PEACE-KEEPING COMMITTEE REVIEWS PROPOSALS TO SET UP RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE MISSION HEADQUARTERS
Press Release
GA/PK/144
PEACE-KEEPING COMMITTEE REVIEWS PROPOSALS TO SET UP RAPIDLY DEPLOYABLE MISSION HEADQUARTERS
19961024Aim Is To Cut Lead-time between Security Council Decision and Field Operation; Under-Secretary-General Answers Queries on Funding, Procedures
Questions about the financing, representation and decision-making procedures of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters were among issues discussed during a meeting of the Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations this morning.
Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping Operations, Kofi A. Annan, said his goal during the next two years was to reduce by 50 per cent the lead- time of the Organization's rapid deployment capabilities. Initiatives had included standby arrangements involving 60 Member States and enhanced planning capabilities through the Mission Planning services of the Department.
Major Frank Van Kappen, military advisor to the Secretary-General, also addressed the Special Committee.
Ahmad Kamal (Pakistan) said he supported the concept of a rapid deployment headquarters team but was concerned at the action of a self- appointed group of "Friends of Rapid Reaction" operating without legitimacy, and having "half-baked ideas developed without broad consultations with the countries most concerned". If there was a shortage of funds, he said, the answer did not lie in "subcontracting" the Organization's operations to Member States. Mission headquarters should be staffed in balance with troop- providing countries, he said.
Pat Kelly (Ireland), speaking for the European Union and other countries, welcomed the proposal for a Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. He said the Committee should be adequately briefed on the proposed method of implementation.
_----------_ * This Press Release relates to the 139th meeting of the Special Committee and not the 140th meeting as inadvertently indicated on subsequent pages.
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/PK/144 139th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
In achieving rapid deployment capability, "our real choice is not between perfect and less perfect, but between action and non-action", said Petru Dumitriu (Romania). The solution put forth by the Secretariat might not be ideal, but it was the best available under current circumstances.
In response to questions concerning the status and responsibilities of the Group of Friends of Rapid Deployment, Mr. Annan said in closing remarks that "Friends" groups were not new to the Organization. The Friends of Rapid Deployment had provided his Department with useful advice, which had always been presented to the full membership. There was no "subcontracting".
Statements were also made by representatives of Thailand, Sweden, China, Italy, Norway, Sierra Leone, Cuba, Uruguay, Russian Federation, Chile, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Canada, Iran, Philippines, Nepal, and Nigeria.
Committee Work Programme
The Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations met this morning to consider the issue of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, hearing statements from the Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping Operations, Kofi A. Annan, and by Military Advisor to the Secretary-General, Major-General Frank Van Kappen.
Statements
IBRAHIM A. GAMBARI (Nigeria), Chairman, said the Special Committee had convened so that Under-Secretary for Peace-keeping Operations, Kofi A. Annan, and Major-General Frank Van Kappen could inform Members on the proposal for a Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. He pointed out that the Special Committee had urged the Secretariat to develop a rapid deployment team and to keep it appraised of progress in that regard.
KOFI A. ANNAN, Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping Operations, told the special committee the attempt to strengthen peace-keeping operations was an ongoing effort. Initiatives had included standby arrangements, in which 60 Member States participated, and development of enhanced planning capabilities through the Missing Planning Services of the Department of Peace- keeping Operations (DPKO). The Department was now working on a Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, and had been encouraged by the input of many Member States, including the "Friends of Rapid Deployment".
The Under-Secretary-General said he was also encouraged by the number of States which had already made efforts to develop rapid deployment brigades. His goal during the next two years was to reduce by 50 per cent the lead-time for the Organization's rapid deployment capabilities, through the use of the Headquarters capabilities in combination with States' rapid deployment brigades.
Mr. Annan congratulated those governments which had already developed such brigades, and he encouraged all Member States to consider that option.
Major-General FRANK VAN KAPPEN, Military Advisor to the Secretary-General, said the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was an important complement to the Standby Arrangement System, which was continuously being strengthened as more Member States became involved, and which was central to efforts to reduce deployment time. When the Security Council authorized a new operation, the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters would enable the deployment of civilian and military personnel. That group would then ensure that the deployment and initial phases of a peace-keeping operation were well-managed in the field. The alternative required military contingents and other components to arrive in the mission area, and to operate
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 4 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
for extended periods without a proper mission headquarters. This complicated their work and could create serious operational difficulties.
The Special Committee on Peace-keeping Operations, in its spring 1995 report, had urged the Secretary-General to develop a rapidly deployable headquarters team. This request had then been endorsed by the General Assembly in Resolution 50/30 (1995). In the Special Committee's report of 7 May 1996, the Secretariat had been requested to keep Member States informed on the issue.
In response, the Secretary-General had decided to establish within the Secretariat the skeleton of a rapidly deployable mission headquarters. To date, several options had been examined regarding structure, staffing and funding.
The first option was to identify personnel from existing staff and have them assume responsibility for developing the headquarters and making it operational. This would have been done by staff already fully engaged in their primary responsibilities. However, taking staff away from regular duties for extended periods would undermine the effectiveness of the Secretariat.
The second option was to develop a stand-alone deployable mission headquarters, whose staff would have no other responsibilities. This option had two main advantages: staff would be able to devote efforts exclusively to the new group; and there would be minimal disruption to the work of the DPKO and other departments essential to peace-keeping. However, budgetary constraints rendered this option unlikely.
The third option, which had been chosen, rested on three pillars: first, the Secretariat would select existing staff members and allocate functions of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters to them, while they continued to perform their present functions. Second, a small number of additional personnel would be brought on board for those functions which required full-time attention; those staff members would be nominated by Governments, and the cost would be borne by voluntary contributions. Third, Governments would be invited to nominate candidates who would be earmarked in their home countries, joining the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters as and when necessary for training or prior to a mission. Those personnel would be brought together for periodic training.
He said the third option would ensure the capacity necessary to deploy the "skeleton" of a mission headquarters once the Security Council mandated an operation. It would provide operational stability by incorporating staff with dedicated officers from outside the Secretariat. While staff members would provide institutional memory, and knowledge of the United Nations system, they could not be spared to go to the field indefinitely. Therefore, the objective
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 5 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
should be that the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters be in a mission for three to six months. Staff would then be replaced under normal procedures for staffing a mission headquarters, and return to their duty stations.
The new group would perform functions including: translating the concept of operations into tactical sub-plans; developing and implementing the group's preparedness and training activities; providing advice to the Head of Mission for decision-making and coordination purposes; establishing an administrative infrastructure for the mission; providing essential liaison with the parties during the early stages of the operations; working with incoming mission headquarters personnel to ensure the smooth transition and unity of effort to implement the Security Council be maintained.
The Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was designed as an operational unit and would not duplicate the work of existing Mission Planning Service. The numbers of personnel who would go to the field as part of the new group would vary from case to case, depending on the Security Council's mandate. In operations with the broadest mandates, it would consist of 61 persons. Although most operations would be less comprehensive and therefore require fewer staff, the full 61 should be available. Of these, 29 staff within the Secretariat would be assigned to the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, and would be engaged in training and coordination in addition to their existing responsibilities. The other 32 would be made available by Governments.
Of those, eight would be based in New York. These would include the Chief of Staff of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters military component and specialists in fields such as operations, engineering, logistics, and civilian police. They would be based in New York. The remaining 24 would be earmarked in their home countries. It was hoped that the eight would be in place by January 1997.
Those drawn from the Secretariat, he added, would continue to perform their respective organizational functions until deployed to an operation. They would also participate in training activities for the Deployable Mission Headquarters. Once deployed to an operation, they would be part of the mission's normal chain of command.
Personnel made available by Governments would report to the Under-Secretary-General for Peace-keeping Operations. When the Security Council authorized a new operation, those personnel would be deployed to the mission without further national authorization, and would become part of the mission's normal chain of command.
The best solution for the funding of the Rapid Deployable Mission Headquarters would be to place it against the regular United Nations Budget
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 6 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
and the Peace-keeping Support Account. This approach was not viable at the present time, but it should be employed at the earliest possible date. Peace- keeping was essential to the Organization's activities and should be financed through assessed contributions.
In the meantime, voluntary contributions were being sought to a trust fund for the new grouping. The trust fund would meet the cost of personnel made available by Governments. These personnel might have to be augmented with gratis personnel. Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden had announced their intention to contribute.
The Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters, he concluded, required sound management for effective implementation. It was an important innovation of the Organization.
The Chairman, IBRAHIM A. GAMBARI (Nigeria) said the rapid deployment issue was not new to the Organization; it had already involved States in the development of rapid deployment capabilities complemented by standby arrangements. The objective of rapid deployment, he pointed out, was to reduce the time lag between decisions to deploy peace-keeping capabilities and the actual deployment. Another issue involved the need for transparency in the work of the Secretariat in this regard.
Governments should be involved in the training and provision of personnel to join the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. This effort should involve as many members of Organization as possible, and was of great interest to the members of the Special Committee. The manner of financing the new group was also an issue of great interest.
Exchange of Views
The representative for Thailand said that in order to have fruitful discussion, the information presented today should have been provided a few days in advance. He then asked about the relationship between the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters and existing units within the DPKO, such as the planning division.
The representative for Pakistan, associating himself with the question asked by Thailand, said Pakistan supported the concept of rapid deployment and the proposal for a Headquarters team to implement it. However, the reported action taken by a self-appointed group of 24 countries called "Friends of Rapid Reaction" was cause for concern. The general membership had become aware of the Group's actions only by the Daily Highlights of 18 July 1996, and the New York Times of 21 July 1996.
He said the group was not representative of United Nations membership, of which the Movement of Non-aligned Countries constituted almost two-thirds.
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 7 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
How could a group that did not consult the largest troop-contributing countries be expected to have an educated opinion? Furthermore, the five permanent members of the Security Council were not included in the "so-called Friends". It was surprising that the DPKO was reported to be included in the group.
Thus, had the Department joined a self-appointed and unrecognized Group without legitimacy, with "half-baked ideas developed without broad consultations with the countries most concerned".
On the question of officers being lent to the DPKO, he said the majority of Member States had voiced concern over the practice. Loaned personnel virtually controlled policy and decision-making within the Department, where they had been assigned to key positions.
He said the Organization was incurring substantial costs in auxiliary expenditure for the so-called "free-of-cost" officers. The DPKO should provide the exact figures of the auxiliary expenditures for the Special Committee's members who should be given a definite date by which questions would be answered. Otherwise, the matter should perhaps be brought to the General Assembly for full debate. If there was a shortage of funds, the answer did not lie in sub-contracting; the solution should be found through multilateralism and collective security within the operations of the Organization.
He said the names of some countries who had committed support were given, but the Special Committee was not told the amount of the actual contributions. If the Trust Fund was to be utilized for training and equipment, it would have nothing left for personnel. Who would pay for officers? he asked. The entire scheme would call for more loaned officers and the Trust Fund would be used for auxiliary purposes. The increase of loaned officers in New York would then increase the imbalance of officers within the DPKO. The eight officers in New York should be entirely funded through the Trust Fund. Earmarked officers located in their respective home countries could be trained by those Member States at no cost to the Organization. Officers should be selected by the United Nations in accordance with established procedures.
He said the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters should have the maximum participation of developing countries, with officers from the broadest possible geographical representation. Mission headquarters should be staffed in balance with troop-providing countries. Governments of Member States must be able to comment on the plans, and therefore an appropriate time should be given before finalization of modalities.
The representative for Ireland, speaking also for the European Union and Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania,
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 8 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
Slovakia and Slovenia, welcomed the convening of the extraordinary meeting. He said the United Nations needed to improve its ability to deploy peace- keeping operations. One means of doing this had been the system of stand-by arrangements developed by the Secretariat over the past years. The European Union supported those arrangements and believed further development was a principal means to improve response capabilities.
He welcomed the Secretary-General's proposal for development of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters based in the DPKO as one way of addressing deficiencies relating to rapid deployment. The Special Committee itself had recommended establishment of such a headquarters team composed of skilled personnel. The recommendation had been endorsed by the General Assembly last December in resolution 50/30, with the support of the European Union.
The European Union believed the primary requirement was for the Committee to be adequately briefed on how the Secretary-General intended to establish the rapidly deployable headquarters capability. He supported the proposal and hoped its implementation would be accomplished in a speedy and transparent manner.
The representative for Romania said he endorsed the statement of the representative for Ireland. The idea of creating the new body had begun to take shape. The solutions that had been found by the DPKO might not be ideal, but were the best available in current circumstances. "Our real choice is not between perfect and less perfect, but between action and non-action", he said. The need and usefulness of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters had been identified. The costs in human life and violence, and of the delay of the United Nations, in crisis situations were already known. The lessons of Rwanda were relevant in this regard.
