Security Council meeting 6153

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 invitations under rule 37 of its provisional rules of procedure to Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, Egypt, Germany, Ghana, India, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Spain and Uruguay.

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 Mrs. Alice Aghenebit Mungwa, Senior Political Affairs Adviser, Office of the Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations.

It is so decided.

I invite Mrs. Mungwa to take the seat reserved for her at the side of the Council Chamber.

In accordance with the understanding reached in the Council's prior consultations, I shall take it that the Security Council agrees to extend invitations under rule 39 of its provisional rules of procedure to Mr. Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, and Ms. Susana Malcorra, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support.

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.

At this meeting, the Council will hear briefings by Mr. Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, and Ms. Susana Malcorra, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support. Before giving them the floor, I would like to make a statement by way of introduction.

Let me first answer the question of why we asked for such a debate in an already busy month for the Security Council. In fact, we tried to do that in our concept note circulated two weeks ago. There, we highlighted the importance of maintaining the effectiveness of United Nations peacekeeping operations as a key tool of United Nations peace efforts and the ongoing reform efforts to overcome the challenges facing it.

In the process of reform of the United Nations peacekeeping mechanism, numerous questions emerge that require the active engagement of and response from the States Members of the United Nations and from the Security Council. Thus, the strengthening of interaction between those who plan and mandate the United Nations peacekeeping operations and those who implement these mandates on the ground, often at considerable risks, is one important aspect that calls for further deliberation by the Council.

In our concept note, we have already touched upon questions relevant to that aspect. We believe that we can find the right answers to these questions only through mutual, transparent and interactive dialogue. In fact, today's meeting aims precisely at that achieving that purpose. We are so pleased that the representatives of major troop-, police- and financing-contributing countries are also with us today, participating in the debate.

As the Council knows, there is already a lively debate taking place in different forums within the United Nations, such as the Committee of Thirty-Four -- the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and the Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations. There are also several initiatives that have been launched by Member States with a view to further strengthening United Nations peacekeeping to meet the needs that arise from the contemporary challenges, such as the United Kingdom/France joint initiative and the initiative of Canada and the Center on International Cooperation.

On the Secretariat side, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support have launched an internal review of the full range of issues confronting the peacekeeping agenda, under the name New Horizon, on which I am sure the Under-Secretaries-General Mr. Alain Le Roy and Ms. Susan Malcorra will brief us.

What we aim to do today is to continue and contribute to the ongoing discussions on United Nations peacekeeping by inserting new ideas and highlighting some existing issues and thus to contribute to the efforts under way in various forums. We are hoping that the views expressed today by some of the major stakeholders in the realm of peacekeeping will present useful inputs to the ongoing debate in other forums, particularly for the Secretariat in the finalization of the New Horizon paper.

Now, without any further ado, let me open the floor for what we hope will be a lively and fruitful exchange.

I now give the floor to Mr. Le Roy.

Mr. Le Roy

First of all, I would like to thank the Turkish presidency of the Security Council for allowing what is for me a very welcome debate on peacekeeping. This meeting follows on the discussions on peacekeeping that were launched earlier this year during the French presidency of the Council. Indeed, I would like to thank all the Member States that have pursued discussions on peacekeeping in different forums in recent months. It is proof that we have a shared interest in supporting United Nations peacekeeping to meet current demands, build on its strengths, address its weaknesses and, finally, prepare for the challenges of the future.

The theme of today's meeting -- the relationship between the Security Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries-- reflects the fact that United Nations peacekeeping is a global partnership. It brings together the Council, with its legal and political authority, and the Member States, which are the only parties with the means to provide operations with the personnel, materiel and finances they need. It also draws together the Secretariat, which must plan and manage the operations as the entity responsible for their professionalism and efficiency, and the leaders and people of host countries, whose ongoing commitment to peace is perhaps the single most important factor for the success of peacekeeping. And lastly, this partnership draws together the United Nations as a whole with the broad range of regional and multilateral organizations that work alongside us to address conflict and build peace around the world.

Each one of the partners brings a vital contribution to peacekeeping. Each depends on the other. Together, this partnership gives United Nations peacekeeping its strengths of legitimacy, burden-sharing and adaptability. When all the partners are strongly united behind a peacekeeping operation, they send an unequivocal signal of international commitment that reinforces the authority of the Security Council and the credibility and effectiveness of each individual operation.

And of course, if one element of the partnership is weak, the whole project is weakened. Therefore, efforts to strengthen peacekeeping must be comprehensive. For example, we cannot focus on the military elements that provide security, without considering the equally the civilian elements, which support the troops. We cannot promote new policing concepts, such as the formed police units, without an ongoing dialogue with contributing countries as to the tasks expected and the standards linked to them. There are critical connections between mandates, planning, budgets and force generation, which are addressed in different forums of the United Nations. Commitments in one forum need to be translated into resources in others, as well as support on the ground.

This interdependency means that we need strong frameworks for dialogue in order to reach a shared assessment of the challenges as well as the potential for peacekeeping. That was perhaps the most valuable contribution of the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) almost 10 years ago. That report made it possible to build a consensus on the nature and direction of peacekeeping and to put it on a new and firmer footing. As the Council knows, peacekeeping involves 115,000 peacekeepers, or some five times as many since the time of the Brahimi report. We think it is time today to take stock together and to ensure that the partnership is ready for the new challenges we will have to face.

