General Assembly Session 55 meeting 35

The President

I should like to draw the attention of representatives to the third report of the General Committee, document A/55/250/Add.2, concerning the following three requests: first, a request by the Netherlands for the inclusion in the agenda of an additional item entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons"; secondly, a request by several countries for the inclusion in the agenda of an additional item entitled "Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit"; and a request by a number of countries for the inclusion in the agenda of an additional item entitled "Peace, security and reunification on the Korean peninsula".

In paragraph 1 of the report, the General Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly that an additional item, entitled "Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons", should be included in the agenda of the current session.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to include this additional item in the agenda of the current session?

The President

The General Committee further decided to recommend to the General Assembly that the additional item should be considered directly in plenary meeting.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to consider this item directly in plenary meeting?

The President

In paragraph 2 of the report, the General Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly that an additional item, entitled "Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit", should be included in the agenda of the current session.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to include this additional item in the agenda of the current session?

The President

The General Committee further decided to recommend to the General Assembly that the additional item should be considered directly in plenary meeting.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to consider this item directly in plenary meeting?

The President

In paragraph 3 of the report, the General Committee decided to recommend to the General Assembly that an additional item, entitled "Peace, security and reunification on the Korean peninsula", should be included in the agenda of the current session.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to include this additional item in the agenda of the current session?

The President

The General Committee further decided to recommend to the General Assembly that the additional item should be considered directly in plenary meeting.

May I take it that the General Assembly decides to consider this item directly in plenary meeting?

The President

I give the floor to the President of the Security Council, Mr. Martin Andjaba, to introduce the report of the Security Council.

Mr. Andjaba (Namibia)

It is with great pleasure that I introduce the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly, in document A/55/2, covering the period from 16 June 1999 to 15 June 2000.

The report clearly shows the intensity of the Security Council's working agenda during the reporting period. During the year under review, the Council held 144 formal meetings, adopted 57 resolutions and issued 38 statements by the President. In addition, the Council members held 194 consultations of the whole. The Council also considered over 85 reports by the Secretary-General and reviewed and processed more than 1,165 documents and communications from States and regional and other international organizations. Furthermore, the Council dispatched four missions to various conflict areas.

In line with its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council considered a wide range of issues. Ensuring stability in Africa and other regions has remained high on the agenda of the Council. With regard to Africa, the Council extensively considered situations in Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone, Eritrea/Ethiopia, Somalia, Burundi and Western Sahara. In this connection, Security Council missions were dispatched to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Eritrea/Ethiopia. Peacekeeping operations in Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic have been successfully transformed into post-conflict peace-building support offices.

The Security Council also considered conflict situations in the Middle East; East Timor; Afghanistan; Tajikistan; Kosovo, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia; and Abkhazia, Georgia. Missions were dispatched to East Timor and Kosovo.

The Security Council considered decisions and adopted statements on a number of broad peace and security issues, including the protection of civilians in armed conflict; children and armed conflict; and disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-combatants. It also considered HIV/AIDS and international peace and security. In dealing with these matters the Security Council remained highly conscious of its responsibility and of the role being played by other United Nations bodies.

During the reporting period the Security Council went to great lengths to conduct its business in a more transparent manner. In this regard, many open meetings and briefings were held with the participation of the wider membership of the United Nations.

The members of the Security Council trust that the report will shed more light and provide useful information on the activities of the Council during the year. They attach utmost significance and importance to this annual consideration of the report by the General Assembly as a means of enhancing further the work of these two principal organs of the United Nations. The members of the Security Council look forward to the comments and suggestions of the Member States during this meeting.

Let me conclude by expressing the appreciation of the members of the Security Council to the staff of the Security Council secretariat for their dedication and tireless efforts, which remain indispensable to the efficiency of the work of the Security Council.

Mr. Ling (Belarus)

The delegation of the Republic of Belarus thanks Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia for having introduced the annual report of the Security Council to the current session of the General Assembly. We would also like to take note of the important role played last year by Namibia in the work of the Council.

Belarus is convinced that the annual reporting practice of the Security Council remains an important part of the efforts to make the activities of the Council as open and transparent as possible, as well as to allow the Member States to adequately evaluate the decisions taken by the Council in the area of the maintenance of international peace and security.

The work of the Security Council was particularly involved last year, given the numerous conflicts in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other regions of the world. The Council's efforts were crucial to the maintenance of international peace and security. The international community saw the Council adopt many important decisions and resolutions, as reflected in the present report.

The delegation of the Republic of Belarus notes with satisfaction that the Council is examining more and more subjects besides current conflicts. Increasingly, the Council considers the root causes that lead to crises and military confrontation. Last year we witnessed the Council's important debates on the participation of children in armed conflicts, the reintegration of ex-combatants, international terrorism and the illicit trafficking of diamonds and other natural resources -- a trade that has been used not for promoting peace, but to support forces involved in conflicts.

Last year, problems relating to sanctions were a special part of the Council's work. We welcome the fact that the practice in this field of the principal United Nations organ responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security has became more sophisticated. The extremely complex humanitarian situations in Iraq and in other States on which sanctions have been imposed continue to call for further work to reduce the negative impact of sanctions on civilians. In this context, the Republic of Belarus notes the particular importance of the inclusion in the annual report of the reports of the sanctions committees, whose operations had until now been absolutely closed to the majority of States. Belarus supports the continuation of this practice.

