Security Council meeting 4130

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Colombia, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Singapore and the Sudan, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In accordance 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

In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations, and in the absence of objection, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

I invite Mr. Kellenberger to take a seat at the Council table.

If I hear no objection I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation to the Permanent Observer of Switzerland to the United Nations to participate in the discussion without the right to vote.

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.

Members of the Council have before them the report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, document S/1999/957. Members of the Council also have before them a draft resolution prepared in the course of the Council's prior consultations, which will be issued as document S/2000/335.

If I may be allowed, before inviting the Secretary-General to speak, I will just acknowledge the very good attendance at today's meeting. I would in particular acknowledge the presence of 220 students from a model United Nations Assembly, many of whom are Canadians. We welcome these young United Nations delegates who are joining us at today's session, and we are glad to see you here.

I now call on the Secretary-General.

The Secretary-General

I am very pleased to join you today for this important debate dedicated to the protection of civilians in armed conflict. I wish to welcome the Foreign Minister of Canada and to express my appreciation for his commitment to making this issue a priority for the entire United Nations system. I also wish to welcome the new President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Mr. Jakob Kellenberger, to this meeting.

The first debate on civilians in armed conflict last year laid the groundwork for today's vital effort to transform our words of commitment into a better, safer reality for the most vulnerable of our world. I am pleased to say that both the Security Council and the General Assembly followed up last year's debate with concrete steps. The General Assembly has focused its efforts on strengthening legal protections: the adoption of a text by the working group on an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the expansion of efforts to strengthen and extend the Protocol to the 1994 Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The Security Council has also taken action to provide enhanced protection for civilians. These efforts have found most concrete expression in establishment of the peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone, East Timor and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The mandates of the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) and the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) made specific provision for the protection of civilians, and the mandates of UNAMSIL and the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) provided for support for the protection of children through the deployment of Child Protection Advisors.

The efforts within the Council and the General Assembly have been supported in a variety of ways by the Secretariat and United Nations agencies, as well as by non-governmental organizations, our valued partners. We have sought to strengthen the protection of internally displaced persons, most recently in February of this year, when my Representative on Internally Displaced Persons undertook a mission to Burundi to urge the Government to dismantle the regroupment camps.

Elsewhere in Africa, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is implementing programmes for prevention and response to sexual violence in Tanzania, Kenya, Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Working with representatives in the field, the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Health Organization and my Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict have negotiated "days of tranquility", making arrangements in Angola, East Timor, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka in order to permit immunization and vaccination campaigns.

My report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict contained a number of recommendations. Today, I wish to draw particular attention to three of them and urge the Council to give greater consideration to their implementation. Perhaps the most far-reaching of the recommendations related to the creation of a rapid deployment force. During the very same week that I urged this step, events in East Timor offered the clearest evidence of the need for such a capacity. In that case, thankfully, the Australian Government, supported by other Council members, stepped in to fill the vacuum.

Nevertheless, the crisis underscored the importance of having a more systematic rapid-reaction capacity in the United Nations. I urge the Council to support these efforts and to consider taking further steps towards this fundamental strengthening of the Organization's ability to protect civilians in armed conflict.

The second recommendation I wish to mention relates to cases where there has been sufficient warning of impending attacks or an escalation of conflict and where the Council has in some instances made use of preventive deployments.

In February this year, we successfully concluded such a mission in the Central African Republic. The positive impact of preventive measures continues to be proved also by the role of the United Nations Mission of Observers in Prevlaka as a stabilizing force in the Prevlaka peninsula. I welcome the Council's willingness to consider the future establishment of preventive missions, including the dispatch of monitors and fact-finding missions, when we know that they can truly make the difference between the peaceful settlement of disputes and violent conflict.

