United Nations peacekeeping operations - Security Council, 10226th meeting

Good afternoon, everyone. Good afternoon, Secretary-General. The 10,226th meeting of the Security Council is called to order. The provisional agenda for this meeting is United Nations peacekeeping operations. The agenda is adopted. In accordance with rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules of procedure, I invite the representative of Germany, Austria, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lebanon, and Portugal to participate in this meeting. It is so decided. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure, I also invite His Excellency Mr. Mohamed Fathi Ahmed Adris, Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations, to participate in this meeting. It is so decided. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of item two of the agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to the report of the Secretary-General on the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace cooperation in document S/2026/600. I warmly welcome His Excellency, Mr. Javier Martinez Acha Vasquez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama, And I also very warmly welcome the Secretary General, His Excellency, Mr. Antonio Guterres. Mr. Secretary General, several months at the invitation of the United States, we were in Lehman College and you presented to us the outline of your recommendations coming out of the report we are going to be discussing now. I'm very happy to give you the floor now at our official meeting.

Excellency.

Mr. President, Excellencies, I thank the French Presidency for convening this important debate. For nearly 10 years, I have seen what peacekeepers can do, what they can do when the Security Council stands behind them, and what they endure when it is divided. We do not lack tools. What we lack all too often is the political space to use them. And that is the starting point of the review of peace operations requested in the Pact for the Future. Excellencies, peacekeeping is above all a political instrument. It is deployed to support political solutions, never as a substitute for them. For three decades, We sent peacekeepers mainly to help the parties to a civil war implement a comprehensive peace agreement. And today, such agreements are rarer than at any time in decades. They are harder to reach and more fragile. Most of our missions now operate where peace remains elusive. They are asked to contain the damages of war that the parties feel little pressure to end and that outside actors sometimes feed. The ground has shifted. Too often, our mandates have not. Peacekeepers are attacked. Civilians are targeted. International law is violated with a mounting sense of impunity. Drones. Lethal autonomous weapons, disinformation amplified by artificial intelligence. The very nature of conflict is changing fast. Meanwhile, peacekeeping budgets have been slashed and the number of troops and police are greatly reduced. Continuous improvement matters, and we're doing so from Action for Peacekeeping to the UN80 Initiative. But that can only take us so far. The success of every mission requires your unity and a recognition of the evolving context in which we operate. And that is why the review calls for a reset. Allow me to reflect on five overreaching priorities. First, put peacemaking first. Let me be clear, peacekeeping operations should be deployed only when a peace agreement, or at least a robust ceasefire, is in place. Peacekeepers can do a lot to preserve the peace, but we cannot keep peace where there is no peace to keep. The way back to peacekeeping runs through peacemaking, and the Charter gives this Council the tools including Chapter VI. I urge you to use them to investigate disputes before they become wars, to visit the countries concerned, to build a shared understanding of the facts, which is the foundation of shared action, We will make fuller use of our good offices and the work of our missions and envoys, as we have done in Colombia and as we are doing in Cyprus. Not every crisis requires a new mission, but every crisis requires a political strategy and the coherent support of Member States. Second, forge a new partnership with host states. Peace cannot be imported. It must be built from within by the national actors who hold the key. That means consulting host states at the mandating stage and at every renewal, while also hearing all other parties to the conflict and civil society. It means an open, continuing conversation with the countries that contribute troops and police. And it could mean, for each peacekeeping mandate, a political mechanism, such as a compact between this Council, the Secretariat, and the host state, with each of us committing to what the others need, adherence and support to the mandate of the mission, on the forces and the equipment it requires, and on the technologies it must be allowed to use. Third, mandate for the world as it is. And that means agreeing before peacekeepers deploy on a longer-term vision on what they are meant to help achieve and, when appropriate, shorter-term objectives to measure progress. Mandates must be focused on what peacekeeping missions do best, particularly politics and security, and where mandated the protection of civilians. Protection built into missions mandate from the outset and how they are planned, mandated and resourced so that when civilians are threatened, peacekeepers can act decisively. And an exit strategy planned from the start of any mission. It means treating every renewal as a strategic opportunity to adapt. And when circumstances change, mandates must evolve. The Secretariat will provide frank assessments on what is working and what is not, and propose what to change, when to reconfigure, and when to leave.