Mandates, as Council members know, are more complex than ever, and there remains a lack of consensus on how certain mandate tasks should be fulfilled. Political differences exist as to the overall goals and direction of a number of missions, and limited consent from key parties hampers a number of our missions. Needed capabilities, such as those well-known helicopters, are not always available in sufficient quantity to the United Nations, considerably hindering mandate implementation in certain missions. Our logistical and administrative systems are overstretched by the scale and tempo of operations on some of the world's most difficult terrain. And overarching all of that is the reality that in the current global environment, financial constraints press us to review the basic models of peacekeeping. Costs, troop numbers and capability requirements cannot all continue to rise indefinitely.

Unfortunately, there is little sign that peacekeeping demand is decreasing. On the contrary, factors such as environmental changes, economic shocks, transborder organized crime and extremism may well contribute to political and security instability and lead to new demands for peacekeepers. That means the peacekeeping partnership has to be broad and strong -- in terms of the participants and their contributions, as well as in terms of consensus and unity on goals and actions. This also means that the full spectrum of tools and responses besides peacekeeping must be available to the international community, including conflict prevention, mediation and multinational force deployments.

Mr. Le Roy

The Department of Peacekeeping Operations/Department of Field Support (DPKO/DFS) New Horizon initiative is our contribution to forming a new partnership agenda for peacekeeping. The Council has already received an executive brief of a non-paper which will be released in July. The brief contains the main themes we are reflecting upon and the areas in which we will propose some recommended follow-up actions. I should stress that we consider that we are at the start of a process of discussion with the Council. We would see a need to follow up with an intensified in-depth dialogue on thematic issues both in New York and outside. Many of the issues before us are not new. The objective is to arrive at a set of achievable immediate, medium- and long-term goals to help configure United Nations peacekeeping to better meet today's and tomorrow's challenges.

With that in mind, the non-paper will focus on four main points: first, critical peacekeeping tasks and functions that require a renewed consensus; secondly, measures to improve mission design, resourcing and deployment; thirdly, proposals on assessing and building the capacities needed for future peacekeeping; and fourthly, a strategy to create a stronger, more flexible support system.

I will not go through all the proposals we make in each area, since the brief is before the Council. I would rather wish to focus my remarks on a few of the issues which, on the basis of my first year in charge of DPKO, I think are top priorities.

With regard to the first key area, we would argue that there is a need for clearer consensus on the role of peacekeepers in delivering, for example, on the protection-of-civilians mandate. We also need to establish a better common understanding of the political, strategic and operational aspects of robust peacekeeping, building on discussions currently under way with Member States.

As mandates grow more demanding, robust and dangerous, it is essential that there be a strong sense of common purpose and close linkage between the Council's intent and what TCCs and PCCs are ready to deliver. As the number of mandated tasks grows, we also need greater clarity on the extent of peacebuilding that peacekeeping missions should carry out and on the resources required for this. Security sector reform and strengthened rule of law are essential to help develop national capacity in the host country. That is extremely important both as part of the exit strategy of the mission that we all wish to achieve and in order to allow host countries to rebuild the institutions that allow them to effectively exercise their own sovereignty.

Broader peacebuilding also entails beginning early recovery, infrastructure and employment creation, and peacekeeping operations must rely on other peacebuilding partners to help deliver these. Kick-starting that sort of sustainable development is essential in Liberia, in Timor-Leste and in Haiti. The forthcoming report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding will highlight the key areas of peacebuilding in which United Nations capability needs to be strengthened.

With regard to the second key area -- the design, resourcing and deployment of missions -- I would highlight the following as priority issues. First, there is a need to ensure sustained political support for the missions. We underscore the critical importance of an active, functional political process to address the conflict. Where our peacekeeping operations are struggling, it is usually the case that there is a lack of an inclusive peace process. Darfur clearly illustrates that point.

No matter how well trained and specialized our peacekeepers are, they cannot be successful without a viable peace process. Achievable mandates with clear political goals accompanied by continued political support from troop- and police-contributing countries and the Security Council is key. One way of contributing to that sustained political support is through informal coalitions of Member States focused on individual missions to assist in providing political and materiel support throughout the life of a mission.

The non-paper also argues that the Security Council should play a role to help ensure that critical capabilities are found. As one option, it recalls the Brahimi recommendation for a two-stage mandating process to help generate the necessary resources to ensure that a mandate is achievable before it is finalized.

There is a need to improve Secretariat planning processes and enhance dialogue with the Security Council and troop- and police-contributors on planning. We will look for ways to enhance dialogue on the Secretariat's planning process with the Council and TCCs, in particular those countries contributing significant capabilities and volunteering for complex tasks. We will also make proposals for faster, more focused mission start-ups and a better sequencing of deployment, to prioritize earlier deployment of critical capabilities that will advance mandate implementation and credibility. It is also important that we resolve the issue of rapidly deployable contingency reserves for missions that face significant risk of security crises.

Too many of our missions are lacking in critical capabilities. Troops in dangerous environments lack the information and mobility critical for force protection and mandate implementation. I believe a priority will be to agree on the nature of the capabilities required for modern peacekeeping. There must also be sufficient incentives to allow United Nations peacekeeping to obtain them We operate simultaneously in the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the desert of Chad and Darfur and in urban centres such as Port-au-Prince. It is clear that different capabilities are needed in each setting. We believe there is a need to review the procedure for reimbursement of contingent-owned equipment to make sure they reflect today's reality. High-tech equipment cannot be reimbursed at the level of an armoured personnel carrier.