Where a conflict has already led to a mass exodus of a civilian population, a critical element in enhancing their protection lies in improving the security of the refugee camps. This was the focus of the third recommendation I wish to note today. Since the introduction of my report, UNHCR and others have taken a number of initiatives in relation to the security, civilian and humanitarian character of the camps and settlements. Such efforts have included the provision of material support to local security services in Kenya and Tanzania and an arrangement in the refugee camps in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia that enabled Swedish police officers to work in partnership with the local police.

Efforts have also been made to relocate a number of refugees away from borders in Albania, Guinea, Liberia, Chad, the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In Zambia, on the border to Angola, UNHCR cooperates closely with the International Organization for Migration and the World Food Programme to move refugees to other locations either through airlifts or by road.

In future conflict situations, it may be necessary to consider temporary security zones and safe corridors for the protection of civilians and I welcome the Council's readiness to consider the feasibility of such measures. However, I must emphasize that, in situations where the consent of the parties is not forthcoming, such security zones require the presence of a credible force.

This open debate of the Council bears vivid testimony to a growing recognition that our first duty in any conflict is to protect innocent civilians, who have no part in the fighting, who have nothing to gain from its persistence and who have no choice but to rely on the international community to help them in their most desperate hour of need. To answer their call is our most important obligation under the Charter, and it is my hope that this debate will give further impetus to our efforts to do so.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his very evident leadership on this very crucial issue.

At this meeting, the Security Council will hear a briefing by Mr. Jakob Kellenberger, President of the International Committee of the Red Cross, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Kellenberger (President of the International Committee of the Red Cross)

I thank you, Mr. President, for your invitation, which attests to the recognition of the role played by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in an area at the core of its concerns: the protection of civilian populations in armed conflict. It gives me particular pleasure to take the floor under your presidency, Sir, as you are a convincing promoter of the concept of human security -- a concept close to my heart.

The importance of taking the humanitarian dimension into account in maintaining international peace and security is now generally acknowledged. The open debate that took place in March at the initiative of the Bangladesh presidency is evidence of firm commitment to pursuing that course. That commitment should be translated into even more tangible measures.

The ICRC's action is rooted in international humanitarian law. As guardian of that body of law, the ICRC endeavours to ensure that it is respected by all parties involved in conflict, be they Governments or non-state entities. Through its presence in more than 80 countries, the ICRC establishes a dialogue with all actors in conflicts with a view to creating a relationship of trust, thereby securing the practical implementation of humanitarian law and making sure that we have access to all victims of armed conflicts in order to protect and assist them.

The protection of civilians is at the centre of that law. I would, however, like to point out in passing that humanitarian law also protects combatants, in particular those placed hors de combat: prisoners of war and sick or wounded members of the armed forces. For this protection to be effective, all States must ratify the humanitarian law instruments, such as the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, it is crucial that States adopt national implementation measures and give instruction in the law, especially to their armed forces. These various aspects of legal protection are vital and we are glad to see that they are mentioned in the Secretary-General's report.

Despite all the horrors that we witness and are often powerless to remedy, and despite the obvious limits to what is known as legal protection, we are convinced that humanitarian law is as relevant as ever. This was one of the conclusions of a major survey, entitled "People on War", carried out by the ICRC last year among the population of several countries, most of which had been affected by war. The survey strongly reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the distinction between civilians and combatants, the cardinal principle of humanitarian law.

In practice, however, that distinction is tending to become blurred. Indeed, civilians have become the primary victims and often the very object of war. Various reasons, mainly ethnic, religious, economic and social, are put forward to explain this phenomenon. Those causes are compounded by other factors, such as the emergence of paramilitary groups, whose members may have had no proper training and whose actions may be unpredictable, sometimes committing atrocities and becoming easy targets themselves. An equally worrying fact is that members of regular armed forces, if they are without resources because they have not received their pay, may resort to all sorts of excesses in order to survive.

The aim of humanitarian law is to protect the civilian population as a whole against attack, whether targeted or indiscriminate, and against acts of violence and abuse of all kinds. Humanitarian law also provides specific protection for certain categories of victims, such as women, children, internally displaced persons, refugees and persons reported missing. The work of the ICRC, therefore, cannot be limited to certain categories; it encompasses all victims, while taking into account their particular vulnerability.

