GA/9788

GENERAL ASSEMBLY TAKES UP REPORT OF SECURITY COUNCIL

Also Decides to Include Three Additional Items in Fifty-fifth Regular Session Agenda

A variety of views on the work of the Security Council were expressed this afternoon as the General Assembly met to consider the Council�s report for the period from 16 June 1999 to 15 June 2000.

The representative of France said that despite its internal difficulties, the Security Council had organized several complex missions during the past year. Concerning sanctions, the Security Council had adopted new measures since June 1999, taking into account the lessons of the past, including targeted sanctions and establishing panels of experts to make recommendations to the Council. Another notable evolution in the functioning of the Security Council concerned the progress accomplished in the realm of transparency. All presidents of the Security Council had sought to establish public meetings, and to improve information provided to members in real time.

The Security Council�s reports still lacked both substance and candor, the representative of India said. The 550-page tome was, like its predecessors, simply a compilation of documents. He asked Council members to consider if the veil of secrecy which they drew over their work served a purpose. If transparency were the guiding principle, the Council would not need to conduct most of its work at informal meetings.

The representative of Singapore said today's considerations assumed added significance against the backdrop of the reports of the fall of Srebrenica, the 1994 Rwanda Genocide and the recommendations of the Brahimi Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. Those reports told a sobering story of gross ineptitude. It was puzzling and even shocking that while the report of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities appointed by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to investigate the events leading to the Rwanda genocide had been released in early June, no move had been made by the Council to discuss it.

Costa Rica�s representative said that, unfortunately, the past year had not given a very good example of the work of the Council, as the events in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Horn of Africa had shown. The Council had repeatedly failed in its work. The international community must not lose faith in the Council, however, but strengthen it.

General Assembly Plenary - 1a - Press Release GA/9788 35th Meeting (PM) 17 October 2000

The President of the Security Council, Martin Andjaba (Namibia), introduced the report.

In other business, the Assembly decided to include three additional items in the agenda of its fifty-fifth regular session, entitled: �Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons�; �Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit�; and �Peace, security and reunification on the Korean peninsula�, and to consider those items directly in plenary meeting.

The representatives of Belarus, Ukraine, Germany, China, Colombia, Italy, Senegal, Cuba, Brazil, Peru, Bahrain, Viet Nam, Malaysia, Japan, Australia, and Mexico also spoke.

The open-ended informal consultations of the plenary on agenda item 182 (�Follow-up to the Outcome of the Millennium Assembly�) will be held on Friday, 27 October, at 10 a.m. in Conference Room 2.

The fifty-fifth regular session of the Assembly will meet again tomorrow, Wednesday, 18 October, at 10 a.m. to continue consideration of the report of the Security Council.

The tenth emergency special session of the Assembly will resume tomorrow at 3 p.m.

General Assembly Plenary - 3 - Press Release GA/9788 35th Meeting (PM) 17 October 2000

Assembly Work Programme

The General Assembly met this afternoon to consider the Report of the Security Council covering the period from 16 June 1999 to 15 June 2000, and the report of its General Committee on organization of work for the session. The report of the Security Council (document A/55/2) was submitted to the Assembly in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. During the year under review, the report notes, the Council held 144 formal meetings, adopted 57 resolutions and issued 38 statements by the President. In addition, there were 194 �consultations of the whole� among council members, for a total of some 394 hours. The Council considered more than 85 reports by the Secretary-General, and reviewed and processed more than 1,165 documents and communications from States and regional and other intergovernmental organizations.

Part I of the report deals with questions relating to the Council�s responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council met frequently on the following items: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cyprus, East Timor, Angola, Georgia, Tajikistan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Western Sahara, Iraq and Kuwait, Central African Republic, Somalia, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and the situation in the Middle East.

In addition, the Council also met on: the maintenance of peace and security and post-conflict peace-building, humanitarian assistance to refugees in Africa; children and armed conflict; protection of civilians in armed conflict; small arms; and general issues relating to sanctions.