Force empower the operations this Council mandates. Agility is not in the secretariats' hands alone. Missions cannot move at the speed of events when they are bound by rigid budgetary rules and administrative procedures. Efficiency means making every dollar count. But it can never replace our shared duty to fund peacekeeping predictably and adequately. Readiness means investing steadily in the people and tools of peacekeeping, including more mobile missions, the military and police capabilities of tomorrow, and the means to counter drones. Yet in several places, peacekeepers are still denied technology that any modern force would consider basic. That undermines their ability to fulfill their mandates. Overcoming those restrictions will take the active support of this Council. Readiness also requires a skilled, diverse workforce, with the full, equal and meaningful participation of women at all levels. And it requires accountability in both directions, for the conduct of our personnel and for attacks on those who serve. Every day, in some of the most dangerous places on earth, peacekeepers create space for dialogue and open pathways to peace. They do so at great risk, and too many have paid the highest price. I honor their courage and the memory of those who never come home. Resolution 2823, which this Council adopted unanimously, must now be implemented. No impunity, no exceptions. Fifth, work as a network. No organization can address today's conflicts alone. Peacekeepers are part of a wider system: United Nations entities, regional organizations, and the host country, each with its own strengths. Where UN agencies, funds, and programs can deliver better on a task, they should do it and receive the funds to do so, so that peacekeepers can concentrate on what only they can do. And when they leave, the gains do not leave with them. Our regional partners, above all the African Union, have also an essential role. With resolution 2719, this Council made a landmark commitment to predictable financing for African Union-led peace support operations. It's time to bring it to life, case by case, always in the service of political solutions. UN peacekeeping operations should only be deployed when there is a peace agreement or a robust ceasefire. When circumstances require, we need peace enforcing, not peacekeeping. When peace enforcing is justified, it can be led by regional forces or coalitions, as this Council decided in the case of Haiti, with United Nations logistical support. But force must serve a political strategy, never replace one. It must respect the Charter and adhere to international law, and it must answer to this Council. Without those safeguards, the use of force risks deepening the very conflicts it is meant to end. The Secretariat should play a strong role in ensuring those safeguards, providing the necessary technical support, and ensuring that enforcement action is rooted in an inclusive political strategy. And where peacekeepers serve alongside enforcement operations, there must be no doubt about who does what, and who answers for it. Excellencies, Unity is built through effort, engagement, and compromise. That is, first and foremost, the work of this Council. No mandate, no budget, no technology can replace it. But you are not alone. The Secretariat has a fundamental responsibility to actively support you, and the Review holds us to it. In the shadow of war, people still look to the blue helmets and trust them. Let us be worthy of that trust every day. Let us invest in peace. Let us be accountable and modernize ourselves, being more effective and cost-effective. Let's stand united behind those who keep it and forge together new pathways to peace. Thank you.

I thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and the report, which is at the heart of the United Nations Action and Security Council's as well. I now give the floor to the members of the council I give the floor to his Excellency Mr. Javier Martinez a Vasquez Minister for Foreign Affairs of Panama.

