Security Council
20 February 2007
Statement by HE the Hon Robert Hill,
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia
to the open meeting of the Security Council
Security Sector Reform
(as delivered)
Mr. President,
Thank you for initiating this important Security Council debate on Security Sector Reform. I will speak briefly to the statement distributed.
In terms of peacekeeping, development and human rights – the security sector of any individual state plays an important role – for the better or the worse.
It’s logical, therefore, that bilateral friends, regional partners and the UN all have an interest in the security sector of any state with which they might be engaged.
Not surprisingly, the UN particularly has focused on states in conflict or coming out of conflict and the way in which an appropriately structured, led and motivated security sector can contribute to peace and security.
It’s heartening that the UN, through the Peace Building Commission (PBC) and other ways, is giving new emphasis to a sustainable peace and recognizing how important the security sector is in that regard.
I wanted to say today, that in the same way as the line between peacekeeping and peacebuilding is imprecise, so is the point when a state is at risk of internal conflict and instability.
It is therefore equally logical that attention be given to states at risk – recognizing that an inappropriate security sector is itself a threat to internal stability.
Intervention before conflict is not always an easy area for the UN – sometimes it’s easier for a bilateral friend to help, but the lessons learnt and best practice identified from UN experiences are useful. It is important that these experiences are documented and communicated.
Further, whether before conflict or otherwise, it is equally important that the goal is to help the state concerned build an appropriate security sector, not to impose the solution. National ownership is important to long-term sustainability.
But whether through the Secretary-General’s good offices, or the support of regional partners, identification of the risk and constructive efforts to assist, can result in reducing the chance of states slipping into conflict or instability. The value of early identification and response is what I wanted to emphasize.
I give two examples from Australia’s experience.
Some years ago the Government of PNG, after some worrying experiences, decided its armed forces were too large to sustain, that there were logjams in promotion and recruitment and that equipment and support were inadequate to maintain morale. They approached us for help. A program of restructuring was jointly agreed, which Australia funded in conjunction with PNG. Implementation has been challenging but important. We remain engaged.
Secondly, some years ago the government of the Solomon Islands approached Australia saying that their police force, for a number of reasons, was unable to provide law and order. They asked for help which was provided by regional states. The Government of the Solomon Islands legislated to allow a regional police force to provide executive policing functions cooperatively with the Solomon Islands police. Again we remain engaged.
The last lesson I therefore wanted to mention, after identifying best practices, ensuring national ownership, appreciating the value of early identification and response, is that the offer of help must be ongoing. There must be a sense of partnership and long-term commitment. Obviously the contribution that friends can make should evolve as the recipient state itself evolves, but remaining supportive over time and through highs and lows is critically important.
Thankyou