring lasting solutions to the region’s problems. This is the meaning of the support efforts made within the framework of the Alliance for the Sahel, in particular to improve the employability and education of young people, agriculture, energy, governance and security. The second challenge is climate change. The root causes of a crisis are often multiple, and global warming is an aggravating factor in fragile contexts. This has been the warmest year on record. Extreme climatic events are characterized by their intensity and frequency. No country is spared today. We can no longer ignore its profoundly destabilizing consequences. The most vulnerable populations, already exposed to other factors of conflict, whether political, social or environmental, are the first victims. For small island developing States and coastal countries, their very survival is at stake. Their submersion, linked to ocean rise, would also lead to massive migratory waves that are particularly destabilizing for the security of these regions. The same is true in areas where desertification forces people to abandon their fields. We now have the technological and financial means to build a clean and secure future and protect future generations. Climate change is not — or not yet — inevitable. France is convinced that the answer must be found first and foremost through the effective and swift implementation of the Paris Agreement. Our immediate priority is to fully implement it because climate action is the best way to prevent global-warming crises. This is the purpose of the international conference on financing climate action that President Macron organized a few days ago in Paris with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the World Bank. The major challenge to international peace and security that I wish to highlight is that of respect for human rights. Many contemporary conflicts originate in massive violations of human rights. I will cite but two examples. In Syria, after years of repression by the regime of Bashar Al-Assad against its own people, it was the bloody crushing of peaceful demonstrations by the civilian population calling for respect for their most basic rights that brought about the situation we know today. In Burma, it was the serious violations of human rights, in Rakhine state in particular — violations of civil and political rights including the right to citizenship, disproportionate use of force, and sexual violence — that led to thousands of Rohingyas fleeing their region to the detriment of regional stability, as described by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General Pramila Patten last week in this very Chamber (S/PV.8133). When human rights are violated, it is regional security that is threatened. That is why, in order to respond swiftly to serious human rights violations, it is essential that the Security Council be informed by the relevant mechanisms, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose early-warning role is essential. That is also why it is important to equip peacekeeping operations with robust human rights and civilian-protection mandates and to ensure the full implementation of those mandates. Finally, the impunity of those responsible for unconscionable violations is also a threat to the sustainable restoration of peace. It undermines the civil society’s trust and with it prospects for political solutions. This reveals the extent to which the fight against impunity through the relevant legal mechanisms, in particular the International Criminal Court, when it has jurisdiction, is both crucial in itself and essential to peace and reconciliation. In conclusion, these complex challenges, combined with the long-standing but still-present threats, such as inter-State conflict or nuclear proliferation, affect us all immediately and collectively. All of us — each of us — must, therefore, collectively, respond to it. The United Nations must also be able to do so. We welcome the Secretary-General’s willingness to ensure that the Organization can meet this challenge by reforming it and making it more agile, coherent and effective. France fully supports these efforts. What the debate today shows is that all of our contemporary challenges are global and therefore call for a comprehensive response that links peace and security, development and human rights, and which is anchored in dialogue and multilateralism. It is by taking decisive action on these three fronts, while respecting the universal founding values of the United Nations, which protect individuals everywhere and guarantee their dignity, that we will succeed in responding collectively and sustainably to these challenges.

I thank the Japanese presidency for this very timely and critical debate, which will help to bring about greater awareness and therefore more coordinated and effective action by the Security Council, the United Nations system and the international community. Since this is the last debate presided over by our colleague Ambassador Bessho, as well as Japan’s final moments as a non-permanent member of the Council, I wish to extend my congratulations to him and his able team for their effective leadership in guiding the Council during a busy and challenging month and to thank them for the cooperation extended to my delegation throughout the year of our membership in this body. We also express appreciation to Secretary-General Guterres for his insightful briefing and commend him for his determined efforts to strengthen the United Nations peace and security pillar and its development system and to undertake management reform, for which he can count on our full support. Today’s debate takes place at a time when threats and challenges to peace and security are considerably more complex and serious than they have been in the past. Contemporary and likely future perils arise not just from inter-ethnic conflicts and armed attacks alone, but also from terrorism, organized crime, and illegal trafficking in weapons, drugs and human beings. These threats are further aggravated by developments that have societal and economic roots, such as the senseless killing of innocent civilians, migration destabilization due to refugee flows and internal displacement caused by forced expulsions of people, environmental degradation and climate change. Kazakhstan fully supports the Secretary-General’s vision for a new Agenda for Peace that bolsters the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in order to bring about national, regional and global stability as well as development. Kazakhstan believes that early warning, preventive diplomacy, mediation and peacekeeping are interdependent and complementary components of a comprehensive integrated strategy in which sustaining peace should be an integral element running through the entire cycle. When my country gained statehood in 1991, we realized that investing in sustaining peace should begin early enough to avoid conflict; without it, stability can be uncertain and fragile, vulnerable to new shocks. Since its independence 26 years ago, Kazakhstan has therefore been at the forefront of preventive diplomacy and conflict prevention, which is one of the core principles of our foreign policy. An outstanding example of this approach has been the initiative of my President to create the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, which is celebrating its tenth anniversary this month. The Centre constitutes a mechanism for preventive diplomacy available to the United Nations. Kazakhstan has also founded the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, which today comprises 26 countries, including some outside Central Asia, engaging them in efforts to ensure peace and stability in Asia through confidence-building measures. At the open debate in January (see S/PV.7857), the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Kazakhstan, Mr. Kairat Abdrakhmanov, presented a policy address entitled “Kazakhstan’s concept and vision of sustaining global partnerships for a secure, just and prosperous world”. According to that address, one of the goals of the Security Council should be to create conditions conducive to preventing and eliminating the threat of a global war by reducing the degree of military confrontation at the global and regional levels through many means, including mediation. A recent illustration of that approach has been Kazakhstan’s direct engagement in supporting United Nations efforts through the Geneva process for Syria. Astana hosted several rounds of intra-Syrian talks, which were led by Russia, Turkey and Iran as stakeholders, and which contributed to the creation of de-escalation zones, reduced military activity and the improvement of the humanitarian situation. We are convinced that the achievement of peace and the renunciation of war as means of settling inter-State problems are central to the survival of humankind in the twenty-first century. In that context, Kazakhstan is promoting the implementation of the Manifesto: The World. The 21st Century, which declares war on war and violence worldwide by the centenary of the United Nations in 2045. United Nations peacekeeping is another fundamental tool in addressing today’s threats and challenges. In that regard, Kazakhstan fully supports the Secretary- General’s reform of the structures of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Political Affairs, as well as his many initiatives, as introduced on 6 April. Together with others, we will work towards making the mandates of peacekeeping missions more relevant and achievable, especially in multidimensional and hybrid operations that are deployed in zones of violent extremism. Peacekeeping operations need to be made more effective, accountable and flexible, with strong components for the protection of civilians and human rights, as the Secretary-General has suggested. Missions also have to focus on active and inclusive political processes to reach peace accords that include all parties. The recruitment of well-qualified staff, the provision of adequate equipment and the engagement of new countries with United Nations peacekeeping, could greatly enhance what we hope to achieve. Having attended several visits of the Security Council to various countries and regions in 2017, we can rightly conclude that adopting a three-track strategy can help to address conflicts. That should include strengthening the three pillars of the United Nations system, particularly peace and security and the development nexus, as they are closely interlinked. A regional approach should prevail in tackling problems in conflict-prone areas, rather than adopting a narrow, country-specific focus. That approach becomes efficient when it is accompanied by a well coordinated, comprehensive development paradigm in which the entire United Nations system functions as one United Nations. Such a vision would ensure optimal investments in the prosperity of all Member States, cooperating with one another in the interest of capacity-building, building resilience and disaster risk reduction. In conclusion, Kazakhstan will continue to be fully engaged in addressing threats and challenges to international peace and security, not just during our presidency of the Council during the month of January 2018, but throughout its term and beyond.

I would like to begin by thanking the Japanese presidency for convening today’s open debate. It has the full support of my delegation. We also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. If we were to analyse the threats and challenges to international peace and security that existed at the moment when the the United Nations was created and compare them to those we face today, we would see an increase not only in the quantity of threats, but also in the complexity of such phenomena. The new challenges, threats and challenges that arise in the international context must persuade the Security Council to consider all issues that could trigger or exacerbate conflicts. The increase in armed conflicts characterized by unprecedented violence, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and the growth in the legal and illegal trade of all types of weapons, the progression of terrorism, cyberattacks, hunger and the effects of climate change, to name just a few, require more than ever a strong commitment on the part of the international community to addressing them. In times when many of those manifestations of violence and devastation arise from global causes, frameworks or strategies, it would be negligent to imagine that the reponse could be merely local. The international community must rise to the occasion, be more supportive, consolidate its frameworks of joint action and strengthen global governance in order to find solutions to such serious problems. The increasing complexity of the threats and challenges to international peace and security force us not only to pay special attention to prevention, but also to be creative in our proposed solutions. To that end, greater coordination between the agendas of the various organs of the United Nations is indispensable, although we should not modify or interfere with their respective mandates and areas of competence. The dynamic of work in the United Nations demonstrates that the nexus among security, development, human rights and the humanitarian field is becoming increasingly evident. Uruguay believes that, in addition to explicit threats to international peace and security, there are also some phenomena that can exacerbate crises in conflict or post-conflict situations. Examples of such exacerbating phenomena are the effects of climate change, pandemics and transnational organized crime. It is important that a comprehensive approach be adopted in order to sustain peace, in particular by preventing conflicts and addressing their root causes, strengthening the rule of law at the international and national levels and promoting sustained and sustainable economic growth, the eradication of poverty, social development, sustainable development, national reconciliation and unity through inclusive dialogue and mediation, access to justice and transitional justice, accountability, good governance, democracy, accountable institutions, gender equality and respect for and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is no trivial matter that the world’s military expenditure was $1.69 trillion in 2016, representing an increase from 2015. We should ask ourselves how many needs could have been satisfied if only a portion of that spending had been redirected to the economic and social development of less richly endowed countries. The possession of nuclear weapons is worrisome and the delay in the disarmament of nuclear-weapon States also endangers and threatens global stability and the security of humankind. The use and threat of the use of nuclear weapons constitute a crime against humanity and a serious violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. In the context of our concern over the development of nuclear weapons, we must not lose sight of what has been recognized as the main threat to international peace and security today, namely, the situation in the Korean peninsula. A solution to the tensions on the Korean peninsula will be found only through dialogue, negotiation and political commitment. We therefore urge the parties concerned once again to comply with the provisions of the numerous resolutions of the Security Council on the situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and to resume the Six- Party Talks in order to contribute to a lasting political solution. Finally, I commend the efforts of the Secretary- General to carry out reform of the Secretariat within the peace and security pillar of the Organization. We hope that an improvement in the effectiveness, efficiency and coordination of the Secretariat will produce benefits at the systemic level that we can all enjoy in the best possible conditions as we face the evolving challenges and threats to international peace and security.

It could not be more timely for the Security Council, particularly the non-permanent members whose terms of office end in a few days, to address the current complex challenges facing international peace and security. The Senegalese delegation thanks the Japanese presidency for choosing this topic, which is at the heart of the original mission of this organ, namely, implementing instruments to maintain and entrench sustainable and lasting peace in the world. Also, I would like to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres, for his important briefing, which has shed light on our work. In recent years, the international community has stepped up its efforts to stave off threats to peace and provide a sustainable solution to security challenges. I would like to mention in that regard, inter alia, the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446), the reform of the peacebuilding architecture, the Secretary-General’s Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, the establishment of the Office of Counter-Terrorism, the review of resolution 1540 (2004) and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. But it is terrorism, international health crises, climate change, the scarcity of water resources, transnational organized crime, nuclear proliferation, the circulation of small arms in relation to their issue by non-State actors, sexual violence, the recruitment of children and the illicit exploitation of natural resources — the list is long but hardly exhaustive of challenges — that are still awaiting a comprehensive response from the international community. However, recent events in the Korean peninsula have moved the nuclear weapons race front and centre in our strategic concerns. While the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — also known as the 5+1 group agreement — shows us that a diplomatic solution is always possible, the North Korean nuclear programme, the prospects of which are gloomier than ever, demonstrates that we must proceed with firmness, perseverance and creativity in order to arrive at such solutions. I would like to take the opportunity of this debate to reiterate Senegal’s commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Another challenge is that of international terrorism, which, despite the defeats it has suffered in Iraq and Syria, through which it has lost its territorial holdings, remains intact as is evidenced by the resurgence of terrorist attacks, including in Egypt, Afghanistan, Somalia, Spain and Burkina Faso, and on goes the list. In addition, the shocking images of the sale of African migrants as slaves in Libya attest to the scale and gravity of transnational organized crime, including by the non-State actors, which take advantage of poverty and armed conflict to thrive. There is also a growing link among international terrorism, transnational organized crime, migration, trafficking in persons, and non-State actors. Hence it is imperative for the Security Council to conduct an in-depth assessment of the issue of non-State actors in relation to peace and security, particularly with regard to their access to weapons of mass destruction, small arms and light weapons. Let there be no mistake: those challenges will remain as long as those armed groups have access to weapons, but also as long as we do not address the root causes, develop more inclusive economic and social policies, fight extremist discourse and strengthen international cooperation. Mindful of the complex challenges resulting from the threat that non-State actors pose to the Organization’s peacekeeping operations, during Senegal’s tenure as a non-permanent member, and especially during its presidency of the Council, we emphasized two priorities, namely, the fight against the asymmetrical threats faced by the United Nations peacekeeping operations and the strengthening of cooperation between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations. While the first priority aims to make United Nations peacekeeping operations more efficient by improving the cooperation among the Secretariat’s various departments, from planning to deployment to defining mandates, which must be better adapted to the realities on the ground, the second is to create optimal synergy between the work of the United Nations and that of regional and subregional organizations. The example of the African continent shows us that those two approaches complement and reinforce each other, thereby enabling the Security Council to make use of regional and subregional organizations where it cannot deploy operations with an offensive mandate in order to respond to asymmetrical threats. Examples abound, from Somalia to the Lake Chad basin, where African countries have deployed their troops to respond to the threat posed mainly by non-State actors. That is the full meaning of resolution 2320 (2016), which the Council adopted at Senegal’s initiative, on the financing of African Union peace operations. That is why Senegal welcomes the initiative of the Secretary- General to reform the peace and security pillar by restructuring of the departments of the Secretariat, as well as focusing on preventive approaches so as to enhance the efficiency of the Organization in the area of peacekeeping. Because we are convinced of the advantages of a preventive approach, here in the Security Council Senegal has actively invested in the management and resolution of the Gambian crisis. In that connection, the support of the United Nations and of the African Union for the efforts and leadership of the Economic Community of West African States led to the peaceful transfer of power, while respecting the sovereignty of the Gambian people. That same conviction forms the foundation of the Senegalese initiative “Water, Peace and Security”, which aims to contribute to conflict prevention efforts by promoting cooperation for access to cross-border water resources, but also through mediation and good offices. Allow me to welcome the establishment by the Secretary-General of the High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation and to renew Senegal’s support to that end. In conclusion, it is clear that resolving the many complex security challenges we face will require a comprehensive approach that takes into account the issue of non-State actors and includes a conflict- prevention approach, one that puts the work of the Organization on the track of a promising partnership for peace. That is exactly why Senegal, during its tenure in the Security Council — but above all in general — has worked towards peace, especially on our continent, Africa. I can assure members of my country’s continued commitment in that regard.

I thank Secretary-General Guterres for his briefing. At present, the international situation is complex and constantly changing. Traditional and non-traditional security risks are interwoven, while global challenges are increasing by the day. Meanwhile, all countries are interdependent even while their interests are linked. Therefore, seeking peace, development and cooperation remains the general desire of the Member States. The international community urgently needs to work together in order to make new contributions to addressing global challenges properly and promoting international peace and development. First, we must uphold the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations has existed for more than 70 years, and the cause of peace and the development of humankind has seen significant progress. However, the beautiful blueprint traced by the Charter has yet to be realized, while new challenges keep emerging. In the face of old problems and emerging challenges, the purposes and principles of the Charter are not obsolete and remain immensely significant and realistic in guiding our work. To promote the spirit of the Charter, to face history with honesty and to draw lessons from history has always been our source of strength in maintaining peace and building the future. We hope that Member States will join hands, honour their firm commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, promote a new type of international relations based on mutual respect, fairness, justice and win-win cooperation, build a community of common human destiny and make new contributions to advancing the noble cause of human peace and development. Secondly, we must settle disputes peacefully through dialogue and negotiations. With the world today far from being secure, and with regional conflicts expanding, maintaining peace and security is the primary responsibility of the Security Council — a task entrusted by Member States. All countries should actively defend the authority of the Security Council in international security affairs and support the efforts by the countries concerned and regional organizations in peacefully settling disputes through dialogue, negotiation, mediation and good offices. The United Nations and the Security Council should adhere to the principles of objectivity and impartiality, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and their right to choose their social systems and development goals on their own, and establish a concept of comprehensive, mutual, common, cooperative and sustainable security so as to play a constructive role in addressing regional conflicts appropriately and promoting peace through negotiation. Thirdly, we must take comprehensive measures to address complex global challenges. The root causes of conflict, such as poverty and underdevelopment, are far from being solved, while non-traditional security threats, such as terrorism, climate change, refugees, migrants and epidemics, are constantly expanding — setting a higher bar for global governance. We hope that the international community will adhere to multilateralism, increase their development contributions, fully implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, reach an early consensus on the global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, follow the principle of mutual consultations, joint efforts and benefit-sharing, push for open, inclusive, universal and win-win globalization and create favourable conditions for addressing global challenges. Fourthly, major organs of the United Nations should fulfil their mandates and generate synergy. The United Nations is a core platform for addressing global challenges. The main organs, such as the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, should abide by the United Nations Charter and its responsibilities, adhere to their mandates, coordinate their work in preventing conflicts, maintaining peace, building peace and combating traditional and non-traditional security threats, bring into full play regional initiatives and organizations and actively support the countries concerned in capacity- building for sustainable development and building capabilities so as to develop synergies for combating traditional and non-traditional security threats. China is ready to work together with the international community to properly address the increasingly complex global challenges and make greater contributions to building a world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security and common prosperity and that is open, inclusive, clean and beautiful.

We thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and for his commitment to conflict prevention and the sustaining peace agenda. We stand behind the Secretary-General as he implements an ambitious vision for a United Nations that can better address the world’s most complicated and pressing challenges. The Security Council is in a unique position and has a unique responsibility to respond to crises too large for any one nation to address on its own. Yet to meet such challenges, we must ensure we have the tools and capabilities to respond the realities of the world we live in. Peacekeeping operations, for example, are a powerful mechanism for the maintenance of international peace and security and the protection of civilians. The United Nations has more than 100,000 troops and police deployed worldwide — responding to crises in ways no other institution can. Yet we must ensure that those missions meet the needs of people on the ground. This is not about producing more reports or reorganizing departments; it is about taking a careful look at each mission and asking difficult questions. Are we using our resources well? Does each mission promote a political solution? Are we effectively protecting civilians? Are we fostering independence, or dependence? We did that just recently during the mandate renewal for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA). We supported an increase in MINUSCA’s troop ceiling, while also emphasizing the importance of focusing on the quality of the troops deployed. To that end, we pressed for stronger requirements in the mandate for preventing and reporting on sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers and for reporting on performance indicators of force effectiveness, more broadly. In Liberia, the United Nations devised a peacebuilding plan in preparation for the withdrawal of the peacekeeping mission early next year. The plan was developed in close coordination with the Liberian Government and included the participation from civil society, and the result is a plan that all parties can buy into. Yet the Security Council has generally used peacekeeping missions as a tool in response to imminent risks of mass violence or, too often, after conflict has already broken out. To more comprehensively promote peace and protect human lives, we must look first at underlying challenges to peace and security, including a failure to promote development or human rights or to meet humanitarian needs. When left unaddressed, those shortcomings can develop into threats to international peace and security. Those factors can not only exacerbate conflict but, in many instances, directly lead to instability — a vicious cycle that is often largely man-made and preventable. In Yemen, for example, approximately 22 million people out of a population of 29 million are in need of humanitarian assistance. There are more than 984,800 suspected cases of cholera, and more than 7 million people at potential risk for famine. Access constraints at key ports only fuel that crisis and prolong the suffering of the Yemeni people. And famine is not just a human tragedy, it is an issue of peace and security. Earlier this year, the Secretary-General warned us that we were in the midst of the largest food security emergency since the Second World War — with more than 20 million people in north-east Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Yemen facing famine. Those conditions were not caused by drought or natural causes, but rather from conflict and, in some situations, are a result of parties more interested in power and personal gain than in the safety and security of their own people. Recent reports of human trafficking in Libya have sparked moral outrage and drawn attention to those abominable acts. Men, women and children fleeing conflict or persecution often find themselves vulnerable to forced labour or sexual exploitation — taken advantage of by ruthless traffickers with no regard for human dignity. The individuals responsible for those horrific crimes are too often also engaged in transnational trafficking of weapons and narcotics, as well as in financing terrorist organizations. Those challenges remind us every day of how high the stakes are for strengthening democracy, increasing prosperity and improving security — all of which are elements necessary to building lasting peace. Despite its shortcomings, the United Nations has the power to develop solutions to the transnational problems we face. Those complex challenges demand a truly whole-of-United-Nations approach, as well as deeper partnerships with regional and subregional organizations and improved integration of the work of United Nations partners and other stakeholders. The Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Support Office play an important role in bridging the divides between the three United Nations pillars in support of coherent peacebuilding efforts and analysis. Once again, we are grateful for the Secretary-General’s participation in today’s meeting and we encourage him to continue bringing issues to the Council’s attention early and often when he believes that an issue requires Council attention or action. Fragile States share many common characteristics, such as weak governance, environmental degradation and poverty, that are interlinked with political instability, transnational crime and violent extremism. Those issues overlap and so too should our responses. Now let us all ensure that we have the right tools to act.

