Security Council meeting 4072

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Croatia, Egypt, Finland, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Japan, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Senegal, South Africa, the Sudan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. The Council is meeting in accordance with the understanding reached in its prior consultations.

I now call on the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General

I am delighted to take part in this vital meeting on one of the greatest challenges facing the United Nations, and one that, since the beginning of my role as Secretary-General, I have made a priority of my work: preventing armed conflict.

It is clear that prevention is one of the main tasks of this Organization. And yet, far too often, we find ourselves dealing with the effects of conflict rather than its roots. As I wrote in the introduction to this year's annual report on the work of the Organization, we need to move "from a culture of reaction to a culture of prevention". (A/54/l, para.61)

The case for prevention hardly needs restating. Quite simply, it is cost-effective, in financial as well as human terms.

Most people now recognize this as a general proposition. But in a particular case, cogent arguments for refusing or delaying preventive action can always be found.

Those directly involved may be unwilling to see the danger, or may resent interference from outsiders. This is especially likely to be true of States threatened with internal conflict. In some cases, one or more of the parties may actually believe that conflict will serve its interests.

Outsiders, for their part, may well believe that the proposed action is unnecessary, or indeed that it will make matters worse. Thus, as Hamlet put it,

"... the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action." (Hamlet, Act III, scene l)

That is what we mean when we say that the crucial element of political will is lacking.

There is no substitute for the recognition by the parties themselves that their actions are moving towards conflict, and that preventive action is needed. But there are ways in which we, as an Organization, could and should do more to make that clear to them.

Over the past two years, I have tried to strengthen our capacity for preventive diplomacy, preventive disarmament, preventive deployment and both pre-conflict and post-conflict peace-building.

In particular, we are seeking to improve our early warning and analysis capabilities; improve coordination between the various departments, funds and agencies and intensify our cooperation with Governments as well as with regional organizations and non-governmental organizations.

Our efforts, however, will fall short unless they are complemented by a renewed commitment to effective prevention on the part of the Council and of all Member States. I hope the Council will use this meeting to examine how it can make prevention a tangible part of its day-to-day work.

Among the steps which the Council could take are the following: greater use of fact-finding missions, either by the Secretary-General or by the Council itself, at much earlier stages of a dispute -- in accordance with the Council's Charter responsibility to "investigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute" and "endanger the maintenance of international peace and security"; encouraging States which become aware of potential conflict within or among their neighbours to bring the issue promptly to the Council's attention; giving urgent attention to the problems of States which suffer acute economic, environmental and security strains, with consequent risks to their internal stability, because they are hosting large refugee populations from neighbouring countries -- Guinea, with 500,000 refugees currently in its territory from Liberia and Sierra Leone, would be a strong candidate for such attention in the immediate future; establishing an informal working group, or a subsidiary organ, to study early warning and prevention issues and report back; and instituting regular meetings on prevention, at which the Council would identify areas that will require urgent preventive action.

Finally, the United Nations needs to address the issue of resources. Cost-effective preventive action is not cost-free, yet, regrettably, there is an endemic paucity of resources for it.

I think we all realize that operational preventive measures such as I have just outlined, while they must always be tried, will often be too late to make much difference. In the longer term it is even more important to address the deep-rooted causes of conflicts, which often lie in the social and economic sphere. Poverty, repression and undemocratic government, endemic underdevelopment, weak or non-existent institutions, political and economic discrimination between ethnic or religious communities: these are the long-term causes of many conflicts.

The past decade has provided ample evidence that when dissent and differences are channelled through peaceful means conflict can be avoided. But when they are met with repression and violence they grow stronger, more powerful and more violent. Ultimately, therefore, it is the responsibility of each and every Member State to prevent conflict by practising good governance.

It is Member States that must resolve internal differences peacefully and through negotiations. It is they that must allow dissent, establish the rule of law, protect the rights of minorities and ensure that elections are free and fair. It is they that must adopt enlightened economic and social policies that do not allow any group of the population to feel they are systematically excluded from their share of the country's wealth or denied any say in decisions affecting their lives.

While war is the worst enemy of development, healthy and balanced development is the best form of long-term conflict prevention. If any of those present recognize that statement, it is because I said it last month in an address to the staff of the World Bank. That was, I believe, an appropriate forum in which to broach that subject.

For all its awesome authority, the Council alone cannot help Member States to remove the long-term causes of conflict. Many of these fall within the terms of reference of other parts of the United Nations system, including the Bretton Woods institutions, the United Nations Development Programme, the Economic and Social Council and even the International Court of Justice.

Effective action will often require joint action by many different organs and agencies, just as it requires joint action by different government departments within Member States. These different agencies often have separate agendas, and in the past have not been used to thinking -- let alone working -- together. This is now improving, but there is still scope for much closer coordination of policy among them, and also, in many cases, between them and non-governmental organizations or the private sector.

The Council may wish to take the initiative in organizing discussion of the many and complex issues involved at the highest level, perhaps at a meeting to be held during next year's Millennium Summit.

Allow me to conclude with one final thought.

In the domestic affairs of our Member States, conflict prevention is usually described as the maintenance of order. A key role in maintaining order is played by deterrence. Citizens are deterred from disturbing the peace by the knowledge that if they do so they are liable to be arrested and brought before a court. I believe deterrence also has an important role to play in maintaining international order. On the individual level, we are seeking to do that through the Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. And I hope that before long we shall be able to do it worldwide through the International Criminal Court.

But it is perhaps even more important to do it on the collective level -- and that is where the Council has its gravest responsibility.

I really believe that, thanks to the prompt and effective decisions taken by the Council in 1990 and 1991, States all over the world are today in less danger of being treated as Kuwait was then. But we have also observed that these days many of the gravest conflicts which come to require the attention of the Council year after year occur not between States, but within them. That is why in my address to the General Assembly two months ago I appealed for a new consensus on intervention, defined in the broadest sense. In that address I noted that armed intervention is itself a result of the failure of prevention, and I stressed the value of deterrence in preventing conflict. Let me repeat, then, that nothing would be more effective in deterring States and other parties from resorting to the extreme measures that characterize too many present-day conflicts than a clear demonstration that the Council is indeed prepared to take decisive action when faced with crimes against humanity.

It is my hope that this meeting today will help the United Nations forge a consensus on these vital questions and restore prevention to its rightful place as the first responsibility of the Security Council and of the Organization as a whole.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement. I wish to add, Mr. Secretary-General, that your statement, your ideas and your proposals will certainly be an important source of inspiration for the Security Council in its future work.

Mr. Holbrooke (United States)

Thank you, Mr. President, for calling this public meeting on such an important subject.

I want to express my appreciation, as the month draws to an end, to you, Mr. President, and your whole delegation for your outstanding work -- not only in making today's meeting possible, but in giving it a symbolic reality by the earlier meeting with the Joint Presidency of Bosnia, which illustrates precisely the role the Security Council can and should play in conflict resolution and prevention. That historic meeting, resulting in the Declaration of New York, has already produced benefits in Bosnia, and illustrates in specific terms what we are trying to talk about in general terms here today.

I also want to thank the Secretary-General for his statement and all that he has done personally to strengthen the Security Council's role in preventing armed conflict and dealing with its consequences.

The United States is pleased that the United Nations and regional and other international groups have decided to make conflict prevention a priority. We support these efforts.

Before continuing, I would like to take this occasion -- with your permission, Mr. President -- to introduce an individual, seated behind me to my right, of enormous importance to our efforts: Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Chairman of the African Affairs Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Senator Frist is not only an outstanding member of the Congress and a member of the majority party who has given so much of his time to issues concerning Africa, but he is also a pioneer in open-heart surgery and heart transplants. Indeed, he performed the first heart-lung transplant in the United States.

I am not saying that because I think anyone in the room might need this in the next hour, but, just in case, I wanted all present to know that we will be more secure as long as Senator Frist is with us.

As members know, I am leaving tomorrow for Africa with Assistant Secretary of State Susan Rice and with the ranking minority member in that Committee, Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. Because Senator Frisk could not make that trip with us, but to illustrate the bipartisan importance we attach to Africa, he is spending two days with us and has met already with many of the Permanent Representatives here and with other members of the United Nations. I thank him for joining us today as a symbol -- and I stress this -- of the importance that both branches and both parties attach to Africa.

Although the United Nations Charter clearly delineates the respective role of United Nations organs in preventing conflict, today's meeting provides us with a unique opportunity to discuss the issue in more depth. I have just returned from East Timor, where the Security Council's actions helped stem a brutal conflict but could not prevent it over the last 22 years. Tomorrow my trip will begin to several African countries, including Angola, Rwanda, Uganda, Namibia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. While there, I will have the opportunity to assess the United Nations work regarding conflict prevention as well as other important efforts.

I have just returned, over the weekend, from Indonesia and East Timor, and with your permission, Mr. President, I would like to give you a quick situation report on that area, because I think it is illustrative again, like Bosnia, of how the United Nations can contribute to an area. It is clear that in the month of September the Security Council actions broke the back of a tragedy of over 20 years and opened the door for a peaceful resolution of that problem.

In my trip to East Timor I saw evidence of the success of the United Nations effort. First, I can report to you, Mr. Secretary-General, that your personal selection as Special Representative in East Timor, Sergio Vieira de Mello, is doing a magnificent job with his understaffed and overwhelmed team. They are deep into the planning for transition to what will be the first new country of the twenty-first century, and they are working effectively with all sides.