Violations of humanitarian law perpetrated against civilians cause mass population movements. Millions of people are terrorized and forced to flee for their lives, or are driven from their homes and sometimes resettled against their will in camps or villages.

Today the ICRC affords protection and assistance -- often the two cannot be separated -- to some five million displaced persons. Africa is particularly severely affected. In Angola, the new upsurge in fighting has caused a mass exodus from rural areas into towns. The ICRC is providing aid in the form of food, medical assistance and agricultural rehabilitation for some 330,000 displaced persons and residents in the Huambo and Kuito areas.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the ICRC is supplying about 200,000 vulnerable people with food and other relief, not to mention the support given to the medical infrastructure, the ICRC's efforts to gain access to persons deprived of their freedom, and the distribution of safe water to hundreds of thousands of people.

In Colombia, where it has been working since 1969, the ICRC has set up, in cooperation with the Colombian Red Cross, an aid programme for displaced victims of the internal conflict. In 1999 the ICRC alone gave emergency assistance to some 170,000 displaced people.

To take one last example -- and I am mentioning only some of the most striking examples -- in Afghanistan, where it has 70 expatriate staff and over 1,000 national employees, the ICRC is assisting thousands of displaced families and families who have returned to their places of origin, and 23,000 more in Kabul where the head of the family is widowed or disabled. In addition, over 150,000 people receive medical care thanks to the programme of support for hospitals. Altogether, the ICRC provides full or partial support for more than 30 surgical units and runs five limb-fitting centres.

These needs are so enormous that they could never be covered by a single organization. The ICRC, concerned to achieve maximum efficiency, takes part in the examination and formulation of strategies designed to strengthen consultation and cooperation with other humanitarian actors, in particular the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations specialized agencies and others, so as to ensure complementary action and avoid duplication of work. This cooperation and coordination takes place laterally and on the operational level in the field.

The ICRC endeavours to promote harmonization of the approaches of the various humanitarian agencies. Since 1996 it has held four workshops on the protection of victims of armed conflict to help enhance the effectiveness of humanitarian and human rights organizations. The main thrust of this initiative is to clarify the concept of protection as understood by humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law. In regard to displaced persons, the ICRC has drawn attention to the untoward consequences that can result from the simple transposition of long-term solutions appropriate for refugees onto persons displaced within their own country. That being said, I remain convinced that cooperation and coordination between the different humanitarian actors can and must be improved. In this effort, the ICRC can be counted on to act in the interest of the victims without compromising its independence, neutrality or impartiality. These three principles have no merits on their own but are designed to allow us to do our job in the field as effectively as possible and also to have, through that presence, an adequate early warning capacity.

I should like now to say a few words about particularly vulnerable categories of persons.

As concerns women in war, the Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols afford women, as civilians, the same general protection as men. However, these instruments recognize the necessity of offering women specific protection because of their special needs. Despite these rules, women continue to suffer and, all too often, to be the targets of violence in armed conflicts. The parties to conflict are obliged to ensure the protection of, and respect for, women. It is high time for that protection to become a reality. Improving the protection of women and girls in times of armed conflict is a priority for the ICRC.

Indeed, this resolve has taken shape in a project entitled "Women affected by armed conflict". The ICRC is currently drawing up guidelines for its operational activities relating to protection and assistance for women in times of armed conflict. This commitment takes the form of a four-year programme covering, among other things, the dissemination of the rules of humanitarian law protecting women and the issue of sexual violence. The ICRC has also undertaken to make sure that all its activities take account of the needs of women and girls, on the basis of a study which is nearing completion. An intensive awareness-raising campaign is under way in the media. Before Beijing + 5, a film produced jointly with the BBC, a radio programme and a new brochure on women in war will be prepared and ready.