I would like to thank the Japanese presidency for organizing this important open debate on addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. We should also commend you, Mr. President, for the very useful concept note you have made available to help us frame the debate (S/2017/1016, annex). The note points to the need to focus not only on the root causes of conflict, but also on the drivers of those conflicts, despite the fact that it is often difficult to pinpoint how climate change, for example, represents a root cause or driver of conflict. All the same, I just wanted to underscore how useful we found the concept note. We all know that some of the challenges and threats to international peace and security that we face today are not only different from those that we have faced in the past, they have also become much more complex and difficult. The Secretary-General mentioned many of them in his statement today. That is why we cannot address these contemporary challenges with old ways of thinking and tools designed for different challenges and threats at a different time. There is a need for new ways of thinking and innovative tools to respond to emerging challenges to international peace and security. There can be no doubt that these challenges require States to strengthen their cooperation with one another more than ever before. The various recent studies and reviews have made valuable recommendations in that regard. What has emerged clearly from them is the importance of adopting a comprehensive, holistic approach to addressing the peace and security challenges of our time, not only by promoting greater coherence in the United Nations system, but also by strengthening key strategic partnerships with regional organizations to prevent, manage and resolve conflict and crisis situations in different parts of the world. The partnership between the United Nations and the African Union is a good example of that. We can hope that cooperation between the Security Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council can be strengthened far more. We understand, of course, that the relevant recommendations of the studies and reviews will have a meaningful impact only if they are translated into concrete action. That cannot happen without comprehensive reform, which is why we support the ongoing reform process that the Secretary-General has embarked on to make the United Nations fit for purpose. The fact that the proposed reform of the United Nations peace and security pillar prioritizes prevention and sustaining peace as its overarching goals is very welcome. We believe that it will give the Organization the framework it needs to organize a more coordinated, coherent response to the root causes of violence and conflict in various States of conflict. We hope that the results of the reforms will enable the United Nations to develop an integrated capability for comprehensively tackling contemporary security challenges such as the Organization’s fragmentation by minimizing overlapping structures and mandates, ensuring greater transparency and accountability and improving the planning and budgetary processes. We believe that this will ultimately strengthen the Organization’s ability to deliver effective and efficient operational support in the field, including on complex security terrains where peacekeeping and special political missions are deployed. Considering the strong links between the security, development and human rights pillars of the United Nations, there is no question that ensuring an integrated, coherent and cross-pillar approach within the Organization is critical to addressing the factors driving conflicts. However, that should not necessarily mean that we should change the established mandates, functions and funding sources of the various United Nations entities. That is particularly relevant in the light of the clear division of labour between the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, as stipulated in the Charter of the United Nations, and we note the assurances given by the Secretary-General in that regard. We believe that the Security Council is not best suited to discussing matters that fall under the Charter- mandated responsibilities of the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Nor does it have the relevant expertise to make appropriate recommendations and decisions on issues related to social, economic and environmental matters. It should therefore deal only with issues that come directly under its mandate. Indeed, there are a great many critical issues in today’s world that do not receive the attention they should from the Council. One clear example is respect for the principles of international law governing relations between States, since so many conflicts have resulted from a failure to respect them. In conclusion, to go back to the essential issue of United Nations reform in the area of peace and security, I should stress that the most important task at hand is to avoid fragmentation within the United Nations system and to promote the synergy and complementarity of the three pillars of the United Nations, in order to ensure a continuum in its policies so that they are relevant and effective in addressing the challenges of our times. That is what the ongoing reform process should be all about. We very much hope that it will help to reorient the restructuring of the Organization towards that objective.

We thank you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s meeting and for the open debate format, which enables us to engage in a broad exchange of opinions on an issue as complicated as this one, the factors that make it difficult to resolve conflicts today. Your choice of subject is timely not only for the Security Council, which, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, has the main responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, but also for the entire United Nations system, its principal organs and all its Member States. When the Council discusses individual conflicts, we deal with the entire spectrum of threats to peace. That said, every country or regional situation has its own unique set of circumstances that must be considered when taking decisions. That context-specific approach is always at the heart of our work. All too often, unfortunately, in dealing with the most intractable threats, we have to rely on Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, which regulates those decisions. However, in your concept note (S/2017/1016, annex), Mr. President, you rightly point out that in individual situations there may be other factors at work besides the threat to peace — these so-called challenges, which can influence the process of arriving at a settlement. They may include all kinds of circumstances that extend far beyond the framework of the list included in the concept note for today’s meeting. Unfortunately, the most urgently topical challenges to stability are beyond the reach of this list. What we have in mind, first and foremost, is outside interference in States’ domestic processes, including foreign support for such subversive processes as unconstitutional regime change and seizures of power. The representative of Ukraine deliberately omitted to mention these important underlying causes of the conflict in south-eastern Ukraine. What he said about international law, and law in general, simply comes across as blasphemy. How can the representative of a country talk about compliance with the law when its leadership came to power as a result of a coup against the Government in Kyiv in February 2014? That was when this tragedy began. We all know that the way to resolve this conflict is through full implementation by the Kyiv authorities of the Minsk agreements, as endorsed by Security Council resolution 2202 (2015). Getting back to the subject of the meeting, the concept note also failed to take account of the unfair distribution of access to natural resources and other assets that has been the legacy for dozens of States in the wake of colonial rule. It would also be helpful to take a look at the problems caused by unilateral economically coercive measures; the ongoing disparity in access to modern technologies, including environmentally friendly ones; the rapacious exploitation of natural resources by transnational corporations; the unfair distribution of positions in the global economic governance institutions; the failure to uphold official development assistance commitments; and the problem of poverty and growing social inequality, which, as many reports point out, is highly likely to provoke or stoke existing conflicts. Of course, none of this rules out the possibility of the negative influence on efforts to reach a settlement of a conflict of factors that have already been mentioned, such as climate change, hunger, epidemics, transnational crime and so on. However, it is important to keep in mind that none of these challenges are universal; they are unique to each specific situation. Needless to say, the role of the United Nations is to provide support to States, which bear the primary responsibility for responding to security challenges on their territories. In that context, we firmly believe that as a general rule it is helpful for the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council to consider the interrelationships between issues of peace, security, development and human rights. However, it is vital to maintain the principle of division of labour and each of these principal organs should act within its own area of responsibility. We proceed from the fact that the Charter of the United Nations assigned to the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council a mandate to consider socioeconomic and environmental issues, which include combating climate change and ensuring sustainable water use, health care and similar issues. It is the General Assembly, with its universal membership, that makes recommendations on such issues, all of which have many different aspects. They are all considered in the relevant specialized committees and in individual forums such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Combining all these elements together and preparing balanced decisions on them demands a variety of expertise and time that the Security Council does not possess. We believe that this type of coordinated arrangement among Member States in the principal organs of the United Nations can be a reliable basis for the work of the Secretariat also after the restructuring of its peace and security architecture that has begun. Today the General Assembly has considered the issue of requesting Secretary-General António Guterres to submit detailed proposals on this topic. Given that, we believe it is inappropriate to transfer to the agenda of the Council general issues that come under the remit of other principal organs within the United Nations system with a much broader representation of Member States. The Council should not usurp their voices.

At the outset, I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and the Japanese presidency for organizing this important, lively and timely meeting. Italy aligns itself with the statement to be delivered later by the observer of the European Union. Today’s open debate lets us reflect on how the Security Council has been addressing contemporary challenges to international peace and security, especially this year, from terrorism, extremism, transnational organized crime and trafficking in persons to grave violations of human rights, mass displacements, humanitarian crises and the increasingly adverse effects of climate change. In many instances the Council has recognized their interconnected nature and their role as drivers and multipliers of conflicts. It has also concurred on the need to address them in a comprehensive and integrated manner. As the Secretary-General called for in his first address to the Council in January (see S/PV.7857), a shift from reacting to conflicts to their prevention, based on the concept of the peace continuum, should be at the core of our efforts to make United Nations action more consistent and effective. Italy fully shares and supports that approach, along three main directions. First, we must continue to analyse the interconnected nature of contemporary challenges and their impact on international peace and stability. During its term on the Council, Italy focused its attention on trafficking in persons and on its link with terrorism, organized crime, mass displacement and serious violations of human rights. We also addressed the issue of the protection of cultural heritage from destruction and trafficking by terrorist groups, in order to counter the financing of their activities, but also to protect communities’ cultural identity. Through its unanimous adoption of resolutions 2388 (2017) and 2347 (2017), the Council demonstrated its united will to counter these scourges, recognizing in them a threat to international peace and security. Similarly, last week Italy organized an Arria Formula meeting on the security implications of climate change. Addressing the root causes of conflicts must also continue to be one of our priorities if we are to prevent them from emerging or recurring. During our presidency, the meeting on security challenges in the Mediterranean region (see S/PV.8106) highlighted the nexus between peace, security, socioeconomic development and human rights, as well as the urgent need to put people’s needs and rights at the centre of our action. The protection and empowerment of people are key to building resilient and inclusive societies, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the sustaining peace agenda. Secondly, a broader and more preventive use of the entire toolbox at the disposal of the United Nations is essential to enable the Council to engage at an early stage in situations that may escalate or relapse into conflict, and to define preventive actions by the United Nations system as a whole. In that regard, I would like to recall two recent important initiatives undertaken by the Secretary-General in line with Article 99 of the Charter of the United Nations — his letters on the four famines and on the situation in Rakhine state. We encourage him to fully exercise that prerogative whenever it is needed. In addition, it is important, in our view, to develop more effective early-warning systems. As an example, the Framework of Analysis for Atrocity Crimes should be more widely used. The Special Representatives of the Secretary-General should brief the Council more regularly. The Council should make full use of informal meeting formats to discuss issues that may not be formally on its agenda but that deserve its attention. Security Council missions, as we have seen, are also a very important tool for improving our understanding of specific security contexts and adjusting our action accordingly, as this year’s visits to the Lake Chad region, Colombia and the Sahel, among others, demonstrated very clearly. The capacity of the United Nations is unparalleled and must be fully exploited by improving synergy and coordination among all United Nations actors at Headquarters and on the ground. The role that peacekeeping operations, special political missions, country teams and specialized agencies, funds and programmes play in building and sustaining peace must be further strengthened by better integrating and fully implementing the concept of the peace continuum. The Council must uphold the principle of peacekeeping reform when addressing country-specific situations, while bearing in mind the need for clear entry, transition and exit strategies. The primary goal is to support inclusive political processes to foster resilient societies and national ownership. In Haiti, for example, the establishment of the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti has provided a model case of transition. Equally, peacekeeping missions must be equipped to focus on capacity-building. In that regard, resolution 2382 (2017), which Italy promoted along with the other members of the Council, has recognized and enhanced the importance of the police component in bridging the work of the United Nations from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. Thirdly, we must focus on the way forward. The Secretary-General’s proposals on the reform of the United Nations system are coherent with the Council’s work on those topics. The Council should continue to provide its full and united support for the efforts of the Secretary-General as we look forward to a more effective, flexible, transparent, efficient and accountable Organization — one in which the various bodies of the Organization work and act together. As underscored by the Secretary-General, the United Nations is not alone in its efforts for peace. Partnerships with regional organizations and civil society are also fundamental to improve the coherency of our actions across the three pillars and along the conflict cycle, in line with the principle of subsidiarity. In conclusion, we think that it is imperative to break the silo approach and build on broad consensus. We agree on the substance, as today’s debate has also confirmed. The Council is capable of being effective in living up to its responsibilities and in standing united to confront contemporary challenges to peace and security, through innovative thinking and bold actions. Finally, since this is my last statement in the Security Council, as Italy nears the end of its mandate as a non-permanent member, allow me to first congratulate you, Mr. President, and your delegation for your work and excellent presidency for the month of December, and to extend to all delegations around the table my personal thanks and that of my team’s for all of their cooperation during this intense year in the Council.

The representative of Ukraine has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

We regret that, despite numerous references to the General Assembly in its statements, the Russian delegation does not follow the work of that organ and the developments there — or, perhaps even worse, it is just intentionally addressing that body, the main organ of the United Nations representing the collective voice of all the States Members of the United Nations, with complete disdain. Just yesterday, the General Assembly reaffirmed the shameful status of the Russian Federation as an occupying Power in Ukraine (see A/72/PV.73), and, by extension, as a party to the international conflict. In that respect, we would like to simply repeat what has already been stated in the Security Council on numerous occasions. As an occupying Power and a party to the dispute, and as an authoritarian regime under one of the highest number of bilateral and multilateral sanctions in the world, Russia, by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations, has neither the legal nor moral right to pronounce itself on Ukraine at the Council, let alone to lecture my delegation, or that of any other Member State. That will at least be the case until Russia returns Crimea to the Ukraine, withdraws its troops from the Donbas and pays in full for the damage done by its occupation.

The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement.

We encourage the representative of the Ukraine to respect the Security Council and its members. We do not want to get into a senseless polemic, but Ukraine’s latest comments run contrary to common sense and force us to once again take the floor. From the beginning of the conflict in the Ukraine — which was a direct consequence of the unconstitutional seizure of power by those on the Maidan, which the citizens of Donetsk and Luhansk did not recognize — we have time and again heard in various forums about Russian intervention and aggression in the conflict. However, there was and is no proof of those allegations. But there is proof of a number of violations of international law by the Ukrainian party. Those facts are regularly published by representatives of the United Nations and other international organizations. What is the point of the endless bombardment, despite all of the statements and warnings from humanitarian groups on the threats of large-scale humanitarian and natural disasters? We consider those activities by the authorities in Kyiv as inhuman, in making use of schemes to make sure that they get their pensions and social contributions. How many more schools and hospitals do they need to destroy before they address the situation at the negotiating table and deal with the issue of terrorists? We repeat that the road map was drawn up in the Minsk agreements; it just need to be implemented.

The representative of Ukraine has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Given the long list of speakers, I would ask him to be brief and to make that his last intervention.

Just a few days ago, I made a statement in which I quoted not a Ukrainian official, but the former Secretary-General of the United Nations. Allow me to briefly repeat it, followed by an additional quotation. “I am particularly concerned about the situation on and around the border between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. This remains a key obstacle to the de-escalation of the situation on the ground, as arms and heavy weaponry reportedly continue to flow unabated into Ukraine from Russia. There is an urgent need to ensure a secure border between the two countries, with international verification, as discussed in the Minsk talks.” That quotation is from the Secretary-General’s press conference on 29 August 2014, and if that is not sufficient evidence for the Russian Federation of its aggression against Ukraine, I wonder what is. To give another quotation: “In the case of the Ukraine, security assurances were an essential condition for its accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, the credibility of the assurances given to Ukraine in the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 has been seriously undermined by recent events, such as the occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas. The implications are profound, both for regional security and the integrity of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.” That is a quotation from a statement made by the Secretary-General at the opening meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit on 24 March 2014 at The Hague.

The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement. I would also like to ask the representative of the Russian Federation, given the long list of speakers, to keep his statement brief and make it his final one.

We would like to draw the attention of our Ukrainian colleagues to the fact that there is a mechanism to observe the situation in the south- east of Ukraine — the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. Every day, and sometimes even twice a day, it visits areas that are not controlled by the Government, and in none of its reports has it written about any mass movements of weapons or troops. With regard to the security of the nuclear facilities in Crimea after it was returned to the Russian Federation, we informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that all nuclear facilities on the Crimean peninsula were under reliable control and were working safely and in compliance with the provisions of the IAEA.

I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than four minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate their texts in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. I wish to inform all concerned that we will be carrying on this open debate right through the lunch hour, as we have a large number of speakers. I now give the floor to the representative of Colombia.

We thank Ambassador Koro Bessho of Japan for convening this open debate and for the concept note (S/2017/1016, annex), which has served as a guide to debate an issue which certainly is of great importance and current relevance. The maintenance of international peace and security is the fundamental mandate that the Charter of the United Nations has entrusted to the Organization, and, more specifically, to the Security Council, which has the responsibility to ensure that the decisions taken within this organ are consistent with the changing needs in an ever more complex global context. As is stated in the concept note, an integrated approach to the threats to peace and security requires timely attention and action to address the main causes and multipliers of conflict. The Secretary-General quite rightly alluded to that this morning. He referred to the alarming qualitative and quantitative increase in threats that constitute a clear peril to humankind as a whole: nuclear proliferation, climate change, water shortages, more bloodthirsty and long armed conflicts and also phenomena that affect security in cyberspace. All of that requires more flexible diplomacy if we are to be more effective, but also if we are to focus on prevention. In that regard, Colombia believes that it is precisely that aspect of prevention and peacebuilding that should make the maintenance of peace a priority in the work of the Security Council. As my country pointed out recently in the General Assembly during the adoption of the resolution on reforming the peace and security pillar, we can be under no illusions. The security and peace situation that we are currently living in around the globe currently requires bold, effective and expeditious measures to respond to needs that the current structure of this pillar of the Organization prevents resolving with forcefulness. Undoubtedly, the changing nature of the conflicts today is a challenge to the Organization. It should lead us to create new ways to address them and, at the same time, generate a culture of prevention that is genuinely effective. That need to strengthen institutional capacity in the face of real threats is what motivated Colombia to support the efforts of the Secretary-General to reform the peace and security pillar of the Organization, an effort that, thankfully, was recently endorsed by the General Assembly, thereby making this debate even more timely. My country is following this process in the conviction that it constitutes an important step in the right direction, making it possible to modernize and adapt the Organization to the crises and emergencies affecting the world today. Against that backdrop, I would like to emphasize that we must not underestimate the relationship between an effective administration and the division of responsibilities from the highest level so that the United Nations is able to fulfil its mandates. At the same time, however, we should also support the worthwhile initiative of the Secretary-General to place greater emphasis on preventing conflicts and on the concept of sustaining peace, which clearly require additional mechanisms and flexible processes for the swift and effective deployment of the enormous capabilities at the disposal of the Organization. Colombia has experienced both to the results and the challenges faced in preventing conflict, thanks to the United Nations special political mission in Colombia, mandated and consistently supported by the Security Council, and subsequently the transition towards a verification mission that is the result of the significant impetus that the United Nations has given to building stable and lasting peace in my country. Finally, I would like to stress that the success of the Colombian peace process is based on the premise that the prevention and resolution of conflicts flows from a comprehensive approach that takes into account the crucial elements of sustainable development, gender equality and the role of women in transitional processes and institution-building. Before I conclude, I would like to warmly congratulate Japan for its exceptional and outstanding role as as it soon concludes its tenure in the Security Council. I would also like to thank other countries that are completing their Security Council membership this year.

I now give the floor to the representative of Liechtenstein.

Liechtenstein wishes to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this timely debate. As the number of conflicts increase and their humanitarian consequences reach unprecedented dimensions, the world expects the United Nations to find better ways to prevent conflict and sustain peace. Today’s discussion is driven by a growing awareness that the complex challenges of today’s conflicts need to be addressed in a consistent manner across the entire conflict cycle. A comprehensive approach to peace and security includes the rule of law, fundamental rights and freedoms and sustainable development. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is itself such a comprehensive approach, most prominently Sustainable Development Goal 16. The Sustainable Development Goals concretely address the interdependence between security and development and offer a powerful prevention tool. Along the same lines, implementation gaps in development commitments and disregard for human rights obligations are important early warning signs that provide relevant information for preventive action, from which the Security Council should benefit to the largest extent possible. With respect to conflict multipliers, such as climate change, food insecurity, water shortages and organized crime, thematic debates and their outcomes, these can help inform the Council’s decision-making, which has generally paid insufficient attention to those phenomena. However, that requires systematic integration of the findings of those discussions into the Council’s consideration of specific crisis situations. Contemporary security challenges tend to be complex. They require tailor-made solutions that are attuned to a particular context. At the same time, they also share important characteristics, including, in most cases, an erosion of the rule of law. One aspect of sustaining peace, which has been neglected rather systematically by the Council, is the importance of accountability for lasting peace. Transitional justice is an indispensable part of consolidating peace and preventing conflicts. It contributes to deterrence, strengthens the rule of law and allows traumatized communities to come back together and move forward. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a tool at the disposal of the Council in that respect. Beginning in July next year, the ICC will also be able to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, which goes to the very core of the Council’s mandate and the purpose of the Organization. However, in the past year the Council has shown half-hearted engagement with the Court and failed to follow up on the two referral decisions it made. It is therefore crucial that other accountability options be considered, such as the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011, which was the General Assembly’s response to a vetoed ICC referral in the Council. At its core, the challenge that the Council faces to embrace justice as a key ingredient for creating lasting peace. We see that reflected as a core message in the 2030 Agenda, but it is largely lacking in the work of the Council itself. The situation in Libya is a sad showcase about how the absence of the rule of law provides a breeding ground for one of the most complex security challenges of our time. The horrific reports of slavery and gender- based violence, including against men and boys, are not only a symptom of conflict but also a driver of further violence. Slave markets provide financing for terrorist and other criminal activities, thereby further increasing instability in Libya and the broader region. We recall that those crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC, and we welcome the announcement of the Court on conducting investigations. The Security Council should support such efforts, both politically and financially, as a tangible contribution to addressing the complexity of the challenge and to improving the situation on the ground.

I now give the floor to the representative of Pakistan.

