Veleposlanik Ranko Vilovic, privremeni otpravnik poslova Stalne misije RH pri Ujedinjenim narodima, održao je govor na raspravi Vijeca sigurnosti UN-a na temu mirovnih operacija UN-a.
First of all, allow me to thank the UK presidency for convening this important debate on one of the most important issues for the UN and this Council – the question of United Nations peacekeeping. Let me also use this opportunity to thank Under Secretaries-General Le Roy and Malcorra for their interventions, as well as UNAMID Force Commander General Martin Luther Agwai for his candid purview on the perspective of peacekeeping Force Commanders working in the field.
While it is true that traditional peacekeeping of decades past has slowly given way to the more robust, multidimensional and integrative peacekeeping of today, when addressing the question of peacekeeping we must not lose sight of the fact that it is probably one of the most important tools available to the United Nations in general, and to the Security Council in particular, a symbiotic relationship that has existed from the time of the establishment of this august organization.
The question before us though is not about the worth of peacekeeping operations as a concept, but is instead a deliberation on the possible measures or recommendations before us for streamlining the work of peacekeepers in the field, and on how to better cooperation not only within the UN system itself, but between the UN Secretariat and the Security Council, and inversely between the United Nations, the Security Council and the UN general membership, including with Troop Contributing Countries and specially effected states. In short, what are we doing to improve the quality and effectiveness of UN peacekeeping as well as cooperation between and within all its constituent parts?
Both the Brahimi Report and the New Horizon non-paper give us numerous good ideas. We support many of the suggested guidelines provided in these documents for one primary reason; they stress that the UN acts under the premise that conflict cannot and should not be resolved first and foremost by military means, but rather by addressing problems at their root causes. Time and again in our debates we have heard a call to the parties to a conflict to resolve their differences through political dialogue, with the UN, including its peacekeeping missions, acting as inter-mediatory in achieving this goal.
These reports also stress that each United Nations peacekeeping mission needs to be tailored according to concrete conditions on the ground as well as the political realities prevailing at the time of their establishment. A clear political strategy and integrated mission planning is to this end extremely important, and should include the provision of a precisely defined mandate with clear and achievable benchmarks and goals, and a clear exit strategy. In refining how best to go about this, we agree that the Council can improve peacekeeping effectiveness through stricter monitoring and oversight of its mandated tasks, including through the establishment of and reporting on benchmarks.
That being said, we would like to stress that in multidimensional peacekeeping, reporting on benchmarks should mean not only issues of immediate security or military concern but also on long term issues like the protection of civilians, the strengthening of civil society, security sector reform, including the strengthening of police and judicial forces, as well as economic revitalization and development. Development is especially important, as without assisting a host countries' return to self-sustainability, recourse to violence can and quite often does happen, as has been demonstrated by returning peacekeeping operations to for example countries in West Africa.
The new robust way of approaching peacekeeping also brings together a plethora of UN and other international or regional actors, often with similar or overlapping goals. I believe that no one questions the benefit of burden sharing when it comes to peacekeeping, with strengthened cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations, or between various UN and international agencies operating in country, with the UN and the Security Council taking on the primary role. Streamlining their operations in country is the overriding goal, essentially so as not to waste or duplicate much needed resources, a task which can most effectively be provided by the UN and its peacekeepers.
Croatia particularly supports all the proposals aimed at greater coordination and strengthening of relations between the Secretariat, the Security Council and troop and police contributing countries. As was mentioned in the New Horizon paper, the Secretariat alone cannot structure missions without intense cooperation with Member States, while Member States similarly draw upon the experience of the UN in strengthening their national capacities. We reiterate that it is clearly counterproductive to plan a peacekeeping operation without the unambiguous support of a core number of nations willing to provide troops for a proposed mission, and for this reason we believe that outreach to potential and actual troop contributing countries must be a high priority.
Before finishing allow me to highlight once again an issue we deem exceptionally important, especially in light of the ever increasing burden, both financial and logistical, being put on UN peacekeeping and its troop contributors. Croatia firmly believes that in weighing the full range of responses to threats to international pace and security, the Security Council can and should pose itself the question whether the preventative deployment of a small number of peacekeeping troops can stem the outbreak of wider conflict at its genesis. Such a decision has the potential not only to save scores of lives, but can also lessen later financial and logistical burdens on the UN and its member states. For us, the value of such a response is self evident.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Priopćenja
