General Assembly Session 56 meeting 25

The Acting President

As members are aware, in accordance with the provisions of 12, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations, and with the consent of the Security Council, the Secretary-General is mandated to notify the General Assembly of matters relative to the maintenance of international peace and security that are being dealt with by the Security Council and of matters with which the Council has ceased to deal.

In this connection, the General Assembly has before it a note by the Secretary-General issued as document A/56/366.

May I take it that the Assembly takes note of that document?

The Acting President

I now invite the President of the Security Council, His Excellency Mr. Richard Ryan, to introduce the report of the Security Council.

Mr. Ryan (Ireland)

I am honoured to introduce to the General Assembly the annual report of the Security Council, covering the period from 16 June 2000 to 15 June 2001. The report shows clearly the range of issues considered by the Council, and the intensity of the work programme undertaken in the year under review. Altogether, in the reporting period, the Council held 173 formal meetings, adopted 52 resolutions and issued 35 statements by the President.

Consistent with its primary responsibility under the Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council gave particular attention during the year to issues relating to the settlement of regional conflicts and conflict situations generally.

With regard to Africa, the Security Council gave extensive consideration to the situations in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Burundi, Liberia, Angola, Somalia, Western Sahara and Rwanda, and the situation in Guinea following attacks along its borders with Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Council also examined the general situation of the countries of West Africa in the light of the report of the United Nations Inter-Agency Mission visit to the region. In addition, the Security Council met at the level of heads of State and Government on 7 September 2000 to discuss the need to ensure an effective role for the Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly in Africa.

The situations in the Middle East, East Timor, Afghanistan and the Balkans were also the subject of consideration by the Council.

Extensive consideration has been given to the situation in Iraq.

Attention was also given by the Council to broader peace and security issues, including children and armed conflict, women and peace and security, peace-building, the protection of civilians in armed conflict, HIV/AIDS, and international peacekeeping operations. The Council also addressed the issue of the prevention of armed conflict in the light of the report of the Secretary-General.

The Security Council has also contributed more generally to the enhancement of peacekeeping through the adoption of resolution 1327 (2000) of 13 November 2000, and resolution 1353 (2001) of 13 June 2001.

During the year in question, the Security Council continued to strengthen further its working methods and procedures. This includes obtaining better information through field missions; the use of special missions by the Council; direct contacts with parties involved in situations before the Council, including through meetings with the Council; as well as closer liaison with United Nations troop-contributor countries, following up its resolution 1353 (2001) of 13 June 2001. The Council also took steps to improve its procedures and those of its committees for sanctions.

The Security Council made particular efforts in the year under review to conduct its business in as transparent a manner as possible. In particular, many public meetings and briefings were held with the participation of the wider membership of the United Nations.

The members of the Security Council hope that this report will provide useful information on the activities of the Council during the year under review. They attach great importance to the consideration of this report by the General Assembly as a significant part of the dialogue between the two principal bodies of the United Nations. The members of the Security Council look forward to the comments and suggestions of Member States in the course of today's discussion.

The members of the Security Council will be reviewing the format and the structure of the annual report in the upcoming months, and they will consider any suggestions made in the course of this debate. Conclusions reached in that review will be reflected in next year's report.

Let me conclude by expressing the appreciation of the Security Council members to the staff of the Security Council secretariat for their commitment, professionalism and tireless efforts on behalf of the Security Council. Their work, as always, remains indispensable to the efficiency of the work of the Security Council.

Mr. Niehaus (Costa Rica)

Allow me first to thank Ambassador Richard Ryan, Permanent Representative of Ireland and President of the Security Council for the month of October, for his introduction of the report of the Council for the year to 15 June 2001.

The consideration of this report is taking place at an extraordinary moment. Only three days ago the Nobel Peace Prize Committee decided to award that high distinction to the Secretary-General and the United Nations as a whole for their efforts to achieve international peace and security, as well as for their leadership in confronting the economic, social and environmental challenges that face humankind. There is no doubt that the Security Council has contributed substantially to making the Organization worthy of such recognition.

The Security Council is currently the international community's only legitimate mechanism to respond to armed conflicts and humanitarian crises of such gravity that they constitute threats to peace. Consequently, the Council's work in maintaining international peace and security is vital to the future of mankind. As wisely proclaimed by the Nobel Prize Committee, the United Nations is the only path to global peace and cooperation.

