United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

The Secretary-General's report (S/2010/579) paints a very bleak picture of the state of the protection of civilians. Any positive and encouraging developments are heavily outweighed by what is happening on the ground: the continuing and frequent failure of parties to conflict to observe their international legal obligations to protect civilians. Complementary to that is the failure of national authorities and the international community more broadly to ensure their accountability in any meaningful, comprehensive and systematic sense.

Improving compliance by parties to conflict with international humanitarian law and human rights law remains particularly important, especially in the conduct of hostilities. In countries like Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia and the Sudan, civilians are frequently targeted or fall victim to indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) has carried out over 200 attacks on villages in the North-East of the country since January. Between July and September, 75 attacks were reported in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Southern Sudan. Ninety civilians were killed in these attacks, and over 100 abducted. In Somalia, clashes in Mogadishu and the southcentral part of the country continue to result in high numbers of civilian casualties, deaths and displacement. Between July and September, at least 300 people were killed and over 500 wounded by fighting between Government forces and their allies and insurgent groups. At least 8,000 Somalis flee the country every month.

I would like to draw particular attention to the concern raised in the report over the humanitarian impact of explosive weapons, particularly when used in densely populated areas. As the inhabitants of Baghdad, Gaza, Mogadishu, the Vanni region of Sri Lanka and elsewhere can attest, explosive weapons such as artillery shells, missile and rocket warheads and bombs can cause substantial and ongoing civilian suffering when used in populated areas. Civilians within the vicinity of an explosion are likely to be killed or injured by the blast and fragmentation from such weapons. They may be harmed by the collapse of buildings or suffer as a result of damage to essential infrastructure, such as hospitals and sanitation systems. And they live with the threat posed by unexploded ordnance.

Improved compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law will remain elusive in the absence of and full acceptance of the need for systematic and consistent engagement with non-State armed groups. Experience in Colombia, Liberia, Nepal, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, the Sudan and the former Yugoslavia shows that lives can be saved by engaging armed groups in order to seek compliance with international humanitarian law in their combat operations and general conduct, to gain safe access for humanitarian operations, or to dissuade them from using certain types of weapons. An increasing number of Member States appreciate the importance of engagement for humanitarian purposes, but this must translate into greater consideration of the possible humanitarian consequences of national legal and policy initiatives that effectively inhibit humanitarian actors in engaging armed groups for humanitarian purposes. I am increasingly concerned by the growing body of national legislation and policies relating to humanitarian funding that limit humanitarian engagement with non-State armed groups that have been designated terrorist organizations. In the United States, for example, domestic legislation defines “material support” in such a way that it includes advocacy, technical expertise and advice, even when such activities are aimed at bringing the conduct of these non-State actors in line with international law. Across donor States, the threshold of what constitutes direct or indirect, or intentional or nonintentional material support to designated terrorist organizations varies; so too does the manner in which these are formulated in humanitarian funding policies. The result is a complex web of bureaucratic restrictions demanding extensive vetting of partner organizations and, in some instances, explicit prohibitions on contact with designated terrorist organizations as a condition of funding.

From Chad to Côte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo to Liberia, to Sierra Leone and the Sudan, United Nations peacekeeping missions have had a significant impact on enhancing the protection of civilian populations. Important measures are being introduced to further improve the implementation of protection mandates by such missions, based on the recommendations of the November 2009 independent study jointly commissioned by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). Mr. Le Roy will speak to these shortly. I would like to touch on three issues in the Secretary-General's report.

In advance of mission drawdown, the Security Council should insist upon the articulation of benchmarks relating to the protection of civilians and on the establishment of a mechanism to measure and report progress against those benchmarks. Resolution 1923 (2010) on the situation in Chad provides useful examples in both these respects. Early consideration must also be given to the likely resource implications for the humanitarian and development actors that remain once a mission has withdrawn. These can be considerable. Member States must be fully aware of the need for increased voluntary contributions to support crucial ongoing humanitarian and development activities, especially those related to the protection of civilians.