Belarus welcomes the fact noted in the report that, compared with the previous period, the Council held significantly more open meetings last year. This is undoubtedly an important step in making the Council's work more transparent. Belarus will support all further measures that allow non-member States to participate more fully in the Council's deliberations on all issues. In this context, we consider that the next important step could be publishing as press releases issued from United Nations Headquarters the content of the daily briefings that give an account of the closed consultations of the Council.

We believe that the summaries that the Council members prepare regarding the work of the Council during their presidencies are of crucial importance. Belarus believes that these summaries facilitate a more profound analysis of the Council's work and the finding of new ways to improve the work of the Council.

The Millennium Summit and the high-level Security Council meeting demonstrated to the world the unanimity of the Member States with regard to the priority role of the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security. Strong adherence to the Charter's principles in this regard is, we believe, the way to ensure that future generations are spared the scourge of war. Belarus will be submitting its candidacy for a non-permanent seat in the Council for 2002-2003 on the basis of its firm commitment to the fulfilment of the provisions of the Millennium Declaration adopted by the heads of States and Governments and its commitment to work vigorously to further improve the Council's work.

Mr. Yel'chenko (Ukraine)

I wish to thank the President of the Security Council, Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia, for his presentation of the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly.

We have often heard the Council reiterating that it has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as that it has the authority to act on behalf of all Member States in carrying out its duties in fulfilment of this responsibility. These are very important provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, and it is precisely these provisions that made the Security Council into the most powerful organ of the United Nations system. However, it is equally essential to recall that this unique authority was delegated to the Security Council in conjunction with its obligation to report regularly to the General Assembly. Article 24 of the Charter is very clear about this link.

Ukraine attaches particular importance to the item "Report of the Security Council", as it has always believed that its main purpose was to uphold the principle of accountability, which we consider fundamental to the effectiveness of the Organization's activities in the area of peace and security. This is the first time that Ukraine has made its contribution to this important discussion as an elected member of the Council.

Indeed, consideration of this agenda item offers the General Assembly a unique opportunity to make a comprehensive assessment of the Council's activities over the past year. My delegation believes that if we evaluate this period from the larger perspective of the past decade, we may find many reasons to characterize it as the promising beginning of a new phase in the Security Council's history.

The significant shift in peacekeeping activities could be one of the most convincing arguments in support of that assertion. According to the Secretary-General's latest report on the work of the Organization, the size of the Council's authorized deployment has almost tripled over the past 12 months, standing now at approximately 45,000 uniformed personnel.

The significant increase in peacekeeping operations, as well as some serious setbacks on the ground, initiated the current efforts to improve the effectiveness of this key instrument available to the United Nations in discharging its responsibility for peace and security. Ukraine will continue encouraging the Council to make a major contribution to this endeavour.

We may also recall how harshly the Security Council was criticized not so long ago for its lack of response to the demands of the African continent. Today, we have ample evidence of the major drift in the Council's overall policy towards Africa. The changes are really tangible. The substantially expanded United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, the authorization of the second phase of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the deployment of the United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the Council's action on the report by the Panel of Experts on Violations of Security Council Sanctions against UNITA are only some of the Council's highlights related to Africa.

The major task ahead is to sustain this action-oriented stance of the Council towards Africa and to focus it on preventing the recurrence or further aggravation of conflicts. It is high time to think in more practical terms about strengthening the overall capacity of the United Nations for effective preventive action. In this connection, I would like to reiterate the proposal put forward by President Kuchma of Ukraine that a comprehensive conflict prevention strategy be developed for the United Nations. Ukraine has made a number of suggestions as to what could become concrete elements of such a strategy. In particular, one of its key components could be the establishment of United Nations regional centres for conflict prevention. Another integral element could be conflict prevention operations, which should gain prominence as a qualitatively new model of peacekeeping activities.

In this regard, let me draw the Assembly's attention to the increasing impact of the conflict in Sierra Leone and its further spillover into the neighbouring countries, in particular Guinea. The international community must be prepared to act in urgent support of the intention of the Economic Community of West African States to prepare for the preventive deployment of an observer force on the borders of the Mano River Union countries.

Another important change in the Security Council's work over the past year is the rebirth of its special missions to conflict areas, which have been dispatched over the past 12 months to East Timor, Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Eritrea/Ethiopia. The recently completed mission to Sierra Leone -- the largest ever such mission of the Security Council -- proved that this instrument has become indispensable to the effective discharge of that organ's responsibilities.

We have also seen the Security Council starting to rethink its overall policy with regard to economic sanctions in order to improve their effectiveness as well as avoid their negative side effects. In April 2000, the Council established a working group on sanctions to develop relevant recommendations on those matters. In May 2000, the Council set an important precedent by defining time limits for sanctions at the stage of their imposition. Ukraine believes that it is very important to ensure that the new trends in this domain bring about a clear and coherent methodology for the imposition and lifting of sanctions that takes into consideration the concerns of civilian populations and the interests of third countries.

Although the list of new developments and changes I have referred to is far from complete, I think it gives enough grounds to state that the work of the Security Council during the past year represents a clear step forward. This assessment is even more convincing if we recall the Council's record from June 1998 to June 1999. It was marked by a set of disappointments that made the larger international community question the ability of the Council to play a leading role in the maintenance of international peace and security and to respond adequately to emerging crises and other challenges.

It is very important now to sustain these very encouraging trends in the Council's activities into the future. A significant contribution to this major task was made by the Security Council Summit held on 7 September 2000. The results of that important meeting represent a vivid demonstration of the Security Council's willingness to remain a functioning and indispensable actor in international affairs in the new century. Ukraine will pay special attention to the practical implementation of the Security Council Summit commitments.

