Some 80 Speakers Weigh in on Link between Development, Security during All-Day Meeting
Today’s violent conflicts, most recently marked by terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad, were often rooted in a mix of exclusion, inequality and governance failures, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the Security Council today, urging a greater focus on prevention, human rights and coherence among all actors to address problems which, when allowed to fester, led to large-scale atrocity.
“Prevention is not something to be turned on and off,” Mr. Ban said, opening the Council’s first high-level open debate on security, development and the root causes of conflict. “It should instead be an integral part of United Nations action in all contexts.” While development that left people behind sowed the seeds of violence, well-targeted assistance could address risk factors, such as inequality and marginalization, at the most critical moments.
In addition, he said, human rights violations were often the best warning signs of trouble. As such, the Human Rights up Front initiative — which called for cultural and operational change within the United Nations, as well as more transparent engagement with national authorities — was being rolled out and a system for early warning and quick response was being put in place.
Against that backdrop, coherence among all actors must be strengthened, he said, and the United Nations should pool its strengths in bringing analysis to the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Adequate, predictable financing was also needed for good offices and mediation, Country Teams and the Peacebuilding Fund. “The human costs of our failures can be seen in all-too-many places,” he said. “We have the tools with which to do better. Let us use them.”
Broadly agreeing, Olof Skoog, (Sweden), Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, said international actors must act more coherently in addressing root causes. “By overcoming short-sighted turf wars, we would not only increase the efficacy of this Organization, but even more importantly, provide more effective support for the societies that it was set up to help,” he said. The importance of coherence was never more evident than during transitions, which required understanding of complex interrelationships and a shift away from a linear perception of conflict.
Wided Bouchamaoui, President of the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2015 of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, said the appearance of terrorism in Tunisia was, in large part, the result of a “tragic” mismanagement of the Libyan situation. Her country was at an ever-growing risk of destabilization, which would impact Europe and the world. Security threats included transborder traffic, mass migrations and terrorism.
She said a system to set up the rule of law, strengthen institutions and raise awareness was needed, as was a new social contract through which civil duties were clearly spelled out. Tunisia was considered an exception, as it had avoided conflict through compromise and dialogue. It had given hope that a democratic transition was possible and could be an example to other Arab States.
In the ensuing debate, most of the nearly 80 speakers expressed their condolences to the people and Government of France over the loss of life in last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris, with several decrying them as further proof that the global response had not caught up with the current realities of conflict. France’s delegate said the attacks would never change the face of his country, but rather, strengthen its determination to fight terrorism everywhere.
In that context, a number of speakers stressed that security and development were “two sides of the same coin” on which the Council had an important role to play. Malaysia’s representative pressed the 15-member body to enable the conditions for the Peacebuilding Commission to work. Through better coordination with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and others, it could better analyse specific situations.
Justine Greening, Secretary of State for International Development of the United Kingdom, said the Council had a vital role in seeking political solutions and ensuring that international humanitarian law was followed. She compared development without peace and stability to a house built on sand, which would be washed away when crisis hit.
To prevent that scenario, said the United States’ representative, operational changes that promoted system-wide analysis were needed, which would enable more timely action to respond to large-scale human rights abuses. She cited recent events in Burundi as evidence of how countries could progress, and then slip back into crisis.
Portugal’s representative added that while issues such as climate change, transnational organized crime and migration fell under the purview of other forums, the Council must be mindful of their increasing impacts. It should not fear innovation. It had every advantage in developing a more comprehensive and informed approach in that regard.
However, other speakers took a markedly different view. While acknowledging a link between development and security, the representative of the Russian Federation pointed to the danger in making that connection an “absolute truth”, as the Council had neither the power nor relevant tools for undertaking such work. Going beyond its purview risked degrading its effectiveness. Development had an inherent value, which should be promoted by the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and others.
Moreover, he said, some States had defined development with strict criteria, by which donors imposed standards but did not honour development pledges. His Government stood for effective conflict prevention, marked by non-intervention in State affairs and dialogue with sovereign authorities.
Pakistan’s delegate weighed in, pointing to international institutions, especially within the United Nations, that oversaw issues pertaining to development and human rights. If the Council started taking up those responsibilities, the bodies mandated to deal with them would lose their relevance.
Along similar lines, Brazil’s delegate said the relationship between security and development could not be understood from a simplistic notion that poverty constituted a threat to peace. The gravest threats to international peace and security, including world wars, had historically risen from tensions among industrialized nations. Militaristic agendas and the unilateral use of force were far more significant sources of instability than poverty. The first “silo” to be broken down was the erroneous perception that only developing countries needed to build peaceful and inclusive societies.
On that point, Venezuela’s delegate said the root causes of conflict had more to do with the imposition of economic and social models by developed countries, including former colonial powers, on developing nations. As such, the Council must identify foreign interference as one such cause, he said, citing situations in Western Sahara and territories occupied by Israel.
Still, offering a view from the frontlines, the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reminded the Council Chamber that his organization witnessed first-hand, and on a daily basis, the devastation and humanitarian consequences that armed conflict brought to people’s lives, driving millions deeper into poverty and causing enormous development reversals. Poverty and suffering were much reduced in those conflicts where international humanitarian law was widely respected.
Also speaking today were representatives of Lithuania, Angola, Spain, China, Nigeria, Chile, Chad, Jordan, New Zealand, Netherlands, Rwanda, Thailand, Guatemala, India, Iraq, Liechtenstein, Australia, Italy, Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Colombia, Mexico, Hungary, Ethiopia, Germany, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Belgium, Slovakia, Croatia, Ecuador, Uruguay, Armenia, Republic of Korea, Indonesia, Pakistan, Peru, Switzerland, Canada, South Africa, Ireland, Paraguay, Israel, Japan, Slovenia, Poland, Cyprus, Ukraine, Syria, Palau, Georgia, Egypt, Algeria, Kuwait, Turkey, Sierra Leone (for the African Group), Botswana (for the Southern African Development Community), Kenya, Norway, Montenegro, Cambodia and Azerbaijan, as well representatives of the European Union and Holy See.
The representatives of the Russian Federation, Armenia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan addressed the Council a second time.
The meeting began at 10:11 a.m. and ended at 6:20 p.m.
United Nations Secretary-General BAN KI-MOON began by offering condolences to the Government and people of France for the loss of life and injuries in the terrorist attacks last Friday. In the aftermath of terrorist bombings in Beirut and Baghdad, and apparent bombing of a Russian airplane, he said: “No grievance or cause can justify such acts.”
The shared resolve among Group of 20 leaders to combine security-based counter-terrorism measures with preventive steps that addressed governance failures, injustice, exclusion and other drivers of extremist violence was encouraging, he said. There also had been consensus on the need for a response to uphold the rule of law and avoid being ruled by fear. Expressing concern about reprisals and further discrimination against Muslims, he said “the world must come together to defeat terrorist groups,” bring perpetrators to justice and break the cycle of radicalization.
He also recalled that at the 2005 World Summit, leaders had declared that development, peace and security, and human rights were interlinked and mutually reinforcing. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development built on that understanding, taking an integrated approach, and including Goal 16 on achieving peaceful and inclusive societies, providing access to justice and building accountable institutions.
Indeed, he said, today’s conflicts and violent extremism were often rooted in a mix of exclusion, inequality, natural resource mismanagement, corruption, oppression, governance failures and the alienation that accompanied a lack of jobs. Yet, he stressed, “we are not properly integrating United Nations action across the pillars of our work: peace, development and human rights.”
As such, greater focus on prevention was required, which in turn, demanded concerted use of preventive diplomacy and good offices, he went on to say. It also meant the 2030 Agenda must become a bigger part of global strategies. Development that left people behind sowed the seeds of instability and violence, while well-targeted development assistance could address risk factors, such as inequality and marginalization, at critical moments. “Prevention is not something to be turned on and off,” he said. “It should instead be an integral part of United Nations action in all contexts.”
In addition, he urged a sharper focus on human rights, as their violation was often the best warning sign of trouble. Too often, the United Nations had been reluctant to recognize the centrality of human rights. With that in mind, the Human Rights up Front initiative was being rolled out and a system for early warning and quick response was in place. Today, the initiative was enabling the United Nations to react to warning signs more quickly. He looked to Member States to fully embrace Human Rights up Front as a means to protect their people and strengthen their sovereignty.
Coherence among all actors must be strengthened, he said, stressing that the United Nations must pool its strengths to bring analysis to the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. Furthermore, adequate, predictable financing was needed for good offices and mediation work, Country Teams and the Peacebuilding Fund. “We also need to be bold when necessary,” he said, notably in rebuilding Syria and supporting countries hosting refugees, such as Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey. In that context, he urged the Council to give consideration to a recovery plan for the region – perhaps akin to the Marshall Plan in scale. “The human costs of our failures can be seen in all-too-many places,” he said. “We have the tools with which to do better. Let us use them.”
OLOF SKOOG (Sweden), Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, said the Commission had been set up 10 years ago to address some of the challenges around bridging the gap between security and development. In 2015, the international community had confirmed that sustainable development could not be realized without peace and security; and peace and security would be at risk without sustainable development. Two weeks ago, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) had issued a warning about the impact of today’s conflict on civilians and had appealed for “urgent and concrete action to address human suffering and insecurity.”