Nevertheless, the path to peace is full of obstacles. At this moment, all of our peoples and nations are living under the shadow of international terrorism. The despicable criminal acts of 11 September have raised international terrorism to the top of the international agenda. It is therefore impossible to assess the Security Council's work during the last year without considering its reaction to the attacks of 11 September and, in particular, its resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September.

Undoubtedly, resolution 1373 (2001) heralds a new era in international relations. For the first time in history, the Security Council has declared that a particular phenomenon -- international terrorism -- constitutes, in any circumstances, a threat to international peace and security. Also for the first time, the Security Council recognized the inherent right of self-defence against the activities of non-State actors, even when those actors are on the territory of third States. Furthermore, for the first time, and pursuant to its powers under the Charter, the Council imposed upon all States a series of obligations and general norms of conduct, of the kind usually reserved for international treaties, in order to fight against international terrorism. Unlike previous precedents, these mandatory measures were adopted without being linked to a particular situation or controversy and without provision for their termination. Moreover, the Council established a permanent committee, with broad powers, to monitor implementation of those measures. In short, for the first time in history, the Security Council enacted legislation for the rest of the international community.

My delegation welcomes the contents of that resolution. It constitutes a strong, proportionate and necessary response to the despicable criminal acts of 11 September 2001. Furthermore, my delegation warmly welcomes the renewed confidence in multilateral mechanisms and the extension of the Council's powers and areas of responsibility manifest in the resolution.

My delegation has for several years advocated such that very strengthening of the Security Council. We have pointed out that the Council is the only mechanism available to mankind in order to face the dangers that threaten it. Costa Rica questioned the Council when it renounced its mandate and had become irrelevant. We criticized it when it confined itself to weak and inadequate responses to the gravest political and humanitarian emergencies. We denounced it was unable to act due to the irresponsible use of the veto or the defence of selfish national interests by some of its members. We can therefore only congratulate the Council today on having unanimously adopted strong and clear-cut measures to face a crisis situation. Moreover, we expect the Security Council to act with the same firmness, promptness and efficacy when confronted by other crises or emergency situations in the future.

Resolution 1373 (2001) demonstrates the broad powers of the Security Council. In exercising its powers, however, the Council must act responsibly. In accordance with the provisions of the Charter, the Security Council acts on behalf of all Members of the United Nations. Its members, whether permanent or elected, represent equally all States Members of the Organization and they are, therefore, responsible to them. That is why it is essential for the Council to hold transparent and effective consultations with the other members of the international community when it adopts measures of far-reaching importance.

The Council's main goal in promoting international peace and security should be to guarantee full enjoyment of human rights and full respect for human dignity. Therefore, the Security Council should scrupulously strive to promote respect for fundamental rights. In this regard, when adopting measures such as those embodied in resolution 1371 (2001) in particular, the Security Council must keep in mind the obligations of States to act in accordance with the imperatives of international law.

In exercising its powers, the Security Council must bear in mind that the prohibition on the use of force is the cornerstone of the society of nations, and that it must continue to be so. We fear that if that prohibition were undermined, it would open the door to violence in international relations. We believe that, with the very limited exception of the right to self-defence, advance authorization from the Security Council is essential for any initiative that may require the use of force. Furthermore, we must be cautious in resorting to the inherent right to self-defence. That right is never absolute because it is limited by the principle of proportionality.

As we consider the report for the period 2000-2001, we must acknowledge that the work of the Council has yielded some very positive results, particularly in Timor and Kosovo. Not all of its efforts have been as successful, however. Did the Council take adequate steps to respond to the situation in Afghanistan? Today, the answer seems clear: it did not. Did the Security Council prohibit the transfer of arms to rebel or extremist groups? Regrettably, it did not. Did the Council take effective action to revitalize the peace process in the Middle East? Unfortunately, it did not. Did it take appropriate steps to respond to the crisis in the Great Lakes region? Very little was done. Did it devote sufficient resources to the conflicts in West Africa? It does not appear to have done so. Was it able to find a solution to the situation regarding Iraq? Unfortunately, it was not. Did it adopt clear-cut measures to prevent future conflicts? It adopted just a few.