Out of necessity, we have focused our force generation on numbers rather than on what capabilities have been needed to fulfil the mandate of a given mission. Darfur is, again, a vivid example of this. We must together shift our focus to operational requirements and on how to better generate capabilities not just numbers. We need to jointly identify the type of capacity required, including agreed minimum standards for troops and police carrying out United Nations peacekeeping while also delivering essential improvements to the United Nations training system. And we must facilitate linkage of bilateral training capacities with potential new or existing troop- and police-contributing countries in need of specialized training to fulfil the requirements of United Nations peacekeeping.

I believe one critical goal of our overall strategy to ensure that peacekeeping has the capacities it needs must be to expand the base of troop- and police-contributors. There must be more equal burden-sharing in the United Nations system.

The Secretariat must also ensure that it addresses any outstanding questions regarding command and control that potential TCCs or PCCs may have. We also need to increase our interoperability with regional organizations, including, of course, the African Union, the European Union and subregional organizations. It is clear that supporting the African Union in building its capacity remains a very high priority.

Finally, I hold as a priority the articulation of the new field support strategy that the DFS is leading. Under-Secretary-General Malcorra will comment further on that, but I would just say that it is clear to me that United Nations peacekeeping today is the instrument of a hyperoperational United Nations. Yet, our support systems have not caught up with that new reality. We have to make adjustments in how we support our missions to increase flexibility and efficiency, but I will leave it to Ms. Malcorra to elaborate on that issue.

To conclude my remarks, I would like to say that the new partnership agenda that we have put forward is one that we will need to work on together. Together, we must set the agenda for the peacekeeping of tomorrow. We are looking forward to an intense dialogue with the Council on the way forward. I look forward to hearing more from the members of the Security Council, troop-contributing countries and financial contributors, and I will endeavour to take account of their perspectives and concerns in the process of finalizing the DPKO/DFS non-paper.

We hope to continue this dialogue with the Council in the weeks and months to come. As we approach 10 years since the seminal reforms of the Brahimi report (S/2009/809), I believe that is the best way in which we can honour and protect the achievements of that report and build on it for the future.

I would also like to close by taking this opportunity to thank the Council for its critical role in guiding United Nations peacekeeping, and, of course, the TCCs and PCCs gathered here for their contributions to our current and past missions.

The President

I thank Mr. Le Roy for his briefing.

I now give the floor to Ms. Susana Malcorra, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support.

Ms. Malcorra

I would like to echo Alain Le Roy's expression of appreciation for the time that the Security Council has given us for topics that are of great importance to us all.

Ms. Malcorra

This is a joint exercise of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support. The two Departments are fully synchronized in that regard. The broad strategic outlines of this initiative have major implications for the support side of the house for the next five years.

Mr. Le Roy has outlined what we need in a new partnership agenda to address the problems that we are encountering in delivering increasingly complex and varied mandates in difficult, often isolated and inhospitable locations. I can only echo those needs on the support side. We cannot move ahead with innovations to the support model without the full engagement and buy-in of Member States.

Let me further elaborate on some of the broad support indications for the New Horizon initiative. First, I must stress that we are not starting from scratch here. The past decade has several useful innovations in the tools and systems developed for peacekeeping operations approved by Member States. The creation of the strategic deployment stocks in 2002 have allowed us to equip and supply missions more quickly than before. The establishment of a Peacekeeping Reserve Fund to allow for commitment authority of up to $50 million in advance of a Security Council mandate has also been an important capability.

However, neither of those innovations is calibrated to current demand. Their ceilings remain static, while the overall peacekeeping budget has more than tripled, and their procedures have become more convoluted than originally envisioned.

Secondly, I am convinced that more of the same will simply not do. We envisaged a more nuanced, targeted approach with elements of mission support provided globally, others regionally and the rest at the level of individual missions. The current model of having a full support component for each and every mission needs to be revisited. We need to explore options that will lead to a lighter mission footprint; faster turnaround without compromising accountability and oversight; smarter deployment with new security ceilings in a way that will bring about a better relationship between substantive and support staff in mission; greater use of local staff and local and regional suppliers; development and continuity of staff in safer and more stable locations; the creation of centres of excellence that would allow us to better support the missions; decision-making and supply closer to the point of delivery; and a revisit of the current contingent-owned equipment model, including the rates of reimbursement, as mentioned by Mr. Le Roy.

Thirdly, it is becoming increasingly important to calibrate support to the different stages of the mission life cycle -- startup, stabilization, maturity, surge, drawdown and liquidation -- with different priorities in terms of deployment in each of those stages. Staffing and equipment needs and financing are different in each of them.

In particular, we have identified specific support challenges in the startup phase. Clearly, one of the biggest issues that we face in relationships with Member States is the unspent balances, and that issue is related particularly to delays in the initial phase of deployment. Even if we introduce some of the improvements I have mentioned, we are still up against a system of financial approvals and procurement timelines that puts limits on rapid deployment.

Possible ways to address those issues include pre-positioned stocks and turnkey service contracts, more modular approaches, fast-track standardized resourcing approaches for the first year of mission operation, some additional financial flexibility, and more asset-sharing between missions. That is particularly important in the case of aviation assets.

Fourthly, one way to build capability and performance without increasing initial headcount is to invest more in technology-driven solutions, including some greening elements that could be very important to our footprint in the countries where we deploy. Better information analysis, better communications and higher-performing equipment should be at the heart of those aspects.

