United Nations S/PV.4903 (Resumption 1) Security Council 490365BFCF9B-6D27... · deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. Also, I shall not individually invite speakers

United Nations S/PV.4903 (Resumption 1)

Security CouncilFifty-ninth year

4903rd meetingMonday, 26 January 2004, 3 p.m.New York

Provisional

This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation ofspeeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Recordsof the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. Theyshould be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of thedelegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-154A.

04-22028 (E)

*0422028*

President: Mrs. Alvear Valenzuela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Chile)

Members: Algeria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. BencherifAngola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Gaspar MartinsBenin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. AdechiBrazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. CardosoChina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms. Jiang NingFrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mrs. D’AchonGermany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. MuchPakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. ShahPhilippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. LacanilaoRomania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. DumitruRussian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. KnyazevSpain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ms. MenéndezUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . . . . . Ms. MoirUnited States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Olson

Agenda

Post-conflict national reconciliation: role of the United Nations

2

S/PV.4903 (Resumption 1)

The meeting resumed at 3.10 p.m.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I shall nowmake a statement in my capacity as Minister forForeign Affairs of Chile.

Chile proposed to the members of the SecurityCouncil the holding of this open debate on post-conflict national reconciliation and the role of theUnited Nations in the conviction that the reconciliationof societies fractured by conflict is a conditionindispensable for the achievement of lasting peace.Without it, conflicts can re-emerge and become newcrises for the Council.

After conflicts, societies face many challenges:demands for justice and accountability, the search fortruth, compensation for victims, the rule of law,stability and the building of a future without losingsight of the past. The objective of this debate is toconsider ways in which the United Nations cansystematize experiences that will enable it to identifyelements associated with reconciliation processes in thecontext of post-conflict strategies. The traumaticconsequences of a crisis require that a moral,institutional and socio-economic reconstruction processbe able to build a new order in which there is a sense ofbelonging, thereby avoiding a return to the conflictsituation.

Reconciliation is not a utopian objective; it is thecollective response of a society emerging from crisiswhose fabric has been torn asunder. Reconciliation putsan end to the cycle of violence, laying the foundationsfor a new coexistence. Efforts must be focused oncreating conditions that promote reconciliation, whichcan in no way be imposed. That is a complex task inwhich we need to consider the diversity of thehistorical experiences — namely, the political andsocio-cultural realities — of the affected country.

It is in the post-conflict stage that the UnitedNations has an opportunity to contribute to the moraland material rebuilding of institutions. TheOrganization’s responsibility goes beyond restoringpeace and minimum conditions for security after aconflict; it involves cooperation to restore the capacityfor dialogue between the various social actors, respectfor diversity and the will to work on a common project.

The United Nations has had and must maintainthe status of an independent and legitimizing bodywhose purpose is to guarantee conditions for a stable

peace. The multidimensional nature of the concept ofreconciliation offers the United Nations a broad rangeof options for post-conflict action. It is in that light thatwe must view efforts aimed at restoring civilinstitutions, establishing or reforming judicial systems,adopting measures to strengthen respect for humanrights and promoting democracy. A reconciliationstrategy must have as its basic principles truth, justiceand compensation, which should be accompanied byvital economic and social policies.

Together with judicial action, the path toreconciliation requires clear moral and materialcompensation policies for victims and their families.The promotion and protection of human rights and ofinternational humanitarian law must inform suchpolicies in order to guarantee and strengthen peace.

Reconciliation processes must take into accountthe particularities of each situation. What is appropriatein one place and at a given time may not be appropriatein other circumstances. There are no universal formulasfor achieving reconciliation.

We think reconciliation is a key dimension of thework that the United Nations can do in the post-conflict stage. We should consider a comprehensivecoordination effort within the system. We believe thatthat objective will be facilitated with the establishmentof a focal point to coordinate United Nations action onissues concerning reconciliation in its principal organs,in peacekeeping operations, in the work of specialrepresentatives and envoys of the Secretary-General, inthe activities of high commissioners and in UnitedNations agencies and programmes. Such acomprehensive effort should also extend to financialinstitutions, regional organizations, civil society andnational and local bodies.

Peacekeeping operations must continue to makeprogress with regard to the inclusion of experts withpractical experience in post-conflict reconciliation. Anappropriate reconciliation strategy must take intoaccount the role played by women in the peace-building process and the contributions that they canmake to the design and implementation ofreconciliation strategies. Reconciliation programmesmust also take into account the special needs of boysand girls affected by war.

We trust that the outcome of this debate willenable us to make progress so that the United Nationscan help to end the cycles of crisis that disrupt national

3


and regional stability and world peace. We face animportant challenge for the Organization, for therealization of universal values and for the building of aworld in which peace and justice prevail.

I now resume my functions as President of theSecurity Council.

I should like to inform the Council that I havereceived a letter from the representative of Cameroon,in which he requests to be invited to participate in thediscussion of the item on the Council’s agenda. Inconformity with the usual practice, I propose, with theconsent of the Council, to invite that representative toparticipate in the discussion, without the right to vote,in accordance with the relevant provisions of theCharter and rule 37 of the Council’s provisional rulesof procedure.

There being no objection, it is so decided.

At the invitation of the President, therepresentative of Cameroon took the seat reservedfor him at the side of the Council Chamber.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I wish toremind all speakers of what I indicated during themorning session: I ask them to kindly limit theirstatements to no more than five minutes in order toenable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously.Delegations with lengthy statements are kindlyrequested to circulate their text in writing and todeliver a condensed version when speaking in theChamber.

Also, I shall not individually invite speakers totake a seat at the table and invite them to resume theirseats at the side of the Chamber. When a speaker istaking the floor, the Conference Officer will seat thenext speaker at the table. I thank representatives fortheir understanding and cooperation.

The next speaker inscribed on my list is therepresentative of Ireland.

Mr. Ryan (Ireland): I have the honour to speakon behalf of the European Union. The accedingcountries Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakiaand Slovenia; the candidate countries Bulgaria,Romania and Turkey; the countries of the Stabilizationand Association Process and potential candidatesAlbania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Serbia and

Montenegro; and the European Free Trade Associationcountries members of the European Economic Area,Iceland and Norway, align themselves with thisstatement.

Madam President, we are again honoured by yourpresence today, and we are grateful to Chile fororganizing this important debate. We also wish toexpress our appreciation for the thoughtful andinformative briefings that Mr. Tuliameni Kalomoh,Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs,Mr. Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator of the UnitedNations Development Programme and Ms. CarolynMcAskie, Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, gavethe Council this morning. Our theme today — the roleof the United Nations in assisting nationalreconciliation in post-conflict situations — deals, inmany ways, with the essence of our aspirations forcountries emerging from conflict: the healing of oldhurts and a fresh start based on collectiveacknowledgement of the past and some sort of sharedvision for the future.

National reconciliation is both a process and thegoal. On many of the issues already or currently beingaddressed by the Security Council — peace-building,disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR),economic reconstruction, establishment of the rule oflaw, creation of institutions to promote and protecthuman rights and fundamental freedoms, andaddressing the issue of impunity — we must keep inmind that end goal of a new dispensation by which aonce divided people can feel that their concerns andtheir needs are acknowledged and addressed. TheCouncil has addressed a number of these interlockingissues, including most recently in September 2003under the United Kingdom presidency, when itexamined the issue of justice and the rule of law andthe role of the United Nations. The then presidency ofthe Council described that meeting as the start of aprocess. Today the Council continues that process. Webelieve that in the future, it could also engage in adialogue with the Economic and Social Council infurthering this agenda.

Post-conflict situations pose numerous andformidable challenges. The European Union believesthat only by the adoption of a comprehensive andconcerted approach to all peace-building challengescan the process towards longer-term political stabilityand societal well-being be confidently begun. TheUnited Nations is in a unique position to deliver an

4


integrated approach bridging political, peacekeeping,humanitarian, human rights, judicial and developmentactors.

As far back as April 2001, in his report to theSecurity Council entitled “No exit without strategy:Security Council decision-making and the closure ortransition of United Nations peacekeeping operations”(S/2001/394), the Secretary-General remarked thatreconciliation cannot be imposed. Lasting nationalreconciliation will always prove elusive withoutsustained national commitment at the governmentaland institutional levels.

Experience suggests that some broad principles tounderpin national reconciliation can be developed,even though their application will have to be tailored toeach situation. Among these are, first, inclusiveness.National reconciliation will not take root if somegroups or sections of the population are excluded fromthe process of nation-building. In this regard, greaterattention should continue to be paid to the role ofwomen.

The second principle is transparent equality oftreatment. It is important that all sections of thepopulation be treated equally before the law, as well asin access to services such as education andemployment, and that the rights of minorities areadequately protected.

The third principle is social and economicintegration. For peace to be sustainable, warringfactions must be brought together, clear understandingsmust be reached and integration or reintegration musttake place. The focus of DDR programmes is on formercombatants. This is painstaking but vitally importantwork. For the reintegration of former combatants to besuccessful, it is important that measures be taken tostimulate local and national economic activity in orderto avoid the creation of a vacuum in which illicitactivity becomes attractive. It is equally important, inthis regard, that attention is paid to the legitimateeconomic and social needs of civilian populations,whose lives and livelihoods have often been destroyedas a result of conflict. The equitable sharing ofresources between communities may also be mentionedin this context.

The fourth is reform of institutions. This isnecessary to ensure that inequalities of the past are notrepeated.

The fifth principle is constitutional reform. Inmany cases, a new beginning will require thefundamental rewriting of an existing constitution or theelaboration of a new constitution.

The sixth is healing. Fully normalizedcircumstances cannot be realized in the absence of afirm resolve to heal the psychological wounds inflictedduring times of conflict. Crucially, transitional justicemechanisms, as the Secretary-General observed lastSeptember “need to concentrate not only on individualresponsibility for serious crimes but also on the need toachieve national reconciliation”. (S/PV.4833, p. 3)

The seventh principle is the promotion andprotection of human rights and fundamental freedoms.The provision of human rights education and theraising of public awareness should be considered.

The eighth is parity of esteem. In many cases, itmay be necessary to adopt measures to ensure thatdifferences of ethnicity, culture or religious traditionare acknowledged and respected.

The ninth is reconciliation programmes whichacknowledge and address the suffering of the victimsof violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.Naturally, these may take various forms, and theparticular circumstances in the affected country need tobe taken into account.

The tenth principle is post-conflict environmentalassessment. Analysing the environmental effects ofconflicts is also important for national reconciliation,and its neglect could cause delay in the reconstructionprocess. In that context, the European Unionrecognizes the important role played by the UnitedNations Environment Programme.

In concrete terms, two aspects of the continueddedication of the United Nations to the cause ofnational reconciliation might be mentioned. First,national reconciliation is a primary objective in UnitedNations peacekeeping and peace-building operations inpost-conflict States. Many peacekeeping or peace-building operations may be mentioned in this context.They include Angola, Afghanistan, East Timor, Kosovoand Burundi; the engagement of the Security Councilin Sierra Leone, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire are furtherexamples in this regard. There are still challenges ofenhanced cooperation and coordination among therelevant United Nations actors at the field level, inparticular between the political and the development

5


actors. We therefore urge the various entities of theUnited Nations to continue their efforts of enhancedcollaboration. We also urge that aspects of nationalreconciliation become integral parts of collectiveUnited Nations country strategies. In this regard, wewould also highlight the need for enhanced cooperationwith the Bretton Woods institutions. For the donorcommunity, a particular challenge is the provision ofadequate financial resources during the transitionphase.

Secondly, genuine national reconciliation is oftenbeyond reach unless those responsible for egregiouscrimes are held to account. The ongoing work of theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal forRwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, theinitiative to prosecute former members of the KhmerRouge in Cambodia and the judicial mechanisms put inplace in post-conflict East Timor and Kosovo aretestimony to the United Nations firm belief in andcommitment to this aspect of fostering nationalreconciliation.

However, it is worth bearing in mind the note ofcaution expressed last September by the Secretary-General to the effect that, at times, attempts to balancethe demands of peace and justice can pose a difficultdilemma. Ultimately, each society needs to form itsown view about how to strike the right balancebetween the goals of penal justice and reconciliation.

While a balance must be struck, the EuropeanUnion also agrees with the Secretary-General that thereshould be no granting of amnesties for war crimes,genocide, crimes against humanity or other seriousviolations of international human rights andhumanitarian law.

Many member States of the European Union haveactively contributed to the establishment and properfunctioning of the International Criminal Tribunals inThe Hague and Arusha from the time of their inception.Recognizing its importance, the European Commissionhas recently made a contribution to the Special Courtfor Sierra Leone. A number of European Unionmember States have also contributed significantamounts in their own right to the Special Court. TheEuropean Union has, in addition, offered both politicaland financial support to national truth andreconciliation commissions and initiatives in a numberof United Nations Member States.

The European Union also strongly believes thatthe International Criminal Court provides a powerful,permanent instrument of deterrence against genocide,crimes against humanity and war crimes. The EuropeanUnion remains firmly committed to the Court’seffective functioning, being of the view that, inaddition to providing a powerful deterrent to would-betyrants, it is also an essential means of promotingrespect for international humanitarian law and humanrights law, thus contributing to freedom, security,justice and the rule of law and to the preservation ofpeace and strengthening of international security.

The main burden, however, for prosecuting thoseresponsible for atrocities will have to be carried bydomestic legal systems. The restoration of domesticlegal systems and support for domestic legalprosecutions is therefore a crucial task for theinternational community in post-conflict situations andin countries at risk.

Because of its nature, reconciliation relatesclosely to, or includes, the issue of justice. It is alsodifficult to address reconciliation without taking intoaccount the rule of law, not least from a preventativeperspective. The European Union therefore believesthat the report being prepared by the Secretary-Generalas a follow-up to the Security Council debate inSeptember on justice and the rule of law and the role ofthe United Nations, could benefit from taking intoaccount some of the observations articulated today.

Finally, in an address to the Commissioners ofEast Timor’s Truth, Reception and ReconciliationCommission in May 2002, the late Sergio Vieira deMello stated:

“You have been called to help reconcile thedivisions and hurt amongst your people. No taskis more … crucial if a society split by terror andpolitics is to regenerate and become a placewhere human dignity is respected.”

By its very nature, national reconciliation is oneof the more tortuous and protracted challengesconfronting post-conflict States. If painful politicalexperience has taught us one thing, however, it is thatthe cathartic process of national reconciliation is a sinequa non for achieving lasting stability.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank therepresentative of Ireland for the kind words headdressed to me.

6


I now give the floor to the representative ofCroatia.

Mr. Drobnjak (Croatia): Croatia aligns itselfwith the European Union statement on the importanttopic we are dealing with today. Nonetheless, I wouldlike to add some further points stemming fromCroatia’s hard-earned experience on the matter.

The complexity of post-conflict managementcould probably be best explained through the metaphorof growing a tree. To grow a strong and long-lastingtree with deep roots and wide branches, manycomponents are required, such as soil, water, sunshineand nutrition. But, above all, time and patience are ofthe essence. Unfortunately, in many post-conflict areas,the international community’s approach sometimeslacks both in trying to achieve too many things in toolittle time.

Like the growth of a tree, post-conflictreconciliation cannot be rushed. It can be assistedthrough political, financial, technical and other means,but it cannot be imposed from the outside. Like a tree,when the moment is right, it will grow and blossom. Ifit is not yet an opportune time, if it is still early in theprocess, external pressure can only damage the fragilegrowth.

There is an important distinction betweenconfidence-building and reconciliation. The former is acrucial prerequisite for the latter, and only when thetwo sides gain confidence in each other can the processof reconciliation begin. To ignore the differencesbetween the two will slow down the process. Therespective populations at the grass-roots level are fullyaware of these differences. This is a fact nointernational mediation or assistance effort shouldoverlook. In this highly sensitive process, one mustcarefully listen to the voices of the region, of thenations and of the individuals concerned and respectthem.

From the pragmatic point of enhancing theefficiency of our efforts, it would be more than usefulto precisely define what the two terms — confidence-building and reconciliation — consist of, and to keepthose definitions in mind while conducting theinternational community’s work on the ground.

From our point of view, pivotal confidence-building measures are, among others, the return ofrefugees and displaced persons, exchange of data on

missing persons, strengthening stability along borders,arms-verification mechanisms, joint projects aiming atcross-border cooperation and the fight againstorganized crime, sport competition, and economiccooperation, based primarily on privateentrepreneurship.

Allow me to briefly point out, starting fromCroatia’s experience, two key components that serve asthe bedrock for post-conflict confidence-building andconsequent reconciliation. These are prospects andjustice.

Providing the population in war-torn areas withthe prospect of a better life is the best possibleinvestment in national and regional stability. Theseprospects go way beyond basic economic categories,although providing steady jobs for the respectivepopulation, especially for former combatants, remainsan unsurpassed priority. A quest for new vehicles ofcooperation and coexistence that will provide a secureframework for democratic and economic prosperity iswhat former enemies usually have in common. Theinternational community should assist them as much aspossible to fulfil this quest fruitfully and in the shortestpossible time.

Commonly shared goals and interests are at thecore of the confidence-building process. The prospectof joining the European Union, for example, serves as astrong incentive for all the countries in the area of theformer Yugoslavia, initiating a number of far-reachingreforms in the fields of the economy, justice anddomestic affairs.

Because of the strategic importance of thisprospect for every individual and for the country as awhole, it is of the essence not to blur it or put it beyondreach. The prospect has to be clearly defined and theroad towards it must be cleared of moving benchmarksand ever-growing conditionalities.