I would like to deal with that last issue, which was the subject of a public debate on 21 June this year and of resolution 1366 (2001), which was adopted on 30 August. The United Nations and the international community have an unshirkable moral obligation to prevent armed conflict and other threats to international peace and security. That obligation flows directly from the basic principles of solidarity and fraternity among all human beings. We cannot, therefore, continue to stand by as passive witnesses to countless cases of genocide, massacre and war.

History teaches us that genuine, lasting peace can be achieved only when decent living conditions have been ensured for all; when there is a sufficient level of economic development to meet the basic needs of everyone; when fundamental human rights are respected; and when social and political differences are resolved by democratic means. That is why the early prevention of armed conflict requires us to address the profound structural causes of crises.

We are aware that that is a task for Governments and local authorities. That principle is correct, provided that such Governments and authorities are effective, responsible and democratic. Unfortunately, in many cases we have seen Governments and political leaders fuelling social tensions and inciting armed conflict.

Poverty, underdevelopment, ethnic differences, health problems, gender discrimination and lack of educational opportunities do not in themselves engender armed conflict. Those structural factors can generate violence only if there are political or military leaders prepared to incite to violence the groups that champion those causes. In this regard, the presence of leaders who are prepared to respond to such social claims or grievances by violent means, in order to satisfy their selfish, political and economic ambitions, is the true cause of, and indispensable condition for, social violence and armed conflict.

It is precisely in that context that the Security Council should play a key role in the prevention of conflict. The Council should use all its diplomatic, legal and political resources to support and demand good governance, the rule of law, democracy, representative government and respect for human rights. The promotion of peace requires a constant and sustained effort to create a climate of mutual respect and rejection of violence and extremism.

As we consider the work of the Security Council over the past year, we should reflect upon the contribution made by each of our States to global peace during the same period. Have we supported the United Nations in deed, as well as in word? Have we provided it with the necessary material and human resources to enable it to carry out its tasks? Have we given it the essential political backing? Ultimately, the achievements of the Security Council are the achievements of the whole international community, just as its failures are the failures of all of us.

Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia)

I should like at the outset to underscore the importance that Colombia attaches to our consideration of this agenda item, among other reasons because of our current responsibility as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. However, our regular status as a permanent member of this Assembly imposes on us an additional obligation to offer the Assembly, in plenary meeting, certain thoughts relating to the content and structure of the report now before us. We do this in the most constructive spirit possible, because we believe that this report should be accorded the proper political significance. We also do so because we take the view that, to a large extent, the contents of document A/56/2, as well as of similar texts from earlier years, reflect a distant relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly.

I should like first to refer to the formal aspects of the report. The first draft of the text being considered today was submitted to the members of the Council early in September this year. At the informal consultations devoted to the consideration of the document, we questioned its usefulness and content and insisted on the need to begin a debate within the Council that would make it possible to draft a report that would be useful in the General Assembly.

Unfortunately, we must state that our proposals and those of other colleagues made in this regard were not heeded. Clearly, among some of the permanent members and, paradoxically, among several Secretariat officials, there does not seem to exist the spirit nor the willingness to modify a document submitted to us as a fait accompli. Therefore, consideration of the report in open debate was a formality that did not have the political importance that should have been accorded to this document to be submitted to the General Assembly, which, in our view, is the supreme organ of the United Nations. We noted our dissatisfaction also at that meeting.

The lack of serious and appropriate action by the Council is confirmed in Part II of the report, chapter 41, page 241 of the document before us today, where the absence of analysis and the tendency to adopt the draft report mechanically are noted. Colombia believes that the report does not reflect the fact that the Council is politically accountable to the General Assembly for its actions or failures to act. What we have before us is a simple compilation of documents, which is no different from a formal list of Council activities. In fact, most of the texts included in the report have already been issued and are familiar to all members.

The General Assembly needs an analytical, energetic, informative, innovative, simple and brief document that truly reports on the Council's activities and that naturally strengthens the relationship between both organs. The realization of this aspiration is something that all the members of the Council must work towards, with the full awareness that propitious conditions for the appropriate and visionary reform of the content and format of this report will not always exist.