He said the United Nations and the international community must become better at supporting efforts to build and sustain peace. More must be done to avoid relapse of conflict and prevent conflict from occurring in the first place. “The challenge that lies ahead is running normative developments as well as political momentum into concrete reforms for better operational response”, he stated. Preventing relapse to conflict should move to the fore of United Nations engagement and build on the realization that building peace primarily was a political process that required sustained and long-term engagement.
In order to sustain peace, countries prone to conflict needed support from international partners willing to stay for the long haul, he said. The standard three to five year programme cycles should be adjusted to frameworks spanning 15 to 30 years. Successful peacebuilding and preventive work also required sound political analysis as the foundation of international support. Increased conflict assessment capacity was needed. The Organization should better utilize all the tools at its disposal for preventing conflicts, including the peacebuilding architecture. Furthermore, it was crucial that sufficient and predictable resources be provided to the Peacebuilding Fund. The capacity of regional actors, often first responders, should also be strengthened.
He said peace could only emerge from within societies. Inclusive national ownership was at the core of the work of the Peacebuilding Commission. Inclusivity could not be addressed without mentioning the importance of including women as actors in all aspects of peace building. The Commission was currently developing a gender strategy and would also discuss the issue of youth and peace building.
In order to effectively address root causes of conflict, international actors needed to start acting more coherently. “By overcoming short-sighted turf wars, we would not only increase the efficacy of this Organization, but even more importantly, provide more effective support for the societies that it was set up to help,” he said. The Peacebuilding Commission could help break some of the silos and address fragmentation and duplication of efforts. Through its convening role of a wide array of regional and international actors, the Commission could help bring its perspective to deliberations of the principle organs.
He said the importance of increased coherence across the United Nations spectrum was never more evident than during transitions, which required genuine integration of peace and development. It also required an understanding of the inherently complex interrelationships and a shift away from a linear understanding of conflict. He looked forward to forging a closer relationship with the Council and bring to bear the complementary advice that the Commission could offer, he said, adding that “there is scope for enhanced collaboration, drawing upon both bodies’ respective mandates.”
OUIDED BOUCHAMAOUI, President of the Tunisian Confederation of Industry, Trade and Handicrafts and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate 2015 of the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, said the topic of today’s debate was complicated and relevant. Although Tunisia had initiated the Arab Spring, nowadays, Arab States were rife with extremism. Over the past years, there had been transitions in the region. Freedoms had improved but there was also an erosion of buying power and an increasing unemployment. The region was facing an economic crisis.
The marginalization of the Arab people, as well as the Palestinian cause, had given rise to mistrust which in turn had given rise to extremism and terrorism, she continued. The appearance of terrorism in Tunisia was for a great part the result of a tragic mismanagement of the Libyan situation, and her country was at ever growing risk of destabilization, which would impact Europe and the whole world. Security threats were interlinked and included transborder traffic, mass migrations and terrorism. Proactive security measures were important.
When seeking to accelerate democratization, there was a need for a system to set up rule of law, development, strengthening institutions and raising awareness, she stressed. There must be an upstream development to establish democracy and a new social contract through which civil duties were spelled out clearly. Tunisia was considered as an exception in the region, as it had avoided conflict through compromise and dialogue. The crises in the region had increasingly pushed people to the margins of development, with significant risks to security and stability. Her country gave hope that a democratic transition was possible and could be an example to other Arab States. The whole free world should see to it that the Tunisian model would succeed, which could show that democracy and Islam were compatible.
JUSTINE GREENING, Secretary of State for International Development of the United Kingdom, underscoring that “development and security are intrinsically linked,” pointed out that the Syrian conflict had turned the clock back on that country’s development by an estimated 30 years. Building peaceful societies was vital to achieving the new global goals and leaving no one behind. She compared building development without a foundation of peace and stability to building a house on sand, to be washed away when crisis hit. Stability was not simply about addressing war. It was about fostering strong economies and healthy, educated populations. Stability meant the rule of law, property rights and an independent judiciary. It meant rights for girls and women, and societies and institutions free from corruption. “Corruption is bad for business,” acting as a “perverse welfare system” transferring resources from the poor to the rich, she stated.
The strength of international institutions was also critical, she went on to say, stressing the Council’s vital role not only in peacekeeping, but seeking political solutions and in ensuring that international humanitarian law was followed. International institutions were taking on greater roles in addressing the underlying causes of conflict, including, among others, taking early action, moving from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, investing in basic services in fragile States, and supporting strong institutions, as well as promoting both respect for human rights and free and fair market access. Such progress, through the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), was in the interest of all countries.
SAMANTHA POWER (United States), recalling that the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear were intertwined, said States must tackle the causes of fear and want in their societies, and build strong institutions that respected human rights and were accountable to peoples’ needs. One root cause — underdevelopment — was often overlooked and she welcomed that its causal connection had been recognized by the Sustainable Development Goals. The Council must encourage the recognition and integration of development concerns into security assessments and peacebuilding programmes, she said, welcoming the Secretariat’s efforts to enable more nuanced assessments and responses.
She said operational changes that promoted system-wide analysis were also needed, which would enable more timely action to respond to large-scale human rights abuses. The Council must ensure that peacekeeping was accompanied by peacebuilding, as recent events in Burundi had demonstrated how far countries could progress, and then slip back into crisis. Such efforts must ensure realistic planning, with peacekeepers able to address all facets of conflict and equipped to maintain security while development progress was being made. Citing the Ebola epidemic in Sierra Leone, she said “we cannot choose the drivers of conflict we seek to address.” Rather, the Council must better identify them.
RAIMONDA MURMOKAITĖ (Lithuania) said that, whatever the conflict, there was a clear pattern of impunity and lawlessness, a breakdown of governance, exclusions and marginalization, abuse of power and corruption, and total disregard for human rights. South Sudan, Central African Republic, Iraq and Mali were cited as examples. United Nations missions had to be given adequate resources to fulfil rule of law mandates. More than half of all peacekeeping missions had such mandates, but the rule of law as a cross-cutting issue was rarely on the Security Council agenda. That was hardly the right approach. With regard to prevention, more often than not, “this Council tends to do too little too late”, she stated.
She went on to say that the Council had to get better at reading such warning signs as human rights violations. It also had to revisit the prevention instruments at its disposal. Inclusion of minorities and vulnerable groups, as well as youth, women and girls, was a key element of prevention. Yet, since the adoption of resolution 1325 (2000), progress in that regard had been uneven. Women had been largely missing from the list of participants and mediators at peace talks, but without their voices, peace and development would be so much harder to achieve. The Arms Trade Treaty was an important preventative measure that facilitated development efforts by reducing the risk of arms getting into the wrong hands.
RAFAEL RAMIREZ (Venezuela) said today’s topic reflected the different perspectives of the mandates of the General Assembly, the Council and the Economic and Social Council. While it had been stressed that the Council had a role to play in dealing with the root causes of conflict, that body could not establish a single model to support economic processes without impacting on the sovereignty of States. Moreover, the root causes of conflict had to do with the imposition of economic and social models by developed countries, including former colonial powers, on developing countries. The Council must therefore identify foreign interference as one of the root causes of conflict. The root causes of conflict that the Council could address were linked to foreign occupation, such as the Western Sahara and territories occupied by Israel. Sanctions were often used as punitive actions, but were an obstacle to sustainable development and were often extensions of former colonial powers. Countries under sanctions sank into social exclusion and constant military conflict.
ISMAEL ABRAÃO GASPAR MARTINS (Angola) said root causes of conflict included political, economic and social exclusion. Political exclusion had the tendency to raise excluded groups to conflict. Economic exclusion resulted in unemployment and poverty and culminated in social tension, conflict and violence. When coupled with an authoritarian system, the non-respect for human rights could also be a main cause for conflict. Free citizens, aware of their duties, were critical in building a peaceful society. The main responsibility to ensure peace lay with States. Sustaining peace called for a systemic response from the United nations before, during and armed conflict. Only by creating synergies between the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Council, could the issue of peace, development and human rights be taken into consideration. Describing the emergence of his country from war into peace, he said that Angola had supported other countries in conflict prevention, especially in the Great Lakes Region. The Kimberley process was an example of making natural resources, in this case diamonds, from a tool of war to an instrument of peace and stability.
JUAN MANUEL GONZÁLEZ DE LINARES PALOU (Spain), noting that the 2030 Agenda was designed to be transformative for the international community, said that if the international commitment to the Agenda’s goals was increased, the risk of extremism would be radically diminished. Sustainable security was linked to inclusive sustainable development. One of the key elements in achieving the goals was to work at preventing conflict, for which the root causes must be analysed. Those root causes also included external causes such as trafficking, terrorism and climate change. The Council must recognize that climate change had an impact on security, as it was a multiplier of threats to peace and security. Citizens had called for consistent responses from the international community. Sustainable societies must have respect for human rights. In that regard, the inclusion of women in peacebuilding was important. The relationship between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission should be improved. Furthermore, neither the United Nations nor the Council were the only actors. In Africa, for instance, the African Union had taken responsibility for peace and security and development. A more effective cooperation between the Council and the African Union Peace and Security Council was therefore necessary.
