GA/SPD/520
Sixty-seventh General Assembly
Fourth Committee
18th & 19th Meetings (AM & PM)
‘Winning Hearts and Minds’ of Local Populations, Triangular Cooperation,
Civilian Protection Mandates, Timely Reimbursement to Troop Contributors Discussed
Debate today in the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) amplified a wide range of issues underpinning improvement in both the operational and doctrinal aspects of peacekeeping, including the need to address deficiencies in staff, funding and equipment, the value of further engaging regional and subregional organizations, and the multidimensional aspect of peacekeeping mandates that might now encompass human rights, civilian protection and peacebuilding components.
Among the nearly 50 speakers who took the floor today in the Committee’s annual peacekeeping debate was the delegate of Fiji, who said that as conflicts became more complex, the international community’s response had become more multifaceted and nuanced. Yet, he warned against giving in to the temptation to overreach, which stretched financial and human resources. Above all, he called for the requisite political will, reminding the Committee that it was ultimately the peacekeepers on the ground who had to implement decisions made in New York.
In that context, many delegates stressed the need for greater “triangular cooperation” in that strategic partnership among the Security Council, the Secretariat and troop- and police-contributing countries, in order to better harmonize the mix of roles and responsibilities in the often fragile and conflict-affected countries in which peacekeepers served.
Among them was the representative of Pakistan, who said that increased representation of the troop-contributing countries in operational and managerial positions in the field and at Headquarters could facilitate partnership. More open communication could improve administrative and logistic arrangements, particularly for drawdown or inter-mission transfer. The complementary role of peacekeepers in peacebuilding should be clarified, as the existing narrative was insufficient to properly understand the linkage between the two functions.
In that vein, Malaysia’s delegate said that peacekeepers were often “early peacebuilders” and must “win the hearts and minds” of the local population, in an effort to create the conditions for socioeconomic development. To “match desire with outcome” in light of the heavy responsibility and expectations placed on the Organization, it was critical for Member States to provide the personnel, financial and logistical resources vital to peacekeeping operations.
Lebanon’s speaker highlighted the growing importance of regional and subregional organizations, which “enjoyed a better understanding of the cultural specificities and background of conflicts”. Echoing the call to enhance their role was South Africa’s speaker, who noted the valuable contribution of the African Union in the Sahel region, but said that as it assumed more complex responsibilities in difficult circumstances, it must be properly resourced.
Non-Alignment Movement members, such as the representative of Iran, however, made the point that the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security rested with the United Nations and that regional arrangements should not be involved in peacekeeping operations as a “substitute” for the Organization, nor should that practice circumvent full application of United Nations’ guiding principles on peacekeeping.
Around the room, delegations raised the longstanding issue of reimbursement to troop-contributing countries. The delegate of Norway welcomed the recent compromise on reimbursement rates, as lack of consensus sent a bad signal. How could host countries have faith in United Nations peacekeeping when Member States could not agree on proposals to enhance the capacity of the United Nations to fulfil its responsibilities in that field? she asked.
Calling into question the nature of those responsibilities, the representative of the Russian Federation called it “counter-productive and dangerous” to broadly interpret Security Council mandates. There had been unjustified concentration on protection of civilians, and his country had no appetite for interpreting peacekeeping exclusively through that prism.
Equally inappropriate, he said, was the trend for arbitrary interpretation of international humanitarian law to achieve political ends and as a pretext for interference in internal affairs. There were also attempts to insert new formulas in the international community’s response to crises. The experience in Libya should not be considered a model for future crises. Peacekeeping operations had a legitimate role, and when blue helmets cast aside their neutrality, as in Côte d’Ivoire, they were in danger of losing that legitimacy.
Above all, said the delegate from India, peacekeeping today stood on a firm foundation built over decades on the principles of impartiality, consent and the non-use of force. Convictions, he said, “must emanate from our own belief systems, but also from what we observe and learn on the ground” and any alterations in the established “rules of the game” should not be undertaken with undue haste.
Also speaking today were the representatives of Indonesia, Kenya, Ukraine, Israel, Bangladesh, Viet Nam, Morocco, Syria, Mongolia, Senegal, Venezuela, Myanmar, Lesotho, Brazil, Singapore, United States, Ethiopia, Cameroon, China, Eritrea, Kuwait, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan, Guatemala, Burkina Faso, Serbia, Nigeria, Dominican Republic, Niger, Gabon, Cambodia, Nepal, Algeria and Japan.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were the representatives of Syria, Morocco and Algeria.
The representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) also spoke.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. 9 November to consider the report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices.