Security Council meeting 5781

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Angola, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Colombia, Guatemala, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Senegal, Switzerland and Viet Nam, in which they request to be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite those representatives to participate in the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

The President

In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator.

It is so decided.

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

There being no objection, it is so decided.

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

Members of the Council have before them document S/2007/643, which contains the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

I welcome the participation of the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon, at this meeting and invite him to take the floor.

The Secretary-General

Let me begin by expressing my gratitude to you, Mr. President, for chairing this important debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

Today is a fitting day for such a meeting. On this day in 1945, the trial of the major war criminals began at Nuremberg. The Nuremberg trials had a profound influence on the development of international law. They had an important bearing on the notion of individual criminal responsibility for atrocities committed against civilians in armed conflict. They underlined that, even in war, certain acts are unacceptable, and they reflected the world's conviction that civilians are entitled to protection.

Sixty-two years later, civilians continue to pay a dreadful toll in today's conflicts -- in the Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In those and other conflicts, large numbers of civilians -- women, girls, boys and men -- suffer unimaginable violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. As I state in my report now before the Council (S/2007/643), some victims are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others are deliberately targeted and subjected to appalling human rights abuses, in an environment of almost total impunity. Deliberate attacks against civilians are often employed as an instrument of warfare. That is why the protection of civilians is, and must remain, an absolute priority -- for me as Secretary-General, for the United Nations, for the Security Council and, above all, for Member States, with whom rests the primary responsibility for protecting civilians.

There has been some progress in recent years towards strengthening the protection of civilians. We see increased levels of humanitarian action and more regular inclusion of protection activities in peacekeeping mandates. Greater attention is also being placed on humanitarian issues during mediation processes, and ultimately and on preventing disputes from degenerating into violence in the first place, so as to spare civilians from the horrors of war. Around the world, we see increased momentum towards combating impunity for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

At the World Summit in 2005, all the world's Governments agreed in principle to the responsibility to protect. I will work with Member States and civil society to translate that concept from word to deed to ensure timely action when populations face genocide, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity.

The Council has taken a number of important steps, including the adoption, last year, of resolution 1674 (2006), on the protection of civilians. The resolution establishes an important framework for action. Here, too, we must now work together to translate that text into real action. In my report, I have tried to show ways in which that may be done. The Emergency Relief Coordinator will elaborate on those recommendations in greater detail. However, allow me to mention one of the proposals: the establishment of a Security Council working group on the protection of civilians.

I believe that the establishment of such a group is an important next step, perhaps even an inevitable next step, in the evolution of the Council's consideration of the protection of civilians. It would underline the Council's commitment to this cause. It would give practical meaning to the Council's commitment. It would ensure more timely and systematic consideration of the protection of civilians in the Council's deliberations. It would assist the Council to move decisively towards practical implementation. That ultimately is where the Council's words must have the most meaning: on the ground, in support of the affected civilians who need protection from the shocking indignities of armed conflict.

The plight of children in armed conflict is particularly disturbing. Eighteen years ago today, the General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Eleven years later, it adopted the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Yet these instruments have yet to be translated into reality. Every year, thousands of children are killed or wounded as a direct result of fighting, and the number of child soldiers around the world is estimated at 250,000.

We saw progress in 2005 when the Security Council adopted resolution 1612 (2005), which established the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflict. Thanks to the resolution's monitoring and reporting mechanism, the Council is now in a much better position to take effective measures against perpetrators of grave violations of the rights of children in armed conflict.

Another vital tool is the work of my Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy. By carrying out field visits and consulting actively with the concerned parties, she helps ensure that they fulfil their child protection responsibilities. My Special Representative, in collaboration with the entire United Nations system, also works to support the demobilization of child combatants and their reintegration into their communities.

The Council has mandated peacekeeping operations to assist with the protection of civilians within the limits of their capabilities and areas of deployment. It is critical that peacekeeping operations be empowered with the resources and political support they need to implement their mandates. I see Darfur as a test case, where all concerned must collectively meet the challenges of deploying an effective mission and achieving a peace agreement.