It is impossible to broach this matter without recalling Canada's special commitment to the issue and the role played by the Canadian Government and Red Cross Society during the twenty-seventh International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The plight of children in times of armed conflict has been a source of concern for the ICRC for many years. The Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols afford children general protection as members of the civilian population. There are also a large number of provisions affording them specific protection. All of our field operations comprise activities aimed at protecting children and at ensuring their health and safety. Examples of these activities are the identification and registration of unaccompanied children and follow-up of their cases, representations to secure the release of children held in detention, physical or psychosocial rehabilitation, and the restoration of family links.

The ICRC cooperates, and intends to continue to cooperate, in an effective manner with other agencies in the field and with Governments. The ICRC and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement will carry on working to improve the situation of children in times of conflict, in accordance with the Plan of Action adopted at the twenty-seventh International Conference.

I should now like to refer to missing persons. For families, one of the most tragic consequences of war is not knowing what has happened to loved ones. Apart from the mental suffering caused by this uncertainty, there can also be serious legal and economic implications. Tracing missing persons has always been at the heart of the ICRC's mandate, and in the aftermath of fighting, it is one of its priorities.

One practical way of ascertaining the fate of persons reported missing is to negotiate access to places of detention with the authorities concerned and to hand them lists drawn up on the basis of statements of the missing persons' families. In this task the ICRC is often aided by the national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, which are invaluable partners both within the country concerned and abroad.

Humanitarian law bears witness to the importance that States attach to the issue of missing persons, but the relevant rules have yet to be properly applied in all conflict situations. The ICRC commends the efforts made by the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo and after the Gulf War, but urges it to heed the plight of families in other contexts which may attract less attention from the media. Indeed, the ICRC suggests that the issue of persons unaccounted for, and its own role in that regard, be systematically included in peace accords. The ICRC is convinced that the incorporation of humanitarian issues, such as missing persons, prisoners of war and detainees, can strengthen post-conflict peace-consolidation efforts.

I shall now speak about the role of the Security Council. When you, Mr. President, invited me to speak before the Security Council today, you asked me to outline the ICRC's views on the progress made in the Council since its debate on the protection of civilians that took place last year. I will do so with modesty, which is advisable in general, but particularly so for a greenhorn. But I will do so gladly. I would like, first of all, to stress how much we appreciate the growing importance that the Security Council attaches to the protection of civilians in times of armed conflict. The mobilization of the international community on this issue inevitably hinges on the Security Council's awareness of its urgency.

The Secretary-General's excellent report and the numerous recommendations it contains also go to the heart of the matter and raise very pertinent questions. Furthermore, it is most encouraging that the Council is disposed to establish a monitoring mechanism and that the major humanitarian agencies are associated with this initiative, which guarantee that the debate will not remain a virtual one. Security Council resolutions contribute to creating a culture conducive to the prevention of violations and the cessation of impunity for the culprits. We cannot but welcome this trend. However, these appeals will rapidly become empty words unless they are accompanied by practical and concrete measures intended to improve protection of the physical integrity of individuals.

In his report to the Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, issued last September, the Secretary-General drew a clear distinction between recommended measures to strengthen physical protection and recommended measures to strengthen legal protection. I find this distinction useful and necessary, for we are all too aware of the limitations of legal protection alone. Speaking for a humanitarian organization that is present and active on a permanent basis in practically all situations of armed conflict, I would like to add in all modesty that this active presence and the will -- the strong will -- to maintain dialogue and contact with all parties to the conflict constitute an essential factor for protection in themselves.

The Secretary-General's recommendation that the Security Council consider the imposition of appropriate enforcement action in the face of massive and ongoing abuse was made in the context of a debate which became acutely pertinent following the action of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces in the Balkans. Here I would like to share with the members of the Council a concern of the ICRC which has to do very much with the weight of words. The term "humanitarian" has often been misused. We have heard talk of a "humanitarian war" or even of "coercive humanitarian countermeasures", to cite only a few of the expressions that create dangerous confusion as to the respective roles and responsibilities of political actors on the one hand and humanitarian organizations on the other.

