Intervention by Ambassador Asoke Kumar Mukerji, Permanent Representative of India, at the C-34 Committee meeting with the High Level Panel on Peace Operations, 21 November 2014
 

1. I would like to thank His Excellency Jose Ramos Horta, the distinguished Chairman of the Panel, for his remarks. I would also like to welcome all the members of this important Panel at this informal meeting.
 

2. We are aware that the Panel will give us an opportunity to convey our detailed views on the areas of its mandate at a subsequent meeting. Today, I would like to make some broad points which will convey our views on the wide-ranging issues being considered by the Panel.
 

3. The concept of 'Peace Operations' is very expansive. We note that for a structured interaction, this concept can be disaggregated into three areas: peacekeeping, peacebuilding and special political missions.
 

4. Turning to the special political missions first. We believe that the heart of special political missions is the political objective of preventive diplomacy across a range of disciplines, to help prevent and resolve conflict or to build lasting peace in nations emerging from civil wars. The failure of preventive diplomacy gives rise to greater demand for resources to tackle threats to international peace and security. A successful special political mission can create the framework for a sustainable peace, which can be then mid-wifedthrough time-bound peacekeeping operations.
 

5. In our own region, the work being done by UNAMA in Afghanistan would illustrate this, especially due to the forthcoming draw-down of international forces from that country. The continuing threat of terrorism is a specific feature in this context. Recent decisions of the Security Council demonstrate the impact of terrorism on peace operations, and call for a more concerted response to counter terrorism.
 

6. Peacebuilding, which was established following the 2005 60th Anniversary Summit of the United Nations, is in the process of being reviewed by external experts for the Peacebuilding Commission. We believe that the Panel should synergize its work relating to peacebuilding with the process of this review, in order to benefit from the work being done, and to avoid duplication of time and resources.
 

7. In our view, many dimensions of what are called multi-dimensional peacekeeping operations being mandated today by the Security Council fall actually into the basket of peacebuilding. The Secretariat enumerates these to include 'monitoring ceasefires; demobilizing and reintegrating combatants; assisting the return of refugees and displaced persons; supporting implementation of a peace process; providing electoral assistance; supporting justice and security sector reform; enhancing human rights protections and fostering reconciliation after past atrocities'. All these should not be clubbed with traditional peacekeeping. The failure to ensure peacebuilding activities, whether due to lack of resources or to lack of attention by the Security Council, generates volatile situations, which peacekeeping is not equipped to handle. The case of the Central African Republic would be instructive for the Panel in this context.
 

8. Peacekeeping is an issue on which my country prides itself as having a wealth of knowledge, based on the 180,000 troops we have contributed to 44 of the 69 peacekeeping operations mandated so far. The Panel has distinguished members who are well aware of the challenges being faced by UN peacekeeping today. It is regretful that despite a clear provision in the UN Charter, Article 44, troop-contributing countries which are not members of the Security Council are not allowed to participate in Council decisions on drawing up of peacekeeping mandates. The consequence is detrimental to the effectiveness of the mandates drawn up by the Council. This also leads to a heavier drain on the financial, material and human resources being contributed for peacekeeping.
 

9. In terms of policy, my delegation is of the view that the traditional principles of peacekeeping - the principles of consent, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence or in defence of the mandate - continue to be valid as these are rooted in the provisions of the UN Charter. The alleged failures of peacekeeping, and proposals for recourse to 'robust' or 'interventionist' peacekeeping, actually deflect attention from the non-functioning or malfunctioning of special political missions and peacebuilding activities. South Sudan would be relevant as a case study for the Panel in this context, where, as the Secretary General has said, 'there is no peace to keep'. How can peacekeepers be deployed, and expected to perform their duties, in such a situation is a valid question for the Panel to answer.
 

10. Finally, we believe the Panel will recognize that there is need to institutionalize the way the United Nations addresses issues related to the 'nuts and bolts' of peacekeeping. We expect the Panel to endorse the institution of a four-year Survey mechanism for updating reimbursement rates, as used in the General Assembly earlier this year. We hope that issues relating to equipment, logistics, rules of engagement, chain of command, technological innovations etc will be put in their proper context. Peacekeepers are meant to keep the peace. The creation of peace, a political objective, is not the responsibility of peacekeepers, but that of the Security Council. If the Panel finds that the Council has not been able to discharge this responsibility, given to it by the Charter, then we hope that it would recommend implementing early reforms of the Council so that the United Nations is made 'fit for purpose' in the 21st century.
 

Thank you.