I would like to begin by thanking Japan for organizing this debate. I also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing this morning. We are living in a remarkably more dangerous world, in which a wide range of new threats have emerged even as older ones continue to fester. Challenges to international peace and security are intensifying at a time when the foundations of the world order are fraying. Conflicts continue to rage across the world, from Africa to Afghanistan. The civil wars and factional fighting in Syria, Libya and Yemen are becoming more vicious and consequential, generating record levels of human displacement. Efforts to change the status of Jerusalem threaten to drive an already volatile Middle East into further turbulence and chaos. As Secretary-General António Guterres has warned, we may be sleepwalking into a catastrophe on the Korean peninsula. At the same time, the long-standing, internationally recognized disputes of Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir continue to fester. The Palestinian and Kashmiri people continue to suffer horrific human rights violations at the hands of occupying forces, while the world continues to watch without addressing those egregious situations. All those situations compound the challenges of a more turbulent and volatile world. In order to effectively address such challenges, we must identify the drivers of international conflict, which include unresolved, long-standing conflicts and disputes, foreign military interventions, political and economic injustice, terrorism and violent extremism and the displacement of populations due to persecution, poverty, climate change and conflict. We have to ask whether we are preventing and resolving conflicts or just managing them, and that only partially and in a rather unedifying manner. After all, the primary purpose of establishing the United Nations was to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. What we certainly need is a shift from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention. Effective preventive strategies rely on an early reaction to signs of trouble, efforts to alleviate the factors that trigger violence and the resolution of the underlying root causes of violence, such as foreign occupation, a lack of resources and social and political systems that lead to injustice and grievance. There is obviously no one-size-fits-all solution to conflict prevention and mitigation. Moving a country towards durable peace begins with a clear understanding of the sources and nature of conflicts. Ambitious conflict-prevention strategies should avoid the pitfalls of either a delayed reaction or an incorrect reading of the signs of an impending conflict or catastrophe. More Blue Helmets are currently deployed than at any time in history. United Nations peacekeeping has always been a cost-effective tool for the maintenance of international peace and security, but peacekeeping alone is not able to deliver the dividends of peace. Peacekeeping needs to be strengthened through support for political solutions, since only by reinforcing the primacy of politics can we make peace durable and sustainable. The focus on sustaining peace is therefore welcome, but in order to sustain peace, we must first build peace, address the drivers of conflict and create the enabling conditions that allow peace to flourish. Let me set out a number of suggestions that we see as essential to addressing the complex contemporary challenges to peace and security. First, while axiomatic, addressing the root causes of conflict remains the best conflict-prevention and conflict-resolution strategy. Second, a clear shift in approach from an emphasis on military action to negotiation and to finding political solutions is required. Third, inclusive national ownership and leadership are essential to driving peace processes forward. Fourth, the United Nations must better utilize the tools for maintaining peace and security provided for in Chapter VI of its Charter: “negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means”. Fifth, all resolutions of the Security Council must be implemented, uniformly and non-selectively. Selective implementation weakens multilateralism and the credibility of the United Nations, compounds conflicts and intensifies the suffering of the affected and afflicted people. Sixth, the form and functions of United Nations peacekeeping must be shaped by the situation on the ground, not by the often competing political interests in New York. Finally, seventh, as we know, peace and security, development and human rights are inextricably linked. It is true that a lack of development and of respect for human rights can endanger international peace and security, but without peace and security, the lack of development and the violation of human rights are a certainty. In conclusion, let me say that the proliferation of conflicts today is a clear sign of the need for urgent action. The proposed reform of the peace and security architecture is necessary but is not sufficient to make a real difference. Fundamental change in the way in which we deal with conflicts is really required. Only then will we be able to succeed in our collective quest for sustainable and enduring peace and security.

I now give the floor to the representative of Hungary.

First of all, I wish to thank Japan for convening this important debate and Secretary-General Guterres for his briefing. While we align ourselves with the statement to be delivered by the observer of the European Union, I wish to add a few observations in my national capacity. The words “comprehensive”, “integrated” or “holistic” are not just buzzwords that dominate our discussions at the United Nations nowadays. They are real reflections and much-needed calls for actions, given the intertwined challenges of our time. There are anchors to our work. First is putting further emphasis on prevention. The need to shift our focus towards preventing conflicts, as opposed to merely reacting to them, is clearly self- evident. I believe that the only way to achieve and preserve peace within and among societies is through dialogue. I am therefore encouraged by the dedication of the Secretary-General to start a surge in diplomacy. I would also like to reiterate Hungary’s firm commitment to the role of preventive diplomacy and mediation. To assist the United Nations in their activities in this field, my Government made voluntary contributions in 2016 and in 2017. Preventive processes should include intercultural and interreligious dialogue and reconciliation, in tandem with moderate religious and community leaders and faith-based organizations, in order to build trust and mutual understanding and respect. Cultural and science diplomacy, education and awareness-raising are key in that regard. For example, this year’s World Science Forum, held in Jordan and co-organized by Hungary, proved the power of science for peace, which encompasses reconciliation and the prevention of conflict. Secondly, we must address peace, security and development as one. A smooth transition between political solutions, humanitarian action and development cooperation is key to ensuring that countries will not relapse into conflict. Sustainable development is our best available tool in preventing conflict, and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development created a new impetus for all organs and the entire membership of the United Nations to work together in new ways. Besides changing the narrative, we — United Nations organs and Member States alike — must all change the way in which we operate. There is no sustainable peace without respecting human rights and international humanitarian law. Member States, in partnership with international organizations and civil society, should build resilience in our societies against the risks of destabilization and radicalization. That should start, we believe, with the protection of the most vulnerable. Hungary fights for the rights of national, ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, and of women, girls and children, among others, by ensuring that their human rights and fundamental freedoms are fully respected. We have to fight modern slavery and human trafficking in every corner of the world, and Hungary is firmly committed to fighting terrorism and supporting the new United Nations counter-terrorism system. Addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security is a daunting task, one that no country can achieve on its own. Our mission is to make sure that we combine our efforts, use the considerable tools at our disposal and ensure that the terms “comprehensive”, “integrated” and “holistic” will not remain mere words. We know that water is a source of life but also of conflict. Hungary is committed to addressing water- related challenges. The scarcity of fresh water resources constitutes a serious challenge to the international community. In Hungary, we say that water connects; it does not divide. That was said both in 2013 and 2016, during the Budapest Water Summit. I was very honoured to co-moderate the water dialogue, together with Tajikistan. We believe that discussing the added value and the drawbacks of platforms that talk about the strengthening of the UN-Water system would provide coherent policy guidance, and monitoring and follow-up are necessary tools that we must strengthen. I encourage convergences so that water can find its best place in the United Nations development system. Finally, in taking reform forward, we take it seriously. Today we have a rare opportunity before of us to help both the Organization and its Member States to address the structural shortcomings of the United Nations and empower it to move out of the functional silos, integrate the prevention approach and enhance the coherence of United Nations activities in the field. It is more important than ever to enhance the performance of the Security Council, which faces an unprecedented number of conflicts and complex crises. The world has too often been witness to devastating consequences due to the non-action of the Security Council in certain situations. As a member of the Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency group, we wish to stress that the Code of Conduct regarding Security Council action against genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has already been signed by 114 Member States. Sitting here as an ambassador and a female permanent representative, I must conclude by saying that we cannot address enough the role of women in the maintenance of peace and security. I believe that each century has its defining moral issue. If slavery was the towering moral issue of the nineteenth century and if the fight against totalitarianism and colonialism dominated the twentieth century, then the rights of women and the struggle to uphold them in every corner of the world will be — and has been — the moral imperative of the twenty-first century. I wish to congratulate Japan on its work in the Security Council and wish everybody happy holidays.

I thank the representative of Hungary for her statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Switzerland.

We thank you, Mr. President, for having launched this debate. We share the conviction that we must confront emerging problems at an early stage and that the greatest insecurity arises when risks accumulate. It is not enough to enumerate the different phenomena and negative trends. We need to discuss the tools that we have at our disposal to address the issues and their root causes. In that regard, I would like to focus today on the preventive potential of certain recent international frameworks, agreements and processes and give a few examples of how Switzerland and other Member States can contribute to realizing this potential. First, the United Nations has never had a more solid framework for conflict prevention than today. Prevention is in the DNA of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and of the resolutions on sustaining peace that the Council and the General Assembly unanimously adopted in 2016 . An additional impetus for linking the pillars with prevention is anchored in the Secretary-General’s reform agenda. The new United Nations-World Bank prevention study says that for every dollar invested in prevention, $16 is saved. Secondly, the implementation of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change is, in our view, a significant preventive step. The Paris Agreement acknowledges the strong links between climate change and peace and security. Switzerland is currently addressing the specific challenge of the interaction between water resources and peace. We are involved in the Blue Peace Initiative, which aims at preventing conflicts linked to the domestic or transboundary management of water. Switzerland encourages members of the Council to further analyze the relation between the competition for natural resources, climate change and peace and security. Thirdly, respect for human rights is essential for conflict prevention. In order to enhance systematic cooperation within the United Nations system on human rights issues and to strengthen the existing human rights framework, in 2016 Switzerland launched the Appeal of 13 June. The Appeal specifically calls for intensified cooperation between the Security Council and the human rights organs of the United Nations with a view to strengthening conflict prevention. To date, 71 Member States have joined the Appeal, and we invite all others to do the same. Fourthly, many conflicts arise around issues of perceived or real exclusion and injustice. That is an aspect that deserves our attention, including in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Together with Brazil and Sierra Leone, we helped to launch the Pathfinders for Peaceful, Just and Inclusive Societies. As part of that cross-regional group of Member States, we are determined to accelerate the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 16 and its related targets. The Pathfinders recently launched a road map that spells out the process and challenges more clearly. Switzerland remains committed to strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to recognize and address new and complex challenges to peace and security. Currently they are enormous, but we also have very solid reference frameworks and agreements on human rights, climate change, development and peace and security. We can effectively contribute to conflict prevention by taking them seriously and implementing them thoroughly.

I now give the floor to the representative of Turkey.

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this timely and important debate. Today, in every pillar of United Nations action, there exist tremendous challenges. We welcome the constructive exchange of ideas that is taking place in this open debate today. We share the concern expressed by many as to the gravity of existing threats and risks. We wish to contribute to the discussion by highlighting the following points that, in our opinion, deserve special attention. In the face of the complexity of the contemporary challenges we are facing, no single State possesses the capacity to take on these challenges alone. As the Secretary-General stated: “The interconnected nature of today’s crises requires us to connect our own efforts for peace and security, sustainable development and human rights not just in words but in practice.” (see S/PV.7857, p. 3) The United Nations is in acute need of substantial reform to increase its capacity to address the challenges we face. It must enhance its effectiveness and live up to its role as the primary platform in dealing with international peace and security. Hence, we commend the Secretary-General for acknowledging this need and support him in his efforts. We welcome the adoption of the General Assembly resolution expressing support for him to continue to work on restructuring the United Nations peace and security pillar (resolution 72/199). Since the report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446), a primary objective has been to increase the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping operations while prioritizing political solutions to crises. The prevention of crises before they scale up to open conflicts is essential in this regard, and so is preventing the relapse of such crises in post-conflict recovery processes. The Secretary- General’s surge in diplomacy for peace initiative and his subsequent proposal on reform of the peace and security pillar have underscored the importance of prevention and the role of mediation, to which Turkey, together with Finland, is devoting special attention and effort as co-Chair of the Group of Friends of Mediation. The Security Council, in view of its objective and responsibility to maintain international peace and security, also needs to be reformed so that it can address complex contemporary challenges in that realm. The views of Turkey, as a member of the Uniting for Consensus group, on the substance of Security Council reform are well known. The Security Council has on many occasions failed to provide timely and adequate responses to emerging and prevailing crises. Most often inaction results from the threat of, or, as we witnessed this week, the use of veto. This is the greatest roadblock facing the Security Council. The veto disables the Security Council’s function, and, whatever the motivation, the outcome is a sustained or aggravated crisis and a United Nations whose credibility is undermined each and every time such an event occurs. We would also like to underline here the importance of greater Security Council interaction with non-Council members and various United Nations agencies and bodies. Also important is the cooperation of the United Nations with other organizations. We also subscribe to the idea that we should take a comprehensive, holistic and integrated approach to the increasingly complex contemporary challenges. Let me say as a final point that we need to pay greater attention to tackling the root causes of or factors driving conflicts. The use and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; terrorism; territorial, ethnic, religious or cultural disputes; or driving factors such as climate change, water, famine, pandemic disease, transnational organized crime, and human and drug trafficking, among other things, pose a challenge to the international community as a whole. As noted in the concept paper prepared by the Japanese presidency (S/2017/1016, annex), the Council has aimed to discuss the relationship between many of these factors and security in many open debates and briefings. We support this approach, because no crisis can be addressed adequately without paying due attention to these factors in the context of a comprehensive and collective approach. Turkey, as has been the case so far, stands ready to join its efforts with those of other nations in increasing our joint capacity to address these complex contemporary challenges.

I now give the floor to the representative of Lithuania.

I have the honour to address the Security Council on behalf of Latvia, Estonia and my own country, Lithuania. We align ourselves with the statement to be delivered on behalf of the European Union and its member States. We thank Japan for organizing this open debate, which provides an important opportunity to better understand the complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. I would also like to thank Secretary-General António Guterres for his statement. The global security environment has indeed changed dramatically in recent years. Some would even argue that the world is entering one of the most dangerous chapters in decades. From the spread of terrorism and violent extremism to transnational organized crime, from climate change to energy and cybersecurity, our collective inability to prevent and resolve conflicts is giving rise to new threats and emergencies. Shocking abuses of human rights, including violations of women’s rights and the use of rape as a tool of war, exacerbate existing instabilities and fuel new conflicts. The sharp rise in military conflicts ranging from those in Syria, Yemen, Libya and the Sahel to Russian aggression in Ukraine is outstripping our ability to cope with the consequences. Some of these conflicts share the features of hybrid and proxy wars, and this is what makes them intrinsically contemporary. The complex and constantly changing nature of non-conventional threats to international peace and security demands innovative responses and action from the international community. In this regard, we call on all States to support the United Nations peace and security reform, which aims to create a modernized United Nations that is capable of addressing the complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security and acting more effectively in the area of prevention. While today’s subject is vast and the issues are many, let me focus on two priority issues for the Baltic States: hybrid threats and cybersecurity. From the weaponization of information and social media to economic pressures and energy blackmail, to crippling cyberattacks and conventional threats, hybrid warfare is on the rise. Concerns regarding Russia’s interference in national election processes are not limited to European countries alone. The multifaceted nature of hybrid threats also encompasses the politically motivated exploitation of critical infrastructure or even the development of unsafe nuclear power plants on the border with another country. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, being at the forefront of hybrid threats, have undertaken a series of actions both individually and collectively. Enhancing societal resilience to hybrid threats is a priority for our nations. The Baltic States strongly believe that increased societal awareness, resilience-building and media and information literacy can contribute to increased preparedness to tackle hybrid threats. To this end, we have initiated programmes aimed at helping society to recognize propaganda and information warfare. We are also strengthening our strategic communications capabilities and working closely with the relevant strategic communication units of the European Union and NATO. With regard to cyberthreats to international peace and security, cyberspace constitutes a complex environment ranging from Internet and mobile communications to the security of critical infrastructure. Today we accept that cyber has become an integral part of a modern conflict landscape. Increased cybercrime and politically motivated attacks on electronic services mean that cybersecurity is more important than ever before. In 2007, when Estonia faced a series of cyberattacks — one of the earliest Internet-era examples of cyberconflict — that was not yet common knowledge. Those attacks brought about an increased awareness of the need to improve cybersecurity measures throughout the world. Latvia and Lithuania have also experienced politically motivated cyberattacks. We know from experience that building partnerships is essential for enhancing cyberresilience. Challenges in cyberspace can be addressed only through an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach. Closer cooperation of the public and private sectors as well as civil society is vital. All interested parties must make a joint effort to ensure the security and resilience of the information and communications infrastructure, focusing on prevention and preparedness in order to develop effective and coordinated mechanisms for reacting to increasingly more complex cyberattacks and cybercrimes. We believe that regional and subregional cooperation is key to strengthening cybersecurity in critical infrastructure. Our three countries have taken serious steps to strengthen cybersecurity. Furthermore, Lithuania has submitted an initiative to develop mutual assistance in cybersecurity and cyber rapid-response teams within the European Union’s Permanent Structured Cooperation on Security and Defence. The complexity of hybrid and cyber threats clearly calls for more complex and innovative responses from the international community. The very nature of hybrid threats makes clear that conventional security is not enough: human, societal, environmental and energy security are equally important in order to maintain peace and security in the contemporary world. Hybrid and cyberthreats are not going anywhere. They are here to stay as part of modern warfare. We therefore encourage countries to share best practices and lessons learned in tackling such threats, both regionally and internationally. In conclusion, the Baltic States remain committed to broadening their understanding of complex drivers and threats to global security, and to working to find relevant and effective responses to challenges to international peace and security.

I now give the floor to the representative of Norway.

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Nordic countries — Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and my own country, Norway. The Nordic countries would like to thank Japan for organizing this debate. Today’s security challenges must be addressed comprehensively and across the dividing lines between humanitarian, development, peacebuilding and security efforts. Famine, pandemics, violent extremism and organized crime destabilize countries and fuel conflicts. Increasingly, environmental degradation resulting from climate change is also contributing to conflicts. If we are to deal with that, we must cooperate on working to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, fulfilling the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, implementing other major environmental agreements and preventing conflicts over shared water resources. We welcome the strengthened partnership between the United Nations and the World Bank. Their joint study, Pathways for Peace: Inclusive Approaches to Preventing Conflict, makes a strong case for investing in development as a way of preventing conflict, and provides much-needed guidance on how development interacts with other efforts to that end. We are major partners in long-term development, and strong supporters of the Green Climate Fund and initiatives by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and others with a particular focus on African and small island States. We consistently promote the women and peace and security agenda and commend the Council’s important role in establishing the normative framework for that agenda and its implementation. Women’s participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations makes such operations more efficient and improves humanitarian access and the ability to respond to people’s needs. Inclusive political settlements are key to peace and development and essential for legitimacy and ownership, and inclusivity starts with women. Our efforts must be rooted in the communities we are striving to help stabilize and rebuild, such as, for example, by making better use of the positive contributions that young people can make, as the Council called for in its resolution 2250 (2015), on youth and peace and security. In the Colombia peace process, victims were heard, civil society was involved and women were influential. It is now up to us all to support the implementation of Colombia’s peace agreement. The Nordic countries will work with all Member States to follow up the landmark resolutions on sustaining peace. We are among the major contributors to the Peacebuilding Fund. For every dollar invested in prevention, 17 are saved in post-conflict assistance. Nevertheless, we need to do even more to provide predictable and sustained financing. We must place prevention at the core of the agenda of the United Nations. The reforms initiated by the Secretary-General are important, and we fully support his reform agenda. Reform of the Security Council is also needed to better reflect today’s geopolitical realities, and should include both permanent and non-permanent seats for Africa. The Nordic countries continue to emphasize the importance of ensuring that small States have the opportunity to serve regularly on the Council as elected members. We are convinced that the peace and security challenges of today’s world require a concerted response. We need multilateral structures, in particular the United Nations, which we must strengthen and make more efficient.

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa.

We would like congratulate Japan on its assumption of the presidency of the Council for the month of December and to thank it for hosting this open debate, which reminds us of the central mandate that we are all tasked with pursuing. We cannot overemphasize the centrality of this subject in the work of the Council and indeed the entire United Nations. Today’s debate is therefore both timely and fundamental. The Security Council, born from the ruins of the Second World War, was created to maintain international peace and security. That also entails the active pursuit of peace and security as a prerequisite for sustainable development and global prosperity. The world has changed enormously since the 1940s, and the nature of the threats to global peace and security has changed accordingly. Today the conflict landscape consists largely of intra-State conflicts and only a handful of traditional inter-State wars, which are either frozen or have decreased in intensity. Indeed, conflicts today largely reflect internal strife in our Member States and the transnational threats to them. The nature of the conflicts that our forebears envisaged when this Organization was created has therefore changed. That fundamental change in the nature of international conflict translates into greater complexity in the challenges that the Council faces in pursuing and maintaining peace. Unfortunately, while the world has changed, the Council has largely remained the same. Contemporary challenges have highlighted divisions within the Council, particularly among its permanent members. At times this has even paralysed the work of the Council, and that has cost human lives in real terms. For example, while the situation in Israel and Palestine has been on the Council’s agenda almost since its creation, the Council’s meaningful action on the matter has been limited. That was evident in this Chamber two days ago, when the Council was prevented from taking action by a veto-wielding member State (see S/PV.8139). The situation in Syria has also shown that when the Council is divided, it is unable to meaningfully contribute to peace, its core mandate. There may be times when that paralysis warrants the involvement of the entire General Assembly under the “uniting for peace” formula set out in General Assembly resolution 377 (V). The Council is sorely in need of reform. Through its excellent work as Chair of the Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions, Japan has helped to make incremental improvements in the Council’s working methods, and we commend the recent work done to update the S/2010/507 document (S/2017/507). The Council needs such developments in its working methods if it is to improve the manner and effectiveness of its efforts. Ultimately, improved working methods cannot obviate the need for comprehensive reform of the Council if it is to better represent the configuration of today’s world. We believe that reform that results in a more representative Council will enable it to be more effective in dealing with the complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. With regard to emerging and asymmetrical threats such as terrorism, a broader multilateral approach, one that does not overemphasize military solutions but addresses the broader root causes of conflicts and their prolongation, is essential. We need a truly global and coordinated response to enable us to deal with such threats, which include the scourges of transnational crime and trafficking in persons. We also face the problem posed by countries that continue to rely on nuclear deterrence for their security, entailing postures that themselves threaten regional and global security. The fact that the Council’s permanent members actively promote compliance with nuclear-non-proliferation norms — while continuing to keep their fingers on the triggers of these instruments and failing to implement their nuclear-disarmament obligations and related commitments — creates a credibility problem for the multilateral nuclear-non-proliferation regime and the Council’s ability to deal with such matters. We are deeply concerned about the possible use of nuclear weapons, whether by design, accident or miscalculation, particularly at a time of heightened international and regional tensions. South Africa supports the non-proliferation agenda, particularly as a State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, as well as the Pelindaba Treaty, which designated Africa a nuclear- weapon-free zone while promoting the inalienable right of States to the peaceful use of nuclear energy and technology. We were among the core sponsors of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and welcomed its adoption in July with the aim of establishing the most stringent possible international norms for nuclear weapons through prohibition leading to their total elimination. We call on States Members of the United Nations that have not signed the Treaty to do so. In conclusion, fulfilling the central purpose of the United Nations — the maintenance of international peace and security — depends on the Organization’s ability to effectively respond to global threats. The world has changed, but we are still stuck with anachronistic structures that, unsurprisingly, have been found wanting and ineffective in dealing with complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. We need greater representation and a stronger voice for those closest to the world’s crises and most able to help to respond to them effectively. We need a Council adapted to providing truly multilateral solutions to the threats facing today’s world, marked by consistent and non-discriminatory decision-making and the pursuit of collective rather than narrow national security interests. It is against that backdrop that South Africa will be introducing a draft resolution in the General Assembly with a proposal for marking the centenary of the birth of our late President Nelson Mandela with a peace summit. The summit would be aimed at reinvigorating the global commitment to international peace and security, and we call on all Member States to support and sponsor the draft resolution to keep the legacy of Mandela alive as we strive to achieve global peace.