I also want to single out the International Force, East Timor (INTERFET) forces, under the command of General Cosgrove of Australia, which have brought stability to the region. We met at the border between West Timor and East Timor to discuss opening the border for refugee flow, and effected the first meeting between the Indonesian military, the Australian leadership and the Commander of the guerrilla forces at that border. That was well reported by the media.

In East Timor I can report some impressive and hopeful signs of progress among the debris of a city needlessly torn apart by war. I cannot, however, give as optimistic or upbeat a report about the situation in the refugee camps in West Timor. Over 100,000 East Timorese are still in those camps, being fed misinformation and inaccurate stories by the militia and therefore are afraid to return.

Money spent in those camps by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) would be better spent resettling those people in East Timor or, if they are legitimately unwilling to go home, to encourage Indonesia to resettle them in Indonesia, which the Government has promised but has not yet done, preferably by transmigrating them off West Timor.

I regret to say that there has been a massive public information failure on the part of the refugee effort in West Timor. There has been no effective effort to counter the propaganda that is being spread. I mention this in a meeting on the issue we are here to discuss for a simple reason: we can talk generalities as long as we want, but here is a specific example of where the United Nations is performing magnificently in East Timor, but, I regret to say, has not yet done what it needs to do in West Timor. We have worked closely with them, we tape-recorded messages by Bishop Belo and Xanana Gusmão, which are now being distributed in the camps, and I urge everyone involved in this situation to work hard to get those camps open. Those people should not remain in those camps, otherwise all the good words spoken in this meeting today will be meaningless in an area of the world where the United Nations has undertaken massive responsibilities.

These challenges, like those in Kosovo, Sierra Leone and many other war-torn places, remind us how common war and violence remain. As we approach the question of how to prevent armed conflict, we must be clear on the distinction between its causes and its consequences. Much of what United Nations agencies such as the UNHCR do is to deal with the consequences, as do most of the non-governmental organizations. The Security Council deals both with consequences and, I would hope, increasingly would address conflict prevention by dealing with the causes. In East Timor, this took over 20 years. In Bosnia, the United Nations did not succeed, and it had to turn the process over to other organizations.

It is our responsibility to address the underlying causes of conflict. The international record has been less than exemplary. I would, however, commend the Secretary-General for the brave and courageous report on Srebrenica, which illustrates both the tragedy and the leadership of the United Nations, and its willingness to deal honestly with what happened there.

Rwanda as well deserves to get similar examination, as another recent tragedy where we could have, and should have, done much more, much earlier, to prevent the conflict and the horrendous bloodshed that followed.

Ultimately, government leaders must answer for their actions. Those of us who have the ability to prevent conflicts have a moral, political and indeed at times a strategic obligation to do so. The risks and dangers of acting do not justify simply doing nothing. Therefore, we must focus on the tools needed to mitigate tensions and commit ourselves to early, preventive action.

Above all, we need a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention. The promotion of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, equal economic opportunity and market-based economic systems provides the surest path to long-term global stability and development.

We have seen over the weekend a dramatic step forward in the longstanding, ancient quarrels in Ireland under this kind of patient, careful negotiations, encouraged and stimulated in this case by my friend and colleague George Mitchell.

Here at the United Nations, the Secretary-General plays an important role in identifying and mitigating potential conflicts. The United States continues to encourage him to intercede in deteriorating situations as soon he feels it is possible to do so and to keep the Security Council informed of his actions, his views and his recommendations.

The Security Council should also become more deeply engaged. The lessons of East Timor, and in particular Ambassador Andjaba's superb mission, in which he was accompanied by several other people here, was instrumental in coordinating the international response. The Security Council should not hesitate to deploy similar missions to other conflict situations, if we think they can make a difference. And I would point out that when Ambassador Andjaba's mission took off, no one thought it would do as well as it did. And that leads me to make a rather fundamental point, which is that sometimes one must take chances to achieve peace, as my friend Mr. Andjaba and his colleagues did two months ago. Having seen East Timor today, I can say that he can be proud of what he started.

Both the complexity and volume of recent crises demonstrate the need for coordinated and broader responses. The United Nations cannot simply act alone. To maximize effectiveness, we should augment existing efforts.

First, regional and subregional organizations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Europe have successfully addressed local crises before they escalated into conflict. Better coordination with the United Nations will only strengthen the capabilities of these groups.

Secondly, international development and financial institutions are playing a growing role in the planning and implementation of conflict prevention activities. The United Nations should inform the international financial institutions of potential crisis situations so that they can respond appropriately.

Thirdly, we should work together to enhance the capability of the United Nations to recruit, train and deploy international civilian police. Anyone here who has been in Bosnia or Kosovo knows that no issue is more important to the future success of those missions. The same will be true in East Timor.

Equally important is the need for effective measures to combat the illicit trade in commodities -- such as small arms and, especially in Africa, diamonds -- that helps to prolong these conflicts and that is cynically promoted by regional warlords and local authorities. Without prejudice to the right of legitimate self-defence, we urge States to enact voluntary national moratoriums on the sale of small arms and light weapons to conflict areas. We invite our partners to work with us and with the diamond industry to develop a certification mechanism to combat the illegitimate trade in diamonds that has done so much to fuel and finance conflict, particularly in Africa.

To fulfil its purpose and historic promise, the United Nations must maintain a leading role in preventing wars and other tragedies. To this end, the United Nations must effectively tap into its expertise and its other resources, and dedicate them to conflict prevention. And to this end, the entire United Nations system, particularly the Member States, should support the Secretary-General's efforts to strengthen and mobilize resources for conflict prevention activities. The United States will welcome a ministerial-level meeting on conflict prevention during next year's Millennium Assembly.

It is vital that the Security Council, the Secretariat and all United Nations Members play an active role in ongoing efforts to prevent international conflict. True, in many places, particularly places such as the Balkans or the Congo or Rwanda, it is tempting to argue that future conflict is inevitable, that things have to get worse before they can be resolved -- and I do not deny the fact that this was true in East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo. But I hope it is not always going to be the case. Here, I think particularly of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other areas in Africa, including Burundi.

Hatred often seems too deep, brutality too prevalent and the memories of injustice too raw, which leaves people with the feeling that nothing can be done. But we must not give in to the seduction of moral disgust, followed by neglect and then by empty posturing and hand-wringing.

The President

I thank the representative of the United States for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Dejammet (France)

Mr. President, your initiative to organize today's open debate on the role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict is a most welcome and timely one. I wish also to thank the Secretary-General for having opened our discussion. His statement reflected his wise conception of his role and of the implementation of the Charter of the United Nations. It is the Charter that, in Article 99, gives the Secretary-General the power and the right to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. That role has sometimes been debated; the Secretary-General's use of Article 99 and of his powers in that sphere have at times been criticized -- with respect, for example, to the Middle East or to Africa. I find it perfectly splendid that the Secretary-General is here today to demonstrate his interest in the President's initiative.

During September's general debate in the General Assembly and during the Assembly's debate on the report of the Security Council, many Member States emphasized the importance of conflict prevention and the need to make better use of existing resources and procedures. That appeal is justified by the simple observation that it is always more costly both financially and in human terms to put an end to an armed conflict than to prevent it from breaking out. Hence the interest in this debate, which was clearly highlighted by the previous speaker.

The Charter gives the Security Council a role in the prevention of armed conflict. Chapter VI, which relates to the pacific settlement of disputes, sets out the role the Council can play in assisting the parties, in determining whether the persistence of a dispute seems to threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, and in recommending procedures or methods of adjustment, or even what it deems as the appropriate terms of a settlement. Chapter VII deals with actions in the event of a threat to the peace. There, we are still in the preventive stage, and we can see that the Council has a range of resources that can go as far as the use of enforcement measures.

Yet the Security Council has encountered difficulties in playing its proper role in conflict prevention, and we should be fully aware of those difficulties. First of all, at a time that is powerfully influenced by the media, events leading to an armed conflict draw less attention than a conflict that is already under way. Unfortunately, news reports too often tend to define priorities. Moreover, preventive action often requires discretion and tenacity, virtues that are not well adapted to the constraints of an ultra-media-oriented world -- about whose values a great deal has been said.

In this area as in many others, good judgement is required. Sometimes it can be useful for the Security Council to deal openly and publicly with an issue so as to mobilize attention and to put pressure on the parties. That was certainly the effect of the Security Council mission to Jakarta and Dili, sent on the initiative of Ambassador van Walsum and led by Ambassador Anjaba in the outstanding manner that has already been noted. That mission made international intervention possible in East Timor before the situation was beyond repair. That was an example of the value of preventive Security Council action carried out publicly.

But in other cases it can be preferable to act with discretion. While we understand the mounting wish for increased transparency in the Council's activities, we must also be able to make use of discrete ways and means to settle a matter satisfactorily, and of the advantages offered by informal consultations among Council members or other procedures that can make possible direct, private dialogue with the parties concerned.

I shall mention only one example of this, and indeed one in which the Council was not directly involved: the decisive action by the former Secretary-General in the settlement of the dispute between Eritrea and Yemen over the Hanish islands. From the initial steps by the former Secretary-General to the decision by a court of arbitration, this required long months of delicate negotiations carried out with absolute discretion. Indeed, my country played a role in that peaceful settlement, but sought no public advantage from this. That is an example of how discretion is sometimes necessary and how we should value it, however much we may regret the absence of the media's cameras and flashbulbs.

