Security Council meeting 4312-Resu.1

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Indonesia, Israel and Nepal, 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

I propose, in the absence of objection, to extend an invitation under rule 39 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Kenzo Oshima, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

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

I give the floor to Mr. Oshima to respond to comments made and questions raised in the debate so far.

Mr. Oshima (Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs)

I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to make some brief remarks at this juncture in the Council's debate. Let me first state that I am deeply impressed by the importance that the Council has attached to the issue, and by its commitment to identifying practical steps to move from expressions of intent to real implementation. In particular, I note the emphasis that Council members have put on the need to integrate better measures aimed at enhancing the protection of civilians on the ground by ensuring that these are considered in the design and planing of peace operations. The development of a checklist, as mentioned by several delegations, seems a very practical and useful measure in that respect.

In the same context, I support the proposal made by the President of the Council and by other delegations on the establishment of a cross-cutting team of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) to ensure that issues related to the protection of civilians are adequately addressed in mandates of peace operations. As the focal point within the Secretariat for the protection of civilians, my Office, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, stands ready to assume a more active role in that respect. I urge the Council to support the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in fulfilling that important role.

In its reporting and daily activities, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs will seek to mainstream and give prominence to issues relating to the protection of civilians, and I will use the opportunity of my briefing on the humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for that purpose.

As many delegations have noted, the protection of civilians caught in armed conflicts lies at the core of the United Nations mandate and is the primary subject of the daily struggle of numerous humanitarian agencies and organizations in the field. Let me therefore briefly reiterate some of the most important points in that connection.

The primary responsibility for the protection of civilians rests with States and their Governments. International action can only be complementary and can never be a substitute for that responsibility. Armed groups have a direct responsibility under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and to refrain from attacks on them. Given the predominantly internal nature of today's armed conflicts, it is indispensable to engage in a structured humanitarian dialogue with armed groups, based on core humanitarian principles such as impartiality, and without legitimizing the claims of those groups. And finally, where conflicts develop a regional dimension due to massive cross-border movements of displaced populations, a regional approach to crisis is necessary. These, I note, are some of the main issues reflected in the Secretary-General's report (S/2001/331).

I would like to take this opportunity to respond briefly to some of the proposals of a practical nature made in this morning's debate, and to outline a number of practical steps that my Office and its humanitarian partners are undertaking or envisaging to improve the protection of civilians in practical terms. In that connection, I would like to call for the Council's active support for the implementation of those steps.

First, in order to develop better coordinated and more creative approaches to access negotiations, to which many delegations referred, the Secretary-General has requested the Inter-Agency Standing Committee to develop a manual of best practices and guidance for access negotiations and strategies. It will include benchmarks for the engagement and disengagement of aid agencies, demands for conditionality, clearance procedures, needs assessments, monitoring of the delivery of relief and assistance, and other principles. Drawing on past experience, my Office will take the lead in this matter, working closely with the members of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee. As a first step in that direction, a group of key agencies has already been formed; it will meet next month for an initial working-level session to be followed by the endorsement by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee of an appropriate mechanism for further efforts.

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee has been working on the issue of strengthening the safety and security of humanitarian personnel in the field. In that connection, I would like to mention also that non-governmental organizations are daily engaged in the work of humanitarian assistance; non-governmental organizations are indispensable partners of United Nations agencies in providing humanitarian relief assistance to vulnerable people. While their national and international staff, like United Nations personnel, are increasingly made the target of attack, the current security framework does not adequately address staff safety. Therefore, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee has formed a working group to strengthen collaboration between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations on this issue at the field level. As part of my regular updates on the protection of civilians, I stand ready also to update the Council on results and progress on these matters, as appropriate.

Secondly, effective coordination can significantly enhance the protection of civilians, as well as the provision of humanitarian assistance. To draw lessons from recent field experiences with a view to strengthening value-added features of coordination arrangements, my Office has commissioned a study on humanitarian coordination. The preliminary draft points to the need for early on-the-ground coordination among agencies, donors and other relevant actors.

I would also like to mention some other proposals that have been made concerning the practical implementation of the 54 recommendations of the report on this issue. I welcome the idea of an informal working group of the Council to facilitate a more interactive process between the Council and the Secretariat on the matter. As a first step, however, I would like to encourage the Council to design a clear road map for implementation of the recommendations, as suggested by the Ambassador of Norway. In this respect, my Office, OCHA, stands ready to work closely with the Council in elaborating a road map with clear time-lines aimed at identifying the respective roles of Member States, the Secretariat and other parts of the United Nations system and at categorizing and prioritizing recommendations for implementation by each entity. In my capacity as Emergency Relief Coordinator, I also stand ready to update the Council regularly on the progress made in this regard.

As for the next report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians, I was particularly struck by the intervention made by the Norwegian Ambassador. Such a follow-up report to the Council should focus primarily on progress made in implementing the recommendations. In this context, I would like to express my readiness to report, as has been suggested, within six months -- by October 2001 for example -- on progress made in elaborating the road map. The follow-up report could then be issued another 12 months later -- for example in October 2002 -- reflecting the action taken to implement the road map.

In conclusion, I would like to express once again my deep appreciation for the importance the Council attaches to the issue of the protection of civilians. It has proved a significant opportunity to give a voice to the tens of millions of victims who are suffering in silence in many parts of the world. The seriousness of today's debate so far has further contributed to drawing the necessary attention to the civilian victims and, furthermore, to the need to effect real progress in this very difficult area. Civilians in war need decisive and timely action by the Council in implementing the many pivotal recommendations contained in the Secretary-General's reports.

The President

I may well come back to the Under-Secretary-General or to his representative during the course of the discussion to pick up points from the debate as it is taken forward by non-members of the Council.

We now move to the speakers' list under rule 37, and I intend to get through the speakers' list today, however long it takes. I hope that people will leave room for later speakers.

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Canada, whom I invite to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Heinbecker (Canada)

Mr. President, thank you for organizing today's meeting. I also want to thank the Secretary-General and Ms. Fréchette for their excellent report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. I would also like to thank Mrs. Robinson for her very relevant comments on the work of the Council.

My remarks will focus on three themes, the first of which is the important progress achieved; the second, the protection of civilians and shared responsibility; and, thirdly, the Council's responsibility to see to it that its recommendations are implemented.

Mr. Heinbecker (Canada)

The Permanent Representative of Singapore was kind enough to refer to our initiative to put this issue on the Council's agenda. We did not do so lightly. I remember very well in the months of December and January 1999 receiving the advice of colleagues -- well-intended advice -- that this was the "big leagues", that it would be wise for new members of the Council not to take the initiative so early, that it would be a good idea to learn the ropes a bit before pressing ahead. The difficulty we had was the calendar. We had no choice; we had only two opportunities to put our views forward; and one of those opportunities had already come in February 1999. So we took our courage in our hands, and we did do it. One never knows what one can accomplish until one tries.

It is evident that the Council has made a lot of progress since that time. The safety of people has moved from the periphery of the Council's preoccupations towards the centre. The protection of civilians is now a routine element of Council discourse. That could not have been made more clear than in this morning's debate, when the need to mainstream the protection of civilians in the work of the Council and of the Secretariat was widely noted and with scarcely any reservations. This is an important step forward.

In the past, peacekeepers lacked explicit authority to prevent or stop violence against civilians within their areas of deployment. Recently, however, three peacekeeping missions -- in East Timor, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- have included provisions for civilian protection. Advisers on child protection and on gender have been integrated into missions, as have human rights officers. This is also progress. The Council now regularly calls on all parties to conflicts, State and non-State actors alike, to respect international human rights and humanitarian law. The Council also has evidence of willingness to take on the issue of impunity. Nothing will strengthen the Council's hand more than the widespread ratification of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Council has improved its sanctions instrument, including better targeting and streamlined humanitarian procedures. This amounts to the beginning of a culture of protection -- but only the beginning. There have been setbacks.

In particular, we regret that the revised concept of operations for the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) excludes the extension of protection to the civilian population. This exclusion was retained by the Security Council in its resolution 1341 (2001) of 22 February 2001. Obviously, MONUC's 1,900 armed personnel could not provide widespread protection for civilians in the Congo. Equally, it is clear that what one Ambassador referred to as "gaps" between ambition and capability should not be allowed to appear. But MONUC could have, and in our view, should have, been mandated under Chapter VII to take the necessary action "within its capabilities and areas of deployment" to afford protection to civilians under imminent threat of physical violence. All United Nations peacekeeping forces should be so mandated explicitly, and with the same caveats, where necessary.

The second theme I would like to stress today is that the protection of civilians is everyone's responsibility. We believe it is appropriate that this report of the Secretary-General go to the General Assembly as well. There is work there to be done. For example, the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations can also help to give effect to the Secretary-General's recommendations. Moreover, we endorse the Secretary-General's suggestion that the protection of civilians be addressed at the upcoming high-level consultations between the United Nations and regional organizations.