We understand that attempts have been made in the past to achieve this. We understand that it is a document that has been submitted by consensus among all members of the Council. We know that there will be political difficulties in agreeing on an analytical text of the activities of this organ, responsible for monitoring international peace and security.

Nevertheless, we must state categorically that these reports do not have an aggregate worth, nor do they contribute substantive elements to permit the Members of the United Nations to carry out a proper evaluation of how the Council's responsibilities were fulfilled in the corresponding period.

I wish to raise briefly a substantive item relative to the report we are considering today.

To highlight the relationship between this report and the Council's efficiency, we wish to refer briefly to the transcendental decisions that have been made during recent weeks, which have affected all the members of the United Nations. We refer particularly to Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) on international terrorism, and to its possible implications for the relations between the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Unlike other Council resolutions that have been adopted under Chapter VII, this resolution, which seeks to fight international terrorism, the greatest threat to international peace and security, can only be successful if it enjoys the agreement and the cooperation of all or of a large majority of the Members of the United Nations.

The particular characteristics of Security Council resolution 1373 (2001), together with the need to forge a global commitment against terrorism, should lead us to reflect, among other things, on the usefulness of a Security Council report like the one before us. We cannot act in this new structure of the international system without collective and nimble information systems that enhance the confidence of the Member States of the Organization in the Security Council. Even though the report of the Security Council is not, nor will be, the main source of information, it is one of the main elements whereby the Security Council seeks political support for its decisions in the General Assembly.

The direct relationship between these two principal organs of the United Nations -- the Council and the Assembly -- will always lead to exploring alternatives to introduce changes or, at least, to reflect on the questions they can ask themselves about the role that each plays. In that spirit, on behalf of the Council, we attended a meeting of the General Assembly's Open-ended Working Group on Security Council reform, held on 13 June 2001, which will be remembered as having been highly contributory and productive. In the report we submitted, we reported the claims that were made so that the Security Council could appear to be closer to, more integrated with and more in tune with the expectations and the aspirations of the entire membership of the United Nations, beginning with the 15 members of the Council.

We trust that the opinions expressed by the participants during this debate will be an important basis for a productive discussion in the Council's working group on documentation and procedure. We hope we will have a better report that is relevant to the new demands of the maintenance of international peace and security.

Mr. Baali (Algeria)

Article 24 of the Charter stipulates that in discharging its main responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, the Security Council acts on behalf of the Members of the Organization.

The Council is, therefore, supposed to submit annual reports and, if necessary, special reports to the General Assembly for consideration.

In an effort to streamline its work, the General Assembly, in resolution 51/241 of 1997, which is still entirely relevant, decided that the President would assess the debate on this item and would decide whether it was necessary to consider the report of the Security Council further. The General Assembly might even, following informal consultations, make a decision on any action based on the debate.

This means that the exercise that we are embarking upon today should not be regarded as a mere formality, but rather as a valuable opportunity for us all to examine in depth the work carried out by the Security Council in the past year, share our feelings about how it has been pursued and suggest possible improvements regarding the Council's working methods and its relations with the General Assembly.

It is not my intention to examine each issue the Council has reported on in depth in its voluminous report to the General Assembly, nor to make value judgements on the way it has dealt with those questions. My intention is simply to make some general comments on the way the Security Council is carrying out the important mandate entrusted to it by the Charter, on its working relationships with the other principal organs and on how its report to the Assembly is conceived and presented.

However, I would like to start by expressing my appreciation for the increasingly active and influential role the Council has assumed on the international scene in the prevention and settlement of conflicts. Judging by the number of plenary consultations and official meetings held during the periods under review, hardly a day goes by without the Security Council taking up a situation that represents or could come to represent a threat to international peace and security.

Fifty-two resolutions and 35 presidential statements have resulted from often long and arduous consultations. Their real effect on the ground is difficult to evaluate at this stage, but they show that the number of conflicts and disputes is growing year by year and that the United Nations is more than ever the framework and recourse for any action aiming to maintain international peace and security. My delegation certainly welcomes this, being so committed to the role the United Nations must play in conflict prevention and resolution.

Nevertheless, we regret that the Council, which has emphasized at every opportunity the need to protect civilian populations in areas of conflict, has been unable to rise above its differences on the question of international observers being deployed in the Palestinian territories to protect the Palestinian civilian population, which has been abandoned to the arbitrary and brutal actions of Israeli security forces.