Furthermore, most current conflicts are internal. Their prevention can therefore be seen as an infringement of the principle of State sovereignty. However, if action is not taken soon enough, an internal crisis can rapidly degenerate into an armed conflict which, in many cases, has international repercussions and can destabilize a whole region, provoking a flood of refugees, stimulating arms trafficking and drawing in outside players. We have to find, therefore, a balance between these apparently contradictory preoccupations in such a way that the Security Council can be called upon early enough to prevent a spiral of violence.

We should note in this respect that the text of the Charter, in legal terms, does not exclude the Council from debating an internal situation if, according to Article 34, "the continuance of the ... situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security" or, again, as in Article 39, if "the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace". It is perfectly possible in the Council to debate, under these Articles of the Charter, a situation within a State. However, one must not confuse debate with having recourse to force, which comes under other provisions that are precise and limiting. The Council can take up an issue and take preventive measures without necessarily envisaging the use of force.

This was done in the spring of 1998 in the case of Kosovo. The Council debated, preoccupied by a degradation during several months of the situation on the ground marked both by an intensification of repression by Yugoslav forces and by activities of the guerrillas of the UCK, and the Council adopted resolution 1160 (1998). This resolution included several demands addressed to the parties to put an end to violence and terrorism and to engage in a real dialogue, and coercive measures, in particular an arms embargo aimed at putting pressure on the parties and depriving them of the means of intensifying the fighting. The events which followed, unfortunately, showed that only even stronger action on the part of the international community could prevent the conflict from getting worse.

This leads me to the third difficulty, which consists of taking adequate measures, in time, to confront a situation and give oneself the means to desired ends. Is not the Council reproached too often for doing too little too late? Retrospectively, it would have been necessary in Kosovo to intervene earlier and more forcefully.

In what was formerly Zaire, in the autumn of 1996, the Security Council, after having authorised deployment of a multinational defense force to allow the sending of humanitarian aide to hundreds of thousands of refugees, estimated too quickly that the situation was returning to normal and no longer justified such intervention. We now know well that such was not the case. Because of the Council's hesitation in intervening in time and adequately, not only did tens of thousands of people die, but the causes of future problems remained; one year later these brought about a much greater conflict which we now find difficult to resolve. This highlights the importance of making an effort to solve problems tied to implementation of the Lusaka Agreement with all the determination and the all the honesty necessary, and that should one not play around with words. One should realize that it is necessary to provide the resources, financial and undoubtedly the human resources, and that, indeed, right now the means should be provided to make these decisions without any more slipping between words and reality.

Practically, that means two things: on the one hand, having the courage and the political will to act while it is still not too late; on the other hand -- and this is not limited to preventive actions -- watching to ensure an appropriate balance of means to ends and provide the necessary human, financial and material resources. On this subject, when it involves preventing an armed conflict -- which I believe is the subject of today's debate -- the financial aspect, as important as it is, should become neither a constraint nor a pre-condition for action by the Security Council.

Fortunately, some examples show how the Council acted effectively in the past. We must not forget that, for example, with respect to the former Yugoslav Republic or Macedonia, the United Nations prevention force has been there from 1992 to 1999, the first example of the deployment of a force aimed at preventing conflicts and tensions in a region from overflowing into a neighbouring country. This must be credited to the United Nations, which has had successes as well in the Balkans.

We cannot, with respect to preventive action, isolate the role of the Security Council from the responsibilities and functions of other organs of the United Nations and, beyond that, from regional organizations and from Member States.

The Secretary-General, I have already said, has an extremely important role to play in alerting the Council to situations which seem to him susceptible of degenerating and in taking, in consultation with the Council, preventive diplomatic actions directly or indirectly through special envoys. Evidently, to accomplish such missions, the Secretary-General must be able to rely on expertise within the Secretariat, as well as on other means of information and early warning. Reinforcing the Secretariat's ability in this area is not, we believe, optional and must not rely essentially on voluntary contributions. This should not prevent countries from placing personnel at the disposal of the Secretariat for its benefit, without creating suspicion and excessive vigilance on the part of various members of the General Assembly.

Thus, the Secretary-General, in his report on Africa, has very justly said that the best prevention is through treating the underlying causes of conflicts, notably internal conflicts. That supposes that States, assisted by donors and international organizations, ensure sustainable development, being attentive to social redistribution, watching over good governance, power sharing, democratization, respect for human rights and protection of minorities. This highlights our sense of the need for directions currently taken by the United Nations Development Programme, based on this concept of good governance, that we would like to see involve respect for human rights, proper justice and protection of minorities. These areas are various and related.

Growing attention is rightly being given to the problem of excessive and destabilizing accumulation of and illegal trafficking in light weapons and small arms. These weapons, of which 500 million are in circulation throughout the world, have been the principal instrument of killing occasioned by conflicts of the post-cold war period. They are responsible for 90 per cent of the deaths caused by these conflicts. The struggle against their accumulation and trafficking constitutes the prime example of a preventable situation. It is appropriate here to recall the conference scheduled in 2001 on the illegal trafficking in small arms at which France has the intention to propose negotiation of an instrument making obligatory the marking of these arms.

It is also worth commending again, as we have done in other circumstances, the initiative of Mali, now a project of the Economic Community of West African States for a moratorium on importing, exporting and manufacturing light weapons in West Africa.

In the same spirit, programmes of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of ex-combatants have both curative and preventive sides. The Council must continue to encourage such measures. But these will only have a limited scope if they are not completed by actions in other spheres related to the careful reintegration of ex-combatants. Reduction of the number of armed men presupposes that the economy offers real prospects of reinsertion. This underlines the necessity of continuing to support official development assistance for the least developed countries.

Regional organizations also have an essential role to play. Their coordination and dialogue with the United Nations -- the Security Council in particular -- must be strengthened. More frequent contacts between the Security Council and the leaders of the regional and subregional organizations would provide useful opportunities to exchange information and examine situations in which preventive action might be necessary and the involvement of the Security Council desirable.

As can be seen, conflict prevention is an area in which we could do more and be more effective. France hopes that today's debate will both increase the level of resolve and stimulate imaginations. In this connection, the presidential statement that you, Mr. President, are to make on behalf of the Council at the end of this open debate reviews the Council's means and capacities for carrying out its conflict-prevention mandate. It will be useful to review them, but it is even more important to keep them in mind when we examine specific situations, as we do on a daily basis.

The President

I thank the representative of France for the kind words he addressed to me and my delegation.

Mr. Petrella (Argentina)

The holding of an open debate on the "Role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict" is highly timely. There is an urgent need to adapt to the new security environment, since today security is taken to mean more than arms regulation and disarmament. The concept of security is broader and more qualitative. For this reason the organs of the United Nations, with the goal of protecting human beings, are adapting to meet the challenges this changing reality presents.

The starting point is democratic institutions, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance and development.

The international transformations resulting from globalization have in the last decade offered new opportunities. But globalization also means shared risks, border conflicts, migratory movements, refugees, organized crime, ecological damage, and the rapid spread of technologies capable of creating weapons of mass destruction -- to mention but a few problems.

It would be impossible for each individual State to confront these challenges unilaterally. There is a need for cooperative security policies that strengthen the security of all.

We must simultaneously confront the immediate, root causes of conflicts, most of which in stem from lack of economic opportunities and social inequalities.

It is timely to recall that in parallel with this debate that is taking place in Seattle a meeting of the World Trade Organization. The Secretary-General, in his article today in The Wall Street Journal, and in his comments just a few minutes ago, states:

"Practical experience has shown that trade and investment often bring not only economic development but higher standards of human rights and environmental protection as well."

In other words, the possibility of access to markets for the developing countries will be to the benefit of all, since it will lead to a reduction in the need for assistance. Trade is less onerous than aid.

As the Secretary-General rightly stated in his report on the work of the Organization,

"The main short- and medium-term strategies for preventing non-violent conflicts from escalating into war, and preventing earlier wars from erupting again, are preventive diplomacy, preventive deployment and preventive disarmament." (A/54/1, para. 36)

Likewise, as was already established in 1992 in "An Agenda for Peace", preventive measures must be based on timely and precise knowledge of the facts. There is a need for understanding based on a correct analysis of global events and trends. It is also essential to have the political will to accomplish this. The power to adopt preventive measures in accordance with the Charter resides mainly in the Security Council. This is where the political will must be created.

The Charter provides a series of measures whose timely use can resolve situations of potential danger: for example, prompt investigation, in accordance with Article 34; conflict assessment; where necessary, the application of the measures provided for in Chapter VII that do not involve the use of force; and the possible use of this last resort.

In this respect, the Security Council should explore and increase its use of all of the resources of preventive diplomacy. Among these it is worth mentioning the Security Council mission to Jakarta and Dili last September, led by Ambassador Andjaba of Namibia, which proved to be an effective means of dealing with a crisis situation.

The Secretary-General is also clearly contributing to this endeavour. We view as essential the current smooth collaboration between the Secretary-General and the Council for early detection of situations that may develop into a threat to peace and security, so that the Council can take appropriate measures in time.

We would also like to emphasize the role that can be played by the International Tribunals in creating awareness that impunity will no longer be tolerated. This role will be enhanced when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court enters into force.