LIU JIEYI (China) said new international relationships based on win-win approaches would help eliminate the root causes of conflict. The United Nations Charter and respect for the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference into internal State affairs must be adhered to. Peaceful dispute settlement through dialogue and negotiation must also be sought. In that context, he called for a more just political and economic order and a concept of security that was cooperative and sustainable. As well, in pursuit of national interests, the reasonable concerns of other countries must be addressed. To implement the 2030 Agenda, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities must be upheld. There was no such thing as superiority or inferiority; harmony must be supported among religious, cultural and other differences, and efforts must be made to promote dialogue. The Council was obliged to remove the root causes of conflict, and it should cooperate with other United Nations agencies to conduct preventive diplomacy and build peace. While supporting regional organizations, it should also ensure that its own actions were unified and effective and that counter-terrorism resolutions were being implemented.
U. JOY OGWU (Nigeria) said resolution 2171 (2014) underscored the need for a comprehensive approach to conflict prevention through poverty eradication and good governance. Strengthened engagements between United Nations entities and national actors would allow for evaluating development priorities and strengthening stability. The need to enhance State institutions had become more compelling, and fragile States must institute accountability mechanisms to ensure good governance. Furthermore, States should adopt a contextualized approach to address the root causes of conflict with efforts by Governments, communities and others that aimed at creating opportunities for young people. At the regional level, she urged a focus on translating African countries’ economic gains into social ones, with the Council working to strengthen institutions and mobilizing the resources needed for inclusive development. She also supported the establishment of a multidimensional strategy to address the motivators of terrorism and violent extremism. “This Council must accord a more central role to preventive diplomacy” and work more closely with the Peacebuilding Commission and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), she said.
VITALY I. CHURKIN (Russian Federation), while noting a link between development and security, said a danger lay in making that an absolute truth, as the Council had neither the power nor relevant tool kit for undertaking such work. Going beyond its purview risked degrading its effectiveness. Development had an inherent value, which should be promoted by the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and others. The Council’s encroachment would be inappropriate and counter-productive, with a sole focus on development overshadowing other aspects such as territory, ideology, religion, psychology and technology. A separate aspect was the emergence of conflict as a result of outside interference. There had been a hardening of sectarian antagonisms, which in turn, had been exploited by terrorists. The Council must not get “bogged down in theoretical research” but, rather, respond quickly. The Russian Federation had always called for collective approaches to resolve existing issues and establishing fairer architecture for international relations.
He said concepts developed by a limited group of States had defined development with strict criteria, by which donors imposed standards but did not honour development pledges and skirted issues, such as increasing developing country participation in international bodies. He pointed out that while some said human rights violations were root causes of conflict, some countries with harsh laws had no conflict. Likewise, where conflicts had arisen in natural resource-rich countries, the majority were not tied to a lack of transparency. Sanctions, imposed by circumventing the Council, had not solved the Syrian conflict. Rather, the goal was to exacerbate it and change the regime in Damascus. The near unanimous condemnation of the Cuban sanctions had shown the growing understanding of the unsuitability of that practice. The Council must respect the sovereignty of States that had fallen on hard times by providing help rather than a public thrashing. His Government stood for effective conflict prevention, marked by non-intervention in State affairs and dialogue with sovereign authorities.
CRISTIÁN BARROS MELET (Chile) said against the backdrop of new threats to international peace and security, the focus on the root causes of instability should be multidimensional. Security and development were closely interrelated and essential for sustainable peace. The issue was not about the competencies for the various bodies, but rather of how the international community, States and civil society could respond to challenges to peace. Coordination and complementarity were essential in that regard. The Council must focus on effective prevention. Having more information from the ground would enable the Council to act in a timely fashion. It was indispensable for women to play a role in prevention, as well as during and after conflicts. National ownership was also essential as were respect for the rule of law, human rights and inclusive institutions. The work of the Peacebuilding Commission in seeking interaction between different bodies was important, including regional and subregional bodies as they played an important role in preventive diplomacy. That role should be strengthened.
GOMBO TCHOULI (Chad) said that maintaining lasting peace and international security required the prevention of conflicts through social and economic development. The United System as a whole, including the Council, must work to prevent conflict. Current arrangements for conflict prevention within the Organization must be reviewed. Root causes could include governance, inequalities and exclusion and management of public affairs. There were also external causes, such as lack of respect for sovereignty of States. Conflict prevention must also include participation of women and youth. In addition, there were development matters that impacted international peace and security, such as the issue of migrants. The integrated strategy for the Sahel took into account matters of security and development but implementation of that strategy plan was slow. He urged international organizations, international financial institutions and donors to finance programmes that created opportunities for women and youth and called upon the Organization and the Council to endorse the Secretary-General’s recommendation on the causes of conflict, and to support peace and development in Africa.
DINA KAWAR (Jordan) said the international community had been making great efforts to preserve peace and promote economic development and human rights. Results had been achieved. However, not enough had been done to highlight the complementarity between the three tracks. Addressing the root causes of conflict should be the focus of the Council, especially as conflicts were now both intra- and inter-States. Peacebuilding operations should be supported in a concerted manner, promoting security, rule of law and combating poverty. In order to build secure societies and stable environments, there was a need for strategies that promoted human rights, rule of law and justice. The potential of all members of society, including the youth should be utilized. Implementation of strategies should not be an exclusive task of the Council but should include the engagement by regional organizations. She also stressed the importance of national ownership.
GERARD VAN BOHEMEN (New Zealand) said that there was a growing recognition that security and development needs were closely interlinked, particularly in fragile and post-conflict States. For most societies, inclusive growth and development were critical elements in preventing the emergence or reoccurrence of conflict. However, prospects of development were in turn contingent on maintaining a stable environment, underpinned by institutions that provided security, effective governance and the rule of law. The Security Council was not the primary actor in addressing many challenges related to sustainable development, but it could play an important role, ensuring that its work addressed threats to peace and security. The Council must be proactive in seeking more effective coordination with other international actors. That required bridging the silos between different pillars of the United Nations, including development, security and human rights.
FRANÇOIS DELATTRE (France) said the recent attacks in Paris would never change the face of his country, but rather, strengthen its determination to fight terrorism everywhere. Governance was essential for preventing conflict and fostering development. Indeed, countries at war had seen the poorest results in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which had spurred the inclusion of Goal 16 in the Sustainable Development Goals. “This goal is key,” he said, as it recognized the link between poverty eradication and promotion of sustainable development, peace and security, and good governance. He cited some of its 12 targets — reducing all forms of violence, promoting the rule of law, combating corruption, and strengthening public institutions — and stressed that climate was also a development issue, affecting the poorest and most vulnerable. A recent World Bank report had found that, absent action on that issue, 100 million additional people could fall into abject poverty. He welcomed the shared desire to achieve a far-reaching universal and legally binding climate agreement in December, and, noting that much remained to be done, called on States to remain mobilized.
RAMLAN BIN IBRAHIM (Malaysia), associating with Mr. Skoog’s statement, said that in the medium- to long-term, increased pressures on societies would continue to drive conflict around the world. He voiced support for the urgent improvement of United Nations prevention capacities, saying that security and development were two sides of the same coin on which the Council had an important role to play. “The United Nations cannot be in a country indefinitely,” he said. Efforts by Slovakia and South Africa, on behalf of the Group of Friends of Security Sector Reform, had yielded interesting proposals on how security and development could be integrated into current frameworks and structures. For its part, the Council should create enabling conditions for the Peacebuilding Commission to fulfil its tasks. The importance of its coordination with other actors could not be overstated. Through better coordination with the World Bank, IMF and others, the Council could better analyse specific situations. Coordination among and by United Nations agencies and partners, as well as coherence among the three ongoing review processes, was critical.
LILIANNE PLOUMEN, Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, stated that justice and strong, inclusive institutions were the bridge between development and peace, and the foundation for trust between citizens and Government. “The rule of law is not the same as rule by law”, she emphasized, adding that her bringing a development perspective to issues of conflict prevention and peace would allow the international community to focus better and earlier on emerging conflicts and instability.
Recent reports on peace operations and conflict prevention, she added, had offered the Council a wealth of suggestions for addressing the root causes at a much earlier stage. The Council should engage much earlier when a conflict started to develop by adopting a more flexible and sequenced approach. Furthermore, creative approaches were needed to finance conflict prevention, mediation and peacebuilding. It was simply unsustainable to rely on a few voluntary donors to support a central function of the Organization. The burden should be shared more equally amongst states and stakeholders.
EUGÈNE-RICHARD GASSANA (Rwanda) said development could help eliminate several root causes of conflict, and if poverty was reduced, social inequalities would lessen and an optimum allocation of scarce resources would be achieved. Global trends required a proactive approach in order to make peace, security and development a mutually reinforcing package at national and international levels. For Rwanda, building governance and the rule of law, combating corruption and improving transparency had laid a strong foundation for sustainable development, peace and security. The international community should support the building of local capacities in order to help Governments implement policies that minimized the risks to development interventions. The peacebuilding architecture was inadequate, under-resourced and had been largely neglected, including by the Council. Improving conditions for social justice was critical to the promotion of peace, and the Sustainable Development Goals should be tools for realizing development for all.
