Security Council open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict: Statement by Mr. John Holmes, USG and ERC

Mr. President,

Allow me to express sincere appreciation to you and the Government of Austria for convening this high level open debate, as well as for your efforts leading to the adoption, today, of resolution 1894, which marks a further very important advance in the Council's commitment to protect civilians.

Mr. President,

When the Council first took up the protection of civilians as a thematic issue in February 1999, against the backdrop of widespread atrocities and displacement in Angola, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and elsewhere, it rightly viewed the situation in very bleak terms.

The first presidential statement of 12 February 1999 spoke of the Council's distress that civilians accounted for the vast majority of casualties in conflicts. It condemned the targeting of civilians; demanded an end to such violations; and affirmed the need to bring to justice those who violate international humanitarian and human rights law. It expressed concern also over "the widening gap between the rules of international humanitarian law and their application."

Significant progress has since been made in seeking enhanced protection for civilians and in developing further the normative framework. But can we say with conviction, as we meet today, that those affected by conflict enjoy a significantly greater and more tangible degree of protection than ten years ago? Have we narrowed the gap between the rules of international humanitarian and human rights law and their application? The gap between rhetoric and reality?

Mr. President, even an optimistic assessment suggests we still have far to go.

First, in closing the gap between the rhetoric of internationally-agreed laws for the protection of civilians and the reality of widespread non-compliance with these laws.

From Afghanistan to Chad, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, the occupied Palestinian territories, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen and beyond, the lack of compliance with the law by parties to conflict, both State and non-State, results in thousands of civilians killed and injured every month and thousands more forced from their homes into situations of dependency, destitution and yet further violations, including rape and other forms of sexual violence.

Mr. President,

As the Secretary-General has made clear, access for humanitarians is vital to protection of civilians in armed conflict.

One issue critical to enhancing compliance and access is humanitarian engagement with non-State armed groups. Some Member States remain concerned that engagement affords these groups an unwelcome degree of recognition. Yet the reality is that armed groups account for one or more of the parties in virtually every conflict in which we operate today, however much we may condemn their aims or their often bloody acts which take many civilian lives.

For the effectiveness and safety of humanitarian operations and for the sake of access to those in need, we must have flexibility to engage them; to promote their compliance with international humanitarian law; and seek their understanding of our neutrality, independence and impartiality.

Mr. President,

We have far to go too in closing the gap between the mandates of peacekeeping missions, which include the protection of civilians, and the reality of the shortcomings identified in the independent study, jointly commissioned by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and released last Friday.

I should make clear that this part of my statement includes input from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Under-Secretary-General Le Roy and I agreed on this in order to limit the number of speakers.

The OCHA-DPKO study sheds valuable light on where we must focus our efforts in improving the implementation of protection mandates by United Nations peacekeeping missions. First, we must address the uncertainty as to what missions, and individual actors within missions, should actually do to protect civilians and, critically, how they should do it.

We should be clear that, even when they have protection of civilians mandates under Chapter VII of the Charter, United Nations peacekeeping operations continue to be guided by the basic principles of peacekeeping. They are not peace enforcement operations.

DPKO, in consultation with troop and police contributors and other stakeholders, is developing an operational concept to clarify what protection means in the peacekeeping context and which will provide the basis for further guidance. It will ensure that Member States, including troop and police contributors, the Secretariat and peacekeeping missions themselves have the same understanding of the expectations and limitations of protection mandates. Support from Member States in the Council and the General Assembly in developing the concept and guidance will be critical.

Second, all missions should develop protection of civilians strategies, in consultation with humanitarian and human rights actors, and based on a realistic assessment of the threats and risks to the population. Headquarters' guidance on developing such strategies will be important. Development of the operational concept is an important step in this direction.

Such protection strategies must be based on the understanding that protection mandates are not limited to the protection of civilians "under imminent threat of physical violence" but involve a much broader range of activities including, for example, facilitating humanitarian access and the return of refugees and displaced persons, human rights monitoring, child protection, and addressing sexual violence.

Their implementation is not a task exclusively for the military or police personnel of a mission, or just for the civilian components of missions and humanitarian actors. Rather, it is an overarching responsibility for the mission, whose leadership needs to finds ways to bring together the relevant mandates, capacities and expertise of these different actors.

Third, leadership is crucial and Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and the senior mission leadership must ensure protection is considered a priority across the whole mission. They must be accountable for developing and implementing protection strategies and reporting on their results. But if they are to do this effectively, they too must receive the requisite guidance, training and resources before they assume their responsibilities.

Fourth, we must ensure, through better analysis and reporting, that the Council itself is candidly informed of the challenges missions face and the opportunities that exist in protecting civilians. Only then can it take informed and supportive action.

Fifth, we must ensure the requisite political commitment to the mission by the Council and the parties on the ground - and also by troop and police contributors who must have a firm understanding of the critical role they play in protecting civilians.

DPKO and the Department of Field Support will work closely with contributing countries and other stakeholders to ensure that protection of civilians becomes integral to pre-deployment training - part of a broader effort to gather lessons-learned on the implementation of protection mandates, as requested by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations earlier this year.

We must also keep in mind the necessity of strengthening the host State's capacity to protect its population. Peacekeeping can assist countries in rebuilding in the aftermath of a conflict, and in protecting civilians while doing so. But it cannot substitute for the State, which bears the primary responsibility for the safety and well-being of its own citizens.

Mr. President,

While we must guard against exaggerated expectations of protection of all civilians wherever missions are deployed, as the study makes clear, we can nevertheless reasonably expect greater consistency and success in this core function of peacekeeping than has been the case to date. We are committed to working jointly in taking forward the study's

recommendations, in consultation with all relevant actors. I trust we can count on the full cooperation and support of the Council and Member States in doing so. I am delighted that resolution 1894 already gives us a head start in this respect.

Mr. President,

Finally, I believe there is a gap between rhetoric and reality as it relates to the consistency with which the Council pursues its stated commitment to the protection of civilians.

For example, targeted sanctions are a critical tool for seeking compliance with the law. They have been imposed against those responsible for humanitarian and human rights law violations in Cote d'Ivoire and Sudan. But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, only those committing violations "involving the targeting of children and women" and "obstructing the access to or distribution of humanitarian assistance" are subject to such measures. In Somalia, only those obstructing humanitarian assistance are targeted.

The Council needs a consistent and comprehensive approach to these accountability issues. The stakes for the civilians concerned are simply too high, and the allegations of selectivity or double standards too easily made otherwise.

The systematic application of the Aide Memoire, as a checklist against which to identify protection concerns and appropriate responses in a given context, can help here, as can the informal Expert Group.

Mr. President,

Others have characterized this gap between the rhetoric and reality of the protection of civilians as the gap between "idealism and realism".

But the effective application of international humanitarian and human rights law is not some ideal notion. On the contrary, it is an achievable reality.

What it requires, above all else, is that States and other parties to conflict give top priority to protection of civilians and promote, implement and enforce the practical steps required to apply the law - and that the Security Council not only encourages them to do so but also calls them to account when they do not, on the basis of the facts, not political convenience.

This ten year anniversary of the protection of civilians is as good a time as any to make a fresh start.

Thank you very much