The regional organizations are also called upon to play their role; it can be extremely useful to coordinate their efforts with those of the United Nations. Proof of this can be found in the initiatives of the various regional organizations in Latin America, Africa and Europe.

In conclusion, we must ensure that in the realm of international security in the coming decades the interests of collective security prevail over national, regional and sectoral interests. Only in this way will it be possible to avoid conflict and maintain a stable and lasting peace.

Mr. Fowler (Canada)

Let me begin by commending you, Mr. President, for having organized today's debate on the Security Council's role in conflict prevention. Canada is a firm supporter of such initiatives, which enable the Council to consider multidisciplinary quotations concerning security and the Council's mandate in an open, transparent and comprehensive manner. The subject on which you have focused our attention today is of pressing relevance to the Security Council. A quick glance at the Council's day-to-day agenda unfortunately reveals the reality of the Council's reactive approach to conflict. The results of the Council's deliberations and of the action it mandates on the ground tell of the challenges of reversing, controlling or resolving conflict once it has broken out. The risks and costs, both human and financial, of this approach must lead us to a re-evaluation of how the Council works, how its mandate is interpreted and how it uses the tools at its disposal.

Canada has consistently called for greater Council activism on conflict prevention. We fully support the Secretary-General's appeal to the Council to embrace a culture of prevention. As he so eloquently noted, even the most costly policy of conflict prevention is far cheaper in lives and resources than measures taken under the prevailing culture of reaction. How, in practical terms, can the Council adopt a culture of prevention and take action accordingly? Canada would argue that the Council has all the basic tools it needs. What it lacks is the vision and, above all, the will and commitment necessary to use them flexibly and creatively.

Nothing in the Council's Charter mandate precludes it from taking preventive action in the pursuit of international peace and security. Taking such action would, of course, require the Council to embrace a broader definition of security; taking into account the multiple factors that contribute to a conflict and thus suppressing it in its earliest stages and manifestations. That would mean focusing not only on aggression between States, but also on such intrastate security issues as gross and systematic human rights abuse or catastrophic humanitarian emergencies, utter failures of governance and the rule of law, and gross instances of economic deprivation. In short, it would mean paying greater attention to threats to human security which, as recent experience has shown, have been key sources of conflict in the post-cold-war era. Responding to such threats early and effectively requires a political decision by the Council which, after all, has the discretionary power to determine what constitutes a threat to peace and security. Early preventive action by the Council, whether persuasive or coercive, would help to pre-empt both the emergence and the escalation of conflict, thus providing an important deterrent effect.

There are important precedents of Council action to build on. The United Nations first preventive military deployment -- the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force -- helped to prevent the spread of conflict in a region racked by strife. The Council should consider deploying more preventive missions, both military and civilian, drawing on this experience and that of recent post-conflict operations which play important preventive roles.

Another innovative and progressive step was the creation of international criminal tribunals. They are an important signal from the Council that gross and systematic human rights abuses within States merit a robust response by the international community and that such abuses will not be allowed to stand. The tribunals, and eventually the International Criminal Court, can thus provide a deterrent to would-be violators by demonstrating that they will be held accountable for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The tribunals also play an important norm-reinforcing role. Until the International Criminal Court is established, we hope that the precedent set by the tribunals will be followed in other situations that call for them.

Mr. Fowler (Canada)

The Council is served by the Office of the Secretary-General with the ability to mediate, investigate disputes, promote dialogue, send peace envoys and, above all, bring matters which he deems threats to security to the Council's attention. The Council should take full advantage of this preventive capacity by backing the Secretary-General in these efforts and ensuring that he has the necessary resources and political support to conduct them effectively. More importantly, the Council needs to take appropriate action in response to his advice. The Council should also make greater use of the provisions for the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the Charter, in particular by launching its own investigations into potential conflicts and encouraging Member States to bring such matters to the Council's attention. The practice of dispatching delegations of Council members to conflict situations to bring the will and commitment of the Council home to actual or potential belligerents should also be used -- but sparingly -- as a preventive measure. Clearly, the use of a Council mission when circumstances suggest success to be unlikely would quickly devalue its currency.

The Council's procedures and working methods can have a decisive impact on the effectiveness of its efforts at preventing conflict, for they speak loudly to the matter of the Council's continuing credibility. For an institution dedicated to the pursuit of peace, the Council's procedural and constitutional complexities often seem to conspire against that goal. Under current working methods, the Council often fails to allow the effective participation of Member States whose vital interests are indeed at stake. Further, given the way it operates, it is too easy to exclude from the Council's agenda items inimical to the interests of one or more of its members.

Conflict prevention calls for broad and inclusive dialogue. If the Council is to be an effective tool of conflict prevention, it must adapt its conclave and privileged working methods to the new security environment by broadening its range of interlocutors and its sources of information. There should be more scope for the participation of non-members in the Council's deliberations, whether formal or informal, when their presence could make a useful contribution to the Council's efforts to prevent conflict. The Council should also explore more innovative formats to permit interaction with non-State actors who could contribute to the Council's efforts at conflict prevention.

In his report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the Secretary-General made a number of practical recommendations to the Council for preventing conflict. For example, he advocated greater responsiveness to the early-warning indicators of conflict by making use of human rights information and analysis from independent treaty body experts and the Commission on Human Rights, as well as reliable non-governmental sources. The challenge is not the availability of information, but bringing it to the Council's attention and taking appropriate action in response.

One approach might be to follow the practice used to keep the Council apprised of humanitarian issues and have regular briefings by special rapporteurs or, indeed, by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. We also support the Secretary-General's recommendation to set up expert working groups of the Council to monitor volatile situations and consider options to prevent the outbreak of violence. The Secretary-General also set out factors which should trigger action by the Security Council to protect civilians in the face of massive human rights abuse or humanitarian emergency. Acceptance of these factors by the Council in its consideration of specific security situations, backed by action when needed, would have a significant impact on conflict prevention.

Canada fully supports cooperation between the Council and regional and subregional security organizations in efforts to prevent conflict. The latter can play key roles in averting conflict because of their proximity to the issues and their intimate knowledge of the protagonists. There is, however, a continuing tendency for the Council to seek to devolve, or at least discuss the devolution of, its own security responsibilities to regional and subregional groups, often in the full knowledge that such groups or organizations are neither competent to assume nor capable of assuming such responsibilities. Even when such organizations can play a useful role, conflict prevention efforts conducted at the local or regional level frequently need the impetus that only the active engagement of this Council can provide. What is to be avoided at all costs is a situation where Council inaction creates a void which others, perhaps with inadequate resources and capacities, are abandoned to fill.

We will continue to be faced with situations in which our best efforts at conflict prevention fail. Over the years, we have developed instruments such as peacekeeping, peace enforcement and sanctions to respond in those circumstances. We believe that determined action to resolve and end conflicts, including those marked by humanitarian suffering or human rights abuse, can be an important deterrent against future conflicts. Renewed effort and, above all, adequate resources -- financial and human -- are a sine qua non to effective Council engagement. Unless the Council can count on the willingness of the general membership to provide the wherewithal to make the Council's effective engagement possible and practicable, all the fine theory is for naught. At the very least, we must immediately take steps to enhance the effectiveness of the instruments available in such cases, particularly the United Nations capacity to plan effectively and deploy rapidly. Peace support operations must also be given the necessary mandates and resources to prevent the resurgence of conflict. Finally, the Council should further explore the deterrent qualities of the instruments which have been traditionally employed during or in the aftermath of conflict. Canada strongly believes that if these interventions are used as preventive measures, their impact and efficacy will increase as their costs diminish. Surely, however, our political institutions have matured to the point where intelligent cost-benefit analysis requires us to invest in those ounces of prevention which, if successful, would avoid the full horror of not taking early action.

The President

I thank the representative of Canada for his kind words addressed to me.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom)

The United Nations Charter is crystal clear about our first and most fundamental objective. It is "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".

Any success which we, the Member States of the United Nations, have had in achieving that objective can only be regarded as partial. Too often Security Council intervention comes too late to prevent widespread death and destruction. Modern war and internal conflict remain a blight on our planet. It is civilians who bear the brunt.

Despite the efforts of this Council, too many belligerent groups target the innocent and the defenceless. Massive numbers of refugees are forced to flee for safety, and gross and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law are perpetrated. To stop this increasingly vicious trend, we have to prevent disputes from escalating into armed warfare.

The presidential statement which you, Mr. President, will deliver at the end of this debate, sets out a comprehensive framework for our own activity. But it also recognizes the essential role of the Secretary-General. He must be given the support he needs to work for peace on his own initiative. That means building the capacity of the United Nations Secretariat. It must be able to produce sharper analyses of potential conflicts. We must also reinforce the ability of Department of Peacekeeping Operations to deploy rapidly United Nations peacekeepers, police and civilians if fragile peace agreements are not to disintegrate.

It also means a greater focus on conflict prevention in the funds, programmes and agencies of the United Nations system. The Secretary-General must have the freedom to work up more creative approaches to preventive diplomacy. He must be allowed to carry them forward discreetly and under his own tactical judgement if they are to succeed.

As for the Member States, we too must play a stronger role, not least in Africa. We must help the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the other regional organizations take a more proactive role in conflict prevention. The OAU has recently published a plan for expanding the capacity of its conflict management centre. The United Kingdom has committed $1 million to support this, and we hope that others will contribute soon. In this whole area, the Security Council must work harder and show more initiative than others. It is a test of leadership and responsibility for this Council.