He expressed appreciation for the "Friends of Rapid Deployment", in particular the efforts of Denmark and the Netherlands. The Group was not making decisions. They spent more time and energy in designing means to accomplish objectives than had been generally agreed to by the Special Committee and the General Assembly. One of those objectives was to improve the United Nations capacity for rapid deployment. The Security Council, in its presidential statement of 22 February 1995, had invited all interested Member States to present their reflections on this issue. He appreciated the efforts of the friends and hoped his country also would soon be able to contribute to their efforts.
The representative for Sweden said his country wished to offer assistance to the Secretariat in the training of personnel in connection with the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 9 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
The representative for China expressed support for the development of a rapid deployment capability. He said profound thought was needed with regard to the far-reaching effects this would have on peace-keeping operations. In recent years, peace-keeping had gone from a process of rapid development to downsizing. There had been successes and also some bitter experiences. He was pleased that the experiences had been evaluated, and that the results of those evaluations would contribute to future capabilities.
He agreed in principle that there should be an appropriate strengthening of the Organization's capability for rapid deployment, to reduce, as far as possible, the time lag between decisions by the Security Council and actual deployment of peace-keeping efforts.
He said the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters raised a number of questions needing further clarification. Its nature and functions were not fully clear. If it were to function as an advance party and provide logistical support for peace-keeping operations, then did it not overlap with other functions already handled by DPKO? Peace-keeping had until now been a kind of political role; was it moving in the direction of militarization?
Also, given the current efforts to restructure and reform the Organization, it was necessary to examine the nature and staffing of the new body. What principles would be involved? He said establishment of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was a complex issue. It involved political, legal and other questions, and would have implication for the direction of peace-keeping operations. It was important to proceed with caution. The views of Member States should be sought.
The representative for Italy associated himself with the statement made for the European Union. The United Nations needed the capacity to respond rapidly, and therefore the proposed team of professionals for the new group was essential. The financial aspects needed particular attention and deserved full transparency. Cost-analysis and an assessment of financial requirements would be welcomed.
He said Italy supported a model of peace-keeping based on equitable geographical representation. Support for command, troops and logistics were essential to achieve the proposed goal. Therefore the Secretariat should address these aspects. He asked whether the present level of voluntary contributions was adequate to run the operation and, if so, for what length of time it could cover the costs.
The representative for Norway endorsed the statement by the European Union. Balanced geographical representation was of importance, and ideally the staff should be fully funded by the Organization. However, this did not seem feasible in the near future. Norway pledged to cover the expenses of one person from a developing country for a position in
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 10 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters and was also provided to prepare personnel at no cost to the United Nations.
The representative for Sierra Leone said the comments made by the representative for Pakistan were fundamental. The real issue was not whether staff could be provided without cost to the Organization; the important issue was the larger matter of the Organization's financial difficulties, and how these were destroying a major tenet of the Charter. He said he specifically endorsed the comment from Pakistan that the Special Committee should pause and carefully consider the plan. Rapid deployment was essential but the fundamental issues of financing should not be pushed aside.
The representative for Cuba said today's exchange in the Special Committee followed requests by several non-aligned countries. While the need to reduce the time lag in peace-keeping operation deployment was important, there was concern about the creation of structures involving military capabilities on a standing or almost standing basis. The primary role of the United Nations was a peaceful one.
The Special Committee needed to assume a concrete responsibility for this capability, and deliberation needed to maintain transparency. Careful work was still needed to resolve the many concerns that had been expressed extreme caution was needed in implementing the decisions of the Security Council. There was also concern about the new approach to United Nations participation when it involved gratis officers or "loaned personnel". All delegations should reflect on this. The Security Council decided on the need for a peace-keeping force, but members of the General Assembly would have to decide on how to pay for measures so decided. If the budget needed to be reduced, then peace-keeping should obviously be reduced also.
If the current situation persisted on gratis personnel, there could be an imbalance with regard to the geographical distribution of the entire United Nations staff. It had been stated that if there were not generous participation in the Trust Fund, participation of the developing countries would not be possible. That seemed wrong; all personnel in the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters should be financed through the fund, not just those from certain countries. That would perpetuate geographical imbalance. The ultimate solution must be to finance rapid deployment through the regular budget.
The representative for Uruguay associated himself with the statement from the representative for Pakistan, particularly with the request that questions raised be answered as soon as possible. As a troop contributor, Uruguay was extremely interested in these matters.
