Security Council meeting 5997

The President

I should like to inform the Council that I have received letters from the representatives of Bangladesh, El Salvador, Guinea-Bissau, the Netherlands, Norway and Sierra Leone, in which they request to be invited to participate in the consideration 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 consideration of the item, 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 His Excellency Mr. Yukio Takasu, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Permanent Representative of Japan.

It is so decided.

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

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/2008/417, which contains the report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its second session.

I now give the floor to Mr. Yukio Takasu, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Permanent Representative of Japan.

Mr. Takasu (Japan)

It is my distinct honour and pleasure to present to the Council the annual report on the work of the Peacebuilding Commission (S/2008/417). The report covers the wide range of activities undertaken by the Commission during its previous session. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of members, the Commission made steady progress and produced concrete results in many areas of its work.

Maintaining peace and security is a prerequisite for successful post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. It is equally true that durable peace and a sustainable State will never be achieved without good governance, the rule of law, respect for human rights and economic recovery and development. The Peacebuilding Commission is a unique United Nations organ that addresses all those challenges in an integrated and coherent manner. It brings together all stakeholders. It formulates an integrated strategy and monitors its implementation. It garners support and mobilizes resources. The Commission is grateful to the Council for the political guidance and substantial support that it has received and that is essential in fulfilling such a role. I also believe that the Commission can in turn fulfil a useful role complementary to that of the Council.

First, the four country-specific configurations engaged in intensive work, under the strong leadership of the respective Chairs, to produce tangible results supporting national efforts. Integrated strategies were adopted for Burundi and Siena Leone, and they are now being implemented. The strategy for Guinea-Bissau was recently adopted. A field mission will visit the Central African Republic shortly to prepare for that country's strategy. The notions of national ownership, sustained partnership with the international community, mutual accountability and dialogue -- in other words, a cooperative and participatory approach -- have come to be the greatest assets and have added value to the Commission.

Secondly, there are many more countries in the world than those now on our agenda that are facing challenges in the post-conflict process. The Peacebuilding Commission may provide invaluable support for efforts to address these challenges by developing effective peacebuilding strategies and policies. With that purpose in mind, the Organizational Committee conducted in-depth policy discussions on the synergy between peacekeeping and peacebuilding and the role of the private sector. The Working Group on Lessons Learned took up several topics in order to share best practices from past efforts.

Thirdly, a serious effort was made to enhance partnerships at the highest level, in particular with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the African Union and the European Union. Regular consultations with the Presidents of the Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council were established. Many outreach efforts were made by the Chairpersons and the Peacebuilding Support Office to deepen understanding regarding the specific needs of post-conflict countries and the work of the Peacebuilding Commission.

Building upon our achievements to date, I would like to outline four priority areas that need to be focused upon.

First, we must continue to produce tangible results on the ground. We should bring about visible impacts of direct benefit to the people in the countries under consideration. To consolidate peace, it is essential that people actually be able to see and experience signs of the arrival of peace after a ceasefire, in the form of positive changes in their livelihoods. We need to elicit the support of all stakeholders and to mobilize resources, not only from traditional partners but also by bringing in new and non-traditional partners.

In that context, the call made by the Security Council in the recent presidential statement on Guinea-Bissau (S/PRST/2008/37) for support for the implementation of its integrated strategy was very useful and appreciated. Such political support by the Council is essential if the Peacebuilding Commission is to fulfil its mandate. I hope that the Council will continue to express its strong support for the work of the Commission and the implementation of the integrated strategies.

It is crucial that the United Nations presence on the ground have the appropriate mandate and capacity to support the work of the Commission and the engagement of the national Governments concerned. The United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone is a good example. We would encourage the Council to consider that need when it reviews the mandates of relevant missions and offices.