In 1999, we have done our best. We should be proud of the success of Ambassador Andjaba's mission to Jakarta and Dili in September. Ambassador Fowler should be congratulated on his ongoing work to tighten the enforcement of sanctions against UNITA. We have done well to address directly the fragile situation in Sierra Leone and to support the process of reconciliation there.

But apart from addressing each issue on its merits, we have to think creatively about acting on our best intentions and about the policy instruments at our disposal. The Secretary-General has this afternoon given us four practical points for early consideration. This debate is raising more. Most pertinent is the Secretary-General's point about the resources being more cost- effectively employed in prevention than in surgery.

So, overall, this amounts to an ambitious agenda for the new millennium. We will not succeed straightaway, and we will have to face up to the consequences of our occasional failures.

For a start, when the Security Council fails to prevent genocide and other massive abuses of human rights, others are encouraged to believe that they too can get away with crimes against humanity. The fact that so many of these conflicts are internal should not bar us from taking collective steps to resolve them. The Secretary-General set out this problem in his opening statement at this year's session of the General Assembly.

We will restore the United Nations to its rightful role in international peace and security only if we adapt to a world in which the sovereign State has already, as a matter of objective reality, been redefined by globalization, a world in which there is a new recognition that the State is the servant of the people, not the other way round.

The British Government firmly shares the Secretary-General's belief that we have a joint responsibility to act when confronted by genocide, mass displacement of people or major breaches of international humanitarian law. That does not necessarily mean the use of force. It may mean determined diplomacy, sometimes out of the glare of publicity when that would be more effective, sometimes more creative in its ideas and its implementation than has traditionally been the hallmark of the Council.

Preventive action can take many forms, and military action will not always be desirable or feasible. But when the international community does use force in response to humanitarian crises, it needs a framework for that response: a common understanding within the Security Council and the wider United Nations membership of the circumstances and conditions of action. Force should be used as a last resort. It must be limited in scope. It must be proportionate to the humanitarian objective of preventing major loss of civilian life.

We shall soon be sharing more detailed United Kingdom ideas on humanitarian action for discussion with our partners in the United Nations.

The subject we are discussing today goes far beyond the immediate remit of the Security Council. If the United Nations is to live up to its goals, the Council must work in concert with the Secretary-General, with the Funds, Programmes and Agencies and with the wider membership.

Today's debate should be the event which kick-starts our work in this whole area. We need to innovate, and we need to work together. With a shared commitment and a clear purpose, we will begin to make a difference.

Thank you, Sir, for initiating this useful debate.

The President

I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for his kind words addressed to me.

Mr. Qin Huasun (China)

According to the stipulations of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council shoulders the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. It is the major institution that the international community relies on for settling conflicts and crises and realizing peace. Now with the prevention of armed conflict becoming an important means of settling disputes peacefully, it is only natural that the Council should bear major responsibilities in this area. Besides, there seems to be a tendency in the work of the Council nowadays to put much emphasis on intervention, while neglecting effective prevention.

All too often there is heated debate on intervention, indeed, even invocation of Chapter VII of the Charter, while neither the issue of prevention nor serious study into the root cause of conflicts is given adequate attention. The Chinese delegation has always believed that timely and effective preventive measures would get twice the result with half the effort, in that these measures not only help avoid loss of life or property but also save resources. We therefore appreciate that the President has chosen to have this open debate, which is both very timely and necessary.

There are various kinds of measures that can be taken to prevent armed conflicts, but there is one general principle by which all of them must abide -- that is, actions must be taken in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter. If we look back at the history of United Nations involvement in settling regional conflicts, we can very easily see that success has always been the natural result of adherence to the Charter, while contravention of Charter principles has only led to failure and setback.

Such is the case in settling regional conflicts, and it is also true in respect to prevention of armed conflict. From the perspective of the ultimate goal of preventive diplomacy, all Council actions should be aimed at resolving conflict peacefully, instead of exacerbating a conflict or touching off new ones.

In this connection, we are pleased to see that the Council has taken a series of positive measures, including sending fact-finding missions to conflict regions, holding more open debates on specific issues and continuing to put Article 99 of the Charter into practice by encouraging the Secretary-General to play his due role. All these commendable practices have, in one way or another, enriched the Council's experience in handling issues bearing on international peace and security and should be affirmed. Therefore, we thank the Secretary-General for coming here to join in our discussion.

The Chinese delegation maintains that all preventive measures should be taken only under the prerequisite of respect for the political independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries and the will of the Government and people of the country concerned. The principle of non-interference in internal affairs is the primary principle guiding United Nations actions in conflict prevention. Preventive measures can be taken only upon the request or with the consent and cooperation of the country concerned. It is essential to obtain prior consent of the country or parties concerned on issues involving that country's sovereignty, such as setting up early warning systems or sending fact-finding missions and other special missions. Before any major decisions are to be made, the Security Council must listen to the views of all sides in a neutral and fair manner.

Secretary-General Annan pointed out in his report on the work of the Organization submitted to the current session of the General Assembly that if the primacy of the Security Council with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security is rejected, then the very foundations of international law as represented by the Charter will be brought into question. No other universally accepted legal basis for constraining wanton acts of violence exists. It is also emphasized in the report that conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacemaking must not become an area of competition between the United Nations and regional organizations. The Chinese delegation fully agrees with the Secretary-General on these points. We believe that any attempt to replace the Council in its leading role in conflict prevention is tantamount to replacing the Council in its primary role in maintaining peace and security. Such an attempt would not only weaken the authority of the Council but also would end up severely damaging the effectiveness of conflict prevention measures, or might even lead to the outbreak or escalation of conflicts.

Of course, the Council also has its limits; it is not a panacea. As is known to all, the root cause of conflicts is the unreasonable old international political and economic order. Changes to this situation could only be realized by concerted efforts by the Council, the whole United Nations system and the entire international community. The international community should be soberly aware that, although conflict prevention does not look as glorious as conflict resolution, the input needed in prevention is much lower than the losses caused by conflict, and the impact of successful conflict prevention is even more immeasurable.

The United Nations should demonstrate strong political commitment and allocate adequate resources to ensure successful implementation of preventive measures. At the same time, the Security Council should recognize the important roles that can be played by the various regional organizations and cooperate more closely with them. Such cooperation, however, must be based on the adherence by regional organizations to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the stipulations of its Chapter VIII. Under the guidance and monitoring of the United Nations, regional organizations will be able to win the cooperation of the world body and even broader support from the international community, thus playing a constructive role in preventive diplomacy.

In the 10 years between 1989 and 1999 alone, there have been more than 100 armed conflicts in the world, the majority of which have occurred in developing countries. This is no coincidence. For too long, the unreasonable old international political and economic order has seriously hindered the economic development and social progress of developing countries, putting them in a disadvantageous position in the new globalization wave. This is undoubtedly the major cause of the turbulence and frequent conflicts in some developing countries. Therefore, to prevent armed conflicts from occurring in the first place, we must take a long-term view and take meaningful steps to help developing countries in their economic development. Otherwise, preventive measures would only treat the symptom rather than eradicate the root cause, and there would merely be one passive reaction after another. Thus, the promotion of economic growth of developing countries is of important practical relevance in preventing armed conflicts.

Last but not least, I wish to emphasize that peace in various regions of the world is an indivisible and interrelated whole. In deliberating the issue of prevention of armed conflict, the Council should treat all regions of the world equally, especially in the case of Africa. There should be no preferential treatment for one or neglect of another. The tendency in the United Nations of paying only lip service to Africa should be rectified. The United Nations must apply more human and financial resources to preventive diplomacy in Africa.

The President

I thank the representative of China for the kind words he addressed to me and my delegation.

Mr. Gatilov (Russia)

Our delegation would also like to express its gratitude to you, Mr. President, for your initiative in organizing today's open debate. We believe this discussion is both timely and useful, especially at this time when challenges to international peace and security are confronting the world community with the task of developing a strategy for early warning, timely monitoring and prevention of conflicts and crises.

A key role in preventive diplomacy rightly belongs to the United Nations, which possesses substantial capabilities in this sphere. The main issues of preventive strategy as well as political monitoring of their implementation must remain exclusively within the purview of the Security Council. Such an approach closely coincides with the conclusion drawn by the Secretary-General in his report on the work of the Organization to the effect that undermining the primary role of the Security Council in maintaining international peace and security casts doubt on the very foundations of international law, such as the United Nations Charter. It is important that this idea underlies the Security Council's draft presidential statement prepared on the initiative of Slovenia.

In fulfilling its Charter role as the body that bears major responsibility for maintenance of international peace and security, the Council has the right -- either at the request of States or on its own initiative -- to use a broad set of instruments established within the framework of the United Nations to prevent disputes from erupting into armed conflicts.

However, we are convinced that preventive services to Member States must be provided only with their consent and with respect for the principle of non-interference in internal affairs. Only the unequivocally expressed agreement of the host country to preventive actions can serve as a legal and political basis for the adoption of relevant measures and also serve as a guarantee for their effectiveness.

In this connection, we proceed from the premise that any United Nations response, including in situations of a humanitarian nature, must be undertaken pursuant to the Charter and through a decision of the Security Council. The development of world processes undoubtedly dictates the advisability of developing norms of international law and adapting them to new realities. However, such work must be carried out collectively on the sound basis of the Charter, which would enable us to develop agreed upon decisions whose legitimacy would not be subject to doubt.

