Mr. President,
This annual debate is a welcome opportunity for the full membership of the United Nations to take stock of the work of the Security Council.
My country attaches particular importance to this opportunity. The Security Council carries a heavy responsibility. It exercises this responsibility — and must be seen to do so — on behalf of all members of the Organization. The highest possible degree of openness is a requirement in this regard.
Sweden has, for its part, tried to make openness and transparency a hallmark of its present Security Council membership. Openness is a significant goal in itself. But in particular, it is a means to promote broad consultations and to involve non-Council members in the work to prepare and implement Council decisions.
The format of the Security Council report in front of us differs, as has already been noted by other speakers, from that of preceding years. An important new element is the addition of monthly assessments by the respective Council Presidents, the first of them - as it happens - provided by Sweden.
These assessments should try to meet the need expressed by many States for a more analytical and succinct Council reporting. I trust that all Council members will carefully consider the views which will be expressed during today's debate on the report.
Improving the transparency and the working methods of the Council is an important issue of principle. It is not a theoretical question, but one where practical steps can and should be taken, and lead to concrete results. During its tenure on the Council, Sweden has argued and striven consistently for such improvement. Non-members of the Council have the right to be well briefed about the work of the Council. We continue to work for an improved use of troop contributor meetings as an instrument to influence and inform Council decision-making. Statements by the President of the Council to the press should be readily available to the general membership of the UN. During Sweden's Presidency of the Council, a record was kept of daily activities in the Council on the Mission's homepage, which included statements to the press. The Presidency before us also made such statements public on the internet, and we hope that others will follow that practice.
This report of the Security Council covers an active and in many respects troublesome period. A number of crises which have been on the Council agenda for a long time have continued to call for its attention. In some cases they have been further aggravated. At the same time other issues have come to the fore, such as the nuclear test explosions by India and Pakistan, the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea and the aggravated situation in Kosovo.
The past year has been a period of significant achievements for the Council, but also of substantial difficulties in tackling a number of complex issues.
From Sweden's perspective, some particularly important highlights of the work of the Council over the past year deserve to be mentioned:
- the adoption of a firm resolution of Kosovo setting out the clear demands that are now to be met under international control,
- continued insistence on full Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions, whilst the oil-for-food-mechanism has been improved,
- steps taken to develop a long-term strategy for peace and security in Africa, together with African organizations and States,
- Security Council support for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament in the wake of India and Pakistan nuclear testing, and
- increased attention to international humanitarian and human rights law in the context of the responsibilities of the Security Council, including through the strengthening of the two ad hoc-tribunals.
The Security Council has followed through on major peacekeeping operations in all parts of the world and agreed on necessary steps to develop their mandates to changing circumstances. Since last year, two new peacekeeping operations have been established in Africa, in Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic, concrete examples of the Council's willingness to exercise its responsibility for international peace and security.
The Security Council is becoming more conscious of the need for a broad mix of personnel, and the right balance, in peacekeeping operations. Military, civilian police and other components must be better integrated. The appointment of special representatives of the Secretary-General in conflict situations, with the support of the Council has proven a useful tool.
That said, there is reason for concern that sometimes Security Council deliberations on peacekeeping are stymied in particular by a narrow and short-term budgetary approach. A penny-pinching or tardy Council weakens its own authority and often also that of the Secretary-General. It risks sending an inadvertent message of lack of concern to the parties affected, and it runs counter to the general acknowledgement of the need for early and preventive action.
There are of course situations where fundamental disagreements or competing interests, in particular between permanent members, will stall the work of the Security Council. Such situations are today fewer in numbers than before, but almost by definition significant when they occur. They affect the overall work of the Council. But, fortunately, there is also a general understanding on the need to try to limit the damage they cause.
In many situations, it is clearly difficult for the Security Council to define an effective strategy. The instruments available can seem ill suited to some of today's complex conflicts, in many ways domestic but with major cross-border aspects, sometimes with the participation of several parties with less than clear command structures or political objectives. In such situations, durable peace in such situations is rarely a straight-forward result only of political leaders reaching an agreement to be implemented. Peace has to be established through a lengthy process of confidence-building and the reconstruction of torn societies.
But such difficulties can never be an excuse for the Security Council not to play its part in earnest. The Council's responsibilities impel it to act, when necessary by setting a framework for other actors and factors to fulfil their roles.
The increasingly central role of regional organizations for peace and security is an important development with long-term implications. Such a role is and must be a result of the aspirations and the ability of these organizations themselves. Regionalism should be by design and not by default — in the interest of both regional organizations and the UN. The mere fact that someone else is seized with a matter should not, however, mean that the Security Council may dispense with considering what it needs to do.
The Security Council's ability to address difficult issues and to take action is largely a question of political will — and of leadership, by all members of the Council. The elected members are essential in this regard, as they help bring further legitimacy to the work of the Council.
The permanent members are equally important in that respect. If there is a sense in their permanency — beyond political realism — it should be that it induces a long-term perspective, consistency, and a willingness to be bolder and to take on difficult and uncertain tasks that require staying-power from the international community. That type of leadership would, I am convinced, be welcomed by the broad membership of the United Nations.
Openness and effectiveness should be interrelated objectives for the Security Council. The actions of the Security Council and the General Assembly and indeed the United Nations system as a whole must be mutually reinforcing. Responsibilities may differ but not the vocation as set out by the Charter.
Thank you, Mr. President.