I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

At the outset, I should like to thank you, Sir, for putting the very important subject of today’s debate on the agenda. From my perspective, it represents the culmination of your presidency, so I reiterate my thanks. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his very pertinent statement this morning. He began with the climate issue, focusing attention on the effects of climate change on security. I would also like to begin my statement on this subject by quoting Chancellor Merkel, who, at the twenty-third session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Bonn a month ago, said, “On the one hand, we have melting glaciers, rising sea levels and flooding; on the other, we have storms, unbearable heat and severe droughts. No one — no one — should or can ignore this. And if we also think about the growing global population, we know that increasing conflicts over natural resources will be inevitable if we do nothing to protect the climate.” Last Friday, we had an Arria Formula meeting chaired by our Italian colleague. I found it very encouraging that all delegations participating in this discussion recognized that there was a direct link between climate change and security. However, we have all been following the discussions today, and climate change is only one of the many threats to peace and security that speakers have mentioned. Climate change is only one driver of conflict. Many other speakers mentioned human rights. The representative of France mentioned in particular the current situations in Syria and of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Further issues include the shrinking space for civil society, as highlighted by the Secretary- General; underdevelopment, as highlighted by China; gender inequality and violence against women, to which I will return; terrorism; transnational organized crime and trafficking in human beings and drugs; pandemics; migration; cyberattacks, as our Lithuanian colleague just mentioned; and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as mentioned by others — and yet that list does not capture them all. Considering that all of these things have an effect on peace and security, a body such as the Security Council that is tasked with dealing with peace and security must address these issues. We must not take an isolated, narrow approach in the Security Council but a holistic one, looking at all the root causes of conflict. Of course, the Security Council is not the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are not here to discuss how to stop climate change or reduce carbon emissions but to talk about the effects of climate change on peace and security. My Russian colleague, with whom I already had a discussion during the Arria Formula meeting, said we must always look at the unique circumstances of each individual country, and of course we could then look at climate change in Mali. But climate change has an effect on the whole region, on the Sahel and the Lake Chad region, and so we must take a broader, regional view. We have a very able Russian Under-Secretary-General for Counter- Terrorism. There are many conflicts that are affected by terrorism and where we must take a broader view. I very much support the view expressed by the representative of the United States and other colleagues that the Secretary-General should regularly provide the Security Council with early-warning assessments to ensure that crises do not erupt and that the Security Council begins dealing with these issues sooner. I think that the Secretariat should conduct a more general assessment with a view to informing the Security Council at an early stage that something may be going wrong in a country or region. Germany therefore also fully supports the Secretary-General’s proposals for reform, particularly in the area of peace and security, with the aim of ensuring that the Secretariat looks at a conflict’s entire life cycle, from early prevention through to the prevention of a relapse into conflict. We fully support this idea, as well as encouraging closer links between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council. Last week, for example, the Friends of the Peacebuilding Commission, under the able chairship of our Thai colleague, had a long discussion on the Sahel and what can be done there. I think there should be a direct link to the Security Council in such instances, since the Security Council is also discussing the Sahel. Why not make use of the Peacebuilding Commission’s efforts in a systematic approach to conflicts? I have a few more points to make. I think that Ethiopia mentioned the importance of partnerships, particularly with the African Union, and I can only endorse that view, which I think is very important indeed. In conclusion, I would like to focus on one particular driver of conflict, which is the use of sexual violence as a tactic of war. Together with Iraq, Germany hosted a meeting yesterday in the Economic and Social Council Chamber to which we invited Special Representative of the Secretary-General Patten, who discussed the fact that sexual violence against women is used as a tactic of war, as, for example, in the crimes committed against the Yazidis by Da’esh, which are truly horrifying. We must do everything we can to prevent such things from happening. Unfortunately, Iraq is not the only place where this goes on. There are others. We must also consider it from the perspectives of prevention, of social reconciliation and, importantly, of impunity. That in particular must be prevented, because if it is not it creates another root cause for the next conflict. I thank you once again, Mr. President, for putting this topic on the agenda. I hope there will be follow-up on today’s discussion over the coming year. Some have indicated that they will take up the issue, and Germany will support them.

I now give the floor to the representative of Belgium.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s debate. I would like to congratulate you on your country’s presidency of the Security Council. Much has been said about the maintenance of peace and the complexity of the multidimensional challenges to international peace and security. It is our view that those challenges must now be addressed with a comprehensive and integrated approach. In that regard, I wish to focus my statement on the issue of environmental security. The environment is one of the fundamental dimensions of sustainable development and should be part and parcel of our comprehensive approach to security. Desertification, the melting of the ice-caps, sea-level rise, the decline in forest cover and arable land and the increasing scarcity of water resources have disturbing and immediate effects on societies in the areas affected. Such environmental changes force people to migrate, fuel tension and spark violent conflicts, with repercussions that transcend the borders of the countries and regions concerned. It is therefore vital that upsets in the climate and in ecosystems be analysed and assessed in a security context that allows the Security Council to play its role in promoting sustainable solutions to contain the potential sources of conflict. To facilitate that endeavour, Belgium favours the appointment a special representative for environmental security, whose work will enable the Security Council to act in a timely manner. In addition, the current Special Representatives of the Secretary-General could report on the threats to environmental security linked to their respective mandates so that they can be discussed by the Council and other competent agencies of the United Nations. The appointment of the special representative could be an integral part of the broader reform of the peace and security pillar. We welcome the adoption today of resolution General Assembly 72/199, which supports the vision of the Secretary-General, and we eagerly await concrete proposals. Belgium will continue to take an active part in the discussions and will attempt to firmly anchor the global approach in the peace and security pillar of the United Nations and in our national policies. Belgium already attaches priority to the financing of the general budget of the agencies of the United Nations, by giving them the means to implement the gloval approach. In the broader context, Belgium is working on the humanitarian-development nexus, some aspects of which can have an impact on environmental security. Several flexible humanitarian funds financed by Belgium have enabled contributions when natural disasters occur. That was the case following the recent hurricanes that affected the Caribbean region. In addition, Belgium has also adopted a new, flexible approach in transition contexts that seeks to create bridges between humanitarian aid and development activities, with a view to addressing the causes of vulnerability and to strengthen the resilience of populations. In 2018, support will be provided in thaat framework to Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Lake Chad region. Given the complex challenges to international peace and security, Belgium promotes a comprehensive approach, both nationally and internationally. We know that our credibility will depend on our ability to turn our dreams into action.

I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

We thank Japan for its valuable efforts as President of the Security Council for the month of December, as well as for convening today’s very important open debate on crucial issues. We also thank the Secretary-General for his important comments, underscoring intensive international efforts and cooperation to foster peace and security. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for international peace and security. The General Assembly and the Secretary-General play major important and complementary roles, along with other offices and bodies of the United Nations. Those roles often overlap and should therefore reinforce one another in order to be effective. Indonesia commends the Security Council when it has decisively and justly enabled peace. But like many previous speakers in today’s debate, we are also deeply concerned that conflicts have increased threefold in recent years, with an unprecedented number of people displaced forcibly. The rise of intolerance, xenophobia, hate and islamophobia is aggravating the international environment, which impedes efforts. We owe it to our people to do everything in our capacity to enable harmony, peace, development and prosperity, near and far. Driven by that national resolve, Indonesia strongly supports the call by the Secretary-General for the surge in political diplomacy in conflict prevention, which should be translated into concrete action. In addressing various complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security, we would like to highlight the following points. First, the diversity of challenges — including pandemics, famine, organized crime, drug trafficking — and an inability to tackle the root causes of disputes can spark and sustain conflicts. We are therefore encouraged by the fact that the United Nations is increasingly examining conflict in a comprehensive manner and has committed to deepening the connection between sustaining peace and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, much more needs to be accomplished in practical terms. Secondly, it is vital that the Secretary-General’s proposal to restructure the peace and security pillar succeeds in making the engagement of the United Nations in the entire peace continuum more effective and nimble. Indonesia is actively contributing in intergovernmental discourse, with the view that reform is not an end in itself and should lead to concrete improvement for conflict-affected countries and the way we do business. Thirdly, national ownership is essential. As countries affected by conflict establish their future objectives and governance, meaningful participation by everyone in the citizenry, including woman, youth and minorities, is critical. Having the concerns and aspiration of all legitimate national stakeholders reflected in the national programmes builds their stake in an enduring vision of peace and development. Fourthly, we emphasize that in tackling the root causes of conflicts, the Security Council must fully uphold the principles of international law, human rights law and humanitarian law. It must be judicious, not dictated by any particular national perspective. That commitment is once again tested on the question of Palestine. Marred by vetoes, the Council’s inaction has not only had devastating consequences for populations on the ground; it has made finding a solution to the situation more complex. Fifthly, while the Security Council is the main organ of the United Nations whose job is to maintain international peace and security, it cannot single-handedly solve those challenges. It needs better cooperation and understanding, including with troop- and police-contributing countries and host countries in peacekeeping operations and with the Peacebuilding Commission in dealing with new peace challenges and establishing integrated strategies for conflict prevention, peacebuilding and recovery, as well as with regional and subregional organizations in maintaining and strengthening Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. Although global challenges are plenty, Indonesia will steadfastly continue to play its role in the United Nations ideals with concrete contributions to peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, not only by providing peacekeepers, but also through ideas, capacity-building and by proposing and pushing for global collaboration. I also agree with many of the points made by several speakers. Time is of the essence for us in terms of working together to carry the flag of peace.

I now give the floor to the representative of India.

Sitting here listening to the speakers makes me realize the validity of a dictum that I heard many years ago. It is that each generation tends to confront the challenges of the next generation, using the tools of the preceding generation, without even knowing it. Today’s debate appears to be one such instance. The topic refers to the complexity of contemporary challenges to international peace and security. It is useful to remind ourselves of the need to focus on the terms “contemporaneity” and “complexity”. Seven decades ago — to paraphrase the unforgettable depiction of the poet W. H. Auden — the world was emerging from the low, dishonest decades of depression, tyranny, war and genocide. Those years of catastrophe were on account of the then-leading Powers fighting over territories and resources globally. The threat to international peace and security at that time came from those competing Powers jostling for geostrategic supremacy. The primary concern in terms of peace and security at that time was to prevent a recurrence of a major war by maintaining geostrategic balance among the major Powers. The challenges that are increasingly being mentioned in the discourse of this Chamber these days as areas of concern for international peace and security are different. The emphasis, as we have heard, is on challenges such as climate change, pandemics, famines, natural disasters, humanitarian crises and cybersecurity. That is surely a different agenda from the one of seventy years ago. Moreover, the power balance that existed seventy years ago has changed quite significantly. Once we recognize the complexity of our times and how they have changed, it is not difficult to understand why the structures designed for vastly different times tend to be ineffective in dealing with the challenges that are being outlined here. In short, our responses require a basic reordering of our perspectives. Such challenges are not new to humankind; humans have faced them since time immemorial. However, it is acknowledged that their impact is sometimes much wider in modern times in an interdependent world. Technological changes are creating economic, ecological, political and social globalization that requires cooperative responses. Disruptions anywhere tend to impact aspects of contemporary life elsewhere. The complexity of issues on the global agenda today is perhaps unique to our times. That has added to the challenges in the delivery of global public goods. When global public goods are underproduced and fail to be delivered, everybody suffers. At the same time, it is also obvious that some States are better able and equipped to handle complex threats. Those who are more vulnerable to such occurrences lack the basic resilience required. Often it becomes an issue of the level of economic development and the availability of financial and other resources. The disparity in the economic development of countries cannot be seen in isolation from an increasingly globalized scenario that links markets for commodities, labour and finished products, manufacturing supply chains, services and financial markets. That points us to the distortions in the way global governance for trade, investment and human mobility functions today. Those are all issues that cannot be addressed merely by securitization of transnational challenges. Most of the interlinked issues that are now understood to be important point to the fundamental need to ensure that sustainable development is available to all and to reduce gross disparities. Such issues are rightly discussed outside the Council by the wider membership of the United Nations at various levels, not merely in this Chamber and not only under its rubric of peace and security. In this Chamber, we would do well to address the complexities of the peace and security scenario, such as those arising from the globalization of terror networks. Those networks operate across borders with their hateful ideologies, some of which are based on deep-rooted perceived grievances. They raise finances, procure arms and recruit operatives. That is a common challenge that requires greater focus by the Council, one in which close nternational cooperation needs to be, can be and should be expanded for our common interest. It appears that that common threat to States and societies is not clearly understood here. Even on counter-terrorism, cooperation continues to elude this Council. It is noticed that on an issue as serious as the designation of terrorist individuals and entities, the Council-mandated sanctions committees fail to make concrete progress and in some cases fall victim to narrow political and strategic concerns. In other cases, when sanctions committees have designated terrorists, there are States that mainstream United Nations- designated terrorist individuals into their political processes in total disregard of international law, thus jeopardizing our common security. The reasons for the lack of success of international structures designed seven decades ago in dealing with the complex challenges of today are self-evident. A non-representative Council, designed many years ago to maintain the balance of power among competing rivals, is simply not equipped to handle the challenges that have changed beyond recognition in the intervening decades. An instrument that is no longer considered legitimate and has lost its credibility cannot be our hope for salvation. New realities cannot be addressed by old paradigms. To tackle contemporary challenges, we need to move beyond old moulds. Until then, “speech acts” like today’s debate will remain just speeches, and will have little impact on the billions of “we the people” who are striving to live peacefully in a safe and secure manner well beyond this Chamber.

I now give the floor to the representative of Peru.

Peru welcomes Japan’s initiative to convene this meeting, which gives us the opportunity to consider different national perspectives on the current challenges facing the international community, within a context of a United Nations reform that could make a significant difference for the Organization’s Member States. We also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing on this important topic. It is accepted that, in addition to the traditional challenges to international peace and security, there are now increasingly complex global challenges that are affecting the security of our citizens, unravelling the social fabric, undermining and delegitimizing institutionalism and stoking conflict. An example is the impact of climate change, which is frequently observed in different parts of the world, in generating natural disasters and in the scarcity of essential resources, such as water. Those have the potential to generate conflicts and subsequent humanitarian crises due to, for example, migration, food insecurity and overpopulation in certain territories. We can also mention transnational organized crime with its many facets: the illicit trafficking of arms, drugs and cultural goods, illegal mining and logging, trafficking in persons, and cyberattacks, among other crimes, many of which are linked to terrorist groups. In that context, there is no greater remedy than strengthening our commitment to multilateralism and rethinking the best ways to deal with those new threats. Addressing the traditional causes of violence requires a broad consensus on the need to sustain peace through economic growth, respect for human rights, the rule of law, access to justice and policies of social inclusion and reconciliation. Thus we are aware of the continuing need to prevent conflicts from springing back in ever new forms. It is clear that our response to those threats should not be one of denial but of adopting a new focus — multidimensional, participatory, cooperative and integrated, one that that identifies such threats, explores their influence in any given conflict and attacks them on various fronts, with the Security Council being a fundamental one. In that context, we support the reforms that Secretary-General António Guterres has been promoting to render the Organization more coherent, effective, efficient and coordinated, as well as able to flexibly respond to the security and development needs of States. Implementing reforms that promote prevention as a central element, with the appropriate tools for taking timely action, is a primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations. That, however, must be complemented by cooperation  — aimed at strengthening greater capacities and firm institutional structures for States  — among the various agencies and programmes throughout the system to make the Organization’s response capacity more effective. In conclusion, I underline that Peru will accord high priority to focusing on those challenges in its upcoming capacity as a non-permanent member of Security Council during its two-year term from 2018 to 2019.

I now give the floor to the Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations.

I am honoured to speak on behalf of the European Union (EU) and its member States. The candidate countries the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania; the country of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidate Bosnia and Herzegovina; as well as Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova and Georgia; align themselves with this statement. First, I would like to commend Japan for holding this open debate at a particularly opportune moment, and also thank Secretary-General Guterres for his briefing. Addressing complexity is a challenge that no single actor, instrument or forum can take on alone. We are pleased to provide our contribution to that work as part of the wider international community. The focus of this debate addresses the very core of the Council’s mandate and indeed the international community’s capacity to prevent, manage and resolve crises. The complexity of today’s challenges requires adapting our tools, avoiding silos approaches, working more closely together and addressing issues early on. As the Secretary-General reminded us in his first statement to the Security Council in his new functions almost a year ago (see S/PV.7857), conflict prevention is not a priority, but the priority. Recognizing and addressing situations early on is crucial to ensuring our possibilities for success, preventing them from worsening, and avoiding the loss of lives. We stand ready to accompany the United Nations in the Secretary- General’s efforts to conduct the reform process. We also see the need and potential of engaging, motivating and coordinating efforts with other stakeholders — namely, the private sector — whether in the area of peacebuilding or sustainable development efforts. Indeed, the increasing complexity of challenges also calls on us to change so as to be better equipped for breaking the conflict cycle. It is not only a moral obligation, but a pragmatic imperative, with huge economic advantages. Last year, the European Union adopted a global strategy reiterating our commitment to a global order based on international law, including the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. That commitment translates into an aspiration to address the root causes of conflicts so as to provide the basis for sustainable change. In particular, we are looking forward to working with members of the Security Council to help establish a practice of holding early discussions in the Council on situations at risk of becoming violent conflict cases, and the pursuit of early collective action to prevent violence. The global strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy indeed identifies “the integrated approach to external conflicts and crisis” as one of its priorities, which strongly has resonated with the overall United Nations agenda, which also strives to enhance coherence both within its system and the international order. It requires the EU to further strengthen the way in which it brings together institutions, expertise, and instruments, and works with member States in prevention, peacebuilding and crisis response, as well as stabilization, in order to contribute to bring about sustainable peace. The integrated approach addresses all policy dimensions of a conflict or a crisis by bringing together a multidimensional, multiphased, multilateral and multilevel approach. While addressing conflicts early on is necessary, staying the course is an even more substantial challenge. Relapse into conflict is more the rule than the exception, especially if proper follow- up and implementation of peace agreements are not done. The EU translates that “multi-approach” through engagement at various levels. A multidimensional approach means that the EU is ready to contribute to the maintenance of peace through its various policies, tools and instruments. A multiphased approach means that we will remain a committed partner throughout the conflict cycle  — investing in prevention, resolution, and stabilization  — while avoiding premature disengagement when a crisis erupts elsewhere. A multilevel approach entails the need for acting at local, national, regional and global levels. The multilateral approach is translated through a commitment to engage with all players present in a conflict, who are necessary for its resolution. That includes our key partners, such as regional and international organizations, as well as civil society actors. Conflicts are best resolved by those who have to live with their outcomes, but we have a possibility, and indeed a duty, to support them. That increased emphasis on conflict prevention, human security and fostering the resilience of States and societies, including by building capacities to manage conflicts peacefully, has been translated through concrete change in the European External Action Service. In January, we created a dedicated unit to implement that new approach to addressing the entirety of the conflict cycle: early warning, conflict prevention, security sector transformation, stabilization and conflict response, as well as mediation. That unit, known by its acronym PRISM, is already enjoying close cooperation with the United Nations and is ready to enhance it further. Only last week, the European External Action Service presented a new concept on stabilization, aimed at addressing complex situations in peace and security. Addressing complex political and security situations requires more than ever an integrated approach, with a range of interlinked and concurrent actions, including partnerships with the United Nations and other key actors. Without a holistic and concurrent effort, stabilization will only be partial. It is also more than ever needed to ensure that conflict sensitivity is embedded into everything we do. Indeed, sound, joint conflict and resilience analysis is required. Addressing complex contexts begins with a thorough assessment of the situation. We are undertaking joint analysis and strategy thinking increasingly with our international partners from the outset, as well as with civil society — a crucial element in any effective approach to conflict prevention. As demonstrated by the Arria Formula meeting held by the Council last Friday, we should not shy away from recognizing and closely examining new and emerging challenges to peace and security such as, for example, climate change. On the contrary, the Security Council should regularly look at security risks triggered by climate change with the objective of using its unique role within the United Nations system to prevent climate change-induced unrest and conflict. Lastly, in a complex world, our working methods need to evolve. By addressing situations earlier and in a more coherent, integrated manner, and mobilizing the entire toolbox at our disposal, we can help transform our approach to conflicts and crises, and in that vein further empower the Security Council in fulfilling its core mandate. The EU stands ready to assist the United Nations in that process.