LUÍS CAMPOS FERREIRA (Portugal), emphasizing that “investing in development reaps security”, said his country’s development cooperation prioritized the links between peace and security, sustainable development and human rights. It focused in particular on sectors with a structural and multiplier effect, such as governance, the rule of law, human rights, education, health and institutional capacity building. Also underscored was the growing importance of the private sector in that regard. While cooperation between international and regional organizations had improved, there was substantial room for improvement. Portugal’s emphasis on conflict prevention had been seen in its focus on preventive diplomacy during its tenure on the Council. While issues such as climate change, transnational organized crime and migration fell under the purview of other forums, the Council must be mindful of their increasing impacts and not fear innovation. It had every advantage in developing a more comprehensive and informed approach in that regard.
APICHART CHINWANNO (Thailand) said investing in development was a cost-effective way to prevent conflict. Development ought to be holistic, inclusive and beneficial to all for it to be conducive to peace. No man, woman or child must be left behind. Women should have a greater role in peace efforts and development programmes should focus on youth to dissuade them from violent extremist leanings. His Government championed a comprehensive approach to peace, security and development, he said, adding that more could be achieved by the United Nations system working in a coordinated manner, with the Security Council lending political weight to support preventative action. Conflict prevention tools had to be strengthened, used proactively and deployed rapidly. Adequate resources were needed for peacekeeping, peacebuilding and special political missions. The United Nations also needed to work closely with Member States, who had primary responsibility for conflict prevention, and deepen cooperation with regional organizations that were normally better informed and closely engaged with the dynamics and key players of a given region.
CHRISTIAN LEFFLER, European Union, said that without peace there could be no sustainable development and that without development and respect for human rights and the rule of law, there would be no sustainable peace. Poverty, inequality, lack of respect for the rule of law, weak and ineffective institutions that did not serve their populations, and the adverse effects of climate change were drivers of conflict. Those root causes needed to be tackled if the international community was to achieve sustainable peace. Building peace, preventing conflict and strengthening international security were core objectives of the European Union, and it was committed to taking a comprehensive approach to security and development issues.
He went on to say that he was pleased to see the Council, increasingly looking beyond the immediate symptoms of crises that had already erupted, was adopting a more forward-looking and preventative approach. The European Union had always insisted on the need to prevent or tackle conflicts and crises comprehensively, and was currently engaged in a period of strategic reflection at several levels. The primary responsibility for conflict prevention and sustainable development lay with Member States, but the international community had a role to play, including the Security Council and its mandate.
ANTONIO DE AGUIAR PATRIOTA (Brazil) said the relationship between security and development could not be understood from a simplistic notion that poverty itself might constitute a threat to peace. The gravest threats to international peace and security, including world wars, had historically risen from tensions between developed industrialized nations. Militaristic agendas and the unilateral use of force were far more significant sources of instability than poverty. While a multidimensional approach to conflict prevention was wise, traditional instruments, including mediation, good offices and conciliation measures, remained essential. Although factors such as inequality, human rights violations and insufficient participation of women and minorities were challenges to stability, other factors, such as the behaviour of developed countries and the flow of arms also contributed to international instability. The first “silo” to be broken down was the erroneous perception that only developing countries needed to build peaceful and inclusive societies. Although international cooperation, upon request, could be useful to curb violence, utmost care must be taken not to bring issues of internal public order into a body that dealt with conflict and threats to international peace and security.
GABRIEL ORELLANA ZABALZA (Guatemala), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, stated that global challenges such as maintaining peace and security, the fight against poverty and the promotion of rule of law could only be approached effectively in the context of multilateralism. The Council must use all the instruments at its disposal, while also keeping in mind best practices and lessons learned. In addition, the Human Rights Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the specialized agencies had important roles to play in promoting peace and development. Noting that his country was a member of the Peacebuilding Commission, he emphasized the need to support countries in post-conflict situations. Restoring democratic institutions and guaranteeing the necessary national reconciliation were crucial for steering them towards peace.
BHAGWANT SINGH BISHNOI (India) said that although eradicating poverty and providing development would strengthen the foundation for peace and stability, the recent terrible events in Paris and Beirut demonstrated that the greatest threat to peace and security came from violent extremism and religious fanaticism. It should also be acknowledged that the absence of State authority or the presence of a weak State authority provided the breeding ground for extremist organizations. All terrorist organizations had an ideological basis that contradicted the basic tenets of humanity. However, such organizations were also provided with the financing and space to operate. That situation needed to be addressed collectively. Noting a tendency of the Council to encroach on the jurisdiction of the General Assembly, he said that just because peace and security, development and human rights were inter-dependent, did not ipso facto mean that the Council must arrogate all those functions to itself. It could not presume, as a non-representative body with opaque working methods, to prescribe policy choices on issues of development and social inclusion to the wider membership of the Organization.
MOHAMED ALI ALHAKIM (Iraq) stated that the best way to guarantee peace was by reinforcing sustainable development and guaranteeing equal opportunities for all. It was crucial that national wealth should be distributed in a just and inclusive manner. Intervention in the internal affairs of a State prevented the achievement of Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda by causing greater divisions and insecurities at the domestic level, while sapping the State’s development gains achieved in previous decades. Furthermore, the absence of justice and equality with regards to water resources also impeded sustainable development. Mutual investment in the waters of an international river not only contributed to the development of all the countries along that river, but prevented conflict among them. Pressure on the environment and scarcity of natural resources could contribute to conflict, he pointed out.
STEFAN BARRIGA (Liechtenstein) said that the Council must be willing and ready to take decisive action on the information presented to it, especially when a situation was about to escalate, resulting in atrocious crimes. He said he looked forward to more States joining the Code of Conduct on Council matters and its consistent application. The Council must play a stronger role in helping to create accountable institutions and ensuring equal access to justice through strengthening national judiciaries and promoting sustainable development. At the same time, the Council should consistently call on countries to fulfil their obligation to fight impunity for the most serious crimes under international law, and mandate international assistance where need be. Where a country was unwilling to provide justice, the Council should consider referring situations to the International Criminal Court, he added.
GILLIAN BIRD (Australia) stated that while conflict prevention was the reason for the creation of the United Nations, it remained a largely crisis-driven organization that relied on traditional response mechanisms that were straining to meet the increasing need. Noting that the States of Fragility 2015 report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) had affirmed that conflict could lead to a reversal of national development gains by more than 20 years, he added that the World Bank had also identified the correlation between violence and poverty. Regular and comprehensive briefing of the Council on fragile and conflict-affected countries could promote a better understanding of the root causes. Further, the Council should enable the Peacebuilding Commission to play the bridging and advocacy role envisioned when the Commission was established in 2005.
INIGO LAMBERTINI (Italy) said that while respecting the different roles and mandates of the United Nations bodies, closer attention should be paid to broader security issues, which were a matter of concern for a growing part of the membership. As well, closer cooperation between the General Assembly and the Security Council should be sought. The world currently faced the biggest refugee crisis since the Second World War, causing an increase in migratory pressure in the Mediterranean where too many lives had been lost. He said that Italy, a Mediterranean country whose navy was daily engaged in protecting and saving lives, was aware that there was no quick fix to that phenomenon. The crisis needed to be tackled from different angles, developmentally, politically, and by respecting human rights and the rights of refugees. Furthermore, if the international community was to tackle the root causes of potential conflicts, it must first and foremost respect its commitments to finance the 2030 Agenda it had just adopted. Prevention was not only a moral obligation but also a smart investment, as the costs of conflict intervention had become increasingly high.
GHOLAMALI KHOSHROO (Iran), speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, said that it was indispensable for Member States to develop common perceptions and agreed upon approaches to address existing, new and emerging treats to international peace. Such common perceptions must be developed in accordance with the purposes of the Charter and by all Member States acting together. He outlined several impediments to development including the severe adverse impact of the reoccurring global financial crises on the economic growth of developing countries. The continuing lack of resources and underdevelopment of the majority of developing countries, along with unequal terms of trade and the lack of cooperation by developed countries were obstacles as well.
The coercive and unilateral measures imposed by some countries and the use of force also threatened reversing progress made, he continued. Rich and powerful countries continued to exercise excessive influence in determining the nature and direction of international relations and world politics. He stressed that United Nations peacekeeping operations should not be used as a substitute for addressing the root causes of conflicts. He welcomed the efforts of the Peacebuilding Commission to establish dynamic partnerships with regional and subregional organizations. He also condemned terrorism in all its forms, saying that it threatened to reverse much of the development progress made in recent decades.
MARÍA EMMA MEJÍA VÉLEZ (Colombia) stated that to ensure lasting peace it was necessary to strengthen the role of women in the maintenance of peace. Peacebuilding was a cross-cutting process and there were multifaceted aspects specific to each case. His Government had identified the convergence between Sustainable Develop Goal targets and was working to close the gaps between rural and urban parts of the country. In addition, while peacekeeping operations were instruments for restoring basic security, national ownership was crucial to generate a sustainable peace. Noting that cooperation between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission had demonstrated important results, she added that it was necessary to overcome fragmentation.