Good afternoon Secretary General excellences Ambassadors allow me to begin by thanking the French Presidency for convening this debate and the Secretary-General for the report that invites us today to reflect on the future of United Nations peace operations. We also are grateful for the work of the Department of Peace Operations and the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs. whose efforts continue to be indispensable to the fulfilment of the mandate entrusted to us by the Charter. This review responds to a decision taken by Member States in the Pact for the Future to adapt the tools of the United Nations to the realities of present and future conflicts, enabling responses that are more agile, flexible and tailored to each situation. But Panama believes that this review requires us to do more than simply asking how our peace operations should change. We must first ask what purpose they serve. What is the purpose of the United Nations when it decides to act in the face of conflict? For Panama, the answer is clear. The United Nations is not called upon merely to manage conflicts. It is called upon to open pathways towards overcoming them. Mr. President, peace operations have meaning when they preserve and when they expand the political space needed to achieve a peaceful and sustainable solution. When they protect the civilian population, when they build trust, when they help to keep channels of dialogue open, when they strengthen national institutions, and when they create the conditions for peace to be sustained after the United Nations presence has ended, because peace cannot depend indefinitely on an international mission. The success of a peace operation is measured not by how long a mission remains in place, but by how long peace can endure after the mission has withdrawn. This is what our horizon must be. Mr. President, the experience of Sierra Leone demonstrates that this horizon is attainable. The United Nations accompanied the country through various stages of its recovery, from peacekeeping to institutional consolidation. And There is one particularly powerful image from that experience. Years after the closure of UNAMSIL, Sierra Leone had not only strengthened its democratic institutions, but it had become a troop contributing country to United Nations peace operations. That is one of the clearest examples of what a successful transition means. A country that once received international solidarity ultimately becomes part of that international solidarity. Mr. President, the experience of the Democratic Republic of the Congo reminds us, in turn, that the protection of civilians remains a central responsibility of the United Nations, and that peace operations must be integrated into a broader political strategy. No mission can, by itself, address the root causes of a conflict. It can contain violence. It can protect lives. It can open space. It can provide support. But there is a boundary that we must clearly recognize, namely, force can contain violence, but it is politics is what can bring it to an end. This is why the political role of the United Nations is irreplaceable. The good offices of the Secretary-General, preventive diplomacy, mediation, political dialogue, confidence-building. These remain amongst the most powerful tools available to our Organization to prevent a crisis from reaching the point of no return. Investing in them is not an alternative to peace operations. It is an investment in reducing the length of time for which peace operations are needed. Mr. President, the strategic environment has changed profoundly. Conflicts are more protracted. They involve more actors. The lines between internal and international conflicts are increasingly complex. Technology is transforming the nature of warfare. Information and disinformation can accelerate crises, and geopolitical rivalries are increasingly being projected onto local settings. Faced with this reality, the United Nations cannot respond simply by doing the same things with new tools. The world has changed. Our way of making peace must also change. And this brings us to a second reflection. For decades now, we have spoken of exit strategies. Well, the time has come to also speak of entry strategies. Before deploying a mission, we must know what political opportunity we are seeking to protect. What problem are we seeking to resolve? What change are we seeking to make possible? What conditions must exist for the mission to have a genuine prospect for success? And above all, how do we want it to end? A mission should not begin by asking how many resources it needs. It should begin by asking what political change it seeks to make possible. Mr. President, The quality of a peace operation begins before it arrives on the ground. It begins with the quality of its mandate: clear mandates, achievable objectives, defined priorities, sufficient resources, a coherent political strategy and a viable transition. When that vision exists from the outset, subsequent decisions become more coherent. Strategic reviews cease to be administrative exercises. Mandate renewals become genuine opportunities to ask ourselves what is working, what needs to change, and whether the mission continues to respond to the reality on the ground. For that reason, my country believes that peace operations should be assessed not only by their activities, but also by their political impact. Have they helped to reduce violence? Have they protected civilians? Have they built trust? Have they created space for negotiation? Have they strengthened national institutions? Have they enabled societies themselves progressively to assume responsibility for their own peace? A peace operation should not be judged solely by what it does while it is present, but by what it leaves behind when it withdraws. Mr. President, nor can the future of peace operations be built around a single formula. Not all conflicts require the same response. Not all require blue helmets. Some require mediation. Others require a political presence. Others the protection of civilians. Others