Over the last decade, it has become evident thatthe issue of justice tops the agenda that has to beaddressed in post-conflict societies.

When respective countries are unwilling orunable to face the responsibility of crimes themselves,the international community has to be ready to step in.On the other hand, we should encourage domesticjudicial systems to deal with this pivotal issue and,once the conditions are fulfilled, to transfer to domesticcourts as many war crimes-related files as possible.

7


Justice is often referred to as a parent to peace. Itis indisputably an essential part of confidence-buildingand reconciliation. In addition to that, amnesty andforgiveness are equally important elements of thehealing process in fragile post-conflict societies.However, we must be aware of the fact that, as much asthey can reconcile, these approaches can add to thepolarization of societies. That is why any externalinfluence has to be carefully measured in order tostrike the right balance between judicial and non-judicial means in achieving confidence-building.

Justice has to be served, but a historical recordthat leaves no room for misinterpretation must bepreserved as well. Forgiveness does not necessarilyinclude forgetfulness. History should not dictate thecourse of the future or be pushed into oblivion. Justicewell and justly served fortifies a country’s politicalstability by creating a new moral climate centredaround the rule of law and respect for human rights,while avoiding denial about the past and the causes ofconflict.

In conclusion, let me emphasize that Croatiaremains determined to continue promoting confidence-building and good-neighbourly relations throughoutSouth-East Europe. In this respect, I would like toconclude by quoting the newly-appointed PrimeMinister of Croatia, Mr. Ivo Sanader, who recentlystated:

“It is with renewed courage that we build a moretolerant society, a society of patience and trust, soas to achieve the victory of forgiveness andcompassion over the challenges of divisions anddisparities.”

The President (spoke in Spanish): I call on therepresentative of Sierra Leone.

Mr. Rowe (Sierra Leone): This is the fourthstatement in two weeks by the delegation of SierraLeone in the Security Council. The frequency of ourappearance before the Council within this short periodis an indication of the relevance to Sierra Leone of theissues on the Council’s agenda and of the high level ofseriousness our Government attaches to these issues.To Sierra Leone, a poor country struggling to recoverfrom one of the most horrendous conflicts in recentyears, these issues are matters of life and death. Mydelegation appreciates the opportunity to express itsviews on them.

As a country in a post-conflict phase, SierraLeone heartily welcomes this debate on the role of theUnited Nations in post-conflict national reconciliation.The fact that we are here to define the role of theUnited Nations in this phase of the peace processunderscores the Council’s understanding of thedecisive significance of the phase in the pursuance ofsustainable peace. While our contribution to the debateis based mainly on our own situation, there is no doubtthat what obtains in Sierra Leone could be applied toother post-conflict situations, especially in Africa.

Our practical experience in Sierra Leoneirrefutably confirms that reconciliation is the singlemost important aspect of post-conflict peacemanagement. The guns may be silent — and, indeed,they have been silent for nearly two years now — butthe divisions remain and reveal themselves in manyways, some in subtle ways, others in overt ways. Weare aware that these differences can only disappear ifthe wounds of the war are healed and the scars are seenonly as reminders of conflict-relapse prevention. Weare also aware that genuine national reconciliation is aprocess that is driven by the courage to forgive, thecommon sense of peaceful coexistence, a deep sense ofbelonging that compels parties to the conflict tocompromise in the interest of their country, and thedesire to participate in the effort to address the issuesthat engender discord.

In its quest to promote national reconciliation asthe pivot of durable peace, Sierra Leone has institutedtwo accountability mechanisms that are running ratheruniquely concurrently. These are the Truth andReconciliation Commission and the Special Court,established on the principles that meaningful peace ispossible only with proper understanding of the causesand character of the conflict, and that peace withoutjustice is like a house without foundation.

Specifically, the Commission, with no punitivepower, has the responsibility to create an impartialhistorical record of violations and abuses of humanrights and international humanitarian law related to thearmed conflict in Sierra Leone, to address impunity andrespond to the needs of victims, to promote healing andreconciliation, and to prevent a repetition of theviolations and abuses suffered. The fact that both ourPresident and the minority leader of Parliament havetestified before the Commission emphasizes theimportance the leaders and people of Sierra Leoneattach to it as a national reconciliation mechanism.

8


On the other hand, the Special Court has been setup to try those who bear the greatest responsibility forhuman rights excesses committed in the conflict, thusfacilitating national reconciliation through justice.

The history and operation of these twotransitional post-conflict institutions in Sierra Leone,especially the Special Court, and similar institutionselsewhere are very well known to this Council. TheSpecial Court in particular is a joint creation of SierraLeone and the United Nations. They demonstrate thatthe United Nations is in fact playing major roles inpost-conflict national reconciliation, especially toensure that people are held accountable for humanrights excesses in conflict, to promote the rule of law,to eliminate the culture of impunity and to promoteconstitutionally legitimate ascendancy to politicalleadership — all of which have considerablecontributions to make to national reconciliation.

Already, United Nations agencies, notably theUnited Nations Development Programme and theUnited Nations Children’s Fund, are engaged inactivities that are fundamental to nationalreconciliation in Sierra Leone. In my delegation’s view,therefore, the United Nations should now expand theseactivities in the following ways.

First, since the post-conflict phase is absolutelycritical in the transition from conflict to durable peace,it should be made an integral part of all United Nationspeacekeeping operations.

Second, as the most important element of thepost-conflict phase, national reconciliation activitiesshould be adequately funded and intensively andextensively monitored and evaluated by the UnitedNations. Properly designed and executed, post-conflictprogrammes can serve as a barometer of successes inthe peace process.

Third, the United Nations should work closelywith civil society groups, formal and non-formalinstitutions, and traditional and cultural leaders topromote national reconciliation in post-conflict phases.

Fourth, the United Nations should conduct acomprehensive assessment of the post-conflict nationalreconciliation needs of every conflict, bearing in mindthe causes, nature and consequences of the conflict andthe welfare of the victims, who are critical in nationalreconciliation.

Fifth, a United Nations committee to facilitateand coordinate the reconciliation activities of everypost-conflict situation should be formed.

Sixth, a mechanism for post-conflictreconciliation should be included in all peaceagreements, as in, for example, the Sierra Leone 1999Lomé Peace Agreement, in which some mechanisms —notably a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, aCommission for the Consolidation of Peace and aNational Commission for Democracy and HumanRights — were provided for.

Seventh, the United Nations should activelysupport the process of reintegration as an essentialcomponent of national reconciliation, with specialfocus on ex-combatants.

Although this debate is on post-conflict nationalreconciliation, I would like to remind everyone thatthere is hardly any conflict in the world today without aregional and/or international dimension — at least, Icannot think of any conflict in Africa today that is anexception to that. Measures to address post-conflictnational reconciliation, therefore, should go beyondnational boundaries and actively engage externalplayers. The fact is that the fate of some countries inconflict is inextricably bound up with the fate ofneighbouring countries. The role of regionalorganizations such as ECOWAS, with the support andcollaboration of the United Nations, in regional andbilateral reconciliation will be critical in that respect.

In conclusion, post-conflict nationalreconciliation can be a long and expensive process,depending, of course, on the cause, duration, characterand effects of the conflict and the willingness orreadiness of the parties to the conflict to reconcile. Thebest results can be achieved if these issues areaddressed immediately after the cessation of activehostilities. A vacuum can result in costly reversals, andsince the United Nations cannot afford reversals in itspeacekeeping efforts, post-conflict nationalreconciliation should be compulsory and of highpriority on its peacekeeping operations agenda.

Let me conclude by reminding the Council thatthe success story of the United Nations peacekeepingoperation in Sierra Leone will never be completewithout adequate and sustained support for post-conflict national reconciliation, bearing in mind thatnational reconciliation is the guarantee for lastingpeace, security and development.

9


The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker on my list is the representative of Egypt, onwhom I now call.

Mr. Aboul Gheit (Egypt) (spoke in Arabic): Theissue of post-conflict national reconciliation is ofspecial importance as we consider the future role of theUnited Nations in peacemaking, peacekeeping andpeace-building. No one can overestimate theimportance of national reconciliation in rehabilitatingsocieties that have suffered as a result of bitter armedconflict, given the impact of such conflict on the socialfabric and economic infrastructure of the States andregions concerned. National reconciliation can helpthem to start a new chapter and look forward to afuture of peaceful coexistence, cooperation andcommon objectives and interests.

In our view, consideration of the role of theUnited Nations in national reconciliation should takeinto account a number of issues and elements. First,national reconciliation processes are, by nature, long-term, since in large part they fall within the concept ofpeace-building, although preparations for setting up anadministrative infrastructure for such processes beginat an early stage in peacekeeping operations. While themain features of the direct role of the United Nations inpeacekeeping have become clear — in keeping with theBrahimi report — that role still requires additionaldefinition and clarification with a view to furtherdeveloping practical ways in which the United Nationscan contribute.

Secondly, the requirements and components ofnational reconciliation operations differ in accordancewith the nature of the conflict in question and itshistoric, cultural, social, political and economicdimensions. The principal means by which theinternational community can ensure that its effortssupport national reconciliation is for it to recognizethat no single model can be imposed on all conflicts.Each one should be dealt with in accordance with itsspecific characteristics and those of the society inquestion.

Thirdly, ownership of national reconciliation bythe parties to a conflict is one of the most importantelements on which the international community’saction should be based. The driving force is the will ofindividuals, groups and factions to acceptreconciliation, let go of their grievances and bitternessand work to repair the damage that the conflict has

done to the social fabric of the State. In this context,many important elements come into play, such as theadministration of justice, the establishment ofaccountability, compensation for victims’ families andbalanced participation in the distribution of wealth anddecision-making, apologies by the perpetrators to thefamilies of victims, and an appropriate framework toensure respect for and protection of human rights.

The international community has an importantrole to play in providing financial and technical supportto transitional Governments and, at a later stage, toelected Governments, with a view to establishing thenecessary frameworks to provide for all of theseelements, including special tribunals, truthcommissions, information strategies to enableindividuals and groups to recover from the conflict andmove to a phase of peaceful coexistence, and effectivedisarmament, demobilization and reintegrationprogrammes.

Fourthly and lastly, economic incentives are oneelement that can contribute to national reconciliationprocesses. It is evident that the economic benefits ofpeace and stability generate a feeling of hope andoptimism for the future, which in turn helps people toget over their feelings of hatred and makes vengeanceand violence seem less attractive. In this context,international support should be provided in the form ofrehabilitation projects and programmes to establishemployment opportunities and to rehabilitate andreintegrate refugees and displaced persons.

In view of those general elements, there is nodoubt that the United Nations role in post-conflictnational reconciliation is one of support for national,regional and international efforts. In that context, webelieve that the United Nations is equipped tocoordinate all such efforts, with a clear strategy agreedamong Member States that would govern the role ofthe Organization in peace-building after itspeacekeeping mission has ended. That will require atrue partnership among the Security Council, theGeneral Assembly, the Economic and Social Counciland all other parts of the international system.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker is the representative of Bosnia andHerzegovina, on whom I now call.

Mr. Kusljugić (Bosnia and Herzegovina): Thankyou, Madam, for giving me the opportunity to make astatement on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina on such

10


an important issue. As members are aware, Bosnia andHerzegovina is still going through the process of post-conflict national reconciliation — a process in whichthe United Nations, together with the PeaceImplementation Council and the Office of the HighRepresentative, played a key role.

The topic of war and post-war reconciliation,though painful and somewhat embarrassing for us, isone that compels us to speak our mind. The topic isstill so controversial that it is difficult for us to agreeamong ourselves, even though we have alignedourselves with Ireland’s statement on behalf of theEuropean Union.

However senseless, devastating and tragic warsmay be, they all are different. They differ in manyways: their nature, their goals, the causes that triggeredthem, how they ended, and their consequences. Yetthey have one thing in common that should serve as aclear warning: they can happen anywhere, and toanyone. Fifteen years ago, living carefree lives in aprosperous country in the heart of Europe, none of uswould have believed that a war of such proportionscould occur. Yet it did, and it went onuninterruptedly — before the eyes of the entireworld — for three and a half years, until theinternational community decided to put to an end to thesuffering of civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina and toenforce the peace.

With respect to lessons learned, we are certainthat everyone will agree that the prevention of conflictand the development of efficient early-warningprocedures are among the most important tasks facingthe United Nations. The Dayton Peace Accords broughtpeace but failed to distinguish between the aggressorand the victim. Since that time, we have beenmethodically examining facts and figures related to thewar.

The first fact — perhaps the only one everyBosnian citizen will agree upon — is that there was nowinner. Rather, we all lost - each to a different extent,of course, but who can establish an objective measureof a personal loss?

Another fact that almost all parties to the conflictwill agree on is that the war was imported to Bosniaand Herzegovina as part of a broader conflict in theregion. There are differences of opinion in variousparts of the country as to its origin, but, as trialsprogress at the International Tribunal for the

Prosecution of Persons Responsible for SeriousViolations of International Humanitarian LawCommitted in the Territory of the Former Yugoslaviasince 1991, the evidence presented and the verdictsdelivered are leading to the conclusion that thetotalitarian regime of then-President Milosevic deviseda plan to divide Bosnia and Herzegovina by force,annexing the half, more or less, of Bosnian territorythat contained his own nationals.

The Tribunal epitomizes the role of the UnitedNations in the process of post-conflict nationalreconciliation in Bosnia. Its main task is to prosecutepersons responsible for war crimes, thusindividualizing responsibilities and absolving nationsof potential collective guilt. Its second main task is toestablish the facts and set the historical record straight,since, as we established earlier, there was no winner towrite the history of that war.

Searching for the truth is like putting together agigantic jigsaw puzzle — there are so many pieces, andeach has to fit in its place. Operative paragraph 17 ofGeneral Assembly resolution 57/10 calls for theSecretary-General

“to submit a report on United Nations activities inBosnia and Herzegovina during the period from1992 to 2002, in view of the experience gainedand lessons learned, as a positive contribution tofuture United Nations operations”.

That report will, hopefully, provide us with manypieces of the puzzle, making clear the role of theUnited Nations during the war and in the context of thepost-war recovery and setting the facts straight in anobjective manner, thus helping local stakeholders todevelop a dialogue built on the foundation of theimpartial truth. We eagerly await that report.

If we examine the roles of the key players in thewar, we can see that one of the very few shortcomingsof the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, compared with the International CriminalTribunal for Rwanda, was that it did not identify andpunish those media representatives who incited ethnichatred. The role of the media, controlled and directedby non-democratic regimes in the region of the formerYugoslavia, was a crucial element in the process ofmanipulation and brainwashing that prepared theground for the spread of ethnic intolerance andviolence.

11


Moreover, the role of the media in the post-conflict peace-building and reconciliation process is ofthe utmost importance. The various reconciliationprogrammes should concentrate on creating anenvironment that allows independent media to workunobstructed — media whose task will be, along withother civil society actors, to convey the truth about thepast and to address the suffering of the victims ofviolence.

Allow me to draw the Council’s attention to oneof the most important problems facing post-conflictreconciliation: the issue of missing persons. One of themost tragic consequences of the war in Bosnia andHerzegovina, as in other recent wars, is the vastnumber of missing persons, mostly civilians. Resolvingthe issue of missing persons is not only a humanitarianimperative but also a very important political issue, andit is one of the basic preconditions for establishingdurable peace and stability.

The primary responsibility for carrying out suchtasks lies with the authorities under whose jurisdictioncrimes may have been committed. However, if theauthorities concerned are not willing to go forwardwith the excavation of possible mass graves and otherinvestigative activities, the task will pass tointernational organizations and entities. Suchundertakings are expensive and depend on the fullpolitical and financial support of the internationalcommunity, as well as on the military and logisticalsupport of the peacekeeping forces in the field. Theprocess should be properly coordinated, thus avoidingoverlapping mandates and providing adequate use offinancial resources.

Even though the process of tracing andidentifying missing persons in Bosnia and Herzegovinais far from being completed, we would like to take thisopportunity to express our gratitude to all theGovernments — particularly to the Government of theUnited States of America — that have providedpolitical and financial support to the process.

Allow me to sum up by making two brief points.First, I cannot stress enough that reconciliation is afragile, long-lasting and cumbersome process. Themandate of the first High Representative of theInternational Community to Bosnia and Herzegovinawas one year, on the assumption that that was enoughtime for him to finish his job. Eight years later, thefourth High Representative has as much work to do as

the first one did. The first United Nations peacekeepingmission in Bosnia and Herzegovina also had a one-yearmandate. None of the other United Nationspeacekeeping operations that followed ever thoughtthat they could complete the mission within a year.

Last but not least, countless examples fromrecorded history — including that of Bosnia andHerzegovina — teach us a single, valuable lesson:national reconciliation is not possible without anational catharsis. Catharsis can be achieved only byself-examination through the prism of objective andunquestionable facts — provided that all the othernecessary conditions exist: an environment free of fear,xenophobia or collective guilt; an atmosphere ofdialogue and understanding; and forgiveness, as themost noble of all human virtues.

Truth and reconciliation commissions,international criminal tribunals, special national courtchambers, and international and inter-religiousinstitutions are merely the tools that can help achievethat ultimate goal.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker is the representative of South Africa, to whomI give the floor.

Mr. Raubenheimer (South Africa): MadamPresident, my delegation wishes to thank you forhaving convened this open debate on the role of theUnited Nations in promoting national reconciliation inpost-conflict situations. While the Security Council hasin the past tended to focus narrowly on the resolutionof conflicts, experience has shown that themaintenance of peace is sustainable over the long termonly if due attention is also given to the achievement ofnational reconciliation in post-conflict situations. Webelieve that this subject warrants greater discussionthroughout the various organs of the United Nations,and we commend you for having brought this matter tothe attention of the Security Council.

