from Dziunik: Amb. Martirosyan’s speech at the Security Council

Permanent Mission of the Republic of Armenia
to the United Nations
119E 36th street, New York, NY 10016
Tel.: 1-212-686-9079
Fax: 1-212-686-3934
E-mail: [email protected]

May 18, 2004


Ambassador Martirosyan speaks at the UN Security Council open debate on
“United Nations Peacekeeping Operations”

On May 17, 2004, Amb. Armen Martirosyan, Permanent Representative of Armenia
to the UN, made a speech at the UN Security Council open debate under
Pakistani Presidency on the “United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.” In
his speech he noted the recent progress made by Armenia in the field of
peacekeeping. Additionally, he touched upon several important issues that
could be considered as necessary precursors for effective intervention by
the United Nations in different parts of the world.

Please find below the text of the speech in full.

May 17, 2004

4970th Meeting
United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

Statement by H.E. Mr. Armen MARTIROSYAN, Ambassador, Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Armenia to the United Nations

Mr. President,

Since this is the first time that my delegation takes the floor this
month, allow me to begin by extending my congratulations to you on
your assumption of the Presidency of the Security Council and assure
you of my delegation’s full support for the Council work.

Mr. President,

The open debate on the UN peacekeeping operations is of paramount
importance as the organization is currently planning for at least four
new peacekeeping missions and is contemplating a possible expansion of
its activities in Iraq. This debate is held at a time when questions
are asked about the efficacy of the current peacekeeping operations in
Africa, Asia and Europe and the means and ways to improve them. It is
conducted when the Organization is making its first steps to address
security and developmental challenges in conflict areas through
integrated peacebuilding approaches.

It is indubitable that peacekeeping operations have made
great headways during the last decade developing from classical
peacekeeping operations into extremely complex ones encompassing
conflict management, confidence-building and post-conflict
peace-building. Sometimes, inadvertently, it has found itself carrying
out peacemaking functions in rather complicated situations raising
doubts about the legitimacy and successfulness of its actions under
such circumstances. Despite the fact, that all those issues have been
duly analyzed by the High-level panel headed by Mr. Lakhdar Brahimi
and subsequently reflected in its report presented to the General
Assembly in March 2000, we still ponder over the same issues when
the question of a new peacekeeping operation comes up.

Mr. President,

Armenia is making its first small steps in this field. In 2003, Armenia
made a decision to participate in NATO-led peacekeeping operation
in Kosovo (KFOR). Since February 2004, a platoon of thirty-four
peacekeepers from Armenian Armed Forces is operating as part of the
Greek forces of the U.S.-led multinational brigade in KFOR.

In 2003 Armenia hosted NATO “Partnership for Peace” (PfP) Exercises
“Cooperative Best effort – 2003”, the main goal of which was the
planning of interaction between PfP nations during the peacekeeping

As we are becoming part of the international community that strives
to bring peace in different parts of the world, we want to make
sure that the efforts are well spent and rewarded by creation of
self-sustainable peace in those areas.

In this respect, my delegation would like to raise several issues
that it believes could be considered as necessary precursors for
effective intervention.

1. The issue of the regionalization of conflict or regional
dimension of conflict has to be taken into account when planning for
peacekeeping operations. Transborder armed groups, illegal trafficking
and trade, transborder social networks are issues that should not be
overlooked when considering the establishment of security environment,
humanitarian assistance, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration
(DDR). Such an approach, despite its extreme complexity, may prove to
be more effective if duly considered in all its aspects for its impact
in such operations as the one that is currently being discussed for
the Sudan.

2. UN peacekeeping operations for the last decade have evolved
into multifaceted and multidimensional ones. Yet, probably, the
time has come to contemplate the idea of the establishment of
multiphased operations as well where a gradual development from
peacekeeping to peacebuilding is planned in advance as part of one
operation. Apart from providing an opportunity for better planning
for the transition from military phase to developmental phase in the
peacekeeping operation, it would also send the right message to the
war-torn communities about the sound commitment of the international
community to help to reconstruct the social fabric of the country in
such a manner that it would be able to sustain the hard-achieved peace
and advance on the path to democracy and rule-of-law on its own. The
identification of the “end state” that the peacekeeping operation aims
to achieve might set the right agenda for the programs and projects
to be implemented on the ground.

In this respect we cannot overstress the need for tangible results
to keep the hope from dwindling and to prevent the resumption of
conflict. “Quick impact projects” could be one way of making real
difference in the lives of people, and consequently in their minds.

3. We do realize that this kind of planning would require proper
analysis of the situation on the ground and the roots and causes
of the conflict. Yet we believe that it should be a priority in the
consideration of peacekeeping operation in the first place. As the
past experience shows, no operation is successful if it does not
address the deep-rooted grievances, the causes of the conflict and
does not take into account its dynamics.

Mr. President,

Holistic understanding of the range of security and developmental
challenges in conflict areas and developing programmes based on
those realities, and sometimes worst-case scenarios, and not the
theoretical models of best assumption might help to address the need
for urgent improvement of the ways the United Nations deals with
conflict situations. Keeping the pledges made, be those political
or financial, would help to transform the United Nations into an
organization that is capable of successfully fulfilling its founding
mandate: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”.

Thank you Mr. President.