General Assembly Session 60 meeting 61

The President

The General Assembly will consider today the reports of the Sixth Committee on agenda items 83, 108 and 116.

I request the Rapporteur of the Sixth Committee, Ms. Shermain Jeremy of Antigua and Barbuda, to introduce in one intervention the reports of the Sixth Committee before the General Assembly.

Ms. Jeremy (Antigua and Barbuda)

At the 53rd meeting, held on 23 November, I indicated that the reports of the Sixth Committee on agenda item 83, "Scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel", agenda item 108, "Measures to eliminate international terrorism", and the procedural agenda item 116, "Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly", would be considered by the Assembly at a later date. It is now a great honour and privilege for me to introduce the reports of the Sixth Committee on those three items remaining on its agenda.

First, I would like to draw the Assembly's attention to item 83, "Scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel". The relevant report of the Sixth Committee is contained in document A/60/518, and the draft resolution recommended to the Assembly for adoption is reproduced in paragraph 12 of that document. It will be recalled that in paragraph 167 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1), heads of State and Government stressed the need to conclude negotiations on an optional protocol during the current session. I am therefore happy to state that the draft resolution contains in its annex the text of the draft Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel.

Under the terms of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would, inter alia, reaffirm, in the context of the Convention and its draft Optional Protocol, the importance of maintaining the integrity of international humanitarian law, and would also encourage States to enact national legislation, as necessary, in order to enable the implementation of the Convention and the draft Optional Protocol. Such legislation would be necessary, particularly in the context of the term "peacebuilding" in paragraph 1 (a) of article II of the Optional Protocol.

By the operative paragraphs of the draft resolution, the General Assembly would adopt the draft Optional Protocol and request the Secretary-General, as depositary, to open it for signature. In accordance with its article IV, the Protocol shall be open for signature by all States at United Nations Headquarters from 16 January 2006 to 16 January 2007. The Assembly would also invite States to become parties to the Protocol.

The draft resolution was adopted by the Sixth Committee without a vote. It is my hope that the Assembly will be in a position to do the same.

I now draw the attention of the Assembly to agenda item 108, "Measures to eliminate international terrorism". The relevant report of the Sixth Committee is contained in document A/60/519, and the draft resolution recommended to the General Assembly for adoption is reproduced in paragraph 10 of that report. By the terms of the draft resolution, the Assembly would, inter alia, strongly condemn all acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed and remind States of their obligations under relevant international conventions and protocols and Security Council resolutions to ensure that perpetrators of terrorist acts are brought to justice.

The Assembly would welcome the recent adoption and opening for signature of a number of anti-terrorism instruments, including the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and would urge States that have not yet done so to consider, as a matter of priority, and in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1373 (2001) and 1566 (2004), becoming parties to the relevant conventions and protocols. Furthermore, the Assembly would note the progress attained in the elaboration of the draft comprehensive convention on international terrorism and welcome continuing efforts to that end, and it would decide that the Ad Hoc Committee established pursuant to resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996 shall, on an expedited basis, continue to elaborate the draft comprehensive convention and shall continue to discuss the item concerning the question of convening a high-level conference under the auspices of the United Nations, which was also included on its agenda pursuant to the Assembly's resolution 54/110.

The Assembly would decide that the Ad Hoc Committee shall meet from 27 February to 3 March 2006 in order to fulfil its mandate. The Sixth Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. It is hoped that the Assembly will do the same.

Finally, I draw the attention of the Assembly to agenda item 116, entitled "Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly". The report of the Sixth Committee on this item is contained in document A/60/523, and the draft decision recommended for adoption by the General Assembly is reproduced in paragraph 5 of the report.

By terms of the draft decision, the General Assembly would take note that the Sixth Committee adopted the provisional programme of work for the sixty-first session of the General Assembly as proposed by its Bureau. In accordance with the provisional programme, the Sixth Committee would commence its work on 10 October and would close its next session on 9 November 2006.

This concludes my presentation of the remaining reports of the Sixth Committee. I would like to take this opportunity to thank once again the Chairman of the Sixth Committee and the other members of the Bureau for their assistance and wise counsel, as well as all representatives and colleagues for their hard work throughout the session.

The President

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Sixth Committee which are before the Assembly today.

The President

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote or position.

The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Sixth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that

"When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, i.e., either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee".