I would also like to use this occasion to restate Ukraine's determination to continue upholding by practical deeds its responsible status as a current member of the Security Council. Ukraine is redeeming its pledge to the member States of the General Assembly, which conferred on it the high honour of serving on the Council. I would like to stress that, for the past year, there has been no single newly established or substantially expanded peacekeeping operation -- from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Sierra Leone, southern Lebanon, Kosovo, East Timor and Ethiopia and Eritrea -- to which Ukraine has not contributed trained and properly equipped personnel.

I would like to conclude by offering our warm congratulations to Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore on their recent election to serve on the Security Council as of 1 January 2001. Ukraine is looking forward to close and productive cooperation with the newly elected members of the Council and wishes them every success in discharging their very important responsibilities.

Mr. Sharma (India)

May I begin by thanking the President of the Security Council for introducing the report of the Council. I congratulate Colombia, Ireland, Mauritius, Norway and Singapore on their election last week to the Council.

All Member States have a deep interest in the work of the Security Council and we attach importance to this discussion, mandated by Articles 24 (3) and 15 of the Charter, which require the Council to submit and the General Assembly to receive and consider annual and special reports. The Charter clearly intends that the Council, to which the general membership entrusts special responsibilities, should report to it each year on the issues and situations pertaining to the maintenance of international peace and security it has dealt with, what it has done and the impact of its actions. It is expected that these reports should be comprehensive, substantive and forthright.

Unfortunately, the Council's reports still lack both substance and candour. Frustration with the Council's sketchy reporting led to the adoption by the General Assembly of resolution 51/193 of 1996, in which it called upon the Council, inter alia, to include information on the consultations of the whole; to highlight the extent to which resolutions of the General Assembly on issues falling within the scope of the General Assembly and the Security Council had been taken into account by the Council in its decision-making; and to strengthen further the section in the report on the steps taken by the Council to improve its working methods.

The Council has ignored this resolution. The report before us, a 550-page to me, is, like its predecessors, simply a compilation of documents, most of which have already been circulated as official documents. We ask the members of the Council to consider if the veil of secrecy which they draw over its work serves a purpose. To the general membership, it appears both lofty, because it flouts the expressed wishes of the General Assembly, and self-defeating, because it feeds suspicions that the Council is secretive because it evades disclosure. As to the revelations over which it may wish to draw a veil, one can draw from several choices: questions as to effectiveness, selectiveness of engagement, pressure of domestic constituencies or narrow agendas.

If transparency were the guiding principle, the Council would not need to conduct most of its work in informal meetings, a mechanism not even mentioned in its provisional rules of procedure. Rule 48 states that unless it decides otherwise, the Security Council shall meet in public. The holding of informal meetings should be the exception and not the unwritten rule that it has become.

The Council might very well argue in defence that it now holds public debates under almost every presidency. This, however, would be perilously close to the Council telling the general membership to eat cake. When the general membership asked for open meetings of the Council, it did not want to turn the Council into a debating society, which is what it now becomes every once in a while; the membership wanted it, before it acted on matters of peace and security, to hear the views of countries outside the Council that might have a point to make, a perspective to share or advice to offer, which it would be useful and prudent to factor into and reflect in its decisions. The open debates of the Council have no bearing on the Council's decisions, and frequently they are also on issues outside its mandate. As decisions are taken before the Council hears the views of others, the statements made are of academic interest, a mere formality. The Council needs to consider what purpose these open debates serve, if any. We asked the Council to be transparent; what is offered is symbolism.

Once again, sadly, the suspicion is not far-fetched that the closed doors of the Council may reflect a closed mind and a fear of being told truths it would much rather do without, of being given facts that contradict its preferences or of accepting advice that undermines its settled orientation. Nowhere does this create more of a problem than in the complex peacekeeping operations it has set up. The Council decides, in what is essentially splendid isolation, how an operation should evolve; it certainly has the right to do so under the Charter, but since the tasks it sets have to be discharged by the forces on the ground, it would be sensible to consult troop contributors and profit from their experience. Instead, the Council only goes through the motions, speaking to the troop contributors the day before a resolution is adopted. This is merely the courteous presentation of a fait accompli; it serves little purpose -- not the Council's, not the host country's, not those of the troop contributors and certainly not those of the operation.

In May and June this year, when the Council held closed meetings, including a private meeting with the Ministers of the Economic Community of West African States to address the crisis in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), India and other troop contributors asked that we be invited to it. We thought the Council would be anxious to hear the views of the countries most heavily involved, and were astonished that our request was turned down. We have never been told why. This indifferent treatment is unacceptable when it is troop contributors, and not the members of the Council, including those who believe that they have a special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, that put the lives of their troops on the line for the cause of the United Nations.

Peacekeeping operations mandated by the Council will be successful only if their tasks are doable and they are given adequate resources. A partnership between the Council and the peacekeepers is not just crucial, but a prerequisite. This indeed is the spirit of Article 44 of the Charter. And it is no surprise that the Brahimi Panel report, which was welcomed at the Council's Summit on 7 September, has also recommended this. We hope that the Council will do some soul-searching and, in the future, will genuinely involve the troop-contributing countries, in a spirit of partnership, in decisions regarding peacekeeping operations, including on their mandates. The recent private meeting between troop contributors and the Council on UNAMSIL is a good precedent. However, it is not enough only to give troop contributors a hearing; their views should be reflected, if they are reasonable, in the mandates of the Council. The Council should institutionalize this mechanism.