We must also ensure safe, timely and unhindered humanitarian access to those in need, wherever required. Access is the fundamental prerequisite for humanitarian action and protection. For millions of vulnerable people caught in conflict, being accessible to humanitarian workers is often their only hope and means of survival. I would like to emphasize the importance of regular reporting to the Council by the Emergency Relief Coordinator on humanitarian access concerns. I believe that that is critical.

Also critical is the need for concerted action in response to particularly grave situations. The Council must act to ensure that those in need of lifesaving assistance receive it and that those who provide it do so in a secure environment. Attacks against humanitarian workers should never be tolerated. I trust that the Council will have a fruitful debate on this vital issue, which is key to achieving sustainable peace around the world.

The President

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement.

At this meeting, we will hear a briefing by Mr. John Holmes, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator. I now give the floor to Mr. Holmes.

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

I am grateful for this opportunity to brief the Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict and, more specifically, on the report of the Secretary-General (S/2007/643) before the Council today. I believe the specific recommendations for action in the report will be critical to more systematic consideration by the Council of protection of civilian concerns and the implementation of the Council's landmark resolution 1674 (2006).

A leap of imagination is not always easy to make, sitting in this warm and comfortable Chamber, but let us remember the essential background. Throughout the world's conflict zones, people live under almost constant threat of being attacked in their homes, of having their lives, or those of their families, wrecked as they travel to work or to school, to visit the market or to worship. They risk random killing, violence and abduction, harassment and discrimination. They risk being forced to take up arms, sometimes even against their own families and communities, in the most brutal ways. They risk torture, rape and abuse. They risk, above all, being forced from their homes and their land, forced into a downward spiral of opportunities lost forever, lasting dependency and destitution in temporary and inadequate shelters that often become urban slums.

A case in point is the growing toll on civilians in Somalia from fighting between insurgent groups and Ethiopian and Government forces. I urge all parties to the conflict to refrain from indiscriminate attacks affecting civilians. And I call on the Council to remind all forces of their responsibilities under international humanitarian law. Reports of civilian suffering in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia, as a result of fighting between the Ethiopian forces and the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) rebels, are also of increasing concern.

Likewise, in a different but similarly worrying context, the situation in the occupied Palestinian territory, particularly in Gaza, is reaching the limits of what is bearable for any community. The combination of access restrictions even for humanitarian deliveries, economic deprivation, Israeli military incursions and aerial attacks and intra-Palestinian violence is driving the civilian population into a situation where the risk of provoking even more violence and tragedy is only too evident.

And in Darfur, too, the humanitarian issues grow ever more worrying, as the violence increases once again, resulting in yet more deaths, more displacement and more relocations of humanitarian personnel.

These are three situations of particular current concern. But, as reported to the Council before, civilians are also frequently the victims of attacks in places like Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Such attacks are often aimed deliberately at instilling fear, destabilizing civilian populations and forcing displacement. Suicide attacks are a particularly disturbing manifestation of that, given their often intentionally indiscriminate nature. This was demonstrated with chilling effect earlier this month when a suicide bombing in the northern Afghanistan province of Baghlan led to the deaths of scores of civilians, including many schoolchildren.

Incidentally, let me take this opportunity to correct a misleading impression given by one sentence in paragraph 22 of the report, which was intended to say that suicide attacks are a feature in an increasing number of countries, mentioning Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Somalia, but which could be read as suggesting, incorrectly, that suicide attacks are increasing in each of those countries, including Israel, which is not the case.

Targeting civilians shows blatant contempt for the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including its basic tenets: the principles of distinction and proportionality. It also often presents Member States with the daunting challenge of how to respond to such violence, particularly when perpetrated by non-State armed groups, whose members are often difficult if not impossible to identify. What is clear, however, is that any military response must itself comply with international humanitarian law as well as show respect for the human and cultural dignity of those already exposed to insurgent attacks.

Previous reports on the protection of civilians as well as the Council's aide-memoire (S/PRST/2002/6, annex), have outlined a broad range of concerns and proposed actions. Unfortunately, as the nature of conflict evolves, so do the issues of protection. The present report makes a number of proposals with regard to compliance with international humanitarian law in situations of asymmetric warfare, the use of cluster munitions and accountability. But I would like to focus my remarks today on four of the actions presented in the report: on combating sexual violence; on ensuring rapid and unimpeded access; a more systematic and proactive action to address housing, land and property issues; and the establishment of a Security Council working group on the protection of civilians.