institutional support. Others electoral assistance, strengthening the rule of law, or peacebuilding. and many require a combination of these tools. For that reason, Panama supports a genuinely flexible vision of the peace operations system. The future does not necessarily require larger missions. It requires missions that are better suited to their purpose. We need responses tailored to each conflict, not a one-size-fits-all approach, but the right tool for each opportunity for peace. And that flexibility must also extend to our technological capabilities. New technologies can improve early warning, the protection of civilians, ceasefire monitoring, and the safety and security of our personnel. But we must remember an essential truth: artificial intelligence can help us anticipate risks; it cannot replace political intelligence. Technology can provide information. The decision to make peace remains a human one. Mr. President, no mission can sustain a peace process on its own. The greatest strength of the United Nations lies precisely in its ability to integrate efforts. The Security Council, the General Assembly, the Peacebuilding Commission, the agencies, funds and programs, regional and as sub-regional organizations, civil society, academia, the private sector, and above all, the states themselves and the societies directly affected. The challenge is to bring different capabilities to bear in pursuit of the same political objective. Because a peace mission should not become an island within the United Nations system, it must form part of an architecture for peace. Mr. President, we must also be realistic about resources. The organization's current liquidity crisis is seriously constraining our collective ability to implement the mandates entrusted by this Council. Rapid reductions in personnel and capacities, when not accompanied by proper transition planning, can create vacuums that are ultimately exploited by those seeking to deepen instability. Panama therefore reiterates its call on all Member States to fulfil their financial obligations fully and on time. We cannot ask our missions to do more while providing them with fewer means to carry out what this Council has entrusted to them. A mandate without resources is not a promise; it is a vulnerability. Mr. President, the protection of those who protect peace must also occupy a central place in this review. Panama welcomes the unanimous adoption of resolution 2823, which strengthens accountability for crimes committed against peacekeeping personnel. The resolution was adopted by all 15 members of the Council and received the support of more than 150 States during the negotiating process. Those who risk their lives under the United Nations flag cannot be allowed to become victims of impunity. Protecting civilians is a mandate. Protecting those who protect them must also be one. Mr. President, wars rarely end simply because the fighting stops. A ceasefire can silence the guns, but peace begins when the parties find a reason not to take them up again. A blue helmet can protect a space for dialogue, but no blue helmet can substitute for dialogue. This is why we must identify political opportunities when they arise, because those opportunities are fragile. Sometimes they last for months, at times only a few days. The responsibility of the United Nations is to recognize them in time and mobilize the full potential of the multilateral system to strengthen them before they disappear. The peace process in Colombia is an example of how a political opportunity, accompanied by the will of the parties and the support of the international community, can open the way towards a negotiated solution. It reminds us of something fundamental. Peace cannot be imposed from outside. It is built when there is political will within and when the international community knows how to support it. Mr. President, Panama believes that this review should lead us to a conclusion that is simple yet profound. We do not merely need better peace operations. We need a better architecture for preventing conflict, mediating, protecting, peacebuilding, and sustaining peace. We need more agile operations, clearer mandates, better tailored responses, greater integration between political and operational tools, better planned transitions, greater cooperation with regional organizations, predictable resources, and above all, a renewed primacy of politics. because the ultimate objective of a peace operation is not to remain, it is to make its own departure possible. And perhaps that is the most noble paradox of peace operations. A mission achieves its true success when the day comes that it is no longer needed. Mr. President, 80 years ago, the Charter of the United Nations entrusted us with a historic responsibility to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Today, we cannot abandon that purpose, nor can we fulfil it with tools designed for a world that no longer exists. We must adapt our operations to the conflicts of our time, without losing sight of the principles on which this Organization was founded. We must make use of technology without forgetting politics. We must strengthen capacities without losing sight of purpose. We must deploy when necessary, but we must also prevent before it is too late. And we must know not only when to enter, but also when and how to leave. Because, ultimately, we must not manage conflicts indefinitely. We must create the conditions for overcoming them. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to conclude by recalling the words of former Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold: "The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned." May that pursuit continue to guide the United Nations, and may our peace operations continue to serve not only as instruments for containing violence, but as bridges towards a peace capable of sustaining itself, because the true measure of a peace operation is not how long the United Nations flag remains, it is how long peace remains after that flag has been withdrawn. Thank you very much.

I thank His Excellency Mr. Javier Martinez-Acha Vasquez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama. I now give the floor to Pakistan.

Thank you, President. We would like to thank the French presidency for convening this debate. And let me also welcome the participation of the distinguished foreign minister of Panama, and we thank him for his comprehensive statement. President, allow me to also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and his report on the review of the future of United Nations peace operations. This discussion comes at a critical moment, offering Member States an opportunity to reflect on the SG's recommendations and on how UN peacekeeping should evolve to remain relevant, strong, effective, and fit for purpose in a changing environment. President Pakistan brings to this debate the perspective of both a major troop contributing country and as a host state. For over six decades, Pakistan has remained amongst the largest troop contributors to UN peacekeeping. With more than 170,000 Pakistani blue helmets having served the UN, and 183 of our peacekeepers having made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of peace. And Pakistan is also host to United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, UNMOGIP, that is mandated to observe the ceasefire in Jammu and Kashmir. And we have also contributed over the years to peacekeeping policy debate with the objective of adapting and strengthening UN peacekeeping. Just to briefly recall, in 2004, that's more than 20 years ago, under Pakistan's presidency of the Security Council at that time, A presidential statement of the Council was adopted, number 16, which for the first time in the context of the debate around peacekeeping, referred to and addressed the challenge that was at that time about the surge in demand in peacekeeping. and also introduced to Council's discussion the concept of robust mandates and rules of engagement for deploying missions with sufficient deterrence, even in risky situations. And then about 10 years later, in January 2013, in another presidency of Pakistan Security Council, the council unanimously adopted resolution 2086, which was a standalone for the first time, a dedicated resolution of the Security Council on peacekeeping, and it dealt with multidimensional peacekeeping. And that provide a big momentum to the secretariat's efforts to effectively deploy multidimensional peacekeeping missions. And skip 10 years later, we, last year in July, with support of council members, we adopted Resolution 2788 on peaceful settlement of disputes. And this is something that the distinguished minister was highlighting, the need for mediation, for good offices, and advancing political processes, which are very important. And then in June, together with Denmark, Resolution 2823 on accountability for attacks against peacekeeping. So this experience gives us a practical appreciation of what peacekeeping requires. Political support, credible mandates, sustainable resources, adequate capabilities, host state cooperation, and sustained commitment from the wider membership. President, today peacekeeping is actually under real pressure. No new mission has been established since 2014. Several have closed or drawn down, while political and financial constraints have intensified. However, This should not be misread as a decline of support for peacekeeping. Since 1960s, peacekeeping has moved in cycles of expansion and retrenchment. The present moment can be seen as another period of realignment. Peacekeeping adapts because conflict changes and because international politics evolve. There is much to unpack. on this subject. However, allow me to limit myself to four key points. First, peacekeeping needs both political backing and a political strategy. The Council must provide clear direction, sustained political support, and adequate resources. Host state consent must also translate into practical cooperation, including freedom of movement, access and support for mandate implementation. At the same time, the primacy of politics must be understood in its proper context. Peacekeeping cannot substitute for political processes, but neither should the principle of primacy of politics become an argument for inaction. In fact, The pursuit of political solutions and peacekeeping should not be mutually exclusive. Even when political processes stall, peacekeeping can contain violence, protect civilians, preserve ceasefires, and create space for politics to resume. We must therefore use this key instrument to create and maintain that space. Second, focused mandates must mean better peacekeeping, not less peacekeeping. A focused mandate is not necessarily a smaller one. It is one that aligns political objectives, tasks, capabilities and resources. One situation may require a light observer mission. light observer presence. Another scenario may entail substantial mobility, aviation, engineering, medical and protection of civilian capabilities. There is obviously therefore no one-size-fits-all model. The sequence should be clear. Define the political objective, design the mandate, identify the capabilities required and Finally, resource it accordingly. We must not start with a financial ceiling and then shrink the mission to fit it, irrespective of political objectives. Let us also recall that in the context of UN, peacekeeping is a proven cost-effective tool. We should reduce duplications, yes, streamline processes, and use technology better. and enhance partnerships with regional organizations. But efficiency and complementarity should strengthen delivery, not hollow out missions. Third, we must prepare today for the capabilities peacekeeping will need tomorrow. We therefore welcome the SG's reviews proposal for a study of the key police and military capabilities required for future peace operations. Practical, forward-looking and undertaken in close consultation with TCCs and PCCs, this study should inform future force generation training and pledges requirements. Lastly, We must preserve peacekeeping as a genuinely collective UN instrument. Pakistan and Denmark, as Council's peacekeeping duo, with the support of all Council members and the wider membership, have sought to sustain attention to this important instrument in the Council. Resolution 2823 on accountability for crimes against peacekeepers adopted unanimously and co-sponsored by a record 153 member states demonstrated the breadth of support for UN peacekeeping among the wider membership. Similarly, this year's C34 report was adopted by consensus. At a time when we often speak of declining confidence in multilateralism, the wider membership has demonstrated its continuing interest in and commitment to peacekeeping. That collective ownership is one of peacekeeping's greatest strengths. It is therefore incumbent upon this Council to preserve its relevance, credibility, and capacity, and when circumstances require, to take decision and use it, this tool, peacekeeping. President, this is a period of challenge. challenges and realignment. The reset proposed by the SG is necessary, but in resetting peacekeeping, we should be careful not to dismantle the very strengths we may need again tomorrow. We should modernize this instrument while preserving what makes it uniquely United Nations endeavor, its universal legitimacy, its ability to draw personnel and capabilities from across the membership, its integrated structures, its sustainable financing mechanisms, its institutional knowledge, and the men and women willing to serve under the UN flag with pride, commitment, and honor. That should guide the future of United Nations peacekeeping. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Pakistan for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Denmark.

