UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Statement by Mr Allen Rock Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada
on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand
to the
United Nations Security Council Open Debate on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict
New York 15 June 2004
Mr. President,
On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I would like to express our appreciation to the Philippines for hosting this open debate, and to the Secretary-General for his candid and compelling report of enormous importance.
With your permission, Mr. President, I will devote my remarks today to the Security Council�€™s role in protecting civilians in armed conflict. The record shows that over the last five years, the Council has made critical strides in adopting a range of measures that recognize the complex nature of contemporary conflict and the fact that the plight of civilians must be effectively addressed as a part of any comprehensive international response.
However, despite this progress, the international community has in past months witnessed the deliberate targeting, displacement and abuse of civilians by parties to more than two dozen conflicts, all displaying a shocking disregard for international human rights and humanitarian law. Abuse of those no longer taking active part in hostilities has likewise been manifest. Recent experience has also reinforced the fact that peace agreements do not, in and of themselves, provide sufficient protection to civilian populations.
Mr. President,
In December 2003, this Council re-affirmed its central commitment to civilian protection and asserted its intent to use the aide memoire and the ten-point plan then before it to make Council responses more effective. Today�€™s debate affords the first opportunity to measure the Council�€™s actions against that pledge. Regrettably, we can only conclude that a significant gap remains between the Council�€™s commitments and concrete action. Let me identify four examples.
First, we note that lack of access and lack of security remain the greatest obstacles to effective humanitarian action, obstacles that this Council, at least in part, has the authority to publicly recognize. The Council and the General Assembly have it within their power to declare any country where UN and Associated staff operate to be of exceptional risk. Such a decision would provide those personnel with enhanced legal protections. Even in situations such as that in Afghanistan, where five aid staff working for Médecins sans Frontières were recently murdered, a declaration of exceptional risk has not been made, despite the Council�€™s August 2003 commitment to make better use of this tool. Accordingly, CANZ urges the Council to make such designations in appropriate circumstances.
Second, there are instances where the Council has failed to use certain tools at its disposal to improve conditions on the ground. For example in West Africa, rebels continue to move across borders and there are difficulties in implementing sustainable disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation and reintegration programs. These problems are worsened by the absence of monitoring mechanisms to enforce arms embargoes, and by the Council�€™s all-too-infrequent use of both monitoring and embargoes to suppress conflict and sanction those who would seek benefit from the economy of war.
Third, the Council�€™s failure to systematically condemn widespread instances of sexual and gender-based violence in specific conflicts also means that actions to address such violence including improved monitoring and reporting and physical protection -remain unsupported.
Fourth, and still more troubling, is the fact that the Council continues to resist responding to conflicts of which it is not formally seized, despite documented evidence in many cases grave violations of human rights and humanitarian law. This sends a troubling message with respect to impunity and compliance with international norms.
The situation in Darfur, Sudan is a particularly egregious example of this reluctance. On May 25th, the Security Council finally adopted a strong Presidential Statement on the conflict in Darfur -more than five months after aid agencies began actively raising the alarm and two months after fact finding experts of the Commission on Human Rights and the Emergency Relief Coordinator had expressed their gravest concerns. Prior to the statement�€™s adoption, the Council had in fact received only informal briefings on the crises, and the presence of relevant actors was facilitated grudgingly and only after considerable procedural wrangling. We appreciate that the Security Council is now seized of the situation in Darfur and we hope and expect the Council will follow up appropriately. The Security Council should call on the parties to do everything in their power to end war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in that region, to prevent the commission of further crimes, and to bring to justice those who are responsible. The Security Council should also call on the parties to the conflict in Darfur to respect international obligations on the protection of civilians in armed conflict to, grant safe and unhindered humanitarian access, to disarm the militias, and to ensure the safe and voluntary return of displaced persons.
In our respectful view, the Security Council has been too slow to respond to the emergency in Darfur. Such inexcusable delays put at risk the lives of those that this Council is charged with protecting. The Security Council�€™s moral authority is underpinned by its willingness to respond effectively and promptly to threats to international peace and security, and it must demonstrate greater resolve in addressing even sensitive and politically challenging situations. We stress that some of the key tools required for a more effective response are already at the disposal of the Council. We encourage the Secretary-General and the Emergency Relief Coordinator to continue to bring to the Council�€™s attention serious situations that are not on its formal agenda, as was recently done in the case of Northern Uganda.