First, there is an unequivocal need for more concerted and innovative action to prevent and respond to sexual violence in armed conflict. The report contains a number of recommendations to this end addressed to Member States, with whom the primary responsibility lies for preventing and addressing sexual violence. But combating sexual violence, and the impunity on which it thrives, requires a rethink of how we use the tools at the disposal of the international community and, in particular, the Security Council.

We need, for instance, to look at referring situations of grave incidents of rape and other forms of sexual violence to the International Criminal Court (ICC). In addition, or as an alternative, we may even need to look at imposing targeted sanctions against States or non-State armed groups that flagrantly perpetrate or support such crimes. I fully appreciate that the latter, in particular, would be a complex undertaking. However, complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction in the face of these appalling crimes.

Also, as recommended in the report, in situations where local justice mechanisms are overwhelmed, the Council should look for creative ways to support States to hold the perpetrators of sexual violence accountable, for example, through the establishment of special ad hoc judicial arrangements.

This would, I believe, be a particularly important step in relation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As I noted in my briefing to the Council following my mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in September, to do justice to the women of that country, we cannot be satisfied with just treating the wounds inflicted by sexual violence; we have to find better ways to stop it. The Council should send a clear message of deterrence by treating serious acts of sexual violence for what they are -- war crimes and crimes against humanity that should no longer be tolerated.

The second action is access -- an essential, if not the most essential element of our efforts to provide assistance and protection. The Council has on several occasions underlined the need for all relevant parties, including non-State actors and neighbouring States, to cooperate fully with the United Nations in providing safe, timely and unimpeded access to civilians in armed conflict. Yet as the report brings out, constraints on access are many, varied and, in a number of places, the rule rather than the exception. The result is millions of people excluded from access to life-saving assistance and the minimal protection provided by the mere presence of humanitarian workers. Constraints on access should have consequences for those that impose them and not just for those who suffer from them.

Alarmingly, in a number of the countries referred to in the report, already critical situations have deteriorated still further. In Somalia, for example, fighting in Mogadishu has led to an increase in the number of internally displaced to an alarming one million people, while thousands of others are trapped in their homes, unable to reach safety, let alone assistance.

In the meantime, humanitarian agencies are increasingly treated with suspicion by the parties to the conflict and their activities impeded. A recent example of this was the forcible detention of the head of the World Food Programme (WFP) by the Somali National Security Service in October.

Elsewhere, the expulsions earlier this month of the Humanitarian Coordinator in Myanmar and the head of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in South Darfur, impede our efforts to provide assistance and protection in already difficult circumstances. Of particular concern is the fact that security incidents involving humanitarian staff continue to mount and to undermine our ability to provide life-saving assistance. The Secretary-General's report on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel notes that between July 2006 and June 2007 there were 507 violent attacks directed against United Nations personnel, 442 incidents of harassment and intimidation, 534 cases of robberies, 232 physical assaults, 126 cases of hijacking and 273 reported cases of arrest and detention by State and non-State actors. Those figures do not include similar attacks and incidents involving the staff of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who are often present in greater numbers and more places than United Nations personnel.

During a similar period, attacks, for example, against United Nations and NGO staff in Darfur, increased by 150 per cent. Only last month, seven humanitarian workers were killed; ten vehicles were hijacked and seven convoys were ambushed. In Afghanistan, the WFP has suffered unprecedented attacks on its food aid convoys in the past 11 months. More than 30 incidents involving WFP trucks have been reported this year, against five in 2006.

As requested by the Council, OCHA is developing a monitoring and reporting mechanism to facilitate more in-depth analysis of the causes and consequences of access constraints. This analysis will be annexed to future reports on the protection of civilians and included in my regular briefings to the Council. Such analysis will provide an important opportunity for action in response to particularly grave situations. It will also produce an expectation of action by the Council. And, in my view, justifiably so.