I would like to pick up on a point made by the Permanent Representative of Singapore when he referred to sovereignty and humanitarian intervention. People here will know that the Government of Canada, in cooperation with a number of foundations, has promoted work done by an international, independent commission to examine the issue of humanitarian intervention and State sovereignty. We are asking it to try to deal with those issues and to try to synthesize what are otherwise very difficult concepts to reconcile.

I recall that, in another time and place, Madam Brundtland and the World Commission on Environment and Development, as it was then called, did manage to synthesize two of what, up to that point, had seemed to be irreconcilable points: the necessity of economic growth, on the one hand, and the imperative of environmental protection, on the other. I do not think it is beyond the ingenuity of humanity to come up with a similar synthesis in this area. In our view, that would be based on the idea of the responsibility to protect people. That responsibility, obviously, begins with the host Governments of the countries concerned, but in extreme cases also extends to the international community.

Our third point is that existing resolutions and recommendations on the protection of civilians must be implemented. In his recommendations, the Secretary-General could not have been clearer in putting the ball in the Security Council's court. We encourage him to continue to keep this issue before the Council. We also encourage him to tell the Council, to paraphrase the Brahimi report, what it needs to hear and not what at times might be more convenient to say.

Resolution 1296 (2000) asked the Secretary-General to include observations related to the protection of civilians in his regular reports to the Council. This practice should be systematic and should go even further. It should also identify cases where particular recommendations for the protection of civilians should be acted on especially promptly. We want to see further reports on the protection of civilians in armed conflict not as ends in themselves, but as catalysts for continued action. In this regard, we support the recommendations on follow-up action put forward today by the Permanent Representative of Norway.

Whatever document emerges from today's debate -- and we agree with the President and the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom that it need not be another presidential statement or resolution -- should task the Secretary-General with producing the next report on protection of civilians in armed conflict as well. The Council must not allow itself to be distracted by urgent needs from implementing the Secretary-General's 54 recommendations. One way of not being distracted is to implement the annual audit idea put forward by the delegation of Singapore.

We are encouraged that the Secretary-General's report recognizes the positive role that the private sector can play. It also documents how corporate and non-State actors in conflicts can prolong and worsen war. We therefore support further study into the roles the private sector can play in conflict areas, including through conflict prevention activities such as early warning and, subsequent to conflicts, through post-conflict reconstruction. Ways of explicitly integrating private-sector activity into a broader protection-of-civilians strategy need to be developed.

I would like to conclude with a few words directed to members of the Council. The Secretary-General's report is an excellent one. The Council has the opportunity to make progress with it. Please do not let politics or the urgency of a particular crisis obscure these fundamentals: the world has changed; the nature of conflict has changed; civilians have become the principal victims; people need your protection; your implementing the Secretary-General's recommendations can go a long way towards giving them that protection.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Sweden. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Schori (Sweden)

I would like to extend my thanks for the statements made by Deputy Secretary-General Louise Fréchette, High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and Under-Secretary-General Oshima.

The countries enumerated in the full European Union statement, which is now being distributed, align themselves with that version.

The European Union welcomes the Secretary-General's report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, but regrets that, so far, only a few of the recommendations in the first report have been implemented.

The European Union strongly agrees that internationally recognized standards of protection can be upheld only when they are given the force of law and when violators are regularly and reliably brought to justice. National jurisdictions have a primary responsibility in this regard, and in some circumstances criminal proceedings can be effectively complemented by truth and reconciliation efforts. Nevertheless, crucial work is carried out by the ad hoc Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia; and the proposed special court for Sierra Leone and the serious-crimes panel in East Timor deserve our continuous attention. The European Union also calls on all States to sign and ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Under international law, displaced persons and other victims of conflict are entitled to international protection and assistance where this is not available from national authorities. Where Governments are prevented from reaching civilians, impartial actors must be allowed to carry out their humanitarian tasks.

The European Union supports the recommendation that the Security Council should conduct more frequent fact-finding missions to conflict areas. Such missions also serve an important preventive function.

The European Union would welcome a set of common ground rules that would facilitate access. When negotiating for access in a conflict situation of a non-international character it is vital not only to have direct negotiations with the Government concerned, but also to engage in a dialogue with armed groups involved in the armed conflict. That dialogue should aim at ensuring access, guaranteeing the security of humanitarian operations in a conflict area and disseminating information on international humanitarian law and human rights law to armed groups.

Governments as well as armed groups have responsibilities under international humanitarian law. All parties to a conflict of a non-international character are bound to comply with the customary rules in this field of law. The direct responsibility of armed groups under international humanitarian law should be emphasized by the Security Council. The European Union will further continue to support efforts to disseminate information on international humanitarian law and human rights law to armed groups.

Women and children are disproportionately represented among civilians affected by conflict. The European Union would like to emphasize the importance of the participation of women in peace operations and during negotiations of peace agreements.

The European Union fully supports the recommendation that the Security Council make provision for the regular integration in mission mandates of media-monitoring mechanisms. The European Union considers effective public information in peacekeeping operations and humanitarian operations important for their success.

The rising number of casualties among United Nations personnel and humanitarian personnel, both local and international, is a cause for profound concern. Attacks against United Nations civilian and military personnel cannot be tolerated.

In conclusion, the European Union believes that the Secretary-General has identified a comprehensive set of measures that, if implemented, could have a positive impact on civilians affected by armed conflict.

The President

I thank the representative of Sweden for his statement and for making an oral precis of the written statement, which will be circulated in full.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Japan. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Satoh (Japan)

Mr. President, I would like to express my appreciation to you for your initiative in arranging today's meeting on this important issue. As the comprehensive and well-argued second report of the Secretary-General stresses, it is our urgent common task to identify ways in which the international system can be strengthened to help meet the growing needs of civilians in war, and to act accordingly. Civilians have become the principal victims of conflicts in recent decades, and, indeed, it is in this context that we have to address this task.

This is a very difficult task, of course. But it is encouraging that the Security Council adopted its first resolution on this issue a year ago, in response to the first report of the Secretary-General.

We believe that each of the 14 recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his second report, which is before us, is crucially important in order to make tangible progress in coping with this difficult task. We therefore urge the Security Council to give those recommendations serious attention in its consideration of any action to follow up the previous resolution.

I would like to take this opportunity to underscore some salient issues before us.

First, ensuring the safe and unimpeded access of humanitarian personnel to civilian populations in need is a prerequisite for the provision of meaningful protection and assistance to civilians affected by conflict. I would like, therefore, to urge the Security Council to express a stronger-than-ever determination to pursue safe access for humanitarian operations using a combination of the ways suggested by the Secretary-General in his report.

Secondly, it is of the utmost importance to strengthen our efforts to ensure more broadly the safety and security of United Nations personnel, particularly humanitarian personnel, in the field. In this context, we are pleased to note that the Trust Fund for Security of United Nations Staff, to which Japan has contributed $2 million since 1999, has been used to provide training to enable such personnel to better protect themselves in the field. We hope that other Member States will make contributions to that Fund.

I would also like to point out that the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel contains a provision that could cover United Nations and associated personnel engaged in humanitarian operations. I would like to encourage the Security Council to invoke that provision whenever it deems it necessary.

Thirdly, the international community must redouble its efforts to provide appropriate protection and assistance to refugees and internally displaced persons. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is playing a vital role in easing the suffering of refugees in all parts of the world, and Japan pays high tribute to it for its efforts. At the same time, however, the international community must help ease the plight of internally displaced persons, whose numbers now exceed 20 million. Although the primary responsibility for protecting internally displaced persons lies with the authorities of the country in which they live, the international community must provide appropriate assistance to those who are suffering.

It is encouraging that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are being applied more frequently, but much greater efforts are needed to tackle this difficult problem. The importance of enhancing the operational capacity of the United Nations system and the need for it to take a more coordinated approach in addressing the plight of internally displaced persons cannot be overemphasized in this context.

Japan has consistently stressed the importance of focusing on the protection of the life and dignity of peoples as the international community addresses the broad spectrum of issues we face, ranging from poverty and environmental degradation to conflicts, and from terrorism to infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Needless to say, civilians in armed conflict are the most vulnerable in the context of human security. I would therefore like to conclude my statement by assuring you, Mr. President, that Japan is determined to make the utmost effort to enhance the level of protection given to them.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Argentina. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Cappagli (Argentina)

During its recent term in the Security Council, Argentina was actively involved in the development of a response to the serious crimes committed against civilian populations. As this issue is one of our main concerns, we thank the United Kingdom in particular for having convened this open meeting.

We wish to express our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his report and to thank Mrs. Louise Fréchette, Deputy Secretary-General, for her eloquent statement, and Mrs. Mary Robinson, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, for her excellent and encouraging statement. In addition, we wish to express our appreciation for the clarifications provided by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, Mr. Oshima.

The Secretary-General made 40 recommendations in his first report, to which we must add the 14 contained in his second report, which we are considering today. It is clear that we have now a large enough framework to lay the foundations for our work. Taking into account the guidelines given to us, we would like to focus our statement on four aspects that we deem to be crucial.