RICARDO ALDAY GONZÁLEZ (Mexico) stated that it was clear from recent news headlines that the actions of the United Nations to prevent conflict and establish peaceful societies continued to be insufficient. All the bodies of the Organization must step up their efforts within their limits. The international community could not allow conflicts to continue to cause havoc. The broad range of recommendations derived from various reviews of peacekeeping operations had emphasized the need to change the epicentre of peacekeeping from reactive to preventive actions. Emphasizing the importance of the Peacebuilding Commission, he added that in order to consolidate peace, it was crucial to not work in silos.
ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) said that the 2030 Agenda, when implemented universally, would assist all countries in the fight against terrorism and extremism. Successful implementation of the Agenda would also lighten the load on the Council and assist it in making solutions for conflict situations more robust. The Agenda clearly stated that the onus was squarely on the Council to find solutions, so that countries and communities could start their journey towards development. As conflicts wipe out whatever progress was made in the field of development, the Council must put more emphasis on prevention. It must ensure that countries did not relapse into crisis. Smooth transitions were needed between political solutions, humanitarian action and development. Inaction by the Council could not be substituted by others’ compassion, or rectified by addressing the humanitarian consequences, he stressed. Touching on current migration trends, he said they were symptoms of underlying causes, which were different forms of unsustainability, be they economic, environmental or social.
TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, joined in strongly condemning the terrorist attack in Paris which had sent “shockwaves” around the world. He raised the question of what the international community, faced with such challenges, could do in order to ensure cooperation greater than that within the terrorist camp. The root causes of conflict could not be addressed without ensuring sustainable development, a message reinforced by the outcome of the Review on Peace Operations, among others, which focused on the need to address the problems created by institutional fragmentation. Multifaceted challenges such as State fragility, climate change, human trafficking and others required a holistic approach taking into account the interdependence of security and development. The Council could and should take steps within its purview without unduly infringing upon the competencies of other organs and bodies within the United Nations system. Less preoccupation with jurisdiction and “turf” and greater emphasis on enlightened self-interest might “do the trick”. The Council’s deliberations and decisions should be informed by a thorough analysis of the security-development nexus and its actions should reflect those dynamics as well.
THOMAS SCHIEB (Germany) said it was a truism that security and development were interlinked and mutually enforcing. It was time for all parties of the United Nations system to adapt, increase efficiency and change mindsets. By adopting the 2030 Agenda the international community had created high expectations to tackle challenges specifically relating to reducing violence in all its forms. Ensuring peace and security and addressing gross violations of human rights required a systematic plan. On the refugee crisis, he said that Germany was expected to receive more than one million refugees in 2015 alone. He urged all stakeholders to develop national, regional and international solutions to that global challenge. Refugees feared for their lives. War had destroyed their homes and they were fleeing violence and persecution. While thousands of people were committed to improving refugees’ lives in both countries of origin and destination, much more remained to be done. “We need to reframe our perspective on what is necessary and what needs to be done,” he said.
SVEN JÜRGENSON (Estonia) said that strong national institutions must be based on the rule of law and respect property rights, freedom of speech and open political choice. Creating reliable institutions was a central part of the transformation needed to enable countries prone to or emerging from conflict to foster development. He expressed support that the Council was taking a more forward-looking approach, and urged Member States to invest more in conflict prevention. It had become increasingly difficult to end ongoing crises that often turned into armed conflicts. It was easier and less costly to prevent violent conflicts from escalating. The Council had a key role to play in prevention. Bridging silos across the development, security and human rights pillars was central to supporting prevention efforts, and the Council should increase its focus on peacebuilding to reduce the risk of relapsing violence.
AKAN RAKHMETULLIN (Kazakhstan), expressing his condolences to and solidarity with the Governments and peoples of countries affected by recent terrorist attacks, said that the rise of such attacks in many countries, combined with the displacement of millions of refugees, posed the most prominent threats to global peace today. The United Nations should convene a high-level meeting on peace and security to evolve contemporary means aimed at eliminating the root causes of conflict, terrorism and extremism. Public awareness should be raised, particularly among youth, on the dangers of extremist recruitment, and a culture of peace should be fostered. Kazakhstan had hosted the triennial Congress of World’s Religious and Traditional Leaders, and its President had offered a number of proposals to the General Assembly during its high-level debate. Those proposals included, among others, the transformation of the Economic and Social Council into the Global Development Council and the establishing of a United Nations global network to counter international terrorism and extremism, as an outcome of the Secretary-General’s forthcoming comprehensive plan of action to combat terrorism.
BÉNÉDICTE FRANKINET (Belgium), expressing condolences to France and its people, stated that resolution 2167 (2014) recognized the need to develop a procedure that was globally integrated to attack the underlying causes of conflict. Combating poverty and exclusion, promoting good governance and encouraging political and religious tolerance were crucial for the establishment of peaceful societies. While the Security Council was not indifferent to those ideas, “the results in terms of conflict prevention remain debatable”, she said. Conflicts had not only multiplied, they had become embedded in various countries. Emphasizing the importance of paying attention to early warnings such as radicalization, she added that the United Nations had excellent tools for prevention including special envoys, mediation experts and regional offices. The Organization could also better utilize the advisory opinion of the Peacebuilding Commission.
FRANTIŠEK RUŽIČKA (Slovakia), expressing solidarity with victims of recent acts of terror, said the 2030 Agenda was a unique opportunity to create a continuum between peaceful, inclusive and safe societies and development efforts. The shared objectives that cut across the security-development spectrum needed to be better understood. He said that, as co-chairs of the Group of Friends of Security Sector Reform, Slovakia and South Africa had organized a side event during the General Debate to discuss the link between security and development. Following recent discussions, recommendations were formulated, including that more effective and consistent work should be done on political strategies that would support a nationally owned vision of transition from violence to stability. Targeted capacity building for institutions and the training of security forces needed to be supported by development partners. As well, while progress had been made on stronger partnerships with the African Union and European Union on security sector reform, the Security Council should be more closely engaged in supporting such partnerships beyond the United Nations.
VLADIMIR DROBNJAK (Croatia), associating himself with the European Union and speaking as “one of the largest and most successful peace operations in United Nations history”, said true and encompassing development could not be achieved and sustained without peace. Meanwhile, peace could not be achieved without justice and neither peace, development nor justice was possible without respect for human rights. There was a need to break down silos and work together across all three United Nations pillars. “The new 2030 Agenda is not only the best starting point for a new approach, but it is also a matrix on how to do it,” he said in that regard. Understanding the root causes of conflict was crucial for conflict prevention as well as for building and sustaining peace. The Security Council could make better use of available insights and analysis. Furthermore, enhanced cooperation with the Economic and Social Council and the Human Rights Council was crucial. As a long-time member and former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, he underlined the importance and potential of the body, which could bring together all relevant regional and international actors and introduce new perspectives and advice for the Council’s deliberations and decision-making.
FERNANDO LUQUE MÁRQUEZ (Ecuador), emphasizing that overcoming poverty was an important task facing mankind, said that the best strategy was reducing social and economic and environmental inequalities. The opulence of some compared to the intolerable misery of others was an affront to humanity as well as a root cause of conflict. The three pillars of the Organization were interlinked and the negotiators of the Charter had recognized that reality. The Charter also differentiated between the bodies of the Organization and established the mechanisms of cooperation between them. The Council’s attempt to take on items that belonged to the agenda of the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council and their subsidiary bodies was a matter of concern. That went against the Organization’s founding principles.
CRISTINA CARRIÓN (Uruguay) said shortcomings in governance, corruption and a growing lack of satisfaction within and among States were common causes of conflict. There was no guarantee for international security if the international community did not take urgent measures to eradicate hunger and respect human rights of all, without discrimination. Extreme poverty, exclusivity and lack of access to health and sanitation services exacerbated conflict. The international community as well as each Member State had a duty to overcome that. Without dealing with the root causes of conflict, efforts toward peace would be deemed superficial. The role of international cooperation was critical to tackle the immediate requirements and create capacity for sustainable development. Efforts made in security must be accompanied by, if necessary, reform of the judicial systems in those countries affected by conflict.
ZOHRAB MNATSAKANYAN (Armenia) concurred with the idea that more synergies, coherence and coordination across the United Nations system were needed. That concerned not only Member States and their engagements with United Nations bodies, but also the Secretariat and its operations in the Headquarters and the field. The present and often conspicuous fragmentation of the activities of all actors undermined the sustainability of the three pillars of the United Nations. While concurring with the Secretary-General’s conclusion that “prioritizing conflict prevention is by far our most pragmatic and cost-effective solution”, he noted it was the human cost of conflicts that eventually rattled the conscience of the United Nations system. Conflict situations were detectable at an early phase, and were a reaction to persistent injustice, discrimination and denial of rights. The human rights aspect in conflict prevention should therefore receive a prominent focus across the United Nations system. Noting the importance of international consolidation, he underlined the importance for Member States to put aside their narrow interests for the sake of broader peace efforts. Addressing the deterioration of the international context and the particular vulnerability of the smaller States was in that regard important. On the recent attacks in France, he noted that the persistence of terrorism revealed the vulnerability of the international system and underlined that the present change in paradigm of conflicts equally challenged the paradigm of prevention.