Secondly, strategic and policy discussion must be deepened. The strategy for international peacebuilding efforts is still in its early stages of development. We must make every effort to develop policies on how to fill the gap between peacekeeping and peacebuilding and also the gap between peacebuilding and development. There is a need to promote policy guidance for effective peacebuilding efforts through discussions in the Commission. Topics such as youth employment, the role of the private sector, justice and peace and the subregional dimension may be considered. Post-conflict early recovery will be a major issue of interest, both for the Council and for the Commission in the coming months. The Commission will cooperate closely with the Secretariat in preparing the report of the Secretary-General on that subject, and early examination by the Commission will provide useful inputs to the forthcoming review in the Council.

In anticipation of the inclusion of additional countries on the agenda, the issue of the entry point for the Peacebuilding Commission is also important. Peacekeeping and peacebuilding are not mutually exclusive. We should avoid duplication of efforts, of course, but some overlap may be necessary and justified in certain cases to ensure a seamless transition. We request the Council to continue to consult closely with the Commission on the referral process.

Thirdly, partnership must be strengthened. Building upon efforts to establish strong partnerships with United Nations funds and programmes, the World Bank, the IMF, regional development banks and major bilateral players, we must continue those efforts in order to make certain that the commitment of those partners is translated into specific cooperation on the ground. We will also continue to engage actively with civil society organizations.

Fourthly, the coherence of the Peacebuilding Commission's activities must be ensured. We will continue our efforts to ensure that all parts of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture work in a coherent and coordinated manner for the sole purpose of serving people on the ground. As many Member States urged last week in the general debate of the General Assembly, the Commission will continue to improve the efficiency of its working methods, with a clear sense of added value.

Finally, during the reporting period, the relationship between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission was well established. As Chairperson, I regularly consulted with the Presidents of the Council, and I am very grateful for that courtesy. In addition, the Chairs of the country-specific configurations were regularly invited to the relevant Council meetings. I was personally invited to open Council debates on cooperation with the African Union, security sector reform, women and peace and security, and post-conflict early recovery. Those interactions became an established practice that is beneficial to both organs.

In recent years, the Government of the Central African Republic has worked to re-establish stability throughout the country and to launch a national reconciliation process. In the international community that has engendered the hope that the situation in the Central African Republic will be stabilized in the coming years, as well as renewed trust in the political will of the country's protagonists.

National ownership has already been reflected in the identification of national priorities. We welcome the commitment of the Government to make training a crucial part of its future efforts. The process of political dialogue should be restarted and include all armed groups and political actors, so as to genuinely re-establish peace and stability throughout the whole of the country's territory. The Commission will therefore have to support the Government's efforts, on the one hand, while, on the other, the Government demonstrates true political will in order to together build lasting peace in the Central African Republic.

Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the leadership of Ambassador Takasu, Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission, who has succeeded in breathing the necessary life into the work of the Commission during the second year of its existence. I should also like to express our appreciation for the work of the Peacebuilding Support Office and to thank Ms. Carolyn McAskie for her commitment. I also wish to express our full cooperation to Ms. Jane Holl Lute, the new Assistant Secretary-General for Peacebuilding Support.

Ms. DiCarlo (United States)

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Takasu for his leadership. I would also like to thank the Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission's country-specific configurations, which have facilitated the Commission's work both in the field and in New York. My delegation also warmly welcomes Assistant Secretary-General Jane Holl Lute and looks forward to working with her on this important issue.

The United States strongly supports the work of the Peacebuilding Commission. No function can, or should, be more central to the work of the United Nations. Today, I would like to make three points.

First, the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission, two years ago, was an important but initial response to addressing what former Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the missing middle between peacekeeping and sustainable development. While progress has been slower than we had hoped, the Commission today is delivering on its commitment to the countries on its agenda. It has facilitated the emergence of new donor partners and has spurred greater coordination and frank dialogue on the underlying causes of instability that have so often contributed to tragic relapses into conflict. We believe that the Peacebuilding Commission can ultimately play an important role in United Nations peacebuilding by helping to marshal the necessary resources during the golden hour immediately after the cessation of conflict and, subsequently, by ensuring that peacebuilding is sustainable. Therefore, the working methods of the Peacebuilding Commission need to be strengthened to make it as effective as possible. We look forward to discussing the role of the Peacebuilding Commission in early recovery as mentioned by the Secretary-General in his report.