Part II of the report deals with other matters considered by the Council, such as the draft report to the General Assembly and matters relating to the documentation and working methods of the Council. Part III covers the work done by the Military Staff Committee, while Part IV lists communications on matters brought to the Council�s attention.

Part V of the report reviews the work of the subsidiary organs of the Council. Subsidiary organs active during the year under review included: the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission; United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission; the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia; International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law committed in the Territory of Rwanda, and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States; and the Security Council Committees on Iraq and Kuwait, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Somalia, Angola, Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

In addition to the extensive coverage provided in Part V of the work of the report on the subsidiary organs of the Council, the annual reports of the sanctions committees are to be found in Appendix XII.

Also before the Assembly was the third report of its General Committee on Organization of the fifty-fifth regular session of the General Assembly, adoption of the agenda and allocation of items (document A/55/250/Add.2) regarding the Committee�s fourth meeting, on 16 October. In the report, the Committee recommends that the Assembly includes items entitled: �Cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization of the prohibition of Chemical Weapons�; �Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit�; and �Peace, security and reunification on the Korean peninsula�, and recommends that those items be considered directly in plenary meeting. (For more information on the Committee�s fourth meeting, see Press Release GA/9786 of 16 October.)

Statements

MARTIN ANDJABA (Namibia), President of the Security Council, introduced the Council�s report. He said it showed the intensity of the Council�s working agenda during the year, holding 144 formal meetings, adopting 67 resolutions, issuing 38 statements and holding 194 consultations of the whole. It had considered over 85 reports by the Secretary-General. The Council had dispatched four missions to various conflict areas.

In line with its responsibilities under the Charter, he went on, the Council had considered a wide range of issues, and ensuring security in Africa and other regions remained high on the agenda. Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sierra Leone and Somalia -- among others -- had been considered. Missions went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Ethiopia and Eritrea. Peacekeeping operations in, for instance, Guinea-Bissau had been transformed successfully into a post-conflict operation.

He said missions were also dispatched to East Timor and Kosovo. Statements were issued on broad issues, such as children in armed conflict, disarmament, demobilization, disarmament and reintegration of ex-combatants, HIV/AIDS, and international peace and security.

He said the Council remained highly conscious of its own responsibility and the role played by other United Nations bodies. Many open meetings and briefings were held with the participation of the wider membership of the United Nations. The report would shed more light on the activities of the Council. The Council looked forward to the comments and suggestions of Member States.

SERGEI LING (Belarus) said that last year should be considered as a special one in the work of the Security Council. Conflicts in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of the Congo and other regions of the world had brought the Council�s activities to the key element in the maintenance of international peace and security. More and more often, the Council was considering root causes leading to crises and military confrontation. Last year, the sanctions policy had been a special part of the Council�s work. The complex humanitarian situation in Iraq and other States, as a result of the coercive measures imposed against them, should remain an imperative for further work in this direction aimed at reducing the negative impact of sanctions on civilian populations.

Belarus welcomed the fact that, as compared with previous periods, the Council held more open meetings last year. This was an important step in making the Council�s work more transparent. Belarus would support further measures which would allow non-members to participate more actively in the Council�s deliberations. It considered the next important step could be the publication of daily briefings given by the current President of the Council immediately after closed consultations, and the distribution of press releases at United Nations Headquarters. Still of crucial importance were the summaries prepared on a monthly basis by the countries presiding in the Council. By presenting its candidature for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council for 2002-2003, Belarus proceeded from a strong willingness to comply with the provisions of the Millennium Declaration.

VOLODYMYR YEL�CHENKO (Ukraine) said the agenda item on �report of the Security Council� offered the General Assembly a unique opportunity to make a comprehensive assessment of the Council�s activities over the past year.