In our own country’s experience, steps wereadopted to create a bridge between the past — that of adeeply divided society characterized by strife, conflict,untold suffering and injustice — and a future builtupon the recognition of human rights, democracy andpeaceful coexistence for all South Africans. Thequestions of reconciliation and the future, on the onehand, and the necessity to establish the truth in relationto past events and ensure reparation to the victims ofgross human rights abuses, on the other hand, had to be

12


carefully considered and balanced, both during andafter the historic transition from apartheid andoppression to a constitutional democracy.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)was established with the aim of: granting amnesty fromcriminal and civil liability to people who made fulldisclosures of acts committed with a political objectiveduring the course of conflicts of the past; affordingvictims an opportunity to relate the violations theysuffered; taking measures aimed at the granting ofreparations to victims; restoring the human and civildignity of victims of violations of human rights; andmaking recommendations aimed at preventing thecommission of gross human rights violations.

Many South Africans had the opportunity toappear before the TRC in a series of public hearingsthat it held, either as victims or as perpetrators of actsthat violated human rights. State institutions, politicalparties and organizations and the business sector werealso required to elaborate on their respective roles inthe past. The compromises were sometimes painful, aswas confronting the truth of past oppression. However,for us it was our way to reconcile decades-longoppression and proceed with nation-building.

As Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who chaired theTRC, has written,

“The establishment of South Africa’s TRCwas a pioneering international experiment, with apotentially far-reaching effect on the way we alldeal with conflict. Normally, when countriesmove through the difficult transition fromoppression to democracy, they deal with the pastin one of two ways: either the leaders of the oldorder are put on trial or dealt with summarily, orprevious events are swept under the carpet andthe suffering of those subjected to violence isignored. South Africa followed a third, unique,way when it ended apartheid. To those who hadcommitted grave violations of human rights, itoffered amnesty in exchange for public disclosureof the truth about their crimes, and to the victims,it gave an unusual opportunity to be heard, aswell as hope for reparations.”

National reconciliation, however, did notautomatically emerge at the closing of the work of theCommission but is continuing to develop as we build anation based on shared values and a common destiny.The disparities that existed among South Africans as a

result of the policy of apartheid required immediateredress and continue to place a strain on our nationalcapacity to cope with the demand of ordinary citizensthat they be able to experience the fruits of liberation.In order to avoid the risk that people’s expectationsmight lead to instability, the Government has embarkedon large-scale social and economic upliftment andempowerment projects that address such basic needs aswater, sanitation, housing, education and the provisionof heath services. Post-conflict reconstruction is along-term project of sustainable development thatbuilds on the peace and relative stability of thenegotiated settlement.

While national reconciliation in post-conflictsituations can take many forms, it is ultimately drivenby a common will of the people affected by thedevastation of the past to realize a more positive future.The parties have to be made aware of the benefits ofcoming to terms with what has occurred, and mustproceed to rebuild their societies. Nevertheless, thepeople look to the international community, andparticularly to the United Nations, for support duringsuch a traumatic time. As the United Nations is thelead voice of the will of the international community,its engagement bears heavily on all the parties, and itsactive, sustained engagement is particularlyinstrumental in seeking options that are acceptable tothe conflicting parties.

The engagement of the United Nations bringslegitimacy and moral authority to conflict resolutionbased on the universally accepted norms and principlesof the Charter. Durable peace is not achieved simplythrough the signing of peace agreements. In addition, italso requires a comprehensive approach that involvesthe active participation of the entire United Nationssystem. The role of the United Nations is to create theenabling environment in which this process can occur,and the Organization should assist in creating themechanisms to bring about reconciliation. These couldinclude assistance with constitution drafting, thedevising of electoral systems and the creation ofjudicial and human rights institutions.

One of the most important requirements of post-conflict assistance is the immediate humanitarian needsfor basic necessities and health services. In that regard,the United Nations has a coordinating role to play inefforts to bring aid and donor assistance to an affectedcountry through consolidated appeals and donorconferences. It is imperative that other United Nations

13


organs and multilateral institutions, such as theEconomic and Social Council and the Bretton Woodsinstitutions, become more deeply engaged in theprocess.

In the past, the Security Council tended to regardthe end of conflict as the elimination of the threat tointernational peace and security. Experience has,however, shown that United Nations involvement is ascritical after the peace deal is signed as it is in endingthe violent conflict. The Security Council’s mandatetherefore cannot end with the departure ofpeacekeepers, although post-conflict reconstruction isnot a core function of the Security Council. TheSecurity Council should work closely with otherUnited Nations organs such as the Economic andSocial Council to ensure that international peace andsecurity are indeed maintained. The two Ad HocAdvisory Groups of the Economic and Social Council,on Guinea-Bissau and on Burundi respectively, havealready proven to be very useful in this regard. Thosebodies have created bridges for closer cooperationbetween the two Councils on those countries. Moreimportant, they have also contributed to creating aseamless continuum from peacekeeping to post-conflictreconstruction and development.

Close cooperation with other United Nationsbodies and regional organizations strengthens theimplementation of Security Council decisions bywidening the collaborative effort of all interestedparties to achieve a desired outcome. As set out inChapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, regionaland subregional organizations, in collaboration with theSecurity Council, have a critical role to play inbuilding a durable peace. On our own continent, theAfrican Union recognizes this important link in its ownefforts to seek durable peace and sustainabledevelopment in Africa. The African Union establishedits Peace and Security Council as

“an operational structure for the effectiveimplementation of the decisions taken in the areasof conflict prevention, peacemaking, peace-support operations and intervention, as well aspeace-building and post-conflict reconstruction”.

The protocol that established the Peace and SecurityCouncil also specifically stipulates that

“in the fulfilment of its mandate in the promotionand maintenance of peace, security and stabilityin Africa, the Peace and Security Council shall

cooperate and work closely with the UnitedNations Security Council”.

As in peacekeeping operations, differentsituations require different responses to deal with post-conflict reconstruction and reconciliation. The creationof the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was themanner we chose to deal with our own past and future.Countries emerging from conflict have to find theirown ways of bridging the past with new possibilitiesfor the future in the context of their own uniquecircumstances. South Africa has assisted, and willcontinue to assist, at their request, countries emergingfrom conflict to devise their own mechanisms andinstitutions of national reconciliation.

The role of the international community does notend once the parties have ceased hostilities.Reconciliation has to be coupled with a firmcommitment from the international community to assistin post-conflict reconstruction and development.

The role of the United Nations in maintainingpeace and security continues to be redefined, requiringa more extensive involvement not only in assisting inbringing about peace and security but also inmaintaining that peace and security once the partieshave ceased hostilities. In order to prevent the risk ofsliding back into conflict, it is our common obligationto assist communities in their endeavours to securedevelopment and to take their rightful place amongpeaceful nations.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker is the representative of Guatemala, to whom Igive the floor.

Mr. Rosenthal (Guatemala) (spoke in Spanish): Icongratulate you, Madam President, on Chile’sinitiative to organize today’s open debate on an itemthat is of great importance both for the SecurityCouncil and for the entire United Nations system.

Guatemala has had first-hand experience in thisarea through the implementation of our peaceagreements. Although they have their own uniquecharacteristics, they also contain lessons that can, withthe necessary adaptations, be universally applied.Those lessons, however obvious they may appear, offerguidelines with regard to the subject we areconsidering. I shall cite five, all of which havedomestic roots but reflect on the role of the UnitedNations.

14


First of all, it is essential that there be a minimumbasis for agreements among the various sectors of civilsociety and the Government regarding the path to betaken. Reconciliation must originate from within, sinceany attempt to impose it from outside will surely fail.In the case of Guatemala, there fortunately was andstill is such a minimum basis for agreements. Theagreements in question were concluded by the ArzuAdministration and the Unidad RevolucionariaNacional Guatemalteca in 1996, assumed as Stateagreements by the Portillo Administration in 2000 and,scarcely a week ago, again assumed by theAdministration of President Oscar Berger.

Secondly, international cooperation has beenessential and the presence of the United Nationsirreplaceable. That involves not only the daily work ofthe United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala(MINUGUA) or the support provided by the UnitedNations Development Programme for the dialogue andconsensus-building round tables organized in the pastfew years, but also support for strengthening thecontext in which dialogue, tolerance and understandingcan flourish. Obviously, it is easier to achievereconciliation in conditions of economic affluence thanwhen there are not enough resources to go around. It isalso obvious that, for there to be reconciliation, weneed to strengthen the institutions on which democraticsocieties rest. Thus, the progress made in implementingthe agreements results from the efforts of Guatemalans,supplemented very significantly by externalcooperation.

Thirdly, the progress made has not been linear.The implementation of the commitments generatesresistance and opposition, which sometimes even causesetbacks. By its very nature, this progress tends to beslow, which means that both national and internationalactors must persevere. It will come as no accident that,when MINUGUA leaves Guatemala at the end of thisyear, it will have spent 10 years in the country. A long-term commitment, then, is needed.

Fourthly, in Guatemala — as in other countries —a commission for historical clarification was created.The publication of the commission’s report, entitled“Guatemala” memory of silence”, undoubtedlycontributed to reconciliation in that it brought to lightpreviously concealed facts. It also gave rise to acompensation programme, although some consider thatprogramme to be too modest. The report also helped to

emphasize the general call for a strengthening in thejustice system.

Fifthly and lastly, in achieving reconciliation, onecannot overestimate the importance of strengtheningthe rule of law and the administration andimplementation of justice. In our country, as a legacyof armed conflict, illegal organs and clandestinemechanisms still function that violate human rights. Ina new and innovative effort to fulfil its commitment,the Government of Guatemala, at the request of thehuman rights ombudsman and with the approval ofboth the outgoing and incoming Administrations,signed at the beginning of this month an agreementwith the United Nations aimed at addressing thatsituation. It involves a new type of internationalmission that, acting within the framework ofGuatemalan law, is authorized to investigate theclandestine mechanisms and to seek theirdismantlement by identifying those responsible,ensuring their criminal prosecution. Through thatprovisional and special effort, we intend to strengthenlocal security and judicial capacities and to providestrong momentum for institutional and legal reforms inthe country.

There is a final piece of information that is veryconvincing for the purposes of this debate. Peace isirreversible in Guatemala. In other words, in our case,there is no longer any risk of returning to a conflictsituation. Therefore, despite the possible defects andinadequacies in the implementation of the agreements,the overall result is highly positive. Bearing witness tothat is, for example, the electoral process that led to theorderly and democratic transfer of power on 14January. Therefore, I believe the United Nations can beproud of its presence and its participation in theimplementation of the peace agreements in Guatemala.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Peru.

Mr. De Rivero (Peru) (spoke in Spanish): Icongratulate you, Mrs. Soledad Alvear Valenzuela,Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, on your presidingover the Security Council. Your initiative to hold thismeeting on such a relevant topic as “Post-conflictnational reconciliation: role of the United Nations” isan expression of the effective way in which yourcountry is guiding the Council.

15


Post-conflict national reconciliation is a complexnational process that depends on the socio-politicalconditions in each country and on the nature andintensity of the conflict. However, by studying theopinions of academics and experts and particularly thepractical experiences with reconciliation processes, onecan identify three fundamental preconditions fornational reconciliation.

The first element is truth. Given the need for truthas an element of reconciliation, truth commissions havebeen established. The merit of those commissions isnot a detailed and definitive narrative of all the violentevents in a civil conflict, because after a certainamount of time it is very difficult to reconstruct exactlywhat happened. Rather, the value of truth commissionsis to bring to light what was hidden and has not beenwidely perceived and assimilated in a nation’severyday political discourse. Michael Ignatieff,professor of human rights at Harvard University, statesthat “all that a truth commission can achieve is toreduce the number of lies that can be circulatedunchallenged in public discourse” (Index onCensorship, May 1996). This is the value of truth as anelement of reconciliation.

The truth is so important to reconciliation thattruth commissions, which originated in a LatinAmerica traumatized by the massive violations ofhuman rights in the 1970s and the 1980s, have nowspread to other regions in the world where there havebeen civil strife and massive human rights violations.To date, more than 20 truth commissions have beencreated throughout the world, and various prestigiousuniversities have created academic programmes tostudy them.

In Peru, the Truth and ReconciliationCommission was created in June 2001 with the task ofshedding light on the process, deeds andresponsibilities in the terrorist violence and theviolations of human rights during the 20 years betweenMay 1980 and November 2000. The Commission,recently judged by experts to be one of the most solidand exemplary such commissions in Latin America,issued its final report in August 2003 after 24 monthsof work and after receiving testimony from 17,000individuals and the holding of public hearingsthroughout the entire country, which were broadcast bythe State television network. The Peruvian Truth andReconciliation Commission has created a solid base forthe first element of reconciliation: to know the truth —

or at least bringing to light what was hidden — aboutdeeds that were not known by Peruvian society.

The second prerequisite for reconciliation iscompensation for the innocent victims and therehabilitation of the areas affected by conflicts. Whileexperience shows that, globally, truth commissionshave been supported by resources from civil society,the United Nations and States committed to defendinghuman rights, this is not true in the case ofcompensation to innocent victims and the rehabilitationof the devastated areas, for which there are scarcenational resources and little international assistance.For that reason, the United Nations should becomeinvolved through special projects of the United NationsDevelopment Programme and its agencies. In addition,the contribution of the World Bank and, we would say,the flexibility of the International Monetary Fund areneeded.

Along with its final report, the Peruvian Truthand Reconciliation Commission presented acomprehensive reparations plan. One week ago, thePeruvian Government began action on its Plan forPeace and Development for 2004-2006, a mechanismfor collective reparations for the areas most affected bypolitical violence by means of projects to improveinfrastructure, increase production and productivity andstrengthen the presence of the State and theparticipation of civil society. Needless to say, this plan,like those of other developing States, requires theresources of the United Nations and the internationalcommunity for its full implementation.

The third element of reconciliation is justice. Iftruth is a prerequisite for reconciliation, then justice isat once a prerequisite for and a result of that process.Reconciliation does not mean forgetting or impunity. Itincludes the value of justice, which means, specifically,to bring the violators of human rights to justice. Inmany cases, that requires thorough judicial reform and,above all, the dissemination of a culture of humanrights in societies that have suffered violence so thatthe crimes and atrocities committed are not repeated.

In the case of Peru, the special commission on thecomprehensive reform of the administration of justiceis working to strengthen and coordinate the actions ofthe various entities comprising the justice system inorder to achieve the system’s thorough reform,ensuring its independence as an institution and theprotection of the rights of citizens.

16


At the international level, the need for justice hasalso been a central concern in post-conflict situations.The result of this was the Security Council’s creationof the international criminal tribunals for the formerYugoslavia and Rwanda and, especially, theestablishment of the International Criminal Court,which constitutes the world’s greatest advance in thefight against impunity. In that connection, we welcomethe commitment of Sierra Leone to create a specialcourt to judge crimes against humanity committed inthat country.

In the opinion of experts and academicians andbased on our empirical experience, reconciliation hasmany interpretations. According to the minimalistinterpretation, reconciliation is only a sort of non-lethalcoexistence. For the maximalists, reconciliation is thereturn to consensus or to social harmony. In truth,neither interpretation is viable for true nationalreconciliation because, as demonstrated by theexperience of reconciliation processes in variouscountries, reconciliation implies going beyond peacefulcoexistence or returning to situations of social harmonyand consensus that never existed or that, on thecontrary, were really the origin of the civil conflict. Inall the countries where conflict has broken out,reconciliation today signifies the process of building anew social contract based on democratic institutionsaimed, above all, at eradicating social exclusion, whichis the breeding ground of civil conflicts of nationalself-destruction.

The peacekeeping operations authorized andcarried out by the Security Council in the case of civilwars are only the first step towards initiating thereconciliation process. In fact, the ceasefires, theseparation of the belligerent parties and theircoexistence and mutual tolerance provide no more thanthe foundation for national reconciliation. They createa non-lethal coexistence, not reconciliation. That doesnot constitute a true reconciliation process, which iswhy we must move beyond peacekeeping and non-lethal coexistence and enter the nation-buildingprocess.

In the final analysis, the process of reconciliationis an exercise in democratic nation-building thatsurpasses the mandate of peacekeeping operations andthe recommendations of truth commissions throughoutthe world. Reconciliation is a long and complexprocess of restoring the political and social fabric of aState and essentially requires the creation of authentic

democratic institutions and the eradication of thescourge of social exclusion. Without democratictolerance and in the presence of permanent socialexclusion, there can be no reconciliation. Poor societieswill continue being affected by the germ of conflict.

In conclusion, the search for truth in thereconciliation processes that are taking place in variousparts of the world have had the international support ofthe United Nations and civil society through nationaltruth commissions.

Justice, the nexus of reconciliation, was alsosignificantly advanced with the establishment of theInternational Criminal Tribunals for the FormerYugoslavia and Rwanda and in particular of theInternational Criminal Court. However, I wish to stresshere that this has not been the case with regard tocompensation for innocent victims and areas devastatedby civil conflict. We therefore believe that the role ofthe United Nations and international financialinstitutions, in addressing post-conflict reconciliationin the future, should centre on aiding in the processesof compensation and support for civil society.