May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Sixth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Sixth Committee unless the Secretariat is notified otherwise in advance. I should therefore hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Sixth Committee.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Sixth Committee in paragraph 12 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel".

The Sixth Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The President

I shall now give the floor to those representatives wishing to make statements in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted.

Mr. Thomson (United Kingdom)

I have the honour to speak on behalf of the 25 countries of the European Union. A further 12 countries align themselves with this statement: Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, Turkey, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, Iceland, Norway, Ukraine and Moldova.

In the light of explanations of position by other delegations during the adoption of the Protocol on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel in the Sixth Committee, the European Union wishes to make clear its position on the following issues.

First, the European Union does not agree that the term "peacebuilding" in the third preambular paragraph and in paragraph 1(a) of article II of the Protocol is restricted to conflict or post-conflict situations. In our view, United Nations operations at any stage of the conflict cycle may be peacebuilding operations under the Protocol. We note that the statement by the President of the Security Council of 20 February 2002 (S/PRST/2001/5) took the same non-restrictive approach.

Secondly, the Protocol extends the application of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel to all such United Nations operations, without reference to any trigger mechanism of risk or exceptional risk. Indeed, the central purpose of the Protocol is to eliminate the need for any such trigger, as was contained in the 1994 Convention. That has been achieved by extending the scope of application to all peacebuilding operations and operations for the delivery of emergency humanitarian assistance.

Thirdly, we are pleased that the Protocol applies equally to operations delivering emergency humanitarian assistance in natural-disaster situations. United Nations and associated personnel require the protection of the Convention and the Protocol in such situations. We regret the fact that some delegations felt the need for an opt-out declaration.

Concluding the Protocol is a very important step forward in the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. The annual reports of the Secretary-General which list the deaths, injuries and harassment of United Nations and associated personnel in the field make alarming reading. The European Union wishes to take this opportunity to pay tribute once again to the courageous work of these personnel on behalf of the international community.

We emphasize the need for universal accession to the 1994 Convention and encourage States to consider rapidly becoming parties to this Protocol. The European Union would like to thank again Ambassador Wenaweser of Liechtenstein for his skilful and tireless efforts in bringing this Protocol to a conclusion. We would like to thank the delegation of New Zealand for this initiative, and in particular Ms. Jennifer McIver for her invaluable contribution to the negotiations. We would like to thank all other delegations for the flexibility and determination which they showed to achieve this result.

Mr. Oshima (Japan)

Japan welcomes the adoption of the Protocol to the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel as representing the first concrete achievement so far in the implementation of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. The Protocol, in expanding the scope of legal protection of United Nations and associated personnel participating in United Nations activities, also represents a remarkable step forward in promoting the safety of those people on the ground who dedicate themselves, sometimes at the risk of their own lives, to carrying out humanitarian, political and development assistance in peacebuilding and to promoting emergency humanitarian assistance. Further, the adoption of the Protocol demonstrates the will of the international community to work together to provide an environment that will support and promote those valuable activities.

We also believe that through the process of adopting the Protocol, interest in and understanding of the 1994 Convention among States has increased significantly, which should also be regarded as another important development.

I wish to take this opportunity to express Japan's high appreciation to Ambassador Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein for the great efforts and initiatives he has taken as Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee and the Working Group to bring the negotiations on the Protocol to fruition. Our appreciation also goes to Ms. Jennifer McIver from the Mission of New Zealand for her important contribution. Furthermore, the adoption of the Protocol would not have been possible without the cooperation among all Member States that recognized the necessity and urgency of expanding the legal protection of United Nations and associated personnel. It was a source of great satisfaction for us to actively participate in the discussions and to contribute to the negotiating process with other Member States to make possible the adoption of the Protocol through consensus.

The challenges that United Nations activities face and that the 1994 Convention and 2005 Protocol directly address are indeed daunting and have become more so in recent years. Conflicts and natural and man-made disasters abound and seem to be constantly on the rise, thus resulting in an ever increasing number of United Nations emergency humanitarian, peacekeeping and peacebuilding operations. Personnel who are deployed to perform their valuable work on the ground are exposed to risks that seem to become both more complex and more frequent. We are particularly disturbed by continuing attacks directed against United Nations and associated personnel engaged in those missions, despite measures taken by the international community to ensure their safety. Those attacks and similar acts must be strongly condemned.