BERNARDITO CLEOPAS AUZA, Permanent Observer of the Holy See, said that if we wanted “true integral human development for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and peoples”. Development, peace and security and human rights were connected and mutually reinforcing. To succeed in sparing present and future generations from the scourge of violence and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, countries needed to translate promises into practice. In addition, he noted the vital role played by grassroots movements, including faith-based organizations and local communities, in peacebuilding and preventing conflict. Such actors were able to inspire people to work together for a greater cause.
HAHN CHOONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said the search for the root causes of conflict was all the more relevant in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attack. His country knew first-hand the importance of the link between peace, security and development; in the aftermath of the Korean War, the United Nations Korean Reconstruction Agency had helped stabilize that war-torn country. More emphasis should be placed on peacebuilding, which lay at the nexus of security and development. The growing emphasis on prevention before, during and after a conflict required the Council to have a better grasp of reconstruction and institution-building efforts necessary for conflict recovery and sustainable development support strategies. The Peacebuilding Commission was created to do that, and the Council should seek its advice frequently. The Council should also better craft mission mandates and seriously consider recommendations from the High-Level Independent Panel on Peace Operations. In addition, it should also strive for better cooperation with regional organizations, in particular the African Union. Close consultations with regional stakeholders could provide early warning, conflict analysis and insight into region-specific dynamics.
DESRA PERCAYA (Indonesia), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said the United Nations system must put higher primacy on peaceful resolution of disputes and conflict prevention, reinforced by a comprehensive approach and partnerships among Member States. He welcomed the emphasis on political solutions to conflict, mediation and conflict prevention in the recent report by the High-level Panel on Peace Operations and in the Secretary-General’s reports on implementation and conflict prevention, as well as the peacebuilding architecture review. Noting agreement on the need for a comprehensive and integrated approach, he welcomed recommendations by the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture. The consideration of those reports presented an opportunity for Member States to re-evaluate the working of the entire system in peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding, to see how best to harness their experience to advance international peace and well-being. He also said that Sustainable Development Goals 16 and 17 coupled with the role of the High-level Political Forum in the Goals framework review would be critical to strengthening a comprehensive and well-supported effort.
NABEEL MUNIR (Pakistan) stated that while lack of development could endanger international peace and security, “without peace and security, lack of development and violation of human rights are a certainty”. Therefore, peace and security were a pre-requisite for achieving development goals. There were international institutions, especially within the United Nations, that oversaw issues pertaining to development and human rights. If the Council started taking up those responsibilities, the bodies mandated to deal with them would lose their relevance. Furthermore, the Council did not need to be burdened with work that would, at best, be a duplication of efforts. It was also important to consider if the Council’s structure and working methods were conducive to such a role, he said, noting that with only ten elected members, the Council’s openness, transparency and accountability had been questioned by the wider membership. By contrast, the Human Rights Council comprised of 47 elected Member States.
ION JINGA (Romania) said balance among the three pillars of the United Nations was key. Emphasizing that poor governance fuelled civil conflict and hindered development, he said that along with Mexico and the Republic of Korea, his country had established the “Group of Friends on Governance for Sustainable Development” as a flexible and informal space to discuss relevant issues and foster cooperation among multiple actors. The 2030 Agenda recognized that global sustainable development was not possible without progress in good governance, inclusion and sustainable peace and security. Achieving those goals would require a coherent strategy for addressing highly political, sensitive issues, a value-based multilateralism and enforcement of the Charter. Conflict prevention was first and foremost the responsibility of Member States. Therefore the Council’s efforts should be based on an integrated approach of conflict management, preventive actions and institution building, coherence and coordination among actors, reinforced partnerships with regional organizations and strong national ownership.
ABDERRAZZAK LAASSEL (Morocco) stated that the international community must seek a holistic approach for the achievement of peace and security, while promoting human rights and development. The root causes of conflict were well-known and included exclusion, corruption and absence of justice. While supporting countries that were at risk, it was also necessary to broaden the vision of the international community, and modify the way countries and different departments and bodies of the Organization cooperated. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was best placed to brief the members of the Security Council on development issues. Earlier today, the representative of Venezuela had made an unacceptable comparison between the Moroccan Sahara and Palestine. The question of the Sahara was the subject of a political process and Morocco was cooperating with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General in that matter.
GUSTAVO MEZA-CUADRA VELASQUEZ (Peru) said that many of the current armed conflicts took place because of deep, structural gaps. Policies of social inclusion allowed just and stable environments for peace, security and development to prosper. To that end, it would be necessary for each State to have an environment where peace prevailed. Moreover, combating economic inequality, and promoting the rule of law and fundamental human rights contributed to stability and fostered a climate of peace. The establishment of rule of law must play an increasingly important role in peacekeeping missions, he said emphasizing the role of the Peacebuilding Commission in that regard. Peru was committed to building peaceful and inclusive societies both within its borders and beyond.
OLIVIER MARC ZEHNDER (Switzerland) said that the shocks and stresses of conflicts set back development and efforts for sustainable peace. The Security Council could strengthen human rights and rule of law. Its swift reaction after human rights violations could help keep perpetrators accountable. The United Nations had at its disposable a broad range of tools and it was imperative to use the myriad political and peacebuilding missions to address the root causes of conflict and promote a coherent and holistic response. Key partnerships, such as the one with the World Bank, were crucial. United Nations funds and programmes could play a positive role in peacekeeping and peacebuilding given the necessary resources and tools were available.
MICHAEL DOUGLAS GRANT (Canada) said that investing in conflict prevention meant addressing drivers of conflict at all levels and promoting the idea of “sustaining peace” into all phases of engagements. There was no need for new mandates, he stressed, calling on Member States to strengthen existing tools, as well as the leadership of the Security Council. Solutions that were country-led and inclusive were more likely to be perceived as legitimate and match the unique characteristics of specific conflicts. Civil society and women’s participation at all levels were key to building a “culture of dialogue”. Noting that too often there was relapse into violent conflict once a peace agreement had been signed, he stressed that even an inclusive and comprehensive agreement needed to be sustained and supported. Sustaining peace required resources, time and determination. Member States and United Nations agencies must engage in processes that recognized the high risks, tough political choices and fundamental changes to societies.
MAHLATSE MMINELE (South Africa), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, warned that peace would continue to elude the world if it did not address the nexus between security and development. While the Council must take into account the developmental and socioeconomic causes of conflict, it should not encroach on the mandate of other principal United Nations bodies. Yet, “it is unfortunate that the Council encroaches on the mandate of other bodies, while neglecting its own Charter mandate,” he said, stressing that that was the reason the Council remained ineffective in adequately addressing security matters in Palestine, Syria and Western Sahara. He welcomed the work of other members of the international community, including the World Bank as critical partners in the collective conflict prevention efforts. Calling for greater regional and international coordination with national authorities, he emphasized that inclusivity in governance needed to be addressed. A healthy civil society which promoted dialogue and provided a voice to those who felt marginalized would go a long way in resolving political disputes.
DAVID DONOGHUE (Ireland), expressing his country’s condolences to the French people, said that those terrible events — an assault on fundamental human freedoms and values — reinforced international determination to eradicate the scourge of terrorism. Central to that was to remove environments of grievance and inequality within which terrorists could flourish. “We have to go to the roots of conflict situations and tackle problems of inequality and disadvantage which all too frequently underlie them,” he said. There was clear evidence to show the deep interconnections between underdevelopment, fragility and conflict. In that context, the 2030 Agenda was about nothing less than transforming the conditions in which people lived and the future they offered their children. Spotlighting the cycles of violence and poverty in which many around the world lived, he said the 2030 Agenda recognized that the reduction of violence, insecurity and fragility was a legitimate objective of development policy and essential for sustainable long-term growth, stability and poverty reduction. The new Agenda also made clear that sustainable development could not be pursued without addressing the root causes of conflict. All Member States had committed themselves to that integrated approach and the United Nations system much follow suit, he said, stressing that “we must all come out of our silos”.
FEDERICO ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ FRANCO (Paraguay) said the fact that the Council had organized today’s debate underscored the importance of the Sustainable Development Goals, stressing that its role in conflict prevention must be more decisive. Some root causes of conflict had been linked to certain States. They had hampered — and sometimes prevented — the establishment of conditions for development. His Government supported social justice that promoted strengthened social and political institutions and increased access by women and children to the benefits of development. As it lacked appropriate tools, the Council must strengthen its partnership with the General Assembly and subsidiary bodies in establishing policies aimed at creating a peaceful world. “We have an opportunity to forge these links,” he said, especially in light of the 2030 Agenda’s adoption.
DAVID ROET (Israel), expressing condolences to France and its people, said his country understood “first hand” the pain and devastation of terrorism. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda marked a new era for global partnership to eradicate poverty, which was the greatest global challenge. But “the rules of the game have changed” he pointed out, adding that the international community had not yet responded adequately to that new reality. Up-to-date mechanisms were required to help victims of conflict in the short term and to improve conflict prevention capacities in the longer term. No nation could prosper if it neglected such “building blocks of progress”, such as accountable institutions, the rule of law, respect for human rights and the empowerment of women. In the Middle East, the disintegration of nation States and national borders had been the direct result of decades of neglect, corrupt leadership and mistaken priorities. The indoctrination of children had bred fundamentalism, and the segregation of women had silenced voices of moderation. Cries for freedom had been ignored, leaving people without hope, and dangerous fundamentalist ideologies had led to terror. The promotion of free and open societies was the only sure path to security and development, but “we must not take the easy way out”, he emphasized.