According to the Secretary-General�s report on the work of the Organization, the number of peacekeepers on deployment authorized by the Council had almost tripled over the past twelve months, standing now at about 45,000 uniformed personnel. That was among the reasons for the current efforts to improve the effectiveness of the Council. He said the Council was criticized not long ago for the lack of response to the demands of the African continent. Today, tangible change was evident, as noted in the substantially expanded United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), the authorization of the second phase in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the deployment of the United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE), and the Council�s action on violation of sanctions against National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).

He said his Government favoured the establishment of United Nations regional centres for conflict prevention, and the creation of conflict prevention operations. He noted that the Security Council had begun to rethink its overall policy with regard to economic sanctions, defining time limits of sanctions at the stage of their imposition. Ukraine supported this new trend to bring about a clear and coherent methodology for the imposition and lifting of sanctions, which should take into consideration the concerns of civilian populations and the interests of third countries.

KAMALESH SHARMA (India) said Security Council reports still lacked both substance and candor. The current 550-page tome was, like its predecessors, simply a compilation of documents, most of which had already been officially circulated. Council members should consider if the veil of secrecy which they drew over its work served a purpose. To the general membership, it appeared both lofty, because it flouted the expressed wishes of the Assembly, and self- defeating, because it fed suspicions that the Council was secretive.

If transparency were the guiding principle, he said, the Council would not need to conduct most of its work at informal meetings. Those should be the exception rather than the unwritten rule they had become. Nowhere did the current situation create more problems than in the complex peacekeeping operations the Council had set up. When the Council held closed meetings to address the crisis in Sierra Leone, India and other troop contributors had asked to be invited. His delegation was astonished that its request had been turned down and had never been told why. A partnership between the Council and the peacekeepers was not just crucial; it was a prerequisite.

He said that even as the Council had not lived up to expectations in maintaining international peace and security, particularly in Africa, it had continued to try to assume a role for itself in areas such as health, welfare of children and humanitarian assistance, which were clearly beyond its mandate and fell under the jurisdiction of the Assembly. For example, nothing in the United Nations Charter gave the Council the right to set up tribunals. Nor could it be demonstrated that those which had been set up had, in fact, contributed to the maintenance of peace and security.

Many of the flaws in the functioning of the Council were structural; the solution was in reforming and restructuring the body. The inclusion of developing countries would make the Council more representative, relevant and responsive.

DIETER KASTRUP (Germany) said one of the most obvious innovations in the Council�s recent practice had been overlooked by the report: the reintroduction of private meetings. He had asked the presidents of the Council, on a regular basis, to allow non-members to participate in the Council�s deliberations where their interests were specially affected. He said the changes in the Council�s procedures over the last year were significant. Instead of automatically coming together behind closed doors, the Council had moved towards being more open to the general membership. In some cases, interactive debates had taken place.

Deliberations of the Working Group on Security Council reform had, once again, made it clear that because of the attitude of a minority, it was not possible to agree on any substantial chapter in this year�s report. He said seven years of debate on reform were enough. The Assembly, as well as the Council, should change its working methods. Both bodies should breathe life into the words they produced.

WANG YINGFAN (China) said there had been an increase in the past year in both the number and scale of United Nations peacekeeping operations. Such operations had failed to yield the expected results in Sierra Leone and other places. Immediate improvement was needed.

He said better communication and consultation with troop-contributing countries was crucial. Whether it was authorizing the deployment of a new peacekeeping mission or amending the mandate of a current operation, the view of the contributors must be heeded and respected. The Security Council should substantially improve its cooperation with regional organizations and countries concerned to address �hot-spot� issues, with a view to safeguarding regional stability.

It remained a major challenge for the Security Council to find a timely, effective and endurable solution to such issues in Africa. He said that in adopting the resolutions on the arms embargo against Ethiopia and Eritrea and on the diamond embargo against Sierra Leone, the Security Council set time frames in explicit terms. That was a major breakthrough in the Council�s work on sanctions, because it responded correctly to the call of the vast number of Member States.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia) thanked Member States for electing Colombia as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. In reference to the report on the Security Council, there was a methodological problem; specifically, that of insufficient information provided to States which were not members of the Security Council. No information on the Council�s 237 informal consultations was made available, which resulted in States being misinformed. Colombia believed that there was a need for openness and transparency. There must be reform of this practice, or alternatives must be developed. Other methods should be considered, he added.