Japan highly appreciates the contributions that United Nations personnel are making in various capacities, including humanitarian and peacekeeping operations, to save people's lives and alleviate their suffering and to help to maintain international peace and security. Japan has made its own contributions to assist those efforts, both financially and by deploying its own personnel, and it is our intention to continue such efforts in support of the United Nations and in concert with other countries.

Currently, 79 States are parties to the 1994 Convention, and yet many of the host States involved in a variety of United Nations missions and activities are not parties to the Convention. We therefore call for greater participation of States in the Convention and for expanding the scope of the Convention through the Protocol in order to enhance its effectiveness.

We would like to draw attention once again to one of the important purposes of the Protocol, and that is to enable more States to adhere to the Convention and its Protocol. We are of the view that clarity on the Convention's scope of application is essential so that the Protocol can be applied in domestic courts and can be ratified by as many States as possible. That will also be helpful both to host States and posted United Nations and associated personnel. In that regard, Japan believes that the term "peacebuilding", as used in the Protocol, will need to be further clarified through the practice of ongoing and future activities, together with what experience can teach us.

Japan wishes to underscore once again the significance of the adoption of the Protocol in strengthening and expanding the legal protection afforded to United Nations and associated personnel. We continue to call on States which have not yet done so to become parties to the Convention, as recommended by our leaders in the World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1).

We strongly hope that United Nations and associated personnel will be better protected from dangers and risks -- as they deserve to be protected in the conduct of their missions -- by the 1994 Convention and its Protocol. The international community owes it to itself to continue its utmost efforts to promote their safety, wherever and whenever they are deployed to carry out their noble tasks.

Mr. Playle (Australia)

After four years of negotiations, Australia welcomes the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. It is a significant achievement and meets our leaders' expectation that we conclude the Protocol during the current session. We thank Ambassador Christian Wenaweser for his incisive and tireless efforts as Chair of the ad hoc committee and working group that negotiated the Protocol. We also thank New Zealand for coordinating the resolution before us, particularly our friend Jennifer McIver for her leading role in the negotiations.

We are pleased the Protocol does away with the requirement in the Convention that the General Assembly or the Security Council must make a declaration of exceptional risk before the Convention can apply to anything other than a United Nations peacekeeping operation. Such a declaration has never been made. Relying on States to assess whether an operation entails risk has manifestly failed to protect personnel deployed on the full range of United Nations operations. We consider that the Protocol adopts the right approach by instead extending the automatic application of the Convention to two new categories of United Nations operations.

First, States parties to the Protocol will be obliged to apply the Convention automatically to United Nations operations "delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding". Australia is pleased States were able to agree on this provision as a compromise solution, the scope of which hinges on how the term "peacebuilding" is interpreted. Australia believes peacebuilding must be interpreted broadly to encompass the whole conflict cycle, such that the Protocol would cover pre-conflict, conflict and post-conflict operations. We appeal to all States to adopt a similarly broad interpretation.

I note that Australia's broad interpretation of peacebuilding is based on sound precedent that we would commend to all States. Within our own Government, the Australian Defence Force defines peacebuilding as "a set of strategies which aim to ensure that disputes, armed conflicts and other major crises do not arise in the first place or, if they do arise, that they do not subsequently recur". And within the United Nations, the statement by the President of the Security Council on 20 February 2001 recognized that "peacebuilding is aimed at preventing the outbreak, the recurrence or continuation of armed conflict" (S/PRST/2001/5).

Secondly, States parties to the Protocol will be obliged to apply the Convention automatically to United Nations operations delivering emergency humanitarian assistance. Australia is also pleased that States were able to agree on that provision, the application of which, we note, in no way depends on how the term "peacebuilding" is interpreted.

The Protocol allows States parties to opt out from applying the provisions of the Convention to a United Nations operation delivering emergency humanitarian assistance when that operation is conducted for the sole purpose of responding to a natural disaster. Australia reluctantly accepted that provision, but we hope it will never be used. History has shown that natural disasters can often lead to a breakdown in law and order. United Nations and associated personnel deployed in such circumstances should unquestionably enjoy the protections of the Convention.

Australia would have preferred that the Protocol extend the automatic application of the Convention to all United Nations and associated personnel deployed on all United Nations operations. We have made substantial concessions during negotiations on the Protocol before us. Whatever we might regard as its shortcomings, the Protocol has the capacity to provide protection to substantially larger numbers of United Nations and associated personnel than have thus far been covered by the Convention. But this depends on States, including those hosting United Nations operations, becoming Parties to both the Convention and the Protocol.