To overcome some of the less obvious obstacles to access, we need to give serious consideration to the development of a standard moratorium on immigration and customs requirements for humanitarian workers and supplies. But in particularly grave cases, the Council should consider concerted advocacy and negotiation with warring parties for the establishment of "deconflicting" arrangements, for example, high-level diplomacy to promote humanitarian corridors or days of tranquillity where these can make a real contribution. Last but not least, the Council should hold situation-specific debates on access and even, where appropriate, consider referring grave instances of denial of access, as well as situations involving attacks against humanitarian workers, to the International Criminal Court. Denying access exacerbates malnutrition and disease, increases civilian deaths and prolongs human suffering. There should be no impunity for those responsible.

Thirdly, there is the critical need to address more effectively, and much earlier on, housing, land and property issues, often at the origins of conflict and almost always a result of conflict, as people leave or are forced from their homes and their land. The resolution of such issues is inevitably linked to the achievement and consolidation of lasting peace and the prevention of future violence. In Darfur for example, after four years of conflict and continuing displacement, reaching common agreement on land tenure and compensation for the loss of property has emerged as a key element of a sustainable peace.

Recording loss of land, homes, or property, upholding rights and entitlements, reinforcing the right to return as a means of demonstrating our non-acceptance of ethnic cleansing or sectarian violence, and mediating disputes in areas of return -- all these should become standard measures, even while conflict continues. This means ensuring that mechanisms are in place at the national level to address such issues. And it means equipping peacekeeping missions with the mandate, tools and expertise required to promote and support these national efforts.

Finally, whereas the first years of establishing the protection of civilians on the Council's agenda were dedicated mostly to raising awareness of the issues and then to developing possible tools, we have now reached a critical new phase in our collective efforts to implement resolution 1674 (2006). Establishing a Council working group on the protection of civilians, as suggested in the Secretary-General's report, would mark this new phase. I am not suggesting the establishment of a heavy reporting mechanism similar to the Working Group on Children and Armed Conflicts. Rather, we would like to see a regular forum for timely consultation on protection of civilians' concerns between the Council in its entirety and OCHA and other relevant departments.

We believe this would help ensure a more consistent application of the aide-memoire and other protection of civilians concerns in the Council's deliberations, for example on the establishment or renewal of peacekeeping mandates and other relevant missions, the development of draft resolutions, and presidential statements.

I realize that these are all significant proposals for the Council and its working methods and require further deliberation.

Fundamental to the protection of civilians is the resolution of the conflicts which cause their suffering. The United Nations in all its aspects certainly needs to do more to that end, but beyond that, the systematic implementation of resolution 1674 (2006) and the measures contained in an updated Council aide-memoire on the protection of civilians would show real commitment to the millions of victims. That would send a message whose impact would reverberate around all the conflicts that civilians face throughout the world.

The President

In accordance with the understanding reached among Council members, I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than five minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate their texts in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber.

I shall now give the floor to the members of the Council.

Mr. Verbeke (Belgium)

I wish at the outset to thank the Secretary-General for his report and statement, and Under-Secretary-General John Holmes for his very relevant comments on the subject of our debate today.

Belgium aligns itself with the statement to be made by our Portuguese colleague on behalf of the European Union.

The protection of civilians in armed conflict is a key element of international humanitarian law. The sixth report on the protection of civilians submitted by the Secretary-General reveals the extent of the challenge before us and in that context suggests a series of actions that warrant not only thorough discussion on the part of the Council, but also a strengthened follow-up by the Security Council.

At the United Nations World Summit in the autumn of 2005, we all acknowledged and accepted the principle of the responsibility to protect, which the Secretary-General has just recalled in all of its importance. As we all know, the principle reaffirms States' obligation to protect their own population against such grave crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. If States refuse to accept that responsibility or are unable to fulfil it, it falls to the international community. In that context, the Security Council must assume its role and ensure the implementation of the principles agreed by all Member States.

In that respect, we are pleased by the special attention that the Secretary-General has devoted to that problem, as demonstrated in his recent appointment of Mr. Francis Deng. Belgium hopes that the pending issues related to his mandate will soon be resolved.

I will focus my statement on a few dimensions of the situation under discussion today: the question of humanitarian access, the scourge of sexual violence as a weapon of war, and the matter of cluster munitions.

