PRESS BRIEFING BY SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Munir Akram told correspondents at a Headquarters press briefing that the Security Council had passed through a difficult path and, as President of that body for the month of May, he hoped to serve in rebuilding consensus and reconciliation.

He said Pakistan was committed to the ideals and principles of the United Nations.  It had always attempted to connect its external policies with the provisions of the United Nations Charter and had always had confidence in the Council as the primary organ responsible for the preservation of international peace and security.  Stressing the importance of “full and faithful” implementation of Council resolutions on all conflicts, he said he would promote those ideas during the coming month.  His Presidency would be marked by transparency and impartiality.

The programme of work for May encompassed a broad agenda, such as sanctions reviews for Liberia and two mandate renewals.  The Special Representative on Western Sahara, James Baker III, would be present at a lunch this afternoon with the Secretary-General.  Other issues to be considered would be the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Burundi, Afghanistan and the Middle East.  On the afternoon of 6 May, Prime Minister José Maria Aznar of Spain will address the Council on combating terrorism.

A Security Council mission would visit West Africa from 15 to 22 May.  On 13 May a public meeting would be held on the role of the Council in the pacific settlement of disputes, which would fully explore the potential of provisions in Chapter VI of the Charter.  On 22 May there would be an open briefing on the response to the humanitarian situation in Iraq by some United Nations agencies.

Answering correspondents’ questions about Iraq, he said the Council had scheduled four meetings on that subject:  8 and 22 May for briefings on the humanitarian situation; 12 and 29 May for consultations on the “oil-for-food” programme, as that programme expires on 3 June and action needed to be taken.  Whether time was sufficient to reach agreement before 3 June depended on the positions taken.  If there was a convergence of positions, there was sufficient time to come to an agreement.

The question of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not feature in this month’s programme of work, because there had not been a proposal for its inclusion.  If such a proposal were made, it would then be considered.

Answering questions in his national capacity, Mr. Akram said obviously some issues of post-conflict Iraq would have to be addressed, such as the interlinked issues of sanctions, oil-for-food and inspections, as well as United Nations’ humanitarian assistance activities.  Other issues could be dealt with depending on the evolution in members’ positions regarding the United Nations’ role in Iraq.

Asked why he had not used the opportunity to include the question of Jammu and Kashmir in the programme of work, he said that, for Pakistan, that question was of the highest priority in terms of a conflict that required resolution.  He

had raised that issue, in the Council and other United Nations bodies, to remind the world that outstanding Council resolutions on the issue also needed implementation, as other Council resolutions did.  In doing so, he was serving the United Nations, as well as the cause of peace and security.  After all, it was the most dangerous conflict in the world.  However, as President of the Council, he would act with the utmost impartiality and had, therefore, not taken advantage of his position to include the item.

Answering other questions on Kashmir and speaking in his national capacity, he said relations between India and Pakistan were obviously difficult, “to put it mildly”.  He was, however, heartened by recent moves made by both sides in efforts to normalize the situation.  He hoped those moves would be implemented and enlarged.

He welcomed the fact that the Indian Prime Minister agreed on a dialogue
-- Pakistan had been offering such dialogue for some years –- but his country understood that offer as not being accompanied by any conditions.  It did not accept the accusation that Pakistan promoted any “cross-border terrorism”.  His country had called for impartial verification to ascertain whether Indian allegations in that regard were correct or not.  He hoped that dialogue would resume soon on all issues between the two countries, including the one of Kashmir.  Differences between the two countries could only be resolved through dialogue and peaceful means, not through threats of the use of force.

* *** *