Above all, we appeal to all States to do just that. The ultimate value of the Protocol we have just adopted, and indeed of the Convention on which it builds, depends on universal adherence to them both.

Ms. Banks (New Zealand)

Four years ago, during the fifty-sixth session of the General Assembly, New Zealand led a group of States that sought inclusion of item 83 on the agenda of the Sixth Committee. Since that time, the working group of the Sixth Committee has worked hard to develop a new text to supplement the Convention. Earlier in the session, in the outcome document of the world summit, our leaders stressed the need to complete that work this session. We are very pleased that, in fulfilment of the call issued during the summit, the Assembly today has been able to adopt the new Optional Protocol to the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel by consensus.

Throughout the negotiating process, New Zealand has worked closely with those others most interested in the final text of the Optional Protocol. New Zealand is well aware of the substantial flexibility that was required of all of us to achieve the successful outcome we have before us today. New Zealand considers that the unity achieved on the text of the Optional Protocol can be attributed to Member States' shared commitment to acting in the face of rising statistics of attacks against United Nations and associated personnel. In 2004, there were 120 cases of assault recorded against United Nations personnel. In 2005, that number has reached 407. One factor assisting negotiations on the Optional Protocol was Member States' unanimous agreement on the need to avoid the trigger mechanism of a declaration of exceptional risk. Instead, the Committee aimed to expand legal protection for United Nations and associated personnel through a new instrument that could be applied automatically.

Although New Zealand, among others, would have preferred to extend the protections of the Convention to all United Nations and associated personnel, it was agreed that the Protocol would apply the Convention automatically to two new categories of United Nations operations: peacebuilding operations and emergency humanitarian assistance operations.

New Zealand understands peacebuilding to encompass all political development and humanitarian activities aimed at preventing the outbreak, continuation or recurrence of conflict. New Zealand will continue to work within the United Nations on a collective, broad understanding of peacebuilding that recognizes the need for early identification of situations where peacebuilding is required and includes the consent and cooperation of the Government concerned, where one exists. This approach to the scope of peacebuilding is consistent with the statement of the President of the Security Council of 20 February 2001.

Humanitarian assistance operations respond to human need in life-threatening situations. The risk arising in circumstances that lead to humanitarian emergencies is self-evident and clearly demonstrated by recent experience. While New Zealand is ready to recognize the theoretical potential that a natural disaster may occur in the most stable of environments, where no particular risk is faced by United Nations and associated personnel engaged in the humanitarian response, New Zealand considers that, in real terms, scenarios where the legal protections offered by the Convention and the Protocol are unwarranted will be exceptional.

New Zealand wishes to thank the chair of the working group, Ambassador Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein, for his leadership and enduring commitment to the goal of a new Protocol that more adequately reflects the range of operations conducted under United Nations authority today. We consider that the long-awaited adoption of the Optional Protocol to the 1994 Convention is a significant achievement, the importance of which was recognized by our world leaders in the summit outcome document. We hope that the adoption by consensus of this new legal instrument will open the door for many more States to ratify the Convention and, at the same time, the Optional Protocol.

Mr. Laurin (Canada)

Canada is delighted to note that this important Protocol has been successfully concluded after several years of hard work. Within the framework of this initiative, States have shown their desire to do something about the impunity enjoyed by those who perpetrate offenses against humanitarian aid workers. A commitment has been expressed in a legal document, and we must ensure that it will be reflected in concrete action.

In this context, Canada would like to recognize in particular the crucial role played by Ambassador Christian Wenaweser in guiding our deliberations, which enabled us to reach agreement. We would also like to thank our colleague from New Zealand, Jennifer McIver, for her efforts during consideration of the resolution, which, once again, made it possible to attain unanimous adoption.

Canada notes that the Protocol represents a painstaking balance of interests and we welcome its adoption as a favourable event that will help to ensure the safety of the United Nations and associated personnel. Having said this, we do regret that it was necessary, in order to obtain unanimity, to include an abstention option in the Protocol in situations of natural disaster. In light, more specifically, of events last year, it is regrettable that some States found it necessary to have recourse to an opt-out clause. (spoke in English)

As the Secretary-General has observed previously, the difficulty in the issuance of a declaration of exceptional risk has been the single most important limitation to the protective regime of the Convention. One of the key accomplishments of the Protocol is thus the elimination of the exceptional risk trigger contained in the 1994 Convention by extending the scope of the application of the Convention to all peacebuilding operations and operations for the delivery of emergency humanitarian assistance.

