Statement by Ambassador Vassily A. Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, at the Security Council meeting on United Nations peacekeeping operations
We thank Mr. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, UnderSecretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, for his briefing and appreciate his views.
We also thank Ms. Blakemore for her briefing and her emotional testimony. Peacebuilding is unquestionably one of the main pillars of the United Nations, and peacekeeping operations are an irreplaceable part of the maintenance of international peace and security through conflict resolution. That is why issues related to improving peacekeeping missions and increasing the efficiency and security of Blue Helmets are always a focus of attention for Member States and the Secretariat.
We appreciate the Secretary-General’s initiative and personal efforts in this area, including his proposal for a Declaration of Shared Commitments on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations. Many of the provisions of this document deserve support. We have endorsed it, but with reservations. For example, we do not support equating the tasks of monitoring human rights and protecting civilians, since the latter could involve the use of force by peacekeepers.
Nevertheless, it is important that close attention be paid to peacekeeping’s effectiveness, which means ultimately that Member States, with the help of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations (C-34), should be able to reach a consensus solution. One of the issues that should be resolved is that of increasing the effectiveness of the work of peacekeepers and civilian personnel and strengthening discipline.
We believe that requires a complex and comprehensive approach, based on cooperation between the Security Council, the troop-contributing countries, the host countries and the Secretariat. It is important not only to have an honest, constructive conversation, but to ensure that all the links in the chain fulfil their obligations in good faith.
Needless to say, where improving the overall effectiveness of peacekeeping efforts is concerned, only extremely clear and well-defined mission mandates, with an emphasis on political solutions, can help to achieve substantive results. During strategic reviews of missions their mandates should be systematically purged and their peripheral human rights, humanitarian and social tasks handed over to their host Governments.
Of course, the effectiveness of the Blue Helmets depends directly on transparent, comprehensible work by the Secretariat. Training aids, concepts and guidelines should correspond fully with the parameters defined by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations and should make implementation clear and understandable. Unfortunately, not everything is perfect in that regard.
One of the most vivid examples of disregard for Member States’ decisions is the collection and analysis of information, or so-called intelligence in peacebuilding. The first version of the concept document contradicted States’ decisions. And as we understand, it is proposed that the second, reworked version be implemented without the C-34’s full consideration and approval. Needless to say, we do not share this approach to such a sensitive issue. With regard to performance standards, they should include an assessment of the performance of all the components of peacekeeping missions, as well as of the Secretariat in New York.
The corresponding methodology should be based on clear and precise benchmarks and should therefore exclude any possibility of a biased or subjective approach to determining whether contingents are ineffective. There is another tough issue that I cannot avoid. Unfortunately, the statistics on sexual crimes are not a cause for optimism. The problem deserves close attention, and we heard emotional evidence to that effect today from Ms. Blakemore.
But the notion of entire contingents’ collective responsibility for individual, though inexcusable crimes raises reasonable questions. However, this is not just about crimes where the accused are Blue Helmets. The zero-tolerance policy should apply equally to non-United Nations peacekeepers and representatives of non-governmental organizations accredited to the United Nations.
In general, we assume that the parameters for reform of United Nations peacekeeping activities should be determined in a format organized among States. That is how it has been established in the reports of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations that the General Assembly approves by consensus every year. And the implementation of initiatives should also be carried out with full consideration for the opinions and concerns of Member States.
However, unconditional compliance with the Charter of the United Nations and the basic principles of peacekeeping — the consent of the parties, impartiality, refraining from the use of force except in self-defence and protection of the mandate — is central to these reform processes. Any flexible interpretation of them, even for the most benign reasons, is unacceptable. These basic principles should govern every aspect of missions’ work, including the protection of civilians where that is enshrined in the mandate. There can be no possibility that peacekeepers can suddenly draw their swords and become aggressors in a conflict, let alone use force against host Governments, which have the primary responsibility for the security of their populations. And we also have questions about the proposals to transform peacekeeping into a tool for the use of force or discussions about introducing Blue Helmets into offensive or counter-terrorist operations.
That approach would turn them into targets. We should pay attention to the fact that the rising numbers of deaths among peacekeepers in the past few years has been taking place just when the mandates of certain missions have been being strengthened. At the same time, we fully concur with the importance of increasing peacekeepers’ safety, which could be done by improving their professional equipment and material and technical training.
In conclusion, I would like to comment on the proposal of the United States on the draft Security Council document on peacekeeping performance. During the discussion on it we will of course be guided by the approaches I have just described. However, with regard to the general nature of the issue, we believe that whatever the decisions we make, it is important that they have the full support not only of Council members but also of the troop-contributing countries. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations is best suited for that, as it provides an effective platform fothis kind of trilateral cooperation format.
We do not believe that the Council should try to bypass the C-34 and get involved in micromanagement, although it will unquestionably be important to send a political signal about the importance of improving peacekeeping performance. That can be done in a separate presidential statement.