The competence of the Security Council must be evaluated because of issues now on the Council�s agenda that were not linked to peace and security. In the past year, there was also increasing dissatisfaction about the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. Blue helmets should not be sent everywhere, he said. Nor should they be sent without clear mandates. If a mission had no chance of being successful, then there should not be a mission, as the examples of Rwanda and Bosnia and Herzegovina indicated.

He pointed out that the United Nations faced an important challenge regarding peacekeeping operations. The improvements suggested by the High Level Panel on United Nations Peace Operations, in document A/55/305, should be adopted and implemented. There must be no delay in implementing needed reforms, which must be considered by the General Assembly as well as the Security Council. In closing, Colombia supported efforts to make the Security Council a more representative organ, in order to secure the greatest possible trust in its decisions.

SERGIO VENTO (Italy) complimented the Secretariat for its excellent preparatory work. As always, however, there was room for improvement. He reiterated the wish expressed in previous years that the report, rather than being a mere catalogue of meetings, resolutions and presidential statements, should be more substantial and analytical. That would allow a better assessment of the work of the Security Council in all its aspects. Considering the marked rise in interventions decided on by the Council and the enormous consequences of that renewed activism for all members of the Organization, Member States had a right to question the way those mandates were adopted and ask whether different and more effective means might have been used to achieve peace, he said.

The exponential increase in the peacekeeping budget had placed a growing burden on all United Nations members, especially the top contributors. In the current budget year, for example, Italy was paying approximately $110 million to finance peacekeeping operations that the Security Council decided on in complete autonomy. He was in favour of a review of the scale of assessments for peacekeeping that would endow that fundamental sector with greater stability and resources, as well as compensate for a persistent state of financial uncertainty.

He said the international community was now committed to a review of the entire organizational, conceptual and financial format of peacekeeping operations through an unprecedented effort of Member States, the General Assembly and the Secretariat. But the Security Council also had to do its part. The Council had to do more in conflict prevention and adopt credible mandates. There was also a widespread feeling that non-members of the Council should be consulted in its decision-making process. The working methods needed to be reformed. Last year, there had been an encouraging increase in open debates and public sessions. Progress was still inadequate, however, in reducing the number of informal consultations. The affirmation of that practice had turned closed-door consultations into the true seat of negotiations, and narrowed the decision-making framework of the United Nations.

IBRA DEGUENE KA (Senegal) said the Security Council report was full of facts and figures, and gave a complete picture of the Council�s important role in managing the situations posing a threat to security. The debate was an opportunity to look at ways to enhance the effectiveness of the body to create the necessary synergy between the Council and other bodies of the Organization. The work of the Council had become more transparent over the last years and he appreciated the Council�s briefings. The more frequent use of open debates was welcome, as well as the initiative by Presidents to organize public meetings. Thematic debates on peacekeeping, humanitarian aid to refugees in Africa, children affected by armed conflict and sanctions -- among other subjects -- had been held. Those stimulating debates were of special importance to non-members.

As in previous years, the report gave a special place to crises in Africa, which had the greatest number of conflicts on the Council�s agenda. The Council had made commendable efforts to contain those conflicts. He welcomed the many initiatives undertaken by the Council. In the interest of peace and development in Africa, the Council should consider ways to help Africans with capacity- building for peacekeeping, particularly to develop the ability to prevent crisis situations. A rapid reaction mechanism should be put in place jointly by the Council and regional organizations on the basis of a partnership.

BRUNO RODRIGUEZ PARRILLA (Cuba) said that the Security Council�s annual report must be recognized for its value as part of the institutional memory of the Council. Making this information available for the General Assembly would be for the benefit of all countries. Transparency was an urgent need because all Member States were affected, since the Council�s activities were financed by all Member States.