In conclusion, I have the following suggestions.First, future meetings of the Council on post-conflictreconciliation should address specific situations, inparticular those of States that, as a result of civilconflict, are presently the focus of United Nationspeacekeeping operations. Secondly, it would bebeneficial if a report was prepared on all that has beensaid here today for the consideration of all States,United Nations agencies and, especially, theinternational financial institutions. The internationalcommunity, its actors and institutions must initiatesome serious thinking in order to give substance to thevery concept of reconciliation and to learn from theexperience of reconciliation processes currently beingcarried out throughout the world.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank therepresentative of Peru for his kind words.

I call on the representative of India.

Mr. Nambiar (India): We thank you forscheduling this open meeting of the Security Councilon an issue that the Security Council has notspecifically addressed on any previous occasion, butthat is, nonetheless, of considerable import and greatconcern today. We note in particular, Madam President,the intensity of your personal involvement in the

17


subject of today’s debate. We also seek yourindulgence for the length of our statement.

For many Member States of the United Nations,the experience of nationhood is still relatively new.Indeed, the transition, after the Second World War,from empire to nationhood in many regions of Asia andAfrica and parts of the Caribbean was itself the resultof a process of political conflict, post-conflictreconciliation and deliberate crafting of nationhood.This process was unique for each region, if not forevery nation. The role of the United Nations was alsosignificant, though of a somewhat different nature fromwhat seems relevant to the present debate.

What is the basis for the Security Council’scurrent consideration of this subject? Ever since thecrisis in the Congo in 1960, the United Nations hasconsidered aspects of internal conflicts because of theirpotential implications for international peace andsecurity, taking into account Article 36, paragraph 1, ofthe Charter. This Article allows the Council to consideror make a recommendation regarding a dispute or asituation of a similar nature at any stage, with perhapsthe minimal requirement of an investigation underArticle 34 of the Charter. Since the nineties, the UnitedNations has been involved in a variety of robustpeacekeeping operations, and therefore such a searchfor a Charter basis is, today, only academic. For theCouncil to proceed from peacekeeping to peacemakingand post-conflict reconciliation is seemingly but a shortstep.

The present debate seems to be focused on theeffects of intra-State conflicts that have bedevilled theinternational landscape in the post-cold war period andhave bred ethnic conflicts or factional struggles formilitary control, political power, economic resources orexternal patronage within States. Though it can beargued that most intra-State conflicts invariably haveexternal components, the concept of peace-buildingthat arose in the early 1990s and provided the impetusfor robust international action by the United Nations inmany areas of the world was directed mainly toprevent, mitigate, resolve or manage such conflictswith a view to both avoiding their exacerbation,thereby positively affecting international peace andsecurity, and to enabling broader political transitions totake place within these societies for long-term regionalstability. How far these processes represented animposition on the part of outside agencies, includingthe United Nations, and how far they had the effect of

encouraging the development of genuinely indigenousauthority structures or institutions are assessments onwhich the judgements of the outside world vary.

It is axiomatic that reconciliation within anynation must be not only home-grown but also home-nurtured. This is more than a routine expression of propatria sentiment. There are many examples wheresolutions imposed from the outside have failed whenthose external influences disappeared. Similarly, anyprocess that does not fully involve the participation ofthe local population, in all its diversity, is also unlikelyto yield lasting peace.

It is said that peace looks to the future and justiceto the past. If true reconciliation is to be achieved,there must clearly be a blend of both values. Without awillingness to look beyond the bitterness, rancour andmisgivings of the past, any future reconciliation isunlikely to be realized. But, by the same token, unlessthere is a credible sense of justice and accountabilityfor past actions, especially in cases where there havebeen grave and systematic violations, it would beequally unrealistic to expect genuine reconciliationbetween opposing parties. However wrenching theprocess may be, the various contending parties mustdeal with each other in order to arrive at mutualaccommodation and to deal with issues of the past,including those relating to peace, justice, reparationand amnesty.

Post-conflict societies also require new rigour intheir judicial system. The establishment of criminalcourts, truth commissions and a system of reparationfor losses sustained by victims of crimes may becomenecessary in certain circumstances. However, it isimportant that the establishment of the rule of law andthe dispensation of justice in post-conflict societies befashioned in accordance with the needs and aspirationsof the people in those societies. Promotion of post-conflict healing is a dynamic process. The local actorsmust lead the process. Externally imposed prescriptionswill not necessarily work. International assistance forthe establishment of a rule of law regime anddispensation of justice in post-conflict societies,therefore, should help set up credible local institutionsand build up their public image and acceptance.

What should the role of the United Nations andthe international community be in such a scenario? Ourview is that the United Nations should play asupportive and facilitating role, without seeking to

18


impose outside viewpoints or values on the delicateprocess of reconciliation under way in any war-tornsociety. This is not to belittle or underplay the role ofthe United Nations or the considerable expertiseavailable within its system, including that availablethrough the various funds and programmes, to dealwith crises and complex situations. Nor is it anargument against the basic benchmarks of human rightsvalues that need to be adhered to in all civilizedsocieties. What is of paramount importance isrecognizing the complexity of an exercise in nationalreconciliation in post-conflict situations and dealingwith it from a perspective informed by sympathy andunderstanding rather than prescription.

Although the post-conflict reconciliationtheologian is likely to make a sharp distinction betweenin-conflict and post-conflict situations, the reality, inmost cases, is far more complex. Reconciliation effortsoften commence even while the conflict is taking placeand persist after peace agreements are signed. On theother hand, even after the formal ending of hostilitiesand the signing of peace accords, conflicts continue, attimes sporadically and, at other times, assuming evenmore virulent forms. Any involvement by the UnitedNations will need to take into account this reality.

Before involving itself in a particular situation,the United Nations will thus need to recognize thatthere is no uniform approach that can be adopted in allsituations. Every post-conflict situation will have itsdistinctive characteristics, which need to be given fullconsideration in any reconciliation model. Wheresocieties have traditionally enjoyed a high degree ofprovincial or local autonomy, it would be futile to setup highly centralized structures. In the case of largecommunities with mixed compositions, the distributionof power between the federal and provincialGovernments would need to be worked out with greatcare.

Any process of national reconciliation willrequire time and painstaking efforts. Short-sightedapproaches with unrealistic timetables based onconsiderations of purely financial implications are notalways likely to succeed.

An important contribution the United Nations canmake, in our view, is to ensure the centrality of thelocal actors in the political process. Models forcedupon societies from the outside often fail. Fullownership by the political elements of society in an

inclusive, rather than exclusive, process would ensurethat the solutions devised do not contain the seeds ofresurgence of conflict.

We are convinced that, for a system ofgovernance to work in post-conflict societies, it mustrespect the dynamic of the community in its plurality. Italso follows that only a political form that is inclusive,tolerant of dissent and democratic can provide therequired space for national reconciliation, as well as astake for all in its future well-being. Democraticgovernance implies governance through the will of thecitizen, exercised through independent constitutionalmechanisms. It is the will of the people that defines thepolitical institutions, the economic and socialmanifestos, the targets and the instruments. However,reaching targets democratically set needs resources.Resources are the crucial factor that can determine thedifference between effective governance that deliversand governance, however well-meaning, that fails tomeet the needs of its people. Extra-territorial and otherthreats to the sovereignty of States are further factorsthat seriously impinge on national capacity and self-image and divert attention from the priorities of socialand economic development. We feel, therefore, that toonarrow a focus on governance, without adequateattention to the challenges of social order and security,is likely to affect the consolidation of post-conflictsocieties.

Democracy is a major area where the UnitedNations can assist in national reconciliation efforts.Different parts of the United Nations system haveacquired experience and expertise in providingassistance in census operations, the preparation andrevision of electoral rolls, the delimitation ofconstituencies, verification and other areas consideredessential for the successful conduct of elections.

There are other areas where the United Nationscould prove invaluable. These relate to the provision ofhumanitarian assistance, the protection and promotionof human rights, judicial assistance and, of late, dealingwith political processes. The instrumentalities availablein the United Nations system to deal with each of theseareas, however, have different characteristics. Many ofthem have time-honoured traditions of neutrality andimpartiality. We urge that caution be the watchword indealing with the intersections of the political process,humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping operations andthe promotion and protection of human rights. A pushin one direction to satisfy any donor country or interest

19


group, without taking into account its impact on theother three, could lead to consequences or situationsthat hinder rather than assist reconciliation.

A leading non-governmental organization hasidentified truth, justice and reparations as the threeindispensable pillars of post-conflict nationalreconciliation. The three are also intrinsically linked.The instances of South Africa’s truth and nationalreconciliation process, as well as Peru’s Truth andReconciliation Commission, have been held out asexamples of the success of such efforts. They haveenabled an outpouring of admissions and grievances,thereby providing the basis for an effectivereconciliation. In the case of Afghanistan, theimperatives of truth and justice have to be balanced bythe demands of stability and order. In Cambodia, on theother hand, the urgency displayed by the internationalcommunity in seeking justice from the Khmer Rougemore than two decades after their fall from power doesnot absolve it of the failure to seek this truth when theKhmer Rouge was in power. Here, too, we are facedwith the complex and often controversial balance of themoral imperatives of a post-modern civilized societyand the perceived political interests of powerful States.

Amnesty is also linked to justice. Blanketamnesty, in the interest of peace, can prevent truth andjustice from emerging. At the same time, the completedenial of amnesty in the interests of justice cansometimes hinder peace efforts. Here, too, balance isessential. Reparations are important in securingreconciliation, but need to be carefully quantified toensure that they are not unduly at the expense of otherparties to the conflict. History is replete with instancesof the perceived injustice of reparations leading tofurther conflict. This issue continues to be relevant inour times.

Unfortunately, national reconciliation cansometimes be pursued with misplaced vigour. For acommunity emerging out of the shadow of death anddestruction, starvation and deprivation, the goal ofpolitical reconciliation comes with a psychologicalcost. The scars of the past do not heal as quickly asdemanded by the international community as the priceof its activist humanitarian interventions. When theUnited Nations or the international humanitariancommunity decides to intervene in a manner that seemsto privilege or favour one group over another, evenwith the soundest of motives, these actions run the riskof foisting an outside construct on the situation. While

it is difficult to make value judgements on suchsituations in any generalized manner, we must agreewith what was stated by a scholar recently to the effectthat the attempt to do good, if poorly planned andlacking in strategy, can do more harm than good.

India firmly believes that national reconciliationmust be a soft process of co-optation and cooperation.It cannot be thrust on an unwilling or unpreparedsociety. Political engineering in the form ofempowering one group at the expense of another mayappear to be essential for the restoration of ethnicbalance, but can come at the expense of minorityinterests and heighten tensions in the future. It mayalso affect the neutrality of the United Nations in theperception of the people of the affected country andresult in long-term disharmony.

The role of the United Nations in supportingnational reconciliation must involve assistance througha system-wide, coherent, needs-based approach, whichcan result in the consolidation of security and peace,democracy, economic freedom, social order and justice.In all these areas, the United Nations should play abasically supportive role.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Costa Rica.

Mr. Stagno Ugarte (Costa Rica) (spoke inSpanish): The armed conflicts on the SecurityCouncil’s agenda are complex phenomena. Their mostvisible feature is military confrontation, the armedclash between two or more parties. However, over andabove military confrontation, there is an unyieldingpolitical and social antagonism based on recurringcycles of enmity, grudges, hatred, separation, animosityand fear. Indeed, many of the conflicts that plaguehumanity today are based on psychologicalmechanisms of fear and hatred among groups, whereany single offence is perpetuated and amplified througha pernicious dynamic of revenge, victimization andreciprocal injustice. Personal relationships and socialstructures cannot support the burden of stereotypesused to dehumanise supposed enemies. Hatredgenerates more hatred and destruction generates moredestruction and death.

Peace-building at the end of an armed conflictrequires halting that pernicious cycle of hatred anddestruction. The social institutions and personalrelations that serve as a bridge among the variousgroups must be rebuilt. It is essential to create an

20


atmosphere of mutual trust, justice and respect.Ultimately, the parties must be reconciled with a viewto building a shared future.

Any reconciliation programme must re-examinethe past, the underlying causes of the conflict and thebehaviour of all the parties throughout it. However,reconciliation must go beyond a mere historicalaccount. It is indispensable to create an atmospherethat promotes thinking, contrition and forgiveness, bothcollectively and individually, in order to provide anoutlet for demands for justice and revenge.Reconciliation must not be confined to rehashing pastgrievances or to punishing the guilty. Reconciliationmust be committed to the future and create anatmosphere of tolerance and cooperation amongindividuals and communities that have been rent byconflict. The end product of reconciliation must be agenuine culture of peace.

Every conflict is unique; each has its ownfeatures and peculiarities. That is why there is nosingle mechanism for reconciliation that can be appliedto all. In some cases, truth commissions havefacilitated the process. In other situations, theprosecution and punishment of leaders and those guiltyof atrocities has been helpful. In others yet, amnestieshave been required. The use of traditional communitymechanisms for justice and forgiveness have also beenvery useful.

Reconciliation must be based on truth, justice andcompassion. The truth about a conflict must be fullyrevealed so that the victims can talk about the pain andthe trauma caused by the injustice they suffered.Justice must be served. There must be publicrecognition of the damage done and of the violation ofthe fundamental rights of the victims. It is crucial thatcompassion temper the desire for revenge so as tomake it possible to break the cycle of retribution.

Reconciliation must also empower the victims ofconflict and create a feeling of interdependence amongthe parties. The victims must come to feel that theirrights have been recognized and are being respectedand that their former torturers will never again harmthem. Conditions must be created to ensure that theparties can build a shared future and commit toworking together for the well-being of the entirecommunity.

It is essential for all the parties to recognize thatworking together and cooperation among all areindispensable elements for building peace.

Reconciliation is an arduous process for whichthe local population bears the primary responsibility.The international community must actively supportlocal efforts at reconciliation, but it should not try toact as a substitute. In this context, the United Nationshas an important part to play as a facilitator, assistingin crafting the mechanisms and agreements that arerequired to initiate the process of reconciliation.

In this context, the United Nations in general andthe Security Council in particular could adopt a seriesof concrete measures to facilitate nationalreconciliation.

When the parties agree to use truth commissionsas a mechanism to achieve reconciliation, theinternational community must provide political,logistic and, whenever necessary, economic support forthose institutions so as to ensure that they are effective,legitimate and impartial, and seen to be such by thelocal population. The Security Council must urge theparties to provide such commissions with all theinformation that they have about the conflict and anyatrocities that may have been committed.

When the parties have decided on legalmechanisms to achieve reconciliation, the internationalcommunity should support their efforts by facilitatingthe establishment of local courts, providing technicalassistance or creating tribunals with internationalparticipation. The experience of Sierra Leone isparticularly valuable in that context. On the other hand,recourse to local tribunals may present somedifficulties if they are not seen by the local populationas being impartial or if due process is not guaranteed,either for the victims or for the accused. In such cases,the use of local tribunals can become an obstacle togenuine reconciliation. The international communitymust be vigilant in ensuring that the mechanisms arelegitimate and that they scrupulously respect the rightsof both the victims and the accused.

Furthermore, bringing the main leaders beforeinternational tribunals can be useful only if the localpopulation sees that as an impartial exercise of justice.In this context, we welcome the prosecution strategycrafted by the Prosecutor of the International CriminalCourt to ensure that that international instrument

21


cooperates in a constructive manner with nationalreconciliation processes.

When the parties opt for traditional mechanismsto achieve reconciliation, the international communitymust promote the idea that such mechanisms respectthe rights of the accused; they should not be used toimpose excessive punishment or extrajudicialexecutions.

When the parties agree to grant amnesty, theinternational community must support such efforts,provided they are aimed at reconciliation and as longas they do not become a means of protecting theperpetrators or those who organized serious crimesagainst humanity. Amnesty must never serve as amechanism to conceal the truth or deny justice to thevictims.

When the parties opt for mechanisms to provideeconomic compensation, the international communityshould support them by freezing the assets of thosewho committed the atrocities and transferring thoseassets to the victims.

National reconciliation at the end of an armedconflict requires long-term and continuous efforts.Such efforts are the primary responsibility of thecommunity affected and of the parties to the conflict.Nonetheless, the Security Council and the internationalcommunity at large have an obligation to provideresolute support for those efforts.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker on my list is the representative of Morocco, onwhom I now call.

Mr. Bennouna (Morocco) (spoke in French): Ishould like first of all to congratulate you, Sir, on yourassumption of the presidency of the Security Councilfor this month, which is soon to end. Your great skillsand experience have enabled the Council to dischargeits responsibilities very effectively. In this connection,I would like to thank you in particular for taking theinitiative to convene this debate on post-conflictnational reconciliation and the role of the UnitedNations. The considerable level of participation and thevery enlightening debate show how much we neededsuch a discussion in the United Nations. I amconvinced that we will be able to reach some veryuseful conclusions.

All previous speakers have recalled the specialrole played by the United Nations in reconciliation

efforts. But before speaking specifically about thatissue, I would like to take this opportunity tocongratulate the new non-permanent members of theCouncil, who began their term of office at thebeginning of the month: Algeria, Benin, Brazil,Romania and the Philippines.

Today the Council is discussing post-conflictsituations, peace efforts and the fact that certaindevelopments, if they are not checked in time, canevolve into lasting obstacles to peace and nationalreconciliation strategies.