In conflict zones, access to the people affected is not always guaranteed. Such access is a prerequisite to any humanitarian action, as are the safety of humanitarian and United Nations personnel on the ground. The nature of the obstacles differs from conflict to conflict. In that regard, the speedy identification of those obstacles is critical, as it can help to save lives. We must therefore consider how best to further involve the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

Last month, during the Security Council's open debate on strengthening the implementation of resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security, we noted the growing scourge of sexual violence, in particular in situations of armed conflict. The situation that prevails, inter alia, in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is most disturbing, as confirmed by the Secretary-General's report. It is not only the extent of the phenomenon that is shocking, but also the barbarity of such actions and the methods employed. That practice is particularly repugnant when used as a weapon of war.

It is clear that the convening of a Security Council debate is not enough to end that scourge. The Council must pay more systematic attention to the phenomenon and address it head on. In that context, Belgium welcomes the efforts made by the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and by the recent creation of an internal task force devoted to issues of sexual violence against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

More generally, it is crucial to recall and to stress, as does resolution 1674 (2006), States' responsibility to end impunity and to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other flagrant violations of international humanitarian law. We have several instruments at our disposal, including the International Criminal Court and mechanisms of transitional justice. In the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an important contribution to that goal could be made by the mapping exercise currently being carried out by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights with respect to serious human rights violations committed from 1993 to 2003.

The use of cluster munitions wreaks unacceptable harm on civilian populations, even after a ceasefire or the cessation of hostilities is declared. Belgium is therefore working for the adoption, following an open and inclusive process, of a legally-binding instrument to ban cluster munitions. Such an instrument, we feel, should entail commitments with respect to the destruction of stockpiles, provide for assistance to victims and include provisions on international cooperation.

To that end, on 30 October, we hosted in Brussels a European Regional Conference on Cluster Munitions. The principle statements and the conclusions of the rapporteurs highlighted positive developments in the positions that were expressed, identified certain areas of agreement, and stressed something that I feel to be just as important: specific issues to be addressed with a view to the negotiation of a future treaty. The international momentum of which the Brussels conference was part will, of course, continue in the context of the Oslo process.

In conclusion, Belgium believes that the humanitarian dimension of a conflict should be better integrated into the Council's work. We therefore support any effort to provide more systematic consideration of the protection of civilians in armed conflict by the Security Council.

Mr. Churkin (Russia)

We are grateful to the Secretary-General for preparing his very thorough report. We share his concern over the high number of refugees and internally displaced persons throughout the world.

According to the report, poor leadership is in evidence in Iraq. Known events in that country have created more than 2 million refugees and 2.2 million internally displaced persons. Their problems must be resolved as soon as possible. In addition to the strictly humanitarian dimension, they loom as an onerous burden on neighbouring countries. The scope of internal displacement from Darfur -- some 240,000 people -- is also a cause for serious alarm. Prospects for improvement in the situation will depend above all on the peace talks and the deployment of the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur.

The responsibility to protect civilians falls first and foremost to the Governments of States in conflict. We believe that such responsibility should also be borne in mind by non-State actors. We condemn the actions of armed groups, in particular the use of suicide bombers and the practice of hostage-taking. Civilians should not be deliberately attacked or killed by the indiscriminate or excessive use of force, which is also a violation of international humanitarian law.

The Secretary-General rightly notes the alarming trends towards the erosion of principles related to distinction and proportionality. In this respect, in particular, we support his call for the multinational forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to include concrete information in their quarterly reports to the Council on actions to protect civilian populations.

We are becoming more and more concerned about the activity of private security companies which often flagrantly violate the rights of civilian populations. One thinks especially of the conduct of such companies in Iraq, with the wounding and death of civilians, including children and women. We would expect the facts of the suffering of children to be reflected in the UNICEF note submitted to the Council's Working Group on Children and Armed Conflicts. We emphasize the requirement that the staff of these types of companies should comply scrupulously with the norms of international law, both as they apply to times of the armed conflict and as they apply to human rights. We would especially note that, in cases that are unclear from the standpoint of current international law, responsibility for the actions of these organizations should be borne by the States hiring them; or, alternatively, one could consider the staff of such security firms as mercenaries.

