UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Statement by Hon. Bruce Scott MP Parliamentary Adviser to the Australian Delegation
Comprehensive Review of Peacekeeping Operations
New York 22 October 2002
Mr Chairman,
I join other delegations in thanking Mr Guehenno for his comprehensive and informative briefing last Friday.
Our debate on the Comprehensive Review of Peacekeeping Operations comes against the backdrop of considerable progress on the implementation of the Brahimi recommendations. In particular, we are gratified that with the enhanced planning and management capabilities within the UN Secretariat, the rapid deployment targets for both simple and complex missions are now more realistically within reach.
We have also seen significant improvements in the nuts and bolts of rapid deployment including the SDS, UNSAS and development of the on-call list. These are important achievements, not least because the speed of deployment can have a major bearing on the course and duration of conflict.
We are encouraged to see that another central tenet of the Brahimi recommendations -that mandates must be realistic and backed by adequate resources -is also now the accepted wisdom and is informing the approach of the Security Council.
Mr Chairman
As we look ahead, we consider there are still a number of refinements which need to be made to peacekeeping operations, both in the management of operations in New York and, more importantly, in the conduct of operations in the field. I shall discuss these refinements in a moment.
Before I do, however, let me say that my delegation considers that there is a need for fresh thinking regarding where and how this committee, and also the C34, can best add value as we move forward with new aspects of peacekeeping reform. This is particularly important at the close of one phase of the peacekeeping reform process. We are now at a juncture where it is easy to become preoccupied with minutiae and fall into the habits of ritualised reviewing our report, labouring over paragraph by paragraph negotiations and possibly missing the bigger picture.
Our point of departure should be the proposition that the C34 is most effective where it can work creatively and cooperatively with the UN Secretariat, which already has a good deal of direction from us, and many implementation challenges on its plate. It should be our aim to avoid adding unnecessary administrative and reporting burdens on the Secretariat, or adding new recommendations before existing ones have been worked through. Rather, we should perhaps see our role at this stage, primarily as a group capable of providing broad direction and advice as well as to assessing frankly but constructively progress that has been made.
To undertake these roles, it would be helpful if the Secretariat were to consider periodically, and certainly ahead of substantive sessions of the C34, what are the key issues on which they would value C34 input and guidance. Responding to this could form an important part of the C34's work, without, however, excluding other issues that may require attention.
These include the refinements I mentioned earlier. For example, we need to work on the recruitment process and succession planning within DPKO. We note that the D2 Police Adviser position has had to be re-advertised; the MILAD replacement has yet to be named and the Dl position Director of the Best Practices Unit has not been filled. Gaps in such key position can erode the ability of DPKO to respond quickly and effectively to new challenges.
We also need to turn our attention to ensuring that efforts at conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building are coordinated. This issue is being looked at in an number of contexts, including ECOSOC and the Security Council -notably through its Africa Ad-Hoc Working Group. But the C34 also needs to be cognizant of the issue. We need to ask whether the structure and methods of peacekeeping operations need to be re-examined or further developed to ensure that they contribute to a maximum degree possible to supporting both conflict prevention and peace-building.
In this regard, we would consider that two areas deserve our focused attention. The first is DD&R. The success or failure of peace operations frequently depends on how effectively DD&R is conducted. We need to have a repetoir of best practice in this area. DD&R needs to be high on our planning agenda in mandating and designing new peacekeeping operations. The "R" part of DD&R also needs close attention. It is here that the transition between peacekeeping and post-conflict recovery can succeed or fails.
It would be useful to know from DPKO, DPA and perhaps UNDP, whether they are comfortable with the doctrine and guidance they have on DD&R. What inputs would be seen as valuable on this question from the C34?
Another important area requiring further work is Rule of Law and the Justice Sector. It is increasingly obvious that these issues need to be dealt with holistically. We are not convinced that this is happening to the degree necessary. We also remain concerned that with the Police Advisor position still vacant, we may not see the required progress on CIVPOL issues.
I would like to highlight the continuing issue of the Best Practices Unit. We will discuss this matter in detail in the C34, but I wish to flag the importance my delegation places on it being adequately staffed and able to contribute in an active way to peacekeeping planning and management.
Mr Chairman
As we discuss the agenda for C34, we are very conscious of the work which has been taking place in the Sixth committee on the scope of legal protection of UN and Associated Personnel. This work has focused on ways to improve the scope of legal protection for UN and associated personnel, and has produced recommendations for action in both the short term and longer term.
Of the short term measures, we believe that the C34 should take special note of the recommendation that key provisions of the Convention on the Safety of UN and Associated Personnel be incorporated into SOFAs, SOMAS and host country agreements. Also important is the establishment of a mechanism for the SG to report back to the GA on progress towards this objective.
Of the longer term measures, most important is the focus on continued work to address the "declaration of risk" requirement in Article 1(c)(ii) of the Convention, which requires the Council or the General Assembly to declare that a situation of "exceptional risk" exists before the protective regime of the Convention applies to UN missions other than those where the operation is for "the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security" -that is, peacekeeping missions. This is an arbitrary and unwieldy requirement, which denies the majority of UN operations legal protection. We suggest that the C34 pay close attention to this issue during its work.
As always, Mr Chairman, Australia stands ready to contribute to the further strengthening of peacekeeping in all its aspects.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.