My second point is that peacebuilding must be a central pillar of United Nations reform and a priority throughout the United Nations system. Every organ of the United Nations and every major fund and programme should take into account the crosscutting nature of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding must begin from the earliest days of humanitarian intervention, with capacity-building efforts to restore the functions of the State, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It must also be accompanied by support for the restoration of infrastructure and the rapid delivery of a peace dividend that includes work for the young and the demobilized. The Peacebuilding Commission should harness the competencies of the Security Council and the General Assembly and, through its convening authority, seek to integrate the workings of peacekeeping, development and humanitarian intervention. It should also encourage United Nations funds and programmes, traditional and non-traditional donors, non-governmental organizations and academia to better support efforts in the field through inclusive dialogue, innovative best practices, improved coordination and, of course, enhanced financing and capacity-building.

As my final point, I should like to say that we should also keep in mind the need to address other early-recovery issues in parallel. Those include bolstering the role of special representatives of the Secretary-General with the needed authority and resources to coordinate the response of United Nations agencies and the broader international response. We will also need to revamp the Peacebuilding Fund to provide greater flexibility in selecting implementing partners and faster disbursement to immediate post-conflict situations.

The work we are all doing in the Peacebuilding Commission is critical. Building lasting and sustainable peace requires long-term focus. That is exactly why we are all here, to ensure that we keep that focus and improve our capabilities. With the right mandate, the right leadership and the right resources, the United Nations has a unique and indispensable role in helping post-conflict societies to find their footing on the path to peace and prosperity. We must resolve to develop the kind of peacebuilding capacities required to fulfil our mandate, to advance international peace and security and to improve the prospects for success in post-conflict situations.

Mr. Terzi di Sant'Agata (Italy)

As I take the floor, allow me to thank Ambassador Takasu, Permanent Representative of Japan and Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission, for his report.

Today's debate provides us a useful opportunity to take stock of the first two years of the activities of the Peacebuilding Commission and of its relationship with the Security Council. The Peacebuilding Commission was established in 2005 to fill the gap between peacekeeping and post-conflict rehabilitation by bringing coherence to efforts aimed at the recovery of countries emerging from conflict. That is why it was decided that the Peacebuilding Commission should be an advisory body not only of the General Assembly but also of the Security Council. The Commission started with realistic expectations. Only two countries were on its agenda for the first year, so that it could develop effective mechanisms before embarking on larger tasks. We can now safely say that the results have been satisfactory. The countries on the agenda are on a promising road to stabilization, despite some difficulties. Three integrated strategies have been agreed on with the active involvement of the countries concerned, in keeping with the cornerstone principle of national ownership.

The Peacebuilding Commission is one element in a triad. The other two are the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) and the Peacebuilding Fund. The job of the Fund is to fill a crucial gap, namely, the one resulting from the fact that, even when the donor community is quickly mobilized, it can take time to set up effective mechanisms to channel resources into stabilization and recovery projects. We are therefore heartened to see, as telling proof of the commitment of donors, that the Fund has exceeded the target of $250 million set in 2005. We encourage the Secretary-General to continue his work to make the Fund a flexible and effective instrument. We also encourage him to provide the Peacebuilding Support Office with adequate resources as the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission expands. The Peacebuilding Support Office's role cannot be overstated. It provides the Commission with analyses and instruments to develop and implement effective strategies and support for the effective involvement of the United Nations system.

The Security Council has actively participated in examining countries' requests to be placed on the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission and has closely followed the Commission's activities over the past two years. We believe that that cooperation can be intensified by identifying links between the Commission's peacebuilding strategies for a country and the Security Council's decisions and analyses regarding peace and security, as well as by better integrating the Commission's activities into the Council's work.

A peacekeeping operation mandate is but the first step towards the stabilization of a country. The scope and nature of the mandate should contemplate the further steps to be taken. Peacekeeping should no longer be conceived as a stop-gap measure to simply monitor a ceasefire or implement a peace agreement. It should be seen as a long-term investment in peace and the first crucial phase of the international community's involvement.