Like the Secretary-General, we welcome the initiative of the Government of Switzerland and the International Committee of the Red Cross to consider questions at the intergovernmental level on the use of private military and security firms in the context of compliance with international humanitarian law. We note the Secretary-General's balanced treatment of the concept of responsibility to protect as the responsibility of each State for the protection of individuals in their jurisdiction from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It is the job of the United Nations and of the Security Council to support these national efforts.

However, here it would be premature to talk about the functions of the so-called Special Representative on the Prevention of Genocide and Mass Atrocities, whose mandate is not yet agreed with the Security Council. In our view, the Secretary-General should provide the Council with clarifications and specific proposals on the broadening of the Special Representative's mandate. This would help us to clarify what exactly is meant by the term "mass atrocities" and how the new mandate would interface with the work of other agencies in the United Nations system.

We should study the Secretary-General's proposed actions on the conduct of hostilities, on prevention of sexual violence, humanitarian access and property rights. Consideration of such measures should, of course, be non-selective from the standpoint of the conflict situations involved.

With respect to Action five in the Secretary-General's report, namely, to create a Security Council working group on the protection of civilians, the advisability of this very bureaucratized action step gives us strong reservations. Not more than a month ago, a similar proposal was introduced in the Council's thematic discussion on women, peace and security -- which raises the question of how many working groups the Council needs to create, bearing in mind that in the Secretary-General's report individual chapters are also assigned to the elderly, persons with disabilities, journalists and many other subjects for so-called thematic discussions.

Instead of establishing new bureaucratic structures and discussions, the United Nations should expeditiously and effectively react to instances of violence against civilians and the destruction of civilian sites during armed conflict. It is important to strive for scrupulous compliance by all parties with the norms of international humanitarian law and the relevant decisions of the Security Council. The most direct way to resolve all problems is through the responsible conduct of all States.

Mr. Liu Zhenmin (China)

The Chinese delegation wishes to welcome Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to our meeting and thank him for his statement. We would like to express our thanks to Under-Secretary-General Holmes for his briefing and our appreciation for all his efforts and the large amount of work he has carried out in the field since he took office about a year ago. We also commend the relevant United Nations bodies for their work in the humanitarian field over the years.

The protection of civilians in armed conflict has been a classic item for the United Nations since the Organization's founding. The international community has established for this purpose a comparatively complete international humanitarian legal framework, with comprehensive provisions contained in the relevant international legal instruments, including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the two Additional Protocols of 1977. The Security Council has been considering this issue for nearly a decade and has adopted numerous resolutions and presidential statements. All the aforementioned has provided guidance for the practical work in the protection of civilians in armed conflict.

However, with the change of the characters of conflicts and the emergence of new factors, and as a result of the interlinkage of complex historical, political, territorial, religious and resource-related issues, we are still witnessing the sad situation in which large numbers of civilians are affected, harmed and devastated by armed conflict. We strongly urge parties to conflicts to abide strictly by international humanitarian law and the relevant Security Council resolutions and to fulfil their corresponding obligations to protect the lives, property and legitimate interests of civilians.

In order to improve the work in the protection of civilians in armed conflict, it is necessary to enhance international cooperation and to give full play to the role of international bodies, the Government concerned and humanitarian bodies. There is need to emphasize protection and humanitarian relief and to ensure compliance with international law, as well as to pay attention to conflict prevention. I wish to emphasize the following points.

First, the Security Council should continue to fulfil its primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, and play its unique role in the protection of civilians. It is necessary to intensify efforts in preventing and resolving conflicts and in peacebuilding, so as to provide a secure environment for civilians -- which is, in the end, the most effective protection. This requires cooperation between the Security Council and other relevant United Nations bodies and only when the Council functions within its spheres of competence can it play its proper part in this integrated undertaking.

Secondly, it is necessary always to bear in mind the need to respect the role of Governments in the protection of civilians and to let them play this role. Governments bear the primary responsibility to protect their civilians. While the international community and outside forces can provide help, the provisions of the Charter must be followed in doing so, and care must be taken not to undermine the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country concerned. Even when outside support is necessary, the will of the country concerned must be fully respected and forcible intervention avoided. The internal judicial organs of the country concerned should also be allowed to play a bigger role in ending impunity.