The question here is not the validity of coercive action in extreme circumstances. Such action is often a last resort, necessary to protect the civilian population. Indeed, it may be essential in situations where there are large-scale and systematic violations of human rights and humanitarian law. The States parties to the 1949 Geneva Conventions have undertaken not only to respect, but also to ensure respect for, the rules set out in those Conventions.

Coercive measures, however, should be envisaged only in extreme cases. The Security Council has numerous other means at its disposal for enhancing the security of populations, ranging from preventive deployment to the dispatch of peacekeeping or peace-consolidation forces. The Council is to be commended for making provision, in the mandate of certain missions, for measures designed to protect civilians who are in immediate danger of physical violence. These innovative developments demonstrate the will to take concrete action.

In the ICRC's view, the important thing is to distinguish between political and military action aimed at addressing the causes of conflict and humanitarian action aimed at addressing its effects. The law governing the right to use force, or jus ad bellum, must therefore remain clearly distinct from humanitarian law automatically applicable in the event of military operations, or jus in bello. The legitimacy of the cause being defended can in no circumstances exempt a military operation from the obligations laid down in international humanitarian law.

We have noted, however, that peacekeeping operations are taking on an increasing number of humanitarian aspects. This trend entails certain dangers. In situations where peace is still fragile, United Nations troops may have to use force, which can create the impression that they are party to the conflict. This can cause them to be denied access to certain regions and thus to some of the victims. In general, the ICRC believes that coercive action, apart from affording protection for civilians, should create conditions that allow humanitarian agencies to operate, but without being associated with such action in any way. Being associated with coercive action would jeopardize the work of humanitarian organizations by undermining their credibility and their acceptance by the parties to the conflict. So it is the confusion between different modes of action that is causing us concern and appears dangerous. To each his own: the use of force is the domain of the military, and relief activities the domain of humanitarian agencies.

I would not like to conclude without saying a few words about the sanctions which have been at the centre of the Council's debates this week. The ICRC has always been concerned by the humanitarian consequences for the civilian population; therefore, it cannot but express its appreciation for the decision to establish a working group on that topic, notably with a view to fully taking into account humanitarian consequences.

It is essential to strengthen all aspects of complementary action if we are to bring about tangible improvement in the protection of civilians. In this regard, I feel that firm resolve on the part of the Security Council to take bold political decisions and create the conditions necessary for the humanitarian organizations to preserve their indispensable independence will guarantee effective implementation of our shared objectives.

The President

I would like to express to Mr. Kellenberger -- I am sure, on behalf of all members of the Council -- great admiration and appreciation for the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Mr. Scheffers (Netherlands)

After a thorough and lengthy process, we are close to a first wind-up of a very important debate on the topical issue of the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The time has indeed come for some concrete and coherent action.

In this connection, I would like to commend the Canadian presidency, and you personally, Minister Axworthy, for the preparation of this debate and, as a matter of fact, for the very capable handling by Canada of this whole issue. The Netherlands was more than happy to assist Canada in its efforts during the Netherlands' presidency last September. My delegation appreciates highly the valuable input -- including today -- by the Secretary-General and the former and the present President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. A week ago the Security Council had the opportunity to discuss this issue with three major humanitarian non-governmental organizations, which provided us with unique insight on how protection needs present themselves in the field.

As the representative of Portugal will make a statement on behalf of the European Union later in this debate, I will limit myself to four specific observations. Taking stock of what has been accomplished so far, I would like to recall some of the main points made by the Netherlands delegation in previous debates and to see where we are now.

The first and most prominent point deals with the full compliance with the rules and principles of international law, including human rights and international humanitarian law. Geneva should not be regarded as a distant cousin of the United Nations family residing in New York, but as an intrinsic part of it. The Geneva and Hague Conventions should always guide us when we are dealing with armed conflicts. They contain provisions for conflict prevention and conflict resolution and should therefore be fully used. In this connection, I would like to reiterate my delegation's earlier observations on the International Fact-Finding Commission. My delegation also believes that the Security Council should further enhance its cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

The perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be prosecuted and duly punished. I seize this opportunity to pay tribute once more to the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, which have clearly proved that we should not hesitate to bring to justice those who might have considered themselves immune. The early entry into force of the Statute establishing the International Criminal Court will further contribute to ending impunity and thus to the prevention of future war crimes. Although the issue of impunity is not dealt with in the draft resolution to be adopted, we believe it merits the full attention of the competent United Nations bodies.

My second point is respect for international law, including human rights law, which is essential for the prevention of armed conflict. As stated by the Secretary-General in his outstanding millennium report, gross and systematic violations of human rights offend every precept of our common humanity. He referred in particular to Rwanda and Srebrenica. In the face of grave and widespread violations of human rights, the Security Council cannot afford to stand by and watch. The Council has the duty to act on behalf of the international community and should therefore consider which role to play in stopping these violations and thus prevent a further aggravation of the conflict situation. Such violations may well lead to crises that could endanger world peace and security. The Commission on Human Rights has an important role in making sure that human rights standards are upheld. It is therefore of the utmost importance that such violations are brought to the attention of this Council.

Equally important, and this is my third point, is the necessity of full and unimpeded access for United Nations and humanitarian personnel to populations in need, including refugees and internally displaced persons. It is up to the countries where such people in need are to make sure that their humanitarian requirements, including their protection, are met. When these countries are not able to provide for such needs, they should welcome international support and support from non-governmental organizations. The Council should act and take appropriate steps when there is a denial of such access including the freedom to move to the areas concerned, as suggested in the draft resolution we are about to adopt. Under specific circumstances, this may comprise the use of all measures at the Council's disposal, such as the imposition of targeted sanctions.

My fourth and final point is that my delegation would like to emphasize how important the need is for United Nations or United Nations-mandated action to be adequate, comprehensive and integrated. Strategic frameworks, such as the one agreed for Afghanistan, are a powerful tool to ensure such an approach. By combining actions in the field of politics, human rights, humanitarian assistance, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, and development, a very similar approach was applied in the cases of East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone. The draft resolution before us contains a menu of relevant elements, which should be considered fully whenever United Nations mandates are being prepared. The Netherlands would especially like to encourage the Secretary-General to make full use of the prerogatives conferred on him by the United Nations Charter and to fully participate in the preparation of such mandates.

In conclusion, my delegation believes that the necessary prerequisites for adequate Security Council action have been well defined by the draft resolution, translating as much as possible the proposed recommendations into a framework for future action. It is up to the Council to take up the challenge and to ensure that the protection of civilians in armed conflict is part and parcel of its work.

Ms. Soderberg (United States)

To the Deputy Secretary-General and Foreign Minister Axworthy, we are delighted that you are here. I also understand we have some Model United Nations students in the gallery, so welcome -- I hope you are inspired today to follow us all.

This morning we are here to discuss a very difficult, but a very important topic, one that was at the forefront of the minds of the founders of the United Nations and of many other statesmen and political leaders before them. The United Nations founders set up this Organization "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", and to limit the human suffering and death that are the inevitable result of war. The Geneva Conventions stipulate that, at a minimum, civilians shall be treated humanely and not be murdered, tortured, mutilated, taken hostage, cruelly treated or made to face humiliating outrages against their dignity. This focus on the impact of war upon civilians has been at the heart of the United Nations since its beginning.

Unfortunately, ever since the founding of the United Nations and the conclusion of the Geneva Conventions, we have continued to see what the Secretary-General has termed a "civilianization of conflict" -- as conflicts increasingly involve actors who blithely disregard the fundamental protections afforded civilians under international humanitarian law and are indeed often ignorant of, or indifferent to, fundamental rules of armed conflict. The traditional tools of diplomacy are not always completely effective, but as members of the Security Council with a responsibility to maintain international peace and security, we must identify means to address the outrages being perpetrated against civilians.