According to its own rules, he said, the Council must meet in public, but that had become the exception rather than the rule. A trend towards open meetings must be maintained, so that other States could make a contribution to the meetings.

He said the Security Council must not assume work entrusted to the General Assembly and other bodies. Sanctions meetings must be open and all countries affected must be allowed to participate. He said hypocrisy and double standards seemed to apply in cases where States supporting sanctions advocated humanitarian aid.

GELSON FONSECA (Brazil) said that Africa remained that main focus of Council actions and discussions. The recurring violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the difficulties in Sierra Leone, among others, were powerful reminders that the United Nations had a long way to go before the goal of a more stable international scenario could be achieved.

The Middle East was also a source of grave concern, especially after the events of recent weeks, he said. Brazil welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 1322 and stressed the need for the Council to respond to possible outbreaks of violence in the region. Brazil also reaffirmed that resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) must be the basis to a just and lasting solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. He also hoped to see peace in the Balkans. Despite recent positive developments in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Security Council�s attention was no less crucial than before. The situation in East Timor was also of close interest to Brazil. Acts of violence and infiltrations from militia groups in East Timor should not be allowed to disrupt the construction of the new State.

Peacekeeping operations were increasingly complex and numerous, he said. The Security Council must be attentive to the current efforts to reflect on how to respond to new peacekeeping mandates. The Report on United Nations Peace Operations -- Brahimi report -- offered a valuable framework on how to build upon lessons learned from mistakes of the past. The courageous reports on Rwanda and Srebrenica should be standing references. The challenge was the establishment of mandates that were clear, credible and achievable. Financial resources, mandates and political will must converge to make every United Nations peacekeeping initiative feasible.

Sanctions must be a tool for the normalization of international relations, not a collective punishment imposed on the population of a targeted country, he said. Sanctions were an extreme measure that were only justifiable when alternatives for a peaceful settlement of the dispute had failed altogether. They should be: proportional to the objectives; limited to precise targets; mindful of the humanitarian impact and effect on third parties; and, contain clear terms of duration and termination. He praised the efforts of Ambassador Fowler of Canada in strengthening the implementation of sanctions regime against UNITA and looked forward to the results of the Security Council�s working group on how to improve the effectiveness of United Nations sanctions.

JORGE VALDEZ (Peru) said he welcomed efforts made to open up the Security Council that had taken place during the past year, through a larger number of open sessions. He hoped that would continue in the future. He was also delighted that the Council had approached troop-contributing countries to establish a permanent and direct dialogue on the basic aspects of peacekeeping operations. Every Member State elected to the Security Council should work to disseminate information within its respective region.

He said it had become more common to restrict debate to a small group of countries on concepts that, without an appropriate framework, might become sources of intervention and interference in internal matters of States. There was no clear basis for so-called humanitarian intervention. He asked why the discussion on humanitarian intervention had not taken place within a more participatory forum. One could not ignore the fact that the mandate conferred by the Charter upon the Council was in accord with reality -- relations between States in the United Nations were what prevailed in the international scene.

Peru had received with interest the Declaration of the Council on the occasion of the Millennium Summit. However, that Declaration lacked a specific reference to studying sanctions regimes. The purpose of such a review would be to ensure that sanctions did not become institutionalized, and in some cases, permanent punishment for the civil population. He was pleased with efforts made to analyse the economic causes of conflicts that had made reference to the role that illegal exploitation of natural resources by rebel groups and third States might play. He believed that this factor was a very important element in the continuation of current conflicts.

JASSIM MOHAMMED BUALLAY (Bahrain) said his country had been able to see at first-hand the importance of the Security Council, yet it was also aware that there were many obstacles preventing the Council from achieving its purpose. There needed to be equitable representation in the Council. It went without saying that the political map was different when the United Nations Charter was established.

