|
|
Mr. President,
We thank the Permanent Mission of China for holding this important High-Level VTC open debate of the Security Council on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict.
We also thank the Secretary General, the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator for their insightful briefings.
Mr. President,
The latest report of the Secretary General (S/2021/423) provides a useful insight on the entire range of issues related to protection of civilians in armed conflict. Despite the Secretary-General's call for a global ceasefire last year, the state of the protection of civilians in armed conflicts across the globe remains grave.
The Geneva Conventions - the basic edifice of international humanitarian law - were adopted seven decades ago in the aftermath of World War II. With the terrible atrocities of the war fresh in mind, the international community agreed to a set of fundamental principles aimed at strengthening protections for civilians affected by armed conflicts.
Unfortunately, the Geneva Conventions which "contain the most important rules limiting the barbarity of war," do not appear to be limiting very much today.
It is the persistent failure to comply with the basic obligations under Geneva Conventions, and to respect the rules of international humanitarian law during armed conflict, which presents the central challenge of protecting civilians in current armed conflicts, even as the weapons of destruction have become more lethal and diverse.
Mr. President,
Today, as conventional war between States has become unacceptably destructive, most conflicts are irregular – between or with non-state actors. Many of such non-State actors are categorized as "terrorists". Terrorists, almost by definition, target civilian populations to spread "terror". When States also target civilians, their acts must also be categorized as terrorism. Urgent steps are needed to safeguard civilians in such conflicts and hold those responsible for violence against civilians accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately, neither the resolutions of the Security Council, nor the UN's Counter-Terrorism Strategy, provide credible means of offering either protection or justice to civilian victims of terrorism or State terrorism.
Pakistan has been a principal victim of externally sponsored terrorism. We have lost nearly 80,000 civilians and security forces in the fight against terrorism. We have conducted well planned campaigns to root out terrorists operating from our soil. Yet, we continue to face cross-border terrorism sponsored by our adversaries.
While the United Nations Global Counter Terrorism Strategy (GCTS) contains in its 4th Pillar the promise of protecting human rights while fighting terrorism, its enforcement has not been applied effectively or equitably so far.
Counter terrorism measures do not justify setting aside the limitations of Articles 2 (4) and 51 on the non-use of force. The Security Council resolutions on counter terrorism do not authorize the use of force on the territory of other states without the express authorization of the Security Council. Nor do they justify compromising the requirement for proportionality in the use of force.
Some counter terrorism measures are akin to using a hammer to kill a fly. Aerial bombardment usually amounts to indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force which mostly kills more civilians than terrorists.
There should be accountability for civilian casualties caused as "collateral damage" by such indiscriminate use of force. The thousands who have died because of unilateral foreign military attacks, including in the Middle East, deserve accountability.
Mr. President,
Another principle which has been severely eroded since 9/11 is the legitimate struggle of peoples for self-determination and against foreign occupation. This is most evident in the Israeli- occupied Palestinian territories and Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir.
Mr. President,
As an occupying power, Israel has no right of self-defense under international law. Its use force against the occupied and besieged Palestinians is illegal. On the contrary, it is the Palestinian people who have the right to struggle "by all possible means" to secure freedom from foreign occupation.
False equivalence between the occupier and the occupied is morally and legally untenable. It is such false equivalence that has given Israel the sense of impunity to use indiscriminate and disproportionate force, including the aerial bombing of Gaza, resulting in the death of over 200 Palestinians, including dozens of women and children. Such attacks amount to "collective punishment" of civilians and constitute grave violations of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. There should be no impunity for such violations.
Mr. President,
India's illegal and unilateral actions since 5 August 2019 to impose what its leaders have themselves called a "final solution" for in occupied Jammu and Kashmir also constitute grave violations of Security Council resolutions and international human rights and humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions. These actions include:
Those responsible for such grave and consistent breaches of human rights and international humanitarian laws in IIOJK must be held accountable and brought to justice.
Mr. President,
The challenge of addressing gross violations of international humanitarian law is further exacerbated by the inequity and double standards of the international response. In some situations, there are quick and robust calls for accountability. In other situations, the perpetrators enjoy virtual impunity to commit crimes. The recent records of the Security Council itself illustrate such double standards.
In the circumstances, it is vital to reinforce the concept of protection of civilians and accountability in all situations of armed conflict, including in Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir.
Mr. President,
The goal of protection of civilians is best served by preventing the outbreak of an armed conflict in the first place.
The Security Council, the organ with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, should address the root causes of emerging and long-standing conflicts, including Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir, and promote just and peaceful solutions.
Unless we do so, the human suffering and misery – so evident among the world's 60 million refugees and displaced persons and those millions caught in the crossfire of conflict – will continue to intensify, threatening international peace and security and world order.
I thank you.