Thirdly, humanitarian relief work should be carried out in a judicious and effective manner, in accordance with the principles of fairness, neutrality, objectivity and independence. Humanitarian relief is very important in the protection of civilians and constitutes an indispensable link in efforts to address any conflict situation. However, it is necessary to ensure the credibility and humanitarian nature of humanitarian relief work, which should comply with international humanitarian law and should not replace or interfere in conflict resolution and political process. We find it deplorable that certain bodies use humanitarian relief as a pretext to engage in illegal activities in conflict regions.

Fourthly, the concept of the responsibility to protect should be interpreted and applied in a prudent and accurate manner. The Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit contains detailed elaboration and provisions on the responsibility to protect and stipulates explicitly that this concept should be discussed by the General Assembly. The Security Council should not become a forum for extrapolating this concept or engaging in other similar legislative activities, because that is a task for the whole membership of the United Nations. At present, this concept is not yet mature, and many Member States have considerable concerns about it. The relevant discussions should be held within the framework of the General Assembly, and the Security Council should not prejudge the result of such discussions.

Fifthly, the Security Council should continue to address the protection of civilians in the context of specific conflicts. Each conflict has its own causes and characteristics, and efforts to address humanitarian problems, including the protection of civilians, cannot be separated from the peace process and political situation of a specific conflict. The protection of civilians cannot be addressed in isolation, nor can superficial symptoms be our sole concern. Since the country-specific consideration mechanism of the Council has been effective, and in order to avoid overlap and repetition, we are not in favour of establishing a special working group on the protection of civilians.

Finally, we are willing to work together with other members of the Council to strive for more constructive results in the protection of civilians in armed conflicts through pragmatic and effective efforts.

Mr. Arias (Panama)

First, allow me to express our sincere gratitude to you personally, Mr. President, and the delegation of Indonesia for having convened this important debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Similarly, we would like to express our gratitude for the detailed report of the Secretary-General (S/2007/643) and the briefing by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, which highlighted the urgency with which we must respond to this issue.

The Security Council, in its resolution 1674 (2006), reaffirmed its condemnation of attacks that are deliberately aimed at civilians as a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights standards. Under this resolution and the standards set out in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, the Council must ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights in regions where peacekeeping missions are deployed.

The mere discussion of this matter necessarily brings to mind paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, through which we adopted the responsibility to protect as a standard of this Organization. That concept, above and beyond the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in the internal official States, clearly establishes that when a Government will not or cannot protect the rights of its citizens, the international community, and therefore the United Nations, assumes the responsibility of doing so. Sexual violence against women as a tool of war or as simple political pressure presents a clear example in which the international community has the obligation to act. Within that context, we must assess and analyse our achievements and we must confess that we have failed in that respect. This Organization, and in particular the Security Council, must review the way in which we tackle this issue.

For the Republic of Panama, the report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict establishes a basis for the discussion on how to proceed in this matter, with specific recommendations on responding to those challenges more effectively. The measures set out include specific activities, such as the systematic inclusion of information on, inter alia, sexual violence and access to humanitarian assistance in the reports that we receive. This represents clear guidance, which is missing in our current practice.

However, there are a few proposals that require even more consideration and discussion, especially regarding the establishment of a working group on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, which we support in principle. However, on that item, we believe it would be more pertinent to reflect on our working methods before developing new structures. Otherwise, we run the risk of not achieving our main objective, which is to be effective in protecting civilians in situations of armed conflict.

Lastly, I would like to underscore that a central part of our effort to protect civilian populations is to bring to justice those who have committed crimes against humanity and/or violations of international humanitarian law. That is why we reiterate our support for the International Criminal Court to comply with its mission to put an end to impunity for those responsible for these crimes.

Sir John Sawers (United Kingdom)

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

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 5081: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg011-bk01-pa01">I wish to start by tha... of Portugal on behalf of the European Union.</p>', 5081, 5082, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 5082
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg011-bk01-pa01">I wish to start by tha... of Portugal on behalf of the European Union.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 5081