On September 10, 1998, UNHCR representative Mr Nicholas Morris briefed the members of the Security Council on the situation then prevailing in Kosovo. Mr Morris, who had arrived directly from the region, made a very vivid description of the critical humanitarian plight of the people of Kosovo. He made the suffering of the Kosovars come alive in the consultation room. I was presiding over those consultations as president of the Security Council and I had the feeling that no one left that room untouched by what we had heard. Shortly afterwards the Council adopted res 1199 which demanded that immediate steps be taken to avert the impending humanitarian catastrophe. Further action would otherwise be considered by the Council.
I take this particular example from the report we are discussing because I believe that it is an appropriate startingpoint for addressing some of the crucial issues regarding the work of the Security Council during the year covered by that report. I will deal in particular with two such issues:
The credibility of the Security Council, and the openness of the Security Council. They are indeed related.
At the time of Mr Morris's briefing, the Security Council was very much on top of what was going on in Kosovo. Many delegations worked hard to maintain that order. We believed that the situation in Kosovo, which became characterised by massive violations of human rights with clear implications for the security of the region as a whole, merited resolute action by the Security Council. However, mainly due to the possibility of a veto, such action proved out of reach even as the heinous acts of ethnic cleansing accelerated.
Another moment, vivid in my memory, was December 16 1998. The Security Council held informal consultations of the whole dealing, as so often in the past, with Iraq. We were assembled to discuss the latest report of UNSCOM regarding flagrant Iraqi violations of that state's obligations under UN resolutions. Halfway through, the meeting was interrupted, as we were informed by people coming in from the so-called silent room, where they had just seen on CNN, that unilateral action was already being undertaken by two states, both permanent members of the Security Council.
Mr President,
One could add to the above a third issue. I am referring to the veto of yet another permanent member, cast at the hight of tensions in the Balkans, and in reality putting an end to UNPREDEP in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, one of the more successful preventive UN missions.
I quote these three examples because in my mind they reflect situations which, for different reasons, have contributed to a debate that cannot be ignored. Kosovo, Iraq and UNPREDEP represent three issues where the credibility of the Security Council has been seriously questioned. For those of us, and I believe that we are many, who put our trust in the United Nations as the ultimate guarantor for the upholding of peace and human dignity, and who firmly believe that the Security Council must carry out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, this debate is a very serious one.
One key question today is how the credibility of the Security Council can be restored.
To my delegation, the answer lies in how the members of the Security Council can make the best use of its full potential. This entails several steps:
First: To take action earlier. True preventive work is still virtually absent from the Council agenda. As a consequence, the Council is confronted with urgent emergencies and will constantly be perceived to be doing too little too late. Better use must be made of the preventive tools, many of which are provided by the Charter. Prevention is both a question of information and political will. The Secretary-General has a key role to play in alerting the Council to potential conflicts as early as possible. Using this information the Security Council - as well as the Secretariat - could focus more on identifying specific options available to them before the conflicts hit the headlines: by quiet and public means, through activities in the field and through action here in New York. Let us not forget however, the key challenge – and responsibility: that of mobilizing a true political will to act.
Second: It is the view of my Government that the security of the individual must be regarded as important as the security of states. Human security ought to be promoted, for example by putting more emphasis on the protection of civilians. Mandates should be calibrated to the real tasks at hand and there should be no shying away from real needs when it comes to manpower and robust enough rules of engagement to protect the personnel sent out. In the case of sanctions, more can also be done to avoid negative humanitarian side effects, in the first place through targeted sanctions. The trend of revitalizing sanctions committees to make the sanctions instrument an effective tool, such as has been the case in Angola, is very welcome.
Third: When decisions for action are taken by the Security Council, we as member states have a clear responsibility in the follow-up through rapid deployment of adequate personnel, both civilian and military.
Fourth: Peace and security is a matter of global concern. The Security Council must act even-handedly and with the same commitment all over the world. It cannot afford to be perceived as promoting double standards. Some very important decisons have indeed been taken at the end of last year regarding the core issues pertaining to peace and prevention of conflict in Africa. These range from the enhancement of regional peacekeeping-capacities to curbing illegal flows of small arms. But such decisions of a more generic nature, should also be translated into a true political will of the Security Council to act in specific cases, in Africa, as much as in other places.
Fifth: The veto should not be allowed to block the Security Council from shouldering its responsibility. This issue will indeed be discussed under another agenda item here in the General Assembly, but a number of interesting suggestions regarding the possibility of arriving at agreements on how to restrict the use of the veto were made during the General Assembly general debate, some of which would contribute to increased credibility of the Council.
Sixth: The same is true regarding the compositon of the Security Council. An enlarged council, better reflecting the general membership of the UN, will act with greater authority and increased credibility, and thereby increase the security of both states and individuals.
Allow me once again to come back to that briefing by Mr Morris, one year ago in the Security Council, regarding the humanitarian situation in Kosovo. That meeting also highlighted to us the need for the Security Council to be more open to outside expertise and influence. More can be done by Council members: to allow parties concerned, UN agencies or relevant Non Governmental Organizations to contribute to its deliberations on specific issues. Also the Security Council would be well served to build on a practice that has been developed during the last year to more often allow for briefings from the Secretary-General or his representatives, Chairpersons of sanctions committees etc to brief in open meetings. This is not only a question of democracy and transparency, but also a way for the Security Council to better get messages across to the general membership. Measures to involve this membership to a greater extent in the work of the Council, will also contribute to enhance its authority. We realize fully the need for council members to deliber behind closed doors when specific situations so require, but we also expect substantial briefings to follow such meetings. Gradual improvements in this regard have been duly noted.
I have mentioned but a few, and for the Security Council perhaps more problematic issues. But I would also like to put on record due credit to the Council for its efforts in several other questions on its agenda.
The Security Council has indeed asserted itself in many areas: In East Timor the Council has shown commitment in support of the process, led by the Secretary-General for the East Timorese people to have their say in the future of that territory. Peace has come closer for the people of Sierra Leone, the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau. The issue of Libya has progressed considerably. At the same time we hope to see renewed efforts regarding Iraq, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and the very tense situation prevailing in Burundi, among others. The endurance and the commitment of the Security Council will be thoroughly tested.
An important debate has been started by the Secretary-General in his introducton of the annual report on the work of the Organization, regarding how far the responsibility of the Security Council goes when it comes to humanitarian emergencies, or faced with massive breaches of human rights and other crimes against civilians. We have put forward our views on this matter and they coincide very much with those of the Secretary General. Here I would just like to say that we surely realize that the Security Council may not be able to resolve all conflicts. But we, as members of the United Nations, and all of us, as human beings, have reason to expect that the Council will at all times manifest a serious effort to stop human suffering, resulting from threats to peace, no matter where they occur.
This is indeed a heavy burden falling on its members. We know that the Charter says that they carry out their obligations on behalf of all Member States of this organization. Therefore, they must also be able to count on the support of all of us when they take on this immense task.