In the context of post-conflict situations, theUnited Nations has incomparable experience, rangingfrom the negotiation of political settlements among theparties to participation in reconstruction efforts. Thesuccess of United Nations efforts in Kosovo,Afghanistan, Guatemala, Mozambique and elsewheretestifies to the wealth of experience of the Organizationin this sphere. We can draw one major lesson from suchexperience. Each conflict, and each and every post-conflict situation, has its own characteristics andfeatures. There is no universal recipe that can beapplied in this area in a systematic manner. As theSecretary-General stated in a debate in the SecurityCouncil a little less than a year ago, on 30 April 2003:

“But the thing that stands out ... is that nosingle approach has ever been adopted twice,because no two conflicts or post-conflictsituations are alike. Even the four recent cases ofAfghanistan, Kosovo, Timor-Leste and SierraLeone are very different from one another ...Therefore, one of the most important lessons ... isthe need first to reach a common understandingof what makes the crisis in question unique, andthen to develop our responses accordingly. Weshould draw on previous experiences ... whilebearing in mind that completely new approachesmay be required” (S/PV.4748, p. 3).

In other words, the Secretary-General wanted toremind us that the Council should be creative each andevery time it considers a crisis situation, and, inparticular, that it should get as close as possible to therealities on the ground, without, of course, forgettingits experience drawn from other situations.

The success of the United Nations contribution tonational reconciliation in post-conflict situations lies inthe Organization’s ability to take into account localcharacteristics — the multi-ethnic nature of Kosovo,

22


the need to involve women in public life inAfghanistan, for example, the disarmament of ex-combatants in Sierra Leone and in Liberia. Tomorrow,perhaps, the United Nations might be participating inreconstruction in Iraq. All of these crisis situationsmight seem similar, but they are, in fact, quitedifferent.

The role of the Council must be to provideadequate responses and to design mandates that areequal to the realities in the field. Of course, individualresponses to crises and in post-conflict situationsshould form part of an overall strategy thatencompasses common objectives. In particular, as hasbeen stated, respect for the neutrality of the UnitedNations is very important. As was also noted, theOrganization must work to bring the parties closertogether; it must not impose any solution that mighthave been conceived of in advance.

Of the objectives I have mentioned, the first isclosely linked to the obstacles that quite oftenundermine efforts made towards nationalreconciliation. I have in mind the disarmament,demobilization and reintegration of former combatants,and the restoration of justice with the goal ofreconciliation and of economic and socialdevelopment. With respect to justice, there are also theTruth and Reconciliation Commissions, which play asupplementary role.

The reintegration of former combatants, withclear-cut safeguards for their personal security; theirparticipation in public life, with respect for the rule oflaw; and genuine economic and social prospects forthem and for their family members are pivotal elementsin the lasting settlement of conflicts. The representativeof Angola spoke quite eloquently this morning of hiscountry’s experience in this respect. In Sierra Leone,the United Nations has been involved in thedemobilization and reintegration of more than 46,000combatants; however, a great deal remains to be done,especially in Liberia.

Among the key objectives that should bementioned in defining an overall strategy in post-conflict situations, pride of place goes to respect forhuman rights and for international humanitarian law. Itis imperative to safeguard the lives and the dignity ofindividuals. In this spirit, the international communitymust involve itself in the resolution of the problems ofrefugees and of displaced persons. We should

strengthen the protection mandate of the Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees andseek lasting solutions for refugees by fostering inparticular voluntary repatriation, in conditions ofdignity and security.

A comprehensive approach must also take intoaccount all of the actors in the field — civil society,non-governmental organizations, but also, and aboveall, women. We cannot overemphasize the decisive roleof women in post-conflict reconstruction processes. Tobe sure, the Beijing Platform for Action highlightedthat particular dimension and the valuable contributionmade by women, but we must now go farther andpromote the participation of women in the field and inpeacekeeping operations.

At the heart of current conflicts, we often find anaffirmation of specific identity in cultural, religious,social or ethnic terms. In order to cope with theincreased number of identity-based tensions — whichhave, regrettably, multiplied since the beginning ofglobalization — the international community must notonly foster dialogue among parties to a conflict butalso seek lasting solutions in order to maintain peaceand stability.

In order to promote a culture of reconciliationand, ultimately, a culture of prevention, it is importantto explore all possibilities available for settlingdisputes while respecting the sovereignty and integrityof States. Therefore, regional autonomy, as practisedby many democracies, allows them to preserve unity indiversity and to avoid the tragic obstacle representedby the constant fragmentation of State entities, whichcan have dangerous consequences for internationalpeace and security. Indeed, we must enable peoplesfully to exercise their right to manage their own localaffairs while ensuring stability and security for thecountry as a whole and for the subregion to which itbelongs.

The growing importance of the topic of today’sdebate requires greater interaction among agencies.This process has indeed begun, and my countryencourages such interaction among United Nationsagencies and organs, especially between the Economicand Social Council and the Security Council. Theextension by the Economic and Social Council of themandate of the ad hoc Advisory Group on Guinea-Bissau and the creation of a similar group on Burundiconstitute an encouraging response on the part of the

23


international community to the urgent need to deviseassistance programmes for vulnerable countries that areemerging from conflict situations, especially in Africa.It is important to ensure complementarity in the contextof the actions undertaken by the Security Council tomaintain peace and those of the Economic and SocialCouncil aimed at economic and social development.

Ongoing discussions on United Nations reformmust also involve an assessment of the shortcomings ofthe United Nations system in conflict and post-conflictsituations, especially with respect to their humanitariandimension, by drawing lessons from past experiencesand in a spirit of creativity in order, as I said earlier, toresolve current crises. This is an obligation ofsolidarity that we owe to those peoples who havesuffered so much from war and from post-conflictsituations.

What do we owe one another? That was thequestion posed by one of the founders of theEncyclopédie, Denis Diderot. Diderot believed thattaking care of someone else was also a way of ensuringone’s own enlightened self-interest. Is this not themorality that underlies international cooperation andcollective security, for which the Council isresponsible?

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker on my list is the representative of Japan, towhom I give the floor.

Mr. Haraguchi (Japan): Mr. President, I wouldlike to thank you for having convened this open debate.The issue of national reconciliation following a conflicthas not been discussed much in the United Nations. Imust confess that Japan is still in the process ofstudying this issue and has not yet arrived at a firmposition on it. However, I am sure that everyone willagree that reconciliation is indispensable for theconsolidation of peace in unstable post-conflictsocieties.

The consolidation of peace is one of the keyelements of human security which my Government hasbeen advocating forcefully. It is our hope that today’sdiscussions will yield better ideas on such importantissues as how to promote reconciliation successfully ina post-conflict society and the role of the internationalcommunity and the United Nations in such anundertaking.

Reconciliation has a psychological aspect and forthat reason is not so easy to achieve. Unless the truth isfully disclosed, it is difficult to create a basis forreconciliation. On the other hand, hatred and bitternessdo not always fade away so easily, even when the truthhas been exposed. There are cases in which the onlyeffective remedy for rancour is the passage of aconsiderable amount of time. Especially as regardshatred and bitterness at the individual level, whichresults from so many varied situations, I believe it isnot practical to discuss solutions in the United Nations.

In that connection, the presidency made a verywise suggestion in specifying national reconciliation astoday’s topic, because, as far as national reconciliationis concerned, we believe that there are several thingsthat the international community and the UnitedNations can and must do in order to promotereconciliation in precarious post-conflict societies.

The first task is the restoration of justice.Punishing, in accordance with the law, those who haveperpetrated serious crimes against humanity duringconflicts will certainly contribute to nationalreconciliation. It is also important in deterring othersfrom committing similar crimes in the future. At thesame time, however, it is necessary to recognize as aproblem the fact that reconciliation does not progresssignificantly while a trial is under way. This isparticularly true when a trial takes a long time to becompleted. It should be noted that there are a numberof cases in which early national reconciliation isrequired for the prompt consolidation of peace andthat, in order to enable people to come to terms withthe past and to establish relationships of trust withinthe community, there exist a variety of policy optionsranging from strict punishment to total forgiveness. Itis vital for a post-conflict society to choose the policymeasures which it considers best suited to its unstabletransitional situation. We should bear in mind that thestrict application of “justice” as defined by a thirdparty in post-conflict societies does not alwayscontribute to national reconciliation.

It may be useful to consider this matter on thebasis of actual examples. In South Africa — as weheard a few minutes ago from the representative of thatcountry — confessions of the truth about past criminaldeeds, the granting of amnesty and the proportion ofcompensation for victims were pursued in combinationand led to successful national reconciliation. In thecase of the Commission for Reception, Truth and

24


Reconciliation in Timor-Leste, the combination ofpublic apologies by the offenders and their engagementin activities contributing to the general welfare wassuggested and eventually accepted as appropriate bythe victims of the crimes. This solution is considered tohave promoted the restoration of justice andreconciliation at the community level. Both cases showthe wisdom of the people in the community in judgingthat the restoration of justice and promotion of nationalreconciliation could be effectively achieved by findingthe hard truth.

Secondly, it is important to end discriminationand social injustice. In any society, if a portion of thepopulation feels that it has been subjected to socialinequity, that situation has the potential to develop intoa conflict. So long as such conditions continue, it willbe difficult to achieve and consolidate reconciliation. Itis therefore critically important, through promotingfundamental human rights as universal values, toeliminate unfair discriminatory systems and practicesbetween people of different ethnic and culturalbackgrounds so as to establish a society where they canlive together in peace. The international communitycan contribute here — but again, it is not easy to definewhat will be accepted as “equitable” by two parties thathave been involved in a conflict. Japan believes it isessential that the parties to the conflict themselves taketime to talk to each other calmly and patiently and toapply themselves to accumulating successful outcomesone by one. The international community, for its part,should support the creation of a framework to facilitatesuch discussion. For instance, we should take action tohelp initiate dialogue between the parties to a conflict.Much consideration has been given to the budget forthe minority group in Kosovo by the United NationsInterim Administration Mission in Kosovo and theProvisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo.We welcome this as an effort that could reduce thesocial injustice as perceived by the minority group. Wealso welcome the effort to promote direct dialoguebetween Belgrade and Pristina: it is a necessary andappropriate step towards coexistence.

Thirdly, we wish to underscore the importance ofeconomic and social development. Areas in whichconflicts arise are often areas that are plagued bypoverty, and the economic and social difficulties thatpeople continue to experience in their daily lives makeit more likely that they will be conscious of socialinjustice or feel rancour towards those that they

perceive to be the source of social injustice. Japanbelieves that a most effective means of achievingreconciliation is to create conditions in which peopleare able to entertain the hope that their lives will bebetter in the future. The more confident people are thatreconstruction will succeed, the more easilyreconciliation will proceed.

The relationship among national reconciliation,justice, truth and reconstruction in the transitional post-conflict phase is extremely complex, and the mosteffective and appropriate mix of policy measures isdifferent for each specific case. Both the issue ofjustice and that of reconstruction have been taken upand discussed extensively in the United Nations, but ifwe are to address effectively all the important aspectsrelating to the consolidation of peace in the precariousphase of a post-conflict society, it is necessary, in ourview, to include the issue of national reconciliation inour deliberation as well.

Before concluding, I would like to propose thatthe United Nations study past success stories in thearea of national reconciliation and identify theproblems encountered along the way and the lessonslearned. I believe this would certainly enhance theeffectiveness of our deliberations on this importantissue.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker is the representative of Argentina, to whom Igive the floor.

Mr. Mayoral (Argentina) (spoke in Spanish): Atthe outset, the Argentine delegation thanks you, Sir, fororganizing this open Security Council debate on a topicthat is of such great importance to all countries: post-conflict national reconciliation and the role of theUnited Nations. We wish also to thank you and theentire delegation of Chile for your excellent work inthe Security Council presidency for the month ofJanuary.

Experience shows that national reconciliation is acentral pillar of peace-building in societies that havebeen scourged by armed conflict. It is an indispensableelement in preventing the recurrence of such conflicts.It is necessary to build solid foundations to enablecountries that have experienced confrontation andintolerance to abandon forever their divided past and tobuild a harmonious and peaceful future.

25


It is within that framework that I should like tospeak of the recent experience of Argentina. Weregained our democracy in 1983 after a bloodydictatorship that committed flagrant violations ofhuman rights and that carried out systematic murderand the forced “disappearance” of individuals, as wellas torture and imprisonment aimed against dissidentsand members of the opposition. Obviously, it alsodenied basic freedoms to all citizens.

As we emerged from that tragic period ofauthoritarianism, which caused grievous pain in broadsectors of society, there was a general feeling that itwould be possible to build a future of peace andstability only on the basis of truth and justiceconcerning those horrible events. Here, it is importantto note that when preparations began to put on trial theperpetrators, some voices — in general, those withlinks to the former dictatorship — resorted to theconcept of “national reconciliation” to oppose demandsfor a search for truth and justice. They said that thiswas nothing more than an attempt at revenge and wasbased solely on ideological prejudice againstinstitutions such as the armed forces. That attitudeoften served merely to guarantee impunity for crimesunder the pretext of a noble idea such as reconciliation.All activities aimed at circumventing theimplementation of the law failed and generated noreconciliation whatsoever, since reconciliation resultsfrom sincere repentance on the part of the perpetrators,judicial action and appropriate compensation to thevictims.

We must remember that in Argentina, importantsteps were taken such as creating a truthcommission — called the National Commission onDisappeared Persons — that shed light on a repressivepast that had been partially hidden from society andthat brought the principal military authorities tojustice — facts that could serve as a guide for otherpost-conflict situations. Years later, importantlegislation was also adopted to compensate andindemnify the victims and their immediate families.However, despite that progress and as a result ofpressures on the political authorities, various legalmeasures containing exemptions were promoted thatultimately guaranteed a certain degree of impunity to alarge number of those involved in true crimes againsthumanity. In our experience, those initiatives fell farshort of ensuring genuine reconciliation, as I said, andthat is why the whole of civil society is urging the

Government of President Kirchner to rescind amultitude of laws that prevented full justice in thosecases. That process is currently under way inArgentina.

Because the complexity and specialcharacteristics of each conflict situation make everynational reconciliation unique, there is no one formulathat guarantees success. But it is our conviction, basedon our experience, that nothing lasting can beconstructed unless it is based on applying the same lawto everyone and on rejecting any type of pressure orcollective threat aimed at exonerating those responsiblefor human rights violations.

Mindful of the scope of this subject, mydelegation would like to confine itself to a fewobservations on lessons learned from recentreconciliation processes and on the role of the UnitedNations. Restoring mutual trust between the parties to aconflict requires that we clarify what happened in thepast, identify those responsible for human rightsviolations and other atrocities, apply justice andestablish compensation and restitution programmes forthose who were the main victims of violence andinjustice.

From my country’s perspective — and here, Iwish to touch upon what the representative of HumanRights Watch said to the Council in January — truthcommissions have been useful mechanisms that haveenabled us to irrefutably and objectively clarify thefacts and have created a social awareness about the truescale and social impact of the violent past. The UnitedNations should and can provide advice about creatingsuch commissions and can contribute to theirestablishment by facilitating dialogue among varioussectors to achieve broad social acceptance of themechanism.

With regard to adopting legal solutions aimed atclearing up grave crimes, the international communityhas been making significant progress for more than adecade. Its ultimate aim in creating the InternationalCriminal Court, international and local tribunals withinternational components and of various innovativeinitiatives is to help restore trust. A basic premise forthe success of those courts is that the method chosenmust enjoy the broadest possible social consensus.

One of the lessons learned in the past few years isthat national reconciliation cannot be imposed fromoutside. That is why the international community must

26


adopt a cautious approach and respect the principle thata genuine and lasting process must be generated withinsociety. Notwithstanding that fact, the internationalcommunity has an extremely important role to play bysupporting and monitoring local reconciliationprocesses, offering advice and training, and providingmaterial and human resources.

Finally, given the many experiences in this areaand the differences and similarities among variousnational reconciliation processes, it might be a goodidea for the Secretariat to consider establishing nationalreconciliation mechanisms to systematize the lessonsthat various nations have learned and to formulaterecommendations for United Nations bodies withcompetence in this area. My country is fully preparedto share with Member States and the Organization whatit has learned from its own terrible experiences.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Burundi.

Mr. Nteturuye (Burundi) (spoke in French): Ishould like to congratulate you, Sir, on yourassumption of the presidency of the Security Counciland to express my best wishes for 2004.

The topic of today’s debate, “Post-conflictnational reconciliation: role of the United Nations”, isof primary importance for countries that are emergingor in the process of emerging from civil war, such asBurundi. My delegation finds this discussion to be verytimely, because a number of conflicts in Africa, forexample, are civil wars pitting sons and daughters ofthe same nation against each other. Reconciliation is anational imperative, regardless of the painful efforts itimposes on enemy brothers and sisters.

But reconciliation must adapt to anotherimperative that is just as important: justice and the ruleof law. In September 2003, during a public debate ofthe Security Council on the topic “Justice and the ruleof law: the United Nations role”, the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, and the Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, Mr. Jean-MarieGuéhenno, addressed this issue. The Secretary-Generalsaid:

“At times, the goals of justice andreconciliation compete with each other. Eachsociety needs to form a view about how to strikethe right balance between them. Nevertheless, in

striking that balance, certain internationalstandards must be adhered to.” (S/PV.4833, p. 3)

Indeed, that right balance is difficult but not impossibleto find.

My country, Burundi, has been engaged in apeace negotiation process for six years. The progressmade since the signing of the peace agreement and theceasefire agreements with the rebel groups gives ushope that the war will end in the near future. ButBurundians are still decrying the situation of impunityfor crimes imposed by the politicization and excessivepolarization of society caused by the ethnic violenceBurundi has experienced since independence. Manycriminals are circulating freely in the country. Judicialservices are demonized by some and idolized by others,which has seriously hindered the action of thoseservices.

National and international human rightsorganizations believe that the weakest point in theBurundian peace process is the way in which the issueof fighting impunity is being pursued under the signedagreements. Today, the agreements grant provisionalimmunity to political leaders returning from exile andto belligerent forces. It is a political instrument of greatimportance, but the civilian population, the mainvictim of violence of all kinds, wonders whether thistemporary amnesty will not be made permanent,because certain suspected individuals have greatpolitical ambitions. In the lead-up to the generalelections scheduled to take place before 1 November2004, Burundi is not safe from possible new tensions.It is caught between the duty of keeping to thetimetable foreseen by the peace agreement and the needto have the minimum conditions required fororganizing post-conflict elections. So how can wemake sure that the candidates are honest people?

Another question is whether a country cansuccessfully emerge from a crisis as serious asBurundi’s without a minimum state of rule of law andthe moral rehabilitation of the victims. The assistanceof the United Nations can be decisive here.

As the level of trust among Burundians does notalways allow them to organize an acceptable inquiry bythemselves, the country still awaits the arrival ofanother international commission of judicial inquiry,which the Government requested of the United Nationson 23 July 2002. My delegation welcomes the fact thatthe Security Council has approved the terms of

27


reference for a Secretariat assessment mission, whichshould soon be sent to Burundi to prepare for theestablishment of the commission of inquiry. Thecommission is cherished by the Burundians, as themembers of the Council noted during their visits toBurundi. As well, the inquiry is one of the pillars of thepeace agreement. The negotiators at Arusha also agreedto establish a Commission on Truth and Reconciliationwith a mandate complementing that of the commissionof inquiry. The process of adopting its regulating textswill conclude next February.

Despite the efforts of Burundians and theprogress already made in seeking peace, the role of theUnited Nations remains indispensable, especially in thefight against impunity and in national reconciliationefforts. Burundians require support in seeking the truthabout deeds and individuals. In a country where livingconditions in the hills are identical for all ethniccommunities and where the sharing of a commonculture has forged a social cohesion as old as the singlecommon language, the truth about the bloody crimesthat mark the country’s recent history constitutes thefinal road towards the survival of the nation.

Bringing to justice those responsible for majorcrimes such as acts of genocide, rape, violence againstchildren and other war crimes, including those againsthumanitarian rights, helps to heal the wounds andprepare minds for forgiveness and reconciliation — solong as this is handled skilfully through traditional,national and mixed tribunals and other experiencesfrom elsewhere that are applicable in Burundi.Reconciliation is not incompatible with legal action.That will lead to peace. To ignore that is to build onquicksand, to walk with a thorn in one’s foot, to createa breeding ground for new grudges — at least in thecase of Burundi. Burundi needs impartial andreconciliatory justice accompanied by a vast campaignof detoxification to eradicate ideas that kill. That is thesurest way to establish reconciliation, rule of law anddemocracy in Burundi and the entire Great Lakesregion, which still lives under the shock of genocide,whose roots have not yet been extirpated.

The United Nations can contribute to peace andreconciliation in Burundi by mobilizing theinternational community to improve the livingconditions of the population, especially among thosemost affected by the war. The Security Council shouldbe thanked for its mobilizing appeals addressed tofinancial backers. Those appeals have been heard, to

judge by the success of the Forum of Partners forDevelopment of Burundi, just held in Brussels on 13and 14 January. The repatriated, the internallydisplaced, the demobilized combatants, child soldiers,the poor living on the hillsides — all need to bepsychologically and materially rehabilitated in anequitable and sharing fashion. Without that, peace andreconciliation will be nothing more than a pious wish.

The Government of Burundi therefore counts onthe United Nations, the universal Organizationensuring the values of peace, right and morality, to helpBurundi and the surrounding region to build the futureon solid bases enabling the flourishing of futuregenerations and saving them from the scourge of warand hatred.

The President (spoke in Spanish): Before givingthe floor to the representative of the Republic of Korea,I wish to remind delegations to limit their oralstatements to five minutes; they may, of course,distribute their complete written statements. Theaverage length of statements is double what wasrecommended. That means that with the large numberof speakers still remaining, we could be here until8 p.m. or later. I therefore call again on representativesto exercise their ability to summarize.

I give the floor to the representative of theRepublic of Korea.

Mr. Kim Sam-hoon (Republic of Korea): Insupport of the Security Council’s efforts to highlightthe often-overlooked issue of reconciliation in post-conflict nation-building, the delegation of the Republicof Korea extends its appreciation to you, Mr. President,for convening today’s open meeting.

While a mutually acceptable agreement betweenconflicting parties may symbolize a formal end to strifeand violence, it has become evident in recent years thatformal agreements often fall short of ensuring peacefulrelations in post-conflict societies. Since the terms ofsuch agreements are largely negotiated by an elitegroup of leaders, the vast majority of the society maynot feel that the issues that fuelled the conflict havebeen sufficiently redressed. The resultant instabilitycan cause a stalemate or a relapse into conflict. Thus,only when an agreement is underpinned by a spirit ofreconciliation shared by all segments of the society cana genuine and lasting peace be secured.

28


The creation of reconciliation through thepromotion of trust and mutual understanding in theaftermath of prolonged conflict is an essential, albeitdaunting, task in the process of post-conflict nation-building. For reconciliation to take place, allconflicting parties must recognize its vital necessity,and an atmosphere of compromise and tolerance mustdictate a new set of self-sustaining relationships. TheUnited Nations, with its wealth of experience inbuilding bridges of understanding between conflictingparties, has an indispensable role to play in this regard.We are therefore pleased to note the increasing numberof Security Council resolutions that mandate a role forthe United Nations in promoting nationalreconciliation.

While bearing in mind that reconciliation cannotbe imposed upon a society from the outside, the UnitedNations has been able to help the victims of conflict toaddress their plight, bring estranged communitiestogether and find ways for various parties to establishcommon ground.

Despite setbacks in Angola, the United Nationscontinues to assist both sides in resolving theirdifferences and paving the way for nationalreconciliation. We further note that the Government ofGuinea-Bissau has recently requested that the SecurityCouncil mandate be extended, so that the UnitedNations can continue to facilitate dialogue andreconciliation among all of the actors there. Moreover,it has become clear that the United Nations presence inAfghanistan will continue to be essential in helping toovercome the decades of intra-Afghan conflict. In thisregard, we welcome the efforts that are being made todevelop effective reconciliation processes with a viewto establishing a multi-ethnic Afghan society.

Clearly, each instance of conflict requires a newapproach that takes into account the cultural andhistorical context of the conflict. However, manycommon themes have run through the processes ofreconciliation in Afghanistan, East Timor, Angola,Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.We are encouraged by the United Nations peace-building support offices’ efforts to draw upon theselessons learned in order to provide an enablingenvironment for national reconciliation and dialogue.Moreover, the Special Representatives of theSecretary-General continue to play a key role inpromoting confidence-building measures, mediatingdifferences and establishing forums for constructive

dialogue among warring parties. Additionally, theSpecial Representatives of the Secretary-General serveas effective coordinators among the variousinternational actors on the ground, including the UnitedNations agencies. In particular, the SpecialRepresentatives of the Secretary-General in Myanmar,East Timor, Liberia and Afghanistan have madesignificant contributions to the promotion of nationalreconciliation.

While lauding the contributions that the UnitedNations has made to post-conflict societies around theworld, we cite the need for exit strategies to bediscussed at the Security Council from the early stagesof mission development, so that peacekeepingresources may be deployed to the areas of greatestneed. From the outset, one of the goals of peacekeepingmissions should be to coordinate the various UnitedNations agencies, non-governmental organizations,local governments and civil society in guiding thecountry down the path to self-sufficiency.

As the Secretary-General aptly stated in June2003 with regard to Liberia, while the United Nationsremains committed to pursuing a resolution to theconflict, it is the country’s leaders themselves who areultimately responsible for making the difficult choicesand compromises that will bring peace and stability totheir people. The overarching purpose of reconciliationefforts is to ensure that the atrocities of conflict neverbeset that society again. As we have seen in the case ofSouth Africa, post-conflict nation-building is anongoing process out of which the pursuit of truth andreconciliation may eventually lead to the rebuilding oftrust, confidence and hope in a society.

In the pursuit of truth and reconciliation, forumsfor transitional justice in which the perpetrators ofviolence are brought to justice are indispensable. Thead hoc international tribunals established to prosecutecrimes in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and SierraLeone constitute effective judicial forums that areactively helping to overturn the culture of impunity inthese post-conflict societies. While judicial forums canhelp restore dignity to the victims through thecondemnation of acts of violence and violations ofhuman rights, the granting of amnesty can be equallyimportant in overcoming the past. The right balancebetween leaving the past behind through amnesty andrevisiting its injustices through prosecution must bestruck so that post-conflict societies can build a sharedfuture from the ashes of their divided past.

29


In conclusion, we hope that the Security Councilwill remain unswerving in its efforts to promote andsupport national reconciliation in a comprehensive andcoordinated manner. As success in this regard willlargely depend on the commitment of all stakeholders,including the international community, I assure you,Mr. President, that the Republic of Korea stands readyto make its contributions to this end.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor toe the representative of Serbia and Montenegro.

Mr. �ahović (Serbia and Montenegro):Mr. President, I would like to join other speakers inthanking you for organizing this debate on nationalreconciliation in post-conflict situations and the rolethat the United Nations can or should play in thatrespect.

Indeed, the issue of reconciliation is crucial formy country and, for that matter, for the entire region ofSouth-East Europe, parts of which have experienced aseries of conflicts over the past decade. Unfortunately,there are also many other areas in the world where, indifferent circumstances and against a differentbackground, reconciliation must be achieved as anelement of post-conflict stabilization.

This brings us to the question of whether there isa set of general principles or a number of general stepsto be taken in post-conflict situations to facilitatereconciliation and eventually achieve that objective.Certainly, a level of stability has to be introducedbefore practical steps towards reconciliation areattempted. Establishing security, includingdisarmament, demobilization and reintegration, is abasic precondition. Subsequently, in the process ofpost-conflict governance, institutions need to be put inplace, the judiciary should begin to function andeconomic recovery has to be jumpstarted. There arecertainly many other areas that post-conflict societieshave to deal with along the way to nationalreconciliation. However, all these measures should betailored to the actual needs and traditions of thecountry in question, taking into account thecircumstances that triggered the conflict in the firstplace. Ready-made solutions cannot merely be imposedfrom the outside. A genuine internal process isnecessary and local actors must take responsibility forpushing it forward.

My delegation aligns itself with today’s statementby the European Union. Nevertheless, I would like to

elaborate, from my national perspective, two examplesrelevant to the topic under discussion.

The first is the former Yugoslavia. Obviously, thisis a complex situation, since peoples that once lived inone multinational society now need to achievereconciliation in an inter-State context. Indeed,following the end of military operations in 1995, inter-State relations have improved. All countries involved,including mine, share the aspiration of joiningmainstream European and Euro-Atlantic integrations.There is a realization that good-neighbourly relationsmust be developed in this process. In fact, theimprovement of relations with neighbours is a toppriority of my Government. The internationalcommunity is encouraging this approach, which is veryhelpful. While much certainly remains to be done inorder to further improve relations, concrete positiveresults are already visible.

However, on a different level, improvement is notso visible. Mistrust still prevails at the grass-rootslevel. There are different opinions on crucial questionsof responsibility for what had happened. Perceptionsdiffer on who were the victims and who theperpetrators. Basically, within and among the societiesin question, an understanding of some sort needs to bereached on the causes and consequences of theconflicts and wars before substantial reconciliation canbe sought.

In that regard, the role of justice is central. Ofcourse, there is a tribunal established by the SecurityCouncil to prosecute persons responsible for seriousviolations of international humanitarian law in theformer Yugoslavia since 1991. The aim, as stated inSecurity Council resolution 827 (1993), was to bring tojustice those who were responsible for those violations,to contribute to the restoration and maintenance ofpeace and to contribute to ensuring that such violationsare halted and effectively redressed. Some of theaforementioned aims have been achieved. True, someof the persons indicted are still at large and they mustbe brought to justice.

The question is what impact the Tribunal has hadso far in terms of reconciliation. In my country, theTribunal’s work and practices have not, unfortunately,contributed much to the promotion of the cause ofreconciliation. The reasons for that are many andcomplex, and I do not want to imply in any way that allshortcomings are on the side of the Tribunal. For

30


example, some aspects of the Tribunal's activities wentbeyond the stated aims of resolution 827 (1993),actually entering the sphere of domestic politics.Hence, the Tribunal has been and continues to belargely perceived by our public as a political tool ratherthan an instrument of justice. As a consequence, thework of the Tribunal has become a high-priority issueon the domestic political agenda, significantlyovershadowing its role of bringing the perpetrators ofcrimes to justice. When political and legal questionsmix and individual and collective responsibilitiesoverlap, confusion is created that is harmful to anyattempt at reconciliation.

We therefore believe that internal efforts toadminister justice are of vital importance. Thedomestic judiciary is, in the long run, much betterpositioned to seek justice for victims. Domesticverdicts would be more easily accepted than thosepassed by international — that is, foreign — courts ortribunals. It is also necessary for Governments topromote strongly a culture of lawfulness if there is tobe a hope of true reconciliation.

The second example is the province of Kosovoand Metohija in my country. Now in their fifth yearunder United Nations administration, ethniccommunities remain as far apart as ever. Of course,their positions changed in a reversal of fortunefollowing the 1999 intervention by the North AtlanticTreaty Organization, but they are still in confrontationand one of them — the Serbian community — isstruggling to survive. Only symbolic numbers ofrefugees and internally displaced persons have returnedand no perpetrators of crimes against non-Albanianshave been brought to justice.

The underlying problem is that the UnitedNations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo(UNMIK) has not yet succeeded in creating even basicconditions conducive to the opening of a politicaldebate among the communities about the modalities fortheir coexistence in Kosovo and Metohija. Again, as inthe previous example, there are many reasons for thisfailure, and they are very complex indeed. Whatappears to be clear is that much greater resolve andconsistency are necessary on the part of UNMIK inorder to begin, first, to create a safe environment fornon-Albanians and fully to ensure their human rights,and then to include them meaningfully in political life.Half measures, leaning towards one side and neglectingthe other, will just perpetuate the conflict between

communities. When a degree of normalcy isintroduced, a very long period of sustained, primarilydomestically-generated effort will be needed if anyreconciliation is to take place in Kosovo and Metohija.

Our experience points to several conclusionsabout the possible United Nations role in reconciliationprocesses. Reconciliation relies primarily on theexistence of a strong political will among the parties tothe former conflict to open such a process. This willshould then be translated into a set of activitiespromoted and guided by the authorities. Civil societyalso has an extremely important role to play. However,the United Nations and other internationalorganizations can assist in creating conditionsconducive to reconciliation.

Understanding the nature of a conflict andhealing are lengthy processes, sometimes spanningseveral generations. This fact alone is a seriouslimitation to United Nations involvement that theOrganization needs to overcome if it wants to engagesystematically in reconciliation activities. Crisesemerge in various parts of the world, shifting attentionfrom one place to another. At the same time, everyUnited Nations operation, from the moment it islaunched, contemplates an exit strategy.

The most valuable contribution the UnitedNations can make to post-conflict societies is helpingthem to rebuild as quickly as possible functioningpolitical structures that offer the possibility of bridgingvarious competing loyalties. Assistance instrengthening the rule of law in general, andspecifically the judiciary, should be among the toppriorities. The role of international justice is sometimesunavoidable. However, all efforts must be made toseparate the administration of justice from domesticpolitical considerations in countries under thejurisdiction of international tribunals or courts. Thenewly-established International Criminal Court has apotential to meet this requirement.

Bearing all this in mind, it might be useful to lookat the possibilities of combining the capabilities of theUnited Nations and regional organizations in the fieldof assisting post-conflict reconciliation. The UnitedNations can provide the necessary assistance in theshort to medium term, while regional organizationscould in many respects be better positioned to engagein such an endeavour on a long-term basis. Such broadinternational support by the United Nations and

31


regional actors in strengthening institutions and ademocratic base can help post-conflict societies toembark on a reconciliation process, to look for the truthand to go through often-needed catharsis.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now call onthe representative of Rwanda.

Mr. Kamanzi (Rwanda): On behalf of mydelegation, let me extend to you, Madame, myappreciation for taking the commendable initiative ofcalling a meeting to discuss the very important issue ofthe role of the United Nations in post-conflict nationalreconciliation. This debate is timely and addresses anissue that is at the very heart of our Organization, asenshrined in Article 1 of the Charter of the UnitedNations.

Members of the Security Council will be awarethat countries like Rwanda have faced considerabledifficulties in dealing with the myriad challengesfacing post-conflict communities — or, in our case,post-genocide communities — in terms not only ofreconciliation and confidence-building measuresbetween communities, but also of establishing aclimate of peace and security, rebuilding governancestructures and promoting economic and social revivalor renewal.

While it is clear that the United Nations has acrucial role to play in post-conflict nationalreconciliation, it should also be clear that there cannotbe a one-size-fits-all response, as has been mentionedby many speakers before me. Post-conflict situationsvary, as do reconciliation challenges and the capacityof States to meet those challenges. The role of theUnited Nations must therefore also vary from onesituation to another, but it should always becommensurate with our expectations and theobligations outlined in the Charter.