We also regret that a number of important Council resolutions, the outcome of painstaking efforts, have remained a dead letter and have not even started to be implemented. This state of affairs encourages recalcitrant States to continue defying the will of the international community and can only damage the prestige and credibility of the Council, while also causing disappointment and frustration among States that have appealed to the Council for arbitration.

Finally, we regret that despite greater interest in Africa, the Council continues to experience difficulties in fully getting involved in the suppression of African conflicts and in acting with the required determination.

Regarding the way the Council conducts its work, I think we should welcome the progress achieved, particularly in the course of the last three years, with respect to the transparency and the information provided on matters under discussion. A number of meetings of an informative nature are now open to non-member States, which nevertheless still do not have access to substantive consultations held in closed meetings. It is during those closed meetings, in fact, that all the decisions affecting the fate of Member States are taken. It should be pointed out in this regard that although the Council's still provisional rules of procedure stipulate that it may hold closed meetings, it would seem that what should be the exception has become the rule, since the bulk of the Council's work is carried out in the consultation room, and the Council holds plenary meetings only to ratify agreements reached behind closed doors. That said, the rather timid yet praiseworthy efforts towards the Council's greater openness will remain fragile and reversible as long as openness depends on the goodwill of the President and Council members and until it has formally been made a rule.

Similarly, it seems to me that one can envisage improvements that can only help the Council better discharge its mandate. The Council could, for example, open its informal consultations to the parties to a dispute or conflict and to other concerned and interested parties, even if their deliberations are to continue later with those parties absent, but obviously better informed of the facts.

Likewise, with respect to plenary meetings, I think it is worth remarking that the Council should not, as has become customary, limit participation in debates to Council members alone on items of possible interest to other delegations. Furthermore, it should allow not only the parties to a conflict but also other countries concerned to take the floor prior to Council members so that Council members will have all the information they need in order to speak knowledgeably.

Another comment of mine relates to requests by States or groups of States for a meeting of the Council that the Security Council has hesitated or refused to act on. My understanding of the Charter and the practice of this Organization is that the Security Council cannot sidestep requests for meetings under the pretext, for example, that one of its members deems it inopportune. Whenever such a request is made, I think it is obvious that the Council should take it up, even if it has to resort to a procedural vote. Whatever the real motivations of the countries desiring a plenary debate, it is always preferable to give the protagonists a chance to exchange views in the Council Chamber than risk seeing them resort to force on the ground.

With respect to how the Security Council's report has been designed and presented, I think that what would be of most interest to the General Assembly is not so much a complete listing of Council activities -- which is extremely complete and certainly very useful -- as an evaluation by the Council of the work it has accomplished, the difficulties encountered and the lacuna and limitations observed in its working methods and in its relations with the other organs of the United Nations, as well as its vision of its role and responsibilities in a world in transformation.

If in the future the Security Council could examine itself and what it has done, critically, lucidly and uncomplaisantly, and share the results of such a self-examination with the Member States of the Organization in their entirety, and if the Council finally decided to start taking into account the observations and suggestions of the General Assembly, the Council would no doubt find its role strengthened and its performance greatly improved.

I would now like to address a delicate question: the relationship of the Security Council to the Economic and Social Council and to the General Assembly.

With regard to the relationship between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, my delegation has strongly encouraged the two bodies to strengthen their dialogue and ties, since their activities are often complementary and can -- if they are not careful -- interfere with each other, especially in matters of preventive diplomacy and peace-building.

The fact that the joint meeting envisaged could not be held must not discourage the two organs from continuing to seek together ways to strengthen their cooperation.

With respect to the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, it should first be pointed out that despite the more or less regular meetings between the Presidents of the two bodies, dialogue between them is far from adequate. Even worse, the Council has an increasing tendency to take up questions falling within the purview of the General Assembly, which the Assembly, in turn, tends to relinquish without resistance or reaction.

Indeed, more and more so-called thematic debates on subjects that actually fall within the purview of the General Assembly are organized within the Council and are highly publicized. However, these debates are essentially only media shows of no consequence; they generally are not followed by action, since the Security Council has neither the expertise nor the means necessary to implement the results these debates occasionally lead to.