Transparency in the Security Council was an important consideration, since collective security presupposed the participation of the largest number of people from the international community. There had been an increasing openness within the Council, but not enough to allow non-members to participate effectively. He said there were also differences in the means of dealing with various issues between permanent and non-permanent members of the Council. There was also a crisis in peacekeeping operations. While each operation had its specificity, there was no clear organization or methodology. There was also a need for a standardized system to mitigate the negative effects of sanctions. Impositions of sanctions should not be comprehensive, but should concentrate on specific aspects. That was a matter in need of a radical review. He said that even though the Middle East problem had been on the international scene since 1948, the problem was not on the agenda of the Council. The tragic recent events resulting from Israeli provocation should make the international community realize the importance of the matter. The Security Council should once more embrace that issue on which it had adopted resolutions 242 and 338, which were still awaiting implementation.

NGUYEN THANH CHAU (Viet Nam) said the participation of non-Council members in the important issues of the Security Council was essential for the success of the Council�s activities and was a welcome development. On the matter of humanitarian intervention, Viet Nam wished to caution that it raised many delicate and controversial questions, which included the fundamental principle of state sovereignty, as indicated in the United Nations Charter. The Council should not attempt to expand its scope beyond what it was authorized to do under the Charter because it would diminish the roles of other competent organs of the United Nations, particularly the General Assembly.

He said his Government was concerned that the resort to the threat of using the veto power would render the work of the Council less effective. The ongoing impasse on the sanctions regimes was a good case in point. Sanctions should only be the last resort. Their scope and duration should be clearly defined. Great caution was needed in their application. They should never be used indefinitely. In this connection, he said, he wished to call on the Council to urgently review and lift all the sanctions imposed upon Iraq, taking into account their debilitating effects on the Iraqi people.

HASMY AGAM (Malaysia) said it was gratifying to note that the working methods of the Security Council were continually evolving. This had been due in large part to increasing calls form the general United Nations membership, as well as from within the Council itself, for more openness, enhanced transparency and, most important, increased effectiveness.

He said that while the Council's informal consultations were perhaps indispensable to its working methods, transparency demanded that there should be more frequent public meetings. There was also a need for the Council's private meetings to become a mechanism for an informal exchange of views between Members and individuals representing non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or other institutions that could contribute to a better understanding of particular issues.

As the Council's working methods evolved, he added, there should also be more attention focused on the �contentious and anachronistic institution of the veto�. Pending its ultimate demise, the use of veto should be restricted so as to ensure more democratic functioning of the Council. Those members of the Council with veto power should show the necessary political will in that regard. While sanctions were a legitimate instrument to give effect to the Council's decisions on certain States or parties to a conflict, he said, he strongly believed that they were an exceptional measure to be resorted to only in extreme situations.

YUKIO SATOH (Japan) said that it had become increasingly apparent in recent years that the maintenance of international peace and security required a comprehensive approach. The cooperation of the entire international community was ever more essential. It was largely through the support and cooperation of non- member States that the decisions of the Security Council were implemented.

He said he supported the recent increase in the number of open debates and open briefings; the need to engage interested non-members in the Council�s deliberations and to have their views reflected in its decisions had been repeatedly stressed in the course of the deliberations of the open-ended working group on Security Council reform. He said non-members were not given the opportunity to express their views at �open briefings�, so every effort must be made to hold �open debates� rather than �open briefings�. Non-member States could then ask questions and make their views known.

He drew attention to the recent Notes of the Security Council Presidents (documents S/1996/13 and S/1998/1016), which stated that the Council should continue the existing practice of inviting Member States which made special contributions to peacekeeping operations -� as distinct from troops and civilian police -- such as contributions to trust funds, logistics and equipment. He said this practice had not been followed; the exclusion from those consultations of countries making such contributions ran counter to the trend towards greater transparency and accountability. Furthermore, the composition of the Council must be fundamentally reformed to reflect the realities of today�s international community.

BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said consideration of the current report was one of the main activities of the Assembly. The Council was the Organization�s most visible body in the public eye. However, one must not forget that the decisions of the Council were also decisions of the international community as a whole. All Members of the Organization had an obligation to determine if the Council was faithfully representing our interest.