Of special significance is the observance by States involved in a dispute of the obligations under Chapter VI of the Charter, providing for a broad set of instruments for the settlement of disputes through peaceful means.

The Security Council can play an important role in preventing armed conflicts by enhancing the effectiveness of arms embargoes. As we have repeatedly emphasized, an arms embargo full of holes can only aggravate a military confrontation between conflicting parties.

Preventive measures should also include steps to demobilize and disarm former combatants and reintegrate them into peaceful life, which might be an effective means for ensuring the irreversibility of peace processes in former hot spots. An example of this is the difficult situation regarding compliance with the Protocol on Military Issues in Tajikistan. Of special importance is assistance to the United Nations Mission in Tajikistan, along with adequate financial and material support from the international community.

Without an effective arms embargo, we cannot stabilize the situation in Kosovo and in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The failure of efforts to disarm the combatants has, unfortunately, led to a breakdown of the peace process in Angola.

The topic of preventive action is inextricably linked to the problem of the uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons in regions of crisis. Russia is interested in stepping up the campaign against the unlawful spread of such weapons. We support the involvement of the United Nations in such efforts if relevant States agree and an appeal for assistance is made to the Organization.

Also deserving of support is more effective involvement on the part of the United Nations of a civilian component of multifunctional peacekeeping operations, in particular of civilian police, with a view to monitoring observance of human rights, the maintenance of order and the rule of law. At the same time, we maintain a principled disagreement with the notion of endowing such a component with enforcement powers.

An essential element for early warning is now the multifaceted efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General to enhance the preventive capabilities of the United Nations. Regional organizations and subregional structures are playing an important role in early warning and in the prevention of conflicts. However, their activities must comply strictly with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Charter. The recommendations of the Secretary-General on a more rational and economical division of labour between the United Nations and regional organizations should be studied on the basis of that Chapter of the Charter. Emphasis here should be placed on the advantage of the use of political, diplomatic and legal means.

The Russian Federation, with full recognition of its responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, is prepared to continue to promote a search for ways to enhance the activities of the Security Council with a view to preventing armed conflicts.

The President

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for the kind words he addressed to me and to my delegation.

Mr. Buallay (Bahrain)

First of all, my delegation welcomes the initiative taken to discuss this important issue. We hope that this effort will help us in our debates, especially since at the dawn of the third millennium the international community hopes that the Council will put an end to disputes throughout the world by laying the foundations for a world of peace and security based on cooperation and solidarity.

Aware of the importance of preventing armed conflicts, the Security Council issued a presidential statement at its summit held on 31 January 1992, asking the Secretary-General to submit an analysis and recommendations on ways of strengthening within the provisions of the Charter the capacity of the United Nations to prevent armed conflicts. This was to be done under what was called preventive diplomacy and on the basis of the establishment and maintenance of peace. Following this request, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali submitted his "Agenda for Peace", in which he stated that international circumstances were such that the United Nations was ready to play an important role in the prevention of armed conflicts. According to the "Agenda for Peace", if the Security Council had not been able to settle many international crises and conflicts it was because of the repeated use of the veto by the permanent members of the Security Council due to the cold war and the tensions that prevailed throughout the world.

Preventive diplomacy is one of the most important ways of preventing conflicts. The "Agenda for Peace", has shown that the roles of the Security Council and of the Secretary-General are important. The roles of the General Assembly, regional organizations, programmes and specialized agencies of the United Nations system are also of importance in ensuring the success of efforts to prevent armed conflicts. The Secretary-General, the Security Council, the General Assembly, other bodies of the international Organization and regional organizations must all cooperate and coordinate their efforts. Selectivity and policies of double standards in dealing with conflicts should not prevail in the Council's discussions, and mechanisms to avoid this should be developed.

For example, we see that the issues of the Middle East, Palestine, the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the occupied Lebanese territories are not currently on the agenda of the Security Council, even though the basic principles for the continuation of peace negotiations taking place outside the Council are based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978). These resolutions of the Council have not yet been implemented, meaning that the occupying Power has flagrantly disregarded the will of the Council.

In this connection, we should highlight policies and strategies to strengthen confidence and provide early warning on the basis of detailed analysis and of determining facts, particularly since many conflicts have economic, social and historical causes. In this regard, conciliation and post-conflict peace-building are of particular importance.

The United Nations should encourage the international community to rebuild the economic infrastructure of States that have recently emerged from armed conflicts in order for them to avoid falling into a spiral of violence again. In accordance with the "Agenda for Peace", fact-finding commissions should be increasingly used as special tools on the initiative of the Secretary-General, the Security Council or the General Assembly. Any request for a country to be assigned a fact-finding commission should be considered without delay, and Member States should submit all necessary information needed to bring about effective preventive diplomacy.

There are many important tools available for the settlement of disputes under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter: negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement and other peaceful means. Those peaceful means are generally effective and can play an important role in settling many disputes and preventing armed conflicts.

There is no doubt that we are speaking about conditions in the best of all possible worlds. What is happening now, however, is that the most important United Nations bodies and institutions are working without proper coordination, a situation that has led to duplication of efforts, waste, contradiction and bad organization. The United Nations is a single Organization that has created many bodies to serve Member States. How, then, can one explain this contradiction and duplication of efforts? This is due to bad organization between efforts to build peace and to maintain it.

We note that the Security Council works apart from other bodies and institutions of the United Nations system, whereas the subjects and issues discussed in the Council are complementary and cannot be separated from each other. For example, the Council examines the issue of the maintenance of peace, but its role ends at the signing of a ceasefire agreement. Peace-building institutions such as the Economic and Social Council then intervene, without any real coordination between the two bodies and without a discernible line between the beginning of the role of one and the end of the role of the other.

Experience has shown that those roles are necessarily complementary. The lack of cooperation we are currently witnessing may lead to a dangerous renewal of conflict if the Security Council does not urge the Economic and Social Council to fill the gap left by armed conflicts by rebuilding peacekeeping institutions through the implementation of economic and social development programmes.

There is no doubt that the Security Council is the principal body responsible for the maintenance of peace and for coordinating the substantial resources provided by Member States for the settlement of conflicts. But is it not better to prevent conflicts before they erupt? Is it not better to prevent the repetition of conflicts by consolidating institutions and peace-building? Areas of tension still exist and will continue to exist as long as there is a lack of organization between United Nations bodies -- particularly between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council.

Another instrument available to the Security Council to stem conflicts is the committees on arms embargoes. It is true that the United Nations is not a Government and that it has no army. Its weight and prestige come from Member States. What happens, however, when there is a contradiction between the interests of the United Nations and those of certain Member States?

We are all aware that certain areas of tension have existed for over 20 years. Those tensions continue. We know that arms flows have continued without interruption and that mercenaries exist. This leads us to believe that such internal conflicts can exist for long periods of time only through the provision of outside and continually flowing arms and munitions. In other words, the United Nations is powerless in the face of the interests of certain Member States or certain parties within those Member States that try to gain quick benefit at the expense of peoples' lives and property.

The role of the Security Council in the prevention of conflict also involves the protection of refugees and victims of conflicts. The Council should give serious consideration to their situation, even if this is not strictly within the framework of its responsibilities. In that case, we should coordinate the action of the Council with those of organizations that help refugees, because it is unacceptable for refugees, the victims of conflicts, to be forced to bear arms by one or the other party to a conflict. They should be given sanctuary and taken to protected areas until their final return and rehabilitation, so that they become active members of society rather than causes of conflict.

Finally, what about the culture of conflict prevention? All that we see in the media is pictures of refugees in a state of despair and distress. The culture of conflict prevention is something more complex than that. It requires a heightening of awareness so as to instil in people's minds from childhood the harmful consequences of conflicts in order that they would not become involved in such conflicts. This would encourage us to ask for the creation of a detailed, targeted culture of peace in order to teach the harmful effects of conflicts.

The United Nations has teaching and training institutions and agencies that can teach such a culture on the basis of peace, which would prevail throughout the world, or on the basis of the sufferings of peoples in the wake of two devastating world wars. Even though current, post-cold-war conflicts are of an internal, ethnic or religious nature, it is necessary to adopt an integrated approach so as to teach the bases of peace and to heighten peoples' awareness of the harmful effects of conflicts by giving practical examples of what is taking place in current areas of tension, of which there are numerous examples.

An important point is that there is still hope, and we should reiterate this. There is still hope that we might see coordination between the Security Council and other United Nations bodies. Indeed, the Security Council coordinated its activities with the Economic and Social Council by delegating to that body the task of building peace institutions in Haiti after a lengthy conflict.

Indeed, a similar situation exists in Guinea-Bissau. By happenstance or coincidence, the Secretary-General appointed as Special Representative to Haiti the former Permanent Representative of Guinea-Bissau. We are convinced that these two peace-building operations, in Haiti and in Guinea-Bissau, will succeed and thereby convince those who have doubts about the Security Council that there is an organic link between peacekeeping and peace-building. Such expected success might be an example for other regions in the world that have been exposed to conflicts.