The Peacebuilding Commission should develop close and effective cooperation with the entire United Nations system, first and foremost with the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. System-wide coherence is therefore a unique opportunity to make the Commission's strategies in the field more effective and to prevent gaps in the transition from peacebuilding to development.

I would like to conclude by focusing on the Peacebuilding Commission's agenda. The countries on the agenda so far are from Africa. While the majority of conflicts do indeed occur there, to be a truly global instrument the Commission also has to look at other regions. It must have a broad range of vision to become the world's most reliable instrument for peacebuilding. Time has shown that we can live up to these challenges.

Mr. Natalegawa (Indonesia)

Allow me to first express our appreciation to you, Mr. President, for convening this debate on the report of the Peacebuilding Commission and to thank the Commission for its second annual report. We would also like to thank Ambassador Yukio Takasu of Japan for his remarks and to commend the work of the Peacebuilding Commission, the present and previous Chairs of the four country configurations and the Working Group on Lessons Learned.

In its presidential statement S/PRST/2008/16 of 20 May 2008, the Security Council expressed its intention to support the peacebuilding efforts in countries emerging from conflict. We believe that peacebuilding support should be provided to those countries at an early stage, especially when the Council creates or renews the mandates of United Nations-led missions through its decisions and resolutions. That very important step could ensure that peacebuilding support is incorporated in a United Nations mission.

We hold the view that the more the notion of peacebuilding support is meaningfully reflected in the mandates of United Nations peacekeeping and other United Nations political missions, the greater is the chance for realizing the priority areas of peace consolidation as stipulated in the integrated peacebuilding strategies. The key to that exercise is close consultations with the receiving country, potential contributors and the Secretariat. The Security Council is also an appropriate forum for providing guidance on the political and security aspects of peacebuilding activities.

Yet the challenge is how those aspects could be effectively linked with the social, economic and development components of peacebuilding efforts, as envisioned by other United Nations bodies. My delegation therefore believes that the Commission can play a very important role as a nexus for linking the political and security components taken up at the Council with the social, humanitarian and economic aspects that the Economic and Social Council focuses on.

At the strategic level, that approach can be developed with the Commission's active and substantive engagement with other principal United Nations organs, Bretton Woods institutions and other relevant agencies. At the operational level, it can be derived through the regular interface of the country configurations with the pertinent United Nations funds, programmes and country teams. That will lead to better coherence and integration of the cause of and results in the United Nations system.

The issue of coordination remains critical, given the existence of so many institutions and resources. By giving good consideration to how coordination within the United Nations and between it and other actors might take place, we will more effectively utilize those resources and have a more efficient process. The United Nations itself should continue to play a leading role in the field in coordinating international efforts in post-conflict situations.

For its part, the Security Council, as part of the United Nations system, could play an important role in enhancing adequate coordination and division of labour at the level of United Nations organs. It can ensure the operational relevance of Peacebuilding Commission advice, which remains essential for countries on the agenda of both organs and in resolving the security-related aspects of peacebuilding. The finest synergy between the two organs would serve to clarify and define a seamless transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding.

Close cooperation between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council should also continue to be nurtured. That is crucial because it is the Council that draws up referral letters to the Commission. That collaboration also forms a basis for the Commission to identify peace challenges, risks and priorities in a particular post-conflict country. Further collaboration between the Commission and the Council should also be encouraged in the information-sharing activities that relate to peacebuilding.

The information that the Peacebuilding Commission gathers and that the Security Council receives must be mutually complementary and merged to form a basis for sound decisions with regard to peacebuilding activities. To narrow any gap, there should be more synergy and substantial communication between the Council and the Commission.

Equally essential is the synergy between the Peacebuilding Commission, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. Of particular importance is bridging peacebuilding and political stability, socio-economic recovery and humanitarian issues, which would lay the foundation for longer-term development activities. In that regard, as stipulated in the Council's presidential statement S/PRST/2007/42 of 6 November 2007, the Peacebuilding Commission should continue to serve as a forum for coordination between the United Nations system and regional and subregional organizations in the area of post-conflict situations.

My delegation recognizes that the Peacebuilding Commission is steadily leaving its infancy. Its work, however, is not particularly well known to wider audiences, including the private sector, non-governmental organizations and other civil society groups, whose role in and contribution to peacebuilding efforts have been recognized by the Council. As the co-creator of the Peacebuilding Commission, the Security Council should therefore help in boosting public awareness and visibility of the Commission's work by featuring its processes and outcomes in its various engagements.

Finally, allow me to reiterate that Indonesia, for its part, will continue to support and contribute to the efforts for an integrated and coherent approach in peacebuilding based on the dimensions of security, democracy and development, and to raise awareness of those matters nationally and regionally.

Mr. Dolgov (Russia)

First of all, we would like to thank the Permanent Representative of Japan, Ambassador Takasu, for his efforts in the institutional consolidation of the role of the Peacebuilding Commission in the United Nations system and beyond.

The experience of the Commission's second year proves that assistance by the United Nations and other partners to countries emerging from conflict has met significant complexities in the areas of national capacity-building in recipient countries and the coordination and synergy of peacebuilding efforts by the United Nations and other participants in the peacebuilding process.

Our assessment of the second year of the Commission's work is positive. Significant progress has been achieved in Burundi, Sierra Leone and Guinea-Bissau. Work has started on identifying the priorities for peacebuilding in the Central African Republic. We believe that one of the great benefits of the Peacebuilding Commission is the establishment of direct dialogue with national Governments, thus ensuring their leading roles in and responsibility for the peacebuilding process. We believe that the main goal of the Peacebuilding Commission at the present stage is to achieve feasible progress at the country level through coordinated implementation of peacebuilding strategies and monitoring and tracking mechanisms under the leadership of the Governments concerned.

We especially note the progress in arranging regular dialogue between the Commission and the Security Council on issues that are on the agenda of the two bodies. We believe that the practice of inviting the Chairs of the country-specific configurations to Council meetings has proved its practical value. In the future, we would like to consider the possibility of holding those meetings in an open format, in order to ensure an interactive dialogue on peacebuilding issues in those countries.

We also believe it is important to ensure an intensive exchange of information in the form of regular meetings between the Chairperson of the Commission and the President of the Security Council and cooperative complementarity between the two organs in drafting the documents of both bodies.

We should also continue the dialogue on the issue of adding new candidates to the Commission's agenda, taking into account the real needs of a specific country for international post-conflict assistance, the progress of the Commission in countries under its consideration -- with the understanding that the Commission is not an additional source of funding -- and, above all, a coordination and consultation mechanism. Moreover, we believe that it would be appropriate, over the course of the next year, to begin to discuss criteria, including timelines, for removing countries from the Commission's agenda.

Of course, strengthening the organic relations between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council should continue in parallel with the development of a dialogue among the Commission, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, in addition to other United Nations bodies, programmes and funds, the donor community and regional organizations. The Commission should pay greater attention to those issues.

We are of the opinion that during the Commission's third year it will have to strengthen its coordinating role in those areas that require greater attention from the international community by harmonizing its activities with existing assistance mechanisms, primarily within the United Nations system.

In many respects, that will depend on the strengthening of the position of the Peacebuilding Support Office within the Secretariat. In that respect, we place our hopes in the new head of the Office, Ms. Jane Holl Lute. We welcome her presence here in the Security Council today.

We expect that the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Support Office will take an active part in the preparation of the Secretary-General's report on early recovery and post-conflict peacebuilding, as follows from the Security Council meeting in May under the presidency of the United Kingdom. The Commission's expertise in matters of increasing coordination of peacebuilding activities, building the civilian capacities of recipient States and partners, including the United Nations, and early recovery financing mechanisms should all be taken into account in the report.

During the coming year, the Commission will also have to focus on the analysis of lessons learned in the process of peacebuilding. In that connection, we believe it important to improve the efficiency of the Working Group on Lessons Learned. Policy and strategic discussions within the Organizational Committee can also be of practical value. However, they should not undermine the mandate of the Working Group or lead to the development of any doctrinal norms in the area of post-conflict peacebuilding and rehabilitation.