The situation in Afghanistan remains a cause of deep anxiety to the international community, particularly to the countries in the region. The Taliban's quest for a military solution, their support for international terrorism and their utter disregard for the humanitarian crisis they have created in Afghanistan all continue. We are concerned over both the suffering they have inflicted on the Afghan people and their destabilizing role in the region. The Security Council, which has repeatedly expressed grave concern over the developments in Afghanistan, has urged the Taliban to seek a peaceful solution to the crisis and to end its support for terrorism, but to no avail. Security Council resolution 1267 (1999) was adopted over a year ago, but the Taliban remain intransigent. This is a challenge to the Council.

Even as the Council has not lived up to expectations regarding its activities in maintaining international peace and security, particularly in Africa, it has continued to try to assume a role for itself in areas such as health, the welfare of children and humanitarian assistance, which are clearly beyond its mandate and fall under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly. This does not help the smooth functioning of the United Nations.

A case in point is the Council's assuming for itself the power to set up judicial bodies. Nothing under the Charter gives it the right to set up the tribunals that it has, nor indeed can it be demonstrated that those set up have in fact contributed to the maintenance of peace and security. In fact, they have on occasion become a complicating factor, and it would be hard to justify the exponential rise in the cost of maintaining them. There is now the piquant development of the recommendation to the Security Council from the Presidents of the two Tribunals that financial provisions should be made to recompense those who might have been unfairly accused before them; potentially, therefore, the General Assembly could be looking at huge sums of money which would have to be found to compensate persons wrongfully brought before tribunals which were wrongfully set up. Again, the General Assembly would be merely a passive and helpless spectator, without a role to play, except to accept the financial implications of decisions arbitrarily taken by the Council. These are systemic problems that surely need to be addressed.

Many of the flaws in the functioning of the Council are structural. Its composition and structure are demonstrably out of touch with ground realities. The Council neither reflects nor represents the aspirations and views of the larger membership. It is a relic of a defunct era. The solution lies in reforming and restructuring the Council. The inclusion of developing countries would make the Council more representative, relevant and responsive, enhancing the quality of its decisions and their acceptability within the general membership.

We have always believed that sanctions are a blunt instrument and should be carefully used when their imposition becomes imperative. Reports from the United Nations system about the humanitarian crisis caused by the sanctions on Iraq are disquieting. We have also seen the report by the Secretary-General that over 1,200 contracts worth over $2 billion under the oil-for-food programme are on hold. Clearly, the Council needs to address this issue with dispatch and sensitivity.

Mr. Sharma (India)

Only last month, our leaders met in this Hall to reaffirm their common commitment to the United Nations as our instrument of choice to strengthen and expand international cooperation as we enter the new millennium. It is with a view to building such a United Nations that we have offered our comments on the report of the Security Council.

Mr. Kastrup (Germany)

The report of the Security Council has always been a comprehensive and long document which bears witness to the workload of the Council. All members of the Security Council therefore deserve our respect for shouldering this burden in exercising the duties conferred upon them by the Member States, under Article 24 of the Charter.

I would like to elaborate on three points. How can we really implement Article 24 and reform the relations between the Security Council and the general membership? How does the issue of Security Council reform relate to a peacekeeping reform, as initiated by the Brahimi report? And, finally, how can we reform our own working culture and not let the principle of consensus stop all reform efforts?

One of the most obvious innovations in the Council's recent practice has been overlooked by the report, namely, the re-introduction of private meetings. I am not a psychologist who can give the Assembly an explanation for that. Since October of last year, I have been writing to the Presidents of the Security Council on a regular basis to ask them to allow non-members of the Council to participate in the Council's deliberations in cases where their interests are especially affected. Last January, I submitted a memorandum containing proposals on how such meetings could include a wider membership of the United Nations and yet remain confidential in character. That memorandum on the format and modalities of private meetings has been discussed in the Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform. Some of the memorandum's ideas were incorporated into this year's report of the Working Group.

The changes in the Security Council's procedures over the last year were quite significant. Instead of automatically coming together behind closed doors, the Council has moved towards being more open to the general membership. In some cases, interactive debates have taken place. In other cases, however, the non-members of the Council were not allowed to participate in the discussion, as provided for in the Council's provisional rules of procedure. I believe this development should receive closer attention in the future.

Statistics indicate that the tendency of the Security Council to meet behind closed doors is continuing. We deeply regret this, and I would like wholeheartedly to endorse everything that has been said about this problem by my Indian colleague. Therefore, two questions remain. How can parties involved be included prior to, and in, the actual consultations, and how can third parties with vital interests be enabled to participate in informal Security Council meetings? What types of procedures are available on a case-by-case basis without appearing arbitrary? This is not just a procedural or legal issue; it is, rather, a fundamental one. The more that especially affected countries are heard, the more legitimacy the Council's decisions will have and the more weight its resolutions will carry.

That brings me to my next point, namely, the Brahimi report and its linkage to the issue of Security Council reform. Among other things, the Brahimi Panel recommends that

"The Security Council should leave in draft form resolutions authorizing missions with sizeable troop levels until such time as the Secretary-General has firm commitments of troops and other critical mission support elements, including peace-building elements, from Member States." (A/55/305, para. 64 (b))

At a later stage, the reports states that

"The Secretariat must tell the Security Council what it needs to know, not what it wants to hear, when formulating or changing mission mandates, and countries that have committed military units to an operation should have access to Secretariat briefings to the Council on matters

affecting the safety and security of their personnel, especially those meetings with implications for a mission's use of force." (ibid., para. 64 (d))

That is exactly the point that my Indian colleague has emphasized.