The first aspect is justice as a deterrent factor.

We agree with the Secretary-General's view that the protection of civilians in times of conflict must have a sound legal foundation. The deterrent capacity of justice is the primary key to the prevention of crimes against the civilian population.

A relatively adequate framework of judicial protection exists at the international level, but we must ensure its effective enforcement. In order not to thwart the work of the courts, we must take into account two factors: financing and the cooperation of States with those courts.

In addition to the regular budgets appropriated by the Organization, we urge donors to become aware of the role that their contributions, in cash or in kind, play in this area -- an area that is so very sensitive with respect to the prevention of conflicts. At the same time, States must cooperate fully to ensure that those suspected of having committed crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the courts are brought before those courts.

The second aspect is the safety of humanitarian personnel.

Turning to humanitarian access, the safety of personnel delivering humanitarian assistance is crucial to ensuring the protection of the civilian population. The design of peace missions should include, at the very least, personnel protection and safety, courses on safety before deployment, consideration of safety in the initial budget of each operation and the provision to missions of the necessary logistical support.

We should give humanitarian assistance personnel the same level of protection granted to United Nations and peacekeeping operations staff. The agreements on the status of forces and the status of mission must include measures based on the 1994 Convention. We suggest that analogous stipulations be included in the model agreements.

With respect to Security Council field missions, on the basis of our recent experience as a member of the Security Council, we encourage an increase in the practice of sending such missions to conflict areas as a tool that allows for a more fluid dialogue among all parties. One priority that must invariably be included in the mandates given to these missions is the capacity to negotiate humanitarian access, with sufficient security conditions, with the interested actors.

As to operating preconditions, the implementation of the Secretary-General's recommendations from the operational point of view requires, inter alia, that information collection and analysis capacity be strengthened in order to gain a clear picture of the situation when deciding to send a mission to the field; that mandates be established taking into account the reality of the conflict and that missions be given clear and consistent rules of engagement, taking especially into account the protection of civilians; that the capacity of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations be strengthened in order to optimize the design and planning of missions; that missions be provided with sufficient resources; that the provision of training courses on safety matters, including the participation of military personnel, civilian police and civilian personnel to be deployed in a peacekeeping mission, be increased; that the command and control functions in the area of operations be strengthened; that the functions of all interested actors be identified; and that a coordinating strategy avoiding the overlapping of work be outlined.

In the light of the statements we have heard, I wish to make a few additional comments. We will soon be holding a coordination meeting of the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council that will enhance the joint action of the bodies of the system. We must try to strengthen this practice. Similarly, we support coordination with regional organizations. We recognize the important contribution that can be made by non-governmental organizations and the media in the provision of information on the situation on the ground and we believe that it is important to continue to perfect it. Finally, we support Mrs. Robinson's proposal that the reports of human rights fact-finding missions be made available to the Security Council. We believe that this information should be taken duly into account by the Council.

In conclusion, we wish to reiterate our readiness to continue actively to work in support of all initiatives to ensure safety conditions for all the populations affected by conflicts.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of the Republic of Korea. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Lee (Republic of Korea)

Let me begin by thanking you, Sir, for your leadership during the month of April and for revisiting this important issue. I would also like to express my gratitude to the Secretary-General for his insightful report, which highlights many issues of critical importance for the protection of civilians in conflict situations. I found the report to be very timely, as civilians are increasingly becoming the targets in armed conflicts. I am of the view that the Secretary-General's paper has laid out a clear and practical course of action and can therefore serve as an excellent basis for further discussion.

Since the Republic of Korea introduced the issue of the protection of humanitarian assistance to refugees and others in conflict situations during its Security Council presidency in 1997, my delegation has been following the Council's subsequent measures with great interest. Last year, we were pleased to see the Security Council's adoption of three resolutions pertaining to this issue, including resolutions 1314 (2000) and 1325 (2000), which included specific provisions for the protection of women and children.

These measures clearly represent a growing recognition that widespread violations of the rights of civilians deserve the attention of the Security Council and that human security is intricately linked to international peace and security. However, as the Secretary-General has noted, the challenge remains to translate good intentions and recommendations into concrete action. It is our hope that this debate will generate further discussion on specific modes of action for protecting civilians and provide the impetus to carry out the recommendations outlined in the Secretary-General's report.

My delegation shares the Secretary-General's vision of a culture of protection in which Member States and armed groups adhere to the recognized rules of international humanitarian and human rights law and commit themselves unequivocally to the alleviation of armed conflicts. Implicit in this perspective is the idea that short-term prescriptive measures are not sufficient to ensure the protection of civilians in conflict situations. We must also develop long-term preventive strategies to foster international peace and security.

Allow me to comment on a few of the issues to which my delegation attaches particular importance.

First, the Secretary-General has rightly noted that international standards of protection can be upheld only if they are given the force of the law. For this reason, the Republic of Korea strongly advocates prosecuting violations of international humanitarian and human rights law and opposes granting amnesty to those who commit crimes against humanity. My delegation has been actively involved in United Nations efforts towards this end and supports the further development of legal instruments for the protection of civilians in conflict areas. In this regard, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda represent a step in the right direction.

Secondly, we believe that the idea of smart sanctions merits further elaboration. We recognize the challenges inherent in the development of targeted sanctions and emphasize that they must be tailored to particular regimes and have clear goals. Most importantly, any discussion of sanctions must include a thorough review of their humanitarian implications. In this regard, we strongly support the recommendation made by the Secretary-General in last year's report to establish a permanent technical review mechanism to ascertain the potential impact of sanctions on civilians.

Thirdly, I wish to emphasize that separating civilians from armed elements is crucial, not just for the safety of the individuals in the affected areas, but for the security and stability of the region as a whole. The mass movement of people from conflict areas to neighbouring States can destabilize entire regions and internationalize a conflict that was once local in nature. While bearing in mind that the primary responsibility for protection lies with the affected States, I would like to reaffirm the responsibility of Member States to protect and assist refugees and internally displaced persons when their home countries are unable or unwilling to do so.

Fourthly, we welcome the development of effective partnerships between the Security Council and non-governmental organizations, civil society and regional organizations. Regional organizations are often well informed about the local context of conflicts, and can therefore play a vital role in the protection of local civilian populations.

We are therefore pleased to note that the fourth high-level meeting between the United Nations and regional organizations, held in February, laid the groundwork for adopting a framework for enhanced cooperation in peace-building.

Finally, my delegation also advocates greater coordination and consultation among the Security Council, the General Assembly and other United Nations organs. In particular, we welcome the role that the Economic and Social Council can play in civilian protection, and we look forward to the meeting between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council on the 27th of this month.

There is a growing awareness that peacekeeping alone cannot solve all of the problems associated with conflict situations and that social and economic development may help nations avert conflict. Entities such as the Economic and Social Council address the root causes of conflict, which are often poverty-related, through the promotion of economic growth, poverty eradication, sustainable development, good governance and democracy. It is my hope that closer coordination among the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other United Nations organs, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, will enable us to better address the multifaceted challenges of civilian protection in armed conflict.

Let me conclude by reiterating my delegation's hope that the Security Council will continue to expand its involvement in the protection of civilians in conflict situations. In particular, we hope that special attention will be given to the protection of women, children and other vulnerable groups in armed conflict. We also advocate the adoption of specific measures for the protection of United Nations and humanitarian personnel. Our efforts to protect civilians in conflict areas will be futile unless United Nations and humanitarian personnel are granted safe access to these areas.

The Republic of Korea will continue to be actively involved in this process, and I hope that many of the measures we have discussed today will be promptly and successfully implemented.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Yemen. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Al-Ashtal (Yemen)

I should like to congratulate you, Mr. President, on the skilful and effective manner in which you are conducting the business of the Council. I should like to thank Ms. Fréchette, who introduced the report of the Secretary-General, Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Oshima for their statements.

I should also like to thank you, Mr. President, for opening the debate to participation by the representatives of non-members of the Council to express their views and to make comments on an important humanitarian issue -- the protection of civilians in armed conflict between or within States.

Despite the fact that the issue of the protection of civilians has been developing a clear and concrete humanitarian dimension for only one decade, it has acquired special significance because of the potential human tragedy and danger that it involves at the national, regional and international levels, and because of its impact on international peace and security.

In this context, we would like to express our appreciation to Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, for his sincere efforts to promote peace. We would like in particular to commend the valuable views, proposals and recommendations contained in the report before the Council on the protection of civilians with a view to overcoming the difficulties and ensuring the delivery of humanitarian supplies and assistance to civilians in times of civil war and armed conflict.

We fully support the content and thrust of the core recommendations contained in the report and hope that the Council will succeed in creating a concrete formula to implement all the recommendations so that bloodshed can be averted, property preserved and peace and security maintained.

The report of the Secretary-General examines the general situation prevailing in cases of conflict between States or between a State and armed groups in which civilians fall victim. The report also refers to conflict scenarios and humanitarian situations that make it imperative for Governments to intervene, or for the international community, as represented by this Council, to do so when Governments are unable or unwilling to carry out their duties.

The report does not, however, address another situation: that of a State in direct confrontation with unarmed civilians. This is exactly the case of the tragic situation prevailing in the occupied Palestinian territories. There, an armed conflict is being waged by one party -- the Israeli State, with its full military machinery -- against unarmed Palestinian civilians and their children, who are armed only with stones as a means of expressing their rejection of occupation and of the violence committed by the Israeli State.

What is striking -- indeed, baffling -- to us is that the acts of killing, demolition and siege, the levelling of homes, the destruction of grazing land and farmland, and all the attendant devastation and displacement of civilians, have not been adequately addressed in the Security Council. There has been no effort to put an end to the massacres that undermine the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people. The bitter irony is that all international norms and humanitarian laws -- including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols and other relevant international instruments -- apply fully to the Palestinian situation.

But the Security Council continues to be unable to shoulder its responsibility. We are concerned that, unless the situation is properly addressed, the crisis could spiral out of control and become a region-wide conflict posing a threat to international peace and security.

Public opinion in my country, Yemen -- indeed, in all Arab countries -- is closely following the scenes of massacre, destruction and displacement that are unfolding in Palestine. The public wonders why the Council has failed to fulfil its obligation to protect Palestinian civilians. Absent that role, and given the Council's failure to shoulder its responsibility, the conviction is growing among the public in our region that the Security Council's practice in this regard is a blend of double standards, selectivity and a lack of objectivity.

Let us now ask the question: will the Council take action to protect Palestinian civilians and to salvage the peace process, which is now all but dead? We await the Council's response.

The President

The next speaker is the Permanent Observer of Switzerland to the United Nations. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Staehelin (Switzerland)

I wish at the outset to thank you, Mr. President, and the other members of the Security Council for having organized this public debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. As depositary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional Protocols, Switzerland attaches particular importance to respect for international humanitarian law and to the protection of civilians. Switzerland has therefore been following the Council's deliberations on this item with great interest.

Switzerland welcomes the report of the Secretary-General (S/2001/331) before the Council today, and welcomes the Secretary-General's ongoing commitment to civilians in conflict. We are gratified at the report's objective of developing a culture of protection of civilians. Switzerland fully shares that objective, which -- given that civilian populations are the principal victims and often the actual targets of conflicts -- is intended to place the human being at the centre of international concerns and to ensure that protection heads the political agenda.

Some of the Secretary-General's recommendations for establishing that culture of protection seem to us to be of particular interest. Let me touch briefly on two of them.

First is the need for clear ground rules for negotiating access to vulnerable populations, including criteria for engagement and disengagement of humanitarian organizations. Indeed, the international community has often stressed that safe and unimpeded access to the victims of conflict is a sine qua non for the provision of the international assistance and protection that are provided for in international law. Moreover, it is well known that in today's internal conflicts access can be gained only after sometimes long and arduous negotiations. Here, Switzerland supports the Secretary-General's appeal for closer cooperation among humanitarian agencies, with full respect for their mandates and their independence, with a view to gaining access to distressed populations. Here we welcome the fact that the Inter-Agency Standing Committee has been requested to develop a manual for negotiators.

Another of the Secretary-General's recommendations is to develop constructive dialogue with non-State armed groups. Conflicts today are increasingly characterized by the growing role of armed groups, which are bearing responsibility with regard to civilian populations that is comparable to that of regular armed forces. Under article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, all parties to a conflict are obliged to respect minimum rules of conduct. Thus, all those parties, including non-State actors, must henceforth understand their true responsibilities. There must be an emphasis on greater dissemination of international humanitarian and human-rights law, and improved promotion of humanitarian principles. Switzerland believes that even politically sensitive contacts with armed groups should be guided by humanitarian imperatives and conducted with pragmatism. The formulation under United Nations auspices of basic standards for humane behaviour, combining the key norms that should be applied by all parties in all circumstances, could make a valuable contribution to the dialogue.

Switzerland appreciates the Secretary-General's inclusion as an annex to his report of a summary of the situation with regard to the implementation of the recommendations he made in September 1999. We note with satisfaction efforts to take better account of the humanitarian repercussions of sanctions regimes on civilian populations, and to promote targeted sanctions. Switzerland also takes note of progress with respect to arms embargoes when civilian populations are under threat, and to the safety and security of camps. While much remains to be done, my Government assures the Secretary-General of its gratitude and of its support for his praiseworthy commitment to civilian populations that are victims of armed conflict.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Jordan. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Al-Hussein (Jordan)

I wish at the outset to congratulate you most warmly, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of April. I am confident that the skill and the spirit of innovation with which you are guiding the work of the Council will ensure the success of today's debate. My thanks go also to Ambassador Kuchynski of Ukraine for the wisdom and ability with which he guided the work of the Council last month. I also thank you, Sir, for having made it possible for us to participate in this important debate.

Because of the grim reality facing millions of distressed civilians caught in situations of armed conflict, in desperate need of assistance and protection, the Security Council is duty-bound to take up a clear course of action guaranteeing the rights of all civilians, as spelled out in international law. The Secretary-General has submitted to the Council a second report (S/2001/331) on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, which is rich in analysis and comment and which places the responsibility to implement his recommendations on Governments and on the members of the Security Council -- where that responsibility rightly lies.

My delegation wishes to offer some observations on this subject. In the context of those reports, some measure of attention should be paid to the protection of civilians under foreign military occupation. After all, occupation is not imposed on a civilian population through human-kindness and good will, but through force of arms and violence -- and often for a long period of time.

We believe that this category of vulnerable civilian population must be covered by the rubric of our discussion. For our delegation, the suffering of the Palestinian civilian population in the occupied territories, which has continued for decades, is a clear case in point. This has been recognized by relevant Security Council resolutions, and here we have civilians who are legally protected by virtue of two realities -- that is, the Council's own determination in recognizing in its own resolutions the prosecution of a belligerent occupation, and the existence of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the occupying Power has, of course, acceded.

Mr. Al-Hussein (Jordan)

The second point is that while we support the Secretary-General's recommendation that we continue to develop a "culture of protection", we also urge greater precision -- not only because we use the word "culture" perhaps too often at the United Nations in referring to the requirement of a different mental orientation, as in a culture of peace, of prevention, of compliance, and so forth -- but also because the physical/legal boundary for "protection" is not always clearly defined; and not defining it, or employing the term "protection" too casually, as was the case in the United Nations Protection Force, is unwise.

In your very useful introductory note, Mr. President, you raise the question of what new capabilities are required in the United Nations system to ensure the recommendations are implemented. It is our belief that, above all other considerations, if we are to make an impact, a real impact, in the area of physical protection of civilians in armed conflict, particularly where it relates to peacekeeping operations, Council members should lead the rest of us by example. In the event the Council contemplates a peacekeeping mandate where the provision of physical protection to civilians is being considered, from which we will reasonably infer the mission to be dangerous, Council members themselves, and in particular the permanent members, should be first in line to offer their troops for service with the United Nations and not leave it up to the Secretary-General to scramble for contributors. All other points relating to enhancing capacities, while important, are, in the modest opinion of my delegation, of only subordinate significance to this one point.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of South Africa. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Kumalo (South Africa)

Mr. President, let me also join in commending you for convening this open debate. We also congratulate the Secretary-General on preparing an excellent report on the challenges faced by civilians caught in conflict.

It is critical for the Security Council to reassert itself in its mandated role of guaranteeing global peace and security. This will go a long way in restoring the credibility of the entire United Nations, particularly on the African continent. In our continent, we emphasize the importance of peace and security as prerequisites for development and prosperity. The Organization of African Unity long ago adopted a framework of action, in the form of a Declaration on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa. Other organizations or agencies, such as the Economic and Social Council, have critical roles to play as well. I must pause to say that we look forward to the meeting between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council later on this week. It is therefore important to have coordination between all relevant stakeholders in rebuilding peace and security. It is important for the Security Council to support these activities wherever they may be carried out.

In your guidelines sent to us, Mr. President, you raised important issues which my delegation would like to address. First, the Security Council should establish and appropriately support credible mechanisms of international law, such as ad hoc criminal tribunals. In this regard, the Special Court for Sierra Leone must be fully supported and adequately funded, like the Tribunals which were created to address the tragedies of Yugoslavia and Rwanda. We note the appeal by the Secretary-General for contributions for the Sierra Leone Special Court. However, it is disappointing to note that the Sierra Leone Court is to be funded by voluntary contributions. My delegation believes that the Security Council needs to revisit the decision on the funding of the Sierra Leone Special Court.

