S/PV.9448 Security Council

I would like to warmly welcome the Ministers and other high-level representatives present in the Security Council Chamber. Their presence today underscores the importance of the subject matter under discussion. In accordance with rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representatives of Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Georgia, Germany, India, Indonesia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Namibia, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, the Republic of Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Türkiye and Ukraine to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite the following to participate in this meeting: Mr. Khaled Khiari, Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations; Her Excellency Ms. Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile; His Excellency Mr. Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa; and Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez, Director of the Peace Accords Matrix. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I also invite His Excellency Mr. Olof Skoog, 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/2023/732, which contains the text of a letter dated 3 October 2023 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, transmitting a concept note on the item under consideration. I now give the floor to Mr. Khiari. Mr. Khiari: I would like to express my gratitude to Brazil for hosting this important open debate. Today the stakes for preventive diplomacy and dialogue could not be higher. The dangerous and escalating situation in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory is a bitter reminder of the urgent need for an end to the horrific violence, an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and a pathway to negotiations towards a just, lasting and comprehensive political solution. Absent a negotiated two-state solution, this vicious cycle of violence risks plunging the entire region into conflict for years and generations to come. The world has entered a new era. The post-Cold War period is over, and a transition is underway to a new global order. As history teaches us, transition periods come with heightened risks. This new era is already marked by deepening divisions and retrenchment. Geopolitical tensions are at their highest in decades. Contestation and competition among States is increasingly testing the boundaries set in the Charter of the United Nations. The ensuing loss of trust — and the risks of escalation — affect almost all regions. At the same time, many States are sceptical, and have been for some time, of how the multilateral system is working for them. They have profound grievances regarding unmet commitments and double standards. Women and men everywhere also have a deep sense that Governments and international organizations are failing to deliver for them. With increasing geopolitical strife and challenges to international norms, negotiated settlements of conflicts have been harder to achieve. The pursuit of military solutions, sadly, has been a prominent feature of recent conflicts, for which civilians are paying a heavy toll. The deterioration of global and regional arms control frameworks and crisis management protocols, which had helped stabilize great-Power rivalries, has increased the possibility of dangerous standoffs, miscalculations and escalation. In some regions, polarized global politics are mirrored in the unravelling of integration efforts that had previously contributed to regional stability for decades. Against that backdrop, the Secretary-General’s policy brief on A New Agenda for Peace outlines how Member States can take action to re-engage, de-escalate, recommit to diplomacy for peace and rebuild trust. The driving force for a more effective collective security system must be diplomacy. Diplomacy requires risk-taking, persistence and creativity. Diplomatic engagement is important among countries that think alike, but it is crucial between those that disagree. Diplomacy demands, above all else, a commitment to the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter VI of the Charter prescribes that all States should rely on peaceful means as their first option to resolve disputes. It offers a range of options to address our differences within the framework of the Security Council, within our respective regions or bilaterally. Adherence to the principles set out in the United Nations Charter remains an essential precondition. It is our collective obligation under international law to prevent and resolve armed conflict. Regional organizations and frameworks have a critical role to play in that regard. They can bring credibility and legitimacy for preventive diplomacy. They can help to increase trust and reduce misperceptions. And they can enhance mechanisms for crisis management. In the face of growing competition at the global level and increasingly transnational threats, regional frameworks and organizations can offer avenues for trust-building and détente. Regional actions have successfully prevented conflicts and escalation throughout recent history. Not all lessons are transferrable from one region to another, but their essence is important. Such lessons include how to initiate dialogue to overcome differences and how to seek assistance of a trusted intermediary when needed, sometimes from within the region and sometimes from outside; how to ensure that channels of communication remain open, even when the disputes escalate into violence; and how to take account of the fears and concerns of one’s rival and actively work to reduce those by building frameworks that enhance trust. Strengthening, building or rebuilding regional frameworks and organizations is particularly important in regions in which long-standing security architectures are collapsing or mired in stalemate — or where they have never existed. We also need strong partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations. As the New Agenda for Peace recognizes, the States Members of the United Nations have both the responsibility and the means to meet the shared obligations entrusted to them by the United Nations Charter. The good offices of the Secretary-General and his envoys remain at Member States’ disposal not only as a tool to prevent and mediate conflict, but as an impartial vehicle to bring Member States together to seek mutually acceptable solutions. Good offices can help to manage and reverse the deterioration of global and regional relations. It is also the responsibility of the Secretariat to put forth proposals that can help enhance trust and increase space for cooperation. A shared understanding of challenges is an essential prerequisite for agreeing on potential solutions. That is why the New Agenda for Peace aims to provide a unifying analysis of the current geopolitical moment as the basis for joint problem- solving. It is our duty to seize every moment to forge a common understanding of the threats and challenges before us. The impartiality of the Secretariat is vital. An impartial Secretariat can help forge common ground between States or conflict parties, even in the most complex of circumstances, and assist decision-making in the Council by providing analysis that takes into account divergent perspectives around this table. In this increasingly divided world, we need at least one institution in which all can trust. We cannot afford to leave any stone unturned in search of avenues for de-escalation and trust-building. For that to work, we need courage to listen to the views of others and consider them in good faith. Regional frameworks and institutions play a key bridge-building conduit in that regard. I commend them and all those that expend tireless efforts every day in pursuit of building bridges across divides. At a time of heightened tensions, it is our shared responsibility to do everything in our power to maintain the system of collective security that our predecessors built.

I thank Mr. Khiari for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Bachelet. Ms. Bachelet: I want to thank the Permanent Mission of Brazil for inviting me to participate in this important and timely open debate. We must recognize that the world order is shifting. It must adjust to a more fragmented geopolitical landscape. We witness the growing complexity of the conflict environment, making the resolution of conflicts more difficult, as local and regional dynamics intersect in complex ways with the interests of external parties. To confront those new challenges, we must build a robust and universal approach to preventing conflict and violence that aligns with the approach- guiding action across the human rights and sustainable development pillars. Prevention saves lives and safeguards development gains. Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations describes the tools available to parties to conflict the purpose of prevention: negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and other peaceful measures and means. Preventing crises is primarily the responsibility of Member States. We have to rebalance our approach to international peace and security and do everything to help countries avert the outbreak of crises that take a high toll on humankind. But in order for dialogue, mediation and the other tools I mentioned to be effective, they need to be planned ahead and implemented at early stages, and they need to be persistent and substantive. In order to truly build trust among parties to conflict, those parties need to respect and implement their agreements if they really want to prevent conflict. And even when conflicts have already arisen, those tools can be useful in terms of maintaining channels or bridges between the parties or through third parties. The role of regional organizations and their work in cooperation with the United Nations are crucial. Regional and subregional intergovernmental security mechanisms are fundamental and relevant in that context. But they need to be effective. Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter contains provisions concerning regional arrangements and their role in maintaining peace, in addition to the Security Council’s role in those arrangements. More than ever, the United Nations is called on to play a vital role in that regard by encouraging and promoting dialogue among its Members to achieve the goal of strengthening regional organizations and enabling them to play an increasing role in maintaining international peace and security. In the Secretary-General’s policy brief on the New Agenda for Peace published in July, he calls for robust regional frameworks and organizations in the face of growing competition at the global level and threats that are increasingly transnational. Those regional frameworks and organizations should promote trust- building, transparency and détente. But we cannot forget that conflicts proliferate where there is poor governance, human rights abuses and grievances over the unequal distribution of resources, wealth and power. As we mark the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are facing pushback in all regions. Painfully, we see a significant global retrenchment of human rights and an erosion of the rule of law, including in contexts of armed conflict. We urgently need to come back to the core principles. The United Nations is a norms-based organization. Rebuilding consensus among Member States is an essential task for the international system. Diplomacy should be a tool not only for reducing the risk of conflict but also for managing the heightened fractures that mark the geopolitical order today and carving out spaces for cooperation for shared interests. Women’s participation in mediation is essential for achieving lasting, positive peace, which goes well beyond just the silencing of guns. Women are crucial partners in economic recovery, social cohesion and political legitimacy, and women’s participation in mediation processes can help ensure that a greater diversity of members of the community becomes engaged in peacemaking. Precipitating women’s meaningful participation in all decision-making, eradicating all forms of violence against women, both online and offline, and upholding women’s rights would not just help shift power but also result in giant steps forward in sustaining peace. I want to highlight the positive experiences of bilateral, subregional and regional arrangements as a crucial part of our collective endeavour to build confidence and maintain international peace and security. In that regard, I would like to conclude by recalling that we are close to the twenty-fifth anniversary of the signing of the Presidential Act of Brasilia on 26 October 1998, which marked a truly historic moment, ending a boundary dispute in the Americas, with the active participation, as guarantors, of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States. That is clear evidence of the value of the regional actors in building sustainable peace.

I thank Ms. Bachelet for her briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Mbeki. /Mr. Mbeki: Speaking as an African, I thank you most sincerely, Mr. President, both for placing the important question of peace through dialogue on the Security Council agenda and for inviting me to participate in the Council’s open debate on various elements of the global struggle for peace in the world. As the Council is well aware, for many decades an overwhelming majority of United Nations peacekeepers have been deployed in Africa, for the obvious reason that is the number of conflicts on our continent, compared to the rest of the world, that have been or are a threat to international peace and security. As the Council also knows, some years ago the African Union (AU) solemnly decided to silence the guns by 2020. Concrete reality, however, later obliged it to extend its target date to 2030. I say that to emphasize that it is obvious that Africa, and specifically the African Union, will continue to need to cooperate directly with the Security Council in addressing the challenge of securing peace on our continent of Africa. Only three years ago, in September 2020, on the occasion of the seventy-fifth anniversary of the United Nations, Mark Cogan, a former United Nations staff member, made some observations about the cooperation between the United Nations and Africa on matters of peace. He wrote that “[s]ince the start, United Nations peacekeeping in Africa has been a miserable failure.” He then cited a number of examples, including the 1960–1961 United Nations intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; the intervention in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide; a second intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 1999, to stop a civil war that had already killed more than 3 million people; and interventions in South Sudan and Mali. Obviously, neither the United Nations nor the AU want to perpetuate any failures with regard to conflict prevention and resolution in Africa. In that context, I would like to remind Council members of some elements of the 2015 report (see S/2015/446) of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO), one of which is what the Panel termed “the primacy of politics”. In that regard, the report states, “Lasting peace is not achieved nor sustained by military and technical engagements, but through political solutions. The primacy of politics should be the hallmark of the approach of the United Nations to the resolution of conflict, during mediation, the monitoring of ceasefires, assistance to the implementation of peace accords, the management of violent conflicts and longer-term efforts at sustaining peace.” (S/2015/446, para. 43) The second element refers to what the HIPPO terms “global and regional partnership for peace and security”, about which it states, “The Panel fully endorses the Secretary- General’s recent statement that ‘we have entered an era of partnership peacekeeping’ (see S/2015/229) [...] With a new conviction, the United Nations and regional organizations must mobilize their comparative advantages in responding to emerging crises while sustaining support to long-running ones. A bold new agenda is required to build a strong global-regional framework to meet those challenges through responsible and principled strategic partnerships.” (ibid., para. 53) I mention those two elements in the HIPPO report because of their direct relevance to what needs to be done to strengthen peace efforts globally. Where our continent is concerned, it goes without saying that our continental organization, the African Union, which has a strong African Peace and Security Architecture, has the comparative advantage that it is best placed to ensure the primacy of politics in its area of jurisdiction, Africa, a primacy that the HIPPO report insists on in terms of the prevention and resolution of conflict, even where violent conflict has already broken out. It obviously follows that this observation would also apply to the various important international interventions for the prevention and resolution of conflict mentioned in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. I would like to believe that this observation about the African Union applies equally to other regional organizations. All of that underscores HIPPO’s important point that a bold new agenda is required to build a strong global and regional framework to meet such challenges through responsible and principled strategic partnerships. It is in the vital interests of the Security Council to ensure that its regional partners such as the African Union are strong enough to discharge their responsibilities as part of the global peace architecture. In that regard, it will be important to reach an agreement to use some United Nations resources to fund AU-led peace operations, which would help elevate the practical importance of Chapter VIII of the Charter, as President Michelle Bachelet has just said. Nothing that I have said seeks to weaken the Security Council. On the contrary, for it to successfully discharge its solemn obligation to guarantee international peace and security, the Council requires strong regional partners capable of assisting it in the context of Chapters VI, VII and VIII of the Charter. I hope this important meeting will help to realize that objective.