Thank you to the French Presidency for convening this debate. And let me also thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and recommendations, and of course for the review report we received last month. And I welcome His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama to the Council. Colleagues, peacekeeping is at its heart not about mandate, missions, measures or benchmarks. It's also about people. It's about the brave women and men who serve under the UN flag at extraordinary personal risk to protect lives and support peace. And it's about the civilians whose safety and dignity are the very reason the blue helmets are mandated by this Council. It is also with this conviction that Denmark has, together with Pakistan, sought to keep UN peace operations high on the Council's agenda during our Council terms, to recognize their strengths, to address their shortcomings, and to make them fit for the future. Mr. President, the fact that no new UN peacekeeping operation has been mandated since 2014 should not be mistaken for a decline in relevance. UN peacekeeping remains essential to maintain international peace and security. What has declined, and what should be revitalized, is this Council's political will to deploy them, adopt them, and rethink them. Secretary-General, Denmark welcomes your call for a reset. But a reset should not mean a retreat. It should mean ensuring that the UN has the best tools, political strategies, and partnerships to act. And to this end, I would also like to focus on four key points. First, peacekeeping must remain firmly anchored in political strategy with a clear end state. It should create and preserve the conditions for inclusive political solutions, protect civilians, and support peace processes. It is an endeavor encompassing this Council, but also the Secretary-General and the Secretariat. In the Council, we must establish clear, achievable mandates and provide the political backing necessary for peace operations to implement them. We should not simply reproduce existing texts. Every renewal should offer an opportunity to assess objectives, capabilities, and the political strategy, and where necessary, realign them with realities on the ground. From the Secretariat, we need comprehensive planning across components and all levels, frank analysis and early warnings, including when existing mandates or configurations are no longer viable. We need to assess and act on risks, rather than avoid difficult conversations. We welcome the suggestions for enhanced use of fact-finding missions, good offices and mediation. The Secretary-General can play an important role in leveraging these tools. Second, Mr. President, mandates must better reflect the realities on the ground. Conflicts are becoming increasingly regional, particularly in Africa. We should strengthen the capacity of missions to address regional conflict dynamics and make better use of regional offices, envoys, and partnerships with regional organizations. However, regionalization should not mean outsourcing responsibility. The UN's universal legitimacy and its unique ability to mobilize and deploy multinational capacities remain a major comparative advantage. Third, effective peacekeeping requires effective and honest relationship with those most concerned. This includes genuine dialogue with host countries and parties to a conflict, meaningful engagement with troop and police contributing countries, and stronger cooperation with regional actors and the wider UN system. National ownership is essential, but so is host state compliance with the obligations that underpin a mission's mandate. Restrictions on the freedom of movement of UN peacekeepers are unacceptable. We must also ensure that attacks against peacekeepers are not met with impunity, as clearly reconfirmed in resolution 2823, and thank you for highlighting that, Mr. Secretary-General. A resolution co-led by Denmark and Pakistan and adopted unanimously in this Council with a record number of co-sponsorship, as the Permanent Representative of Pakistan just mentioned. Perpetrators of crimes against peacekeepers must be held accountable. Fourth, we must be realistic about resources. Denmark fully supports greater efficiency, accountability and cost-effectiveness. But efficiency cannot become a justification for hollowing out missions to the point where they can no longer deliver on their political objectives. Mr. President, in closing, the challenge before us is not to preserve peacekeeping as it was, nor to replace it with new models for their own sake. It is to ensure that, when the Security Council chooses to act, the United Nations has the mandate, the capabilities and the resources to make the actions count. This is the essence of a genuine reset, not a lower ambition for UN peacekeeping, but a better targeted and more politically effective ambition, with people always at its core. Denmark remains fully engaged to make that ambition a reality. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Denmark for her statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom.