The General Assembly is increasingly being transformed into a simple forum for deliberation. That fact was once again demonstrated a week ago when, after the most substantial debate held on a specific question in a number of years, the Assembly could not reach a unanimous rejection of terrorism in a consensus resolution. Encouraged by this progressive self-effacement on the part of the General Assembly, the Security Council is increasing its incursions into the Assembly's sphere of action -- even in the matter of diplomatic conferences -- and now takes it upon itself to legislate and make decisions on matters that, by all logic, should be discussed and resolved in larger and more competent bodies. There are even situations in which, emboldened by the lack of any reaction or challenging debate, the Council has gone so far as to decide to enjoin States to implement the provisions of international conventions that have not yet come into force, thus substituting itself for the sovereign will of States.

This tendency on the part of the Council infinitely to extend its competence, while raising very serious legal and political questions and contradicting the spirit and the letter of the Charter, from which the Council draws its legitimacy, must be contained because it will ultimately prejudice multilateralism, the principle of the democratic participation of States in negotiation and decision-making on questions of general interest and, in the final analysis, the very role and effectiveness of the Council itself, which to a certain extent would be distracted from its main responsibility: the maintenance of international peace and security.

More balanced relations between the two organs are therefore necessary and desirable. This will require the Security Council to strive to respect as scrupulously as possible the mandate it has received from the Charter. It is equally important that a general agreement be reached as soon as possible on reforming the Security Council, which cannot continue indefinitely to function with its current composition and working methods. Its expansion and the strengthening of its effectiveness, particularly through the abolition of the privilege of the right of veto, are more necessary than ever and can only enhance its representativeness, legitimacy and credibility.

Above all, this will require the General Assembly, rather than undertaking a yearly summary facelift of its outward appearance on the pretext of improving its working methods, to work to recover its lost authority and its full prerogatives. This is the challenge that we have to meet together if we do not wish the General Assembly to renounce forever its Charter status as the principal organ of our Organization and if we are not to abdicate once and for all our rights as sovereign States. From this point of view, it is essential that our debate today not succumb to the fate of previous debates and that it lead to action. Resolution 51/241 provides the President of the General Assembly with the opportunity to initiate such action. It would be appropriate for him to do so.

This is the contribution that my delegation wished to make to our discussion today, inspired as always by its desire to help to improve the working methods of one of the most important organs of the United Nations and, ultimately, of the Organization as a whole.

Mr. Hosseinian (Iran)

Allow me to express my appreciation to Mr. Richard Ryan, Permanent Representative of Ireland and President of the Security Council, for introducing the report of the Council to the General Assembly. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Syrian Arab Republic and the Republics of Bulgaria, Mexico, Guinea and Cameroon on their election to the Security Council. I trust that the new non-permanent members will help enhance the openness, transparency and representativeness of the Council to the fullest extent permissible under the current structure of that main body of the United Nations.

We attach great importance to the agenda item under consideration. What we are to consider is the annual report of the Security Council to the General Assembly on the way it conducts its work, which constitutes the maintenance of international peace and security, on behalf of the full membership of the United Nations. The submission of an annual report, stipulated by the Charter, is the constitutional link that establishes accountability between the two main bodies of the United Nations. In other words, the annual report represents the efforts of the Council to live up to the expectations of and to be accountable for its work to the membership from which it receives its powers.

As to the content and structure of the report, the General Assembly at its fifty-first session adopted resolution 51/193 in an effort to reform the reporting procedure of the Security Council. In that resolution, the Council is encouraged to provide a substantive and analytical account of its work and, inter alia, to include information on the consultations of the whole undertaken prior to action by the Council on issues within its mandate.

Having carefully considered the current report submitted by the Security Council to the General Assembly, we note that it continues to be mainly a compilation of the documents, a recalling of activities, a restatement of facts with regard to those activities, and so on. Like previous reports which the General Assembly has received, the current 571-page report, contained in document A/56/2 covering the period from 16 June 2000 to 15 June 2001, describes only what the Security Council has done and remains largely silent about the reasons and circumstances leading to the decisions adopted.