I thank Mr. Mbeki for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Echavarría Álvarez. Ms. Echavarría Álvarez: I want to thank Brazil for this invitation to speak to the Security Council, which is a great honour for me as a representative of the University of Notre Dame. In these times of peril, tensions and the increased securitization of international relations, today’s debate on peace through dialogue is urgent. Sustained dialogue is most needed when there are disagreements and political difficulties. They are the best times to deepen our understanding on how and when the implementation of peaceful arrangements fails  — which is not an uncommon occurrence — and to focus our attention on how to design and implement peaceful arrangements that can succeed in the short, mid- and long term. At the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM) project at the Kroc Institute, we have researched more than 34 intra-State comprehensive peace accords since 1989. We have tracked the implementation process for up to 10 years following the signing of each agreement. We have designed a methodology specifically for monitoring the implementation of the commitments so that we can both compare accords to one another and look at the performance of the provisions in their own right. The PAM data offers insights into the types of provisions that are more or less likely to be implemented; how implementation processes unfold over time; and how implementation affects different post-accord outcomes. We make use of that research- based knowledge to engage conflict parties, mediators, negotiators and civil-society organizations in dialogue, with technical advice on process and content issues. The findings from our database and analyses provide us with relevant insights into the reasons for peace accords’ failure. Most accords fail when they are not comprehensive in relation to the issues that they cover, when not all actors and stakeholders are engaged in their negotiation and implementation, and, importantly, when the peace accord lacks a strong and independent verification and monitoring mechanism. Let me expand on each of those factors. First, peace agreements are more likely to succeed when the commitments included in the accord go beyond military and security provisions, such as those dealing with the demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants. They are also more likely to succeed when they incorporate questions of political and social development and gender and ethnic rights, as well as justice-related reforms that benefit society as a whole. More often than not, those reforms are brought to the negotiation table by the victims of the war and other representatives of civil society organizations. Here we find a second key factor for successful peace accords — the actors and stakeholders sitting at the negotiation table must include those most affected by the war, such as women, youth and ethnic communities. Listening to the victims helps us to understand the deep transformations needed to overcome violence and their ownership of the accord further supports the implementation process. Hence, putting human dignity at the centre of peacemaking is not only an ethical decision but also a sound strategic decision for conflict parties, mediators and negotiators. The third and final factor that contributes to the success and resilience of peace accords is having strong, independent and reliable monitoring and verification mechanisms. PAM’s research shows that peace accords with third-party mechanisms have an almost 47 per cent higher rate of implementation success than those that do not. Those mechanisms must be included in the design of a peace accord and should be chosen based on their validity, legitimacy and reliability. Their value to a peace accord underscores the importance of academic institutions and research centres lending their technical knowledge and credibility for independent monitoring. Allow me to zoom in on the Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace, signed by the Government of then-President Juan Manuel Santos and the former Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia–Ejército del Pueblo (FARC-EP) guerrillas in 2016. After providing technical support during the negotiations in Havana, the signatory parties gave a mandate to the Kroc Institute to be part of the international verification mechanism and monitor the implementation of the entire accord in real time. We created a matrix based on 578 concrete, observable and measurable commitments. More than 35 Colombian staff members in the capital and in rural areas gather information from public sources, and are in constant dialogue with the parties to the Agreement, implementation agencies, the international community and civil society. We rate the levels of implementation of the commitments from non-initiated to complete and highlight milestones, challenges and opportunities for improvement. The Colombian peace accord’s strong, independent and reliable mechanism of verification has a crucial component: the United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia, which has been vital for maintaining the momentum, support and resources of the United Nations and the international community on the peacebuilding process. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the Security Council and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Verification Mission in Colombia, Carlos Ruiz Massieu, for their work. The hybrid monitoring mechanism is, without a doubt, a best practice with great potential for replication at regional and subregional levels. Recently, the signatory parties to the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro in the Philippines invited the Kroc Institute to provide monitoring and verification support for implementation. Together with Catholic Relief Services and other civil society organizations, our aim is for PAM data to continue to be used as a centrepiece for conversation and peacebuilding. I hope that the data-based evidence and concrete examples I have shared today serve as proof that sustained dialogue leading to peaceful arrangements can succeed when the issues included in the peace accord involve a wide range of policy domains, when the negotiation table is generous and includes victims of the war, and when independent mechanisms for verification and monitoring accompany the process of implementation. Peace through dialogue is possible and can be successful. The University of Notre Dame’s commitment to peacebuilding is a permanent task. Let us never flag in our efforts to build peace in any and all environments.

I thank Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez for her briefing. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Brazil. I thank Her Excellency former President Michelle Bachelet, His Excellency former President Thabo Mbeki, Assistant Secretary-General Khaled Khiari and Ms. Josefina Echevarría Álvarez for sharing their views and experiences with mediation and the peaceful settlement of disputes. I also welcome His Excellency Mr. Igli Hasani, Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Albania, and Her Excellency Ms. Noura Al Kaabi, Minister of State at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the United Arab Emirates to the debate. I would like to begin by conveying that His Excellency Ambassador Mauro Vieira, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, deeply regrets not being present here today. He was asked to represent Brazil at tomorrow’s Cairo summit and rightly thought that the urgency and gravity of the situation required his presence there. Brazil’s current mandate at the Security Council coincided with significant turmoil in international politics, with many challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security. Our second presidency started with renewed violence in perhaps the oldest and most protracted situation of conflict since the United Nations was established. In some of the new conflict situations arising, just as in the very long conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, which is again claiming so many innocent lives, the Council has been ineffective, and it continues to lose its credibility and legitimacy. But the collective security system built upon the Charter of the United Nations remains our best option. Let us work to improve it. There are several ways of doing so, but there is one that has not gotten the attention it should. The Council must dedicate more energy to revitalizing its role as a promoter of conflict prevention and peaceful solutions. We should talk more about peace and about how to achieve peace. We owe it to that quarter of humankind struggling to survive under conflict. There are two things the Council can do to improve its effectiveness today: it should look inwards, and it should also look outwards. Looking inwards means revisiting its original mandate and rediscovering some of its own tools for fulfilling that mandate. Looking outwards means referring to initiatives that have been successful in other mechanisms at other levels of governance. Chapter VI gave the Council wide latitude to be creative in its use of peaceful means. Beyond the long list of tools described in Article 33, Article 36 empowers the Council to recommend appropriate procedures or methods of adjustment, without limitations on what those may be. Unfortunately, creativity in providing political solutions has waned in the past several years, as the Council has focused increasingly on coercive measures. Over half of the resolutions adopted last year explicitly referenced Chapter VII, and others still included actions that would be best placed under Chapter VII. Such over-reliance on Chapter VII has had negative effect. It has made consensus harder to reach, it has limited the Council’s ability to adapt to specific crises, and it has made it more challenging to engage the parties on the ground, which has often led to less durable solutions. Yet, elsewhere, peaceful solutions have continued to be used creatively and effectively. That is why the Council must also turn outwards to examine where preventive diplomacy, mediation and other tools of peaceful settlement have proven successful and what lessons that might bring to the Council’s own activities. We can find a wealth of examples of the peaceful resolution of conflicts in all regions of the world. Sometimes solutions have been achieved through institutions, sometimes through direct bilateral or plurilateral action. In our region, Latin America, we have reached successful direct bilateral settlements on territorial disputes and trilateral diplomatic settlements on the use of rivers, for instance. The Brasilia Declaration between Peru and Ecuador, signed 25 years ago, putting an end to a long-standing territorial dispute, is a wonderful example of that kind of achievement. We have also developed successful bilateral confidence-building initiatives through the establishment of institutions, such as the Brazilian-Argentine Agency for Accounting and Control of Nuclear Materials, as well as broad regional confidence-building initiatives, such as the Rio Group and the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, to name but a few examples. They are the product of the determination to put rivalries and disputes behind and look ahead, while tackling our true common challenges, such as poverty, inequality, social and regional disparities, economic bottlenecks, sustainable development and the many other challenges that face our societies and defy our sovereignties. Despite the many different contexts, regional experiences have one thing in common: the strengthening of trust, the good use of diplomacy, true political will and confidence-building. Trust and confidence-building are the common denominators of any successful process of a peaceful settlement or conflict resolution through peaceful means. When a trusted third party is available, it can act as mediator, making up for the lack of trust between the parties in conflict. When regional institutions are considered more reliable, they can step in and perform a similar role. When a trusted international institution, such as the International Court of Justice, is consensually chosen to help, it can decide effectively on a dispute. The Security Council may use its reinvigorated tools under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations in a variety of ways, supporting those regional and subregional processes more robustly. The establishment of special political missions is an example of action under Chapter VI that can be further explored and improved. For them to be more effective in their objective of sustaining peace, they require appropriate funding that is separate from the regular budget, under a mechanism that reflects the special responsibilities of the permanent members, as is the case with peacekeeping operations authorized by the Council. They also require realistic and achievable mandates that are carefully tailored to specific situations. They cannot be seen as a lower-cost version of peacekeeping operations. Finally, they would be strengthened by closer coordination between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, which in turn would contribute to more durable results. There is still room for more creativity. The Security Council has been prolific in creating subsidiary bodies to monitor sanction regimes; yet there is scarcely any subsidiary body dedicated to accompanying and supporting political processes under Chapter VI. Such bodies could be created today, under the Council’s current powers. The Council should look to regional experiences in the peaceful settlement of disputes with a healthy degree of humility. We must seek to actively learn from successful experiences elsewhere. We can find inspiration in different regions of the world for initiatives that complement United Nations efforts. Our briefers today have offered many examples. We need to expand the Security Council in order for it to become more representative of the United Nations membership. More voices around the table can help overcome the logic of rivalry that periodically paralyses many decisions here — and not only during the almost two years that Brazil has been watching it again from the inside, but for many decades, as is the case when it comes to the conflict between Israel and Palestine. In the past, even amid fierce competition and deep-seated mistrust in several specific circumstances, political leaders and Governments could find space for cooperation and confidence-building by looking inward and outward. They came up with different types of tools to prevent or resolve conflicts. We now desperately need leaders and Governments to be courageous and far-sighted. While we continue to strive for the Council we want, we must not lose sight of how best to work with the Council as it is now. That was the reason behind the proposal for this debate. I hope it will offer us some thought-provoking ideas. I thank members for their participation and for the long list of speakers willing to share their views. I resume my functions as President of the Council. I shall now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements. I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Albania.

I thank the Brazilian presidency for organizing this open debate today. I also thank Presidents Bachelet and Mbeki and the other briefers for their valuable input to today’s deliberations. The timing for such a debate could not be more appropriate. In an ever-evolving global landscape, in which our collective commitment to peace remains steadfast, we find ourselves confronted with an array of serious challenges of historic proportions. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine and its disastrous consequences have marked a historic turning point for European security. It continues to have a detrimental effect beyond the continent and remains a stark reminder of the pressing need to return to dialogue and cooperation to deal with grievances and resolve disputes. The unbearable suffering of Ukrainians and the blatant breach of international law underscore the imperative of ending that unjust war and achieving a just and lasting peace. Similarly, the recent dramatic escalation of the situation in the Middle East following the despicable terrorist attack by Hamas has turned into a source of immense human suffering for both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people and a threat for the entire Middle East. Furthermore, several severe human rights violations in various parts of the world, conflicts and power rivalries, terrorism, the return of authoritarianism, unconstitutional seizures of power by force and the strong polarization of the public sphere are affecting different societies, in particular minorities and women and children, who are often disproportionately affected by those aberrations of our shared vision for a peaceful and stable world. Faced with complex and interlinked challenges, the rules-based international order serves as a foundation for addressing those issues through peaceful and cooperative means. It is not a panacea; it may require adaptation to address emerging threats and always serious engagement in good faith. But it remains nonetheless an essential tool for promoting peace and stability in the international system. The Secretary- General’s New Agenda for Peace calls for strong partnerships between the United Nations and regional frameworks as part of networked multilateralism. Current geopolitical challenges make it imperative to reflect on how such partnerships should function. What could be the most efficient form of cooperation between the Council and regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security? That becomes crucial, especially for small States, which sometimes have to struggle for their voice to be heard. Regional organizations offer small States a range of tools and platforms to enhance their visibility and influence in the international arena. By working collectively, advocating for shared interests and leveraging the resources and expertise provided by their regional organization, small States can have a more significant impact on global affairs and gain a stronger voice in international decision-making processes. As a European Union (EU) candidate country, Albania underscores with conviction the undeniable role that the European Union plays on a wide range of issues, in full congruence with the work of the United Nations, including the Security Council, such as peace and security, meeting humanitarian and development needs in the world, the promotion of, and full respect for, human rights, mitigating climate change, ensuring full respect for international law and strengthening accountability for serious violations of international law. Only a few days ago, we hosted the tenth Berlin Process Summit for the Western Balkans in Tirana, the first one held outside the EU and in the Western Balkans region. That initiative has put into motion a delicate yet irreversible process of reconciliation, the peaceful resolution of bilateral issues between countries, a better understanding among societies in the region, the improvement of regional economic cooperation and the creation of a basis for the sustainable growth of individual countries and the entire region. It has proved a win-win formula for all, because the European security architecture needs a stronger and more consolidated Europe. The accelerated EU enlargement process and the Berlin process are complementary mechanisms for bringing all six Western Balkans countries into the European Union. It has proved an efficient investment in strengthening the bonds among those States and the broader European community, promoting cooperation, peace and prosperity in the region. The power play between rival Powers and competing interests can either exacerbate conflicts or facilitate their resolution. It is always a matter of choice. Multilateral dialogue and cooperation are essential to prevent the manipulation of disputes for geopolitical gains. Dialogue is essential in dealing with and resolving any conflict, whether old or emerging. In fact, dialogue is not just a better way. For us, it is the only way to deal with issues, however difficult they appear and however complex they are. Dialogue is what we have chosen in our part of the world. It is not always an easy path. It can prove difficult and frustrating, but there is no denying that is a winning formula for everyone. More than ever, today’s shaken world reminds us of the need to commit to dialogue based on fundamental universal values and to acknowledge that we constitute a community of fate, despite our different national perspectives and interests. Our duty is to make them converge and, when they do not, to continue to seek — tirelessly — the ways and means to solve issues through peaceful means by using the mechanisms we have created for that purpose. To that end, Albania strongly believes that regional and subregional organizations, as the transmitters of the unified voice of any given group of States, can play a pivotal role in ensuring that power politics do not hinder the pursuit of peace. Let me emphasize that by harnessing the potential of regional and subregional organizations and uniting in our resolve to uphold the values of multilateralism and international cooperation, which underpin the Charter of the United Nations, we can navigate the current global challenges and work towards a world where conflicts are prevented and peace is achieved, ensuring a brighter and more stable future for all.