Thank you to the Secretary-General for his briefing. At the outset, I pay tribute to the blue helmets who work every day to protect international peace and security. We also honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in that service. The safety and security of peacekeepers is essential, and we welcome the unanimous adoption of Security Council Resolution 2823 earlier this year to strengthen accountability for attacks against personnel serving in UN peacekeeping operations. President, we welcome the publication of the Secretary-General's review of the future of all forms of UN peacekeeping operations. Peace operations remain one of the United Nations' most effective tools for maintaining international peace and security. But in the world in which they operate is changing rapidly. Conflicts are becoming more complex, more internationalized, and increasingly shaped by new technologies. Peacekeeping operations must continue to adapt if they are to remain effective. Let me make three points on the primacy of politics, on building more focused, adaptable, and high-performing missions, and on ensuring missions have the tools they need to succeed. First, we welcome the review's emphasis on the primacy of politics. Peacekeeping operations work best where they support a clear political strategy, realistic objectives and a credible path to peace. Missions should be designed with credible exit strategies from the outset, but they must also be able to adapt as circumstances evolve, helping to ensure that when a mission departs, it leaves behind the conditions for a durable peace. Second, we support the review's emphasis on building more focused, adaptable and high-performing peace operations. Peacekeeping operations should focus on the tasks that they are uniquely placed to deliver, particularly in the political and security spheres, while avoiding duplication elsewhere in the UN system. Mandates should be prioritised and there should be stronger alignment between mandates, resources and political objectives. Performance remains central to mission success. That means ensuring both uniformed and civilian personnel are properly trained, well equipped and accountable for delivery. It also requires maintaining the highest standards of conduct, including a zero-tolerance approach to sexual exploitation and abuse. Women's participation is also essential to mission effectiveness. But this is not simply a matter of representation. It improves operational performance, it strengthens engagement with communities, and supports more effective peace processes. As co-chair of the LC Initiative Fund in 2025, the United Kingdom was proud to champion the efforts to tackle the barriers to women's participation in UN peacekeeping, and we encourage continued progress in this area. Third, peacekeeping operations must be equipped for the realities of today's operating environment. Missions should have access to the technologies, capabilities, and training needed to operate safely and effectively. They must also be equipped to navigate an increasingly complex information environment, including facing the growing challenge posed by misinformation and disinformation in conflict settings. We remain concerned by restrictions imposed by some host states on the use of essential equipment. Such restrictions reduce situational awareness, hinder mandate delivery, and limit missions' ability to respond effectively to evolving threats. We also reiterate that assessed contributions should be paid in full and on time without conditions. Effective peacekeeping depends on predictable and sustainable financing. President, the challenges facing peacekeeping are evolving, but the need for effective peacekeeping has not diminished. The United Kingdom stands ready to work with the Secretary-General, the Secretariat and fellow Member States to ensure that UN peace operations remain adaptable, effective and fit for the challenges ahead. Thank you.

I thank the representative of the United Kingdom for that statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Latvia.

Thank you, Mr. President. And I'd like to begin by thanking the French presidency for having convened this very timely debate on peace operations. And I thank the Secretary General, of course, for his briefing.

