We value the Security Council's continued efforts to protect civilians in situations of armed conflict in a way consistent with its Charter-mandated responsibilities. We believe that while the best protection from armed conflict is found in the prevention and resolution of conflict, in the absence of peace we must remain vigilant as to the impact of conflict on the civilian population.

We need to continue this dialogue across regions. In line with paragraph 34 of resolution 1894 (2009), on consultation and cooperation across the regions, we recently collaborated with the Government of Norway to organize a regional workshop in Jakarta on international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.

Thirdly, the Geneva Conventions are the underpinnings of international humanitarian law. The report alludes to cases where humanitarian relief work is impeded, which has led to mounting demands that Member States be made accountable. We note that approach, but accountability will fail to bear fruit unless Member States have the capacity to deliver on their responsibilities. Such capacity can be delivered through international cooperation.

States that have capacity must be held accountable. The report clearly describes that Israel has not fully lifted its so-called bureaucratic restrictions that continue to impede the implementation of a humanitarian response commensurate with the existing humanitarian need. Israel has the capacity to fulfil its international obligations, and therefore Israel must be held accountable.

Notwithstanding the pronounced focus on the issue of the protection of civilians in armed conflicts over the past decade, the deplorable fact remains: civilians continue to fall victim to violence.

However, we States Members of the United Nations are adamant about respecting and promoting the core principles of the Organization. Human life and human dignity must be at the forefront of our consideration, be that in time of peace or, more importantly, in time of war. That is the core goal of the United Nations. That objective has led us to evoke and build an elaborate architecture for the protection of civilians.

First, the Council's framework requires a comprehensive approach that embodies the three pillars of the United Nations, namely, human rights, development and security. The report makes a strong case for the link among human rights, humanitarian relief and security efforts. However, there is little mention of development efforts in the report. We can argue that development is not within the purview of the Council.

Capacity-building to resolve and deter possible conflicts is an important part of the normative framework to protect civilians. For that reason, we support the report's recommendation to increase funding for humanitarian and development actors in the context of the drawdown of United Nations peacekeeping and other relevant operations. Secondly, peacekeepers need to be provided with the resources required to fulfil their mandated tasks.

The Security Council must also be in a position to give clear policy guidance to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO). The independent study commissioned by DPKO last year succinctly stated that the confusion over the Council's intent is evident in the lack of policy, guidance, planning and preparedness. We stand ready and willing to engage in the development of this process.

Mandates must be driven by national requirements and not by the priorities of others. In working on mandates, emphasis should be on understanding and providing what host Governments require, not an exercise in collating can be given to them.