Unfortunately, the past year had not given a very good example of the work of the Council, such as events in Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Horn of Africa had shown, he said. Responsibility for those setbacks seemed to be clear. They were due to the fact that the Council had drafted ambiguous and incoherent mandates, which had not received sufficient financial backing. The Council had repeatedly failed in its work. The international community must not lose faith in the Council, however, but strengthen it.

It had been suggested that humanitarian intervention by a group of States might be a substitute, he said. He did not share that view. The doctrine of a just war had ultimately been used to legitimize destruction and death. Under the legal regime of the Charter, the Council was the only legitimate organization for responding to armed conflict and humanitarian crises that threatened peace and security. Prior authority by the Council was essential for any initiative using force. A new doctrine for the conduct of peacekeeping operations had to be established. The Brahimi Report was but one step forward in that direction.

The impartiality of peacekeeping forces and limiting the use of force solely to defence must be the pillar of the military side of peacekeeping initiatives, he said. Over the years, a new kind of peacekeeping operation had emerged, such as in Kosovo and East Timor. Those operations presented an unprecedented challenge to the Organization. The United Nations had to provide health and education services, tax collection and mail, among other things, and promote democracy in an area in transition. The experience had, in general, been positive.

It was essential, however, to provide the Organization with the necessary financial resources, he said. Countries with disproportionately large military budgets had to contribute more to peacekeeping operations than countries with smaller military budgets as measured against their gross national product (GNP). The successes of the Council were the successes of the international community, just as its failures were the failures of the international community, he said.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) said that by using the Secretary-General's analogy of the world as a global village, the Security Council's role was akin to that of a magistracy that had been entrusted and authorized by the village to keep peace. Surprisingly, however, that magistracy had few obligations to its community. One of those was to submit a written annual report containing information on work undertaken. It would seem that such annual reports were the only institutional avenue through which the global village community could inform itself of the activities of the magistracy. Every year at an annual gathering of the village community, several members expressed their views on the report, and some were even critical. There was, however, little evidence that those discussions had had any significant impact on the magistracy, which remained very much the instrument of the most powerful magistrates.

He said John Foster Dulles had written in 1950 that: "The Security Council is not a body that merely enforces agreed law. It is a law unto itself. ... No principles of law are laid down to guide it; it can decide in accordance with what it thinks expedient." In that light, the key question to be addressed was whether such a state of affairs was satisfactory.

"At this Millennium Assembly gathering of our global village, should we merely just comment and criticize this annual report, or should we do more?� he asked. "Should we also seek from the magistracy a clarification for its non-action on issues relating to peace and security, particularly when such non-action is tantamount to dereliction of its primary responsibility?� That was no abstract question for small States. Such States, which depended on the Council for their security, would find their lives seriously imperilled if that body failed to fulfil its obligations under the Charter.

He said the bottom line was accountability. Today's considerations had assumed added significance against the backdrop of the reports of the fall of Srebrenica, the 1994 Rwanda genocide and the ongoing consultations on the implementation of the recommendations of the Brahimi Panel on United Nations Peace Operations. Those reports told a sobering story of gross ineptitude, the primacy of narrow national interests on the part of key Council members, and the protection of soldiers over civilians. All of those factors conspired to cause the loss of countless civilian lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Rwanda. It was also puzzling and even shocking that, while the report of the International Panel of Eminent Personalities appointed by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to investigate the events leading to the Rwanda genocide was released in early June, no move had been made by the Council to discuss it.

In that report, he continued, one of the conclusions of Nigeria's Permanent Representative, Ibrahim Gambari, was that "it was the Security Council, especially its most powerful members, and the international community as a whole, that failed the people of Rwanda in their gravest hour of need". The report went on to say that none of the key actors in the Council or the Secretariat who had failed to prevent the genocide had ever paid any kind of price. No resignations had been demanded and no one had resigned as a matter of principle.