The Commission should also concentrate on the mobilization of additional donor resources, in particular by integrating international financial institutions, regional organizations, private sector funds and trust funds into its work. We attach great importance to the Peacebuilding Fund as a catalyst for emergency financing that can facilitate the mobilization of more sustainable aid mechanisms. We believe the time is ripe to review its terms of reference, and in that connection we expect concrete proposals from the Secretariat in order to begin consideration of the issue in the General Assembly.

Sir John Sawers (United Kingdom)

I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this important and very welcome debate today. I say "welcome," because peacebuilding remains at the heart of the Security Council's work. The thematic debate we held here in May on post-conflict peacebuilding, which colleagues have referred to, pointed to the shortcomings in stabilization and recovery efforts that exist here, particularly in the immediate aftermath of conflict.

That debate back in May also highlighted the critical role of the Peacebuilding Commission, particularly for sustaining international engagement to ensure that countries do not lapse back into conflict. The year ahead offers an opportunity for us to address collectively the critical gaps that still hamper our peacebuilding efforts.

Let me first commend the work of the Peacebuilding Commission over the past year. I would particularly like to single out the leadership offered by our colleague, Ambassador Takasu of Japan, Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission, and also the chairing roles of our colleagues from Belgium, Brazil, El Salvador, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. I should like to thank the Peacebuilding Support Office for its role, and we warmly welcome the appointment of Jane Holl Lute as the new Assistant Secretary-General.

The annual report describes the Peacebuilding Commission's achievements, and also the challenges we still face. We have heard in this Council over the past year briefings on drug trafficking, elections, security sector and justice reform, transitional justice and land reform. To help a country out of conflict and into sustained stability, all those issues frequently have to be addressed. As Ambassador Takasu said, the Peacebuilding Commission has to ensure that it is making a real difference on the ground.

I look forward to the Peacebuilding Commission's continued briefing on the situations in the four countries on its agenda and its advice on what action the Council, as well as the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council, should consider taking. To achieve that, I hope that the practice of holding monthly meetings between the Commission Chair and Security Council presidencies can be sustained to ensure that our respective work is aligned.

It is important that the interaction between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission not become purely mechanistic. We need to be alive to new threats to peacebuilding and address them quickly. That includes being alert to the impact that the oil and food price crisis, and now the financial crisis can have on peacebuilding.

We should also be more creative at soliciting the Peacebuilding Commission's advice and support. To date, the Security Council has been largely reactive. It has referred to the Commission only those countries that have requested to be on the Commission's agenda, but the Security Council and the Commission itself could take more of the initiative and explore -- with the agreement of the country concerned -- whether the Commission could rapidly marshal resources to help address a new threat to recovery in a country that is not on the Commission's formal agenda.

Finally, we look forward to the Peacebuilding Commission feeding in its views to inform the Secretary-General's report that was requested at the 20 May debate on how the United Nations can improve its support for early recovery. The report provides an opportunity for the United Nations system to tackle the gaps of leadership, deployable civilian capacity and rapidly available funding that currently impede the international community's work on early recovery. The test will be whether, over time, we can reduce from the present level of 30 per cent the proportion of conflicts that break out again within five years of a peace agreement.

But it does not end there. At the recent debate on mediation and the settlement of disputes that was chaired by President Compaore of Burkina Faso, we noted that peace agreements have fallen apart because of the lack of an implementation plan and because we do not have the right linkages between mediation processes and the critical recovery and peacebuilding phase. As the reports commissioned from the various Security Council debates are taken forward, it is imperative that we build coherence across the conflict spectrum so that effective peace agreements are forged, implemented and sustained.

Mr. Le Luong Minh (Viet Nam)

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'\xf4' in position 2657: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk01-pa01">Mr. President, I thank...terests of the countries under consideration.</p>', 2657, 2658, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 2658
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg009-bk01-pa01">Mr. President, I thank...terests of the countries under consideration.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 2657