All of us here in the Council face a dilemma. We are aware of, and wish to promote and uphold, the ideals that motivated the founders of the United Nations. However, as we all know, we are constrained by various political realities. Our job is to walk a fine line and find a balance between what is ideal and what is feasible. The Secretary-General's report now before us sets out more than three dozen recommendations for steps that can be taken by the Council, by Member States and by other organs in the United Nations system to do a better job of protecting civilians from falling victim to armed conflicts. In fact, in various situations we have already put into practice many of the steps the Secretary-General recommends. While we support the ideals and the general goal of his report, we believe that every specific situation of armed conflict must be dealt with individually, in its own context, and bearing in mind the global standards set by the applicable provisions of international humanitarian law.

The United States appreciates the opportunity to exchange ideas on this difficult topic during the long and painstaking negotiations that have resulted in the draft resolution we are to adopt today. We support this draft resolution and will work with the other members of the Council to implement its provisions as appropriate in different circumstances.

The best way to protect civilians, of course, is to prevent conflict before it erupts, and the Security Council acknowledged this when it discussed the matter last November. We recognize the importance of early warning and early preventive actions, and we also recognize the many serious risks civilians face during armed conflict: they are often subjected to armed attack, or rape, or abduction. Whether they have fled their homes or remained in an unstable area, whether they have crossed an international border to relative safety or sought refuge nearby, their lives or their basic human needs may be at risk. They may face danger from the indiscriminate and irresponsible use of landmines or the uncontrolled spread of small arms and light weapons carried by too many of their fellow citizens and, many times, by their fellow child citizens. Clandestine radio broadcasts inciting genocide add another evil dimension to an already dangerous situation. And camps for displaced persons and refugees, which should be a temporary haven, may be infiltrated by armed elements who then hold the most vulnerable among them hostage.

There is a variety of options that we can consider. At times, encouraging diplomatic talks between the parties may be the proper response. At other times, the Council may need to dispatch monitors or impose targeted sanctions or even deploy civilian police or peacekeeping troops. In other situations it may be appropriate to establish temporary humanitarian corridors or safe zones, or to choose an entirely different course of action altogether. Badly devised actions risk raising the dangers for the very people that we are seeking to help.

We also need to be sure that the United Nations personnel in the field are trained and equipped to get the job done right. Already, peacekeeping troops receive military training; civilian police receive training in patrolling and investigations; civilian administrators receive training in management techniques; and relief workers are trained in the logistics of delivering assistance. However, they also must be fully aware of the rules of international humanitarian law and of the special protection needs of the most vulnerable populations, including those of women, children and victims of disabling or communicable diseases. The United Nations has a role to play in helping make such training available, as do Member States. The United Nations also has a role in helping with the demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of former combatants, including child soldiers. But it cannot do these things alone. The host Governments must do their part. The World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme and other development agencies can also help make the transition from the initial phase of demobilization to the longer-term phase of reintegration into society.

In closing, I want to reiterate a point of paramount importance: civilians cannot be adequately protected by the international community alone. The authorities of the State in which armed conflict is occurring must cooperate with the international community and humanitarian organizations in ensuring access to the civilian population at risk, and by ensuring the safety and security of the United Nations and humanitarian personnel involved in operations designed to assist civilians. Each party to a conflict has an obligation under international law towards civilians, and each Government has a responsibility towards its citizens. Each Government must do all in its power to live up to the tenets of international law I referred to at the beginning of these remarks and to protect the civilians under its authority against threats to their lives, their dignity and their personal rights.

Mr. Levitte (France)

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

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 167: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">I would first like to ...new recommendations of the Secretary-General.</p>', 167, 168, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 168
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg010-bk01-pa01">I would first like to ...new recommendations of the Secretary-General.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 167