In urging more resolute action, we also hope to prompt more creative efforts. We recognize that not all actions can or should be public. Other measures can be considered, such as discreet Council fact-finding missions and communications between the Council President and respective parties to conflict. Canada, Australia and New Zealand also fully support the graduated approach outlined by the Secretary-General in paragraph thirty-nine of his report. Some existing Council resolutions help identify needed triggers for response -one thinks of paragraph ten of resolution 1265 (1999) in this regard.
We fully believe the Council can meet these important challenges, and the report of the Secretary General lays out several key recommendations in this regard.
Mr. President,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand welcome the attention in the Secretary-General�€™s report to regional dimensions and responses in the protection of civilians. The creation of a culture of protection requires that norms developed by the Council be adapted to regional realities and reflected in coherent frameworks for action. My own country, Canada has therefore been pleased to work with OCHA in sponsoring regional seminars on the protection of civilians, the most recent of which was held for hemispheric partners in Mexico this past March.
We fully endorse the Secretary-General�€™s call for the Security Council to commission a study aimed at improving the monitoring and reporting of cross-border issues in crisis and in post-conflict situations. With reliable data, the Council, in partnership with regional actors, will be better placed to respond in a more effective and timely manner to violence against civilians. A key issue that must be addressed in this regard is the presence of armed elements and combatants in refugee camps and settlements, and its potential to undermine regional stability. Again, my own country, Canada was pleased to fund the experts meeting noted in the Secretary-General�€™s report, and we encourage UN agencies to bring this issue to the Council for its information and action when needed.
Regional institutions and mechanisms must also be strengthened and engaged on the protection agenda. In the Pacific, Australia and New Zealand, together with other members of the Pacific Islands Forum, have been active in mounting regional responses to security crises, including most recently in the Solomon Islands. Canada is proud to be working with the African Union on the establishment of an AU Special Representative on the Protection of Civilians. The creation of this office opens the possibility that there will be an engaged and effective African advocate for war-affected populations across the continent. We regard this as an exciting development, and we encourage the Security Council to establish on-going communication with this new mechanism.
Mr. President, the Secretary-General has outlined numerous concrete actions which can be pursued to further enhance the Council�€™s capacity to respond to threats against civilians in armed conflict. However, tools such as improved monitoring and reporting are only useful to the extent to which the information gained is acted upon.
Let me deal now with the question of impunity. A culture of protection also requires that attacks against civilians are recognized for the crimes that they are and duly prosecuted. The Security Council and Member States have a particular responsibility to ensure that those who commit crimes against civilians engaged in UN operations are brought to justice. In this regard, we strongly support the continuing efforts to expand the scope of the 1994 Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel to ensure that all civilian personnel engaged in UN operations are able to benefit from the protections of this Convention.
In conclusion, Canada, Australia and New Zealand therefore urge the Council to give full consideration to the report before it, and to respond quickly to those areas identified for follow-up. In this regard we call on the Council to consider adopting a new resolution on the protection of civilians in armed conflict; one that will be aimed at addressing gaps in the current agenda. Canada, Australia and New Zealand will remain actively engaged and supportive of these efforts.
Ultimately, of course, Member States must themselves take primary responsibility to ensure protection for their own people. Indeed, as the recent report on the �€œResponsibility to Protect�€? argued, this is a responsibility implicit in the very concept of state sovereignty. Much more can and should be done by Member States. But when they fail to take these responsibilities, this Council has a clear responsibility to act. It is evident that this Council can, and must, do more.
Mr President,
This morning the Emergency Relief Coordinator reminded us of the international community�€™s failure to exercise our collective responsibility to protect civilians in Rwanda a decade ago. Much work clearly remains to be done to ensure that a similar tragedy will never happens again. This Council will ultimately be judged on its ability to prevent such circumstances and to protect the most vulnerable. It is a challenge that we simply must meet.
Thank you Mr. President.