I now give the floor to the representative of Brazil.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important debate. I also wish to thank the Secretary-General for his informative briefing. Brazil has traditionally underscored the interdependence between security and development. That relationship was the subject of an open debate convened by the Brazilian presidency of the Security Council in 2011 (see S/PV.6479), as acknowledged by the concept note (S/2017/1016, annex) circulated by the Permanent Mission of Japan for this meeting. The interlinkage between security and development is complex and nuanced. Poverty and inequality may exacerbate tensions in some scenarios but do not necessarily endanger international peace and security. Geopolitical rivalries, militaristic approaches and the unilateral use of force are far more serious sources of regional and global instability. Let us never forget that throughout history, many of the most lethal conflicts, serious humanitarian crises and appalling human rights violations resulted from those causes. While discussing the increasingly complex dynamics that affect contemporary conflicts, we should be careful to avoid misinterpretations and generalizations that might be detrimental to the coherence, effectiveness and legitimacy of the United Nations. In particular while debating the means to implement new concepts like sustaining peace, we must be cautious in avoiding attempts to securitize the development agenda. Climate change, international migration, population growth, food insecurity and other sustainable development issues do not constitute threats to international peace and security nor are they root causes of conflicts per se. Latin America and the Caribbean, a region that historically faces such challenges but is not in conflict, is a clear example of that. This is why such phenomena should remain within the purview of the appropriate multilateral bodies with the adequate legal mandates and technical expertise. The most efficient way to meet these development challenges is to allocate the necessary resources to tackle them, including through technology transfer, technical cooperation and humanitarian assistance, as well as through the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Among the threat multipliers mentioned in the concept note, we should include the misjudgments that gave rise to decisions authorizing the use of force since they unilaterally create or intensify humanitarian emergencies as the cases of Libya, Syria and Yemen attest. In this regard, Brazil highlights the need to enhance the mechanisms of accountability pertaining to the use of force under the authorization of the Council, and even more so in the absence of such permission. Priority should always be given to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. We support the Secretary- General’s call for a surge in diplomacy today and a leap in conflict prevention for tomorrow. In practice, successful peacekeeping operations demonstrate the potential for a constructive relationship between security and development. The recent experience of the United Nations in Haiti is a positive example, as rightly pointed out in the concept note. Brazil was proud to play a significant role in those successful peacekeeping efforts. Brazil believes the Security Council would benefit from strengthening its engagement with other United Nations entities and agencies that have a role to play in formulating strategies for preventing and resolving conflicts. In this respect, the Peacebuilding Commission stands out for its bridging role, as recognized by the twin sustaining peace resolutions (Security Council resolution 2282 (2016) and General Assembly resolution 70/262). Finally, a reformed Security Council, with a more democratic composition, a wider membership among developing countries and more transparent working methods, would increase its effectiveness in facing the complex challenges to international peace and security. By more accurately reflecting the realities of the twenty-first century and including more diverse perspectives on present problems, it would preserve the legitimacy and credibility of the United Nations and the multilateral system as a whole, allowing us to address the true root causes of contemporary conflicts.

I now give the floor to the representative of Saudi Arabia.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, on assuming the presidency of the Security Council for this month. We appreciate your wise leadership of its proceedings. I would like to offer your friendly country our gratitude for the important role that you have played during your non-permanent membership in the Security Council, which is almost at its end. We would also like to thank the other Member States that will depart from the Council at the end of this year, namely, Egypt, Senegal, Italy, Ukraine and Uruguay. We wish their peoples continued security, prosperity and good will. We value today’s initiative to hold an open debate on dealing with contemporary challenges to international peace and security. It comes at a time where peace and security are absent and where we notice an increase in violent sectarian extremism, with the causes of conflict and their multipliers spreading throughout the world. The United Nations and the Security Council now have a role to play in resolving conflict in a comprehensive and systematic manner; this role has in fact become an urgent necessity, which was made very clear in the briefing this morning by the Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres. Mr. President, we agree with you that contemporary challenges appear to be complex and interlinked. However, most of the main root causes of conflict arise from a small number of reasons, including occupation, attempts to impose sectarian domination, interference in the internal affairs of other States, oppression, marginalization and lack of respect for international agreements, laws and resolutions. These are also the main causes of the emergence and spread of terrorism. It is important, therefore, to note what your proposal for dealing with existing conflicts, namely, that our actions should arise from a clear understanding of and a strong intention to address the root causes. Indeed, conflicts need to be addressed through a comprehensive and integrated approach. Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian land, its continued aggression against Al-Haram Al-Sharif and the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, and the violence that is being perpetrated by terrorist settlers are all clear violations of international law and agreements. Moreover, they are the main causes of many of the armed conflicts in the region. The frustration and deprivation triggered by the occupation are among the main motivators that terrorists use to propagate their message. The international community must therefore must work tirelessly and immediately to fulfil its obligations to the Palestinian people in order to help them enjoy their inalienable rights. It must put an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the rest of the Arab territories. It must help to establish an independent Palestinian State with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital, in accordance with United Nations resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative proposed by my country more than 15 years ago. Approximately 24 hours ago, on 19 December, the capital of Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, was the victim of an attempted attack by a ballistic missile that was wantonly fired from inside Yemeni territory by the rebel Houthi militias, with Iran’s backing. The missile was aimed at residential areas but was intercepted by the Coalition’s air defence forces. Its wreckage was spread throughout several residential neighbourhoods, with most of it falling near a health-care facility without causing any damage or loss of life. This abominable act of aggression comes after an attempt on 4 November by rebel Houthi militias to target King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh with an Iranian-made ballistic missile. The actions of the rebel Houthi militias in threatening the peace and safety of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with the backing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the terrorist group Hizbullah, are a blatant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the resolutions of the Security Council, and may be tantamount to war crimes. Moreover, they constitute a dangerous escalation that threatens regional and international peace and security. The rebel Houthi militias fired 81 ballistic missiles. It is beyond imagination that a rebel militia has developed such ballistic capabilities and fired missiles indiscriminately at civilians without deterrence or accountability. But the rebel Houthi militias are doing just that. It is unimaginable that a Member State could dismiss the resolutions of the Security Council and violate a sanctions regime, smuggling weapons and ballistic technology in breach of the international non-proliferation system, undeterred and unaccountable. That is the Iranian regime. It is a well- known and documented fact that the Iranian regime has transported and smuggled weapons and ballistic missiles to the rebel outlaw Houthi militias. The Council has been briefed on the Secretary-General’s reports on the implementation of resolution 2231 (2015), which include substantial, irrefutable evidence of the danger of the Iranian regime’s violations of international law, which threaten regional and international peace and security. The criminal and terrorist behaviour of the rebel Houthi militias in the aftermath of the assassination of the former President of Yemen, Mr. Ali Abdullah Saleh, comes amid abominable sectarian calls to violence. It has also been accompanied by raids of homes and the arrests or detention of thousands of civilians, including women and children. Yemen has also witnessed widespread political assassinations that have drenched the city of Sana’a and other Yemeni cities in blood. Such behaviour is damning evidence of the sabotaging role that Iran is playing in Yemen and of its support for the terrorism of the rebel Houthi militias. The escalation of violence and terrorism in such an unprecedented and insane manner in recent days is a result of an uprising in Sana’a against Iranian oppression and domination in the wake of the brave decision made by the leaders of the General People’s Congress to confront the rebel Houthi militias and Iran’s destructive plans in Yemen and to return to the political process. As the rivers of blood flow in Yemen, we call on the Security Council to respond to the Yemeni people’s cry for help and save them from Houthi and Iranian terrorism. The Security Council should clearly condemn such terrorist crimes and strive to put an immediate end them and to hold their perpetrators accountable. We call on the Security Council to take deterrent measures against Iran for the support that it continues to lend to the terrorist actions of the rebel Houthi militias and their attempts to undermine international and regional peace and security. We call for the immediate and full implementation of all relevant Security Council resolutions. The Security Council must support all efforts to prevent Iran from smuggling weapons to the Houthis and all forms of its proscribed support. It is no secret that sectarian policies and interference are being carried out in a manner that creates a distorted image of the situation and enforces oppressive political domination, all of which create fertile ground for terrorism, including the cross-border terrorism that we are witnessing today, as embodied by Da’esh, Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. We believe that attempts to impose domination, interfere in the internal affairs of States and create and sow sectarian conflicts, as Iran is attempting to do in many of the countries of the region, will create fertile ground for further conflict. It is important to note that Iran’s aggressive behaviour is one of the most important causes of instability in our region and the threat it poses to international peace and security. Iran’s expansionist and radical policies, which are based on extremism, have led to conflict and the continued suffering of peoples, both in and outside of Iran, and the spread of terrorism in the region and throughout the world. Iran shamelessly supports the terrorist actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has been tasked with exporting radical Iranian ideology and supporting terrorism across the world, including by its agents, the terrorists of Hizbullah. Those actions are not limited to perpetrating war crimes against the Yemeni people, but include the following few examples. Iran continues to violate international humanitarian law, including by perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria, where it provides financial support, fighters and training. Iran also supports and recruits thousands of sectarian militias and foreign mercenaries from all over the world. Iran continues to support, fund and arm the terrorist organization Hizbullah in Lebanon, Syria and throughout the world. Iran continues to support sectarian militias in Iraq that have obstructed the State’s efforts to create unity and establish peace. Iran continues to meddle in the internal affairs of many countries of the region, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Kingdom of Bahrain. We call on Iran to immediately abandon its sectarian agenda and expansionist policies, end its aggressive behaviour and abide by the Charter of the United Nations and all relevant United Nations resolutions. We call on Iran to concentrate its efforts and resources on its own development and the welfare of its people, which is the only way that the countries of the Arabian Gulf can arrive at an understanding based on peaceful coexistence, dialogue and mutual respect. Resolving conflict requires a deep understanding of the root causes of its conflict. Some parties are duplicitously masking their political desires behind a so-called sacred right to breach international laws and conventions. That is the case with the Israeli occupation authorities and the mouthpieces of the Iranian regime and its assistants, Da’esh and Al-Qaida, as well as those who follow in their footsteps. All of that underlines the importance of confronting threats to international peace and security comprehensively and systematically, based on the rule of law, the implementation of international resolutions and accountability for all of those who violate international law. We would therefore reiterate the need to end the Israeli occupation and the expansionist behaviour of the Iranian regime. We must hold those who have perpetrated war crimes and crimes against humanity accountable. We also stress the importance of good- neighbourliness and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, as well as the need to guarantee the full implementation of United Nations resolutions. If we do all all that, we will find it easier to resolve the current crises. In conclusion, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will firmly confront any threat to its security and safety, in accordance with the principles and goals of the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, we will work diligently to contribute to any initiative that would entrench and enhance peace and stability and achieve sustainable peace and development in the region and the world beyond.

I remind all speakers to limit their statements to four minutes so that the Security Council can carry out its work expeditiously. I now give the floor to the representative of Ecuador.

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s open debate on challenges to international peace and security. There is no doubt that the maintenance of peace and the prevention of conflicts are linked to a series of indubitably complex factors. However, this is not a new reality. The United Nations was created with the objective, among others, of saving future generations from the scourge of war. In order to fulfil that goal and the other objectives outlined in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, the international community has adopted a series of proposals that interlink the maintenance of international peace and security, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the self-determination of peoples, friendly coexistence among all nations and the solution of economic, social, cultural or humanitarian problems through international cooperation. Ever since its foundational document was written, the United Nations has recognized the close interlinkage of those issues. One of the most obvious of these is the relationship between disarmament and development. Article 26 of the Charter expresses the need to maintain international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources. The relationship between disarmament and development was most clearly expressed at the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development, convened by the General Assembly in 1987. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the commitment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as the vast means required for its implementation, highlight even further the relationship between disarmament and development. Recognizing the complexity of those factors, the Charter envisages a series of organs with different competences, albeit with a certain overlap between them. That is why the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, together with the Secretariat, must work in a coordinated manner to meet the objectives and purposes of the Charter, all while respecting the prerogatives of each organ and avoiding the duplication of functions. There is no doubt that these complex interrelationships mean that the maintenance of international peace and security is affected by various issues such as climate change, respect for human rights and, as we have seen very recently, the damage caused by natural disasters. We must nevertheless emphasize how important it is to ensure that the Security Council avoids making security issues out of topics that may be current at any given moment and thereby arrogate to itself functions that come under the purview of other United Nations entities. Article 99 of the Charter of the United Nations assigns to the Secretary-General the important duty of informing the Council about threats to international peace and security. We believe that together with the appropriate implementation of preventive diplomacy, as Secretary-General Guterres has advocated, he should make use of that function when appropriate. The Secretary-General’s proposed reform of the peace and security pillar is currently under discussion in the General Assembly, in accordance with its responsibilities. Once the Assembly has taken a final decision, we hope to see all United Nations bodies working in coordination so that peacekeeping operations, special political missions and peacebuilding efforts are effective and efficient. The participation of women and a focus on gender, whose benefits are indisputable, should occupy a special place in these areas, especially peacebuilding. In conclusion, we believe that we should emphasize some initiatives that can prove very helpful, such as the early use of mediation as an effective way to prevent conflicts, and we therefore commend the Secretary- General’s initiative establishing a High-level Advisory Board on Mediation, since we support all efforts towards diplomacy for peace, and especially as they accord with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

I now give the floor to the representative of Kyrgyzstan.

At the outset, I would like to thank the Japanese presidency for convening today’s open debate on addressing the complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security in connection with the Security Council’s agenda item on the maintenance of international peace and security. I would also like to thank the Secretary- General for his briefing today. Today’s meeting is unquestionably important and timely in the light of the Council’s primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. We should base our efforts to deal with the root causes of conflicts and the factors that exacerbate them on a holistic and comprehensive approach. The Security Council has directed special attention to that approach with its holding of a series of thematic debates that demonstrate the relationship between security and development and the need for an interdisciplinary approach to conflict resolution, policy, security, development, human rights and the rule of law. We agree that the Security Council should play a vital role in decision-making on peacekeeping and humanitarian actions, as well as in facilitating efforts to achieve political solutions. In that regard, Kyrgyzstan supports efforts to increase the Council’s effectiveness, a priority task that can be achieved only if members act with unanimity, respond quickly to emerging threats to international peace and security and implement decisions effectively. We must not ignore the importance of ensuring that other international institutions play an increasingly active role in solving problems that can lead to instability and conflict. The United Nations system, which itself is in need of reform, has an important role to play in this. In that regard, we support the initiative of the Secretary-General aimed at reforming the Organization’s entire peace and security architecture in order to strengthen our ability to prevent and resolve conflicts, as well as to improve development reform. We hope to see strengthened cooperation between the United Nations and Member States, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the United Nations system, including in the fight against terrorism. We are pleased that progress has been made in many areas. In conclusion, we would like to emphasize that the successful resolution of the challenges we face to peace and security, conflict resolution and development issues will depend first and foremost on improving the effectiveness of the activities of the United Nations and its entities.

I now give the floor to the representative of Qatar.

I would first like to commend you, Mr. President, for our brother nation of Japan’s admirable work in presiding over the Council this month, as well as to thank you for convening today’s open debate and for the related concept note (S/2017/1016, annex). We would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing. We welcome his vision for conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy. The challenges to collective security today are evolving as conflicts are becoming longer and increasingly complex and terrorism and extremism persist. That is why we must adopt a comprehensive approach to promoting international peace and security. Our shared challenges demand that we all take a positive approach, engaging in dialogue rather than confrontation and respecting international law. Conflict prevention through dialogue is a step towards establishing international peace and security. Without that dialogue, conflicts become more complicated and global instability increases. That is why Qatar believes that if we are to achieve international peace and security, we must strengthen our collective prevention of conflicts, resolving those conflicts and differences based on Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations. My country has always worked actively to help to resolve conflicts peacefully. We therefore welcome the Secretary-General’s decision to prioritize the prevention of conflicts and crises, which bring with them immense human costs and undermine our ability to achieve the overall objectives of the United Nations in the areas of peace, development and human rights, as the Secretary-General noted in his 17 December report on reforming the peace and security pillar of the Organization. We support the Sustainable Development Goals and preventive diplomacy, which are also priorities for the Secretary-General where peace is concerned. In that regard, we welcome the regional consultations on sustaining peace in the Middle East to be held on 18 and 19 January 2018 in preparation for the General Assembly’s high-level meeting on the subject in April. I am sure that the Council is aware that the major and complex challenges in the Middle East constitute a threat to international peace and security. That is why we must redouble our efforts and our cooperation with the countries of the region and the international community in order to resolve these very different crises and to eradicate terrorism, extremism and other challenges. Our region is unfortunately dealing with new crises that undermine stability and international efforts to establish peace and security in the region and fight terrorism. In that regard, I should note that Qatar continues to suffer from the illegal blockade and unilateral measures that are being conducted against it on baseless pretexts, in violation of international law and the Charter of the United Nations and to the detriment of friendly relations among countries. Therefore, all of the efforts for global peace and security are undermined as well. Major challenges and emerging crises have arisen, such as those related to cybersecurity. Indeed, the Internet is being used and abused in order to undermine international peace and security. The world has seen major violations of many organizations in our region. As the Secretary-General noted in his first statement to the General Assembly (A/72/PV.1, cyberwarfare is a reality. We cannot ignore it, and it is growing. It undermines relations among countries, bodies and systems in the modern world. We are the victims of this piracy. That is why we reiterate that the absence of a regulatory body holding perpetrators accountable is a problem. It undermines international peace and security and is a source of concern for the international community. We need audacious, far-reaching and strict measures. The perpetrators of these crimes must be held accountable. Qatar reiterates that it stands ready to participate in any international joint efforts toend this scourge in the area of cybersecurity. In that regard, my delegation reiterates its support for the conclusions of the Group of Governmental Experts on Information Security and its assessment of the importance of strengthening international cooperation, particularly in the area of cybersecurity. In conclusion, we reiterate our commitment to working effectively and actively to support international efforts to counter complex contemporary challenges. That is the best way to implement the goals and objective of the Charter of the United Nations and to help the Council maintain international peace and security.

At the outset, I would like to commend the delegation of Japan for holding this important open debate and for submitting a concept note (S/2017/1016) on the topic. We are also grateful to the Secretary-General for his statement. The concept note raises a fundamental question as to how the Security Council can better address today’s complex contemporary threats to international peace and security in a holistic and comprehensive manner. As the Secretary-General points out in his most recent annual report on the work of the Organization: “The United Nations was established to prevent war and human suffering by binding us together through a common rule-based international order. Today that order is laden with contradictory trends, and a clear assessment must be made if we are going to address these challenges effectively.”(A/72/1, para. 2) The objective of ensuring a peaceful, just and prosperous world is hardly achievable if the universally recognized fundamental values, norms and principles are overtly disregarded or misinterpreted, conditioned and implemented with reservations in order to whitewash aggressions and other illegal actions. At a time of increased brutality of armed conflicts, with the highest level of forced displacement, growing terrorist and separatist threats, attempts to inculcate enmity and hatred and instigate wars, more concerted actions and synergy are required at all levels to end the conflicts of today and direct greater attention to preventing the conflicts of tomorrow. Azerbaijan fully supports the Secretary-General’s determination to genuinely contribute to preventing wars and sustaining peace and his efforts to conduct the reform process. We welcome the adoption by the General Assembly earlier today of resolution 72/199, on restructuring of the United Nations peace and security architecture, as an important step forward in further strengthening the role, capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the Organization. First and foremost, all States must strictly comply with their international obligations, particularly those relating to respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and inviolability of their international borders. Those fundamental principles are constituents of the common rule-based international order; they are universally binding and apply to all situations and conflicts, whatever their distinct root causes and nature. Peace and good-neighbourly relations, based on full respect for the aforementioned principles, are necessary prerequisites for economic cooperation. In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Heads of State and Government and High Representatives stated, in particular, that there could be no sustainable development without peace and no peace without sustainable development. Special attention should be given to the implementation of resolutions adopted by the principal organs of the United Nations, in particular those relating to the peaceful settlement of disputes, conflict prevention and resolution. Needless to say, the lack of proper attention of the Security Council to the apparent disregard of its resolutions containing binding demands cannot constitute an accepted practice of the Council’s working methods. It is intolerable that armed aggression against sovereign States, the resulting military occupation of their territories and deliberate actions aimed at changing their demographic composition and cultural character of the seized areas along racial, ethnic or religious lines continue, notwithstanding the Security Council resolutions. It is obvious that no peace settlement can be reached that is inconsistent with international law. It is important that conflict prevention efforts and conflict settlement frameworks and mechanisms not be used as a tool for entrenching the situations achieved as a result of the unlawful use of force, war crimes, crimes against humanity, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing. The fact that illegal situations continue because of political circumstances does not mean that they are thereby rendered legal or can go on forever. Serious breaches should give rise to special consequences, which include, inter alia, duties of States to cooperate in order to bring to an end a serious breach by lawful means, not to recognize as lawful a situation created by such a breach, nor render aid or assistance in maintaining that situation. Furthermore, apart from preventive diplomacy efforts and the expeditious peaceful settlement of disputes and conflicts, the most effective deterrent is, undoubtedly, ensuring a speedy end to impunity. Azerbaijan’s consistent position with regard to the topic under consideration is well known and derives from its practical experience of facing continued armed aggression, foreign military occupation and ethnic cleansing and from its keen interest in contributing to the achievement of sustainable peace in our region and worldwide. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that, in order to better address today’s complex contemporary threats to international peace and security and ensure the effectiveness of commonly agreed strategies to that end, we should, first and foremost, uphold fundamental principles and adhere to the uniform application of international law.

I give the floor to the representative of Kuwait.

At the outset, we commend Japan’s presidency of the Council this month and Italy’s presidency last month. We highly value the efforts made to convene this meeting to discuss a very important topic that is considered to be an issue of major concern for all Member States, under the theme “Maintenance of international peace and security: addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security”. We thank you, Sir, for the concept note (S/2017/1016, annex) that was prepared for today’s meeting. Finally, I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing earlier today. The United Nations was formed 72 years ago with the purpose of saving future generations from the scourge of war, and its main role, according to the first paragraph of the Charter of the United Nations, is the maintenance of international peace and security, which is ensured by preventing conflict. The Security Council is tasked with that primary responsibility, in accordance with Chapter V of the Charter, which contains other relevant Articles and Chapters. Chapter VI, in particular, includes provisions that authorize the Security Council to perform its role. However, the Security Council’s ability to carry out its responsibilities varies and, in some instances, those responsibilities and powers are not fully exercised. Kuwait’s foreign policy is primarily founded on resolving conflicts peacefully and diplomatically, as our history shows over time. We support efforts at mediation and the peaceful resolution of conflicts, as well as efforts to build national and regional capabilities, enhance peace and stability, achieve development and uphold human rights, especially in areas of tension that are at risk of slipping into conflict. We reiterate Kuwait’s deep conviction that development and human rights are intrinsically linked to security, and we support efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in order to leave no one behind and address one of the main reasons for conflict throughout the world. We also underscore that the Secretary-General’s vision for enhancing and entrenching the main pillars of the United Nations  — peace, security, human rights and development  — will undoubtedly lead to sustaining peace. That requires complete harmony and coordination of effort among the relevant organs in order to address any threats to international peace and security. We must acknowledge the urgency of enhancing the relationship between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations — in line with today’s reality where the problems we face are extremely complex and intertwined, in a way that no single country can resolve them without cooperation and assistance from others. We look forward to enhancing regional strategic cooperation and partnerships with other organizations, especially the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We also agree with the Secretary-General’s description of the new challenges facing international peace and security and the need to prevent conflict, given the complexity of the challenges and the need for multidisciplinary responses to them. We therefore reiterate the need to hold regional dialogues and enhance the exchange of expertise in arriving at a common regional approach to resolving conflicts and other issues pertaining to regional and international peace and security. That should entail the continued involvement of regional and subregional organizations in the peaceful settlement of conflicts, including through prevention, confidence-building, mediation and good offices. Peacebuilding and peacemaking are one of the main pillars of maintaining of international peace and security, which underscores the importance of upholding and strengthening that dimension in peacekeeping operations and instituting the necessary reforms to enable peacekeeping operations to fully fulfil their mandates. I agree with the Secretary-General’s vision for reforming the peace and security pillar of the United Nations, which is considered an important step towards enhancing the effectiveness of that pillar. I also welcome the General Assembly’s adoption this morning of resolution 72/199, on restructuring that pillar so that the Secretary-General can begin to implement his vision in order that the United Nations becomes more transparent, effective, accountable and capable of upholding the responsibilities entrusted to it. While we look forward to our membership of the Security Council starting next year, we would like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Japan, Italy, Senegal, Uruguay, Ukraine and, last but not least, sisterly Egypt. We thank them for their outstanding role and the valuable, effective contribution that they have made to the Security Council during their membership.