I thank today’s briefers — Assistant Secretary-General Khiari, President Bachelet, President Mbeki and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez — for their valuable statements. Peacemaking is not the purview of the few alone, but a shared responsibility of the many. The Security Council has often spoken with a united voice on conflict prevention, and today’s meeting presents us with the opportunity to reflect on how that shared responsibility can be best harnessed. Ultimately, the impact of our prevention work will be in its results, not in our statements. In that connection, the United Arab Emirates would like to make three points today. First, the diversity of the United Nations membership offers us entry points for conflict resolution when others have failed. The pursuit of peace is too important not to rally all stakeholders guided towards the same goal. Whether the Council, Member States or regional organizations are involved, the focus should not be on who leads or who follows, but who is best placed to build trust. The path to peace is a difficult journey. The efforts of a broad range of actors should not be seen in opposition to one another when their end goal is the same. Rather, the work of both regional and international organizations should be mutually reinforcing. The endorsement of the Council of initiatives and outcomes from mediation efforts at the regional and bilateral levels can go a long way towards peace, for example. That is why it is so important for the Council to speak with a united voice on the catastrophic crisis unfolding in Gaza. Regional efforts are critical to provide immediate humanitarian assistance, as well as to prevent the risk of the conflict spilling over. Their voices are also crucial in reviving the political horizon that Israel and Palestine so desperately need. Secondly, trust must be in place as the foundation to build upon. Confidence-building measures can build crucial links during conflict when there is no end in sight. At times that means starting small. Deconfliction efforts or the established hotlines among militaries can prevent miscalculations or escalation and begin to build confidence. Humanitarian agreements, such as the exchange of detainees, can also serve to open channels of communication that would otherwise be closed. That does not mean politicizing humanitarian issues but securing progress on humanitarian priorities, such as the protection of civilians or the safe delivery of humanitarian access. These measures, based in humanitarian principles, may one day contribute to a broader political discussion. And where multilateral institutions struggle or fail in that endeavour, trust can be built from the ground up through regional and subregional organizations. Harnessing the nuanced knowledge surrounding local dynamics, the threads of the social fabric and the historical context are valuable resources that regional and subregional actors possess when it comes to peace efforts. Those can be leveraged for even greater impact. The Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace highlights the way in which local peace initiatives can foster this bottom-up approach. Resolution 2686 (2023), on tolerance and peace and security, encouraged the United Nations to involve local communities, women, youth, civil society and religious leaders in the mediation of peace agreements. In particular, we welcome the growing establishment of, and support for, women regional mediator networks, as well as the growing commitment to ensure the full, equal and meaningful participation of women in sustainable peace efforts. Thirdly, coordination is critical. The benefit of a multilevel, multipronged approach is the reinforcement of efforts towards conflict prevention and mediation. But the multiplicity of mediators-to-be can give rise to mixed messages and risks undermining progress. Strengthening coordination mechanisms can help avoid forum shopping and much of the confusion, especially in scenarios where urgency is key, so that when crises arise, the Council and regional institutions are ready and able to leverage each other’s strengths for the best possible outcome. For instance, United Nations support for the African Union Mission in Somalia and the work of the quintet on security-related matters, are good examples of the potential of a coordinated approach to achieve results on the ground. The raging crisis in the Middle East today is the result of the belief that conflict can be managed indefinitely, without addressing its root causes. That is not a solution, and it highlights the need to mobilize all the tools available to international and regional actors in order to prioritize preventive diplomacy and conflict resolution. The tools are clear. So too are the best practices when it comes to preventive diplomacy. What we need is the political will to deploy them, even when the risks of failing are high.

I too thank Assistant Secretary-General Khiari, Ms. Bachelet, Mr. Mbeki and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for enriching today’s discussion with their thoughts and insights. I begin by thanking Brazil for organizing today’s open debate on this important topic. It is an increasingly interdependent, interconnected and rapidly changing world, and we now find ourselves at a critical juncture. Violations of the Charter of the United Nations and international law are increasing distrust among nations. Such actions are jeopardizing, perhaps irreparably, the multilateral system on which we all depend. At the same time, the international community must also tackle new and evolving existential threats, such as climate change, terrorism, disinformation and misinformation and cybercrime. The pushback on human rights and, in particular, women’s rights, is evident across the world. The importance of human rights and an inclusive approach to civil society is key, especially in view of the shrinking space for civic participation. If left unaddressed, all those situations will have far-reaching negative effects. The fact that conflicts are more likely to spill over to the region and beyond adds to the gravity and urgency of the situation. It further underlines the relevance of multilateralism and the United Nations in the contemporary world and the need to invest more in prevention. Over the years, we have developed a wide array of mechanisms that can play a key role in the resolution of disputes. Now, more than ever, we must maximize the resources and tools at our disposal. We must explore innovative and creative ways to use them to their full potential and more effectively. Regional and subregional organizations are an integral part of the multilateral system. Their in-depth knowledge of their region is an invaluable and indispensable asset that can greatly help them in facilitating progress towards peace. Since its establishment, the European Union (EU) has played a fundamental role in ensuring peace and stability in Europe. Born from the ashes of the devastation of the Second World War, the EU is a living example of how multilateralism and regional integration bring peace, stability, prosperity and growth. The road has been a long and gradual one. Nevertheless, political will and sustained efforts aimed at building trust, facilitating trade and promoting solidarity among nations has led to tangible and lasting results. Furthermore, the existing comprehensive United Nations-EU approach to crisis management, mediation and peace operations, including support in various regions, has helped several countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. The efforts of the African Union (AU) are also remarkable and commendable. It is actively contributing to sustainable peace and security in Africa. The notion of the indivisibility of peace and security has led to the establishment of AU-led peace support operations such as the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia. The AU is also acting on key issues such as the women and peace and security agenda, the youth, peace and security agenda and children and armed conflict. Partnerships between international and regional organizations are also worth investing in. The trilateral United Nations-AU-EU cooperation on peace and security is an example. It is also fundamental to ensure that actions taken at the global level, including those agreed by the Security Council, are supported by action at the regional level. Mirroring Malta’s commitment to diplomacy and multilateralism, our belief in the peaceful resolution of disputes remains intact. The war in Ukraine, the conflicts in Africa and the Middle East and instability in other parts of the world highlight the challenges we continue to face. The United Nations — and more specifically the Security Council — must use all means and measures provided for in the Charter to prioritize the peaceful settlement of disputes and advance conflict prevention and resolution efforts. We reiterate how essential it is to enhance the capacity of the United Nations to act as a mediator and implement effective United Nations-led mediation. The New Agenda for Peace puts a strong focus on prevention and on further strengthening mediation capacities. The use of the good offices of the Secretary-General remains crucial to promoting the peaceful resolution of disputes. To further operationalize those efforts at various levels, Malta welcomes the increased exchanges between United Nations Special Envoys and Special Representatives and their regional, subregional and national equivalents. We also attach great importance to arbitration and judicial settlement. International and regional courts and tribunals are indispensable in maintaining peace and security. The Council could make better use of that tool by promoting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and ensuring compliance with its decisions, for example. In conclusion, I want to emphasize our belief that cooperation through effective multilateralism remains the best way to advance our collective efforts. Malta remains deeply committed to an effective multilateral system that acts to address contemporary challenges and prevent future ones.

I congratulate you, Mr. President, on the initiative to convene this high-level debate, offering us an opportunity to consider the contribution of regional, subregional and bilateral arrangements to the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes. I thank Assistant Secretary- General Khiari for his briefing, and former Presidents Bachelet and Mbeki for their enlightening contributions to this debate. I listened attentively to Ms. Echavarría Álvarez’s presentation. The United Nations was built and consolidated around a rejection of the worst atrocities, barbarism and hegemonic ambitions that inflicted unspeakable suffering on humankind during the Second World War. It was in order to spare future generations from the scourge of war that the peoples of the world undertook the responsibility to lay the foundations for harmonious coexistence, bolstered by a set of values articulated around peace, development and human rights. Even today, peace and security remain threatened by pandemics, the recurrent effects of global warming, the rise of terrorism, particularly in the Sahel, and tensions in the Middle East, as well as a number of intra- and inter-State crises that undermine international relations and are reaching increasingly worrisome dimensions. We are witnessing risks of a shift into global instability with potentially chaotic consequences. The crisis in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas poses a challenge in terms of the scale of the risks created and the extent of the responsibilities to be assumed. That is the interest and scope of this important debate, which offers us an opportunity to revisit our values and commitments, restore trust, reinvigorate diplomacy and breathe new life into the prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes. Beyond the maintenance of peace and the use of force, the Charter of the United Nations offers a range of tools, enshrined in particular in Chapters VI and VIII. We should explore their use in greater depth, especially in view of the rise in tensions in regions already weakened by recurring crises, notably in Africa and the Middle East, as well as the visible tumult in areas of Europe that seemed to have been spared until now. Dialogue is a privileged means for the prevention and peaceful settlement of conflicts. However, as indicated in the Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace, the mistrust and distrust that have gained a foothold over the course of clashes and violations of international law, international humanitarian law and human rights, combined with expansionist logic, have clearly contributed both to the atrophying of States’ commitment to cooperating in favour of peaceful solutions to international crises and to reducing the potential of multilateral solutions. We all know that trust is the key to building a sustainable collective security system. In that regard, re-establishing bonds of trust has become an imperative in enabling diplomacy to strengthen and unite efforts aimed at effectively preventing and repelling threats to peace and security in our world. Gabon continues to afford great importance to the role of regional and subregional organizations in the quest for peace, which is why we have established mechanisms in our subregion for the prevention and management of crises and conflicts. They include the Central African Early Warning System, which is headquartered in my country, and the Council for Peace and Security in Central Africa. The work of United Nations regional offices, whose mandate includes the mission of prevention, is crucial. The activities carried out by the United Nations Office for Central Africa, headquartered in Libreville, which are aimed at reducing tensions between States as well as sustaining peace, stability and development in the region, are particularly valuable. Likewise, the centrality of the Luanda and Nairobi processes in resolving the crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo shows that subregional frameworks remain credible channels for international action. It is also important to underscore the leading role of the United Nations Regional Centre for Preventive Diplomacy for Central Asia, which serves as a platform for exchange and proposes coordinated solutions to such regional threats as the fight against terrorism and extremism, transboundary water management and climate change, and the promotion of the youth, peace and security and women and peace and security agendas. Regional and subregional arrangements thus appear to set the standard for peacebuilding partnerships, particularly as they incorporate the specificities of each situation and grasp the real needs of stakeholders, especially women, young people and the most vulnerable communities, whose participation in the peace process is a crucial element. Regional and subregional mechanisms also provide an ideal platform for peace negotiations and mediation. The role of regional and subregional organizations in the peaceful settlement of disputes is increasingly valued, given the growing relationship between the United Nations and several organizations. The most emblematic of these is the cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union, whose highly evident achievements in several fields are well known and include the fight against terrorism, with the deployment in Somalia, for instance, of African contingents supported by the United Nations; peacebuilding in the Great Lakes region, which has its own dedicated United Nations regional office; and the trilateral United Nations-African Union-Intergovernmental Authority on Development mechanism, which was put in place to resolve the crisis in the Sudan. Cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union is an essential tool to ensure the effectiveness of the peace and security agenda in Africa, because it is based on the vital complementarity and subsidiarity of the partnership between those two organizations. I would therefore like to stress once again the urgent need to provide predictable and adequate financial support, based on the United Nations’ assessed contributions, to African Union peace operations. Africa, which is ready to assume its share of responsibility for protecting and guaranteeing the peace and prosperity of the continent, eagerly awaits the Council’s support in the form of the resources adequate to that end, because it is the Council that bears primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. I would like to conclude by reaffirming the importance my country attaches to regional, subregional and bilateral arrangements, and the need to enhance those important tools in service to international peace and security.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s important debate. I thank Assistant Secretary-General Khiari, former President of Chile Michelle Bachelet and former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki for their insightful briefings. I also want to thank Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez for her important research on the implementation and verification of peace agreements. We appreciate Brazil’s work to strengthen the partnership between the United Nations and regional and subregional organizations, including through the Organization of American States (OAS). Those partnerships, which often manifest themselves through regional peace operations, are essential to addressing new and emerging global and regional challenges arising from climate change, food and energy insecurity, conflict, violence and terrorism. In the western hemisphere, we welcome cooperation between the United Nations, OAS, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), regional economic communities, regional mechanisms and other partners in support of conflict prevention and mediation, and we welcome further collaboration through United Nations peacebuilding efforts. Globally, and noting that the Council met most recently on 12 October (see S/PV.9435) to discuss African Union-United Nations cooperation efforts, we welcome United Nations cooperation with other regional and subregional organizations, including the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The Security Council has a broad mandate with respect to the peaceful settlement of disputes, outlined in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. That includes calling on parties to use the means listed in Article 33, namely, negotiations, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, and, as outlined in Article 36, recommending procedures and methods of adjustment. The Summit of the Future process, including the New Agenda for Peace, offers an important opportunity to take stock of United Nations tools in the maintenance of international peace and security, including those outlined in Chapter VI. In that regard, strengthening the United Nations Mediation Support Unit to allow for greater national and local work remains a priority. As we prepare for next year’s summit, the United States will continue to support the critical convening role of the United Nations at the regional, country and subnational levels in emerging and ongoing crises, bringing together civil society, major donors, local government and other key stakeholders to establish clearly defined, shared goals and to coordinate efforts across the range of actors. We welcome the New Agenda’s focus on prevention and an expanded role of the Peacebuilding Commission. We would underscore the need for full integration of the promotion of respect for human rights and the advancement of national rule of law and international law into the Commission’s context. Development and peace cannot advance without full consideration of these issues. The Security Council must also be responsive to regional organizations’ requests for support to help to address the conflicts they are working to resolve. ASEAN, for example, while playing an important role in addressing the situation in Burma, has, in parallel, called for the United Nations to support its efforts. To that end, the Council should look to use all tools at its disposal to support ASEAN in its efforts to facilitate peace in Burma. The New Agenda for Peace also recommends — and the United States supports — an enhanced role for regional and subregional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security. In that regard, we reiterate our support to transition processes in Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea and continue to call for a return to civilian-led, democratic governance. United Nations and ECOWAS leadership remains critical in holding transition Governments accountable to their stated timelines and in promoting stability in the region. Separately, the worsening situation in Haiti underlines the critical need for robust and flexible policy responses to growing insecurity, including through regional partners. We reaffirm our commitment to working with Haitian partners, including local leaders and civil society, regional bodies and Governments, to support democratic institutions. CARICOM has been an essential partner in efforts aimed at restoring security in Haiti. The United States looks forward to working together as the Multinational Security Support Mission to Haiti begins plans to deploy. Additionally, the United States is committed to working closely with multilateral organizations like the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. We appreciate and support the work those organizations are undertaking to bring peace, stability and economic prosperity to all their Member States. In conclusion, the United States will continue to support close cooperation among the United Nations, regional organizations  — including ASEAN, the African Union, the League of Arab States, CARICOM, the European Union, OAS, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation  — and subregional organizations to advance peace and security throughout the world.

Mozambique warmly commends Brazil for convening this important open debate. We thank the briefers, Mr. Khaled Khiari, Her Excellency former President Michelle Bachelet, His Excellency former President Thabo Mbeki and Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez. Their briefings were important and insightful. The theme selected by Brazil’s presidency is of extreme importance to the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. Dialogue is at the heart of any conflict resolution. It bridges differences and leads to a mutual understanding, to shared values and to our common humanity. It is ultimately the source of peace and accommodation. Peace through dialogue is in our view as important as peace through law. As a matter of fact, as a social construct, law can only be derived from dialogue and a common understanding of the values that are at stake or that embody a society. There can be no genuine dialogue without a degree of trust and no trust without dialogue. In general, inter-State conflicts that appear as a surprise at the regional or international levels erupt where there was a clear deficit of dialogue and consequently a deficit of trust. We speak from our own experience in our region, Southern Africa, which is one of the regions that has suffered most in the past from the lack of dialogue. It is a region that evolved from a past that was affected with a multitude of tensions, conflicts and wars to a place of relative peace and a firm commitment to dialogue, reconciliation, cooperation and successful peace agreements. In Southern Africa, when dialogue became possible, colonialism ended. When dialogue was accepted, apartheid, a crime against humanity, disappeared from the map. When negotiations took centre stage to end conflicts that originated from the heritage of colonialism, plunder and aggression, the life of our populations was, as a consequence, normalized. All of that occurred through the use of Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations and sometimes in combination with Chapters VII and VIII. In that context, today’s debate is particularly important, because it is being held at a moment of heightened geopolitical tensions, particularly at the regional and subregional levels. In that connection, resorting to Article 33 of the Charter at the regional and subregional levels, together with bilateral arrangements, is of paramount importance. They constitute a cornerstone of our joint global efforts to address conflicts, build confidence, nurture peace and promote sustainable development in Africa and around the world. In that process, we believe that bilateralism, regionalism and multilateralism are important mechanisms that are mutually reinforcing. In the light of our experience, there is no incompatibility between bilateralism and multilateralism, or for that matter between regionalism and multilateralism. We believe the African Union’s peace and security architecture, together with its Master Roadmap of Practical Steps to Silence the Guns in Africa by the Year 2020, known as the Lusaka Master Roadmap, is a clear testament to that interconnectedness. The very concept of African solutions to African problems is a clear recognition of the undeniable contribution of local, subregional and regional entities, as well as bilateral arrangements, to the attainment of sustainable peace and security. We therefore wholeheartedly agree with the concept note by Brazil when it says that “[t]he search for peace is a collective duty.” (S/2023/732, annex. p.3) That is because peace and security are a global and indivisible good. Therefore, they entail global responsibility and, as a consequence, responsibility- sharing and solidarity in facing the threats to world peace and security. That is in our view the larger vision and content of the letter and spirit of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, but also of the Charter as a whole. We strongly believe that we must move in the same direction on the issue of financing African Union peace support operations, which need to be assessed with our collective contributions within the United Nations, as President Thabo Mbeki very wisely and clearly put it in today’s meeting. Because they serve the cause of global peace and security, they serve a common cause of humankind. We wish to underscore the centrality of effective partnership among international, regional and subregional organizations, as well as bilateral arrangements, in ensuring global peace and security. We therefore call on all Member States to renew and honour their commitment to the foundational purposes and principles of the United Nations and to continue working resolutely, in the spirit of cooperation and unity of purpose.

I thank Assistant Secretary- General Khiari, former President Bachelet, former President Mbeki and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. The world is in turmoil, with a series of severe geopolitical challenges, including the ongoing aggression against Ukraine, the increasingly tense situation surrounding the Gaza Strip, the repeated launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles by North Korea and the political unrest in several countries in Africa, to name just a few. Those challenges are seriously affecting international peace and security. In order to cope with such varied and complex crises, it is imperative for the international community to stay united and mobilize every single tool at hand. In that sense, the measures available under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations — ways and means for the pacific settlement of disputes, including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, judicial settlement and resort to regional arrangements  — are important and should be fully exploited. Bilateral, regional and subregional arrangements are formed based on mutual trust and common interest among parties with shared affinities and geographic specificities, and are aimed at resolving regional issues through dialogue. Indeed, we appreciate that those arrangements play an important role in addressing issues in each region. Those may include the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development for Somalia, the Economic Community of West African States for West Africa, the Southern African Development Community for Southern Africa, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the European Union for Europe, the Organization of American States for the Americas, and others. We should encourage further utilization of such important mechanisms to cope with local challenges and beyond. In that context, the role of the Peacebuilding Commission needs to be emphasized as a platform for strengthening partnerships with various actors, including regional organizations, sharing best practices and lessons learned across regions. On the other hand, there remain some challenges with respect to which sufficient confidence among countries does not exist, and therefore little or no dialogue happens, or else dialogue fails and regrettably obligations under international law, including those flowing from Security Council resolutions, have not been respected time and again. Furthermore, since today’s crises are often interconnected, an incident in one region tends to have a global impact. That is why the United Nations, especially the Security Council, should work together with regional organizations to tackle common challenges. The United Nations and regional arrangements must not be mutually exclusive, but rather complementary, consistent with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The United Nations is the largest and last bulwark of multilateralism and can exercise significant convening power around its flag. In facing serious challenges threatening international peace and security, we must not exclude any choices in terms of measures or arrangements, whether they be bilateral, regional, subregional or multilateral. We should keep our options wide open so that we can utilize the right tools at the right time at the right place. In particular, the Security Council must fulfil its responsibility. Among the many options available to the United Nations, peace operations are an essential tool at its disposal. The effective implementation of their mandates will be possible under unified support by the Council. Enforcement measures by regional organizations function well if they are utilized appropriately. United Nations sanctions are also a legitimate, effective and important tool under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations if they are used wisely and rigorously. We recognize that these are all useful, but ex post, recovery measures. As the New Agenda for Peace stresses, the most important thing is to prevent the crisis from happening in the first place. Upholding the rule of law at the national, regional and international levels will increase predictability, advance economic and social development and ensure respect for human rights. Building upon such foundations, we must push peacebuilding forward to eradicate the root causes of crises. As we see it, the basic concepts behind initiatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and human security are all consistent in that regard. The current complex interrelated global challenges we are facing cannot be solved by any one country. They require cooperation and collaboration. In this collective endeavour, every country and group matters, and any arrangement — whether bilateral, regional, subregional or multilateral — can make a difference, as long as they act in the spirit of solidarity and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. We should strive to overcome divisions and differences among us to bring about a world that cares for human dignity, where vulnerable people can live safely and securely. Japan is fully committed to multilateralism. We have been and will always be ready to proactively contribute to world peace, security and prosperity.

We would like to thank Mr. Khaled Khiari; Ms. Michelle Bachelet, former President of Chile; Mr. Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa; and Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. We are grateful to Brazil for taking the initiative to discuss such an exceptionally important topic as the contribution of regional arrangements to the prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes. As we know, Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations give Member States the opportunity to avoid the use of force and to achieve sustainable and long-term solutions to conflicts based on mutual understanding and cooperation. The role of regional and subregional organizations in that context is undeniable. Regional and subregional organizations often have a deep understanding of local realities and cultural, economic and social characteristics. Those organizations can serve as a bridge between national and international initiatives, ensuring more targeted and efficient conflict resolution. At the same time, mutually respectful and equal cooperation among Member States within those structures and in their relations with other members of the international community is also important. In that context, we would like to refer to the positive example of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which has genuinely contributed to regional stability for more than 20 years. Work is continuously being undertaken to counter common threats and challenges, including those stemming from the territory of Afghanistan. We intend to continue to contribute to the strengthening of the CSTO and to enhancing its capacity and authority on the international stage. We support further development of cooperation between the CSTO and the United Nations, including on peacekeeping, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations and based on the 2010 Joint Declaration. Cooperation on the maintenance of international peace and security is also a priority in a broader format  — within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). That imperative was once again reaffirmed in the CIS leaders’ statement on international relations in a multipolar world, signed at the summit in Bishkek on 13 October. We also fully support the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s contribution to conflict prevention. The work of the Eurasian Economic Union also provides significant opportunities to develop international mutually beneficial cooperation. With regard to the Latin American region, we can note the great potential of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA). CELAC brings together 33 countries from across the continent and is aimed at strengthening the political and socioeconomic unity of the region. It allows States with different interests and approaches to find common ground and joint solutions. ALBA is inspired by the Bolivarian principles of solidarity, justice and cooperation. The organization actively promotes the integration of the peoples of the region, based on respect for national sovereignty and the independence of each country. We commend the more than five decades of effective functioning of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the first international legal instrument establishing a nuclear-weapon-free status for the vast and densely populated region of Latin America and the Caribbean. We stand ready to engage in productive cooperation with the States in the region on strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Despite the suspension of our country’s observer status within the Organization of American States, where we used to enjoy productive cooperation, in particular through the Inter-American Committee against Terrorism and the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, we are ready to continue our specialized cooperation with some partners in Latin America and the Caribbean that continue to express interest in doing so. We welcome the strengthening of the authority of the African Union as a leading continental organization in international affairs, as reflected in Africa’s growing global role and influence as one of the most important pillars of the multipolar world. We commend the effective work of the African Union in countering threats posed by terrorist organizations, including the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab. We advocate the discussion of effective measures to increase the predictability, reliability, sustainability and flexibility of financing African peace operations under the auspices of the Security Council, in particular through assessed contributions to the United Nations budget. There is also great potential for strengthening regional stability through other regional organizations, such as the League of Arab States, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. That is more needed than ever given the efforts under way to resolve the Palestinian- Israeli conflict and the national reconciliation process in Myanmar. We deem the contribution to international peace and security of the European Union (EU) to be highly questionable. We are compelled to note that in recent years that organization has produced mainly destructive initiatives imbued with the logic of a zero-sum game and its own narrow self-interest. For years, the EU has been consistently preparing Ukraine for confrontation with Russia, turning a blind eye to all the phenomena happening in that country which would be unthinkable in its own member States. By debasing its own values, the EU is supplying Ukraine with offensive weapons and military equipment, violating its own standards with regard to the unacceptability of the supply those kind of resources to conflict zones. The EU has not made a constructive contribution to the process of normalization between Armenia and Azerbaijan, rather it has only increased the divergences between those neighbouring States. During negotiations under the auspices of the EU in the framework of the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue, the EU went from being a neutral broker to openly supporting Kosovar Albanians. As a result, each new round of negotiations ends in failure time after time and another escalation of violence in the region. The list goes on and on. It is clear that Brussels is motivated solely by geopolitical ambitions, the desire to develop new spheres of influence and to recolonize politically and economically vulnerable States. As a result, the EU’s involvement in international efforts to maintain peace and security leads only to violence, chaos and disorder. A similar neocolonial approach is being taken by the North Atlantic bloc, which is an obvious remnant of the Cold War. NATO operations have resulted in numerous civilian casualties, destroyed infrastructure, caused significant economic damage and led to the de jure or de facto collapse of States. For many years now, the alliance’s activities have focused on the strategic defeat of Russia. That aim is stated explicitly in NATO’s current doctrine documents. Much like the European Union, NATO today pays particular attention to Ukraine, which has become the main springboard for opposing Russia. Moreover, what has recently become noticeable is the alliance’s desire to expand its activity to the Asia-Pacific region to contain another country identified by Washington and Brussels as a strategic adversary — China. In the context of the confrontation pursued by the West, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which initially had a unique toolkit for conflict prevention and the peaceful settlement of disputes, has significantly deteriorated. Today that organization, which to a large extent consists of members of the European Union and NATO, has unfortunately lost its compass. The efforts undertaken by last year’s OSCE Chair, Poland, and this year’s Chair, North Macedonia, to promote the West’s agenda are blatantly flouting the OSCE’s fundamental rule of consensus and the principle of the sovereign equality of States. They have been imposing a Ukrainianization of the entire agenda. As a result, the organization is now paralysed and risks completely losing its role as a backbone in the European space. Addressing that crisis will require serious work and a return to the roots of its structure. To date, we have not seen a readiness to do that on the part of our opponents. Regional organizations can in principle make a very significant contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security. The key to their success lies in their efforts to resolve emerging problems through political and diplomatic methods, in compliance with the norms of international law, in which the United Nations plays the leading role, on the basis of the principles of the indivisibility of security, mutual respect and non-interference in the internal affairs of States. We are ready to engage in constructive cooperation with all regional organizations and members of the international community that are interested in working within that positive coordination system.

China commends Brazil for convening this open debate on the role of regional mechanisms. I thank Assistant Secretary-General Khiari for his briefing. I also listened attentively to the statements made by Ms. Bachelet, Mr. Mbeki and the civil society representative. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. At the same time, Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations encourages the pacific settlement of disputes through regional arrangements. Over the years, various regional arrangements have played an active role in promoting the settlement of conflicts and disputes, maintaining international peace and stability and complementing the role of the United Nations. In today’s world, given the heightened turmoil at the international and regional levels and the continuous flare-ups of geopolitical conflicts and hotspot issues, the ways in which regional mechanisms can coordinate efforts with the United Nations to maintain common security deserve serious consideration and discussion. I would like to make the following points. First, in compliance with the Charter, regional mechanisms must always abide by international law and the basic norms governing international relations, respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and respect the will and choices of the people of the countries concerned. Any enforcement actions must strictly comply with the authorization of the Council. Regional efforts must be guided by openness and toler­ ance. Confrontation between camps should be avoided. Secondly, we need to strengthen communication and coordination. International and regional mechanisms should draw on and reinforce one another in trust-building, good offices and the maintenance of peace. Regional mechanisms are uniquely positioned to resolve regional issues through regional solutions. The United Nations should strengthen overall coordination, optimize resource allocation and enhance the capabilities of various mechanisms. Thirdly, we need to prioritize preventive diplomacy. Regional mechanisms should embrace a common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security concept and peacefully resolve disputes through dialogue, consultation, mediation and good offices to prevent the escalation or proliferation of crises. Extreme caution must be exercised in the threat or use of force. Fourthly, we need to eliminate the root causes of conflicts. Regional mechanisms should make coordinated efforts along the peace continuum in all three of its stages, namely, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction. In particular, regional mechanisms should help developing countries and least developed countries to strengthen their capacity- building and improve their living standards. It is also vital to help post-conflict countries to join regional cooperation processes and achieve lasting peace. The Palestinian-Israeli situation is the most pressing issue before us. The eruption of renewed conflict between Palestine and Israel shows that piecemeal crisis management is unsustainable and that a comprehensive and just solution to the Palestinian question cannot be delayed. China supports the League of Arab States and the wider Arab world in playing a leading role on the Palestinian issue. The United Nations and its Security Council should heed the calls of Arab countries; strengthen coordination with regional mechanisms such as the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation; take robust measures based on the relevant United Nations resolutions, the Arab Peace Initiative and other international consensuses in order to promote an immediate ceasefire; and make every effort to ensure the safety of civilians in order to prevent an even deadlier humanitarian disaster. China supports the United Nations and the African Union in stepping up their cooperation, taking stock of the lessons learned in addressing hotspot issues in Africa and better promoting peace and development on the continent. The United Nations should help Africa improve its capabilities in peacekeeping, maintaining stability and combating terrorism, and should provide it with the necessary resources. Afghanistan is at a critical juncture of peace and reconstruction. The countries of the region, especially Afghanistan’s neighbours, have played a constructive role in promoting a smooth transition in the country. The United Nations should strengthen coordination and form synergies with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Afghanistan contact group and the neighbouring countries of Afghanistan mechanism to help the country achieve lasting security, development and prosperity. Since its inception, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has been active in promoting regional economic integration and building a regional cooperation architecture with ASEAN at the centre. As such, ASEAN plays an increasingly important role in maintaining regional peace, stability, development and prosperity. As a dialogue partner of ASEAN, the United Nations should support ASEAN’s leadership and its methods for resolving the situation in Myanmar and other regional issues and should create conditions for ASEAN to garner consensus and bring its weight to bear. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has set up a platform for inclusive dialogue among all parties and actors in Haiti and has made active efforts in support of a Haitian-owned and Haitian-led political solution. We support the United Nations and CARICOM in strengthening their interaction and jointly promoting a settlement of the crisis in Haiti. The European Union (EU) is an active advocate of multilateralism. We hope that the EU will practice true multilateralism, uphold the principle of sovereign equality, pay equal attention to the legitimate security concerns of all countries and respect the development path chosen independently by each country. The EU should leverage its resource advantages, respond to the needs of developing countries and increase targeted financial and technical support to the global South. At the same time, we firmly oppose the use of human rights as a pretext for interfering in the internal affairs of States. These times call for unity and cooperation, without which an effective response to various global challenges will be impossible. Ten years ago, President Xi Jinping proposed the Belt and Road Initiative. The third Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation just concluded successfully in Beijing, with constructive outcomes. Over the past decade the Initiative has grown from a vision into reality, with more than 3,000 joint projects, while mobilizing almost $1 trillion in investment, lifting 40 million people out of poverty and turbocharging the connectivity and common development of all partner countries. Inspired by the Silk Road spirit of peace, cooperation, openness, inclusiveness, mutual learning and mutual benefits, we will continue to deepen cooperation with other countries and regional mechanisms around the world, join hands to build a community with a shared future for humankind and renew our contributions to promoting common development and safeguarding common security.

War and violence often erupt suddenly, with a painful bang, causing casualties — often civilian casualties — on all sides, as we have sadly been reminded by the tragic events in the Middle East since Hamas’ launch of rockets and attacks against Israel on 7 October. War often erupts without warning, but how do we build peace? This debate is providing us with the opportunity to address that question, and I thank Brazil for having brought us together for that purpose. I would like to join my colleagues in thanking Assistant Secretary- General Khiari, former Presidents Bachelet and Mbeki and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. Colombian peacebuilder Genith Quitiaquez recently spoke on this subject. She said: (spoke in Spanish) “Peace is the common construction of a river. It may seem to take a complex path, with stones, and many settlers, and we women will be the foam that always seeks to reach peace and undertake transformative actions.” (spoke in French) Those words remind us that peace is a collective endeavour. As early as 1945, that conviction was firmly enshrined in the Charter of United Nations by its authors. Any joint construction effort, and certainly that of peace, requires trust, which was the subject of our open debate in May (see S/PV.9315). It is also an observation that Switzerland has made in all its mediation experiences, in particular in the mediation process in Colombia, which we have been supporting for more than 20 years. Of course, trust is not a given. It has to be built and earned. Trust often finds fertile ground in regional organizations that encourage continued dialogue and technical cooperation. Accordingly, over the years, hundreds of frank exchanges, promises kept and good- faith gestures mutually reinforce one another to form a solid basis for ambitious cooperation. It is therefore hardly surprising that regional organizations often manage to stay the course even in troubled waters. Switzerland is a member of the oldest regional organization, the Central Commission for the Navigation of the Rhine, one of Europe’s major rivers. As a child of the Rhine city of Basel, I myself have always been impressed to see how that river artery has become a source of cross-border cooperation and trust. Regional organizations are therefore well placed to take the lead in mediating conflicts. International discussions taking place in Geneva on the subject of Georgia provide a good example in that regard. Under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the European Union and the United Nations, critical and practical issues related to conflict-affected populations are being addressed. That cooperation is crucial to maintaining peace and stability in Georgia, given the challenges that are still not resolved, 15 years after the war. What role should the Security Council play, then, when regional organizations take the lead? The Council has a triple role to play: a role as the guardian of norms, a catalyst role and a preventive role. I will explain. First of all, the Security Council must ensure that regional arrangements are in line with universal norms, such as human rights. As United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk underscored in this Chamber on 3 May (see S/PV.9315), upholding norms promotes trust. That is the Council’s role as the guardian of norms. Secondly, the Council can bolster regional efforts to mediate conflicts. A significant tool in this respect is the sharing of perspectives and recommendations. The Council’s field visits and informal interactive dialogues provide opportunities for such exchanges to enable all players to play a more effective role in promoting peace. That is the Council’s role as a catalyst. It is along those lines, moreover, that the Peacebuilding Commission can play its unifying role. Lastly, it is crucial that the Council play its preventive role in focusing on cooperation in general. On the one hand, that involves the role of United Nations special political missions. We must ensure that such missions become more involved in prevention, including by strengthening regional efforts. On the other hand, the Secretary-General should make full use of all his mediation tools, as he has pledged to do in his New Agenda for Peace. As the Assistant Secretary-General said earlier, the New Agenda for Peace can serve as a common point of reference for all of us — the Security Council, the United Nations and regional, subregional and local actors. It is said that the whole is more than the sum of its parts. That also applies to the vectors of peace at the local, regional and global levels, but only if those vectors point in same direction and converge towards the same goal, as small streams form large rivers. That brings me back to the Central Commission for the Rhine, which I mentioned earlier. It remains a living testimony to the power of cooperation, which enables us to achieve shared goals, even as, at times, we are against the current, and, at others, the wind is in our sails. Above all, the peaceful settlement of disputes remains an obligation for all Member States, guided by the shared conviction that every conflict avoided benefits the whole of humankind.

I thank you, Sir, for convening this important meeting. I also thank Assistant Secretary-General Khiari, former Presidents Bachelet and Mbeki, and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. The Secretary-General’s analysis in his New Agenda for Peace should strike a chord with us all. People around the world are living and dying through a period of conflict unmatched in decades. Last year, according to the Peace Research Institute Oslo, there were 55 active conflicts, and there were more battle-related deaths than in any year since 1984. For more than a decade now, conflict has been trending relentlessly in the wrong direction. How is it that we seem, at times, so powerless to shift that tide? And what is it that the Security Council, the wider United Nations membership and other actors can do to change the trend? Let me offer three reflections. First, we can do more, and in a more coordinated manner, to support national actors in preventing and resolving conflict. Indeed, that should be our first port of call. It is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which looks first to conflict parties to settle their disputes by peaceful means. Achieving peace is rarely easy, and lasting peace can be sustained only with true and inclusive national ownership. That often requires hard decisions and the help of good-faith friends. The United Kingdom has had the privilege of being such a friend through several peace processes. And we continue to actively support conflict resolution efforts bilaterally and through multilateral partners, including as a major voluntary donor to global United Nations peace programmes. Secondly, we can support, help to strengthen and coordinate better with regional organizations. The Council’s annual dialogue with the African Union Peace and Security Council is a model that has borne fruit. But it can be further deepened and extended, including through stronger linkages between early- warning mechanisms, better use of the wider United Nations and regional peacebuilding architectures and more coordinated support to nationally led prevention strategies. Our engagement with the Caribbean Community on Haiti and with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations on Myanmar are other examples in which regional bodies play an important role and are partners of the Council. The United Kingdom has always been a strong advocate of Chapter VI of the Charter. At times of deep geopolitical division, it is even more important that regional organizations play an active role. Thirdly, where national and regional efforts fail, it is the duty of the Council to take action to safeguard international peace and security. That is a last resort that we can better avoid by marshalling all the tools at our disposal for effective prevention, mediation and peacebuilding in order to avoid escalation.

I thank Mr. Khiari, Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, former Presidents Bachelet and Mbeki and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. In 1992, when Ecuador held a seat on the Security Council, we were still involved in a territorial dispute with Peru. It was one of the oldest border disputes in South America, and it pushed two brother peoples apart for many years. On 26 October, we will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Brasilia Declaration, signed by my country and Peru in 1998. Historically, Ecuador has promoted peace and the pacific settlement of disputes, and it has rejected the threat and the use of force — principles on which our foreign policy is based and that have been priorities for us during our membership in the Council. That is why I would like to thank Brazil for organizing this important debate and the briefers for their contributions. The peaceful settlement of disputes, as enshrined in Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, is one of the essential principles of international law. The importance that the international community attributes to that principle can be seen in its reaffirmation in subsequent instruments such as the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the 1982 Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes and the General Assembly’s 1992 resolution 47/120 B, on an Agenda for Peace. Chapter Vi, Article 33, of the Charter, on the pacific settlement of disputes, establishes the means that States can use to achieve such a settlement. Nevertheless, as pointed out in the Secretary- General’s New Agenda for Peace, the underutilization of those means is one of the greatest shortcomings of the international community where achieving peaceful settlements are concerned. My country believes that regional, subregional and bilateral agreements can complement and strengthen the efforts of the United Nations in the prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes. Regional actors are the first to recognize the signs of an emerging conflict. They can also guarantee the implementation of peace agreements through the creation of demilitarized zones and ceasefires and by supporting political and negotiating processes, among other means. The experience of Latin America in that area is instructive. Our region, with a history marked by armed conflicts and civil wars, has in recent decades demonstrated its ability to prevent and resolve conflicts peacefully and its political willingness to become a nuclear-weapon-free zone. Ecuador recognizes the value of regional mechanisms for the pacific settlement of disputes. As I mentioned earlier, Ecuador and Peru signed the Brasilia Declaration in 1998 following the Cenepa armed conflict, which started at the beginning of 1995. In February of that year, the two countries agreed on the Itamaraty peace accord, paving the way for a negotiating process in which they were supported by Argentina, Brazil, Chile and the United States in their capacity as guarantor countries of the process. The Ecuador- Peru Military Observer Mission was established in accordance with the Itamaraty agreement and with the full commitment of the guarantor countries. That made it possible to establish a demilitarized zone, which became a key foundation of the peace process. Several rounds of negotiations were held between the parties over the course of more than three years, first in Brasilia and then in the guarantor countries’ various capitals. A negotiating delegation and subsequently four committees were formed to deal with issues of trade and navigation, border integration, the marking of the common land border on the ground and measures aimed at mutual confidence-building and security and the use of the Canal de Zarumilla. On 26 October 1998, with the signing of the Presidential Act of Brasilia, we established an indissoluble peace and confirmed the historic importance of the understandings reached by the two Governments for the development and welfare of the fraternal peoples of Ecuador and Peru. The pacific settlement of the conflict through diplomacy and the mediation of international actors proved that conflicts between nations can be resolved. In addition, it established a valuable precedent in the region, including the Brasilia Declaration, as I mentioned. To conclude, I would like to recall that in his first statement before the Council in 2017 (see S/PV.7857), Secretary-General António Guterres called for diplomacy for peace, stressing the importance of regional organizations. Ecuador shares that vision and calls on the Council to implement actions that are aimed at fulfilling its primary responsibility to maintain international peace and security. That is why we must remember that matters relating to Chapters VI, VII, VIII and XII also fall under the remit of the Council, whose decision-making power is binding on all Member States, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter. In Ecuador’s view, that obligation also applies to Article 27, paragraph 3, of the Charter, which states that “a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting”. That constitutes a legal obligation that not only must be fulfilled but must also be carried out in good faith.

I thank former Presidents and Thabo Mbeki, Assistant Secretary-General Khiari and Ms. Echavarría Álvarez for their briefings. I would like to stress three points. France, as a member of the European Union, believes firmly that regional integration serves the maintenance of international peace and security. That logic has been at the heart of the European Union from the outset. European construction began in 1951 with the establishment of a common market for coal and steel, which were strategic sectors during the two world wars. That vision continues to be the driving force behind the construction of Europe today. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the expansion of the European Union was the response to the democratic aspirations of millions of Europeans. It was also a factor of stability. That is the model that we continue to advocate through the European perspective recognized in Ukraine since the war of aggression unleashed by Russia. It is a model that respects the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, namely, sovereignty, the right of peoples to self-determination and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We support all regional actors who share that vision. In Africa, the African Union and subregional organizations have a decisive role, including recently in the face of the proliferation of coups d’état. The European Union is by far the largest donor to the African Union and will remain mobilized alongside it. Support for the African Union via the European Peace Facility amounts to €600 million for the period 2022– 2024. President Mbeki’s participation today reminds us of his work for peace in the Sudan and South Sudan over the past 15 years. We reiterate our support for the efforts of the African Union and all stakeholders in the region, as the conflict in the Sudan that has been raging for six months continues. In Latin America, the Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the European Union held in July demonstrated the closeness between the two organizations. That partnership is essential to confront that common challenges that go beyond international peace and security, in particular the fight against climate change. In Asia, cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is also an integral part of France’s Indo-Pacific strategy to jointly confront multilateral challenges and strengthen regional stability. That is also the spirit of the strategic partnership between the European Union and ASEAN. Finally, we must not lose sight of the fact that complementarity is a condition for effectiveness. Action at the regional level must continue to complement the action of the Security Council. That is the spirit of Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. The Security Council retains the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. That is imperative as regional Powers increasingly attempt to use their influence to impose fait accompli situations and thwart regional mediation efforts. The principle of complementarity also governs the New Agenda for Peace presented by the Secretary-General. That initiative basically reiterates that the United Nations needs collective action from its Member States to effectively fulfil its mandate, whether it concern the good offices of the Secretary-General, the defence of human rights or peacekeeping. France contributed to the development of that strategy and calls on all Member States to take advantage of it. We particularly support the Secretary-General’s call for the sustainable financing of African peace operations, in particular through assessed contributions to the United Nations.

Ghana is grateful to Brazil for spotlighting during this open debate of its presidency the importance of dialogue and peaceful means in preventing and resolving disputes. We thank Assistant Secretary-General Khaled Khiari for his briefing and Ms. Michelle Bachelet and Mr. Thabo Mbeki for their remarks, which highlighted the need for greater resort to the tools of pacific settlement at the national, regional and international levels. We equally note the perspectives of Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez, in particular the reminder to us of the meaningful contributions that academia can make in highlighting the significant role of dialogue in stabilizing societies. As indicated in your concept note for this meeting (S/2023/732, annex), Mr. President, the benefits of pacific tools in preventing and resolving conflicts at the national, regional and international levels are many. Yet, as ironic as it may seem, we have often not resorted to their use as the first option, even though in national mechanisms, regional protocols and international treaties, including the Charter of the United Nations, such provisions abound, anticipating that interactions within, between and among States are likely to create disputes. We therefore believe that the challenge, including for the Security Council, is how we can shift our collective will at the current time away from measures that require force towards means that are peaceful. In saying so, we are mindful of the notion some hold that resorting to peaceful means will not always produce the outcomes they desire, or that the results they seek from such a means will not necessarily be swift or without delay. However, it is quite evident, especially in matters of peace and security, that pacific means have usually been just and have had enduring outcomes. We therefore encourage all Member States, in particular the members of the Council, to deepen their utilization of the provisions of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter in dealing with the many disputes that currently confront us. As a Council and among all Member States, we should seize the opportunity of the Secretary-General’s policy brief on the New Agenda for Peace to rethink our approach to conflict prevention, management and resolution, and embrace even more the pacific approaches, which are time-tested and have proven to be sustainable in maintaining peace. In response to the guiding question that your concept note raised, Sir, we believe that there is no better way to enhance the use of Chapter VI of the Charter of this Organization than simply doing just that — enhancing its use. As Member States, we need to recommit to the various peaceful methods for settling disputes, and as a Council we should strengthen our role in exercising our mandate by calling on disputing parties to settle by peaceful means and follow up that call with strong facilitative support. In saying that, it is important that we strengthen the Secretary-General’s dedicated capacity within the United Nations to support disputing States, which would help them to have greater confidence in the peace support architecture of this Organization. We acknowledge in that context the Secretary-General’s good offices and the work of United Nations mediation, including the High-Level Advisory Board on Mediation and the Standby Team of Senior Mediation Advisers, which remain critical to the preventive diplomacy agenda. We urge the interlocking of those mediation capacities with those of regional arrangements in ways that can leverage regional knowledge and experience with the global resources of the United Nations in order to reinforce the impact of the pacific tools. The experience of many regional arrangements, including those in Africa, demonstrate a rich array of useful preventive and conflict resolution mechanisms, such as the Economic Community of West African States and the African Union early-warning systems, the African Union Panel of the Wise and the Southern African Development Community Panel of Elders, as well as other ad hoc mechanisms that are deployed to defuse tensions, elicit commitments to peaceful settlement and resolve disputes. While most of those preventive mechanisms remain largely effective, the gap between intentions and impact still requires some bridging to reduce the number of instances in which disputes that have been flagged get out of control and become violent. Additional resources in support of the effective functioning of such mechanisms could therefore be useful to enable them to respond in a timely and effective manner on behalf of the international system, as envisaged in Chapter VIII of the Charter. To improve the Security Council’s cooperation with regional, subregional and bilateral arrangements, we encourage, in addition to focused field visits by the Council, periodic informal interactive dialogues with arrangements that are making exceptional contributions to the peaceful settlement of disputes. Such dialogues should aim to explore how the unique strengths and successful experiences of the arrangements could be adapted and replicated in cross-regional contexts to support the resolution of other disputes on the agenda of the Council. The Colombian peace process and the Cameroon-Nigeria Mixed Commission experiences are worthy examples. Before concluding, while welcoming the Secretary- General’s emphasis on preventive diplomacy in his New Agenda for Peace, we underscore the saliency of mobilizing support to address the governance and development deficits that lie at the root of many of the intra-State crises we are witnessing. Investing in people, including women and young people, enhances their resilience to cope with complex challenges and helps to build and sustain peace, break the cycles of instability and reverse the drivers of fragility. Equally important, we need to encourage different nations to embrace all of their society, including their community and religious leaders, whose local wisdom has often proven beneficial in resolving many conflicts. Finally, the emphasis being placed in the current circumstances on prevention and the need for strong partnerships between the United Nations and regional organizations is the right one. Underpinned by a strong recommitment to international law, it should strengthen our collective resolve in championing the peaceful route in addressing the myriad crises of our time. For those of us from the continent of Africa, that approach also represents one of the surest ways of silencing the guns by 2030 and achieving a peaceful and prosperous continent. In looking at all the emerging challenges across the world at the present moment, which a number of the members of the Council discussed this morning, it is certain that time is not on our side, and we must take action to turbocharge the use of pacific settlements in preventing disputes and resolving them.

Since there are many speakers remaining on the list, I wish to kindly 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. Flashing lights on the collars of the microphones will prompt speakers to bring their remarks to a close after four minutes. I now give the floor to the representative of Cuba.

We welcome your presence, Sir, in your capacity as President of the Security Council, as well as the relevance of the topic selected for this open debate, which is all the more important now in view of the dangerous escalation of actions in the international arena that threaten multilateralism and peace. The most recent such action, Israel’s indiscriminate bombardment of the Palestinian population and the destruction of homes, hospitals and civilian infrastructure, as well as the deprivation of water, electricity and fuel to the Palestinian population, must be stopped immediately. Nothing can justify such actions, which constitute grave breaches of international humanitarian law. It is imperative to ensure an immediate ceasefire and civilian access to humanitarian aid, as well as to prevent the forced displacement of Palestinians from the land that is rightfully theirs. There can be no peace if we allow egregious violations of international humanitarian law, such as those perpetrated by Israel, the occupying Power, against Palestine. The complicity of the United States in the commission of those war crimes is shameful and sets a very dangerous precedent on the road to peace. We reaffirm the resolute aspiration of the historic leader of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro Ruz, for peace with respect, rights, independence and security for all the peoples of the world. The way to guarantee peaceful coexistence and maintain international peace and security is to ensure multilateralism and full respect for the Charter of the United Nations and the principles and norms of international law. It is vital to promote the peaceful settlement of conflicts through negotiation and dialogue, in accordance with Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, so as to ensure the security and sovereignty of all, as well as regional and international peace, stability and security. We note with concern the threatening rhetoric, the imposition of unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, interventionist policies and double standards. The manipulation of facts based on media- orchestrated lies, the demonization of Governments in order to provoke regime change and the use of hybrid technologies in so-called “fourth-generation warfare” for political destabilization have become the unacceptable practices of some States. Attempts to impose monolithic thinking in multilateral arenas are not conducive to peace. When there is talk about building a world governed by rules, it is an attempt to replace the norms recognized by international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter — a selective and biased approach that we do not share. A world of peace can be built only on the foundations of justice, by adopting multilateralism as the only possible way to resolve conflicts and by settling our differences in full compliance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. Almost a decade after the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, adopted in Havana during the Second Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, this instrument maintains its relevance and validity. The document endorses the commitment of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean to the peaceful settlement of disputes in order to banish forever the use and threat of force in their international relations and in their relations with one another. That is the context for regional efforts to put an end to the last armed conflict in Latin America, which has persisted for half a century in Colombia. Cuba is proud of its contribution as guarantor and host of the peace talks to reach a political solution to this conflict, which is evidence of my country’s commitment to the promotion of peace in our region and in the world. Any international peace effort must start with the commitment of Member States to comply with multilaterally negotiated intergovernmental instruments and agreements and the observance of the mandates of the relevant United Nations organs. The idea of applying a preventive approach to the peace and security pillar, as outlined in the Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace, requires strict respect for the United Nations Charter, in particular the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, political independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in order to ensure that such approaches are not used as a pretext to justify the advancement of geopolitical agendas and interests. A New Agenda for Peace also requires a comprehensive and profound reform of the Security Council; greater representation of the countries of the South; more democracy, transparency and inclusiveness in its work and procedures; and an end to its interference in the mandate and functions of the General Assembly and other organs in order to preserve the effectiveness and credibility of the Organization. The world today, perhaps as never before, is in need of a new civilized coexistence based on a just and equitable international order, in which solidarity, cooperation, dialogue and integration among countries prevail. Let us make it happen.

I now give the floor to the representative of Austria.

I thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this open debate. As we move closer to the Summit of the Future next year, we welcome this opportunity to discuss the New Agenda for Peace with Council members. Today’s debate also touches on two key priorities for Austria — conflict prevention and building strong partnerships. First, I would like to talk about prevention. In the increasingly challenging environment for peace, the work of the United Nations can be effective only if we invest in prevention and in building sustainable peace. We are convinced that the New Agenda for Peace can be the basis for a unique opportunity to shift attention to its preventive diplomacy, mediation and peacebuilding in order to build resilience within societies and address the underlying drivers of conflict. It is our firm belief that prevention concerns all of us, not only certain fragile States. Just like human rights are universal, all countries need to do their share to build, inclusive, just and, ultimately, peaceful societies. We therefore endorse the call contained in the Secretary-General’s policy brief on the New Agenda for Peace for a shift in approach by which all States agree to recognize prevention and sustaining peace as goals that all commit to achieve. In the run-up to the Summit of the Future, it will be crucial to discuss how we can operationalize that call and, potentially, use existing structures such as the voluntary national reviews on the Sustainable Development Goals or the Peacebuilding Commission. We encourage the Secretariat to provide guidance to Member States in that regard. Secondly, we must focus on building partnerships. Conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding require strong partnerships, and the United Nations and the Security Council must foster even stronger partnerships with regional and subregional organizations. Leveraging each other’s strengths is the only way that multilateralism can bring the sheer heft that is needed to tackle humankind’s most fundamental challenges. Austria has been advocating for a new understanding of networked multilateralism on a global level for a United Nations that coordinates and cooperates with regional, subregional or thematic organizations much more strongly. The sustainable financing of the operations of regional partners plays a key role, including the African Union peace support operations mandated by the Council. Austria hopes to see progress in that regard during this year, but let me be very clear  — networked multilateralism and more partnerships does not mean a reduction of, or a departure from, classic United Nations peacekeeping. For Austria, peacekeeping must remain a core function of the United Nations. Closer cooperation with partners will require the Secretariat to provide even more essential services, whether in coordinating and establishing standards, ensuring interoperability, providing information for the mandate and formulation, assisting the establishment of missions on the ground, providing mission elements and possibly over-the-horizon forces if a regional organization leaves, constant monitoring and ensuring accountability and evaluations. Clearly, more partnerships mean a new form of United Nations peacekeeping, more diverse possibilities and a wider menu of peacekeeping operations, but by no means less peacekeeping. Finally, allow me to touch on an issue very much at the centre of that, especially during the meeting on peacekeeping held last month in the context of the high- level week: the need for more trust. Trust is at the core of peaceful and inclusive societies but also the lifeline of multilateralism. As pointed out in the concept note (S/2023/732, annex) distrust hinders cooperation and dialogue. How do we rebuild trust in these challenging times? We see two key factors: cooperation and the rule of law. We strongly believe that cooperating with each other and strengthening partnerships can increase trust in the international system at the grass-roots level. Regional organizations may serve as trust-building entities themselves. An example is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which we know well, because we host it in Vienna. The OSCE was never a club of like-minded countries but has served as a platform for trust-building measures and dialogue to advance collective security. Similarly, the rule of law and compliance with international law, treaties and customary law generates predictability and thereby trust. Austria supports efforts to ensure that all avenues are explored to strengthen the rule of law, especially as regards ensuring appropriate reactions to violations of the most important norms of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Ensuring strong and possibly even automatic consequences to norm violations may also serve as an effective means of prevention. Dialogue, cooperation and strict adherence to international law will help to generate the trust and confidence that we need to enable us to use our multilateral organizations in the way that they were conceived to be used.

I now give the floor to the representative of Egypt.

At the outset, I would like to thank Brazil for convening this important meeting at such a critical juncture. It puts the Security Council and the United Nations to the test and reveals the Council’s credibility and its ability to stop conflicts and maintain security and peace. We cannot separate regional mechanisms and initiatives for conflict resolution from developments on the African continent and in the Middle East. Such developments pose a significant danger that could have extremely serious repercussions if they are not dealt with prudently and with the aim of achieving peace and justice. I would therefore like to focus on the situations on the African continent and the Middle East along with the role that the Council could play in strengthening regional and subregional mechanisms for resolving conflicts. That is all the more relevant as we discuss the New Agenda for Peace, the importance of preventive diplomacy and granting a more important role to regional mechanisms in the peaceful resolution of conflicts. First of all, Africa has always been aware of the importance of developing its own mechanisms to resolve conflicts in accordance with the principle of African solutions to African problems, while benefiting from our experiences and taking into consideration the specificities of African States and societies. Those African mechanisms that are directly linked to the African Union or which work under its auspices or in cooperation with its organs and other African subregional mechanisms, have achieved notable successes. However, those mechanisms also face significant challenges, foremost among which is multiple approaches and poor coordination among them. Egypt therefore appreciates the efforts by the Security Council to coordinate with those African mechanisms, including the Security Council’s annual meeting with the Peace and Security Council of the African Union and the regular briefings that the Council receives from those mechanisms on African issues. We reaffirm the need to strengthen and support such coordination and grant a greater role to those mechanisms when it comes to addressing African issues in order to ensure that the Council can take decisions based on the realities in Africa. Likewise, the Security Council should bolster the continent’s efforts for the maintenance of peace and peacebuilding, including by financing African Union peace operations and providing resources to the Secretary-General’s Peacebuilding Fund from the assessed contributions of Member States, given the importance of peacebuilding efforts by regional stakeholders aimed at preventing the outbreak and aggravation of conflicts. Egypt is well aware of the need to coordinate regional efforts, initiatives and mechanisms and their implementation on the ground. As an example, I would cite the summit of the Sudan’s neighbouring countries held in Cairo in July and the two ministerial-level meetings held in New York and N’Djamena aimed at coordinating regional and international efforts to resolve the crisis in the Sudan. Secondly, the Palestinian question remains the primary cause of instability and the absence of peace in the Middle East. The Security Council is no doubt aware of the causes of the conflict and its evolution, as the Council has been considering that conflict for many decades, including the current catastrophic situation facing the Palestinian people in Gaza today. Discussing the role of regional initiatives and others to resolve the Palestinian question is useless at a time when the Council finds itself incapable of carrying out its duty and taking a decision to put an end to the current aggression, to maintain peace and security in the region and to enable the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip. Israel continues to refuse any initiative to defuse the situation and resume the peace process owing to its delusional belief that it will be able to prolong the occupation and gradually eradicate the Palestinian question altogether. Nonetheless, Egypt has spared no effort in recent years to prevent successive rounds of escalation based on its historic role in dealing with the Palestinian question. Egypt was the first country to have a peace agreement with Israel, and all parties have confidence in our vision for achieving peace in the Middle East. We will therefore continue in our efforts to realize a ceasefire and take effective decisions to ensure the mobilization and delivery of urgently needed humanitarian aid to Gaza. Today the Secretary-General was at the Rafah crossing, working alongside Egyptian and other stakeholders. Egypt is shouldering its responsibility to guarantee the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to our Palestinian brothers in the Gaza Strip. Likewise, the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt called for the convening of an emergency summit, which will take place tomorrow in Cairo, with the participation of relevant regional and international stakeholders, to try to defuse the current crisis and reach a just, comprehensive and sustainable settlement. Egypt believes that the international community’s current approach towards the Palestinian question is limited to managing the crisis and containing the aspirations of the Palestinian people through applying an analgesic policy. That approach is outdated and inefficient. In conclusion, we reaffirm that the Security Council should be able to benefit from regional initiatives and from the important experiences of the countries concerned. However, that depends on the ability of the Council to develop working mechanisms that allow those countries to play a greater role in the Council’s decision-making process. We stress that the many challenges the world is currently facing categorically confirm that it is time to reform the Security Council to make it more representative, more fair, more democratic and better able to respond to international challenges and crises. We need a permanent Arab and African presence within the Security Council, with all the prerogatives of permanent members, including the right of veto.

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

Let me start by congratulating the Federative Republic of Brazil on its assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of October. Allow me to thank the briefers  — Mr. Khaled Khiari, Her Excellency Ms. Michelle Bachelet, His Excellency Mr. Thabo Mbeki and Ms. Josefina Echavarría Álvarez — for the information they shared with us. We are pleased by the convening of this pertinent open debate on the contributions of regional and subregional organizations and bilateral arrangements to the maintenance of global peace and security. We find it apt that our discussion is not limited to regional mechanisms only but includes the efficacy and impact of bilateral arrangements in resolving disputes  — a subject we seldom discuss in the Council. I will also add the role of coalitions to that list of arrangements, because at times such mechanisms have been effective in supporting efforts aimed at the peaceful settlement of disputes, and they should be encouraged, as appropriate, if they are permissible under the relevant provisions of international law. An example of that is the role of the troika in South Sudan. This open debate could not have been held at a more appropriate time, just as we are continuing to explore ways of dealing with a surge in destabilizing events that range from armed conflict, unconstitutional changes of Government and terrorism and violent extremism to Governments’ failure to govern and manage diversity. In many cases, the causes and drivers of those conflicts could have been prevented or resolved peacefully. The proliferation of conflicts in recent years underscores that it is important for the international community to prioritize preventive diplomacy. But it is important that we do not merely talk about preventive diplomacy because it is fashionable to do so. We should rather continually ask why it is that preventive diplomacy and the measures outlined in Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations are seldom utilized. We must also determine what we need to do to improve on the status quo. In addition to Chapter VI, myriad tools exist to conduct preventive diplomacy at the bilateral, subre­ gional and regional levels. However, in order to make use of them, political will and visionary leadership are vital. Another requirement is patience on the part of the international community in allowing efforts under­ taken by regional arrangements to come to fruition, es­ pecially when there is a deficit of trust. Restoring and building trust among conflicting parties is a cumber­ some process that must be approached delicately. Owing to our own political history, in which we successfully avoided a civil war, South Africa believes in the peaceful resolution of conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. That position has enabled us to be part of bilateral, subregional and regional engagements that have contributed to finding political solutions to disputes in many countries, particularly on the African continent, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and recently in Tigray, in Ethiopia, to name a few. We continue to participate in the efforts of the Southern African Development Community and the African Union aimed at the prevention and peaceful resolution of disputes, which are underpinned by the principles of subsidiarity and complementarity. By virtue of their proximity, regional organizations are often best placed to mediate conflicts within their geographical scope, and they need to be supported accordingly. We are therefore pleased that the Secretary- General’s policy brief on the New Agenda for Peace, which we as Member States continue to study and discuss, emphasizes the fundamental role of regional organizations in support of the mandate of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace and security, in line with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, which provides a framework for relations between the United Nations and regional arrangements. In conclusion, we should take advantage of the opportunity provided by the Summit of the Future and the New Agenda for Peace to strengthen the role of various arrangements in advancing global peace and security.

I now give the floor to the representative of Croatia.

I have the honour of delivering this statement on behalf of the Group of Friends of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), consisting of 55 Member States and the European Union, and co-chaired this year by Botswana, Costa Rica and Croatia. The peaceful settlement of disputes lies at the heart of the principle of the responsibility to protect. Paragraph 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome document opens with the assertion that “the international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. Recognizing the value of bilateral, subregional, regional and multilateral efforts to achieve those aims, the Group of Friends of R2P would like to stress the following points. First, the World Summit Outcome document specified a number of distinct roles for regional arrangements, including those that relate to the use of peaceful means to protect populations such as diplomacy, early warning and rapid response, and technical assistance and capacity- building. Regional organizations are often well placed to guide multilateral action on emerging atrocity situations and threats to peace and security in their regions, because they may have a better political understanding of the dynamics within the countries where atrocities or conflicts are taking place. Institutional mechanisms for providing technical assistance to Member States, building confidence in the security sector, promoting fair and accountable governance, and supporting economic development and various regional field operations, including regional mediation processes, contribute to preventing conflicts and atrocities. They are not mere aspirational goals for regional organizations. We have witnessed concrete situations in which the concerted efforts of subregional organizations and their member States to address imminent risks made the difference between prolonged conflict and the successful prevention of further atrocities. We call on all regional and subregional organizations to help protect populations from atrocities in their regions and facilitate their prevention. Secondly, atrocity prevention and the effective implementation of the agenda for the responsibility to protect can contribute to implementing the Secretary- General’s Our Common Agenda (A/75/986) and the related New Agenda for Peace. In its submission to the New Agenda for Peace, the Group of Friends of R2P underlined that the effective strengthening of prevention should be predicated on early-warning signs and clarity on what early action, including peaceful means, can be taken in response to such alarms. Effective early warning, including by regional and subregional organizations, should be rooted in the accurate identification of all factors that increase the risks of violence, including those associated with atrocity crimes, rather than focusing solely on the risk of conflict. Lastly, we would like to underline that the Secretary- General also has an important role to play in prevention and the peaceful settlement of disputes, including through preventive diplomacy, fact-finding and reporting, and the exercise of good offices in response to risks of conflicts and atrocity crimes. In that context, we encourage the Secretary-General to use his powers under Article 99 of the Charter to bring to the Council’s attention any risk of the commission of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity that in his opinion might threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. We also call on Security Council members to respond to and address the risk of the commission of mass atrocities, noting in that context initiatives such as the code of conduct of the Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and the French-Mexican initiative on the use of the veto in cases of mass atrocities.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea.

I would like to commend you, Mr. President, for convening this timely and important open debate, and to thank the briefers for their insightful remarks. Today the world is faced with increasingly multifaceted and cross-cutting challenges all around the globe. On top of that, it continues to be affected by intensifying traditional conflict situations and violence, just as we have seen in the ongoing war against Ukraine and the current situation in Israel and Gaza. As Secretary-General Guterres pointed out in his New Agenda for Peace, those interlocking and transnational threats go well beyond the ability of any single State to manage. It is therefore imperative that we find ways to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to peace, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. Regional and subregional mechanisms are well positioned — not only to understand the root causes of conflict owing to their intimate knowledge of the region but also to promote confidence, trust and dialogue among the parties concerned in their respective regions. Those tools lay the foundation for the peaceful settlement of disputes, as stipulated in Chapter VI of the Charter. That is why the Security Council should make full use of its comparative advantage of proximity and the existing mechanisms for the promotion of confidence-building and dialogue in its ongoing efforts to prevent and peacefully resolve conflicts, under the principle of regional ownership. In that regard, the Republic of Korea welcomes the results of the seventeenth annual joint consultative meeting between the Security Council and the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, which was held in Addis Ababa on 6 October. We believe that such efforts by the Council should continue, in line with Chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, bearing in mind the three following points. First, the Security Council should enhance its cooperation with regional mechanisms and organizations. In addition to demands for a stronger United Nations- African Union partnership, we should also shed light on other regions and organizations, such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and subregional mechanisms, such as the Economic Community of West African States, whose tools of prevention and peaceful settlement have also been developed. The Peacebuilding Commission can also play a bridging role in that regard. Secondly, adequate resources and financing are key to building robust regional frameworks and organizations. As such, Korea supports the need for predictable, sustainable and flexible funding for African Union-led peace support operations, including access to United Nations assessed contributions, where needed. At the same time, we will also need to find ways to ensure accountability, transparency and the effective use of those funds. As an incoming member of the Security Council, we look forward to upcoming negotiations on that issue. Thirdly, inclusivity should be guaranteed at all levels of the process. Civil society actors, including women and young people, play a crucial role in building trust in societies. Partnership with regional mechanisms must always place people at the centre so that diverse and unique voices from each and every corner of our societies can enrich the path towards sustainable peace and development. In recent years, the Republic of Korea has actively expanded its horizon of engagement through regular consultations with various regional mechanisms. We hosted the first-ever summit with Pacific Island leaders last May. We are also working with our partners in Africa in preparation for a successful Korea-Africa summit, which will be held next year. Through such engagements, Korea hopes to contribute to the efforts of regional mechanisms, as well as of the international community, in building sustainable peace for all.

I now give the floor to the representative of Ukraine.

Ukraine highly appreciates the initiative of the Brazilian presidency to hold today’s important debate and would like to thank the briefers for their briefings. Ukraine has always been a staunch proponent of strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and regional and other organizations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations. They have been an important tool for the effective settlement of conflicts and the promotion of peace and security, humanitarian assistance, development and human rights across the globe. We therefore support the fact that the New Agenda for Peace places particular focus on robust regional frameworks and organizations as critical building blocks for the networked multilateralism that is needed, especially in regions in which the long-standing security architecture is collapsing. One can hardly doubt the need to further enhance partnerships between the United Nations and those regional organizations that strive for peace, security and development in their respective regions. There are many examples of such valuable and results-oriented United Nations partnerships with the European Union, the African Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the League of Arab States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), to name just a few. In the case of my own country, the OSCE was quite active on the ground from the beginning of the Russian aggression in 2014 until the invasion last February. At the same time, there are other organizations such as the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the de facto Russia-led military bloc, which has become a clear example of the destructive policy tools that Russia employs in the region. It is our common task to uphold United Nations credibility and resist attempts to bring organizations such as CSTO onto the United Nations platform, under the guise of Chapter VIII. We support the idea of the Brazilian presidency to broaden the scope of discussion by addressing the role of bilateral arrangements in peaceful conflict resolution. Current security developments in our region, especially Russia’s ongoing war against my country, have highlighted the important role and contribution of the ad hoc frameworks and networks established to support the victims of aggression in defending themselves against invasion. At the same time, those developments have once again brought our attention to the problem of the aggressor’s presence in the permanent seat of the Security Council, which is to say the least legally dubious. That presence has affected the genuine response of the Council and a similar situation has been observed at the regional level in the framework of the OSCE, whose decision-making is based on consensus. The presidency has identified the issue of the reform of collective security mechanisms as one of the guiding questions for today’s open debate. We consider that addressing the problem that I just mentioned concerning the illegal occupation by the aggressor of the permanent seat of the Council, along with Russia’s unwillingness to act like a peace-loving State in accordance with Article 4 of the United Nations Charter, should be part of the answer.

I now give the floor to the representative of Denmark.

I thank you, Mr. President, for calling today’s meeting on peace through dialogue in this difficult time of unfolding wars and conflicts. I also thank the briefers. It is my privilege to deliver this statement on behalf of the five Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and my own country, Denmark. Evidently, sustainable peace can be achieved only by the parties to conflict. Third parties, whether international actors, neighbouring countries or regional organizations, can provide support for the parties to find mutually acceptable solutions. In today’s open debate, the Nordic countries want to make four points. First, dialogue is a key tool for resolving conflicts, but it is also a conflict-prevention tool, and we encourage the Council to better utilize its potential preventive role under Chapter VI of the Charter of the United Nations. We also suggest leveraging the potential of the Peacebuilding Commission to facilitate inclusive conflict prevention and resolution. The United Nations has a unique role in supporting parties in the peaceful settlements of disputes. The Secretary-General’s New Agenda for Peace is an opportunity to strengthen the role of Member States in addressing the current security challenges and evolving threats. It is an opportunity to further develop preventive non-violent conflict resolution mechanisms and the United Nations diplomatic toolbox across the humanitarian-development-peace nexus. My second point concerns the role of regional and subregional organizations, which can play a significant role with their local knowledge and potential personal relationships. The United Nations Charter is clear on that role for regional organizations in Chapter VIII. We encourage more frequent use of that Chapter, including by deepening cooperation and information-sharing between the Security Council and regional organizations. The importance of local ownership of any process is clear. That brings me to my third point. As clearly set out in the New Agenda for Peace, ownership is essential to any process of conflict prevention and conflict resolution. The parties need to come up with and take ownership of solutions, and that ownership must be inclusive. That brings me to my fourth point, which has to do with inclusion. Peace processes should always reflect the needs and perspectives of stakeholders affected by conflict. Strengthening the full, equal and meaningful participation of women, youth and civil society at large is critical. Indeed, adding seats to the table pays off. If a process is not inclusive, it is very difficult to reach sustainable peace. I thank you, Mr. President, for convening the debate today on a topic that is now more critical than ever. We, the Nordics, want to stress that we stand together with the United Nations and Member States committed to a future that brings peace, stability and development for all. Let me conclude with a message from the late President of Finland Ahtisaari, who passed away this week. “If we work together, we can find solutions. We should not accept any excuses from those in power. Peace is a question of will.” (Nobel Lecture, 10 December 2008).

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. Given the lateness of the hour, I intend, with the concurrence of members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until 3 p.m.