The challenges Rwanda faced in the aftermath ofthe genocide were particularly grave. By July 1994, ofa population of 8 million people, over 1 million hadbeen killed, two and a half million had fled toneighbouring countries and almost everyone else wasinternally displaced. All economic and social activityhad ground to a complete standstill. The securitysituation in the country was, at best, fragile. Foodproduction, as well as medical and other humanitarianservices, were severely disrupted. This was the difficultenvironment in which Rwanda began the process ofnational reconciliation.

As the Security Council debates what the role ofthe United Nations in national reconciliation should be,we would like to draw attention to several aspects ofour particular experience.

First of all, we learned that national reconciliationis a process that may last for many years, evengenerations. It is not an event that can be completed inweeks, months or a few years. For us, thereconciliation process began by creating an enablingenvironment in which reconciliation could take place inearnest. Creating an enabling environment involvedsuch things as ensuring peace and security, the returnof refugees and internally displaced persons to theirhomes, kick-starting normal economic and socialactivity, and improving access to medical and otherhumanitarian services. Crucially, we have also learntthat rebuilding local and national governance structuresis an essential prerequisite for the success of the post-conflict reconciliation process. The United Nations hasa wealth of experience in these activities. It can andshould therefore play a key role.

Secondly, after creating the enablingenvironment, the Rwandan Government established aNational Unity and Reconciliation Commission andcharged it with the responsibility of organizing a seriesof open discussions focusing on what went so badlywrong with the politics and governance of our country.These discussions involved everyone in and out of thecountry, including civic and community leaders andelders, genocide survivor groups, professionals,farmers, students and even genocide suspects. Webelieve that these discussions triggered national soul-searching and enabled us to identify what went wrongand what we must do to ensure that the mistakes of thepast are never repeated.

We believe that the United Nations could play acrucial supportive role here. Our experience has taughtus, however, that national stakeholders must takeownership of the process, while the internationalcommunity and the United Nations play a supportiverole.

Thirdly, Rwanda has faced the particularlydifficult challenge of promoting unity andreconciliation, while at the same time ensuring thatthose who committed crimes during the genocide arebrought to justice. An important lesson that we havelearned in this respect is that justice is crucial for thereconciliation of the perpetrator and the victim.

32


Reconciliation is not always best realized by amnestyor forgiveness. In our case, justice was also importantin order to eradicate the culture of impunity that hadfor so long been a feature of Rwandan life. Justice isalso aimed at the rehabilitation of the offenders,thereby making reconciliation between them and thevictims possible.

In this regard, our conviction is that the UnitedNations should play a vital role in ensuring thatappropriate assistance, in terms of resources andexpertise, is provided for national efforts to achieveeffective reconciliation and justice.

The United Nations also has a clear role to play inensuring that the international justice institutionsmandated to handle post-conflict cases are efficient,cost-effective and morally and ethically based.

We fully agree with the representative of Peru inemphasizing the role the United Nations should playwith regard to compensating innocent victims as amatter of social justice.

Fourthly, genocide took place in Rwandafollowing decades of deficient politics and deficientgovernance. We felt that, in order for reconciliation totake place, there needed to be a sense that measureswere being put in place to ensure that genocide wouldnot occur again in the country. Governance reformtherefore became a vital component of thereconciliation process. A new political dispensation,with transparent, democratic, decentralized andempowered governance structures was put in place toensure that genocide and systematic State-inspiredterror would never happen again. The United Nationscan play an important supportive role here, too, butagain it is critical that national stakeholders take thelead.

Fifthly, economic recovery and development arealso important for reconciliation. The United Nationscan play a leading role in mobilizing internationalfinancial and technical support to ensure that there is apeace and reconciliation dividend in terms of economicgrowth, jobs and an improved quality of life.

Finally, I would like to underline the importanceof leadership in the process of reconciliation. Thereconciliation process is possible in Rwanda becausewe have leadership with vision — leadership that doesnot necessarily seek short-term, popular solutions tocomplex problems. National reconciliation should be

seen as primarily the responsibility of the particularcountry. Ownership of the reconciliation process bynational stakeholders is crucial to the success of theprocess. There is clearly an important supportive rolefor the United Nations, particularly in creating anenabling environment for reconciliation and inmobilizing international support for post-conflicteconomic recovery. Although the role of the UnitedNations was not equal to the challenge in the case ofRwanda, it is our hope and expectation that this willnot be the case in other situations of conflict around theglobe.

The President (spoke in Spanish): The nextspeaker is the representative of Mexico, on whom Inow call.

Mr. Pujalte (Mexico) (spoke in Spanish): First ofall, I would like to express the satisfaction of mydelegation at seeing you, Madam, presiding over thismeeting of the Security Council. This is a cleardemonstration of the interest of your country in sharingits experiences and establishing new and lasting formsof national reconciliation.

In September, the Security Council had anopportunity to examine the general theme of justiceand the rule of law. Now, thanks to the leadership ofChile, it has decided to analyse the specific issue ofnational reconciliation in post-conflict situations. Thatissue is of key importance for the success of anystrategy aimed at achieving peace and security at agiven time and place.

The first element that must be highlighted is thefact that, in the context of the current internationalsystem, mechanisms aimed at achieving reconciliationand justice in transitional regimes are gaining inimportance as necessary tools for the achievement ofpeace and security, which, in turn, can be strengthenedand take root, in a lasting manner — provided that suchmechanisms are set up in conformity with internationallaw and that they are truly aimed at the promotion ofreconciliation, the prevention or resolution of disputesand the provision of appropriate compensation for thevictims.

A second element is the fact that nationalreconciliation can be approached from a number ofdifferent perspectives. It can be seen as beingnecessarily linked to the idea of meting out criminaljustice so as to prevent impunity; as complementary tocriminal justice mechanisms; as independent of them;

33


or as in conflict or antagonistic to such mechanisms. Inthis respect, the perspective adopted by any nationalreconciliation effort will depend, to a considerableextent, on the context and the specific situation inwhich it is applied.

It is clear that there is no one model; each societymust be flexible in considering which formula is mostappropriate, taking into account its historical, politicaland legal tradition and ensuring that such reconciliationmechanisms can genuinely contribute to compensatingthe victims of a conflict.

Thirdly, while there has been progress withregard to such mechanisms, a great deal remains to bedone in order to fully develop and perfect them. Todate, the international community has been tryingvarious configurations and is seeking the optimumcombination. We are still at an experimental stage, butwe see some positive trends.

Basically, the option chosen will depend on theapproach that is to be taken. If pride of place is to begiven to political means of achieving nationalreconciliation, then amnesty, exoneration, investigationand the establishment of truth commissions are themechanisms used. In such cases, it is believed thatmaking public the facts and the illicit actionscommitted, as well as the names of the perpetrators, isa significant step towards providing satisfaction for thevictims and maintaining social peace. In such situationsthere have also been purges to prevent the perpetratorsfrom ever again reaching a position of power.

The other approach is based on criminaljustice — the prosecution and punishment of thoseaccused of grave violations of human rights. Theperpetrators can be held accountable through theestablishment of individual or group criminalresponsibility, outside of the criminal justice systembut in the context of mechanisms that are open topublic scrutiny, or through a combination of thoseapproaches. Sierra Leone provides a good example ofthis, as it has been able to combine a special tribunaland a truth and reconciliation commission. The delicatebalance among the objectives of justice must alwaysbeen borne in mind with a view to preventing impunityand achieving national reconciliation. It is for eachsociety to decide whether it wishes to achievereconciliation through the criminal justice system or byrecourse to other mechanisms.

If a truth commission is chosen, it must help tocreate a faithful account of events, based oninformation from the victims and the perpetrators, so asto make it possible to arrive at a well-balanced historyof the society in question and to establish a positiveattitude towards the future.

Despite all of these factors, this is an area inwhich States have the flexibility to try differentconfigurations and, in fact, create entirely novelsystems for their own specific situations.

There is no doubt that the role of criminal justiceis of great relevance and that at times it is the bestinstrument for prosecuting persons with the greatestresponsibility for the most serious crimes. We areencouraged by such examples as the formerYugoslavia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Timor-Leste,and by the internal machinery that has been set up inBosnia and Herzegovina. In this respect, theInternational Criminal Court can also make asignificant contribution to bringing about peace andreconciliation in States parties to the Rome Statute.

However, all of these aspects must dovetail withthe realities of a society that is intent on succeeding,and it must be determined whether it is in the interestsof justice for such a society to decide to usemechanisms other than judicial ones.

Amnesties, to which certain societies haveresorted, must be used with extreme caution and onlywhere there is a genuine need for them. There has to bedemocratic consensus and a series of priorconsiderations, such as the existence of alternativemechanisms for the attribution of guilt.

Immediate expectations for a process of nationalreconciliation involve the creation of a climate that isconducive to peace, the restoration of fair anddemocratic institutions, the flourishing of anindependent and impartial legal system, thedevelopment of human rights, and the existence ofminimum guarantees for social coexistence. All of thiswill help to build an environment of confidence andsecurity that can contribute to the development of asociety that is emerging from a post-conflict situation.For that reason, financial institutions devoted to thepromotion of development should envisage theprovision of resources in those areas.

From our point of view, there are more questionsthan answers in all these cases. But what is certain is

34


that the United Nations has a crucial role to play inguiding and supporting these processes in cases when aState is making genuine efforts towards a genuine andlasting reconciliation. This is consistent with thepurposes and principles of the United Nations and inparticular with the promotion and maintenance ofinternational peace and security.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank therepresentative of Mexico for the kind words headdressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative ofLiechtenstein, to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Wenaweser (Liechtenstein): The subjectbefore us today is, to some extent, linked to that of theopen debate on justice and the rule of law held lastSeptember, but it certainly deserves our attention in itsown right. Because the issue of reconciliation is almostoverwhelmingly multifaceted, it is therefore apragmatic necessity to focus our discussion on the roleof the United Nations.

While the United Nations has in recent decadescontributed on many occasions to the transition fromarmed conflicts to post-conflict situations, the focushas traditionally been on the first stages of thetransition process: peacemaking, peacekeeping,especially peace-building, and, increasingly, on aspectsof individual transitional justice. Nationalreconciliation, on the other hand, is a long-term processthat requires a sustained commitment going far beyondthose initial stages. It is a process that is not primarilydirected at determining individual responsibility, but,rather, at overcoming the root causes and underlyingstructures of a conflict, and thereby preventing itsresurgence.

Reconciliation addresses the political and societallevels of conflict and is therefore clearly different fromindividual justice, which can at times even divertattention from the collective level of the process.Reconciliation is also a far more complex undertakingthan the delivery of individual justice, and it is muchmore deeply linked to the very specific circumstancesof a conflict situation as well as to the structure of thesocieties involved.

Thus, while reconciliation processes as suchpromote the primary purpose of this Organization —namely the maintenance of international peace andsecurity — it does not automatically follow that the

United Nations must always play an instrumental rolein such processes. Each and every situation must belooked at individually, assessing the need for UnitedNations involvement in the light of currentcircumstances, bearing in mind previous experiences aswell as the distinctive nature of the situation underconsideration.

Reconciliation cannot be imposed, as theSecretary-General rightly pointed out in a report to theCouncil two years ago. Instead, it must originate fromwithin the societies involved. Each post-conflictsociety must find its own avenues of reconciliation andfeel ownership of the process if the latter is to have thedesired long-term effect. In most cases, the UnitedNations will therefore play a role of assistance in suchprocesses, according to the prevailing circumstances.

Ownership is also a key concept when it comes tostriking a balance between the ideals of justice on theone hand and reconciliation on the other. In somecases, these two are simply complementary. To ourmind, justice must always be rendered for the mostserious crimes under international law, as defined inthe Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court,and there must be no amnesty for such crimes. But veryoften, these are two competing ideals, and the societyconcerned must make a decision — invariably a painfuland difficult one — on how a balance can be struck forits specific purposes. Again, the United Nations andother organizations can very usefully assist in suchprocesses.

This also provides a framework for concreteaction to be undertaken by the Organization, apart fromactivities in the context of peace-building which fosterthe preconditions for reconciliation in an indirectmanner. The United Nations can act as a catalyst forpost-conflict reconciliation processes and help societiesfind their way to lasting reconciliation while adopting aflexible approach.

In this regard, impartiality with regard to thedifferent groups and interests involved is crucial if anoutside actor is to contribute to the long-term successof the process. It is thus the United Nations that canassist post-conflict societies through its expertise, forexample by providing an analysis of best practicesfrom other countries and concrete technical assistance.It can assist in the concrete set-up of particularmechanisms and institutions, such as Truth andReconciliation Commissions — tailored to the needs

35


of, and finally to be governed by, the society inquestion — and offer cooperation through its oftenalready established presence on the ground. Suchcooperation can extend in particular to the provision ofrelevant data and evidence, in support of the search fortruth.

Such assistance must be based on a substantial,in-depth knowledge of all the relevant political,cultural, historical and other parameters of thesituation. Therefore, increasing the analyticalcapacities of the United Nations, in particular within itsSecretariat, is an important step towards a strengthenedrole of the Organization in post-conflict reconciliation.

Liechtenstein has great interest in such increasedcapacity, and has in the past supported similarinitiatives, such as efforts directed at establishing apeace-building unit within the Department for PoliticalAffairs. Furthermore, capacity-building within theUnited Nations should not be conducted in a vacuum,but should benefit from the great attention that theacademic world has devoted in recent years to allaspects of post-conflict societies, as well as from theexperience and expertise of other international andregional organizations.

An increased expert-level capacity on issues ofreconciliation must evidently be complemented by anincreased awareness of such issues at the decision-making level of the United Nations. Reconciliationmust be the final goal of all multilateral efforts inconflict situations, and decisions made at earlier stagesof a transition must be carefully thought out so as notto hamper the inception of such processes. We all must,therefore, increase our sensitivity with respect to thesequestions.

Today’s debate is an important step in thatdirection, and we thank you in particular, MadamPresident, for this initiative. We look forward to futureactivities on this issue.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I thank therepresentative of Liechtenstein for the kind words headdressed to me.

The next speaker is the representative of Nigeria,to whom I give the floor.

Mr. Ndekhedehe (Nigeria): We thank you,Madam President, for organizing this debate and forproviding my delegation with the opportunity toparticipate.

The major obstacle to sustainable peace andeconomic development is the internationalcommunity’s inability to grapple with cases of post-conflict national reconciliation in societies emergingfrom conflict. It will be recalled that, following thewithdrawal of the United Nations Observer Mission inLiberia in 1997, the Security Council endorsed theSecretary-General’s recommendation and establishedthe United Nations Peace-building Support Office inLiberia (UNOL) in November 1997. UNOL’s primaryresponsibility was to assist the then Government toconsolidate peace and stability in that country. To someextent, UNOL facilitated the promotion of nationalreconciliation and good governance and helped tomobilize international support for the implementationof reconstruction programmes in the country. It assistedthe Government of Liberia in addressing its capacityneeds in the areas of human rights and the holding ofelections, as well as in the development of a peace-building strategy integrating political objectives andassistance and human rights programmes. Those werecommendable contributions by the United Nations in apost-conflict reconciliation effort. Unfortunately, it wasthe apparent inability of the then combatants to fullyand faithfully embrace ethnic reconciliation that led tothe resumption of hostilities in Liberia. The point beingmade here is that it is imperative for the leadership ofcountries emerging from conflict to embark on genuinereconciliation programmes in order to ensure durablepeace and sustainable development.

The appointment by the Secretary-General of aSpecial Representative and an International ContactGroup on Liberia facilitated post-conflict reconciliationin that country. We therefore urge the United Nations tocontinue with that strategy. The United Nations shouldalso continue to assume the responsibility for thecoordination of the activities of its agencies andsupport the emerging national arrangements. It shouldalso assist in the deployment of United Nations troopsand in the provision of humanitarian assistance, asthose are major ways to ensure post-conflictreconciliation.

Another vital area worthy of mention is effectivedisarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR),especially the rehabilitation aspect. In our view, it wasfaulty DDR that led to the collapse of the first UnitedNations peace mission in Liberia. The United Nationsshould therefore mobilize adequate resources toprovide for ex-combatants in order to facilitate their

36


reintegration into civilian life by empowering themwith basic skills. In that connection, it is important forUnited Nations agencies to train ex-combatants so thatthey can be gainfully employed. That way, their returnto the bush to fight will no longer be attractive.Donors, for their part, should provide officialdevelopment assistance to supplement United Nationsefforts.

Pervasive poverty and the generally weakeconomic situations in most developing countries areoften responsible for the exacerbation of conflicts.Most countries emerging from conflict are stillcharacterized by massive unemployment, highmortality rates and low levels of infrastructuredevelopment. Thus, for any meaningful reconciliationto endure, particular efforts must be made to addressnot only political problems, but also economic andsocial problems, thereby encouraging such countries toengender political and economic stability.

In that regard, while we recognize the activeinvolvement of United Nations bodies in the areas ofnational reconciliation, capacity-building, economicmanagement, health, education, agriculture, foodsecurity and poverty strategies in countries emergingfrom conflict, we believe that much can still be done.The positive role played by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) in Afghanistan inaddressing those issues is quite commendable. Wetherefore call for the application of that role in othercountries emerging from conflict. In doing so, UNDPshould, inter alia, develop assistance programmes incollaboration with the International Monetary Fund, theWorld Bank and other providers of financial andtechnical assistance. We should identify the needs ofsuch countries and ensure the delivery of suchassistance.