In this report, too, the lack of sufficient information for non-members of the Security Council on informal meetings persists. The 185 consultations of the whole, totalling some 325 hours, compared with 173 formal meetings during the reporting period, demonstrate the significance of informal meetings and their role in the decision-making of the Council. Despite the importance of consultations of the whole, non-members of the Council continue to be kept in the dark on how the decisions were arrived at and on how and why the Council failed to reach a decision, except for what each delegation can figure out on its own. This is a clear example of how non-member delegations of the Council may remain uninformed or misinformed about some important aspects of the Council's work.

Likewise, the goal of making the report of the Council more analytical, which figures among those set out in resolution 51/193, is yet to be achieved. We think that, if we judge the current report by that criterion, clearly there is room for improvement.

Nonetheless, we recognize some improvements made in the content and methodology used in the elaboration of this report. It is also worth recalling that this is a process that has continued over recent years and we hope that it can continue to the end. In this respect, we may refer to some efforts made in recent years to make the Council more transparent, including the increase in the number and frequency of open debates, which we consider to be an important step forward. However, we think that there is still much room for enhancing the transparency of the work of the Council.

All in all, we are convinced that there is room for enhancing the content of the report so that it will better describe the work of the Council and so as to ensure that the report can be better utilized.

More broadly speaking, the way the Security Council has dealt over the past several decades with the situations in some volatile areas, especially in the Middle East, is a manifestation of the inadequacy and inappropriateness of its working methods. Many times in the past, the Security Council has been called upon to shoulder its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security by putting an end to the inhuman and aggressive acts of the Israeli regime. But regrettably the exercise or the threat of the exercise of the veto has frequently paralyzed the Council and has prevented it from discharging its constitutional responsibility on that crucial issue.

During the reporting period, despite the attention paid by the Security Council to the ongoing crisis in the occupied Palestinian territories, and despite several public meetings organized under the presidencies of some Council members, it is regrettable that the continued aggressive policy of the Israelis and the lack of any action by the Council did not allow any easing of the suffering of the Palestinians. Regrettably, the Council failed to fulfil its responsibility with regard to the threat posed by Israel to peace and security in the volatile Middle East region. We should recall that the exercise of the veto was the main reason for that failure. The resort to the veto last March proved to be a disservice to the volatile situation in the area. Undoubtedly, the presence of a United Nations observer force on the ground could have forestalled more violence and more bloodshed and could have saved so many precious lives.

On the other hand, I need to acknowledge the relatively great attention paid by the Security Council to the situation in Afghanistan during the reporting period. The dire humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and the threats against neighbours and beyond emanating from the disorder and lawlessness in that country figured among the Council's priorities last year. By its resolution 1333 (2000), adopted in December, the Council, acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, focused mainly on the provision of sanctuary by the Taliban to international terrorists and demanded an immediate end to such practices. The recent terrorist acts on United States territory brought to the forefront the implications of the chaos and lawlessness in Afghanistan for the international community as a whole, and we hope that the Council will remain actively seized of the situation in that country. We acknowledge and appreciate the attention paid by the whole United Nations system to various aspects of the Afghan crisis, and we pledge to lend our active support to the efforts undertaken by various United Nations bodies and by the international community as a whole aimed at restoring peace and helping Afghans to form a broad-based and representative Government in their country.

However, the new turn of events in Afghanistan is very worrisome. Undoubtedly, many acts perpetrated by the Taliban, such as harbouring terrorists, trafficking in drugs, massacring members of the Afghan Shiite minority, murdering Iranian diplomats, et cetera, run counter to very basic international and humanitarian law. But it is also evident that the Afghan people should not be victimized because of the acts of the Taliban. The Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned over media reports from Afghanistan pointing to the increasing number of civilian causalities as a result of ongoing air strikes, and it expects countries involved in military action in that country to show restraint and not engage in activities that will jeopardize the lives of innocent people.

Last but not least, my delegation acknowledges the valuable work done by the Secretariat in compiling information and organizing it in keeping with the instructions and guidelines that the Security Council has laid down.

Mr. Mahbubani (Singapore)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xef' in position 11018: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">The debate we had two ...y, in the political, if not the legal, sense.</p>', 11018, 11019, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 11019
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">The debate we had two ...y, in the political, if not the legal, sense.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 11018