I now give the floor to the representative of Viet Nam.

First of all, allow me to thank the Japanese presidency for taking the initiative to convene this open debate on the very important topic of addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. I also thank the Secretary-General for his comprehensive and informative briefing. The United Nations was established to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to promote better standards of life for people. Despite remarkable progress over the decades, the Security Council — with its primary responsibility to maintain peace and security — is now facing great challenges in responding to regional and global crises, preventing the risk of the outbreak of conflicts and addressing critical issues, including, inter alia, with regrd to nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, nuclear proliferation, inter-communal conflicts, territorial disputes, arms races, massive flows of refugees and migrants, terrorism and violent extremism. Overcoming those challenges requires comprehensive approaches, broader perspectives and new partnerships at all levels. We acknowledge the broad support for the Secretary-General’s reform agenda, which reflects our desire for an effective United Nations and its enhanced role in promoting multilateralism in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and international law and as a platform for delivering our common commitments. In that context, my delegation welcomes this morning’s consensus adoption of General Assembly resolution 72/199, on restructuring the United Nations peace and security pillar. Please allow me to make some observations in that regard. First, there is an urgent need for a human- centred and whole-of-pillar approach to implement a comprehensive and long-term strategy on conflict prevention and sustaining peace. For such a strategy to work, we must make full use of the United Nations existing tools on preventive diplomacy and mediation and encourage the engagement of the entire United Nations system, particularly the Security Council, and other stakeholders. The United Nations should therefore play its coordinating role in enhancing partnerships with the regional and subregional organizations. Secondly, the Security Council has a vital role in peacekeeping decisions. It is important to establish clearly that any peacekeeping operation must be deployed in conformity with the basic principles of United Nations peacekeeping operations and within existing resources. Peacekeeping must also be coupled with peacebuilding, with a view to achieving sustainable peace, by ensuring smoother transitions and better exit strategies to assist conflict-affected States in addressing root causes, strengthening national capacities and advancing socioeconomic development. Thirdly, we stress the urgency of the need for Security Council unity during the decision-making process and collective action to security challenges. We also believe firmly that reforming the Security Council is a fundamental key to successful and meaningful United Nations reform. We support a future Security Council expanded in both categories and reformed in its working methods, so as to make it more democratic, transparent, effective, representative and accountable. As in other regions, prosperity, stability and security in the Asia-Pacific region are bound together by traditional and emerging non-traditional security challenges that are interlinked, while posing a serious threat to international peace and security, hampering economic and social development and negatively affecting peoples’ lives in the region. We have been following the current escalation of tensions on the Korean peninsula with grave concern. Viet Nam advocates the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula by peaceful means and urges all the parties concerned to exercise self-restraint and strictly abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions. As a responsible and proactive Member, has always been committed to the maintenance and consolidation of peace, security and stability in the region. The situation in the East Sea — also known as the South China Sea — is in our common interests and a matter of concern. Together with countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, we call on all the parties concerned to exercise self-restraint and settle disputes in the East Sea by peaceful means and in accordance with international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, fully respect diplomatic and legal processes and continuously implement the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea. With the recent adoption of the code of conduct for the South China Sea, it is high time to intensify further efforts to conclude the code of conduct in a timely, substantive manner, in order to achieve an effective, feasible and legally binding instrument. Let me conclude by reiterating that, in these days of complexity and uncertainty, we must learn from and build on what we have achieved to overcome the threats and challenges we face, to ensure that the Organization has the structure and tools necessary to deliver on its mandates. Achieving a sustainable, peaceful and prosperous future for all will depend upon our collective action and united determination  — where there is a will, there is a way.

I now give the floor to the representative of Mexico.

We thank Japan for convening this open debate on a topic of great relevance to the United Nations, given that the world is at a critical crossroads where international peace and security are under threat. In recent years, Security Council members have discussed the need to address the root causes and factors that exacerbate conflicts, through a comprehensive and wide-ranging approach. The paradigm shift we are pursuing together at the United Nations — the focus we are placing on prevention with sustainable peace and development as its cornerstone — is the right path. The three review processes carried out in 2015 — namely, on United Nations peacekeeping operations, the peacebuilding architecture and the implementation of resolution 1325 (2000) — produced coinciding results. We must pay attention to the root causes of conflicts; we must prevent them from emerging or recurring; and we must find political solutions. The three reviews also identified the need to correct the fragmentation in the United Nations system, as it is limiting the Organization’s ability to respond to armed conflicts in a timely and flexible manner by making use of the tools at its disposal. The identical resolutions  — Security Council resolution 2282 (2016) and General Assembly resolution 70/262 — defined sustaining peace as a goal and as a process that encompasses addressing the root causes of conflicts, focusing on containing the spread of conflict and increasing the normative and operational coherence within the United Nations system and among all its bodies. We welcome the fact that the recommendations arising from the three reviews as well as the content of those two resolutions were taken up by Secretary- General António Guterres in his proposal for the reform and restructuring of the peace and security pillar, as set out in his report contained in document A/72/525, which the General Assembly just endorsed today (see A/72/PV.74). When it comes to maintaining peace, the primary responsibility of the United Nations, and of the Council in particular, is to invest in the security, peace and prosperity of everyone in every country throughout the world without exception. In its broadest sense, today more than ever, the work of peacekeeping operations should harmoniously contribute to the Organization’s other agendas aimed at fostering the nexus between peace and security, development and human rights. The United Nations must ensure the primacy of resolving conflicts through political means and demonstrate flexibility, swiftness and effectiveness in the face of warning signs of crises or the outbreak or exacerbation of conflicts  — and in general in addressing specific changing needs on the ground. As Mexico has stated on previous occasions, the Council must make sustaining peace a reality in its area of competence; the Council should help to channel the Organization’s efforts to address the root causes of conflicts in order to prevent them from erupting and work with other entities, such as the Peacebuilding Commission, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, to resolve conflicts in an effective and lasting way and in a spirit of transparency and accountability. That is the major challenge. As the Chair of the Group of Friends of Sustaining Peace, Mexico reiterates that the effective development and implementation of this concept will reorient the work of the United Nations to make it more coherent and cross-cutting across all its organs, leading us to a more sophisticated and holistic vision of peace by building capacities and tools that allow us to address conflicts in all their phases. We must combat various phenomena in the disturbing international context in which we live that, far from seeking peace, serve to fuel crises and conflicts. We must reject hate speech that stigmatizes people on the basis of their racial, religious or national origin, which is causing so much harm throughout the world. We must condemn the irresponsible flows of weapons and the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which are tools of death and destabilization, as well as criminals’ instruments of power, and profit only a few. We cannot forget that the threat of the use of force is prohibited in the foundational Charter of the United Nations. The threat of the use of force is even more serious when it is accompanied by the use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons. Mexico reiterates the responsibility and obligation we all have to forge a robust and efficient system of global governance, based on international law and cooperation, and not on the destabilizing threat of the use of weapons. It is time to renew our commitment to multilateralism and to the United Nations. We must reaffirm our trust in the Organization and shape it so that it is best placed to protect the highest interests of all humankind, because that is the reason it was created.

I now give the floor to the representative of Slovakia.

First of all, I join other delegations in most sincerely thanking you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate towards the end of your Security Council presidency. I wish you, Sir, every success in your responsibilities as Council President. This debate is important, as it significantly contributes to building a common understanding and the required consensus about the need for a comprehensive and concerted approach to the maintenance of international peace and security. This meeting is also timely in the light of our ongoing constructive dialogue on the reform of the United Nations. The General Assembly took an important step today in adopting resolution 72/199, which will help the Secretary- General to take his reform proposal for the United Nations peace and security pillar to the next phase and allow him to further elaborate his reform proposals in that area. Adopted by consensus, the resolution reflects our collective determination to revitalize the United Nations to better serve the needs of peoples around the world. Together with the Permanent Representative of Rwanda, I was honoured to co-facilitate the process of informal consultations on the drafting of the resolution in an open, transparent and inclusive manner, with the aim of ensuring Member State ownership and support for that important endeavour, while building trust and consensus. That is something that I believe we all need, both in the Council and in the Assembly. Slovakia aligns itself with the statement delivered by the observer of the European Union. I would like to add a few points in my national capacity. The Security Council, as the primary United Nations organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, plays a leading role in shaping United Nations action in this area. As pointed out in your concept note (S/2017/1016, annex), Sir, in recent years the Security Council has repeatedly discussed and expressed its views on a wide range of non-traditional — put better perhaps as “cross-cutting” — threats, including those concerning public health, the exploitation of natural resources, climate change, transnational crime, poverty and underdevelopment, and forced displacement. We very much welcome today’s focus on those important linkages. First of all, we think that the Security Council should deal with these issues in a more systematic and targeted fashion, including by exploring and identifying the linkages, synergies and correlations among them. Each and every conflict scenario is different: there is no one-size-fits-all. However, we should strive to identify and address the root causes and drivers of conflict that hinder the path to peaceful, durable and sustainable solutions. The increasing impact of those cross-cutting challenges to international peace and stability calls for an updating of the tools at the Council’s disposal in order to better integrate diplomatic, economic, military and capacity-building responses in conflict resolution and peacebuilding endeavours. In that context, we firmly believe that both the Security Council and the General Assembly should take greater, more systematic and more in-depth advantage of the work of the Peacebuilding Commission. The Security Council should furthermore promote greater integration, coherence and partnerships among the activities of the United Nations missions, the United Nations system and non-United Nations actors, including, of course, the relevant regional and subregional organizations, in particular the African Union, the European Union, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Economic Community of West African States and others. Those partnerships are truly essential and their importance cannot be overemphasized. We have seen that ourselves, for example in November 2014 when we partnered with the United Nations, the African Union, the European Union and others in organizing the first Africa Forum on Security Sector Reform, which was a very positive contribution to debating some of the cross-cutting issues, such as security sector reform (SSR), justice, the rule of law and other related issues. In that context, we are committed to actively promoting even closer partnerships. Given that Slovakia will hold the chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in 2019, we are particularly looking at how to further enhance the partnership between the United Nations and the OSCE. Last but not least, the Security Council should enhance its preventive and mitigating role — one of its most significant responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations. There are opportunities to sharpen and expand the preventive capacities of the United Nations. There is a need for deeper integration and coordination in preventive endeavours, including among the relevant components of the United Nations system. I have already mentioned the issue of security sector reform, which I would also like to highlight in the context of the link to sustaining peace, which is also reflected in resolution 2151 (2014). The Group of Friends of Security Sector Reform, which is co-chaired by South Africa and my country, is planning to hold a high-level round table, proposed to take place on 23 April 2018, that will contribute to the sustaining peace activities of the General Assembly in that month, and will seek to build on the important insights of previous events and relevant recently developed policy and research in the areas of sustaining peace, prevention and security sector reform. To highlight just three key areas of our focus in that regard, I would mention genuine national ownership, effective partnerships and addressing SSR and different types of related linkages, primarily as political challenges and avoiding other, more technical, approaches. Although the primary responsibility in peace and security efforts lies with national authorities, the United Nations and the broader international community must effectively support those activities. We have a collective responsibility to make the United Nations more effective and efficient in addressing the real and immediate needs of populations on the ground. In that context, the debate you have convened today, Sir, and the specific linkages that we are focusing on show a very timely and practical approach.

I now give the floor to the representative of Ghana.

Ghana joins previous speakers in expressing its appreciation to the Japanese presidency of the Security Council for convening this open debate on addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security, and to the Secretary-General for his comprehensive briefing on the subject. As rightly pointed out in the concept note prepared for this debate (S/2017/1016, annex), our world today is witnessing the negative influence of complex driving factors that pose a serious challenge to the ability of the United Nations to fulfil its primary responsibility in the maintenance of international peace and security. My delegation therefore welcomes the convening of this open debate, which follows a series of thematic debates held at the Security Council in recent years on topics including the interlinkages between security and development, addressing the root causes of conflict, peace and security in Africa  — which specifically focused on the impact of climate change on security in the Sahel region — conflict prevention and sustaining peace and other themes touching on human rights, economic and social advancement and gender and youth perspectives on peace and security. The cumulative outcome of those debates has served to reinforce the validity of this statement by the Secretary-General from his report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”: “we will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights.” (A/59/2005, para. 17) There is no denying that compelling arguments have been made for a broader conceptualization of what constitutes a peaceful and secure world. The need for holistic and integrated approaches to addressing contemporary challenges to international peace and security has also been duly acknowledged by the membership of the United Nations. Resolutions 2282 (2016) and 70/262 — on the issue of sustaining peace  — which were simultaneously adopted by the Security Council and General Assembly, respectively, signalled the normative and conceptual shift towards a more proactive cross-pillar and cross-sectoral approach and strategy to preventing conflict. What remains outstanding is our ability to define effective system-wide mechanisms that will put the strategy into operation and foster better interaction between the Security Council and other organs, agencies and bodies of the United Nations in order to address those challenges. While the causes of crises are closely interlinked, our responses so far remain fragmented. In today’s globalized and interdependent world, the challenges to international peace and security, which range from the effects of climate change and environmental degradation to infectious diseases and pandemics, terrorism, transnational organized crime — including drugs and human trafficking — nuclear proliferation, the proliferation of small arms and weapons, genocide and human rights violations, all require coherent responses across pillars from all parts of the United Nations system and from Member States. Since the factors affecting one country quickly take on regional and transnational overtones and have the effect of destabilizing adjoining countries and regions, our failure to effectively handle conflict multipliers will continue to result in the cycle of prolonged and aggravated conflicts, as well as compounding the plight of peoples suffering in conflict situations and lowering the threshold for conflict. It is therefore important to work across the United Nations system and to break down silos across the pillars of development, peace and security, and human rights in order to meet those challenges. The Security Council would no doubt benefit from enhanced collaboration in that regard. By working closely with the relevant organs and bodies of the United Nations, the Council’s capacity to play a preventive and mitigating role will be enhanced through the exchange of formal documentation or structured dialogues on the security implications of development- related issues, including those issues that may trigger violence, crises or conflict. My delegation is also of the view that these discussions should be well-situated in the current process to reform the peace and security architecture of the United Nations. One of the key elements in the Secretary-General’s reform measures within this pillar is the role envisaged for the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination and strengthening the Organization’s prevention and peacebuilding work. As we await the Secretary- General’s comprehensive report on the proposed reform measures in the coming months, this might perhaps be an opportune time to further explore how the envisaged restructuring and new organizational culture will lead to enhanced collaboration with the Security Council for a more coherent and integrated approach to addressing contemporary challenges to global peace and security. My delegation wishes to reiterate the need for strategic and inclusive partnerships to be nurtured and further developed with regional bodies, non-governmental organizations and civil society groups that have a stake in peace. There is much to be gained from increased support and collaboration between the Security Council and regional and subregional organizations, such as the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States, in developing appropriate human and institutional capacities towards our collective efforts for the maintenance of international peace and security. The United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response, which Ghana had the honour of hosting, and the inception of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali, which was the precursor to the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, were two partnerships that really made an impact in ameliorating crises situations. The United Nations has acknowledged the importance of taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to complex challenges to international peace and security in today’s world. A number of relevant reports by high-level panels have presented us with recommendations on how the Organization must work to address the multifaceted and complex nature of existing and emerging threats to international peace and security. We have an opportunity now to apply those far-reaching recommendations in the work of the Organization, together with the much-needed reform of the peace and security architecture. Conflict prevention and the culture of prevention need to be adopted not only by the United Nations but by all Member States. Peacebuilding and sustaining peace go hand in hand with Sustainable Development Goal 16  — promoting just, peaceful and inclusive societies. It is Ghana’s view that effective strategies across the entire United Nations system to support the implementation of that goal will ultimately lead to the effective maintenance of global peace and security for all humankind.

I now give the floor to the representative of Chile.

We thank Japan for having convened today’s open debate and for the excellent work that it has carried out as a member of the Security Council over the past two years. We are also grateful to the Secretary-General for his briefing this morning and for his commitment to prevention in the work of the Organization. The complex current challenges to international peace and security compel us to adopt a multidimensional approach to respond effectively and sustainably to the threats we face, including those of a non-State and non-military nature, while addressing their various dimensions and underlying causes that may have a local, regional or global impact. In January 2015, Chile organized an open debate (see S/PV.7361) of the Security Council on inclusive development, inspired by our belief that peace is a prerequisite for the promotion and protection of fundamental rights and that, in turn, inclusiveness, social harmony and sustainable development are vital if peace is to be attained and maintained. This is a refrain that we heard from many speakers today. There was widespread agreement at that meeting that security and development are closely interrelated and mutually reinforcing, and that they are crucial if we are to deliver lasting peace. The meeting also underscored the importance of inclusion as a vehicle for political stability, democratic governance, development and preserving the territorial integrity of States. These in turn are bulwarks against conflict and important for sustaining peace. The presidential statement (S/PRST/2015/3) adopted on that occasion answers some of the issues that we are considering in today’s debate, and we would urge everyone to draw upon it when it comes to forging responses to conflict multipliers referred to in Japan’s concept note ( S/2017/1016, annex). The Council has gradually integrated an inclusive approach to addressing specific groups and issues that were once considered to be solely the purview of development. The Council has developed a multidimensional and systemic regulatory framework on complex challenges in conflict and post-conflict solutions, in conformity with resolutions 2242 (2015), 2250 (2015), 2253 (2015), 2282 (2016), which the representative of Ghana just mentioned, 2286 (2015), 2332 (2016) and 2347 (2017), which, inter alia, address the concerns of women, youth, human trafficking, health care, civil aviation and cultural heritage. With regard to peacekeeping operations, we would draw attention to the transition from the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti to the format of the United Nations Mission for Justice Support in Haiti. The design of this transfer included a strong element of national ownership bringing together the work of the Security Council and numerous other stakeholders, including the Group of Friends of Haiti. This served as an example of how States that are not members of the Council can contribute to solutions. The United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia, intended to help safeguard the comprehensive peace agreement in that country, is a model of how positive interaction with the agencies of the United Nations system and the support of the Peacebuilding Fund can reap dividends. With regard to the Council’s working methods, we would recommend that the following measures be taken to overcome the current fragmentation when it comes to addressing the complex challenges to peace and security — as we are urged to do by the concept note. First, we need to strengthen the role of elected members when it comes to drafting resolutions, and preferably to pursue the drafting in interregional groups, as was the case with resolution 2286 (2016), when we also engaged in close consultation with civil society. Second, we need to make better use of open debates as a format, selecting topics that would encourage a contributory analysis by the entire membership. In order to identify areas of convergence, we recommend that the presidency encourage interventions at open debates by like-minded and interregional groups, such as the Human Security Network and the Group of Friends on Children and Armed Conflict. The Chairs of those groups or others could also be consulted when it comes to preparing the concept notes. Third, we would suggest raising further awareness of Arria Formula meetings by circulating a summary to all Member States detailing proposed and actual outcomes. Fourth, we should integrate the work of subsidiary bodies and the reports of the group of expert of sanctions committees in the work of the Security Council when it is considering the design of its products, in particular with regard to transitions in missions. Fifth, we would strengthen the ties between the Security Council and the Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission configurations, while making greater use of the Commission’s advisory role and inviting it to participate in consultations and in Council field visits. Sixth, we would make use of the Peacebuilding Fund to address gaps and to overcome the fragmentation in sustaining peace. We should deepen the interaction with the Fund, taking advantage of its advice to missions, its interaction with local civil society and its collaboration with regard to the empowerment of women and youth. Seventh, as already pointed out here, it is important to improve interaction with regional and subregional organizations, as is increasing coherence in the work of peacekeeping operations. By way of example, I would mention the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire, which successfully completed its mandate on 30 June, and the United Nations Mission in Liberia. A similar example pertains to the setting up of special missions, such as the United Nations Mission for the Emergency Response to Ebola, to which the representative of Ghana referred, to deal with the Ebola virus emergency. In conclusion, the new threats of intra-State and trans-national conflict posed by various phenomena — such as terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, money laundering, weapons trafficking, human trafficking, natural disasters, the spread of disease and environmental degradation  — require holistic approaches, which we hope will be front and centre in any future reconfiguration of the peace and security architecture. We hope that the reform under way will contribute to such a response. Only by acting in that way can we effectively contribute to conflict prevention and to peacebuilding in the world, which are the founding objectives of this United Nations organ. We would like to warmly thank the delegation of Japan for its excellent work. Since our statement was about working methods, we would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the Working Methods Handbook, prepared by Japan and known as the Green Book, and commend the delegation on that initiative.

I now give the floor to the representative of Guatemala.