Many careers had flourished greatly since 1994, he said. Several questions had to be addressed. First: to which body should the Council be held accountable? That answer was clear enough -- the Assembly. Also, what would be the criteria used to determine the performance of the Council? Last, how it could be ensured that the views of the Assembly expressed during this debate were officially transmitted to the Council and taken cognizance of by that body?

JOHN STEWART (Australia) said that each year there were growing demands placed on the Security Council by an uncertain and volatile international security environment. The last year had, regrettably, been no exception. The Council had confronted complex and seemingly intractable disputes, with cooperation from disputing parties, at times, questionable at best. The specifics of each dispute, and their particular historical and political contexts, varied widely. The kinds of responses the Council might consider to any dispute would, self-evidently, need to be tailored to its particular circumstances, and to the historical and political context in which the Council was engaged.

The Council must look for new and innovative ways to exercise its influence and authority and to promote peace and security, he said. A welcome evolution had been seen in the Council's procedures with regard to meetings. The series of meetings that had taken place in January of this year, bringing together the major players in the conflict in the Great Lakes region of Africa, was one example. This more flexible approach to the convening of meetings represented an important step towards a more open, effective and transparent Council.

In saying this, his delegation did not advocate the holding of open meetings just for the sake of holding them. They should be used genuinely as opportunities for Member States to put their views on issues of direct and immediate relevance to them and to the Council. The key element missing in this process of change was, of course, expansion of the size of the Council's permanent and non-permanent membership, as well as related reforms covering the veto and periodic review.

MANUEL TELLO (Mexico) said that the report, a compendium of documents and resolutions related to the work of the Council, was useful as a quick reference for academics or interested researchers, but it was not the substantive document that had been expected. Mexico would have liked for the document to go beyond information it was merely formally obligated to provide, he said. Despite the increase in open meetings, he expressed surprise at the tendency of informal consultations becoming the norm. The Council routinely held closed-door meetings. Similarly, it was inappropriate to hold meetings that did not allow the affected countries to participate.

He said he hoped the Security Council would not assume activities outside its mandate. Activities entrusted to the General Assembly must not be infringed upon by the Council, he stressed. It should not continue to produce general announcements -- it belonged to the General Assembly to discuss norms. The Security Council must contribute to the openness and democratization of the Organization.

JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France) said that the Security Council was not as paralysed as some would say, and since June 1999 a lot had been done. Despite its internal difficulties, it had organized several complex missions, for example, the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK). The Council had also decided on an approach to the problem in Sierra Leone, which was comprised of several facets. Little progress had been made in other places, for example, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but the responsibility of the participants themselves must be stressed. Since September 1999, the Council had established five missions (East Timor, Kosovo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and in other countries of Central Africa, Ethiopia and Eritrea and Sierra Leone.) The Council had found ways of developing direct contact with the conflict participants and regional actors. The Security Council had also recognized that those who contributed troops should be consulted in a more regular and complete fashion.

Concerning sanctions, the Security Council had adopted new measures since June 1999, taking into account the lessons of the past, including targeted sanctions and establishing panels of experts to make recommendations to the Council. Peacekeeping operations had also seen some changes. The Security Council had also made efforts to ensure a smooth transition between peacekeeping and the consolidation of peace in the aftermath of conflict, which required the assistance of many different participants. A third notable evolution in the functioning of the Security Council concerned the progress accomplished in the realm of transparency. All presidents of the Security Council had sought to establish public meetings, and to improve information provided to members in real time.

Improvements were, however, still desirable and possible, he said. The Security Council had a particular responsibility with regard to mandates, which needed to be clearly defined, credible, and attainable, and relations with troop contributors. More attention needed to be paid to the regional dimension of conflict, in particular, in a preventive approach. The destabilizing effect of the conflict in Sierra Leone on Guinea provided an apt example. In the same vein, interaction between the Security Council and regional organizations should be reinforced. First, because those actors had an essential role to play in the prevention and control of conflict; second, because in a peace agreement negotiated at the regional level, the United Nations should not assign itself impossible tasks.

* *** *

United Nations