Statement by Ambassador Farukh Amil, Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan, in the open debate of the Security Council on UN Peacekeeping Operations -5 August 2009

  1. Mr. President,I would like to felicitate you on your assumption of the Council’s Presidency and wish you success in your work.
  2. We welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on UN peacekeeping operations, third in the series of important discussions that the Council has held since January, besides the meetings of the Council’s Working Group [on Peacekeeping Operations] to which the Pakistan delegation has also contributed. It is right that the Council devotes time and attention to this dialogue and interaction aimed at making peacekeeping work better. After all peacekeeping is today the flagship activity of the United Nations and one of the key instruments in the hands of this Council to carry out its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
  3. The challenges of effective planning and management of peacekeeping operations are quite well known to the policy makers and practitioners. There also seems to be a fairly good idea of the kind of responses and actions backed with adequate mechanisms, capacity and resources that are required to address those challenges. What is generally lacking is the implementation part. And it is here that this process, and the draft Presidential Statement that is before the Council, could add value.
  4. Let me say that implementation will become easier if the relevant actors and stakeholders are operating, not in a piecemeal or fragmented manner, but with the unity of purpose and a common strategic vision of peacekeeping. To ensure continued success, it is essential to preserve the identity of UN peacekeeping. What gives strengthen to the strategic vision, is the strict observance of the Charter and the basic principles of UN peacekeeping, as also stressed by the Representative of Morocco on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and whose statement my delegation fully supports.
  5. Implementation will also be enhanced if the mandates for peacekeeping operations are clear, credible and achievable and matched by appropriate resources. We are glad that the Council is committed to do just that. Ground realities, not political expediencies, should guide the Council’s decisions. Maintenance of international peace and security should be the objective and the main benchmark. When lives are at risk, this should drive peacekeeping, not the cost considerations. Overstretch of resources also results in implementation lag and overstretch of mission’s duration, which ultimately increases costs.
  6. Effective implementation also requires more meaningful and tangible partnership with the troop contributing countries and we hope to see that happen as the result of this exercise. This partnership means not only enhanced dialogue and consultations but also adequate representation of the major TCCs at the leadership level in the field and particularly at the headquarters. This is the best way of ensuring coherence between those who design mandates and those who implement them. We would have liked to see this aspect properly reflected in the Presidential Statement.
  7. Collective burden sharing requires greater participation of member states in UN peacekeeping operations. I believe we should seriously pursue the two-way process - of broadening the contributors’ base with more developed countries, and broadening the decision-makers’ base with more developing countries. Everyone should be fully into the loop. Without this, predictable capacities and credible actions cannot be ensured. Some cannot just monopolize the design, management, review and monitoring role while the others are consigned to the implementation role. If we share the strategic vision of UN peacekeeping, we should also be willing to share the burden for its implementation. And we should be able to better explain why some of us, who have the capacity, are not willing to participate in UN peacekeeping operations [but are there to advise how the job should be done].
  8. It is understandable that the Council reviews certain aspects of peacekeeping and opens up to other stakeholders with regard to its decision-making processes. This also makes sense in the context of improvement of its working methods. However, such reviews cannot be Council centric. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations has the mandate for the comprehensive review of the whole question of peacekeeping operations and is the right forum with the right expertise for this purpose. It must be fully utilized. More attention needs to be given to core issues, including the surge in demand and rapid deployment.
  9. The Council on its part should do what it can do best, that is, to evolve larger political consensus in support of peacekeeping, promote political processes, and pursue comprehensive approaches for conflict prevention and resolution. It should accord priority to resolving inter-state conflicts alongside intra-state situations, which by the way consume most of the peacekeeping resources at present. And for the latter, there should be a fuller interface of peacekeeping and peace-building activities through early engagement of the Peace-building Commission when the peacekeepers are on ground.
  10. Lastly, for better implementation, we require continuity and coherence in the various reform proposals and other processes currently underway. As the leading troop contributor, Pakistan will carefully consider the recommendations of this debate and the Secretariat’s non-paper A New Partnership Agenda: Charting a New Horizon for UN Peacekeeping on which a fuller discussion may be desirable in the context of the wider reform process.
  11. Let me conclude by reaffirming Pakistan’s continued support and strong commitment for the success of our collective peacekeeping efforts in the interest of world peace and security.

Thank you.