He said the voluntary fund should finance the entire operation and not just a few of the participants. He asked whether the fund was the only method
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 11 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
of financing currently being pursued. It was said that if sufficient funds were not found, developing countries would not be able to participate in the plan. This was the wrong approach altogether; without the participation of developing countries, the operation could not be launched. Therefore, clear figures of costs and contributions should be presented for the members of the Special Committee to study. Funds from the voluntary fund should go to financing personnel; this was a priority. Co-sponsoring participation was not a viable option.
He said the financial aspects of the plan should be more transparent. The correct form of financing should be that the voluntary fund cover all posts of the operation. Countries would submit candidates and the most qualified be selected, bearing in mind the Charter's provisions on equitable geographical representation.
The representative for the Russian Federation asked what was the relationship between the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters and the already-existing system of standby arrangements? Might the new Headquarters not risk undermining standby arrangements? How would it fit in with the United Nations Charter? Did it develop or advance principles of the Charter, or did it diverge from such principles as non-interference? Military capabilities were being emphasized. Was the need to seek peaceful settlement of disputes being forgotten? To place too great an emphasis on "picking up the cudgels", rather than seeking peaceful settlement of disputes, would be to diverge from the principles of the Organization.
He noted that there had been nearly 50 years' experience of carrying out peace-keeping, with some 40 different operations. There was concern that the Security Council would take action and the staff of the Organization would already be implementing it, even before the decision had been reached? The Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters would need to take its orders from the Security Council, otherwise it would be functioning outside the Organization. Rules of engagement also needed to be drawn up and approved by the Security Council so as to avoid improvisation.
He asked how the idea for the new group had developed. Would it be a permanent standing force? How would it be equipped? Had consultations on the specific details been discussed in the Security Council? Had that discussion included such standing bodies as the Military Staff Committee? Finally, he asked, what were the major, relevant lessons that had been drawn from the military side of previous operations that had been considered in forming the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
The representative for Chile said that by responding in a timely fashion, peace-keeping supported the value of avoiding the loss of human life. Although the notion of "loaned officers", was not an ideal, the Organization's
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 12 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
present financial situation left no alternative. The process of implementing the initiative should continue in a transparent manner.
The representative for the Republic of Korea said his views on geographical representation, transparency and the method of funding were already stated in earlier meetings. The Secretariat's proposal and the option selected was the best alternative, given the Organization's realities. He supported the establishment of a rapidly deployable headquarters team. As a member of the Friends Group, he believed its activities were both desirable and important, and he did not agree with Pakistan that the Group lacked legitimacy.
The representative for Malaysia said that in a letter from the Secretariat dated 17 October 1996, Member States had been asked to indicate whether officers being suggested for the plan would be at no cost to the Organization. In the selection of the eight personnel, would preference be given to those offered at no cost? He also asked for clarification of information reported in an article in the International Herald Tribune dated 22 October 1996 to the effect that the entire headquarters would eventually be funded from the Organization's regular budget.
The representative for Canada said the question of resources and finances would not be solved overnight. The effort to develop rapid deployment capabilities should move forward nevertheless. The mix of measures being suggested by the Secretariat to deal with rapid deployment was quite good. The Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters combined drawing on existing DPKO personnel, using contributions from Member States and attempting to obtain personnel from the existing budget. There were no real alternatives at the moment.
He said Canada did not support the idea of an "a la carte United Nations", in which Members could pick and choose which activities they wished to support. Some Members had suggested funding all personnel from the Trust Fund, but that would not occur overnight. In the meantime, it was necessary to reduce the time lag between Security Council decisions and deployment of peace-keeping capabilities.
The representative for Iran said the functions of the new unit had been referred to in comments of the Under-Secretary-General and the Military Advisor. The Secretariat should clarify those functions.
The representative for the Philippines endorsed the chairman's comments regarding the need for transparency in the development of rapid deployment. On the issue of funding, he said that whatever arrangement was eventually agreed upon, it should involve the principles of equitability and transparency. The relations between existing divisions of the DPKO and the
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 13 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters needed to be clarified. Why was it not possible to simply strengthen the existing divisions?
The representative for Nepal said the important work of establishing the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters should be transparent. He supported the comments made by the representative for Pakistan. The Trust Fund should be used for recruiting personnel for the new unit.
The representative for Nigeria supported the concepts and goals of the new undertaking. He felt two main points had emerged from the current discussion: first, it was important to receive inputs from delegations and countries with particular experience or interest in peace-keeping operations; and second, serious concerns by Member States existed.
He stressed the importance of transparency and the need to proceed with caution. Wider participation of Member States in the important project of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was needed. Broad participation was the only way to secure the project's success and legitimacy. It was essential to act promptly while not subverting the fundamental principles of the Charter. In the interests of transparency, there should be regular briefings by the DPKO to the Special Committee. Consensus might take longer but the project would then enjoy the widespread support of the Organization.
MR. ANNAN, said that on the positive side, all members agreed on the need for a solution to rapid deployment and efforts to that end should be undertaken in as broad a manner as possible. Two delegates had referred to the problem of financial "crunch" and resources to meet mandates. When they did not meet mandates, creative solutions were called for. He said there was no dispute on these matters. Other matters raised during the session needed to be settled between Member States. On the issue of "loaned officers", he said DPKO was preparing a report that would include the total number of personnel and total costs involved, as well as the principles on which they operated and other questions.
Regarding the "Friends of Rapid Deployment", he said that was not a new concept in the Organization. There were other Friends: Friends for Haiti, for Rwanda, for Burundi and others. Speaking as a member of the Secretariat, he said the advice and exchange of views with Friends was found to be useful. Once those exchanges occurred, they were always placed before the full membership. "That should not be viewed as 'sub-contracting'", he said. The Secretariat did not feel it was sub-contracting. It was not his purpose to defend the Friends, but only to state what the experience had been. Permanent members of the Security Council were not automatic members of the various Friends groups, he added.
He said that whether work was conducted in small groups or collectively, the common objectives of the Organization should be pursued at all times and
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 14 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
that was what had occurred in this case. He added that many of the other suggestions and questions raised during the exchange had been valuable, and would be taken in to account.
Major-General VAN KAPPEN reminded the Special Committee that the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters was set against the backdrop of stand-by arrangements. Peace-keeping was not the panacea for all the problems in the world; it was one of many tools available to the international community. Without a mandate from the Security Council, no operation would be launched.
He said he wished to clarify some of the more technical aspects of the plan. Once the Security Council delivered a mandate, Mission Planning Service translated it into a staff plan, logistical and communications structure, and military objectives. There was no overlap between mission planning service and the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. The problem came in the next phase: the staff plan had to be translated in technical sub-plans. Logistical and communications infrastructures must be established in the operational area. Contracts and leases had to be arranged on the ground. Under normal circumstances, operational headquarters had to attempt all this without prior logistical assistance. Officers from all over the world worked together for the first time and without being familiar with the United Nations system. This wasted precious time. The Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters would address this problem.
In peace-keeping operations, he went on, civilian and military commands had to be integrated. The military component enabled the civilian activities to take place. Coordination was necessary from the start. The advance party of the operational headquarters would be able to learn from their counterparts. The two groups would work side by side until normal operational headquarters could manage a particular area, at which point the corresponding part of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters would leave. In this way, some components of the headquarters unit would leave before others. Therefore "breaking in" the normal operational headquarters was another essential aspect of the work of the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters.
Mr. ANNAN said the article in the International Herald Tribune, mentioned by the representative for Malaysia, had not come from the Secretariat. The article had been co-signed by the Foreign Ministers of Denmark, Canada, and the Netherlands, and concerned their opinions on the need to strengthen the Organization's peace-keeping capabilities. Working together with Member States, continuing efforts would be made to switch from ad hoc funding arrangements to funding from the Organization's regular budget. He noted the perception by some members of the Special Committee that attempts to arrange the plan without proper funding were motivated by particular interests.
Peace-keeping Operations Committee - 15 - Press Release PK/144 140th Meeting (AM) 24 October 1996
The representative for Pakistan asked how the Under-Secretary-General intended to move forward and within what time-frame. Important differences of opinions had been expressed during the exchange. There was disagreement on the Friends of Rapid Deployment. Indeed, Friends already existed in the Organization, but never had such a group existed without major interested countries being involved.
He referred to the issue of consultation with the Security Council, and added that there had not been sufficient discussion on the question of sub- contracting. Differences of opinion on the matter needed to be resolved. Had the organization moved from collective security to subcontracting, simply because of a lack of funding? he asked.
More specifically, he went on, there was a difference of opinion on the Trust Fund. It was not known if the Fund would be sufficient to cover costs for the Rapidly Deployable Mission Headquarters. If all officers could be financed from the Trust Fund, and there were guarantees of sustainability, then motion forward was possible. He asked how the Fifth Committee debate on loaned officers would affect that matter.
* *** *