HIROSHI MINAMI (Japan) said that by using its political leverage in conflict prevention and peacebuilding in a timely manner, the Council could help avoid situations where large-scale action would be required. In the long run, that could reduce the costs to be borne by the international community, as well as enhance United Nations efficiency. Coordination between the 15-member body and the Peacebuilding Commission was important in that regard. The Council should also ensure coherence with the General Assembly, Economic and Social Council, High-level Political Forum for Sustainable Development and the Human Rights Council, among others. Country teams also played a crucial role in providing updates, which the Secretariat should use to brief the Council, which would allow it to be engaged “at the outset” in situations where increased tensions had been observed. He stressed the importance of institution-building in conflict prevention, noting that the Peacebuilding Commission could complement the Council by paying attention to areas that were not the latter’s first priorities.
ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia) said that without peace, poverty eradication efforts would not yield sustainable results. The 2030 Agenda recognized a strong connection between peace and security, human rights and development. It also incorporated a multidimensional approach to development, which was vital, as the nature of conflicts had significantly changed. The drivers of instability included political, economic, social and environmental factors. For its part, Slovenia had been confronted with an immense refugee and migrant flow. Policies to tackle that issue would require closer international cooperation and a human rights-based approach. Cooperation among countries of destination, origin and transit must also be enhanced. He urged recognizing potential threats to international peace and security, stressing that women should play an important part in all segments of the peace and security agenda.
MARGARETA KASSANGANA-JAKUBOWSKA (Poland), associating herself with the European Union, noted the benefits for the current debate deriving from the 2030 Agenda and the Secretary-General’s reports on conflict prevention, peacebuilding architecture and peace operations. Those constituted a basis for the further development of the Organization’s complementary security and development policies. The changing nature of conflicts required a comprehensive approach to stop them before they put international peace and security at risk. She also favoured strengthening cooperation between the Council and other United Nations organs, including the Peacebuilding Commission, and underlined the importance of effective national conflict prevention policies, among them promoting human rights and good governance. As demand for conflict prevention, mediation and good offices was growing, she suggested that the mutual reinforcement in mediation efforts between the United Nations and the European Union continue, and noted that her country had made its first contribution to the Department of Political Affairs Multi-Year Appeal in 2014.
NICHOLAS EMILIOU (Cyprus), associating himself with the European Union, said it was critical to hold Security Council deliberations on conflict prevention in open debates that sought the collective wisdom of the wider United Nations membership on issues affecting mankind as a whole. The Council had called for an approach to building sustainable peace that incorporated and strengthened coherence between political, security, development, human rights and rule of law activities, and which addressed the underlying causes of each conflict. That vision was included in the 2030 Agenda. The world was witnessing ongoing turmoil, extremism, sectarianism, civil war and terrorism as well as their negative repercussions. To reverse those worrying developments, the international community should direct its efforts to make sustainable development a reality in those conflict zones regions and countries. That could only be achieved through tackling the root causes of political and economic insecurity. The marginalization of communities or groups based on racial, ethnic, social, gender, cultural or economic grounds contributed to the destabilization of societies and underlay many of today’s conflicts. In addition, exclusion, discrimination and deprivation were causes of poverty and inequality that threatened social cohesion.
ANDRIY TSYMBALIUK (Ukraine) said that while he agreed that conflict prevention and peacebuilding must be nationally owned, the transnational nature of current security threats often made it difficult for States to protect themselves on their own. An effective security system that addressed the root causes of those threats was essential, with the Security Council at its centre. It was important to identify the root causes of conflict at early stages, as neglect of the United Nations Charter, international law and the principles of territorial integrity and sovereignty were among the reasons that conflict erupted. The Russian aggression in Ukraine offered proof that the Council should play a more proactive role in prevention. External aggression had led to a new form of poverty affecting more than 1.5 million internally displaced persons in Ukraine, with the war in Donbas costing $5 million daily. After ending such aggression, his Government would focus on restoring normal life.
MOUNZER MOUNZER (Syria), associating himself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said his country strongly condemned the recent terrorist attacks as well as those who financed and supported them. The central role of the Council was preventing conflict and protecting international security. The 2030 Agenda, in paragraph 47, mentioned the exclusive mandate of the Assembly and the Economic and Social Council to review the development agenda globally. Accordingly, he was concerned at the attempt of the Council to consider development issues. His objection was practical, as duplication and politicization should be avoided. The role of the Council in conflict prevention was disappointing. The 15-member body could be more operational by implementing all Council resolutions that had not been implemented for years, for example the resolutions on Palestinian and the Syrian Golan which were occupied by Israel, as well as the resolutions on terrorism. There was a need for accountability from Governments that had taken unilateral decisions that interfered in other countries. He underscored the interference by some countries in the internal affairs in his own country by using force. Although many questions were being put before the Council, it must address those issues which were within its purview.
CALEB OTTO (Palau) stated that the mandate of the Security Council for maintaining peace and security had to be adjusted to the realities of the twenty-first century. The Council had an obligation to take ownership of the 2030 Agenda, and not only embrace but also protect and facilitate the ethics for sustainable development. To win that war, it was necessary to win “hearts and minds”, not through imposition but by conviction, demonstrated by achievement of all the Goals of the 2030 Agenda. Further, the plight of island nations that were at risk of being swallowed by the rising sea level should be acknowledged as a peace and security matter.
PHILIP SPOERRI, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said it may seem unusual for the ICRC to speak in a debate on conflict prevention and peaceful societies, because it did not engage in the politics of conflict prevention, development and peace. It did, however, engage in the suffering and deprivations of armed conflict on a daily basis, and its mandate and mission meant that it saw first-hand the devastation that armed conflict brought to people’s lives and the societies in which they lived. The humanitarian consequences of prolonged armed conflict were driving millions of people deeper into poverty, and caused enormous development reversals as infrastructure and basic services were destroyed. Conflict spread wherever it was not effectively addressed, and did not stop at State borders. However, poverty and suffering were much reduced in armed conflicts in which international humanitarian law was widely respected. When it was not, people’s prospects were significantly worsened and opportunities for peace were reduced by spirals of revenge and retaliation.
KAHA IMNADZE (Georgia), associating himself with the European Union, said the international community could and must provide assistance in building the capacities of developing countries, including for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism and crime. However, national ownership and determination to solve the problems, coupled with democratic reforms, good governance, rule of law and eradication of corruption were essential prerequisites for such development. The need for inclusive society should also be applied to the people living in conflict-affected areas. The Georgian regions of Abkhazia and Tskhinvali/South Ossetia were under illegal foreign military occupation. Although prevented from directly and fully addressing the needs of its citizens in the occupied regions, his country was implementing confidence building measures and promoting people-to-people contacts, in cooperation with United Nations agencies. Addressing the needs of the local population on both sides of the artificial divide was important not only from the purely humanitarian, but also from the human security and peace-building perspectives.
MOHAMED OMAR GAD (Egypt) said security threats and risks were played out in military confrontations or in attacks in capital cities. Causes of conflict included hunger, lack of education, inequality as well as climate change, situations that had been exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis and lack of development aid. Focus must be on prevention to open the door of sustainable development for all States. Democracy, gender equality and rule of law must be strengthened. The expansion of terrorism had also exacerbated matters and was a threat to sustainable development. It was now one of the most important elements on the international agenda. Identifying the causes of conflict was complicated and included among others factors the fact that the international community had not tackled conflicts that had been ongoing for decades, such as the Palestinian question. Respect for the priorities defined by national authorities was also important. Various bodies of the United Nations should be involved, but there should not be any “mandate creep”, he stressed, adding that certain aspects of development should not be addressed by the Council.
SABRI BOUKADOUM (Algeria) said development, security and human rights were intertwined and his country had always defended that correlation. He called for implementation of the women, peace and security agenda, urging women’s involvement in peace processes, as well as counter-terrorism efforts. The Council — and individual States — should not create institutional vacuums in countries on the Council’s agenda. Working with regional organizations was equally important and the African Union peace and security architecture had worked to identify conflicts early. At the regional level, institution building and preventive diplomacy strengthened State sovereignty. A recent International Crisis Group report had noted Algeria’s emergence as a broker of stability in North Africa and the Sahel. The Council was not the sole body to address the peace, security and development nexus, a topic which should also be deliberated in the Human Rights Council, the Sixth Committee (Legal), the Economic and Social Council and the Assembly.
MANSOUR AYYAD SH A ALOTAIBI (Kuwait), noting that the number of wars had increased from 4 to 11 since 2008, said the concept of war and conflict had changed. Today, they took place inside societies, whereas in the past, they had emerged among countries. Against that backdrop, he urged examining how to prevent conflict through the use of existing tools, noting that more than $8 billion had been spent annually on peacekeeping. Recalling that the Charter had conferred on the Secretary-General the right to alert the Council about any issue that could threaten international peace and security, he urged the Council to activate all available tools to ensure the early warning system. The post-2015 agenda had opened a new horizon to achieve peace, with Goal 16, on establishing peaceful societies, confirming the link between peace and development. The Council must deal with Palestinian and Syrian crises. That they persisted showed the Council’s paralysis.