Secondly, the Security Council's failure, so far, to protect the Palestinian civilians caught in conflict in the occupied territories, including Jerusalem, remains an indictment against this body. The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War outlines the collective responsibility of the High Contracting Parties. It is incumbent upon the international community, including the Security Council, to undertake resolute action against States bearing responsibility for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

The Security Council can reflect its commitment to the establishment of a secure and peaceful environment for civilians caught in conflict through its peacekeeping mandates. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, the Security Council must make adequate provisions for disarmament, demobilization, reintegration, repatriation and resettlement. This is important for achieving a durable peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in the Great Lakes region as a whole.

In conclusion, the importance of conflict prevention cannot be over-emphasized. In our view, the protection of civilians begins with the prevention of conflict. In this regard, we welcome the efforts of the Secretary-General to promote a culture of prevention in the work of the United Nations. We agree that the time has come to replace the culture of impunity with a culture of accountability in the protection of civilians in armed conflicts. For durable peace in the twenty-first century, it is not enough for the Security Council to rely solely on peacekeeping.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Egypt. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Aboul Gheit (Egypt)

I have previously expressed in detail Egypt's views on the protection of civilians, in the statement made before the Council on 17 September 1999, when I talked about the different competencies of the Organization and the legal concepts on which we must base ourselves in dealing with the subject. I also dealt with the role that we feel the Council can play in some cases in which it can intervene. Therefore, I will not repeat my views on these questions.

We have taken note of the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We have also taken note of the paper distributed by the President of the Council in order to guide the debate in a practical direction. We have no real disagreement with most, if any, of the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report. Those recommendations are aimed at according due importance to the protection of civilians in armed conflict. In this regard, allow me to reiterate the importance of respecting the principle of a State's sovereignty over its territory and the need for the relevant actors in the international community to act in concert to tighten the noose around forces and elements that target civilians, whether those forces are regular or irregular.

Allow me now, in addition to everything I have just mentioned, to move from the theoretical to the practical. In this context, I would like to refer to the situation of the Palestinian people. The report of the Secretary-General contains not even a single reference to the situation of the Palestinian people. Our sole consolation in the absence of such a reference may be the legal view that the situation of the Palestinian people has to do with an occupation in which international conventions and agreements apply, the Fourth Geneva Convention being foremost among such agreements. Given that perspective, it follows that the situation of the Palestinian people differs from others in which a Power is engaged in armed conflict and in which there is some sort of balance between that Power and another Power.

The reality is that, in both its civilian and military aspects, occupation is the imposition by force of the will of one party on another. It is therefore only logical that such an occupation would represent the beginning of a cycle of violence in which the civilians under occupation are the second party. The violence resulting from such an occupation would of course be the responsibility of the occupying Power.

Given that scenario, I find it very difficult to see any real difference between what Palestinian civilians are suffering and what other civilians suffer in situations to which the Council gives special attention in an effort to render protection. As a matter of fact, the situation in the Palestinian territories is much worse than many other situations. The balance of power in the territories is completely uneven. Not only does the occupying Power utilize military weapons against Palestinian civilians, it also employs an economic blockade that deprives civilians of income and undertakes political assassinations, trials without evidence, the demolition of homes and razing of farms, and restrictions on civilian movement. It even uses military operations against purely peaceful civilian demonstrations. I do not think there is a single place in the entire world where civilians experience what Palestinians are now experiencing. The situation in the occupied Palestinian territories is, in fact, the sole case in which members and non-members of the Council have made repeated requests for the Council to take action to assume what we believe is its primary responsibility under the Charter, namely, to adopt measures to provide protection for Palestinian civilians under occupation.

What has the Council done? Since last November the Council has been at a standstill in the debate on this subject. In this debate we have heard flimsy arguments and wholly irrelevant politicking. Regrettably, we have heard only silence from many of those who are champions of human rights and who talk about the need to protect human rights and to adopt the doctrine of so-called humanitarian intervention in cases of severe violations taking place in a given region. We have also heard talk of human security and the responsibility of the international community to provide the elements and conditions for all to enjoy that security. Regrettably, the majority of those who talk about this either abstain in the voting on draft resolutions brought before this and other forums of the United Nations, or simply ignore many of the principles they advocate for political reasons totally outside the scope of the question.

An important legal point raised by some delegations during the debate on the Arab request to protect Palestinian civilians concerned the acceptance by an occupying force of the deployment of an international presence in the occupied territories. We detect an obvious confusion in those views and approaches, which we must now correct. The question of consent to the deployment of any personnel by the Organization to the territory of a Member State with a view to maintaining international peace and security, under Chapter VI of the Charter, is a condition that has to do with territory under the sovereignty of a given country. But a State occupying territory that is not under its legal jurisdiction cannot be said to have sovereignty over that territory, and there is therefore no requirement to seek the acceptance of that country in order to deploy troops on that territory. This is perfectly clear to us, and I hope it is now as clear to everyone else.

With regard to all the talk about so-called cooperation by the occupying Power, that is a different matter altogether. That cooperation is not a prerequisite to the adoption of a resolution by the Council. If the occupation force refuses to cooperate with the Council in the implementation of its resolution, then it is in violation of the Council's resolutions, thereby adding another resolution to the series of resolutions that have been violated by that Power -- a matter that should make it subject to international accountability.

The truth of the matter is that for the last six months the Council has failed to live up to Arab expectations and to the expectations of many Member States of the United Nations and the international community. It has failed in its mission to defend Palestinian civilians. It has failed to assume the responsibilities mandated to it by the general membership of the Organization. It has failed to understand the nature of what is asked of it. It has also failed to understand its role, both politically and with regard to security, in providing an appropriate climate conducive to restoring peace and security in the occupied Palestinian territories and to protecting Palestinian civilians. Consequently, it has up to now failed to fulfil its role.

Despite that continuing failure, we will not waver in demanding that the Council assume its responsibility. We have yet to find a single convincing reason why the Council should remain silent on the issue of the Palestinian civilians who are being subjected to acts of aggression. Those acts make it imperative that appropriate protection be provided to them. Will we be able to do this, or will the Security Council remain a useless organ as far as the protection of Palestinian civilians is concerned? That is the question we pose to the Council.

I should like in conclusion to express to you, Mr. President, our deep gratitude for having convened this open debate and for having given us the opportunity to address the Council on this issue.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of the United Arab Emirates. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Samhan (United Arab Emirates)

Allow me to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for this month and to wish you every success.

I wish also to thank the Secretary-General for his report, which contains invaluable information and recommendations that will help to protect civilians in armed conflicts. We would like also to express our appreciation for the efforts made by humanitarian agencies.

Despite treaties on international laws and human rights -- first and foremost the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- regional and international events have shown that military action brought about by conflicts, acts of aggression, ethnic and religious cleansing and occupation, in addition to the deterioration of the economic and social situation in many countries -- particularly the least developed ones -- has targeted civilians, particularly women and children and other vulnerable segments of society, namely refugees and displaced persons.

Immoral means are being used by executors of such military actions to achieve their inhumane goals. Statistics show that civilians represent more than 75 per cent of the victims of war. Millions of people -- particularly in regions of Africa, Asia and the Balkans -- are, on a daily basis, the victims of murder, acts of aggression, blockages, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement and the use of internationally prohibited weapons. This is a grave violation of international humanitarian law.

The United Arab Emirates wishes to express its grave concern at the fact that these violations are continuing on a regular and flagrant basis. Violations of human rights are being committed against women and children in many areas of tension and in the context of civil and regional wars. We wish to reiterate the need to deal with these problems on the basis of international obligations, ensuring that the belligerents respect the Charter of the United Nations, international law and human rights. In addition, it is urgent to provide civilians with medical, humanitarian and relief assistance. This should take place without any impediment whatsoever.

At the same time, we wish to reiterate the need to pursue efforts at the regional and international levels to address the causes of armed conflict in a radical and comprehensive manner. This will require the creation of a culture of peace and tolerance, the implementation of confidence-building measures, preventive diplomacy, post-conflict disarmament and peace-building among former combatants, and the establishment of the requisite economic and social environment. Moreover, those responsible for crimes against civilians must be called to account.

We welcome the recommendations made by the Secretary-General in his report aimed at improving the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We reiterate the need to deal with various aspects of this problem, inter alia, the assumption by the Security Council and Member States of their political and legal responsibilities, with a view to resolving existing conflicts without the use of double standards and on the basis of the sovereign equality of countries and peoples, as specified in the Charter of the United Nations. It is necessary also to respect the specific features of each individual conflict.

In an effort to maintain peace and security, the media must play a greater role in disseminating the truth about conflicts and mass violations of human rights.

In this context, we wish to express our profound concern about the ignorance and silence of the international community, represented by the Security Council, with respect to the suffering of the defenceless Palestinian civilians at the hands of the Israeli occupation, which is committing criminal acts, blockading and destroying homes and the economic and social infrastructures. Israeli forces are violating the rights of civilians and taking hostages, including children, who are thrown into Israeli prisons, in addition to building more illegal settlements. All of those practices on the part of Israel are incompatible with the most fundamental principles of human rights and international law.