Fifthly, again, building on reforms that the Member States have approved develops a truly global and mobile workforce with faster, more targeted recruitment, better skills and career development, and greater agility across functions and locations.

We will be developing all those five lines in the DFS support strategy that is now being worked on. I have already had informal exchanges of views with representatives during the month of May and have received some initial feedback. We will provide a more detailed non-paper in July, in conjunction with the New Horizon paper. My team is now drilling down into the detailed building of business cases and examining cost benefits, which we will be sharing and presenting as part of a comprehensive set of proposals at the next session of the General Assembly, seeking Member States' approval.

That is going to be a major paper and it will be presented together with the budgets of the peacekeeping operations for approval, hoping that, with Member States' approval, we will also seek initial opportunities in the next cycle of peacekeeping budgets.

I thank all present. We will provide further information for further discussion in the near future.

The President

I thank Ms. Malcorra for her briefing.

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 members of the Security Council.

Mr. Ripert (France)

I should first like to thank the Turkish presidency of the Council for organizing this debate. France is very committed to improving the functioning of United Nations peacekeeping. We welcome the current heightened activity on this issue, which seems to us to reflect, first of all, a convergence of concerns emanating from various quarters and the growing desire that this question has aroused to ensure the effectiveness of our efforts among the Security Council, Member States as a whole and the Secretariat.

With regard to the initiative that we and the United Nations have launched in connection with this issue, France has repeatedly asked that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support make quarterly presentations on the state of United Nations peacekeeping in connection with operational, administrative, budgetary and financial aspects. It is therefore with pleasure that we welcome today's debate, which we hope will be followed by other similar meetings. I should like in particular to thank Mr. Alain Le Roy and Ms. Susana Malcorra for their presentation of the upcoming New Horizon study. We await the presentation of the final report later this year with great interest and anticipation.

Of course, I should also like to associate myself with the statement that will be made shortly by my Czech colleague on behalf of the European Union.

The elements set out by the Secretariat are especially encouraging to us. I would briefly first like to recall the three-pillar initiative that we launched with the United Kingdom as a way of underscoring the unity of perspective between the two approaches. The first part of our initiative pertains to the strategic conduct of operations. As the Secretariat has also done today, we have called for improvements in how mandates are drafted, how they are coordinated with planning, how goals are set and how benchmarks for success are established.

We fully support the idea of strengthening command and control mechanisms, in particular at the level of the Secretariat in New York. We also support the idea of improved dialogue among the main partners during the planning and implementation of operations. Meetings of political and military experts have proven to be very useful in that regard. We believe they should be expanded to most operations.

It is also desirable to provide the Security Council with genuine military expertise by organizing, under a format yet to be determined, regular meetings of military advisers, including with the possible participation of troop-contributing countries.

The second pillar of our initiative pertains to the implementation of complex mandates. In that regard, we fully support the idea that the United Nations should be in a position to undertake more robust efforts. I should also like to underscore that it would be a mistake to prevent the United Nations from carrying out robust peacekeeping and to ignore the importance of the contributions of countries deeply involved in robust operations -- not necessarily using Blue Helmets but nevertheless mandated by the Organization -- such as, for example, in Afghanistan.

In that regard, I should like to point out that France is one of the main contributors to United Nations peacekeeping operations, to which it is the fifth-largest financial contributor. France provides almost 2,250 Blue Helmets and Berets. We also contribute some 1,300 men to peacekeeping operations under United Nations mandates in the framework of the European Union, NATO or at the national level -- operations quite often in especially dangerous areas.

In our joint initiative, we of course fully support the implementation by peacekeeping operations of civilian protection mandates. In public opinion in the countries where the United Nations operates, the ability of the Organization to protect civilians is the standard by which we will be judged. In doing so, we acknowledge that we must be aware of the contradiction that sometimes exists -- as we heard during the Security Council's recent visit to the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- between simultaneously asking peacekeeping operations to take on a more robust posture and protect civilians more effectively. The contradiction clearly illustrates the need to adapt a mission's internal structure to the complexity of its mandate.

The third important point relates to the premature integration of post-conflict reconstruction into our strategies, as noted by the Under-Secretary-General. With respect to mandate priorities, as the Council is aware a significant effort has been made, reflected in particular in resolution 1856 (2008), on the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That effort should be pursued. However, resolutions are documents negotiated by sovereign States in the Security Council, including with non-member States. Given the respective political goals of participants, it is not always possible to establish a full or satisfactory hierarchy of objectives.

The issue of sequential implementation deserves further consideration. It is difficult to give a new mission too many tasks. We must therefore avoid that contradiction, as Alain Le Roy has also mentioned; in prioritizing urgent tasks, we neglect structural elements necessary both for an exit strategy and to ensure that conflicts do not recur or become prolonged. The establishment of the rule of law and the setting up of security forces fall under that category.

The same point could be made about the problem of better integrating United Nations military operations into the efforts of the rest of the system. The identification of an integrated approach -- as was done in Timor-Leste, Liberia and the Congo -- is clearly needed today. We must make it a reality. In that regard, defining concrete guidelines aimed at system-wide coherence is both crucial and urgent, and must be part of our discussion of peacekeeping.

In that regard, I should like to conclude by expressing our hope that the Working Group chaired by our colleague Ambassador Takasu will now turn its attention to a detailed consideration of the provisions of the mandates for peacekeeping operations. That would make a valuable contribution to the Council's future work.

