Press briefing by Security Council President

 

Briefing correspondents at Headquarters today on the Security Council’s work programme for October, Emyr Jones Parry (United Kingdom), whose delegation presides over the Council for the month, said it had begun quite busily and promised to get busier.  He noted that the situations in the Sudan, Iraq and the Middle East, and international terrorism were among items on the calendar.

Highlighting some of the main points, he said that, in response to a request this morning by Ambassador Baali (Algeria) on behalf of the Arab Group, he would convene consultations later today on the Middle East, at which he expected the Ambassador to introduce a resolution.  At 4 p.m., the Council would go into an open meeting to debate the resolution, particularly on the situation in Gaza.

On the Sudan, he said there was a great deal happening.  Tomorrow there would be a further briefing by Special Representative Pronk, who would address not only what was happening in Darfur, but also in Naivasha, Kenya, given the general agreement that the Naivasha process was basic to finding a political solution in Darfur.  The Council would address an up-to-date account of the humanitarian situation and the problems on the ground and, in particular, how the Council resolution adopted last month was being put into place.

Concerning terrorism, he said Ambassador Denisov (Russian Federation) had today explained the current version of the terrorism resolution, which had been issued on Friday evening and was being discussed in the capitals.

Mr. Jones Parry said that, on the basis of what he heard this morning, it was clear that there was a strong view in the Council that the resolution should be adopted, but one or two delegations sought different language.  He had asked the Russian Ambassador to consider what he had heard, and to consult especially closely with those countries that were less positive than the others and, in that light, to decide when the draft should “go into blue”.  He personally expected that to occur within 72 hours.

He said his presidency had scheduled two thematic debates.  The first would be held on Wednesday and would be “part 2” of what the United Kingdom presidency did in September 2003 on justice and the rule of law.  Also, in light of the Secretary-General’s report in August, it was time for the Council and the wider membership to see where things stood on the rule of law.  Essentially, the discussion would be a follow-up to that report, but there was a series of key things to decide, including why justice and the rule of law mattered.

On 28 October, the fourth anniversary of resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, there would be an open debate, he said.  That text had clearly set out women’s role in ending conflict.  It was also one of first times the Council had recognized the extreme and disproportionate suffering of women during conflict.  That meeting would be preceded a week earlier by an “Aria-style” meeting, presided over by Benin’s Ambassador.

Asked if there would be a new resolution to emerge on the Sudan, he said he personally did not think so, noting that there had been three resolutions on the Sudan and one presidential statement.  The exchange with Sudan’s Foreign Minister had been an opportunity to hear him, and for him to be “left in no doubt” as to the views of the Security Council.  The Council’s expectation was clear, and the support it wished to give to the Government was also obvious.  It sought cooperation with the Government, not just in terms of humanitarian access but also in terms of ending impunity and, above all, stopping the atrocities and moving forward politically in Darfur and in Naivasha.

From his Government’s point of view, he said, the Council had stated its very clear wishes on the conditionality it had laid down, and it was now up to it to work with that Government to produce the desired outcome.  The terms of 1564 and the sustained pressure being applied in Khartoum and Darfur on the rebels were the best ways of taking forward that issue.

To a question about this afternoon’s meeting on the Middle East, he said that what would emerge from it depended on the text of the resolution tabled.  That was under discussion within the Arab Group.  He was looking for an outcome that endorsed what the Secretary-General had said over the weekend.  The Secretary-General had encouraged both sides to refrain from violence and start a process of implementation of the Road Map.

On a question about resolution 1559 on Lebanon, Mr. Jones Parry said that was up for discussion on 7 October, when the Council would be briefed by the Secretariat, and he would see how that went.  The Council had not had the benefit of an oral presentation.  The Secretary-General’s report had emerged late on Friday morning, so it was the subject of discussion in the capitals at this time.

There was a general sense that the Council and delegations wished to see progress on Iraq, he said, and if the omission of the subject from the calendar was striking, that was because Iraq was “always with us”.  Regarding the United Nations presence in that country, the United Kingdom wished to see that enhanced as soon as possible, as part of a common wish to see progress in Iraq.  Basic to that was reducing and eliminating the conflict, and creating a condition of security for the Iraqi people and for the United Nations presence there.

A key element in reducing the security threat was to ensure that the entire borders of the country were as secure as possible, he added.  He wished to work with all of Iraq’s neighbours towards that goal, which was shared by the coalition, the Iraqi Government and by those who sought positive progress in Iraq.

Asked whether, if Syria showed more cooperation, it would be subjected to “less heat” in terms of resolution 1559, he replied that the terms of the draft were very clear, and the interest of Lebanon should not be held hostage to any link of the sort the correspondent suggested.

To a series of questions on Iraq, he said the period leading up to the elections was one of particular vulnerability.  Getting the elections successfully concluded was a vital goal -- not an end in itself, but part of a clear strategy to take Iraq from where it was today to a democratic, secure State.  Many of the incidents, and the very serous security situation overall, were aimed at trying to stop the elections.  He believed all Council members would rally to the simple premise that they sought an end to the violence altogether and, thus, an end to an external presence.  Anything that the United Nations could do to maximize the chances that the elections could be held on time with maximum countrywide participation, “so much the better”, he said.

Asked whether the Security Council could act more effectively to stop the violence than the multinational force or the Government, he said he doubted that.  The way forward depended on the numbers in the police and Iraqi forces themselves to enable them to control the situation in their own country.

In response to another question, he said Haiti was not on the agenda, but that the Council was keeping a close eye on that and other situations.  If the Special Representative on the peace operation in Haiti wanted a meeting, he would hold one.

* *** *