The Security Council should not only hear those Member States, but also take their views into consideration, the latter being the more important part of this communication exercise between the Security Council and the general membership. No Article of the Charter needs to be changed or amended for the Council to involve more Members in its deliberations and decision-making process on peacekeeping missions. As we all know, the Security Council is the master of its own procedures. That means that increasing the participation of a wider portion of the membership is a matter of political will.

After all, we are talking about the future of United Nations peacekeeping, which is the United Nations fundamental task, as well as the future of the United Nations as a whole. If there is no reform of the Security Council and its working methods, peacekeeping reform will remain incomplete.

The Secretary-General rightly stressed in his speech before the General Assembly on 12 September that

"Consensus is highly desirable, but it need not mean waiting for absolute unanimity on every sub-clause among 189 Member States. The minority, often a very small minority, should not withhold its consent unreasonably. ... We can no longer afford to operate always at the level of the lowest, and slowest, common denominator." (A/55/PV.10, p. 2)

In practice, however, we do have to wait for that slowest common denominator, and important reform projects are being held hostage by a minority even though we can no longer afford to allow that to happen.

This year's deliberations of the Working Group on Security Council reform once again made it quite clear that because of the attitude of a minority it was not possible to agree on any substantial chapter in this year's report. The valuable efforts of both of our Vice-Chairmen, who had worked out an extremely well-balanced draft on general observations, were frustrated. Together with many other reform-minded countries, we would have preferred the original version of the Vice-Chairmen's proposals. Fortunately, that original version has become an annex to the report, so the Bureau's assessment of the problems and perspectives of the reform debate are reflected in its entirety. I would recommend that everybody take a close look at this excellent paper and get an idea where we stand and where we might go from here.

We need not only a reform of the Security Council and of United Nations peacekeeping, but also of our own working methods. Seven years of reform debate are enough. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council should reform their working culture and methods and breathe life into the words they produce. Action, not words, are needed.

Mr. Wang Yingfan (China)

At the outset, I wish to thank the President of the Security Council for the report he has submitted to the General Assembly at its present session. It contains comprehensive and detailed information about what the Security Council did in a working year that straddled two centuries. Today I take this opportunity to share my views on several issues, and on United Nations peacekeeping operations in particular.

Peacekeeping operations are an important means by which the United Nations fulfils its obligations with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security. On the one hand, the past year witnessed an increase in both the number and the scale of United Nations peacekeeping operations. On the other hand, such operations failed to yield the expected results in Sierra Leone and other places, highlighting to some extent the fact that such operations do indeed have problems that need to be solved immediately. We believe that it takes more than the political will of Member States and sufficient resources to strengthen the peacekeeping capacity of the United Nations. The Security Council should be more rational and more purpose-specific and case-specific in making decisions in this field.

First, better communication and consultation with the troop-contributing countries is crucial. Whether it is a matter of authorizing the deployment of a new peacekeeping mission or of amending the mandate of a current operation, the views of the contributors must be heeded and respected. Consultations should be conducted on a regular basis among the members of the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat on the situation on the ground, conditions of the deployed troops and other matters. Such communication can be carried out at a variety of levels; it can take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York and/or in the field, where the peacekeeping troops are deployed. The form of such communication should also be varied with a view to ensuring its effectiveness and efficiency.

Secondly, the Security Council must try to do a better job of pooling expertise and information in the decision-making process and in the review process. In that regard, on the one hand, the Secretariat should strengthen its capacity to collect, collate and analyse information so that it can supply the Security Council, in a timely manner, with accurate, comprehensive and reliable information concerning the situation on the ground and concerning specific needs for deployment. The Security Council, for its part, should also work hard to develop more channels of communication and to listen to information from a wider range of sources. In recent years, some of the Security Council missions to the sites of peacekeeping operations have been successful. They have helped the Security Council gain a comprehensive understanding of given situations and formulate solutions accordingly. The Security Council should therefore continue to do this in the future.

Thirdly, the Security Council should substantially improve its cooperation with the regional organizations and countries concerned to address hot-spot issues with a view to safeguarding regional stability. Those regional organizations and countries can often be pivotal to the solution of such issues, which, when mishandled, can easily spill over to neighbouring countries and to the entire region. Therefore, when seeking solutions to such issues, the Security Council must have in mind the big picture of the whole region, must attach due importance to the views of the regional organizations and countries concerned and must strengthen cooperation with them in carrying out peacekeeping operations.

To sum up, coordination among the Security Council, troop-contributing countries, the Secretariat's Department of Peacekeeping Operations, relevant field missions and the regional organizations and countries concerned should be further strengthened. There should be an established regime and mechanism for such coordination, and it should become a regular practice of the Security Council. It takes joint efforts by all Member States to strengthen the peacekeeping capacity of the United Nations. The report (A/55/305) of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations chaired by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi has provided Member States with a good basis for discussion. It is our hope that those recommendations in the report that enjoy broad agreement and that are easy to carry out can be implemented as soon as possible.

In the past year, the Security Council has held quite a number of discussions on hot-spot issues in Africa. It remains a major challenge, however, for the Council to find timely, effective and durable solutions to those issues. We hope that the declaration (Security Council resolution 1318 (2000), annex) adopted at the Security Council summit meeting last September, especially those parts that relate to Africa, will be implemented in an earnest and effective way.

Last year, when adopting its resolutions on the arms embargo against Ethiopia and Eritrea and on the diamond embargo against Sierra Leone, the Security Council for the first time explicitly set time-frames for the embargoes. By doing so, the Council achieved a major breakthrough in its sanctions work, because it rightly responded to the call of a vast number of Member States.