Finally, the Security Council must be fully convinced of the need to ensure coordination and liaison between it and other United Nations bodies in word and deed, through its methods of work and its practices, mainly by implementing the following points: first, a more strict implementation of arms embargoes in areas of conflict; secondly, participation of the States parties to conflicts in the deliberations of the Council, pursuant to Article 31 of the Charter; thirdly, dealing with the status of refugees in a positive way, so as to prevent their participation in conflicts; and fourthly, creating a targeted culture which would highlight the harmful consequences of conflicts.

The Security Council has a duty to play a role as coordinator in order to establish a complementarity with other United Nations bodies, especially the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, so as to actively prevent conflicts before they erupt. The Council could then rebut criticism that it is detached from the outside world, even if this affects Member States which depend on it. We all hope that we will see action, not just words, and that the Council can refute the criticisms that it is a private club.

I have been a bit lengthy, but I felt it was necessary given the significance and gravity of the subject.

The President

I thank the representative of Bahrain for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia)

I should like to extend my delegation's sincere appreciation to you, Mr. President, and to the delegation of Slovenia for your initiative in organizing this open debate of the Security Council on the role of the Council in the prevention of armed conflict. My delegation also wishes to thank the Secretary-General for his opening remarks, which provide a useful framework for today's debate. This open meeting reflects the Council's continued commitment to engage in broader thematic debates that, hopefully, will expand its capacity to deal with the ever-evolving challenges to international peace and security. The wide participation of Members of the Organization today is a clear reflection of the usefulness of the open debate you have initiated on the subject.

In addressing the issue before it, it is imperative for the Council to remind itself that in seeking to fulfil its Charter-mandated role, the Council must, at all times, fully respect the principles and provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular those relating to the pacific settlement of disputes and action in respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. The Security Council acts on behalf of the entire membership of the Organization, and therefore responsibility, consistency and even-handedness must be the hallmarks of its actions.

Believing in the adage that prevention is better than cure, my delegation joins the call for the Council to continue to enhance its capacity for preventive action. Clearly, as stated by the Secretary-General, building a culture of prevention is much more beneficial, long-lasting and less costly than reacting to catastrophes only after they have struck. The Council has time and again emphasized that the prevention of armed conflict begins and ends with the protection of human life and the promotion of human development. It is timely that in the context of a more proactive and creative approach in the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council should consider concrete and practical measures for preventive diplomacy. For this purpose, there is a need on the part of the United Nations for better information-gathering and analysis and for enhancing its early-warning capacity in order to monitor and, more importantly, to respond promptly and appropriately when confronted with these situations. Timely action is of critical importance if conflicts are to be addressed before they explode into violence, with their grave humanitarian consequences.

The prevention of armed conflict is multidimensional in nature, requiring the resources of a comprehensive and integrated United Nations system. Clearly, a cohesive and well-coordinated United Nations system is vital in any effort to prevent the emergence or re-emergence of armed conflict.

In this regard, we note with appreciation the enormous contributions made by all the principal organs and agencies of the United Nations, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children's Fund, the United Nations Development Programme and others. Their active engagement in post-conflict peace-building situations is important in preventing war-ravaged societies that are in transition towards peace from returning to armed conflict. In this regard, it is imperative for the Organization to oversee the successful implementation of the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programme of ex-combatants in all post-conflict activities, as it is for it to address the root causes of the conflict.

My delegation believes that there should be greater recourse to the use of preventive diplomacy and the good offices of the Secretary-General. The positive outcome of the Council's recent mission to Jakarta and Dili would argue for greater utilization of this mechanism by the Council in respect of future conflict situations, before they get out of hand. It is perhaps timely to dispatch such a mission to Africa, as has been proposed by a member of the Council. At the same time, there should be greater use of the Secretary-General's good offices in the context of preventive diplomacy as well as of the resolution of ongoing conflicts. The Secretary-General is well placed to bring to the attention of the Council early evidence of threats to international peace and security, genocide and other manifestations of systematic and widespread human rights violations and other developments affecting international peace and security for its consideration and for appropriate action.

This particular role of the Secretary-General in providing information to the Council is in conformity with the provisions of Article 99 of the Charter. We commend the role played by the Secretary-General in this regard, which on many occasions has contributed to facilitating consensus in the Council. The dispatching of envoys or special representatives to areas of serious conflict to undertake quiet diplomacy is invaluable and has been an increasingly important aspect of the role of the Secretary-General in assisting the Council to address the various issues of peace and security that come before it.

The alarming increase in intra-State warfare is fast changing the landscape and nature of modern-day conflicts. More and more, United Nations peacekeeping operations become embroiled in internal conflicts involving, on the one hand, legitimate Governments and, on the other, rebels and warlords under a loose chain of command. In these conflicts, the destruction not just of armies, but of civilians and entire ethnic groups or groups of people of different faiths or religion, is increasingly becoming the main, or the strategic, objective. This must be strongly condemned. In such conflict situations, the defence of imperilled humanity must be of paramount importance for the United Nations and the international community. We believe that in the context of the changing nature of current conflicts the Council must re-examine past and present approaches and strategies and formulate new ones in keeping with the demands of the times. Even in respect of classic inter-State conflict situations, it is regrettable that the Council has not been successful in bringing the warring parties to a negotiated settlement of their armed conflict.

The Charter, of course, provides the Council with options, including the invoking of certain provisional measures not involving the use of force, in order to defuse such situations. One such option comes under Article 40, which provides an avenue for Council action, including the imposition of arms embargoes and targeted sanctions. However, in contemplating such actions, every effort should be made to ensure that they do not lead to any undesirable humanitarian impact on the general population.

With the decreasing incidence of inter-State wars, the kind of intervention envisaged in the Charter has fallen out of use, while the notion of humanitarian intervention has increasingly been invoked to justify intervention in current conflict situations. The Secretary-General himself has recently raised this pertinent but contentious concept of intervention in the light of his increasing concern at the inaction of the Security Council and its failure to prevent the genocidal war in Rwanda, with its horrific consequences, and the forced intervention by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the conflict in Kosovo, which saved thousands of lives and reversed the pernicious policy of "ethnic cleansing" in that territory, but which was carried out without the authorization of the Council.

At the core of the issue is the effectiveness of the Council in responding to crisis situations, including humanitarian calamities. The contradiction between, on the one hand, respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States and, on the other, the moral and ethical imperatives to stop massacres within States, is real and difficult to resolve. In any consideration of possible Council intervention in such situations, there is a need for a balanced approach, lest the Council be accused of bias and selectivity and of intervening in conflict situations involving some countries but not in others. What is important is the ability of the Council to consider such situations in a dispassionate manner and to find the political will to act decisively to prevent or contain such conflicts whenever and wherever they occur. Regrettably, however, the narrow interests of some members of the Council have often got in the way of effective decision-making by the Council. Clearly, a more cohesive and united Council would make an enormous difference in addressing the issue of the protection of vulnerable populations in situations of armed conflict.

There is much expectation on the part of the international community for the Council to effectively manage issues of international peace and security. Consequently, when the Council is seen to be paralysed in dealing with some important issues, there is great disappointment over its lack of efficacy. Unfortunately, in many situations the Council cannot act alone. It requires the cooperation of all the parties concerned, including that of regional organizations and arrangements. Indeed, in a number of conflict situations, particularly in Africa, regional and subregional organizations, such as the Organization of African Unity and the Economic Community of West African States, have been active players. However, this should not absolve the Council from playing its role. Regrettably, much of the impasse in and paralysis of the Council has to do with the peculiar decision-making process in the Council, so well known to members and non-members of the Council.

In the face of the many complex challenges that lie ahead, the issue of the efficiency and authority of the Council will have to be resolved as soon as possible, lest there be further erosion of the Council's efficacy and credibility. Clearly, what is required is reform of the Council to make it better reflect current realities, 54 years after its founding. A more representative Council, with a revamped decision-making process, would serve to enhance its credibility and strengthen its capacity to deal with the issues of international peace and security, including the prevention of armed conflict.

In this regard, I would urge the Council to put into concrete action the fine principles that have been articulated by many speakers in this debate, including the Secretary-General, particularly in the context of Africa, whose conflicts occupy much of the Council's time. The draft presidential statement which we will adopt should serve as a powerful incentive towards that end.

Thank you again, Mr. President, for organizing this important and useful open meeting.

The President

I thank the representative of Malaysia for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Fonseca (Brazil)

I wish to thank the Secretary-General for his statement, which contained very useful and precise suggestions on how to prevent armed conflict.

In his report to the General Assembly at its fifteenth session, in 1960, Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld pointed out that

"in the end, the United Nations is likely to be judged not so much by the criterion of how successfully it has overcome this or that crisis as by the significance of its total contribution towards building the kind of world community in which such crises are no longer inevitable".

His words explain in an eloquent and brief way why we are gathered here today. But there is a more immediate reason. The long and difficult agenda of the Security Council demonstrates that the ideal of prevention has not been achieved; it is still distant. Instruments of prevention must be refined and strengthened. But, most of all, we have to curtail the deficit of collective will that is still the fundamental problem we face in creating a culture of prevention.

That is why I wish to congratulate you, Mr. President, on convening this open meeting. Today's meeting will mark another positive event in what has been a very fruitful and competent Slovenian presidency of the Security Council. Your initiative of also inviting the broader United Nations membership to discuss the issue of the prevention of conflicts should also be commended.