It is for this reason that we appeal to the Security Council and to the States concerned to shoulder their historical responsibilities, through, inter alia, the implementation of the Council's resolutions and the urgent dispatch of observer forces. We also call upon the Israeli Government to abide by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

Lastly, we call for urgent action by the United Nations, in particular the Security Council, and by other regional and humanitarian organizations, to peacefully resolve these problems and situations of occupation, through, inter alia, recourse to the International Court of Justice, with a view to finding an international solution to such problems. This would make it possible to mitigate the dangers threatening civilians in conflict areas and would also ensure peace and security at the regional and international levels. This is what we all are seeking.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of India. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Sharma (India)

We welcome your initiative, Sir, in calling this meeting. Because of your wise injunction against prolixity, I shall address only the recommendations in the Secretary-General's report. On the supporting arguments, I will only say that we should be wary where we advance the indefensible to protect the defenceless.

Having visited this ground twice before in the Council, our tour can be a brisk one. Recommendation 1 asks the Security Council and the General Assembly to provide reliable, sufficient and sustained funding for ad hoc international tribunals and related bodies. This is odd. First, the Secretariat must know that funding is one of the few areas which the Council has not yet appropriated under its broad definition of security; secondly, the General Assembly has already taken on the costs of the two ad hoc Tribunals, splitting them equally between the regular and the peacekeeping budgets. What, then, remains to be done?

When the Secretariat asks for more, we should carefully weigh whether these Tribunals give value for the money they already have. This year, they will cost $182 million. As an order of comparison, the United Nations regular budget will spend $10 million this year on the International Court of Justice; $39 million under the budget line "Economic and social development in Africa"; and $21 million on the programme of technical cooperation.

Recommendation 2 reflects a continuing confusion over the nature and powers of peacekeeping. If a peace agreement has provided for amnesty, a peacekeeping operation sent to monitor its implementation cannot overturn any of its provisions and start hunting for suspects. That would violate the United Nations neutrality and its mandate. The United Nations can refuse to get involved if it believes an agreement is flawed, but cannot try to either correct or override it through a peacekeeping operation or through mandates drafted by this Council.

Recommendation 4 is hard to sustain under international law. The Security Council has been given no role in the implementation of the Geneva Conventions. The Conventions do not contain a right of unimpeded access. They acknowledge the exigencies of war. The right which the Secretariat demands violates international humanitarian law and the Security Council has no power to grant it. Apart from anything else, the denial of access need not and usually will not constitute a threat to international peace and security, the only trigger for Council action.

Recommendation 5 might very well appeal to the Council when New York is snowed in. However, though the Council has selflessly assumed many chores not given to it by the Charter, it should jib at being turned into a scout for the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Recommendation 6 seeks to draw general conclusions from exceptional experience; nor does experience encourage the general conclusion. The Secretariat asks the Council to further develop the concept of regional approaches to regional and subregional crises. In the past, the Council has often either sheltered behind regionalism to avoid having to take action or subcontracted its powers and abdicated its responsibilities to some regional organizations. These are concepts that should be abandoned, not developed.

Recommendation 7 encourages the Council to support the development of clear criteria and procedures for the identification and separation of armed elements from civilian refugees. Nothing in the supporting arguments gives us an inkling of what the Secretariat has in mind. To our perhaps simplistic way of thinking, a person with arms is an armed element and can be identified as such unless he or she has hidden the arms away. Separation is a different matter; it goes to the heart of the debate on the knotty question of post-conflict disarmament. The development of criteria, even if it can be done, is unlikely to help.

We note that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees have agreed to deploy joint assessment teams to an emerging crisis area. This surprises us. Refugee crises do not necessarily need a peacekeeping operation and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has no role where there is none. Departments should not overstep their mandates.

Recommendation 8 addresses a need but will not work if the past performance of the Secretariat is a guide. In all peacekeeping operations, the United Nations only interest is to cater to Western journalists and to a Western audience. The needs of the local population or of the peacekeeping operation are not only of marginal interest; they are prone to be sacrificed on the altar of this higher need. If this mindset does not change, this mandate is liable to be used much more in search of stories that will attract Western attention. The protection of civilians would be incidental.

Recommendation 9 is well-meaning, but it is clear that the problem has not been thought through. A dialogue can be held with armed elements that have become part of a peace agreement. If, however, there is no agreement, it is difficult to see how the United Nations as an institution would engage armed groups in a dialogue only on the provision of humanitarian assistance and protection.

Recommendation 10 is somewhat too romantic. It is hard to believe that the Revolutionary United Front would have stopped hacking off arms and legs in Sierra Leone or that the Taliban would have stopped shooting men for forgetting not to shave if they had known that these indulgences were banned in the Geneva Conventions.

As to recommendation 11, we hear the Security Council plans to take 15 members of the Economic and Social Council into a day-long embrace. The Secretariat wants the General Assembly to be represented, not even by a selection of its members, but by the President. Apart from the fact that the President of the General Assembly does not have the powers attributed to him here, where would he get the information from, on the basis of which he would, as the Secretariat urges, alert the Council to situations in which action might be required? The President would have this information and a mandate only if the Assembly had adopted a resolution on the issue urging action by the Council and authorizing the President to play a role.

Recommendation 12 urges the Security Council to continue investigating the linkages between illicit trade in natural resources and the conduct of war, and to take appropriate action. As with the international tribunals, it is perhaps time to take stock before the Council takes further action. For instance, the panel of experts for the Democratic Republic of the Congo has asked that the United Nations Forum on Forests define and lay down the parameters for what they describe as "conflict timber". If the assumption is that the trade in illicit natural resources is a cause of war or of the violation of the human rights of civilians, it is facile and perhaps misleading. If the Council made mandatory a marking and tracing system for small arms and light weapons, more innocent civilian lives would be saved than through the elaborate controls now being devised for the trade in minerals and natural resources.

Recommendation 13 is too broad in sweep for practical application. It is impossible either to predict that there will be massive violations of human rights in any given conflict or to anticipate what the instruments used will be. In effect, this recommendation implies a trade embargo being automatically imposed on all parties to a conflict, including on legitimate Governments resisting insurrections.

This being April, we are not surprised that annex II to the report mixes memory and desire, but I wonder if we needed to disinter the recommendations of 1999. The exhumation does not add much more of interest. Recapitulation 1 of annex II is on steps to strengthen the United Nations capacity to deploy peacekeeping operations. We support this, but believe a well-trained and properly equipped national brigade, committed under the Standby Arrangement System, would be much more effective than the multinational formation the Secretariat favours. The report fondly highlights the High Readiness Brigade, but in the one mission to which it has deployed so far, it needed two and a half months to get there; it may have been high, but it certainly was not ready.

With regard to recapitulation 6 of annex II, as I said to the Council in 1999, there is no indication here that the consent of a Member State is required before international military observers can be deployed. The implication is that, wherever internally displaced persons or refugees are to be found, the Council would automatically act under Chapter VII and order the deployment of international military observers, even over the objections of a Member State. Since observers would need protection, an international military presence must necessarily be set up at the same time. The implications of this do not have to be spelled out.

Recapitulation 9 of annex II gives its blessings to a Commission on humanitarian intervention set up by a Member State, no doubt with the best intentions. Elsewhere, attempts are made, on spuriously religious grounds, to try to sanctify terrorism as holy war, under a false doctrine of religious intervention. Just as we would not expect the Secretariat to bless those initiatives, we expect it not to act as a publicist for any other State or group of States, or to endorse national preferences.

To sum up, we do not know if the report has advanced the cause of the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Council has taken pragmatic steps in recent years to do what it can, through peacekeeping operations, where appropriate, and through other means within its competence, to try to give some protection to civilians affected by armed conflict. We encourage it to continue on that path in this vital and human responsibility.

In conclusion, I should like to say that, in your statement earlier today, Mr. President, you observed that the Council did not act on many of the recommendations in the Secretary-General's report of 1999, as they were outside the Council's mandate and competence or because of practical difficulties in implementing them. In making its recommendations in the future, the Secretariat will no doubt bear your wise counsel in mind.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine)

I congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for the current month. I express the hope that, during the remaining period of your presidency, the Council will carry out important work relating to our region.

I should also like to pay tribute to your predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Ukraine, for his work last month.

I should like to make my statement in English.

Mr. Al-Kidwa (Palestine)

We firmly share the belief that the protection of civilians in armed conflict is a matter of immense importance. The interest shown by the Security Council in this matter is appropriate and necessary, and we hope that it will continue until the protection of civilians in armed conflict is adequately ensured and taken seriously in all cases -- and, I would add, without the selectivity caused by political considerations that leads to inaction.

We appreciate the second report (S/2001/331) on this subject, of 30 March 2001, presented by the Secretary-General to the Security Council upon the request of the Council, just as we appreciated the report (S/1999/957) of 8 September 1999. Both are important documents. However, we reiterate our comments during discussion of the first report; we are perplexed that the two reports fail to make any mention of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territory, or of the grave and serious breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I and the Hague Regulations being committed by the occupying Power.

