“Leadership for Peace”: Open Debate and Adoption of Presidential Statement
Tomorrow (25 September), Slovenia will convene a high-level open debate on “Leadership for Peace” under the “Maintenance of international peace and security” agenda item. Slovenian Prime Minister Robert Golob will chair the meeting, which is the signature event of his country’s September Council presidency. The anticipated briefers are UN Secretary-General António Guterres; President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Mirjana Spoljaric Egger; and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a member of The Elders and former President of Liberia. It appears that Slovenia scheduled this open debate, which focuses on leadership in promoting multilateralism, during the UN General Assembly’s high-level week to capitalise on the presence in New York of world leaders and other senior government officials. More than 90 UN member states are expected to participate in the open debate.
A draft presidential statement proposed by Slovenia is expected to be adopted at the meeting.
Open Debate
In recent years, the number of conflicts and conflict-related deaths have been on the rise, while the number of persons forcibly displaced because of violence, conflict, persecution and human rights violations has more than doubled in the past decade. The Security Council, which is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security, has struggled to cope with this increasingly challenging peace and security environment and to uphold the principles of the UN Charter. Riven by political divisions, the Council has been unable to gain much traction in addressing many of the conflicts on its agenda—for example, Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, and Ukraine, among others—notwithstanding the significant time and energy it devotes to several of these issues.
As Slovenia observes in the concept note it has prepared for the open debate, geopolitical competition is “all too often turning the Council into a political battleground ending in stalemate and a lack of action, rather than a unique place for diplomacy to work on solutions”. Some of the Council’s critical tools are under strain; for example, host country support for peace operations is eroding, and UN sanctions have become increasingly controversial, with many member states questioning their effectiveness. Contentious negotiations on Council products, frequent vetoes, and a high percentage of non-unanimous resolutions have been features of the Council’s work in recent years.
Against the backdrop of this difficult environment, the concept note underscores the need to “restore political will and mutual trust to further strengthen the multilateral system with the UN at its core”. It further states that “Security Council members need to show renewed leadership in addressing crises and upholding international law impartially”.
Slovenia has posed several questions in the concept note to help guide the discussion, including:
- How can we recommit to the UN Charter and start building steps towards mutual respect, trust, and consensus?
- How can the Security Council restore its credibility and relevance and do better in addressing conflicts in Gaza, Sudan, and Ukraine?
- What is the role of elected members in the work of the UN Security Council?
- How can regional organisations better complement and reinforce the Council’s efforts to maintain international peace and security?
The focus of tomorrow’s open debate is quite broad, providing an opportunity for member states to discuss a wide array of topics related to leadership in the multilateral system. Some members are likely to emphasise the need for the Security Council to recommit to multilateral norms such as cooperation and trust-building at a time of great power tensions. Some may highlight the role of the Council’s elected members in advancing initiatives to promote peace and security, as well as in building bridges between the permanent members. A number of member states are likely to call on conflict parties to adhere to international humanitarian law and international human rights law, saying that they are blatantly violated in conflicts around the world, and emphasise the need for accountability for such violations. Some may also highlight the importance of women’s participation in decisions related to conflict prevention and resolution and peacemaking. They might stress the need to understand the gendered effects of conflict and to formulate policies that account for these effects. The need to address non-traditional threats to international peace and security (for example, climate change, cyberwar, and pandemics) may be highlighted as a way for the Council to maintain its relevance in a changing world.
Speakers are likely to present differing views of the global order at tomorrow’s meeting. For example, Western countries may describe the importance of a rules-based international system in maintaining peace and security, whereas China and Russia may argue that the rules-based system is unfair and designed to promote Western hegemony.
Presidential Statement
The agreed presidential statement reaffirms the principles set forth in the UN Charter and underscores that the need to strengthen resolve to maintain international peace and security is more pressing than ever. Similarly, it reaffirms the Council’s commitment to international law, including the Charter, and the need for universal adherence to international law, while emphasising the vital importance that the Council attaches to promoting justice and the rule of law. It further expresses the Council’s commitment to fulfilling its responsibilities in the most effective manner.
The statement reiterates the need to promote women’s full, equal, meaningful, and safe participation and leadership at all levels of decision-making. In this regard, it references resolution 1325 of 31 October 2000—the Council’s first resolution on women, peace and security (WPS), which reaffirmed the role of women in conflict prevention and resolution and peacebuilding, among other things—and related resolutions.
The statement also reiterates the Council’s strong support for the protection of civilians in armed conflict, while underscoring obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians in armed conflict, including humanitarian personnel. At the same time, it highlights the Council’s commitment to promoting accountability for violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law.
The statement also stresses the importance of upholding multilateralism with the UN at the centre of the multilateral system. In this respect, it supports enhanced coordination through the UN system in order to deliver change to the most vulnerable, including by pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs), and to prevent and reduce conflict.
Council members were broadly supportive of having a concise presidential statement that reaffirmed many of the basic tenets of the multilateral system—for example, support for international law (including the UN Charter) and the centrality of the UN as part of this system. Slovenia circulated an initial draft text in mid-September, and the negotiations consisted of one in-person discussion at Political Coordinator level followed by email exchanges. After two silence breaks, a revised draft of the text passed silence this morning (24 September).
One elected member requested the addition of language reaffirming that development, peace and security, and human rights—the three pillars of the UN system—are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. This request was supported by several members and was incorporated in the final text.
There were some differences of view that had to be accommodated during the negotiations. Text stating that the international order is based on the rule of law appeared to have been unacceptable to one permanent member and was omitted by the penholder as a compromise. It also appears that the language on WPS was pared down in response to input from this delegation. Disagreement on how to frame the rule of law language seems to have been the reason why silence was broken twice on the draft presidential statement.
