Statement by Ambassador Farukh Amil, Acting Permanent Representative of Pakistan in the Security Council Debate on UN Peacekeeping 29 June 2009

Mr. President,
  1. I would like to thank you for organizing this important debate on peacekeeping, and for this opportunity to share our views. As the top troop contributor to UN peacekeeping operations and a longtime participant in the policy discussions, Pakistan brings a rich and diverse perspective to this discussion. We are a major stakeholder in the success of United Nations peacekeeping. This is a collective endeavour of the Security Council, the UN Member States in particular the troop contributing countries, and the Secretariat. Let me also thank the two Under Secretaries General (Le Roy & Malcorra) for their briefings.
  2. Peacekeeping is today the face of the United Nations and its flagship activity. It is a major tool for the maintenance of international peace and security. While retaining its original purpose, peacekeeping has also evolved over time in response to the changing nature of conflict. Success in recent years particularly of multidimensional operations, has led to raised expectations, increase in demand, and corresponding challenges of planning and management, bridging the gaps between mandates and resources, and effective integration of conflict prevention and peacebuilding elements, to achieve lasting and self-sustaining peace.
  3. The shared objective of making UN peacekeeping work better has brought the Member States together on several important initiatives and efforts on policy issues, reform, restructuring and capacity building over the last couple of years. The latest of these, the Secretary General’s reform proposal resulted in a major overhaul and reconfiguration of the UN peacekeeping architecture, which focused in particular on strengthening the capacity at the headquarters. Of course the proposal was presented as a necessary sequel to the Brahimi process and Peace Agenda 2010, and was considered as comprehensive response to the challenges confronting peacekeeping. Member States have not had the opportunity yet to fully and properly assess and review the result and impact of that reform exercise. We do not have a clear idea of how effectively the new mechanism and structures are performing. In the meanwhile several new initiatives by some Member States and the Secretariat (New Horizon) have been put forward. Our preliminary analysis of these initiatives is that while they could become catalysts for discussion, there is little new as regards the major issues and challenges. And we wonder whether it is a question of exposing the “limitations” of past reforms, or a question of fully “implementing” them through a sustained effort. Nevertheless the value of these initiatives is only in considering them in an open and transparent manner within the framework of the ongoing process to ensure coherence and best results. Apart from the Security Council, the C-34 remains the best forum to discuss all these issues in a comprehensive fashion.
  4. Mr. President, Pakistan welcomes the special focus that your concept note puts on the cooperation and relationship with the troop contributing countries. TCCs contribute the basic building blocks of the partnership for peacekeeping. The role and engagement of the TCCs cuts across the whole range of activities in the mission cycle from early planning to deployment, management, drawdown and withdrawal of operations. It is therefore inconceivable that effectiveness and success of the missions could be achieved without making this partnership more substantive and visible. There is a clear need to enhance the level and frequency of interaction and consultations with the TCCs. Debates such as this provide good opportunity. The Security Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations is also an important avenue for providing the trilateral cooperation, as its recent meetings have shown. It would be more productive if these meetings are held more regularly and coincide with the Council’s direction of new Missions as well as review and renewal of ongoing mandates. Moreover focused discussion of the ground situation, operational issues and challenges can really add value by promoting interaction and feedback with the TCCs. In our view, enhanced consultations in the working Group could also catalyze the hitherto somewhat lackluster private meetings under resolutions 1353 (2001).
  5. There is general agreement that to ensure successful implementation of mandates, we need high degree of coherence between those who conceive and write mandates and those who implement them on ground. How can we achieve this in practice? We should try to address this in a more innovative way through a more dynamic interplay and sharing of roles and responsibilities between the designees and implementers of mandates.
  6. Take the issue of resources for example. Shortfall of resources, particularly personnel and equipment, can be met by broadening the contributors’ base, with more burden sharing in the field by the developed countries. Not only will they bring the required niche capabilities, the developed countries would also get first hand experience of the resource gaps in the missions, which will better inform them in mandate designing. The existing major troop contributors, who are mostly developing countries, should on the other hand be accorded increased role in the design and decision making process in the Council, through consultations and increased representation in the Security Council.
  7. Diversifying and expanding the contributors’ base and the decision makers’ base is also important in promoting a common understanding of the concepts, basic principles and guidelines for peacekeeping. This is essential for maintaining the credibility, legitimacy and neutrality of the United Nations, so essential for continuing success of peacekeeping. We do not think there is a problem of evolution of new concepts and tools to adopt peacekeeping to changing requirements. The membership, particularly those who are contributing troops, have played an important role in facilitating these evolutions and transformation of peacekeeping including complex missions and robust mandates. This evolution, in our view, does not affect the basic principles of peacekeeping which remains valid and relevant. Surprisingly, some of the objections on concepts and principles and the push for certain ideas which lack consensus come from those who are not among the contributors in the field. This participation, we believe, will provide them better insight into the possible complications and difficulties in the field. There should be no monopoly of policy and decision making.
  8. Let me add from the TCCs perspective, the question of decision making and command and control is not limited to “dialogue” or “consultations”. We call for an enhanced and visible representation of major TCCs at highest level positions at the headquarters and in the field.
  9. Finally, in the context of a comprehensive approach, political process and peacebuilding efforts must be pursued in parallel to the peacekeeping activity, to ensure speedy fulfillment of mandates and to prevent relapse. Financial crunch and finite resources are all the more reasons to focus on conflict prevention and resolution in the first place, not to undercut peacekeeping.
  10. Let me conclude by saying that if the Member States regard peacekeeping as an indispensable instrument, then we should all take a strategic decision to support it fully and wholeheartedly, with the political will burden sharing and pooling of resources and equitable decision making to ensure its success.

Thank you.