Access is a fundamental prerequisite to humanitarian action and yet, as the annex to the report demonstrates, it is frequently compromised. Bureaucratic constraints, active hostilities, deliberate attacks against humanitarian workers and the economically motivated theft of humanitarian supplies and equipment continue to undermine efforts to protect and assist those in need. In resolution 1894 (2009), the Council noted with grave concern the severity and prevalence of constraints on humanitarian access and the frequency and gravity of attacks against humanitarian personnel and their implications for humanitarian operations. It further stressed the importance of parties to conflict cooperating with humanitarian personnel in order to allow and facilitate access to conflict-affected populations. Importantly, the resolution reaffirmed the Council's role in promoting an environment that is conducive to facilitating humanitarian access.

As emphasized in resolution 1894 (2009), the primary responsibility for ensuring accountability for violations of humanitarian and human rights law rests first and foremost with States. In practical terms that means disseminating information about international humanitarian and human rights law. It means training combatants and ensuring that their orders and instructions comply with international law and are observed. When violations occur, it means investigating and prosecuting those responsible. Regrettably, instances of disciplinary action and national prosecutions are in short supply, despite mounting allegations of serious humanitarian law and human rights violations in today's conflicts. In some cases, a lack of capacity is to blame. I would urge Member States to provide the necessary technical and financial support to national efforts, or for consideration to be given to the establishment of socalled mixed courts and tribunals, as we see in Cambodia and Sierra Leone, to support much-needed investigations and prosecutions at the national level. In other cases, the fault lies in an absence of political will. However, unnecessarily slow or ineffective national efforts must not hinder the pursuit of accountability, including at the international level. The mandating of international commissions of inquiry sends an important signal that violations will be pursued and victims heard. Yet, while their utility is clear, their establishment is often politically fraught. We need to find ways of using such mechanisms on a more consistent and less politically influenced basis. As the Secretary-General notes, scrutiny must be the norm. I therefore welcome the Secretary-General's intention to request Secretariat departments directly involved in launching and supporting inquiries to undertake a review of the United Nations experience in these processes.

Finally, we must ensure an accountable approach. Systematic monitoring and reporting on the impact of our efforts to improve the protection of civilians is essential. We need to assess and report on the extent to which our actions are making civilians safer. That also applies to all relevant actors, not only peacekeeping missions, as well as all relevant situations, not only those in which peacekeepers are present. As requested by the Secretary-General, we plan to develop indicators for systematic monitoring and reporting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The work of the Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict is of prime importance. We face a sobering reality, and yet progress has been made. I hope that the Council will continue to be seized of this matter and keep the protection of civilians at the centre of its agenda.

I am encouraged that the majority of speakers have referred to the core challenges that we face in enhancing the protection of civilians and the need to redouble our efforts in that regard. Many speakers have underlined the need for compliance by parties to conflict with their obligations to protect civilians and the significance, in that respect, of ensuring the accountability of those who violate the law. Attention has been drawn too to the importance of safe, timely and unimpeded humanitarian access to those in need.

I also took note of the support for improving monitoring against established benchmarks and indicators. I consider that a key gap in more successful implementation of protection measures on the ground and in reporting progress made in protecting civilians. I will report back to the Council on that in my next report.

Finally, reference has been made to the nature of contemporary conflict marked by the struggle against non-State armed groups in so-called asymmetric warfare. I acknowledge the complexity of those challenges and would emphasize that international humanitarian law is no less relevant in those contexts. The law is very clear: all parties to conflict must at all times take the necessary steps to spare the civilian population and distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. Moreover, violations by one party, including non-State parties, do not permit or justify violations by any other party to that same conflict. Indeed, the nature of contemporary conflicts and the increasing prevalence of conflict in densely populated settings require ever more vigilance from the parties and determined efforts to respect and to ensure respect for their obligations under the law.