We have always supported the Security Council's efforts to improve its working methods, transparency and efficiency so that it can better carry out its responsibilities with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security on behalf of all Member States. The Chinese delegation is ready to continue, along with other delegations, to work constructively to that end.

Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia)

I take this opportunity to thank Member States for the support they showed by electing Colombia as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for the period 2001-2002. Colombia assumes that challenge with a great sense of responsibility, and will maintain positions that conform strictly to the United Nations Charter and its fundamental principles.

After looking through the report before us on the work of the Security Council (A/55/2), I should like to focus on three issues. The first is the methodology of the report. We recognize and applaud the improvements made in the content of the report and in the methodology used to prepare it. However, as we have already said on other occasions, a major problem remains: The inadequacy of information for States that are not members of the Security Council, owing to the high number of informal meetings. In the period under review, according to the report, there were 144 formal meetings. But 194 informal consultations also took place, of which non-members know nothing except for what each country is able to find out for itself. That is a clear example of how ill-informed are States not part of the Security Council.

Colombia understands that certain meetings must be held in private owing to the sensitivity of the issues under discussion, but there are occasions on which we believe that there is room for openness, for the sake of transparency in the decisions taken. Problems of international peace and security are of equal concern to members and to non-members of the Council. For that reason, we stress the need to reform current practice, or at least to consider alternative ways to incorporate the opinions and viewpoints of non-member States that can contribute innovative ideas. Open debates have been an important step forward, but it is necessary to explore other mechanisms to increase the transparency of the Security Council's methods and procedures.

Secondly, as concerns the mandate of the Security Council, we believe that we need to evaluate the Council's competence. According to Article 24 of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has

"primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".

There are "new" thematic items on the agenda that are not clearly linked to the maintenance of peace and security and that are usually discussed at least once a month in the Council. These issues have their own discussion forums, and therefore, when they are considered by the Security Council as they are now, they have an impact on the actions taken by other United Nations bodies. These are very important issues on the world's agenda and directly affect a great number of countries, and we therefore deem it inappropriate that they be excluded from wider consideration, unless this procedure genuinely benefits the Council's work.

Thirdly, in the past year there has been growing general dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the peace operations set up by the Security Council. A lack of clarity in the mandates of some missions is not only damaging the Organization's credibility but also leading to the loss of human lives. This must change. We cannot continue to excuse the Organization for flaws that are repeated daily. The Security Council has the responsibility of reviewing this practice. We cannot keep sending Blue Helmets to areas of conflict as a sign of hope for civil society, when the truth is that perhaps they do not represent the best way to achieve peace.

If a mission's mandate is not stated clearly, with enough human, economic and logistical resources to ensure its success, it is better not to create such a mission. We cannot repeat the same mistakes such as the well-documented ones in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Sierra Leone, to mention just a few. All of this is made even worse when we take into account the existing serious shortcomings in preventive actions.

For this reason, we believe that the Organization is facing a very important challenge today. The report submitted by the high-level Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, contained in document A/55/305, makes a series of recommendations for improving these operations. In order to adopt and adapt these recommendations, the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretariat must work together. It would be pointless for each organ to present individual conclusions, as this would only further postpone the necessary reform of peacekeeping operations.

There are some who argue that this issue falls more within the purview of the Council than that of the General Assembly. It is clear that a great number of decisions concerning peace operations do fall within the purview of the Council. However, we must keep in mind that these decisions affect a great number of people and that there is therefore a need for open debate leading to a broadly representative consensus, in order not to further delay the reform we so desire.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasize how important Security Council reform is for Colombia. The issues we have raised today make clear the need to transform the Security Council into a more representative body whose practices are transparent enough to secure the greatest possible trust and whose members can contribute in a more balanced way to its decisions.

Mr. Vento (Italy)

I would like at the outset to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Namibia, Ambassador Andjaba, this month's Security Council President, on his clear and detailed presentation of the Council's annual report to the General Assembly. I also commend the Secretariat for its excellent preparatory work.

The report is a document that is invaluable to the necessary interaction between the Council and the General Assembly, pursuant to the recommendations of Article 15 of the Charter. As always, however, there is room for improvement. That is why I reiterate the wish my delegation has expressed in previous years that the report, rather than being a mere catalogue of meetings, resolutions and presidential statements, should be more substantial and analytical, which would allow us to better assess the work of the Security Council in all its aspects and effects, in the areas of both peace and resources. That is why I am in agreement with many of the remarks that have been made by the representative of India.

This annual occasion provides the entire membership of the General Assembly with an opportunity for collective reflection. I would like to take this opportunity to share my thoughts on the work of the Security Council in the fundamental area of peace and security.

There has been a sharp and healthy increase in the Security Council's activities in the past 12 months. The Council has had to address some of the most sensitive and difficult crises in the world, authorizing five new peacekeeping missions of great complexity and importance, namely in Kosovo, East Timor, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ethiopia and Eritrea. At the same time, it has reinforced the operation in southern Lebanon. Italy is actively involved in five of those six missions. Considering the marked rise in interventions decided on by the Council and the enormous consequences of this renewed activism for all Members of the Organization, we all have a right to question the way these mandates were adopted and to ask whether different and more effective means might have been used to achieve peace.

These same questions fuelled the report by the group of experts led by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Algeria, Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi, which the competent bodies -- the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretariat -- must now assess for action. Another question we must ask is whether authentic and timely conflict prevention efforts have been made by the Security Council, drawing on the full means indicated under Chapter VI of the Charter.

In the past year the United Nations has taken on growing responsibility for the maintenance of international peace, following an era in which the threat of intersecting vetoes had paralysed its ability to act. This became possible thanks not only to a growing convergence of views among the members of the Security Council, particularly the five permanent members, but also, and above all, to the common commitment and the joint contributions of the members of the General Assembly, because in many cases important players in crisis management and conflict resolution are members of the General Assembly but not necessarily of the Security Council.

The maintenance of international peace and security is, in fact, a collective responsibility to be shouldered by the international community as a whole. Some countries, because of their influence, strategic and geographic position as "front-line countries", offer contributions decisive to the political and stabilization processes at the heart of peace agreements, the prerequisite for any United Nations intervention. Other countries, whose numbers are growing, have deployed their contingents of troops and police forces on missions deliberated by the Security Council. The new "complex" missions in Kosovo and East Timor, which involve a form of international administration of the territories, require magistrates, judges, prison and border guards and civil administrators from countries that belong to different geographic groups.

Italy participates actively in this renewed commitment, both through its specialized personnel involved directly in United Nations missions and through the action conducted by the European Union in close connection with the United Nations. This is why the Secretary-General's recent talks in Strasbourg and Brussels, aimed at strengthening cooperation between the United Nations and the European Union in the crucial area of conflict prevention and crisis management, should be strongly supported. This process was already implicit when the European Union High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana, made a statement on the Balkan crisis at the Security Council meeting last June -- an important first step towards enhanced collaboration between the United Nations and the European Union.

The need for the rapid development of peacekeeping operations decided on by the Security Council, and their substantial evolution in recent years, has made the United Nations financial crisis even more glaring. The exponential increase in the peacekeeping budget has placed a growing burden on all United Nations Members, especially the top contributors. In the current budget year, for example, Italy is paying approximately $110 million to finance peacekeeping operations that the Security Council decided on in complete autonomy. We are thus in favour of a review of the scale of assessments for peacekeeping that will endow this fundamental sector with greater stability and resources and also compensate for the persistent state of financial uncertainty.

The tragic experiences of Sierra Leone, and, earlier, of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda, have forced us to engage in a profound reflection on the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations decided on by the Security Council. In his report to the Millennium Assembly, the Secretary-General bravely faced up to the grave failures of United Nations missions, some of them recent, and underlined the need to increase the efficiency and legitimacy of the Council.

First of all, the Security Council must do more in the way of conflict prevention and adopt credible mandates, after having listened to all the interested countries, organizations and parties that can contribute to the resolution of crisis situations. In the future, we will be counting on an improvement in the Council's decision-making procedures, and a full accounting of them in the annual report we are discussing today.

There is a widespread feeling that non-members of the Council should also be consulted in its decision-making process. Our Organization's future success in restoring peace to some of the most tormented parts of the world will depend, to an increasing extent, on the ability of Council members to open up to outside contributions. The recommendations in the Brahimi report are particularly useful in this regard: we need to work so that active interaction with countries that contribute to peace operations takes place during the consideration of a new mandate and in cases where mandates have to be modified in response to events on the ground.

We need to reform the Council's working methods. Last year, there was an encouraging increase in open debates and public meetings.

I should like to say one other thing about the reform of the Security Council. The final Declaration of the Millennium Summit properly recommended comprehensive reform in all aspects, thus rejecting quick fixes or short-cuts on key issues such as the veto, the equality of Member States and effectiveness. That is why we do not see how an increase in the permanent membership would improve the decision-making process of the Security Council -- quite the contrary, since the Security Council usually works at the level of the lowest common denominator among the permanent five members as a result of the power of the veto or the simple threat of the veto. That is the rule the Security Council follows. We are therefore puzzled by the criticism of the way in which the Working Group on reform works. There is minority rule and majority rule, but I think the need to reform the Security Council is too serious an issue for us to allow it to be dealt with in a way that promotes the interests of certain countries instead of the membership in general.

The credibility of our Organization in the maintenance of peace depends on its ability to adjust to new challenges and circumstances. While every Member State must strive to strengthen the crisis-management capacities of the United Nations in the field of peacekeeping and to reform its financial arrangements, the Security Council has special responsibilities. The most important of these responsibilities regards decision-making. This is a commitment that, pursuant to Article 24 of the Charter, is conferred upon the members of the Security Council by the general membership, which, in return, expects thorough, effective implementation.

Mr. Ka (Senegal)

I should like first of all to convey my delegation's congratulations to my brother and friend, Ambassador Martin Andjaba of Namibia. As President of the Security Council for October, he introduced with his usual clarity and precision the annual report of the Security Council covering the period 16 June 1999 to 15 June 2000.

It is true that the report is long, but it is full of facts and figures and provides a complete picture of the important role of the Security Council in managing the many situations that pose a threat to international peace and security in the world.

Member States have a legitimate interest in the activities of the Council and in the General Assembly debate on the report of the Council, as provided for in Article 15 and Article 24, paragraph 3, of the Charter.

This debate certainly provides a special opportunity to review the work of the Council and to consider ways of maintaining or enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of that central body in order to create the necessary synergy between it and the other principal organs of the Organization. We believe that this discussion of the report is useful for both the Security Council and the General Assembly because it helps to ensure perfect coordination and effective interaction.

It is clear from reading the report that once again the Council has had a particularly busy year. During the reporting period, it held 144 formal meetings, adopted 57 resolutions, issued 38 presidential statements and held 194 informal consultations of the whole.

I wish to pay a well-deserved tribute to all Council members for the high quality and relevance of the report, which offers us a timely assessment of their level of commitment to international peace and security.

The report is also the outcome of the efforts made by Council members and the Secretariat to fulfil the desire of countries members and non-members of the Council to make the work of that strategic body more transparent.

The need for greater transparency in the work of the Security Council has met with great progress in recent years, and we appreciate the now well-established practice of briefing non-members of the Council. I also wish to stress and welcome the more frequent use of open debates on items on the Council's agenda, as well as the positive initiatives taken by the Presidents to organize open meetings on specific questions of concern to the entire international community.

During this year, the Council has held thematic debates on peacekeeping, on security and post-conflict peace-building, on the promotion of peace and security, on humanitarian aid to refugees in Africa, on children affected by armed conflict, on the protection of civilians affected by armed conflicts, on small arms and light weapons, on the responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of peace, on the role of the Council in the prevention of armed conflicts, on the humanitarian aspects of items before the Security Council, and, finally, on an equally important issue, the question of sanctions.

Clearly, these stimulating debates are of special importance for the non-members of the Council, because it means that they can make an important contribution to the consideration of the items on the Council's agenda. This is why my delegation supports this innovation, even as we remain convinced of the need to improve its practical effectiveness by holding more frequent open meetings on specific items, leading to concrete action.

Again this year, as in previous years, the report of the Security Council gives special attention to crises in Africa, the continent which currently has the greatest number of conflicts on the Council's agenda. I refer to Angola, Burundi, Ethiopia/Eritrea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, and so forth. Given the unstable political situation in the continent, which is a source of concern for the entire international community, the Council has made commendable efforts to contain these conflicts. It can never be repeated too often that unless there is peace and stability, there can be no sustainable economic development in Africa.

In this regard, I wish to welcome the many initiatives on Africa undertaken by the Council during the reporting period and beyond. I wish to refer to the memorable days of 24 and 26 January 2000, and during which the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was considered, and during which, under the aegis of the United States presidency, the Security Council had a high-level debate in the presence of Presidents Chiluba of Zambia, Chissano of Mozambique, Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, dos Santos of Angola, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Museveni of Uganda and Bizimungu of Rwanda, as well as the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and Sir Ketumile Masire, the facilitator of the inter-Congolese dialogue.

The taking of timely, courageous decisions validated the work of that meeting, in particular the reaffirmation of the commitments of the main protagonists of the Congolese crisis to work together for the strict implementation of the provisions of the Lusaka Agreement and for the immediate deployment of the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The international community as a whole welcomed that United States initiative and hoped that it would lead to new dynamism and thus a political solution to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

It is in this same context that we also welcomed the dispatch of the Security Council mission to the Great Lakes region to build on the outcome of the January meeting. It is true that that field mission did not bring about a major breakthrough in the Congolese crisis; however, it did help to enhance the Council's credibility by opening the way for the process of demilitarizing the city of Kisangani and making it safer. At that time, Kisangani was a hotbed of acts of violence that caused hundreds of civilian casualties.

Closer to us geographically, even if this event is not technically covered by the report, I wish to point out that the recent mission of a delegation of the Security Council to the subregion of West Africa is another illustration of this determination on the part of Council members to undertake specific actions in the field to restore peace and security in areas torn by conflict and civil war.

Finally, among the most outstanding activities of the Council during this year was the meeting held in parallel with the Millennium Summit where heads of State of countries members of the Council discussed primarily problems of security and peace in Africa.

In the interest of peace and development in the African continent, the Security Council should start considering ways to give Africans the capacity to strengthen their own capacity for peacekeeping, and particularly their capacity for prevention in order to deal with crisis situations. I have used the word "capacity" repeatedly because I wish to stress this need. All too often, the Council has been accused, rightly or wrongly, of reacting to African problems and of being slow to take proper preventive action. My delegation believes that a rapid reaction mechanism should be designed and put into place jointly by the Council and the regional organizations, on the basis of a partnership that would strike a balance between their respective roles and responsibilities.

African leaders, the Organization of African Unity and the subregional organizations, such as the Economic Community of West African States, the Southern African Development Community and the Economic Community of Central African States, have decided to include in their field of action the prevention and security mechanisms to deal with the many African conflicts.

Another aspect of the work of the Council to be considered is the need to improve the working methods of that central body. In this regard, I am pleased to note that there is already broad consensus on such essential points as the participation of non-members in Council meetings, the programme of work of the Council and the briefings convened by the President of the Council for the benefit of non-members and troop-contributing countries. It now remains to go further and to institutionalize these trends so that from now on the promotion of international peace and security is based on a revitalized, more effective and more transparent Security Council.

We must finally end a deplorable trend that prevents the Council from fulfilling its mandate -- that of Member States and regional organizations taking coercive action without the Council's authorization or acting unilaterally, invoking the right to humanitarian intervention. This trend should be discouraged by asserting the Council's competence in the areas defined by the Charter, so that the Security Council is in step with the changing world and so that it can demonstrate imagination and determination in the maintenance of global peace, security and stability.

Precisely since it functions solely in the service of peace, the Council -- to enhance the authority and credibility with which it carries out its essential and fundamental mission of preserving global peace and security -- needs the unequivocal support of its members and of the other members of the international community. In this regard, the valuable contribution that the Brahimi report could make to the Council's exercise of its mandate should be stressed. It seems to me that, were they to be adopted, some of the relevant recommendations contained in that report could considerably improve the work of the Council -- for example, in the future management of peacekeeping operations.

In conclusion, I would like to extend heartfelt congratulations to the representatives of Mauritius, Ireland, Norway, Colombia and Singapore, which have just been elected to the Security Council.