Lastly, the third part of our initiative pertains to resources. We call for efforts to be made in the areas of effectiveness and cost. In that regard, we very much welcome the preliminary ideas set out today by Ms. Malcorra, including the crucial aspect of financial flexibility and responsibility and the adoption of new strategies for rapid deployment through a series of initiatives that the Secretariat could itself undertake. Those proposals will be fleshed out later. Ms. Malcorra can count on us to do everything possible to enable her to implement as soon as possible in the United Nations system ideas that are so simple and obvious that we could rightly wonder why they have not yet been implemented already. We shall help her do that as soon as possible.

Moreover, the future New Horizon study will rightly focus on the issue of force generation. That is a key challenge in an overall climate of tensions ever the poor equipping and funding of troops. We are of course in favour of expanding the pool of troop and police contributors. In that regard, I recall the very significant efforts made by France and the European Union, in particular with regard to training African forces through the European Reinforcement of African Peacekeeping Capacities programme and the establishment of a network of military schools on the continent.

In that connection, I should like to mention the important issue of language training and promoting participation in peacekeeping operations by staff speaking local languages. In that connection, I am of course calling for francophone military, police and civilian personnel. Many operations are today deployed to francophone areas. The lack of French-speaking staff and the insufficient mastery of it by a significant number of peacekeeping staff both hinders the proper execution of operations and can even pose a risk to staff security. At any rate, that situation does not contribute to engendering good relations and trust among local populations. The issue of language must not be taboo when it comes to respecting Charter provisions and rules pertaining to the use of official languages at the Secretariat and in peacekeeping operations. We hope that an effort will be made in that regard.

The group of francophone countries over which I have the honour to preside has conferred with other language groups to clearly illustrate that this is a generalized problem of adapting to the situation on the ground. In that connection, I would just like to mention that we welcome the participation of the Under-Secretary-General at the seminars on peacekeeping operations organized recently at Bamako by the International Organization of la Francophonie. We also support a discussion on the mobility of reserves and the calls for sustainable resources.

My delegation welcomes the emphasis in the document -- and the assumption underlying today's debate -- on the need for consultations with the main contributors. Such consultations are of basic importance for the United Nations system of shared responsibility.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate our support for the Secretariat. The various aspects of the consideration of this issue must, of course, be taken up within in the competent entities: the Committee of Thirty-Four, the Fifth Committee and, of course, in the Security Council. In the framework of the Council, we are determined to promote the various proposals of our initiative, which will reach a new stage in August under the British presidency of the Council. We hope that we will be able to adopt an organizing framework at that point.

Mr. Mayr-Harting (Austria)

At the outset, allow me to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this debate, which gives us a timely opportunity to continue our discussions on this important matter. We particularly welcome the participation of major troop and financial contributors. Allow me to also thank Under-Secretary-General Alain Le Roy and Under-Secretary-General Susanna Malcorra for presenting us with a first executive summary of the New Horizon non-paper.

Austria also associates itself with the statement to be delivered by the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union later in this meeting.

We support the ongoing processes focusing on the reform of United Nations peacekeeping. Austria would like to thank France, the United Kingdom, Japan as Chair of the Working Group of the Whole on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, and Canada for their efforts. We have already witnessed some first changes in the Council's approach to mandate extensions, including the more systematic use of benchmarks and progress monitoring.

We have studied the executive summary of the New Horizon non-paper, which identifies the key challenges of United Nations peacekeeping, and we are looking forward to more detailed proposals in the non-paper.

This Department of Peacekeeping Operations initiative is most timely. We also believe that the Brahimi report, though written at a time when only 20,000 peacekeepers were deployed, has not lost its validity. Some of its core issues need to be revisited, but it can still provide useful guidance to our efforts.

Austria, as a longstanding troop and police contributor to United Nations peacekeeping operations and to other United Nations mandated peace missions, supports initiatives for improved cooperation and coordination between troop-contributing countries, police-contributing countries and the Council. We need a better inclusion of troop- and police-contributing countries and financial contributors when planning and reviewing peacekeeping mandates.

Clear and achievable mandates are key to the success of United Nations peace operations. The formulation of mandates ought to take into account all the tools in question, on the basis of a needs assessment. The tools we choose must be part of an overall political strategy and serve clear goals. In many cases, the resulting mandate will therefore need to follow a phased approach. Given the unprecedented expansion of United Nations peacekeeping and the limits to human and financial resources, other available options for responding to conflicts, in particular preventive action, must be considered very seriously.

Shaping an integrated and coherent strategy in close cooperation with other international, regional, subregional, local and possibly non-governmental actors will be crucial for the success of our future approach. In this regard, we strongly support an enhanced cooperation with interested regional organizations. As far as peacekeeping on the African continent is concerned, close cooperation with the African Union (AU) must remain a particular priority. Strengthening the capacities of the AU is an essential prerequisite for fair and equitable burden-sharing in contributing to peace and security and for stronger regional and national ownership. For this very reason, we are in favour of a substantial and open-minded debate of the proposals contained in the Prodi report.

The lessons learned and the experiences gained by the various missions on the ground, and in particular by national contingents, can provide the Council with comprehensive information for its deliberations on the review and extension of mandates. Early and consistent involvement of Force Commanders as well as troop-and police-contributing countries will help to create common understanding and trust, as well as an increased willingness to effectively implement the mandates adopted by the Council. While the Council bears the main responsibility for establishing achievable mandates, troop- and police-contributing countries and other actors have the responsibility to deliver on the ground and must therefore be given an adequate hearing.