We agree with the report that the rising number of internal armed conflicts around the world is a phenomenon to which we must direct greater attention. Nevertheless, there can be no serious consideration of the subject of the protection of civilians in armed conflict, and no serious attempt to apply international humanitarian law, without necessary attention being given to the case of foreign occupation. This is practically the entire sense of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I.

With regard to the specific case of Palestine, the Secretariat should also have taken into consideration the longstanding dealings of the United Nations with the case, from the issue of the Palestine refugees to the ongoing Israeli occupation since 1967. In this regard, I refer to, inter alia, the many Security Council resolutions reaffirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the occupied Palestinian territory, including Jerusalem; the existence of several resolutions specifically dealing with the need to provide protection to Palestinian civilians; and, finally, the convening, for the first time in the history of the four Geneva Conventions, of a Conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention on the situation, in accordance with calls made at the tenth emergency special session of the General Assembly. In addition, significantly, the Statute of the International Criminal Court -- including a part on war crimes -- has now been concluded.

On the other hand, it is very difficult for the Council itself to assert credibility, or claim success, in dealing with the protection of civilians in armed conflict at a time when it has repeatedly failed to effectively respond to the need of Palestinian civilians for protection, including the dramatic and urgent increase in that need during the past several months, beginning on 28 September 2000. We, together with many States Members of the United Nations and the majority of Security Council members, have indeed been trying to achieve something in this regard, even in a gradual, initial form -- but to no avail.

In this regard, we would like to express our deep appreciation to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, the Special Rapporteur, and the commission of inquiry, for strongly underlining the need for a protection mechanism for Palestinian civilians in their recent reports -- although, mysteriously, in her statement today, the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not even mention the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory.

In his note regarding this debate, the President of the Council suggested that we remain focused on the subject matter and make suggestions. Our focus is clear. It can be summarized in one word: compliance -- compliance with the relevant instruments of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and compliance with the Security Council's own resolutions. I should like to add to that my earlier comments about the need to avoid selectivity, whether with regard to enforcing compliance or dealing with the matter as a whole. This includes ending what has become a culture of impunity in one specific case. Without this, we will be speaking honourable and strong words, but they will remain just that: words.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of Malaysia. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Hasmy (Malaysia)

My delegation congratulates you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the Council for this month, and pays tribute to your predecessor, Deputy Foreign Minister Volodymyr Yel'chenko of Ukraine, for his outstanding leadership of the Council last month.

The full text of my statement will be circulated, and I shall now read out an abridged version of it, in compliance with your guidelines, Sir.

The Secretary-General must be commended for both his first report on the subject (S/1999/957) and his latest report (S/2001/331), particularly for the clear analysis of the problem and the equally clear recommendations contained therein. He has painted a stark picture of the reality faced by millions of civilians around the world in situations of armed conflict -- people caught in the midst of war and in dire need of aid and protection -- and has outlined the measures that ought to be taken to address the problem.

The Secretary-General has made a total of 54 recommendations: 40 in his earlier report and 14 in his current report. While they may not be exhaustive, they are comprehensive in nature and, in the view of my delegation, are realistic and practical recommendations that merit the urgent attention of the Council. They touch on virtually all aspects of the problem and on immediate and practical steps that could be taken to ameliorate the plight of the most vulnerable groups, such as women and children. As my delegation has no serious difficulty in supporting many of those recommendations that fall within the competency of the Council, I shall not make substantive comments on them, beyond urging the Council to consider them with the seriousness they deserve, with a view to their early implementation. We look forward to the early establishment of a Council working group to follow up on these and other recommendations.

The protection of civilians in armed conflict should be all-encompassing. Such people should not only be assured of their physical security in situations of armed conflict, but should also be provided with legal protection under international law. It is essential to ensure that existing international instruments and conventions that provide a legal basis for the protection of civilians be observed by all parties concerned. The perpetrators of crimes against civilians in armed conflict, especially of those categorized as crimes against humanity, must be made accountable for their actions: they cannot hope to escape the full penalty of the law even after the conflict is over. In that regard, the work of the international criminal tribunals already established for these purposes is particularly important and should be strongly supported.

What is required is that all-important ingredient of success, namely political will on the part of members of the Council to effectively follow up on the issue and to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of civilians in conflict situations, and, in a broader context, to facilitate the resolution of these conflicts in a concerted, comprehensive and even-handed manner. The latter is particularly important, as the Council cannot afford to be selective in its approach. At the same time, a consensual approach in the Council is essential if these recommendations are to be effectively implemented.

Any meaningful discussion by the Council of protection of civilians in armed conflict cannot but also address the issue of the immediate protection of Palestinian civilians in the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem. The plight of civilians caught in conflict in the area, particularly Palestinian civilians, is germane to our discussion today. It is clear from the statement made just now by the Permanent Observer of Palestine, as well as from those of several other speakers such as the representatives of Egypt and of the United Arab Emirates, why that is so. The arguments are cogent and irrefutable, and my delegation fully associates itself with them.

While a number of the Secretary-General's recommendations, both in his first report and in his latest report, are applicable to the situation in the occupied Arab territories, I shall refer to only two of those recommendations. Recommendation 12 of his earlier report asked the Council to consider

"deployment in certain cases of a preventive peacekeeping operation, or of another preventive monitoring presence". (S/1999/957, para. 47)

Recommendation 40 (e) of the same report referred to

"The limited and proportionate use of force, with attention to repercussions upon civilian populations and the environment". (Ibid., para. 67)

We strongly believe that the presence of a United Nations or international force to monitor the situation on the ground would have been a tangible manifestation of the Council's concern about the protection of civilians in conflict situations. Indeed, such a presence would be an important confidence-building measure, which would contribute enormously to the search for a lasting solution. Malaysia would once again urge the Council to give serious consideration to the establishment and dispatch of such a force. Security for the civilian population in that area should be for all, not just for one group of people, and if the authorities of the occupying Power cannot or do not wish to provide protection, then it is incumbent upon the Council to do so.

My delegation commends you, Mr. President, for revisiting this important subject and looks forward to concrete follow-up actions to this debate in the form of practical steps or measures to ensure the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The many excellent recommendations by the Secretary-General and proposals by Member States must be seriously considered with a view to their early implementation. In that regard, the remarks of the Secretary-General are particularly pertinent when he observes that

"Reports and recommendations are no substitute for effective action. ... Progress in protecting civilians ... is measured in lives and livelihoods, and freedom from fear, rather than in statements of intent or expressions of concern". (S/2001/331, para. 67)

In taking up the challenge to move from generalities to concrete action, the Council should also take to heart what the Secretary-General remarks in his latest report:

"Unfortunately, the realities of distressed populations have not changed, and the majority of the important recommendations in that first report have yet to be put into practice". (Ibid., para. 2)

As part and parcel of a more focused and integrated approach, my delegation would particularly welcome the proposal to engage and involve regional organizations and other international actors, notably those dealing with the protection of, and providing humanitarian support for, civilians in armed conflict. Also, as part of increased coordination and the establishment of a focal point, the Policy, Advocacy and Information Division of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which I understand handles this issue, should be further strengthened. That unit should work in close coordination with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in the monitoring of conflict situations affecting civilian populations and in the implementation of measures to be approved by this Council. I am confident, Mr. President, that under your skilful stewardship an acceptable package of measures will be approved before you hand over the presidency to your successor.

The President

The next speaker is the representative of Pakistan. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. Ahmad (Pakistan)

I would like to express our appreciation to the Secretary-General for his second comprehensive report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict (S/2001/331). I hope that the Council's debate today will help create better awareness amongst Member States of the gravity and complexity of the problem, which needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

It is a matter of grave concern for us that violence against civilians in situations of armed conflict has reached alarming proportions and is directed in most cases against women, children and other vulnerable groups, resulting in the displacement of large masses of population. The excessively high proportion of civilian casualties in conflicts, as mentioned in the Secretary-General's report, and the distressing reality of tens of millions of refugees and internally displaced persons, indeed make for alarming statistics. I am sure that my good friend Under-Secretary-General Oshima is conscious of this bleak reality. Pakistan, which has carried the burden of Afghan refugees on its soil for more than two decades, is all too keenly aware of the plight of people forced to leave their homes. We therefore unequivocally condemn the targeting of civilians in armed conflicts.

Unfortunately, the targeting of civilians takes place in spite of the existence of internationally recognized legal principles which have evolved over the years to protect civilians, refugees and humanitarian personnel. It is our collective responsibility to ensure effective adherence to these principles of international law.

At the same time, it is also the obligation of the Security Council to take necessary measures to ensure the protection of civilians. But we have seen the Council fail so many times in meeting this obligation. Rwanda and Srebrenica are painful reminders of what the Council could have done but was unable to do. Again, its recent failure to protect Palestinian civilians reflects the paralysis that afflicts the Council. The deaths of valiant Pakistani and Belgian peacekeepers in Mogadishu and Kigali, respectively, testify to the unrealistic mandates which United Nations troops are often called upon to uphold, even at the cost of their own lives.