In discussing the means to prevent armed conflict, we should be clear about what tools are available to the Security Council in this endeavour. The first one -- the one with uncontested legitimacy -- is diplomacy. Guided by the provisions of Chapter VI of the Charter, the Security Council is in a unique position to promote, through negotiation and persuasion, the ascendancy of reason where intolerance and misunderstanding prevail. Missions by Security Council members, on the model of that led by Ambassador Andjaba to Timor and to Indonesia, should also perhaps be a more common practice.

As a contribution to prevention, Article 99 of the Charter offers the Secretary-General a most valuable instrument for engaging the Council in preventive actions. And the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, is fulfilling his mandate with responsibility, courage and wisdom. The role played by his special representatives and by his missions of good offices is also to be underscored.

Preventive deployment, as occurred in Macedonia, and disarmament are equally useful means of prevention. We know well the destabilizing consequences of the illicit trafficking in and excessive accumulation of small arms.

We should not forget the need to reestablish a global atmosphere propitious to the exercise of preventive diplomacy. The strengthening of all disarmament treaties can be a decisive factor in that direction. The current paralysis in the global disarmament agenda should be overcome.

Conflicts are often caused by an abuse of power on the part of those in positions of authority. Justice is therefore very important for the maintenance of a climate of compliance with basic human values. The Tribunals for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia are having an impact as instruments of deterrence. We are hopeful that this positive impact will soon be greatly enhanced by the entry into force of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

In preventing conflicts, the United Nations can also have recourse to regional organizations and arrangements, on the basis of Chapter VIII of the Charter, which provides that no enforcement action shall be taken without the authorization of the Security Council. In this regard, we share the assessment of the Secretary-General that conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacemaking should not become an area of competition between the United Nations and regional organizations. Cooperation, not competition, is in the spirit of the Charter.

Brazil is of the view that the preventive action of the Council has to observe some basic principles in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, conflict-prevention measures have to be predicated on the consent of the Government or Governments concerned, with full respect for their sovereignty. Secondly, progressive engagement of the Security Council, in which preventive measures are adopted gradually, is always preferable. Thirdly, the Council should keep a sense of proportion between the situation it intends to address and the measures it considers applying. And finally, in the face of extreme situations the Security Council might be compelled to resort to enforcement measures based on Chapter VII. In those cases, everything must be done to preserve the authority of enforcement action taken in the name of prevention and to ensure that it is in conformity with the principles of international law.

The means at the disposal of the Security Council are vast and should be applied without selectivity, because universality is the most solid foundation of legitimacy in any United Nations activity. But Security Council measures are not the only means available for the prevention of conflict. Other United Nations bodies too have a responsibility with regard to conflict prevention.

There is no single formula for conflict prevention. Preventive action, thus, should be taken after an assessment of the specifics of each situation. If we are to develop an encompassing strategy, it will no doubt have to be based on a deep understanding of the multiple roots of conflict.

The Secretary-General reminded us today of his recent remarks to the staff of the World Bank:

"While war is the worst enemy of development, healthy and balanced development is the best form of ... conflict prevention". (supra)

Brazil fully shares the Secretary-General's perception.

Moreover, when prevention fails, the impact of conflicts has a negative effect on economic cooperation worldwide. Even regions not affected by conflict suffer from the lack of funding, since financial resources that should be devoted to development assistance are drained to conflicts. It is to be hoped that the conditions for a strong, concrete basis for a comprehensive, long-term conflict-prevention strategy will be created when the eradication of poverty is no longer a vague ideal but a common endeavour of the international community, and when respect for human rights becomes a universal concern in daily life in all countries of the world. Lack of development should never be used to justify the horrors and atrocities we have seen in recent conflicts.

We recognize that present conflicts should be dealt with using the instruments now available and that we cannot wait to take preventive action until all conditions are present.

The ideal of perpetual peace, devised by Kant, was founded on the universalization of republican ideals -- in today's words, the universalization of democracy. The realization that most of today's conflicts are internal, although with obvious international impact, creates room for a renewal and an update of Kant's concept of democracy as the key to peace. From that perspective, the establishment of democratic regimes is positive not only internally: it also carries its consequences beyond borders. More than ever, democracy is proving itself to be the most appropriate political model for a harmonious international order.

The presidential statement we are to adopt confirms that the Security Council is committed to developing a culture of prevention, which will take root when a simple idea once clearly expressed by Elie Wiesel becomes universally accepted: that the other is not my enemy.

The President

I thank the representative of Brazil for the kind words he addressed to me.

Mr. Essonghe (Gabon)

The importance of the subject that brings us here today -- already discussed in some depth by previous speakers -- is undeniable if we are to judge by the large number of delegations participating in this debate. I wish therefore to commend you, Mr. President, for having placed this item, "The role of the Security Council in the prevention of armed conflict", on the Council's programme of work.

That initiative is all the more timely as it enables the Council to discuss a subject that is crucial as we come to the close of the century and that has in recent years given rise to repeated criticism in times of conflict in various parts of the world, and particularly in Africa, with respect to the Council's interpretation of its primary Charter responsibility for the maintenance of peace.

That responsibility, of course, stems from the farsightedness of the authors of the San Francisco Charter, who were determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and who thus mandated the Organization with the purposes set out in Article 1. The first of these reads as follows:

"To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace".

If I refer frequently to the Charter, that is because it contains the guidelines for United Nations action to promote and maintain peace and security in the world, and conflict prevention constitutes the best assurance of avoiding a given situation's or tension's deteriorating into an armed conflict that would be difficult and costly to resolve.

We remain convinced that a good early warning system or mechanism would make it possible to detect advance signs of a threat to the peace and would offer a better opportunity for conducting preventive diplomatic action aimed at encouraging the parties to a dispute to turn to a negotiated solution rather than to an armed confrontation that might be difficult to control.

The use of peaceful means, in other words, dialogue or legal settlement, is strongly encouraged and enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which stipulates in its Article 33,

"The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements or other peaceful means of their own choice."

"The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means."

The Charter of the United Nations is therefore clear, not only in that it gives a mandate to the Council in the field of prevention of armed conflict, but also in that it indicates the steps to be taken to that end.

As the organ invested with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Council therefore has the power to help stop a dispute before it turns into an armed conflict. However, the difficulty in this task involves, in our view, two areas: the swiftness of preventive action and the firmness of a real commitment. As for the swiftness of intervention, it seems absolutely imperative that diplomatic action be initiated as soon as the signs of tension are detected. The success of the Council in preventive action therefore depends on how promptly missions of good offices or of mediation are established. Any delay in doing this will create an opportunity for a crisis to deteriorate into an armed conflict.

As for the Council's involvement in crisis settlement or the deployment of peacemaking or peacekeeping missions, criticism has focused on the relative degree of procrastination and slowness observed, depending on whether the situation in question is in Africa or in other regions. Several conflicts, in fact, might have been avoided if at the initial stage the Council had not dragged its feet. Today, if the preventive deployment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is cited as an example of preventive action by the Council, it is because a firm resolve was expressed and the influential members of the Council were eager to see the conflict resolved before it led to a regrettable situation.

This does not mean that the Council has not tried to erase the image of applying a double standard in terms of speed which it has done with more or less success. In fact, the Council has been able to show its growing interest in the field of prevention of armed conflict during the recent open debates and ministerial meetings on such subjects as the progress report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the recommendations contained in his April 1998 report on the causes of conflicts in Africa, post-conflict peace-building, small arms and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The statements made during those meetings clearly showed how great are the concerns of the international community over the rising tension in the world.

In this enormous task of conflict prevention, not only does the Council not hold a monopoly, but it would not be right for the Council to confront the task alone. The Member States of the Organization, the specialized agencies of the United Nations system, civil society, the development partners -- all these should be called upon to contribute to calming tensions that can erupt into armed conflict.

This is all the more true since Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, to which I referred earlier, speaks of "collective measures". We understand this to mean the combining of efforts among national administrations, individuals, regional or subregional organizations and so forth.

In this spirit of solidarity and coordination, the United Nations not only should strengthen and improve its own early warning mechanisms, it should also contribute further to the establishment and functioning of similar systems within regional organizations or arrangements. It is regrettable that some of these already existing systems are facing the thorny problem of obtaining sufficient financing for appropriate operations.

If there is another field that relates directly to prevention, it is certainly that of post-conflict peace-building. The tasks of demobilization and disarmament should receive special attention in order to reduce, if not eliminate, the risks of resumption of combat because of the presence of weapons, and above all of small arms. The question of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which are those most often used in conflicts, and especially internal conflicts, remains a major concern that must be faced by any post-conflict peace-building operation or any peacekeeping operation in the framework of a broadened mandate. This question was abundantly discussed in the debate on this subject held by the Council at the ministerial level last September.

However, it is important, and indeed vital, that the countries that produce and sell arms transcend their unbridled desire to make a profit at any cost. They must support the collective effort to eliminate and prevent armed conflict. Nations do not develop by force of arms, but rather by the financing of vital projects. It is in this context that we invite those States to contribute to the strengthening of arms embargoes. In this respect, we are gratified by the recent decisions taken by certain Governments and certain companies to break all links with rebel movements that sow insecurity in Africa.

It cannot be repeated often enough that preventing armed conflicts, most of which today are internal conflicts, means first and foremost eliminating the underlying causes, which are first of all economic, institutional and social. On these latter aspects, we should recognize that great advances have been made in the past decade in the regions most affected by armed conflict, most of which are developing regions.

In conclusion, while we recognize the importance of collective mobilization to prevent armed conflict,