In the Council's debate on the protection of civilians this past Friday, we reiterated our support for the strengthening of protection mandates in peacekeeping operations. Their role in ensuring the physical protection of the civilian population affected by armed conflict, and in particular of women and children, is of utmost importance. Their contribution to the promotion of human rights, the strengthening of the rule of law and an increased role for women in peace processes and peacebuilding, as well as in the fight against impunity, is invaluable. It is clear that, in order to implement protection mandates, peacekeeping missions must be more effective and better resourced.

We are convinced that the independent study commissioned by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs on protection mandates in peace operations will make important recommendations and will thus add to the overall reform efforts of United Nations peacekeeping. As I already mentioned this past Friday, Austria hopes that the Council will be in a position to make progress in this matter in the framework of the debate on the protection of civilians scheduled for the month of November.

We also believe that the international community needs to pay increased attention to the interface between security and development -- particularly in post-conflict and other fragile situations.

Peace operations can make important contributions to a sustainable socio-economic development of the region in which they are deployed. An increased emphasis on local and regional procurement is just one of the options that come to mind. Building on some of the positions put forward during the Council's January debate on peacekeeping, Austria has begun a dialogue with DPKO, the Department of Field Support and the Peacebuilding Support Office on how to optimize the socio-economic impact of peace missions. We look forward to working with other interested delegations on this important issue.

Allow me to conclude by reiterating Austria's dedication to the reform of United Nations peacekeeping, a process that needs our urgent and continued commitment if we wish to achieve noteworthy results in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Okuda (Japan)

First of all, my Mission would like to express to the President of the Security Council, Ambassador lkin, and his Mission, its appreciation for their decision to convene this meeting on peacekeeping operations. Our appreciation also goes to the United Kingdom and France for their initiative on peacekeeping operations.

United Nations peacekeeping operations have been one of the most important tools available to the Security Council to address situations in countries emerging from conflict. As conflict situations have become more diverse, United Nations peacekeeping has been faced with greater challenges.

Currently, United Nations peacekeeping operations are tasked with a broad range of mandates. Overstretched operations are faced with challenges in logistics, finance and force generation, which give rise to significant gaps between mandates and their implementation. We welcome the New Horizon initiative presented to the Council today by Under-Secretaries-General Le Roy and Malcorra to address these challenges. We look forward to a constructive and useful dialogue on this initiative between Member States and the Secretariat.

Allow me to contribute the following three observations to address the issue of mandate implementation.

First, while the mandates are given by the Council, there should also be a common and clear understanding among all stakeholders, including major troop- and police-contributing countries, countries in the region and host nations, as to which tasks are to be given to the mission and to what extent they are expected to be accomplished.

Allow me to offer a useful example. Since the Council established the United Nations mission in Timor-Leste, the Timor-Leste core group, comprised of countries having strong relationships with the country, has been facilitating consideration of the issue by the Council. The views of the countries that have direct and broad contact with the respective host nations are extremely valuable in enabling the Council to formulate clear, achievable and effective mandates. Taking them into account lends the Council's work greater legitimacy and authority. It is also indispensable to hear the views of the major troop- and police-contributing countries, whose personnel can provide direct information on conditions in the field. Realistic evaluation of the situation in the field is key to the formulation of a realistic mandate. In this regard, tripartite cooperation among the Council, troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat, through more intensive information sharing and efforts to reach common understanding on the nature of operations, should be enhanced.

Secondly, complex and robust peacekeeping mandates require troops that are more capable and well trained. The quality of the personnel is more important than the numbers. For this reason, we concur with the Secretariat on the necessity of broadening the contributor base. To the same end, it is necessary that the international community further develop training programmes for the troops in a coordinated manner.

Japan is working with peacekeeping operation training centres in Africa to build the capacity of African troops. Japan is also working with countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), as shown in the third meeting of the ASEAN Regional Forum's peacekeeping experts in Cambodia. That meeting was held from 24 to 26 June under the co-chairmanship of Cambodia and Japan, and the participants had a very fruitful discussion on ways and means for enhancing the regional capacity to participate in United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Lastly, it is quite understandable that people in distress expect much from a United Nations mission tasked with mandates such as protection of civilians. However, gaps between expectations and implementation can quickly lead to disappointment and undermine the credibility of the United Nations. That in turn makes it more difficult to implement the assigned mandates.

To avoid this spiral, it would be useful to establish a common understanding among relevant partners, including the local population, about the role of the peacekeepers on the ground through proactive communication and by establishing standard operating procedures governing the protection of civilians and how the United Nations mission coordinates with other humanitarian agencies and non-governmental organizations. We should also pay sufficient attention to achieving a return to normal life for the local populace through the early recovery of socio-economic stability and thus alleviate any frustration that may be building among them. At the same time, the international community should strive to make accurate assessments of the developments on the ground and the work of the mission without exerting any pressure, in order to avoid arriving at premature decisions regarding the mandate and work of the mission. We should try to find realistic and practical ways to operate missions in spite of the complicated situation surrounding them.

Today's timely debate contributes to our understanding of the challenges confronting peacekeeping activities. Japan, in its capacity as Chair of the Security Council's Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations, will spare no effort to facilitate exchanges of views among all stakeholders in order to find workable solutions for current challenges. The Working Group has had four fruitful meetings so far this year, with the participation of troop- and police-contributing countries, countries contributing financially and other stakeholders, to discuss how to address gaps between the mandate and its implementation. In that connection, we sought firsthand feedback on conditions on the ground from the troop-contributing countries and the Secretariat. Based on that fruitful discussion, we plan to prepare an interim report on the work of the Working Group for submission to the Council next month with the aim of contributing to improvements in operational aspects. I ask for the constructive engagement of the members of the Working Group in this regard.