I would like to start by thanking you, Mr. President, and the delegation of Japan for organizing this open debate and for presenting the concept note (S/2017/1016, annex) to guide the discussion at this meeting. We greatly appreciate that the presidency of the Security Council proposed discussing this important and crucial issue on addressing the complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security, which is the primary responsibility of the Security Council. My delegation also takes this opportunity to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres, for his briefing. Since its founding, the United Nations has striven to prevent, mitigate and resolve conflicts by means of a series of measures, from support for respect of human rights and inclusive development to prevention, the establishment of peacekeeping and peacebuilding and, in the longer term, recovery and reconstruction, in order to implement the founding principles of the Charter of the United Nations. For that reason, the Security Council plays a fundamental role in addressing the numerous conflicts by faciliting peace processes, as was the case in my country with the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala, which demonstrated that, with efforts and political will, it is possible to work to strengthen peace processes and democracy and, in that way, to promote development and sustainable peace. At the time, the Mission played an important role in the phase following the peace process. It is important to be clear that the withdrawal of peacekeeping missions or special political missions does not imply the end of peace processes or of United Nations participation in building lasting peace in host countries. On the contrary, as the Organization and its Member States, we must improve and strengthen the role of the United Nations system in supporting the efforts of Governments and civil society to implement the various peace agreements in order to promote a smoother transition from peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations, as appropriate, towards a sustainable peace. As a follow-up to the different collective calls for an urgent change in the way in which we understand peace and security mechanisms, Guatemala views with optimism the various steps taken by Secretary-General Guterres to promote and to discuss an internal review in order to strengthen and improve the implementation of the peace and security pillar entrusted to the Organization. My delegation is firmly convinced that prevention and mediation must return to the forefront of the efforts of the Organization. It is important to recall what the Secretary-General has said in various forums, namely, that perhaps the best prevention tool we have is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaties to which it gave rise. The rights established in the Declaration not only identify many of the root causes of conflict but also provide genuine solutions through real change on the ground. At the same time, the early participation of the Security Council, when it is united and decisive, can effectively apply political and other resources to deteriorating situations in the field. The Council must also bear in mind that the lessons learned from failures, as well as from best practices, serve as to guide our future work. The Human Rights Council, the International Criminal Court and the special tribunals have a relevant role to play in that regard in the pursuit of sustainable peace. Guatemala’s commitment to multilateralism and to the United Nations is an axiom of our foreign policy. Our strong multilateral mission is based on our conviction that global challenges, such as the maintenance of international peace and security, the fight against poverty, the promotion of sustainable development, the promotion of the rule of law and the pursuit of sustainable peace, can be effectively addressed only in the context of comprehensive and consistent multilateralism. In conclusion, we therefore believe that it is necessary that the Security Council join the efforts led by the Secretary-General with regard to institutional reforms in the area of ​peace and security and be able to work together in order to ensure a multilateral Organization that can solve the challenges on the ground and adapt to the various international contexts.

I now give the floor to the representative of Botswana.

My delegation joins other representatives in sincerely congratulating Japan on its assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of December. We also express our appreciation to you, Mr. President, and to your delegation for the initiative to convene this very important debate today. You will agree with me that we cannot exhaust this debate today given the limited time at our disposal, as it is a subject that involves a wide range of cross-cutting issues that are characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity. Furthermore, those scenarios occur within the context of complex interdependency, often with far-reaching implications for humankind. In discussing contemporary threats to peace and security, I wish to highlight some of the issues facing us, which include, but are not limited to, international terrorism, cyberwarfare, human trafficking, transnational organized crimes, the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and environmental challenges, including trans-border crime. Those issues take place in every corner of the world and their repercussions are felt by many, irrespective of where the incident may have occurred. No country is ever truly immune to the direct or spillover effects of such phenomena. Those constantly growing trends of interconnected instability and insecurity pose a serious threat to international peace and security. It is therefore necessary for us to act collectively, as members of the international community, to address them. As envisaged in its Charter, the United Nations has remained a cornerstone of international and multilateral efforts to maintain international peace and security. At the same time, Article 24 of the Charter specifically mandates the Security Council to play a leading role in realizing that objective. In that undertaking, it is incumbent upon the Council to act proactively to identify and address security challenges before they deteriorate into full-blown conflicts. In that regard, it is imperative for the Council to deploy all the necessary tools at its disposal to effectively deal with emerging threats. It is also important that the United Nations act as a whole and as a coordinated entity in order to derive the maximum benefit from the utilization of its wide range of assets. However, we cannot place the burden of responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security solely on the United Nations. My delegation is of the view that continental bodies such as the European Union, the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, among others, should play a critical role in safeguarding international peace and security within their respective regions. Because they are on the ground, they are better placed in terms of time and space to appreciate and address security challenges as they arise. Coordination and cooperation at this level are vital, as they greatly enhance the global reach of the United Nations in response to complex emergencies and threats. The existence of partnerships such as those between the African Union and the European Union, and the United Nations and the African Union, is also a welcome development. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure their effectiveness and fitness for the people. Our enhanced engagement and coordination with these organizations, and their engagement and coordination with one another, will go a long way to addressing conflict and security challenges. The role of subregional entities such as Southern African Development Community (SADC), the Economic Community of West African States and the East African Community, among others, cannot be overemphasized. They are critical building blocks for the continent’s peace and security architecture. From my own experience at SADC, we have structures — such as the SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security Cooperation and the Southern African Regional Police Chiefs Cooperation Organization — that are tasked with addressing peace and security challenges in the subregion. They play a key role in conflict resolution and management and preventive diplomacy, as well as in negotiations and the coordination of deployments of SADC military forces within the region. I would be remiss if I did not highlight the importance of individual countries’ contributions to international peace and security, particularly in addressing contemporary security challenges. Individual countries have a responsibility to ensure sound and effective institutions of governance, social cohesion, citizen economic empowerment and a whole range of other issues geared to improving the well- being of their citizens. While we advocate for the free flow of goods and services and the free movement of people across international boundaries, we are cognizant of our collective accountability for effective border management controls, which help to reduce the incidence of crime and insecurity and thereby limit the prevalence and scope of contemporary peace and security threats. Finally, Botswana attaches great importance and value to sustainable peace in countries in our region and beyond. We maintain that peace and security are fundamental prerequisites for promoting economic and social development and long-term political stability. Against that backdrop, we must be steadfast in our commitment to the principles of democracy, accountable and inclusive governance, respect for the rule of law and the promotion and protection of human rights for all. With that, Mr. President, I thank you very much for the opportunity you have given me.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Netherlands.

The Kingdom of the Netherlands welcomes the initiative of the Japanese presidency in convening this open debate. I would also like to thank the Secretary-General for his excellent briefing earlier today. The Kingdom of the Netherlands aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the observer of the European Union. I would like to make one important point today, which is about our firm belief that only through an integrated approach and prompt action will we be able to prevent conflict and sustain peace. The challenges of the twenty-first century transcend borders. Conflicts are compounded and the causes of conflict are plentiful, as the President explained in his concept note (see S/2017/1016, annex). Such compounded conflicts demand an integrated approach on the part of the United Nations, other international and regional organizations, and Governments. The Kingdom of the Netherlands has first-hand experience with integrated approaches, whether in Afghanistan, Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo or elsewhere. We have learned, sometimes the hard way, about the connection between root causes and ensuing conflict. We value the importance of partners working together while appreciating one another’s comparative advantages and recognizing the importance of working within their given mandates. We therefore support the Secretary-General’s vision for enhancing the performance of the Secretariat’s pillars in an interconnected way. Only if we succeed in working across these pillars and avoiding isolated actions will we be able to address conflicts effectively. That requires a comprehensive approach encompassing peace, human rights and development. Formulating an integrated response to conflicts is not enough. The Security Council should also devote more attention to preventing conflicts both from occurring in the first place and from recurring in post- conflict situations. That means addressing some of the underlying causes of conflict, even if it is not the sole or even primary responsibility of the Security Council to deal with issues such as poverty reduction, human rights and climate change. Where it is appropriate and needed, the Security Council has a role to play in raising awareness and a responsibility to call for integrated action. The Council’s involvement in the situation in the Gambia earlier this year was timely and successful, and helped to preserve the country’s sovereignty. Proper prevention also requires proper early- warning tools for identifying emerging threats, as well as the instruments needed to take action. Depending on the specific situation, the Secretary-General can rely on various parts of the United Nations system in New York and Geneva, and in the field, to inform the Council about what is going on. For some issues, however, a clear focal point is still lacking. One example is climate and security. At the Planetary Security Conference 2017 held last week in The Hague, Mr. Hassan Janabi, the Iraqi Minister of Water Resources, said that his country, which is now beginning a process of stabilization, was going through additional painful cultural change. That change has the potential to form the basis for new tensions, despite the fact that it has little to do with conventional threats from armed groups or terrorist organizations. Dwindling water resources, due to climate change-driven drought and related changes in rainfall patterns, will become a major challenge. Mr. Janabi said that the more than 100,000 Iraqis who had been fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant are now out of work. They will go back to their farms, but the water shortage will make it hard. Given the growing risk that climate change may increase tensions within and between nations, it is important to ensure that there is an institutional home for this topic at the United Nations, a place where such risks can be assessed and addressed. During Italy’s Arria Formula meeting on 15 December, the Netherlands, together with Sweden and other countries, called for the establishment of such an institutional home, and does so again today. A final example of the importance of early-warning tools can be seen when efforts are being made to prevent humanitarian crises from lapsing into wider instability and conflict. In such circumstances, reliable, real-time data is needed to feed into early-warning and early- action capabilities. In that respect, I am pleased to be able to inform the Council that in two days’ time the Secretary-General will officially open the new United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Centre for Humanitarian Data in The Hague. By collecting, sharing and standardizing data, OCHA and its partners are working together to improve the lives of millions of people affected by conflict and disaster and thereby avoid renewed conflict. In conclusion, we are well aware of the fact that not all the elements relevant to this topic fall within the Council’s mandate, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands wants to underline the importance of prevention and early warning when addressing complex security challenges and will continue to do so during its Security Council membership in 2018.

I now give the floor to the representative of Slovenia.

I would like to start by thanking Japan for taking the initiative to convene this open debate, as well as for preparing a very comprehensive concept note (see S/2017/1016, annex). Slovenia would like to align itself with the statement delivered earlier by the delegation of the European Union and would like to add a few remarks in our national capacity. Long-standing and newly emerging security challenges are not only significantly impacting international peace and security; they are also challenging our fundamental values and principles as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Slovenia welcomes the considerable engagement in conflict-prevention issues at the United Nations and the fact that the surge in diplomacy for peace is one of the key priorities of the Secretary-General. We support the proposals outlined aimed at better addressing the changing security environment, including by bridging the gaps between United Nations political affairs and peacekeeping. We agree that any reform measures need to acknowledge the interconnectedness of the three pillars of the United Nations and create greater synergy among them. In this context, Slovenia believes that the Security Council needs to better integrate peacekeeping with development and humanitarian efforts. The United Nations, together with its Member States, regional organizations, non-governmental organizations and civil-society actors, must do more to support fragile countries, especially by helping them to enhance their society’s resilience and security architecture. We recognize the need to better utilize mediation efforts, including through regional organizations and local communities. Ending impunity for the most serious international crimes is equally crucial. We stress the importance of effective cooperation with the International Criminal Court and call upon States that have not yet done so to ratify the Rome Statute. We have noted increased political will to consider water scarcity as a potential driver of conflict, as also shown during the Security Council open debate organized by Senegal in November last year (see S/PV.7818). Allow me to recall the highly relevant work of the Global High-level Panel on Water and Peace, which is chaired by the former President of Slovenia, Mr. Danilo Türk. The Panel launched its report, together with a range of concrete recommendations, on preventing water-related conflict and leveraging water as an instrument of peace. In addition, regional cooperation is vital in removing the issue of water as a potential cause of conflicts or as a risk amplifier. Slovenia’s positive experience in the region of the Western Balkans demonstrates how water can become a source of stability and cooperation. We believe that the successful practices in the region, for example in the Sava River Basin, could be used as a model of water- related cooperation elsewhere in the world. An important aspect of conflict prevention is also a global commitment to ending hunger. In this regard, Slovenia is raising awareness of the key role of bees and other pollinators in global food security, and we are particularly pleased that just today the General Assembly adopted resolution 72/211, on World Bee Day. Slovenia will continue to support activities aimed at raising awareness of the various aspects and wide range of contemporary challenges to international peace and security. We hope that the Security Council will continue to address these challenges, including in its adopted documents.

I now give the floor to the representative of Greece.

I would like first of all to thank the Japanese presidency of the Security Council for having organized this open debate on addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. It is indeed a crucial issue that is at the core of the primary responsibility of the Security Council to seek ways to better address today’s complex threats to international peace and security in a holistic manner. There is no doubt that today we are confronted with an increasing number of conflicts and challenges around the world. Crisis situations have a tendency to last longer and have become increasingly complex and volatile. Tackling global insecurity is a pressing imperative, and our priority should be to pursue political solutions in the context of a comprehensive approach to the various challenges by combining and strengthening our endeavours for peace and security, human rights and sustainable development. In this context, we would mention in particular the adoption of the resolution on the restructuring of the United Nations peace and security pillar (resolution 72/199). These reforms will enable the United Nations system to better address the root causes of conflict, focus on prevention and fully utilize the potential of development programmes in securing long-term post- conflict stability. When it comes to regional challenges, Greece, situated close to what continues to be an extremely turbulent region, including the Middle East and parts of North Africa, is a pillar of stability in the region and spares no effort in engaging, in a practical and principled manner, in promoting dialogue and cooperation. In this context, we have recently undertaken a series of initiatives, including the Rhodes Conference for Stability and Security and the Athens Conference on Religious and Cultural Pluralism and Peaceful Coexistence in the Middle East, as well as the newly established Asian Civilizations Dialogue Forum. In particular, the Rhodes Conference focuses on a positive agenda of cooperation between the countries of the Eastern Mediterranean, with the aim of fostering stability and security in the region. At the same time, the second Athens Conference on Religious and Cultural Pluralism and Peaceful Coexistence in the Middle East focused on the future challenges that religious pluralism faces in the region and proposed possible fields where religious coexistence and pluralism could be further developed. At the global level, the Ancient Civilizations Forum emphasize the need to enhance dialogue among civilizations through continuous communication and cooperation in order to promote understanding and tolerance among cultures and peoples. I would also like to mention that in the framework of promoting peace and stability in our neighbourhood and the broader region of the Eastern Mediterranean, we have established a number of trilateral themes of cooperation that include many countries in the region. Our main objective is to develop a positive, broader and manifold agenda of cooperation in international affairs focusing on synergies and joint activities, especially through culture as one of the main drivers of soft power in international relations and other constructive areas of cooperation such as trade, education and research. Dealing with security challenges in another region of our neighbourhood, the Balkans, is vital, and we have therefore established trilateral and quadrilateral themes of cooperation with significant actors in the region in order to promote common priorities and strengthen cooperation on a number of issues in line with European democratic values and principles. An important thematic challenge affecting my country directly is, of course, migration. Greece considers migration as a global phenomenon and a challenge that demands a global response and action. As a front-line country, Greece encourages the streamlining and development of migration governance within the United Nations system by making use of existing forums while achieving coherence through the various global and regional procedures. In this respect, we have engaged constructively in the process of adopting a global compact for migration, wishing to see the cooperation among countries of origin, transit and destination further strengthened. At the same time, we should follow closely challenges such as climate change, as discussed at the Arria Formula meeting held last Friday. In this context, we would like to commend the role of France and the success of the recent One Planet Summit. I wish to assure the Council that Greece will lend its unfailing support as the United Nations endeavours to rise to the Herculean task of creating a more peaceful, sustainable and prosperous future, securing justice and solidarity for all, especially for the coming generations,

I now give the floor to the representative of Armenia.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this open debate and for the excellent concept note (S/2017/1016, annex). Again, we strongly welcome and support the prominence of production and sustaining peace as a policy priority and as an overarching goal of the United Nations system. Armenia has been a consistent promoter of that concept. We are convinced that conflict situations are detectable at a considerably early phase because conflicts are, in essence, a reaction to the persistent injustice, discrimination and denial of rights that are often the root causes of a conflict. The human rights aspect in conflict prevention should therefore receive a prominent focus across the entire United Nations system. All human rights are a function of security. Early prevention rests on the premise of detecting, recognizing and acting upon deteriorating human rights situations. The irresponsibility of hate speech, intolerance, xenophobia, racial and ethnic profiling, glorification of hate crimes, especially those led and encouraged by political leaders within a State, should be a concern to the entire international community and serve as a clear early-warning sign of potential conflict and atrocity crimes. Asymmetric threats of transnational terrorism represent a common challenge for international peace and security. We welcome the creation of the Office of Counter-Terrorism. Terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality or civilization. At the same time, we should acknowledge evidence pointing at extremists and terrorists targeting specific communities based on their religion or ethnicity. The atrocities perpetrated by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Al-Qaida and associated groups, individuals, undertakings and entities, particularly against ethnic and religious groups, are premeditated and grave identity-based crimes on a massive scale. The suffering of Yazidis, Christians and other ethnic and religious minorities in groups, including, for example, the indiscriminate attacks and forced displacement of the ethnic Armenian populations of the Syrian cities of Kesab and Deir ez-Zor must not remain unaddressed. Armenia has been continually providing humanitarian aid to the Syrian population to alleviate their suffering and hardships. Furthermore, Armenia has sheltered around 22,000 refugees from Syria and has been implementing policies aimed at facilitating housing, education, health care, social welfare, jobs, business opportunities and other measures for the integration in the new homeland. Cyberterrorism and cybercrimes represent a qualitatively new and significant threat to national and international security. The evolving cyberthreats and their unprecedented destructive capacity compel enhanced and extensive cooperation involving not just competent Government agencies, but also the private sector and all other stakeholders. The regional context of conflict prevention requires continued broad recognition and support. Division of labour, coordination and non-duplication of efforts and activities are the building blocks of effective utilization of the capacity of regional organizations in conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Armenia consistently welcomes the support of the international community of the United Nations and of the Secretary-General given to the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) co-Chairs in the peaceful resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. In their latest statement of 7 December, the heads of delegation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chair countries reiterated their commitment to mediating a peaceful settlement of the conflict based on the core principles of non-use of force or threat of force, territorial integrity and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. They also welcomed the resumption of the high-level dialogue between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Geneva on 16 October, as well as the meeting of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Azerbaijan on 6 December in Vienna under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairs. They also urged acceptance of the expansion of the existing office of the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office and the implementation of the decisions adopted during the summit in Vienna and St. Petersburg in 2016. Armenia remains fully committed to negotiations for the exclusively peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict within the internationally agreed format of the OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairmanship and based on the agreed basic principles and main elements presented as an integrated whole. In conclusion, Armenia remains a committed contributor to United-Nations-led peace operations. A platoon of 32 Armenian peacekeepers is deployed in the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Armenia also supports the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali by contributing one staff officer. Armenia steadily develops its peacekeeping capabilities in accordance with the pledge made by its President at the 2015 world leaders summit on United Nations peacekeeping to establish a special explosive ordnance disposal, counter-improvised- explosive-device company, as well as level-II field hospital. Armenia has also joined as a founding State the Vancouver communiqué and Vancouver principles on peacekeeping and the prevention of the recruitment and use of child soldiers adopted on 14 November on the margins of the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial Conference. Within the framework of its partnership with NATO, the Armenian peacekeeping contingent is also engaged in peace support missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. We recognize and support the efforts of the Secretary-General to enhance the effectiveness of the architecture and the working methods of the peace and security pillar of the Secretariat. The complex and diverse challenge to peace and security require a holistic approach and alignment of all three pillars of peace and security, development and human rights, both in terms of policy formulation and operational activities.

I now give the floor to the representative of Australia.

I thank the presidency of Japan for convening this debate, as well as the Secretary-General for his remarks. Long-term, comprehensive solutions to conflict and crises remain elusive. Addressing increasingly complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security requires change in our approach. As we advance reform of the United Nations system and adapt our tools and policies, we must adopt new ways of working. Today, I will address three areas that Australia sees as particularly important: a focus on prevention and sustaining peace, women’s participation in peacebuilding, and current efforts towards United Nations reform. First, prevention approaches must become embedded across all United Nations operations and programmes, and across pillars, in line with the resolutions on sustaining peace. This cannot be led only from the top; all staff across the Organization need to show leadership to embed these approaches, as well as be empowered to do so. Planning and programming must account for, adapt and respond to conflict risks. Respect for human rights, as well as integrated humanitarian and development programmes, are core to these efforts. Secondly, our efforts to support peaceful societies must be inclusive. We welcome the joint United Nations- World Bank study on conflict prevention and support its focus on how successful prevention is inclusive, based on broad coalitions reaching into civil society and the private sector. There is clear evidence that the meaningful participation of women in peace processes leads to more durable outcomes. In our efforts to address complex security challenges and sustain peace, we must continue to strive to secure women’s full political and economic participation. We acknowledge the practical steps undertaken by the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Peacebuilding Support Office in 2017 to improve women’s participation in peacebuilding and peacekeeping. Finally, Australia strongly supports the Secretary- General’s efforts towards reform, including reform of the peace and security pillar of the United Nations, and we are pleased that these reforms have advanced to the next stage today. The Security Council’s ongoing support for the peace and security pillar reforms is vital. To overcome fragmentation, empower the field and improve United Nations effectiveness in assisting efforts to sustain peace, these reforms are needed. We must improve coordination and cooperation between departments and agencies, between field and Headquarters, and between policy and programmes. Cultural, process and structural reforms based on the sustaining peace resolutions are all crucial. Our reform objective should be to deliver a nimble, innovative United Nations that engages with conflict risk, rather than merely to bring about structural changes at Headquarters. We must prioritize prevention and inclusive peacebuilding to improve our ability to address contemporary conflict issues. Australia strongly support the Secretary-General’s plans to take forward an ambitious reform agenda. Our words are pointing us in the right direction but we need our actions to follow.

