.

.

.

Statement by H.E. Ambassador Regina Maria Cordeiro Dunlop,
Deputy Permanent Representative of Brazil
to the United Nations

Open debate of the Security Council on
“Protection of civilians in armed conflict”


9 November 2009

Mr. President,

I join other delegations in thanking your Minister of Foreign Affairs and other Ministers for their presence in the Council this morning. The high-level representation of many delegations on the Council this morning is a reflection of the great importance of the theme we are here to discuss. I thank your delegation for the concept paper prepared for this debate. 

I would also like to thank the Secretary-General, Under-Secretary John Holmes and Deputy High Commissioner Kang for their informative briefings.

Giving peacekeeping missions appropriate protection mandates is important from both a moral and a pragmatic viewpoint. The United Nations simply cannot stand by as atrocities are committed against innocents. The greatest crises of legitimacy in the history of peacekeeping came about when the Organization failed to protect civilians in their hour of direst need. Moreover, a mission’s success depends to a large extent on its ability to earn the trust of the local population. This will not be achieved if the Organization is perceived as either unwilling or unprepared to stop atrocities against civilians. 

In the ten years since the adoption of resolution 1265 (1999), we have succeeded in building a consensus around the central aspects of protection of civilians. No one disputes the primary role and responsibility of national governments in protecting their own civilians. At the same time, we all recognize the multifaceted role the UN may be called upon to play in helping to protect non-combatants in accordance with international law and the Charter. 

The considerable normative guidance we have already developed in this area must now be further translated “into concrete improvements in the protection of civilians on the ground”, as indicated by the Secretary-General in his May report. 

The independent study commissioned by DPKO and OCHA seeks to address many of the current gaps in implementation. My delegation considers it contains several ideas and recommendations worth discussing in depth. Today I wish to focus on one specific issue of particular relevance, namely mandate-setting. 

Mr. President,

Mandates must be clear enough so that peacekeepers on the ground, especially the commanders, understand precisely what is expected of them, without hampering the autonomy that leaders in the field require to do their jobs properly. When it comes to the protection of civilians, assigning vague tasks leads either to underperformance and loss of life that could be saved or to excessive ambition and the inevitable disappointment.

Mandates must also be realistic. This requires the Council to make often difficult choices and decide what is feasible and what is not, especially from the military and political viewpoints. It must also bear in mind the question of resources, without prejudice to the functions and powers of the General Assembly. In this regard, two opposite and grave errors must be avoided. The first is setting protection mandates the fulfillment of which would require human, logistic and financial resources unlikely to be made available to the Organization. The second is to place budgetary considerations above moral and political imperatives. There must also be coherence and solidarity. On the one hand, Member States that set mandates in the Council must be ready to face the financial consequences of their decisions in the General Assembly. On the other, all Member States must cooperate in the Assembly to secure the means that will allow the Council to properly discharge its responsibilities under the Charter. 

Clear and realistic mandates are important to manage expectations. We must be frank and recognize that the UN cannot protect all people from every danger all the time. To suggest that it can, through the adoption of overambitious and imprecise mandates, is a recipe for disorientation among blue helmets, deep disappointment among victims and damaging criticism of the Organization.

Protection mandates must also address the particularities of the situation in question. The nature and the gravity of the challenges in protecting civilians vary greatly from one mission to the other. The tools to use and the manner in which they are handled must be considered carefully in each case. One-size-fits-all approaches must be certainly avoided.

Mr. President,

The protection of civilians must be seen as a cross-cutting preoccupation in mandates and not just as a discrete set of military tasks. Protection concerns should also be addressed through an appropriate linkage between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, as well as through preventive activities related to the root causes of conflict. 

In order to achieve our goals in a sustained manner, we must move beyond protecting individuals: we must help “protect societies”. Although the immediate task will often be defending persons and groups from actual aggression, peacekeepers must contribute to lay the foundations for fostering justice, security, and opportunity for all. In the long term, strong institutions, economic growth and social inclusion are indispensable pillars of protection. 

Thank you very much.