The various ongoing initiatives, including the Working Group, should be mutually reinforcing and should contribute to setting a new direction for improved United Nations peacekeeping and the accumulation of practical and realistic solutions. Japan will continue to be actively engaged in this endeavour as Chair of the Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations as well as in its activities as a Member State.

Mr. Rugunda (Uganda)

We wish to thank you, Mr. President, for organizing this important debate on United Nations peacekeeping operations, bringing together troop- and police-contributing countries. Interactions such as this between troop- and police-contributing countries will further enhance our understanding of the dynamics of peacekeeping and the planning, coordination and implementation of United Nations peacekeeping operations.

We thank Mr. Alain Le Roy, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, and Susana Malcorra, Under-Secretary-General for Field Support, for their presentations. In this regard, we wish to commend the initiatives of the Secretariat in preparing the New Horizon command paper. We also commend the efforts of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, the initiative of Canada and the Center on International Cooperation, the review process launched by the United Kingdom and France within the Security Council, and the work of the Security Council's Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations in the ongoing debate on peacekeeping.

The number and scope of the United Nations peacekeeping operations are at the highest level ever, stretching the system's capacity. The reality is that for many people out there where the United Nations has a peacekeeping operation, the arrival of United Nations peacekeepers brings the hope that the horrors and insecurity they had to endure would be no more. We know that while in some parts of the world the United Nations has been successful in meeting the hopes and dreams of the affected populations, in others it has not been as successful.

Where peacekeeping has not been successful, part of the reason is that it has been overwhelmed by the task, or has lacked the appropriate mandate or adequate troops, or has even lacked assets and, sometimes, resolve. Ultimately, where peacekeeping has not been successful, a holistic approach to handling the challenges at hand has been lacking.

It is a fact that recent operations have highlighted the gap between demand and supply in some of these areas. Where the United Nations has not met the expectations of the people, the result has been an affected population with mixed feelings of hope, frustration and even hostility to the United Nations presence. As we discuss peacekeeping operations, therefore, we must conduct a reality check so that together the entire international community learns some of the lessons from our successes and also from our failures.

That underscores the importance of the relationship between the Security Council and the countries that contribute the men and women who serve on United Nations missions, and the need to strengthen the existing mechanism for engagement. Although there are mechanisms for this interaction, there is a need to strengthen the existing arrangements to improve the dialogue between those who plan and mandate United Nations peacekeeping operations -- that is, the Council -- and those who implement the mandates on the ground, where they often face considerable risks. Thus we are convinced that this debate is timely and will further strengthen United Nations peacekeeping to meet the needs of contemporary challenges.

A common understanding is needed about what United Nations peacekeeping should be mandated to do and what it can do. In recent years there has been a shift towards more robust and comprehensive United Nations peacekeeping, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition to maintaining peace and security, peacekeepers are increasingly charged with assisting in political processes, supporting humanitarian efforts, reforming justice systems, training law enforcement and security forces, and disarming former combatants and foreign armed groups.

Given these challenges, it is indeed imperative to address such issues as the degree of robustness of modern United Nations peacekeeping, how protection of civilians mandates can be best implemented, and what peacekeeping tasks should be undertaken by United Nations peacekeepers and for how long. This requires a clear understanding of the situation on the ground before mandates are designed.

Clear entrance and exit strategies should also be elaborated with the principal actors concerned. To that end, we support the revitalization of the Military Staff Committee, with the participation of all members of the Council, so that it can play a more active role in providing the relevant technical input. All these issues require a strong understanding between contributor countries and the Council as to what is expected of peacekeepers and what they require to fulfil these objectives.

Developing peacekeeping capability depends on a combination of political will and the availability of resources on the part of Member States. The lack of political will undermines the credibility of the United Nations; lack of resources compounds the problem by limiting the ability of any peacekeeping mission to implement its mandate. The United Nations should therefore endeavour to broaden the contributor base by working with partners at the regional and subregional levels and by taking advantage of their capacities.

The complexity of modern peacekeeping clearly indicates that no single organization, not even the United Nations, is capable of tackling challenges of such magnitude alone. Security challenges require a collective approach, which should seek to establish coordination at both the strategic and the programmatic levels. The United Nations should therefore take maximum advantage of the strengths that respective organizations, especially regional organizations such as the African Union, can contribute. However, that will require the establishment or strengthening of strategic relationships that may exist with regional organizations.

Effective peacekeeping is an objective that we share. To that end, the Council and the troop- and police-contributing countries have an important role to play. We need to focus on strengthening their relationship and interaction during the different stages of a peacekeeping mission, especially early in the planning stages of a new mission or whenever there is a change in the mandate. We also need to give attention to the coordination of the various initiatives of United Nations peacekeeping in order to reinforce complementarities and avoid the duplication of efforts.

Uganda therefore supports a stronger convergence in United Nations peacekeeping, with a clear set of achievable goals in the immediate, medium and long terms so as to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. We also support the aim of strengthening the unity and cohesion of all stakeholders, enhancing the credibility of United Nations peacekeeping, and building its capacity with a view to making it more predictable and adaptable to emerging challenges, such as that in Somalia. We recommend that the Working Group of the Whole on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations undertake an in-depth consideration of the proposals made during our debates, and report to the Council before the end of the year.

Finally, Uganda pays tribute to the men and women of the United Nations for their tireless sacrifices in helping to make our world a safer place in which to live. We especially remember and honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of peace.

Mr. Kafando (Burkina Faso)

At the outset, I thank you, Sir, for choosing the topic of United Nations peacekeeping operations as the subject of our discussion today. I should also like to thank Mr. Le Roy and Ms. Malcorra for their briefings.

The maintenance of peace is one of the principal responsibilities of the United Nations. If it is to accomplish that important mission, it is natural that the Organization should have a strategy for making its peacekeeping operations as effective as possible. In that regard and as many have pointed out, the Brahimi report (S/2000/809) is a fundamental reference document that has enabled us to undertake useful reforms in the United Nations in order to adapt our action to increasingly complex new situations.

As time passes, however, we must give new consideration to how to meet the many challenges facing peacekeeping operations in terms of the political commitment of the actors, the participation of States, the financing and conception of missions, the equipping of troops and organization. We therefore encourage the involvement of the greatest possible number of Member States, particularly troop-contributing countries, in the current thinking on this issue. We pay tribute to the Japanese delegation for engaging an ever-growing number of Member States in the Working Group of the Whole on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, which it chairs. We hope that, following an intergovernmental process, the Organization will be able to make us of the innovative ideas that will emerge from the process as a whole, with the principal objective of improving the conduct of peacekeeping operations.

It is of paramount importance that the United Nations be able to mobilize as many troops as are needed to address crisis situations in a timely manner. To that end, all Member States should be able to contribute to peace missions because, after all, peacekeeping is a collective responsibility. It is essential in particular to broaden the involvement of troop-contributing countries, which should not be confined to just a few individual countries, but should encompass all States. Moreover, efforts must be made to support those States that genuinely wish to contribute troops but do not have the resources to do so.

The quest for effectiveness also requires us to give sustained focus to the mandates of peacekeeping operations. Indeed, as many have stressed, the drafting of mandates remains the subject of debate that is justified in part by the gap between realities on the ground and the missions assigned to troops. We must continue to seek to endow United Nations forces with realistic mandates and clear rules of engagement that guarantee protection for innocent civilians, especially women and children. However, they must also be endowed with sufficient deterrent capacity in order to ensure an operation's success.

None of this can be accomplished without the support of Member States, the Secretariat, troop-contributing countries and host countries, which must all offer sustained political support and open cooperation to peacekeeping missions. The provisions of resolution 1353 (2001) remain relevant and should be exploited in order to strengthen such cooperation.

With better-equipped and better-trained troops and adequate mandates, the United Nations can attain short-term goals. But sometimes that can be in vain over the long term if the United Nations confines itself to addressing physical security. It should support political processes and help implement peace agreements. It should also work with the country concerned in the development sphere, because a lasting peace process cannot be guaranteed unless the underlying causes of the crisis are resolved; these include poverty, exclusion and poor governance.

We cannot ignore the substantial peacekeeping experience of the United Nations. While there have been tragic examples in the course of the Organization's history, it is important also to highlight the successes, which are far more numerous.

In recent years, regional organizations too have demonstrated their commitment and their capacity to manage major crises. It would be desirable to further strengthen their central role in peacekeeping. The United Nations should be able to support them in that respect. We encourage in particular the strengthening of the partnership between the United Nations and the African Union in the peacekeeping sphere, as called for by all delegations that participated in the Council's open debate on 18 March (see S/PV.6092). We are certain that efforts will be made to strengthen the peacekeeping capacity of the African Union, as recommended by the African Union-United Nations panel to consider the modalities of how to support African Union peacekeeping operations established under a United Nations mandate.

The available resources are limited, so we believe that we must further rationalize United Nations action. At the same time, we are concerned about options that would impose sometimes subjective deadlines and criteria regarding the termination of operations. We remain convinced that early withdrawal can be tragic, and more costly for the Organization. Hence, we must better assess the threat of instability and the re-eruption of crisis before terminating an operation or moving to the peacebuilding stage. Specifically, during the special phase of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), the United Nations -- while ensuring the availability of funding for DDR programmes -- should ensure that the operation is successfully carried out.

We pay tribute to the men and women who, through peacekeeping operations, provide security and stability in conflict zones, many of whom have lost their lives. War is a tragedy, and in our view more must be done to prevent the outbreak of conflict. We must also place a sharper focus on prevention, including by promoting mediation and creating early warning mechanisms to prevent latent crises from erupting into open conflict. Such approaches are more desirable and far less costly than peacekeeping, peace-restoration or peacebuilding operations.

Troop-contributing countries, the Secretariat, financial partners and regional organizations all have their respective shares of responsibility in carrying out peacekeeping operations. We must try to reduce the communication gap among those players; we must involve them in the various stages of the establishment of peacekeeping operations. We believe that, if we all work together, our current deliberations will help build trust among all the key players and will enhance the effectiveness of action by the United Nations.

Let me say in conclusion that we support the recommendation offered by the Permanent Representative of France regarding greater attention to the question of languages in peacekeeping operations.

Mr. Liu Zhenmin (China)

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'\xf6' in position 4674: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg015-bk01-pa01">The Chinese delegation...ready to work with other parties to this end.</p>', 4674, 4675, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 4675
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg015-bk01-pa01">The Chinese delegation...ready to work with other parties to this end.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 4674