The conflict in Liberia resulted in seriousviolations and abuses of human rights andhumanitarian law and in deliberate and habitualkillings, torture, abuse and violence against women andchildren. Since the interim administrations in mostpost-conflict situations lack the capacity to address theneeds of the victims of such atrocities, the UnitedNations should provide them with assistance. Suchassistance should include the provision of securityduring the election process to ensure the freemovement and participation of people before andduring elections. That is crucial, given the knownneutrality of United Nations peace missions in such

contexts. We are all aware of circumstances in whichthe suspicion of rigged elections eventually led toviolence and war. The United Nations and the rest ofthe international community should therefore avoid anyrepetition of such a situation.

Since most infrastructure of the State is usuallydestroyed during conflicts, reconciliation efforts shouldalso focus on rehabilitating the health sector, onproviding food and assistance and on reactivating thejudiciary to ensure the rule of law. Efforts should alsobe made to ensure the establishment of a reliable andintegrated army, which should be representative of allthe ethnic populations in the country. In that regard, itis important for the United Nations and the rest of theinternational community to assist countries emergingfrom conflict by providing technical assistance for thereactivation of the judiciary, the rule of law and theinfrastructure.

The proliferation of small arms and light weaponsconstitutes a major impediment to the peace, stability,security and economic development of mostdeveloping countries, especially in Africa. Such armscontinue to have devastating consequences on theAfrican continent, given their capacity to fuel, intensifyand prolong conflicts. We therefore welcome theestablishment of an open-ended working group todevelop an international instrument that will enableStates to identify and trace, in a timely and reliablemanner, illicit small arms and light weapons. In ourview, that will facilitate post-conflict reconciliationthrough the reduction and control of small arms, whichin turn will ensure that unauthorized persons no longerhave easy access to such arms.

On the issue of the appropriate time to withdrawUnited Nations forces after the cessation of conflict, itis our view that such withdrawal should be gradual andstaggered. The case of Sierra Leone is a good exampleof the wisdom of ensuring the presence of UnitedNations troops for a reasonable length of time untilrelative peace and stability can be established. Thatwould help in the reconciliation process.

The United Nations has a formidable role to playin post-conflict reconciliation, given its neutrality andits resources. The world body has indeed shown acreditable determination to succeed in containing thissituation. We have urged the United Nations to do moreand to live up to its responsibility of maintaininginternational peace and security and ensuring the

37


economic and social development of Member States,especially those emerging from conflicts.

In conclusion, my delegation takes thisopportunity to express its appreciation to the UnitedNations for its efforts towards national reconciliationafter conflicts. Nigeria will continue to support theUnited Nations in this endeavour.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Côte d’Ivoire.

Mr. Djangone-Bi (Côte d’Ivoire) (spoke inFrench): My delegation thanks you, Madam President,for organizing this interactive debate on the itementitled “Post-conflict national reconciliation: role ofthe United Nations”. With your permission, I shall takethis opportunity to convey the sincere congratulationsof Côte d’Ivoire to the new members of the SecurityCouncil: Algeria, Benin, Brazil, the Philippines andRomania. I also thank Mr. Kalomoh, AssistantSecretary-General for Political Affairs, Ms. McAskie,Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator, andMr. Malloch Brown, Administrator of the UnitedNations Development Programme, for theirintroductory statements, which shed a very instructivelight on the question on the agenda. Finally, Madam, inresponse to the concern you expressed at the start ofthe meeting, I shall limit myself to presenting a extractfrom my statement, which will be distributed in itsentirety in the Chamber.

The Secretary-General noted in his report on thecauses of conflicts and the promotion of lasting peaceand development in Africa (S/1998/318) that thecurrent conflicts, in particular in Africa, are generallyinternal. There are no less often a function of thedynamic of a subregion and of the role that certainAfrican Governments play in supporting, sometimeseven instigating, conflicts in neighbouring countries. Inmany cases, they even have important internationaldimensions because external efforts to bolster orundermine African Governments did not disappear atthe end of the cold war. The sources of conflict inAfrica reflect that diversity and complexity.

Hostilities come to an end when mediatinginitiatives enable the parties to a conflict to agree onprovisional arrangements generally for sharing politicalpower, dividing up economic resources and dealingwith certain sociocultural concerns. We not that suchmediating initiatives meet with lasting success onlywhen the mediators demonstrate complete neutrality

throughout the negotiations on the peace agreementand discredit any attacks on the establishedconstitutional order.

The role of the United Nations is important in thiscritical phase in which the urgency of a ceasefire andreaching a peace agreement leave the mediator open tothe always feared risk of being accused of partiality.The United Nations, with patience and know-how, mustlead the preparations of the peace agreement withoutmaking the parties concerned feel as though they werebeing led by the nose or being placed undersupervision. At the same time, the Organization iscalled upon to administer refugees and the displacedand extend humanitarian assistance. Reconciliation,begun by the negotiations, is pursued while adapting tothe circumstances. It becomes a long and laboriousprocess of peace-building and national reconciliationwhich will see the prompt implementation of decisionsmade at the end of the conflict in order to prevent arenewal of hostilities, consolidate peace and undertakeeconomic recovery and lasting development.

Post-conflict national reconciliation is the greatchallenge for the women and men of a countryemerging from conflict and remains an undertaking inwhich the international community is both foreman andlabourer. Once a peace agreement has been reached,such as the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement for theconflict in Côte d’Ivoire, it must be implemented bythe parties with complete sincerity, humility and arelentless demonstration of their resolute will forreconciliation and cooperation. Of course, thecontinuity between conciliation and reconciliation andthe length and comprehensiveness of the processrequire a similar effort by the United Nations.

To conclude, I would like to make a briefcomment on the decision of the President of theRepublic of Côte d’Ivoire to submit to a referendumtwo essential changes included in the Linas-MarcoussisAgreement, because wrongly interpreting that peaceagreement could negatively impact on thereconciliation process under way. The report of therecent mission to assess the situation in Côte d’Ivoirestates that “it should be noted that only the amendmentof article 35 [of the Constitution] is constitutionallymandated to be submitted to a referendum” (S/2004/3,para. 28). That affirmation does not at all seem tofollow from an understanding of article 43 of ourConstitution, a constitution that is recognized by the

38


Linas-Marcoussis Agreement and by the SecurityCouncil, and which stipulates that

“the President of the Republic, after consultationswith the Bureau of the National Assembly, cansubmit to a referendum any text or questionwhich he considers to require direct considerationby the people. When the referendum concludesthe adoption of the text, the President of theRepublic shall promulgate it within the time-spanforeseen in the preceding article.”

The Linas-Marcoussis Agreement makes nomention of either a referendum or any particularmethod of adopting texts relative to agreed reforms.That eloquent silence is justified only by the need toapply the rules set out in the Constitution, which wasadopted by a majority of more than 86 per cent in areferendum that was recognized by the internationalcommunity. Thus, as everyone agrees, the amendmentof article 35 of the Constitution, on the eligibility ofthe President of the Republic, must first be adopted bya two-thirds majority in the National Assembly andthen submitted to a referendum.

The law on rural land tenure and nationality arevery important, as noted by the Secretary-General inhis most recent report on Côte d’Ivoire (S/2004/3).These questions are mentioned as causes of conflictnow being resolved, while the current law on rural landtenure, for example, was adopted by the NationalAssembly only after delegations of its membersconsulted each department of the country in order togather the opinions of the population they represent.This realism on the part of the parliamentarians is anirrefutable sign of the people’s demand for directconsultation on all questions touching upon thoseissues. Only a referendum will contribute to thestrengthening of democracy, which the SecurityCouncil ardently promotes.

With the finalization of the deployment of thetroops of Operation Unicorn in northern Côte d’Ivoire,France and the rest of the international communityhave completed the preparatory measures to undertakegenuine national reconciliation in Côte d’Ivoire. Mydelegation here wishes to pay a solemn and resoundingtribute to France — and to the United Nations, whichhas here demonstrated the irreplaceable role of theUnited Nations in post-conflict national reconciliation.

Côte d’Ivoire — which is emerging withdifficulty from the most serious crisis of its history

thanks to the United Nations, the European Union, theAfrican Union and the Economic Community of WestAfrican States — can now testify to the outstandingrole of the United Nations in post-conflict nationalreconciliation, to which our country bears livingwitness.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Afghanistan.

Mr. Farhâdi (Afghanistan): Madam President,the Afghan delegation would like to thank you forconvening this open debate on this subject, of which atypical example is Afghanistan.

I will speak very briefly and only about the caseof Afghanistan.

Today marks an historical date in the recenthistory of the country. Today, President Karzai signedthe new Constitution of Afghanistan, which wasadopted by the Constitutional Loya Jirga on 5 January,2004. The constitutional Grand Assembly, whichconvened in Kabul from 14 December to 4 January2004, was comprised of all of Afghanistan’s ethnicgroups and segments of society. This constitutionprovides for the establishment of democratic structuresbased on democratic principles and values.Furthermore, additional provisions assure equal rightsamong men and women, freedom of expression,political pluralism, free and fair elections and the fullparticipation of women in the political, economic andsocial spheres of the country. This major event marksanother step in the implementation of the agreementbrokered by the United Nations and signed in Bonn bythe Afghan parties on 5 December 2001.

The adoption of the new Afghan Constitution alsoproved the capacity of Afghans to agree on majorissues related to national reconciliation. The currentcircumstances in Afghanistan differ greatly from thosethat existed during the inter-Afghan Bonn conferenceof December 2001. By now, the issues ofreconstruction and rehabilitation, includingdisarmament, demobilization and reintegration, requirean international meeting in which donor countries anddonor institutions will decide on enhancinginternational assistance to Afghanistan.

The fact-finding mission of the Security Councilto Afghanistan, so ably led by Ambassador Pleuger ofGermany in November 2003, played a vital role inraising the United Nations awareness of the importance

39


of the sustained international assistance required byAfghanistan.

One of the main characteristics of Afghanistan’speacemaking process was the participation of allAfghan political groups representing the major politicalparties of Afghanistan. In this regard, the efforts of theUnited Nations, as an impartial international body, inbrokering such a gathering and facilitating the draftingof the blueprint in close consultation with Afghangroups, represents yet another major achievement ofthe United Nations. We should also emphasize here thegenuine and honest political will expressed by Afghanpolitical groups for the success of the reconciliationprocess and the consolidation of peace and security inAfghanistan.

Despite much progress since the signing of theBonn Agreement in December 2001, Afghanistancontinues to face many challenges. The pace ofreconstruction in the country is not satisfactory,poverty and deprivation have pushed thousands offarmers to cultivate the lucrative poppy crop anddesperate attempts by some remnants of the formerTaliban and Al Qaeda, aimed at destabilizing thesuccess of the Transitional Government, continue.

These challenges require a strong internationalcommitment to the rehabilitation and reconstruction ofAfghanistan. The provision of means and assistance tothe reconstruction process would have a marked effecton stability and security in Afghanistan, thuscontributing highly to the successful holding of thepresidential and parliamentary elections, scheduled forJune 2004.

The President (spoke in Spanish): I now give thefloor to the representative of Cameroon.

Mr. Tidjani (Cameroon) (spoke in French):Madam President, my delegation would like to beginby telling you how pleased we are to see your countrypresiding over the Security Council in January of 2004and to see you personally chairing our meeting. We aregrateful to you for your initiative in organizing an opendebate on post-conflict national reconciliation and onthe role that the United Nations is called on to play inthat regard.

This is, indeed, a particularly important theme forthe larger United Nations family, and my country ispleased to have the opportunity to take the floor in thedebate on this question. As we saw during my

country’s term in the Security Council, which has justended, this body, which has the primary responsibilityfor the maintenance of international peace and security,is devoting most of its time to considering conflictsituations and crises throughout the world and tofinding solutions to them that are just and lasting.

In regard to Africa, most of these conflicts andcrises, depending on the specific case, pit ethnicgroups, factions, militias, armed groups andGovernment and rebel forces against one another. Thequest for solutions to these conflicts and to such crisesnecessarily requires identifying their root causes. Inthis regard, the report of the Secretary-General on thecauses of conflict in Africa sheds light on the fullspectrum of causes of the conflicts that are tearingapart many African countries, such as poverty, badgovernance, inter-ethnic strife and struggles for powerand the control of wealth.

This shows, then, the diversity of these causesand the specific nature of these conflicts; but whateverthe specific causes of a particular conflict, nationalreconciliation is at the very heart of the quest forpossible solutions. The United Nations, because of itsimmense experience in managing conflicts, thus plays abasic role in promoting national reconciliation incountries torn apart by conflict. Without nationalreconciliation, it is impossible to restore the normalfunctioning of institutions and guarantee the basis for amodern, democratic State that respects rights andfreedoms.

My delegation would like to pay tribute to UnitedNations activities in this regard. Indeed, there are manyexamples of this on the African continent, such asAngola, Central African Republic, DemocraticRepublic of Congo, Congo, Burundi, Chad and SierraLeone.

The United Nations, through various main bodiesand specialized agencies, is making laudable efforts fornational reconciliation. The promotion of suchreconciliation encourages actors to agree to settle theirdisputes peacefully and to ensure the prevalence ofdialogue and power-sharing over the temptations ofconfrontation, vengeance and violence. It can also takethe form of the implementation of economic and socialprojects; support for the establishment of institutions, anational army incorporating different factions andethnic groups, and an electoral process; theimplementation of the disarmament, demobilization,

40


reintegration and repatriation or resettlement of ex-combatants; demining; the resettlement of refugees anddisplaced persons; the rehabilitation of infrastructure;and assistance for economic recovery andreconstruction.

Furthermore, Ambassador Abdallah Baali ofAlgeria this morning clearly identified the post-conflictrole of the United Nations by referring to theMillennium Declaration. Any enhancement of that rolewill require an increase in resources allocated toreconciliation efforts and improved cooperation in theactivities of the structures of the Organization. Indeed,we constantly deplore the lack of resources necessaryto the implementation of operations in severalcountries emerging from conflict. In Africa, theexamples are many in that regard.

It is also absolutely essential that, from the veryonset of a conflict, mediation efforts focus on the waysand means of promoting national reconciliation.Diligent activity in that regard can only help to hastenthe end of a conflict. Moreover, we feel it to be crucialat a very early date closely to involve civil society inthe quest for solutions to a conflict and to promotenational reconciliation. In particular, in Africa, womenand young people — the primary victims of armedconflict — always and quite rightly call for greaterinvolvement in peace processes and in the search forappropriate ways and means to promote nationalreconciliation.

The United Nations can and must also play a roleas a catalyst for and coordinator of the activities ofother members of international society — States, non-governmental organizations, humanitarian associationsand regional and subregional organizations — thatcontribute to a return to peace and security and thepromotion of national reconciliation.

The problem of impunity must also be addressedin that framework. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary toreconcile the desire for national reconciliation with thecampaign against impunity. Can we allow, in the nameof national reconciliation, those who are responsiblefor massive violations of human rights and othercrimes against humanity to escape justice? Moreover,we believe that the provision of justice to the victimsof many atrocities in contemporary conflicts canguarantee genuine and lasting national reconciliation.

We agree nevertheless with the statement madethis morning by the Assistant Secretary-General for

Political Affairs, Mr. Kalomoh, that there is a need tobe pragmatic in finding a settlement process for everyconflict that is viable, appropriate and enduring.

In conclusion, I would stress — as manyrepresentatives have done before me — that, howeverimportant it may be, the activity of the United Nationsand the international community will never besufficient to ensure genuine national reconciliation.Indeed, without the sincere and lasting dedication ofthe various actors to the cause of peace andharmony — without their genuine understanding of thevirtues of dialogue, reconciliation, power-sharing,compromise and forgiveness — the efforts of theUnited Nations and the international community willbe futile.

It is therefore necessary for the parties to aconflict to become fully aware of that need,demonstrate determination and courage, and agree tomake the necessary efforts for tolerance and dialogue ifthey are to establish for their sorely-tried peoples anenvironment of peace, security, justice, prosperity forall, and respect for human rights and democraticprinciples — in a word, an environment conducive totheir prosperity and well-being. National reconciliationis thus a long-term endeavour that cannot bedetermined in advance and that requires the unflaggingsupport of the United Nations and the internationalcommunity.

The President (spoke in Spanish): As a result ofthe consultations held among members of the Council,I have been authorized to make the following statementon behalf of the Council:

“The Security Council met on 26 January2004 to consider ‘Post-conflict nationalreconciliation: role of the United Nations’.Members expressed their respective views andunderstandings on, and reaffirmed the vitalimportance of this matter, stressing the necessaryclose cooperation needed in the United Nationssystem, including the Council, on this issue.

“The statements underscored the importanttasks that must be addressed in post-conflictsituations in order to reach the goal of nationalreconciliation, as well as the relevant experienceand expertise that exist within the United Nationssystem and in the Member States.

41


“Members considered that it would beappropriate to examine further how to harnessand direct this expertise and experience drawn upfrom several key areas, so that it would be morereadily accessible to the Council, to the widerUnited Nations system and membership, and tothe international community as a whole, so thatthe lessons and experience of the past could be, asappropriate, learned and built on.

“The Council invites the Secretary-Generalto give consideration to the relevant viewsexpressed in this debate in preparation of his

report on the role of the United Nations in justiceand the rule of law.

“The Council invites all Members of theUnited Nations, and other parts of the UnitedNations system with relevant experience andexpertise to contribute to this process.”

This statement will be issued as a document ofthe Security Council under symbol S/PRST/2004/2.

There are no further speakers on my list. TheSecurity Council has thus concluded the present stageof its consideration of the item on its agenda.

The meeting rose at 7.10 p.m.

Documents

United Nations S/PV.4903 (Resumption 1) Security Council 490365BFCF9B-6D27... · deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. Also, I shall not individually invite speakers