I give the floor to the representative of Morocco.

At the outset, I should like to thank you, Sir, for having convened and selected the topic of today’s debate at a time when the Organization is going through important change. I should also like to thank the Secretary-General for his statement, which confirms his unwavering commitment to the cause of peace. I would like to reassure him and the Security Council of Morocco’s full support in all their efforts to promote international peace and security. The growing number and complexity, changing nature and disastrous consequences of conflicts force us to reconsider the way in which our Organization tackles them. It is clear that the three pillars of the United Nations are interlinked. It is also recognized that mediation and conflict prevention are underutilized tools that undoubtedly hold significant promise. Taking such an approach is necessary to realize the objective of lasting peace, which is not a new aim but one that is gaining ground daily. It is in this regard that we welcome the reform process under way, including its important focus on the need for a comprehensive approach. We hope that the review process under way will not only enable the Organization to work in a more effective way, but will find a new way of working with greater transparency and enhanced collaboration with Member States and troop-contributing countries. Some speakers have referred in detail to the various underlying causes of conflicts and emerging challenges to peace and security in the world. I will not therefore cover the same terrain, but would like to focus on the following five points. First, Morocco is very active with regard to the impact of climate change on peace. The most optimistic projections predict major shocks that will deeply affect our countries  — desertification, migration and coastal erosion, to name just a few. In this regard, we welcome that the Security Council attaches growing importance to these issues. We were among the organizers of the Arria Formula meeting held last Friday on the topic “Preparing for security implications of rising temperatures”. Secondly, terrorism threatens international peace and security in multiple operational contexts. As experience has shown, peacekeeping operations cannot fight against this scourge, especially if they remain constrained within conventional peacekeeping mandates. The question facing us now is how we should respond to and address this scourge. The report of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (see S/2015/446) recognized that peacekeeping operations were not conceived for counter-terrorism activities and that multinational forces would be more appropriate. In this regard, Member States called for such operations to be established when needed. The Group of Five for the Sahel received the political support of the Security Council. We must now ensure that it receives all the logistical and financial support it requires. Thirdly, other drivers of conflict, such as climate change and transnational organized crime, demand a tailored, holistic and coordinated response that is inclusive, taking into account the specific needs of young people and women. Multi-dimensional peacekeeping missions have always been equipped with comprehensive mandates theoretically to ensure that they could tackle the root causes of conflict. It remains to be seen, however, whether such multidimensional missions have the material and human resources to achieve their challenging tasks. Unfortunately, we must recognize that to date this has not been the case. Fourthly, mission planning remains a serious problem, while it is difficult to grasp how after more than 70 years of experience in peacekeeping that we find ourselves in situations where a significant proportion, if not the majority, of troops deployed to the field lack adequate and appropriate uniform and equipment. We must go beyond political calculations and commit in good faith because we are all ultimately working towards peace and stability in the world. Fifth, coordination is another major factor. Conflicts are no longer solved by a single actor as in the past. Effective coordination among various United Nations entities present on the ground is essential, finally making the one United Nations concept a reality. There is likewise a need to coordinate other actors  — regional and subregional organizations, international financial institutions, and various bilateral and multilateral partners. In certain cases, there are more than 10 actors, each with its own agenda. To address this situation, the United Nations must be able to take the lead since it is the Organization with greatest legitimacy and expertise to take on the role of coordinator or, if necessary, designate a co-lead where this would help settle the conflict. In conclusion, I should like to share two recommendations. First, to deal with the recurrent problem of resourcing shortfalls, it would be useful to be able to quantify in financial terms the various tasks foreseen in mandates. A detailed briefing on the costs of the various aspects of a mandate before and during negotiations on its renewal would undoubtedly be extremely helpful in ensuring mandates are coherent and realistic. Secondly, troop-contributing countries have a gained experience and knowledge of conflicts that is clearly useful but which remains to date lamentably unutilized. We are working closely with all actors involved to revitalize triangular cooperation, which we are convinced has immense potential. We welcome the interest of certain Council members in this issue and hope that significant changes can be made to the way in which the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat interact.

I give the floor to the representative of Lebanon.

Lebanon welcomes your introduction, Sir, of this important topic for open debate at the Security Council this month. Conflicts within and among countries have proliferated in the recent decades in many parts of the world. We agree with the notion advanced in the concept note for this meeting that conflicts have become more complex in the modern world, aggravated by driving factors such as climate change, underdevelopment, poverty, forced displacement, cyberwarfare and espionage, terrorism and violent extremism. However, this should not distract us from addressing the root causes of conflict, many of which have become protracted, such as foreign occupation and aggression. Today Lebanon faces many of these complex humanitarian, economic, social, political and security challenges. In addition to the almost-daily Israeli violations of our sovereignty and of resolution 1701 (2006), which continue to threaten Lebanon’s stability and security, since 2011 Lebanon has been host to more than 1.2 million refugees from neighbouring Syria, adding to more than 400,000 Palestinian refugees who have come to the country at different intervals since 1948. This has compounded many of the challenges facing my country and led to a significant decrease in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) growth, higher unemployment and poverty levels, and overstretched infrastructure in multiple factors, including health, education, housing, electricity, waters, sanitation and transport. The World Bank estimates that the cumulative cost Lebanon’s economy of the ongoing crisis in Syria stood in 2015 at around $18 billion in terms of lower GDP growth in addition to $4.2 billion in terms of lower revenues. Furthermore, Lebanon is at the forefront of the global fight against terrorism — a challenging menace that has undermined the security and stability of my country for many years, but against which the Lebanese Government and people have stood firm and steadfast and were able to achieve a series of resounding victories last summer. The United Nations has been an important partner in those efforts, whether through the United Nations Interim Force, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the United Nations Development Programme or other entities of the United Nations development system. In conclusion, we believe that it is worth sharing the experience of Lebanon in that context. In October 2016, the Government of Lebanon and the United Nations system signed a pioneering United Nations strategic framework for the period 2017-2020 to replace the previous United Nations Development Assistance Framework. The new framework recognizes that, in view of the multi-dimensional challenges facing Lebanon and the multiple mandates under which the United Nations operates in the country, the Organization must follow a whole-of-Lebanon approach, which would leverage and integrate the diverse expertise, capacities and resources of the United Nations to support the Government of Lebanon in meeting its priorities and managing security, political, governance and socioeconomic challenges to stability. That approach also aims to support Lebanon on the path to longer-term sustainable development, in accordance with the vision, principles and goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

I now give the floor to the representative of Nepal.

I have the honour to convey Nepal’s appreciation to the Japanese presidency of the Security Council for convening today’s timely and important initiative. I also thank the Secretary-General for his comprehensive briefing and his emphasis on peace diplomacy. We live in a world where everything but human beings travels freely without any geographical hindrances. We have witnessed the movement of information, cultures, ideas and capital. which has made a positive contribution to our quality of life. However, contemporary, non-traditional sources of complex challenges, such as climate change, pandemics, transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, and natural disasters, among others, have transcended geographical boundaries with severe ramifications. Similarly, tensions, deepening inequalities within societies, political exclusion and poor governance have also been found to fuel intraState conflicts. The factors spurring conflicts within a country also have the capacity to exacerbate regional and global peace and security. Moreover, such factors are interdependent and interlinked as in a domino effect. Complex and multi-layered threats require a multidisciplinary response. It is also true that no one country can deal with such threats on its own. Only concerted and comprehensive efforts at the regional and global levels can meaningfully address those challenges. Studies have established the hazardous consequences of climate change and their security and economic implications. Climate change and natural disasters will increase the number of environmental migrants. It is the shared responsibility of all States Members of the United Nations to ensure a secure future for environmental migrants. My country, Nepal, is one of the hardest hit in that regard. Effects have included a shifting snow-line, floods caused by glacial-lake outbursts, the extinction of rare flora and fauna, and excessive pressure on fresh water and food security. The Security Council has the duty to play its part in holistically addressing climate change, with a strong political message showing its commitment. The Council members that contribute to greenhouse-gas emissions must lead others by example. It is equally important to garner political support for ongoing climate-change frameworks and to enhance international cooperation for capacity-building in the least developed countries, which are most vulnerable to climate change. Apart from environmental threats, human activities continue to add to the list of emerging challenges. Terrorism, organized crime, separatism and drug trafficking, among others, are often used as tools by some groups for their benefit, jeopardizing the safety and security of others. People are themselves the ultimate source of many of the threats. We must therefore focus on empowerment through education, as well as on non-military tools of conflict prevention and resolution, as envisaged in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. Preventive measures, such as early-warning systems, mediation and peacebuilding efforts, are effective in preventing local tensions from escalating into large-scale conflicts. As a country that provides troops to peacekeeping missions, Nepal believes that as peacekeepers carry out their mandate to protect civilians, their safety and security must also be ensured. The Council could increase its engagement with other intergovernmental organizations and relevant regional institutions in that endeavour. Similarly, national capacities could be enhanced to ensure the rule of law and the provision of public services. In conclusion, I would like to stress that the ultimate focus should be on protecting people from emerging threats by empowering them with resources and capacities, resolving local conflicts and making full use of indigenous wisdom, and putting people first in conflict prevention and resolution, as well as by engaging all three pillars of the United Nations — peace, development and human rights.

I now give the floor to the representatives of the Maldives.

At the outset, I would like to thank Japan, which holds the presidency of the Security Council for the month of December, for convening today’s debate on the theme “Maintenance of international peace and security: addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security”. The debate is most timely, for it provides an important opportunity to examine emerging challenges, in particular the non-traditional security threats to international peace and stability. As we approach the end of the year, it is important to recognize that 2017 was an extraordinary year in the history of the United Nations. In its resolution 2349 (2017) of 31 March, the Security Council recognizes that climate change has an adverse impact on security. With that resolution, we have surpassed the tipping point in the debate on climate change and security — the moment at which we put behind us the question of whether or not climate change poses a security threat. It is now time for the Council and the General Assembly to clearly spell out how the United Nations can take practical measures in responding to climate change and other non-traditional security threats, which could include requesting the Secretary-General to prepare regular periodic assessment reports that could serve as a type of early-warning mechanism about both proximate and long-term threats. The reports should be presented to both the General Assembly and the Security Council, and should contain cutting-edge analysis about the threats that a particular region or country faces. The Security Council and the General Assembly could also consider examining the feasibility of establishing a regular coordination mechanism, through which all the principal bodies of the United Nations and the relevant United Nations agencies, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, could contribute to the design of conflict prevention, peacemaking and peacekeeping operations. Another encouraging development in 2017 was the Council’s increasingly progressive approach to its conceptualization of security. That approach was most visible in the Council’s decision to redefine the mandate of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti in order to assist the Government of that country to maintain order and uphold the rule of law. Strong institutions are the key to preventing internal conflicts and to resolving ongoing conflicts. As such, one way in which peacekeeping operations can help countries to create peace is by assisting in the establishment of a set of institutions that can deliver peace dividends to every corner of the country. Small States are most vulnerable to non-traditional and emergency security threats. That is a fact that the General Assembly has long recognized in, for instance. its resolution 44/51 of 8 December 1989, which the Maldives sponsored. As the Security Council takes a more progressive view in considering such threats, it is absolutely necessary that small States, particularly the small island developing States (SIDS), have a seat on the Council. Yet, over the past 72 years, only eight SIDS have served on the Council. The Maldives is determined to change that and give a voice to SIDS. We hope to get elected to the Council for the term 2019-2020 in order to represent SIDS on the Council, contribute to the shaping of decisions that affect the smallest members of the international system and help the Council to forge meaningful partnerships that can result in the crafting of shared solutions for a shared destiny.

I now give the floor to the representative of Tuvalu.

I have the honour to deliver this statement on behalf of the 12 Pacific small island developing States (SIDS). At the outset, I would like to thank the delegation of Japan for holding this important debate on addressing complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. The Pacific SIDS firmly believe that climate change is the most pressing contemporary security challenge facing the world today. In 2009, our group led a campaign in the General Assembly to address the security implications of climate change, which culminated in the unanimous adoption of General Assembly resolution 63/281. That resolution called on all relevant organs of the United Nations to intensify their efforts in that area. That was followed by a landmark report (A/64/350) by former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2009, entitled, “Climate change and its possible security implications”, in which he labelled climate change as a threat multiplier and identified numerous channels, such as food and water insecurity, natural resource scarcity, exposure to extreme events and human migration, through which climate change has the potential to destabilize societies. The Pacific SIDS are encouraged that this once highly sensitive issue has been taken up on many occasions in this Chamber. It is now well understood that the impacts of climate change are happening faster and are more severe than most scientists had previously projected, which has profound implications for human societies. The threat from climate change is facing us now. We are already seeing dangerous impacts on our countries and communities, with the most vulnerable among us bearing the largest burden. With new statistical methods at their disposal, scientists are finding the finger prints of climate change on many extreme events. In the Pacific, Nauru and our Micronesian neighbours have been hit with historic droughts in recent years. Record-breaking cyclones have become an annual occurrence, even in places where they were previously quite rare. And let us never forget the three hurricanes this year that devastated the homes of so many of our small island brothers and sisters in the Caribbean. In 2016, more than 24 million people were displaced owing to storms, extreme heat and floods. That is three times more than the number of people fleeing conflicts, as reported by the United Nations Development Programme. In fact, the 10 largest displacement events in 2016 were climate-related. Moreover, with the sea level rising, many millions more will be forced to migrate. The actions agreed to under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change notwithstanding, climate change is not going away. There will be no return to a normal climate in our lifetimes. In fact, the situation will continue to deteriorate, even if we achieve our global goals. We are operating in the context of a progressively worsening baseline, with extreme events projected to occur at a frequency and magnitude that is well outside the historical experience of our countries and communities. We must also take seriously the potential for abrupt climate change — a rapid and irreversible state change caused by the crossing of climate tipping points. The spectacular collapse of Arctic sea ice over the past decade and a half will probably not be the last example of that phenomenon. However, it is the response of human systems to those impacts that is potentially the most dangerous and least understood. Industrial production, transport, food and water distribution, and finance are complex and interrelated systems, which, as we saw during the global economic crisis, are often quite fragile. It is not just environmental tipping points that we need to worry about. The Japanese presidency has asked for proposals on how the United Nations system can better address complex contemporary challenges to international peace and security. The Pacific SIDS are calling for the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative on climate and security. We think that such a special representative, supported by a well-resourced office, could help us manage climate risks more effectively. Such a post should have three initial responsibilities: first, to provide an update on the former Secretary- General’s 2009 report on the security implications of climate change, based on our latest understanding, including an assessment of the capacity of the United Nations system to respond to the security implications of climate change; secondly, to produce a new report, in cooperation with the relevant scientific bodies, that identifies and analyses potentially dangerous tipping points at the nexus of climate and security, along with recommendations for improving our monitoring and response; and lastly, to help interested vulnerable countries develop preliminary climate- and security- risk assessments. That mandate should grow over time to include facilitating regional and cross-border cooperation on issues that might be affected by climate change, engaging in preventive diplomacy, as appropriate, and supporting post-conflict situations in which climate change is a risk factor that could undermine stability. Such a special representative of the Secretary-General should help to coordinate the efforts of the relevant United Nations bodies in that area, such as the Department of Political Affairs, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In closing, I would like to address two common concerns that are often expressed with regard to our proposal. Some countries do not support any expansion of the Security Council’s mandate. The Pacific SIDS are sympathetic to that concern, as the Security Council is not a representative body. The appointment of a special representative of the Secretary-General would not affect the mandate of the Security Council. Instead, that individual would serve the Secretary- General as the title implies. However, we do see value in keeping the Security Council informed about the security implications of climate change, since it is a growing factor in the conflict situations that the Council already addresses. Some countries also have concerns about the securitization of climate change, fearing that it will lead to greater militarization. That is precisely the dynamic that we think a special representative could help us to avoid. If we do not proactively address the security implications of climate change, then the onset of climate crises will make it more and not less likely that some will opt for reactive military responses. The military branches of many Governments with global reach have been analysing that issue for more than a decade, mostly behind closed doors. Bringing the issue before the United Nations through a special representative of the Secretary-General would provide the opportunity for all to engage in that critical discussion. I thank you again, Mr. President, for organizing this important debate. The Pacific SIDS look forward to working with you and all Member States to further improve and refine our proposal.

I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Portugal fully aligns itself with the statement delivered earlier by the Deputy Head of the Delegation of the European Union, and would like to make further comments in its national capacity. More than ever, multilateralism is essential in addressing new and old threats to peace and security, as they become increasingly global. Beyond the traditional factors that threaten international peace and security, including territorial disputes, other kind of threats are challenging our stability and our current pursuit of prosperity and development. Climate change, food insecurity, the scarcity of water, pandemics, terrorism, organized crime, cyberattacks and all kinds of illicit trafficking, including in human beings, human organs, weapons, narcotics and cultural goods, are some of the contemporary challenges and risks that we face. Intense and lasting conflicts often cause severe humanitarian crises that not only generate deep suffering and indignity for the victims, but also spread insecurity and distress to surrounding regions. Given their transnational nature, those types of challenges can be overcome only through the cooperation and effective action on the part of the entire international community. Portugal believes that lasting peace can be achieved only if the root causes of conflicts are addressed, including underdevelopment and extreme inequality. Complex contemporary challenges require the continuous adaptation of our mechanisms, better coordination and early action to address threats at the national, regional and international levels. The prevention of conflicts at the earliest possible stage is crucial in order to avoid instability leading to conflict. In that context, we acknowledge the Secretary- General’s firm commitment to conflict prevention, and we support his reform proposals. A comprehensive approach to peace and security reform based on prevention and a resurgence of diplomacy is needed as part of our common effort to achieve sustaining peace. The integration of a gender-balance perspective is also a priority for my country. Within that framework, an ever-stronger relationship among the General Assembly, the Security Council and the rest of the United Nations system, including the Peacebuilding Commission, will strengthen our collective capacity to prevent conflicts. To break the conflict cycle, it is important that the Security Council hold early consultations on situations of imminent risk and take collective action to prevent violence. In conclusion, new and more complex challenges to international peace and security require a systematic and comprehensive approach. Only the United Nations, through its various institutions and bodies and its universality, is in a position to respond adequately. Portugal stands ready to be part of that United Nations effort and cooperate with the Security Council in fulfilling its mandate.

I now give the floor to the representative of Bangladesh.

I thank the Japanese presidency for organizing this open debate on a subject that has particular resonance in a year during which we have committed to a resurgence in diplomacy to bring about peace. We thank the Secretary-General for his overview on the magnitude and implications of the challenges facing the international community. Bangladesh subscribes to the view set forth in the concept note (S/2017/1016, annex) that the comprehensive goal and processes of sustaining peace are aimed at dealing with the complex contemporary challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security. We emphasize that emerging new challenges have the potential to further exacerbate protracted conflicts and create multiplier effects across national borders. We are encouraged to see the Security Council’s increasing interest in pursuing peace in a holistic, cross-sectoral manner. From our national perspective, we wish to underline the five following points. First, we consider conflict prevention to be, first and foremost, a national responsibility that can be supported by responsive and functioning institutions, the promotion of human rights and the rule of law, and, most importantly, sustainable development. The active participation of all segments of society, including women and youth, is fundamental to mitigating the potential drivers of conflict, as well as elements having a propensity to act as spoilers. Secondly, the United Nations has a critical role to play in facilitating and monitoring the implementation of internationally agreed commitments to support Member States in establishing the necessary conditions in response to their needs and requests. The United Nations analytical capacity should help identify any structural or systemic drivers of conflicts, including the growing challenges posed by terrorist and violent extremism, climate change, irregular migration and transnational organized crimes, among others. The United Nations norm-setting procedures need to be responsive to rapidly evolving challenges, such as climate change, security and cybersecurity, among others, and find ways to build consensus for the greater public good rather than for the satisfaction of short- term political or financial considerations. Thirdly, the ability to objectively decipher the early-warning signs of conflict, which usually manifest themselves in hatred or intolerance, socioeconomic exclusion, systematic discrimination and persecution on ethnic or religious grounds, should give the United Nations an edge in devising context-specific engagement strategies. The range of tools at its disposal for the pacific settlement of disputes needs to be deployed with sensitivity to the realities on the ground and in consultation with the relevant national, civil society and humanitarian actors. The repeated failure or limitation to do just that was perhaps most evident once again in the textbook case of ethnic cleansing that we have been witnessing in Myanmar’s Rakhine state in August and September. Fourthly, as highlighted by the 2015 reviews of the United Nations peace and security architecture, the Organization’s conflict-response strategies need to be situated within the broader framework of finding political solutions to conflicts. As a contributor to the increasingly complex United Nations peacekeeping operations, Bangladesh recognizes the need to manage expectations on all sides, including through a comprehensive, nationally owned and internationally backed approach to building and sustaining peace. We hope that the organizational reform envisaged under the United Nations peace and security pillar will help further reinforce the primacy of politics in the context of peace operations. Fifthly, the currently fragmented United Nations response strategies need to be remedied through incremental work in clarifying the various conceptual and mandate-related issues, fostering regular consultations across the principal organs, and mobilizing enhanced and adequate resources, while avoiding unnecessary competition and duplication. While the Security Council need not remain confined to a strict definition of its mandate, it should also find ways to enhance its interface with the other principal organs so as to leverage their respective strengths and mandates. Meaningful cooperation with the relevant regional and subregional organizations needs to be pursued in a shared, strategic direction. It is worth reminding ourselves that the most effective bulwark against conflict, hostility, war and the illegitimate use of force should be constructed within the minds of men, women, boys and girls by promoting an enduring culture of peace. Imbued by the maiden pronouncement by the father of our nation, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, at the United Nations in 1974 — “friendship to all, malice to none” (see A/PV.2243) — we are pursuing our foreign policy imperatives. During and beyond this International Year of Peace, Bangladesh will continue to work towards realizing our Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s vision for regional and international peace. We look forward to the successful holding of the high-level event on sustaining peace to be convened by the President of the General Assembly in April 2018.

I thank all of the representatives of Member States who have participated and shared their valuable thoughts on today’s important agenda item. I also wish to extend my thanks to other members of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers.