Ministry Statements & Speeches:
Thank you Mr President and we congratulate you and your Mission for your efficient and professional leadership for the Council in May. And we also thank you for the concept note that you have provided for this session.
We were very pleased to participate in the mission to Kenya, Somalia and Egypt. In Somalia, in particular, we saw the immediate, positive impact from the Council’s face-to-face engagement with the President, regional leaders and other stakeholders in this critical period as arrangements for the elections were being finalised. We welcome the decree issued three days after the visit by the President setting out the electoral process and we urge all Somalis to work within those parameters in re-establishing representative government in Somalia.
We see Council missions like these as a valuable tool to advance peace and security objectives; and they can also assist the Council to meet its conflict prevention responsibilities.
That’s why New Zealand has been a strong supporter of visits during our term, including to Guinea-Bissau, where Council engagement alongside regional and international stakeholders remains critical, and in Burundi, where we would have liked to have seen the Council visit earlier, when quiet diplomacy could have had more of a chance of shaping developments.
Visiting missions take time and money, including from UN mission budgets, so we should use them judiciously. We should be flexible about timing and configuration. In some cases, we don’t see the need for all 15 Council members to travel necessarily to convey views of the body, especially in conflict prevention situations.
We think the Council’s visit to Timor-Leste in 2012 was a good example of a “mini-mission.” It was led by South Africa with six members taking part in the visit who were all elected. We face major conflict prevention challenges in the year ahead, including in the Great Lakes region and we should be flexible about how to best use the tools we have.
We were pleased to host the AU for the annual joint consultative meeting last week. The meetings were symbolic coming at the 10th anniversary, but to continue to deepen the exchanges between the two Councils is an even more critical issue for us.
We thought that the discussion in Addis earlier this year on the way back from Bujumbura was a very helpful, informal exchange that enhanced the Councils’ mutual understanding. It was highly topical and delegations were ready to engage on the core issues.
As discussed last week we believe that regular discussions, including teleconferences between the presidencies of the two Councils, would be a useful and low cost way to maintain those linkages and, more importantly, to support shared analysis of conflicts and how best we can work to address them. There are other ways that we can work better together, including joint visits and we would be happy to discuss those ideas further.
Mr President, the month began on an encouraging note, with adoption of resolution 2286, as others have mentioned. The resolution condemned attacks on healthcare workers and healthcare facilities. It recalled key international humanitarian laws and principles of distinction and precaution and prohibition against indiscriminate attacks. And, importantly, it requested the Secretary-General to brief the Council annually on the implementation of the resolution.
We would like to reflect briefly on the working methods behind the adoption of this resolution. New Zealand was pleased to play a significant role, working together with our partners in the Council, in developing the resolution that was supported by all 15 members and co-sponsored by 85 Member States.
Key stakeholders, including the ICRC and Médecins Sans Frontières, were closely engaged as were stakeholders not on the Council.
We see the development of this resolution, over many months, as a strong model for inclusive and considered discussion and decision-making.
New Zealand would like to see this approach taken more often on other Council agenda items to improve this body’s outcomes.
Finally, in the area of working methods, I would like to comment on the discussions underway on the appointment process for chairs of subsidiary organs.
These issues are of great interest to us because they are important for the way that the Council works and have implications for the wider UN membership and for all States that will serve as elected members on the Council.
It is elected members that serve as chairs of the subsidiary organs, including the sanctions committees. The appointment process of these chairing roles is notoriously opaque and we believe this should change. The Security Council elections will be held next month. Earlier elections provide more time for the Council to reflect on which members are best suited to chair which subsidiary bodies. And, most importantly, allow more time to consult with the new members.
Accordingly, New Zealand is a strong advocate of all Council members being involved in this process – not just the permanent members – and we propose that successive presidents of the Security Council are best placed to facilitate the chair allocation process after the incoming members have been elected.
Overall, New Zealand wants to see more inclusive decision-making, less micromanagement and control in the hands of few, as well as better efforts to prepare new chairs for their roles.
Given the importance of these issues, and working methods discussions more generally, we would see value in holding regular briefings for interested member states on the work of the Informal Working Group on Implementation and other Procedural Questions, as I think was mentioned in the PRST last year after the open debate in May last year.
In closing, I think we all benefit from greater engagement with the whole membership, and more transparency of the UN’s work as a whole. I thank you.