Mr. President,
We welcome this opportunity for the General Assembly to review the past year's work of the Security Council and to consider its future direction. I thank Ambassador Somavía for his thoughtful and incisive introduction of the annual report of the Council.
Many of the matters dealt with in the report are complex and serious. The Security Council has had its successes, but also its setbacks. And its agenda is constantly growing.
The Security Council of today deals with the vast majority of ongoing conflicts in all parts of the world. From Sweden's perspective it is important to emphasize that the Council's responsibility is global: no region or country can be excluded.
The Security Council always has the right — and duty — to take the necessary action when international peace and security is threatened. It is legitimate for the Council to be concerned when innocent civilians are killed, when gross violations of human rights occur or when democratically elected leaders are overthrown by violent means. Such developments increasingly threaten regional peace and affect international security. If they are not dealt with at an early stage, later conflagration is often the result.
It is a source of great concern that Security Council resolutions are so often defied by those to whom they are primarily directed: a small number of states flouting the fundamentals of international law, and ruthless parties to domestic conflicts bent on securing victory on the battlefield.
Based on Sweden's experiences from this year's Council membership, I would like to emphasize some important requirements for a more effective Security Council:
early information and early warning, which could lead to early action, action, as need be, throughout the spectrum of conflict resolution — from early warning to Chapter VII action, closer cooperation with regional organizations based on clear principles, and stronger interaction with UN members outside of the Council.
I want to emphasize that these should be concerns not only for the Security Council but for the whole of the United Nations. The success or failure of Security Council action is in the hands of all of us. Effective conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building must involve the UN system as a whole.
The Security Council must be able to take early action, preferably already at the preventive stage. Lessons should be learned from current cases like the former Zaire and the Republic of the Congo. And the preventive mission in Macedonia may soon be pronounced a success, but it has yet to set a precedent. The Security Council must be politically prepared to consider preventive measures at different levels, at short notice on a case by case basis.
The possibilities of conflict prevention could also be considered in a regional or subregional perspective. The situation in large parts of Africa is today worrying, with a growing belt of conflicts stretching from the South Atlantic to the Red Sea. There is here a particular need for a trustful and constructive relationship between the UN and regional actors.
Conflict prevention is, admittedly, a difficult subject in the Security Council work. Affected countries all too often try at any price to avoid what they perceive as outside interference. Regional organizations and important neighbours often take a similar approach. Council members are cautious — often too cautious. As we have seen, missed opportunities come at a high price.
To strengthen the UN capability in conflict prevention remains a priority for Sweden as a member of the Security Council. To this should be added the development of a new generation of peacekeeping operations and measures to improve openness and broad consultations in the work of the Council. This, indeed, were three main features of Sweden's policy already when elected to the Council a year ago.
It is fundamental that the Security Council be able to decide on actions throughout the spectrum of conflict resolution — from early warning, prevention and political persuasion, mediation and other Chapter VI instruments, to peacekeeping and, if need be, Chapter VII action. At this point, I would like to commend Ambassador Somavía for his remark, when introducing the report, regarding the need for humanitarian exceptions to sanctions regimes. It is important in deciding and implementing Chapter VII actions that vulnerable groups are not paying the price of their leaders, who are the real objects of sanctions.
When conditions merit the establishment of new peacekeeping operations, all Council members must be ready quickly to take the decisions required along this ladder of prevention and action.
Multinational forces may in some acute situations be the best option for international action. It is vital that such deployment is taking place with the endorsement of the United Nations. And we should be aware of the risk of overuse of multinational forces instead of UN peacekeeping.
Member States which turn to the United Nations when their security is threatened legitimately expect to be heard and helped — without delay. The Security Council must have the willingness and the ability to respond to such requests from Member States in all parts of the world. The credibility of the United Nations will suffer if multinational forces become a substitute for direct UN action due to lack of funds or unrelated considerations.
The role of regional organizations in the work of the Council is growing in importance. This is welcome — but more could be done. In the Balkans, the actions of NATO, the OSCE, the European Union and others continue to prove essential for peace and stability. In other parts of the world, regional organizations also play a positive role in conflict prevention and resolution.
Yet the Security Council can never abdicate its primary responsibility for international peace and security. It must defend fundamental principles of international law. When regional peace efforts cannot produce results, or when regional action has become a part of the problem and not of the solution, the Security Council must insist on assuming its primary role.
Stronger interaction with non-Council members must be a priority. The Security Council has travelled some distance in increasing openness and broadening consultations with non-members, particularly troop contributors. Much still needs to be done. The Council should for example follow the proposals made for more frequent orientation debates and for including affected non-members in its discussions, as provided for by Article 31 of the Charter.
Openness is essential as such, but in particular as a means towards interaction. Non-Council members should do their part by using the opportunities for substantive discussions for example at troop-contributors meetings. And all UN members have a role to play in ensuring compliance with Security Council decisions.
The format of Security Council reports has been subject to much criticism. The Council has now decided on some improvements, notably the introduction of monthly Presidential assessments.
But Security Council reports — annual or special — can at best be instruments. They should help ensure that the work of Security Council and the General Assembly is mutually reinforcing.
They should remind both bodies of the UN that they have different responsibilities but share the same constituency and, indeed, share the same vocation: to build peace and security for all of us.
Thank you, Mr. President.