As the recent attacks on humanitarian aid workers in Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda illustrate, the provision of humanitarian relief often puts the safety of humanitarian aid workers at risk. It is therefore incumbent on States to continue to take concrete steps to enhance the safety and security of those workers and to hold accountable those who perpetrate attacks against them. We agree with the European Union that the term "peacebuilding" in preambular paragraph three and article II.1(a) of the Protocol is not restricted to conflict or post-conflict situations. A United Nations operation may be a peacebuilding operation under the Protocol not only at the conflict and post-conflict stage, but at the pre-conflict stage as well.

While Canada had initially suggested that a definition of the concept of peacebuilding in the Optional Protocol would be desirable, we have moved away from that position in the spirit of achieving the widest possible acceptance of the draft instrument. We also acknowledge that States' understanding of peacebuilding is still evolving in connection with other discussions in this forum and we appreciate the flexibility provided by the present text to accommodate a wider understanding and set of protections than we might otherwise have been able to achieve.

Mr. Sandoval Bernal (Colombia)

With regard to the adoption of the draft resolution on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the delegation of Colombia wishes to express its gratitude to the chairman of the negotiating committee, the representative of Liechtenstein, Ambassador Christian Wenaweser, for the excellent work he has done and the balance and thought with which he guided the work that led to the adoption of this instrument by consensus.

The Optional Protocol just adopted represents substantial progress towards strengthening the legal protection of United Nations and associated personnel participating in the operations carried out by the Organization. The Convention marked a milestone in that area, even though a complementary, binding instrument was needed to broaden the scope of that protection.

While my delegation joined the consensus on the final text of the Optional Protocol, it would have preferred that the term "peacebuilding" -- which is used in the Optional Protocol's third preambular paragraph and its article II to designate one of the forms of United Nations operations -- had been properly defined. As would be the case with any binding instrument, it does not seem advisable, from the point of view of judicial precision and the practical consequences of the Protocol's implementation, that a term employed to define the Protocol's scope of application or part thereof should remain undefined, because that lack of definition can lead not only to a broad range of conflicting interpretations but also to the erroneous, if not arbitrary, application of the Convention.

The term "peacebuilding" is an innovation in public international law and, as such, has not been defined. For that reason, it would have been appropriate to include in the Optional Protocol a clause defining the term "peacebuilding" in order to guide the Protocol's application. Our numerous statements on this subject in the course of the negotiations aimed to achieve legal precision and delimitation of that term.

In the absence of such a definition, my delegation interprets that innovative concept, first, in the light of the common understanding of the Spanish word "consolidar", from which one can infer that such peacebuilding is carried out only when, after peace has been broken by a conflict, that conflict comes to end. That leads to the gradual re-establishment of the state of peace, which continues until that peace is consolidated.

Thus, legal logic and precision are challenged by assuming that one could propose peacebuilding operations for situations that are not contemplated or even defined by international law, such as pre-conflict situations, destabilizing social unrest and the breakdown of society. Nor would it be appropriate to propose such operations for conflict situations, because what does not exist -- peace, in this case -- cannot be consolidated.

Thus, we interpret the term "peacebuilding" in conformity with its use in paragraph 97 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1), which limits such operations to post-conflict situations and which emphasizes the need for a coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to post-conflict peacebuilding with a view to achieving sustainable peace, making use of a dedicated institutional mechanism to address the needs of countries emerging from conflict towards recovery, reintegration and reconstruction and to assist them in laying the foundation for sustainable development.

My delegation will reaffirm those interpretative criteria in the deliberations to be held to establish the Peacebuilding Commission.

Colombia reaffirms its commitment to strengthening the legal protection of United Nations and associated personnel, as demonstrated by the consultation process and the domestic steps we have taken in order to join the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel and by our constant presence and flexibility in the work that led to the adoption of the Optional Protocol.

Mr. Lauber (Switzerland)

Switzerland welcomes the conclusion of negotiations on expanding the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The agreed solutions constitute real overall progress compared to the 1994 Convention.