HALIT ÇEVIK (Turkey) said the 2030 Agenda recognized the link between peace and development. Protracted armed conflicts were inherently political issues. Poverty, inequality and inefficient use of natural resources and ecological degradation often led to conflict. Effective mediation was a cost effective tool in conflict prevention. Another pillar was the sustaining of peace which should focus more on peacebuilding. A focus on migration also merited attention, as it could be a driver of development. However, addressing humanitarian emergencies caused by migration should be addressed. The resilience of communities should be strengthened without cutting back on official development assistance. Taking on palliative measures to tackle root causes of migration only helped for a short time. The root causes in the countries of origin should also be addressed. In too many cases, inaction by the Council had direct effects on the well-being of people. A more representative and accountable Council was key to addressing the root causes.
VANDI CHIDI MINAH (Sierra Leone), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said it was evidently clear that national solutions were no longer able to meet security threats which were cross-border in their structure and complex in nature. It was high-time the United Nations demonstrated the political will and agreed on a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism to consolidate the framework against the increasingly complex and terrorist challenge. There could never be development in the absence of peace and stability, he stressed, pointing out remarkable progress made in Africa over the last two decades particularly in strengthening democratic governance through the support of regional and sub-regional organizations.
The continent had also adopted measures to identify and address the tensions and threat of conflict, he said, emphasizing the need to exert greater efforts towards peaceful settlement of disputes, as envisaged in Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Peaceful settlements of dispute could only be achieved through open dialogue based on mutual respect. Conflict prevention was a cheaper and more sustainable option. The African Union contribution to United Nations peacekeeping efforts demonstrated its strong commitment to global peace and stability. Peacebuilding was everyone’s business and therefore must be at the core of the work of the Organization. The question now was how to make it work without creating avenues for waste and unnecessary duplication.
CHARLES T. NTWAAGAE (Botswana), speaking for the Southern African Development Community and aligning himself with the African Union, said security and development were interrelated and the attainment of both should be the ultimate goal. A deficit in either could result in untold suffering, and lead to conflict. Nations and communities were often torn apart for reasons including inequitable distribution of resources, lack of good governance, social exclusion and political intolerance. Conflict could be attributed to the absence of a positive social contract between those in power and citizens. The Council needed to be more pro-active and invest more in conflict prevention and mediation rather than trying to manage already raging conflicts. States and their citizens must play a leading role in finding solutions to their problems. Imposing solutions and maintaining a monopoly on making peace was counterproductive. Regional and subregional mechanisms must therefore be at the forefront in promoting sustainable peace and development. The Community remained committed to strengthening effective, inclusive and accountable national and regional institutions.
ANTHONY ANDANJE (Kenya) said both preventing conflict and addressing the root causes were equally important to development. Welcoming Sustainable Development Goal 16 to establish “peace, justice and strong institutions”, he said that goal was more of a development challenge and should not be seen as a security challenge. Assisting countries emerging from conflict required an approach that incorporated coherence between political, security, development, human rights and the rule of law. In order to better understand the root causes of conflict, he said the point was not to revisit history as some distant, past event. The seeds of conflict in today’s world should be understood so that solutions could be sought. The rule of law and human rights were vital to global security and prosperity. All countries should enjoy due rights, equal opportunities and fair participation in global, economic, financial and trade affairs. All nations should share in the benefits of globalization, which unfortunately only a few enjoyed. The security of everyone was linked to that of everyone else. “It is only by working together that we can make each other secure,” he said in conclusion.
GEIR O. PEDERSEN (Norway), speaking on behalf of the Group of Nordic countries, said social, economic and political exclusion was often the root cause of conflict. State-building must be an integral part of peacebuilding, and more had to be done to create responsive institutions based on the rule of law, and to foster inclusive politics. Inclusion was also important for peace agreements to be sustainable, and including local communities, civil society and women in peace and reconciliation processes must be given higher priority. Conflict prevention and mediation had to move to the forefront, and Member States must let the Secretary-General be more “hands-on”. The United Nations system was fragmented, a problem to which Member States contributed through the way they funded the Organization. The Review of Peacebuilding Architecture proposed to make “peacebuilding compacts”, which should be explored.
He went on to say that more reliable sources of funding were needed for conflict prevention. That would not only save lives, it would also safeguard development gains. It was always hard to make an exact calculation, but prevention was more cost-efficient than the cure. More resources were needed towards building local capacity for peaceful conflict resolution. Upholding human rights was among the fundamental obligations of any Government. The deterioration of respect for human rights could be a telling sign or early warning of worse things to come. Addressing such situations could help avoid the worsening of human rights violations and conflicts.
IVANA PAJEVIĆ (Montenegro), associating herself with the European Union, said it was difficult to remember a time when more crises were preoccupying the United Nations, its agencies and the broader international community. More must be done to prevent conflict in an age marked by immediate access to information and the Council must consider making better use of the options at its disposal. Shifting from a culture of reaction to one of prevention was essential, and she urged the Council to tackle mass atrocities more decisively. For countries emerging from conflict, institution building and reform were crucial. They needed targeted assistance, under the auspices of the United Nations, in order to protect their people and deliver basic services. Noting that the risk of extremism, terrorism and organized crime flourished where people lacked education and hope, she urged bearing in mind that the world’s poorest not only lacked food, they also lacked justice and jobs.
RY TUY (Cambodia) said armed conflict continued to claim the lives of combatants and civilians alike, while violent extremism had diminished hope. The concept note rightly pointed out that the cycle of conflict stemmed from people being excluded and malnourished. Good governance and the rule of law were preconditions for stability, without which, societies could not function, let alone flourish. Partnerships at all levels of Government and society would be essential to achieving the 2030 Agenda. For its part, Cambodia, a post-conflict country, had achieved peace by addressing the needs of all stakeholders. It’s “win-win” policy to wipe out the political and military organization of the Khmer Rouge was implemented by securing a safe environment for peaceful coexistence and ensuring jobs for those willing to integrate into society. At the same time, perpetrators of serious crimes had been brought to the Hybrid Court. “The culture of peace must be cherished in the hearts of all people,” he said.
HUSNIYYA MAMMADOVA (Azerbaijan), associating herself with the Non-Aligned Movement, said situations of illegal occupation were often the most difficult conflicts to resolve. Persistence of such conflicts perpetuated the cycle of violence and undermined regional stability. Those situations required urgent Council action. Primary focus should be placed on the implementation of Council resolutions and greater use of enforcement measures. All efforts aimed at preventing and resolving conflicts must be based on the principle of respect for sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States. Third parties had an obligation to not recognize illegal annexations and to not assist in continued occupation and annexation. The Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh conflict was a notorious example of a protracted conflict situation, where Armenia continued its military aggression against Azerbaijan. Yet, Council resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884 of 1993 reaffirmed the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Azerbaijan with the Nagorno-Karabakh region as its part, among other things. Those resolutions had yet to be implemented, however. The conflict could be resolved only on the basis of full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan within its internationally recognized borders.
Taking the floor a second time, PETR V. ILIICHEV (Russian Federation) reaffirmed that the Council was not place to consider today’s topic. Some delegates, including from Ukraine, had tried to use the Council to voice approaches that had nothing to do with today’s topic in order to promote a national agenda. In Donbass, he recalled the State coup in 2014 had been carried out with support from a number of Western States and had resulted in bloodshed. He recommended that his Ukrainian counterpart learn to “stick to the topic” and not organize a political show.
TIGRAN SAMVELIAN (Armenia), also taking the floor a second time, said remarks by his Azerbaijan counterpart had turned “Armeniaphobia” into State propaganda. The Azerbaijani delegate had referred to Council resolutions that were 20 years old, the core requirements of which were the cessation of all hostile acts and establishment of a durable ceasefire. It had failed to comply with that requirement and, in Nagorno-Karabakh, had used mercenaries linked to terrorist organizations. For its part, Armenia would continue its efforts to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of the norms, purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Speaking for a second time, Mr. TSYMBALIUK (Ukraine) said his Government’s statement had complied with the concept paper on today’s topic of discussion. He reminded his Russian counterpart that the goal was not simply to discuss problems but to solve them. To do that, “we have to fulfil Security Council resolutions”, he said, recalling resolution 2202 (2015) in that context and expressing hope that the Russian Federation would fulfil its obligations under that text and those in the Minsk Agreements.
Ms. MAMMADOVA (Azerbaijan), taking the floor a second time, said it had become the policy of Armenia to level accusation against Azerbaijan and it was unfortunate that Armenia was again disseminating lies. The Council had adopted four resolutions reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, had condemned the Armenian invasion and had asked for the withdrawal of its forces. Armenia had, however, rejected the timetable set by the Council. The Government of Armenia exercised effective control of the region. Armenia pretended to act as a guarantor of the security of Nogorna Karabkh but no mention was made of how that guarantee fell within international law. It was nothing more than an illegal occupation.
Mr. ILIICHEV (Russian Federation) said he agreed with Ukraine’s representative that the goal of the Council was to find solutions. The Minsk Agreements was the format that provided for such a solution. They should be implemented fully and not selectively.