General Assembly General Assembly

Statement by Ambassador Asoke Kumar Mukerji, Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations, at the Opening Session of the Annual Debate of the United Nations Special Committee for  Peacekeeping Operations (C34), February 17, 2015

 

Madam Chairperson,

Thank you for giving me the floor. We would  like to thank the distinguished Secretary General for his Report No. A/69/642.

 

Madam Chairperson,

At our meeting last year, the statement by India was unfortunately guillotined due to an alleged paucity of time. Our detailed views, however, were grounded on our experience both as the single largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs), and our active participation in 11 out of the 15 active PKOs.

 

The situation regarding UN PKOs since we met in 2014 has only deteriorated.

 

The distinguished Secretary General has been compelled to establish a High Level Panel under the leadership of former President Ramos Horta to review all aspects of UN Peace Operations. India is happy that the Chairman of the Panel and some of its Members have had the opportunity recently to visit India and interact with our leadership. Our views would no doubt be taken into due account by the Panel when it submits its findings.

 

The C34 Committee must request the distinguished Secretary General, in the context of paragraph 6 of his Report, to forward the Panel's report to us before our leaders meet for the 70th anniversary Summit of the United Nations in September 2015. This will provide an important input to the Summit.

 

Madam Chaiperson,

We note from the SG's Report that the context of the conflicts in which UN peacekeepers are deployed today is radically different from the past. However, it is not clear whether the Security Council has fully examined these changes before somewhat routinely extending PKO mandates.

 

The C34 must ensure that PKOs do not become self-perpetuating enterprises.

 

Madam Chairperson,

It is for humanitarian and developmental actors, and not military troops,to carry out activities related to 'providing expertise in strengthening the rule of law, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, security sector reform, democratic processes, mine action and core government functions' ( paragraph 3 of the SG's Report). These activities are essentially relevant to peacebuilding, and not peacekeeping. The use of the UN's peacebuilding and peacekeeping architecture needs to be calibrated by the Council properly.

 

The C34 Committee should call for segregating the roles of traditional peacekeeping functions from the roles of such peacebuilding activities. This will place the growing outlay on UN peace operations into proper perspective, and show that costs for our troops are not the primary reason for escalating costs of PKOs.

 

Madam Chairperson,

Our concerns on mixing the original and new interventionist mandates in the single PKO of MONUSCO, articulated last year, continue to be valid.
We are alarmed by the lack of any effective action by the Security Council to address the root political causes of the crisis in South Sudan. While UN peacekeepers are laying down their lives to protect civilians in South Sudan, the fact that more than 100,000 civilians are being sheltered in UN military bases, that 1.9 million people are Internally Displaced Persons, and 2.5 million people are exposed to famine in that country, places the future of UN peacekeeping in South Sudan into serious doubt.

 

Madam Chairperson,

In MONUSCO, UNMISS and UNDOF, and in other PKOs listed in the Secretary General's Report, with the exception of Darfur, we are still to see any specific concrete action by the United Nations, led by the Security Council, to bring those who attack UN peacekeepers to justice. All decisions of the Security Council are legally binding on member states under Articles 25 and 48 of the Charter. Any lack of action by member states to penalize those who attack UN peacekeepers reflects poorly on the Security Council. If the Security Council fails to deter such attacks, the very institution of UN peacekeeping will continue to be targeted across the world, with dangerous implications for the maintenance of international peace and security.

 

The C34 should ask for a detailed report from the Security Council on what steps it has taken to enforce its Resolutions on those who have targeted UN PKOs.

 

Madam Chairperson,

We see synergy between the mandate given to UNMIL under UNSCR 2190 and the prompt action taken by troops of UNMIL including women troops from India to deal with Ebola as part of the response of the United Nations to this crisis. We would like more legal clarity on UNSCR 2177 adopted to deal with Ebola in the context of UNMIL.

 

Madam Chairperson,

The Secretary General's Report addresses 'protection of civilians' in the different dimensions of UN PKOs. Indian UN peacekeepers have been at the forefront of protection of civilians.
Paragraph 41 speaks rather glibly of a 'whole-of-mission mandate'. This begs the question - which mandate? The original mandate, in which troops were contributed to maintain the peace? Or a new mandate, inserted into the original mandate, requiring peacekeepers to fight to enforce the peace? Until the Security Council, under the provisions of Article 44 of the Charter, consults directly with troop contributing countries that are not members of the Council, this question cannot be answered.

 

Madam Chairperson,

My delegation would like to offer two comments on the broad issues on paras 71-107 of the SG's Report.

 

First, we are happy that troop reimbursements have been finally increased after protracted negotiations. The most important aspect of this agreement is the institutionalization of the method for calculating troops reimbursements through a Survey of Troop Contributing Countries. We look forward to using this mechanism again in 2017 when the next cycle of negotiations begin.

 

Second, we would like more transparency and information on the use of technologies for PKOs. We would caution that technology is not by itself a substitute for a presence on the ground, nor for the proper functioning of national structures within the territories of member states, which are essential to keep the peace.

 

Madam Chairperson,

The Report deals with Partnerships. We appreciate the relationship as delineated in the Report, which is based on the linkage between Chapter VIII and Chapters VI and VII of the Charter. We would note, however, that the mandates for PKOs are negotiated by individual member states in the Security Council, where regional organizations are not represented. Therefore, the responsibility for PKOs and the policy on PKOs rests solely with these member states in the Council.

 

Madam Chairperson,

Our final point concerns those brave and dedicated human beings who are sent into so many volatile and unpredictable situations to uphold the principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter, the UN peacekeepers themselves.

 

We are happy that our proposal made in this Committee last year to commemorate the International Day of UN Peacekeepers on 29 May every year was implemented by the Secretary General. We are also proud that the distinguished Minister of External Affairs of India, Her Excellency ShrimatiSushmaSwaraj, became the first Foreign Minister to lay a wreath at this Memorial on the International Day of Nonviolence last year.

 

Now that the UN Headquarters Renovation Project is almost complete, we propose that the C34 recommend the construction of a UN Peacekeepers Memorial Wall, with the names of all those UN peacekeepers since 1948 who have laid down their lives 'to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.' India is ready to contribute materially and conceptually to such a project.

 

Thank you.