We take this occasion to warmly thank the Chairman of the Working Group, Ambassador Christian Wenaweser of Liechtenstein, for his excellent conduct of the sometimes difficult negotiations. We also thank the delegation of New Zealand, in particular Ms. Jennifer McIver, for their crucial contribution, which led to the conclusion of those negotiations.

With respect to the explanations of vote made by several delegations during the draft resolution's adoption in the Sixth Commission, Switzerland wishes to underline the following points.

First, Switzerland favours a broad interpretation of the concept of peacebuilding in order to ensure the greatest possible protection of personnel deployed on the ground, and we call on future States parties to the Protocol to adopt the same broad interpretation. Nothing in the Protocol suggests that its application concerning the delivery of humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding should be limited to the post-conflict phases of a recurring conflict.

Secondly, one of the greatest improvements introduced by the Protocol is the suppression of the mechanism requiring a declaration of risk for the application of the Convention. We therefore stress that the States parties should automatically apply the Protocol to the two categories of United Nations operations within the scope of this instrument, in other words, not only for the delivery of humanitarian, political or development assistance in peacebuilding but also in delivering emergency humanitarian assistance.

Finally, in the light of the improvements introduced by the Protocol to the 1994 Convention, Switzerland has undertaken the domestic procedures for joining the Convention and ratifying the Protocol and calls on States that have not yet done so to do likewise.

In conclusion, the Swiss delegation also hopes that the important question of the relation between the Convention's regime and international humanitarian law is not neglected but can be duly studied in order to find an appropriate solution.

Mr. Gandhi (India)

We would like to congratulate the Sixth Committee for its efforts to expand the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, which culminated in the Optional Protocol contained in the annex to the draft resolution contained in A/60/518.

The safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel is one of India's priorities, as India is a major troop-contributing country. At the same time, we believe that a legal instrument in that regard must contain precise and definite language. Regrettably, it has not been possible to couch the Optional Protocol in precise and definite language, given the need to achieve broad consensus on the Protocol. Nevertheless, given the importance of the Protocol's subject matter, we join the consensus on the adoption of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel with the following understanding.

First, article I of the Protocol is applicable only to operations that entail particular risk for United Nations and associated personnel, as stipulated in the third preambular paragraph of the Protocol.

Secondly, the term "peacebuilding", wherever it occurs in the Protocol, is understood to refer only to post-conflict peacebuilding, that is, as the term "peacebuilding" has been traditionally understood in contemporary United Nations documents.

Mr. Tugio (Indonesia)

My delegation attaches great importance to the issue of the safety and security of United Nations personnel deployed in conflict zones to work towards, and in the interests of, peace. That continues to be an issue of high priority, because the safety of United Nations personnel is the primary factor in the success of the Organization's political and humanitarian operations.

Regrettably, the statistics regarding United Nations personnel killed in the line of duty have not declined appreciably. It is imperative that we expand the scope of protections available to them, in order to prevent further casualties and promote the effectiveness of United Nations personnel in the field.

Although Indonesia is not among the top 10 troop-contributing countries to United Nations peacebuilding operations, we attach great importance to participation in the Organization's activities designed to restore peace to conflict areas. That has become our national commitment, and we have continued to improve our rapid deployment capacity in readiness for United Nations blue-helmet activities and to make troops available for deployment.

On the basis of that experience, we understand the importance of an appropriate legal framework aimed at enhancing the protection of United Nations and associated personnel. Indonesia strongly condemns all acts of violence against United Nations and associated personnel. We believe that every life lost, every injury caused to, and every detention of and assault against humanitarian personnel is a violation of national and international humanitarian law, and must be treated as such.

On the other side of the coin, such protections also entail obligations on all humanitarian personnel to respect the national laws of the countries in which they are deployed. In that regard, it is important that we uphold the jurisdiction of host States to bring justice in all cases of violations by United Nations and associated personnel.

During the negotiations on the Optional Protocol in the Sixth Committee, divergent views emerged concerning the Protocol's scope of application. My delegation would like to commend all members for their flexibility, which led to consensus on the approach to the concept of peacebuilding operations. We believe that it is wise to leave it to national legislation to determine the Protocol's application in order to be consistent with the objective of strengthening the safety and security of United Nations and associated personnel. In the light of that, my delegation wishes to state its interpretation of the Optional Protocol, namely, that its scope of application shall not be extended to pre-conflict situations. That is consistent with the current stage of the evolution of the Peacebuilding Commission, which deals only with post-conflict situations.