While the Council can be faulted for not doing enough, it can also be criticized for not doing anything at all. The glaring example is that of Kashmir, where 70,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives during the last 10 years alone at the hands of a repressive occupying force. At times, the Council's decisions have even had an adverse impact on civilian populations rather than protecting them. For example, Security Council resolution 1333 (2000) on Afghanistan has actually endangered the lives of civilians by exempting one party from the arms embargo and emboldening it to continue the conflict. While people die and flee their homes, the Security Council has put its search for peace in both these conflicts on the back burner. How can we talk of learning lessons from past tragedies when we have not even begun to consider the resolution of the "forgotten conflicts" in Kashmir and Afghanistan? All efforts aimed at protecting civilians will remain futile as long as the Council fails to address the root causes of conflicts.

The Council's attitude towards the tragedies in Kashmir and Afghanistan reflects an arbitrary approach, far removed from the principles and values for which this body stands. No amount of lofty rhetoric can hide the humanitarian agony in both cases. Ironically, in the case of Kashmir, this Council has closed its eyes to its own resolutions pledging the right of self-determination to the people of Kashmir. In the case of Afghanistan, the Council has shown indecent haste in adopting resolutions to enact sanctions against 26 million innocent people.

And the conflict continues -- in Kashmir because of deliberate inaction by this body, and in Afghanistan because of its precipitous actions. Both present tragic humanitarian scenarios -- in Kashmir as a result of brutal oppression by the occupying force, and in Afghanistan as a result of the cruelty of sanctions and a one-sided arms embargo, which have scuttled the Secretary-General's peace initiative through his Personal Representative, Mr. Francesc Vendrell, and displaced nearly a million Afghans. Hundreds of thousands of these displaced Afghans have crossed into Pakistan during the past four months, joining the 2.5 million of their compatriots already living there as refugees. In this humanitarian crisis, we are blamed if we help them, and we are blamed if we do not.

As we keep staging debates in this Chamber, the world outside stands sadly disillusioned. People are groping for the idealism and moralism that inspired the vision of the United Nations Charter. Unfortunately, armed conflicts continue to rage in all parts of the world, causing human misery and hardship, affecting millions of people, civilian people. Why can we not prevent armed conflicts in time? Why can we not help resolve disputes? Why can we not heal the wounds caused by these disputes? And why can the Security Council not fulfil its Charter obligations of maintaining international peace and security?

While the Secretary-General's report will be closely studied by my Government, I would like to give our preliminary comments on its recommendations, as well as some of our suggestions. First, we support the Secretary-General's recommendations for the Security Council to engage with parties and carry out fact-finding missions for providing humanitarian assistance and protection to vulnerable populations. In this connection, we are appreciative of the contribution that Under-Secretary-General Oshima has been making in evaluating and highlighting the seriousness and magnitude of humanitarian tragedies, whether caused by natural disasters or man-made. In this regard, we would encourage the Council to go a step further and actively engage the armed factions to seek a peaceful solution to a conflict. Peace is the ultimate and only guarantee of security to civilians in any armed conflict.

Secondly, the focus of the international community should be devoted to conflict prevention and dispute resolution, as stipulated in Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter, so that conflicts which result in the targeting of civilians are not allowed to take place in the first instance. Root causes of conflicts must therefore be addressed.

Thirdly, the United Nations capacity to respond effectively to conflict situations should be strengthened, irrespective of geographic location, in order to provide protection to civilians.

Fourthly, we would like to see the Council actively, but objectively, involve itself in reviewing the humanitarian impact of its decisions, especially with regard to sanctions. I must say that there are no smart sanctions, nor targeted sanctions, only unjust sanctions. The Council must eschew adopting resolutions that only suit the self-serving interests of a few Powers.

Fifthly, when mandating the protection of civilians in peacekeeping operations, the Security Council should also provide peacekeepers with adequate resources and means to perform the task.

Pakistan is prepared, as always, to play its part in promoting international peace and security, whether in United Nations peacekeeping operations or in conflict prevention and dispute resolution in our region.

We reiterate here our commitment to the restoration of durable peace in Afghanistan through dialogue and conciliation, and to a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with Security Council resolutions and the aspirations of the people of Kashmir.

In conclusion, I wish to refer to the Secretary-General's desire to work towards a culture of protection, and to his earlier call for the creation of a climate of compliance with the existing rules and principles. While, admittedly, the primary responsibility for the protection of civilians in armed conflict rests with Governments, it is also incumbent on the Security Council to fulfil its own obligations, as guarantor of international peace and security, to provide protection to all civilians in armed conflict. Only this will prevent the recurrence of human tragedies that we continue to witness to this day.

The President

The next speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of New Zealand. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr. MacKay (New Zealand)

I also wish to thank you, Mr. President, for scheduling this open debate on this important subject.

Like others, I also would like to commend the Canadian delegation for bringing forward the question of the protection of civilians during its recent term on the Council. It is now important that this item remain on the Security Council's agenda and that it be addressed regularly. The two reports presented by the Secretary-General, in September 1999 and March this year, have contributed greatly to our understanding of its many dimensions.

As we commented a year ago in the Council's debate on this topic, in practical terms a great deal depends on the ability of the Council to take speedy and effective action to restore peace and security when civilians are being targeted. We said then that the Council's response in the case of East Timor set a new benchmark in that regard. With more than 18 months' experience of the East Timor operation now behind us, that continues to be our view.

I want today just to pick up on three points in the Secretary-General's report. As to the first point, I would thoroughly endorse the Secretary-General's emphasis on a need for a regional, rather than a country-specific, focus in dealing with situations where civilians are being targeted, because the spillover effects, including through refugee flows, can be highly destabilizing beyond national borders. This is true in the South Pacific as it is elsewhere.

In the South Pacific we have, with our partners, responded to conflicts that have taken many civilian lives by establishing regionally based peace-monitoring operations, as in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea, and Solomon Islands. The United Nations role in helping to backstop such arrangements, as for example through its Political Office on Bougainville, is very much appreciated.

We consider the Secretary-General's recommendation that the Council establish more regular cooperation with regional organizations and arrangements to be highly pertinent for the reasons he puts forward, and we believe that it should be taken up.

As to my second point, the Secretary-General has described the indispensable role of United Nations personnel and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in providing humanitarian relief and assistance to vulnerable people. He notes that the Inter-Agency Standing Committee is looking at strengthening cooperation on issues of staff security between the United Nations and NGOs at the field level; Mr. Oshima also referred to this earlier this afternoon. Indeed, one of the recurring concerns in the Secretary-General's report is the threat faced by United Nations personnel and other humanitarian personnel when they are trying to assist civilians in situations of armed conflict. As the Secretary-General points out, the death or injury of such personnel is a tragedy both for the individuals directly concerned and for the civilians they are trying to protect, as it may lead to assistance being reduced or withdrawn.

This is not a new issue, and there was an open debate and a presidential statement specifically on this subject in the Council in February last year. At that time the Council encouraged all States to become party to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel of 1994. It is revealing that since that debate and that call by the Council just over a year ago, the number of States parties has almost doubled, with an additional 22 parties since that time, including some members of the Council. Calls by the Council do have an impact. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of United Nations members remain outside the Convention, again, including some members of the Council. In our view, a useful practical step that the Council could take would be to repeat its earlier call for adherence to the Convention, which plays such an important role in the protection of civilians.

There are other practical steps that can be taken as well. One is for the Council to ensure, in resolutions establishing operations, that they are covered by the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Not all operations are covered -- and, indeed, there are some recent examples of operations that have not been covered -- but it is possible for the Council to ensure through its resolutions that they are covered. Nor are humanitarian personnel generally covered. But, again, they can be so long as the United Nations or a specialized agency enters into an agreement with the organization concerned. In our view, that should become standard practice. I would also note that our colleagues from Japan and Argentina, speaking in the debate before me, referred to action that should be taken in respect of the Convention, and we agree.

Finally, in this respect I would note the Secretary-General's comment that political and legal instruments available for the protection of civilians in armed conflict are in urgent need of updating. In our view, the Convention on the Protection of United Nations and Associated Personnel is one such instrument. A number of the delegations that spoke in the Council on this subject just over a year ago made the same comment, particularly in relation to the scope of the Convention. The debate in the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly later this year will provide a timely opportunity to review the Convention.

The third and final point I wish to take up is the Secretary-General's comment that children are especially vulnerable to the harm that conflict causes. He is right to highlight this concern. New Zealand welcomed the child soldiers Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and also, as a practical measure, the appointment of Child Protection Advisers to United Nations peacekeeping missions in Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We believe that, as a practical step, the appointment of Child Protection Advisers should be a standard feature of all United Nations peace operations.

The President

The next speaker on my list is the representative of Bahrain. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to make his statement.