His Excellency, Javier Martinez-Aytrabascas, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama to this meeting. UN peacekeeping missions have been amongst the most successful and efficient instruments for maintaining international peace and security. They have a proven track record of contributing to stability across diverse regions. And we hear the proposal by the Secretary-General to reset UN peace operations, to adapt them to current needs and realities. And that they welcomes the publication of the review of all forms of future peace operations, which should serve as a clear catalyst to mobilize our collective efforts in this regard. Presidents. UN peacekeeping missions are ultimately deployed to support political solutions to conflict, ideally when there is a ceasefire or a peace to keep, to quote the Secretary General. Operating alongside the United Nations, regional and member states actors, they are one part of a broader complex puzzle. And when considering why no new UN peacekeeping missions have been deployed for more than a decade, We therefore must assess the nature of current conflicts and the role of the United Nations in addressing these conflicts. This role is changing as a result also of multiplication of factors involved in peacemaking, with regional organizations often assuming a leading position. And the ongoing UN reform efforts, together with the selection process for the next Secretary General, offer an opportunity for the United Nations to better identify the comparative advantages and reassert a proactive role for peacekeeping. At the same time, we must ensure that United Nations peacekeeping remains up to date and capable of operating in complex political and security environments. So let me outline three points in this regard. First, mission mandates crafted and approved by the Council play a crucial role in determining mission's success. There have been long-standing calls for clear political objectives, more targeted, realistic and context-adapted mandates, well-timed and clear exit strategies and adequate resources. Yet opportunities to pursue these goals have not always been seized. Now, going forward, each mandate renewal should be informed by objective assessments of results and remaining needs, measuring performance against clear benchmarks, not merely activities. And this requires sufficient time and space for proper consultations among council members and a clear picture of available options, and above all, unity of purpose among the members of this council. Furthermore, mission requirements may shift considerably throughout mission's life cycle. Engagement with the host nation is critical to manage expectations and to right-size the missions. Dialogue should also involve host communities who are most affected by mission performance and should have a voice in determining the mission's future. Missions may not require radical adjustments during each renewal cycle, but mandate rollovers should be the exception rather than the norm. The commitment expressed in the review to a more proactive role for the Secretariat during mandate renewals will be essential to reinvigorate this process. Second, Missions must be tailored to exact circumstances they face. Whether their role is limited to a ceasefire monitoring or involves multidimensional presence, mission design should reflect the political and security challenges on the ground rather than follow predetermined blueprints. While we second the aspiration toward lighter and more mobile mission footprints, we also recognize that some key tasks, such as protection of civilians, are often more resource intensive than others. We therefore encourage the study on key military and police capabilities initiated by the review to pursue such an approach. The rigid distinction between peacekeeping missions and special political missions may also merit further reflection, as a coherent peace operations toolbox requires these instruments to be used complementarily in a way that avoids duplication. And no matter what the mission's tasks may be, they should be matched with adequate resources. while ensuring clear accountability for performance and measurable impact. This also requires the readiness to adjust when they no longer meet their mandated objectives or conclude missions in line with credible exit strategies. Third, while the transformation of UN peacekeeping depends first and foremost on political commitment, leveraging technology will be critical to turning this aspiration into reality. We need to ensure that missions become more effective in an operational environment marked by increasing use of AI, cyber tools, drones, and information campaigns by state and non-state actors alike. Technological adaptation is a complex task shaped by relations with host nations, the technical capabilities of troop and police contributing countries, as well as planning and resource management at the UN level. The approach must therefore be comprehensive, covering capabilities, training, and mission-wide integration, while also being agile to keep pace with the rapid technological advancements. And the success in this endeavor will depend on a change in mindset rather than administrative adjustments. President, to conclude, the task of adapting UN peacekeeping is immense. Yet this instrument has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to evolve, and this moment should be no different. Our success will depend on the commitment and engagement of the Security Council members, the Secretariat, troop and police contributing countries, host nations, and international partners. As both a Security Council member and a TCC, Latvia remains committed to playing an active role in these efforts throughout our Council term. Thank you.

I thank Latvia for their statement. I now give the floor to the representative of China.

President, I thank Secretary-General Guterres for the briefing. UN peacekeeping operations came into being for peace and continue to exist for peace. They are effective tools for maintaining international peace and security. At present, with changes unseen in a century accelerating in the world, The situation facing international peace and security being complex and challenging and all kinds of protracted and fluctuating conflicts, peacekeeping operations are faced with new circumstances, new challenges and new requirements. Recently, the Secretary-General submitted the report on the review of peace operations, which is of great significance to promoting the transformation, upgrading, better quality and greater effectiveness and efficiencies of PKOs. I will make four points. First, peacekeeping operations should serve political processes and be kept on the right course. PKOs are ultimately about creating conducive conditions for political settlement and should serve clear-cut political processes. We should fully leverage the roles of preventive diplomacy, good offices, mediation, and political dialogue to bridge political differences, identify the framework of solutions, provide PKOs with a solid political foundation, and avoid ending up with no peace to keep. This is the fundamental guarantee for PKOs to achieve tangible results. At the same time, PKOs should effectively fulfill functions such as protection of civilians and ensuring humanitarian access to minimize the secondary harm caused by conflict. Second, mandates should be optimized and streamlined on the basis of actual needs. When formulating mandates, the Security Council should be grounded in reality and take into full account the nature of the conflict, the environment of the mission, and the needs of the host country to determine the tasks, objectives, and priorities in a solid manner and ensure that the mandates are clear, well-focused, practical, and feasible. We need to further improve the review and assessment mechanism. And in light of the will of the host countries and changes in the situation on the ground, make timely adjustments to the scope and priorities of mandates. We should set clear and feasible transition and exit strategies for PKOs in a timely manner. Yet such strategies should not be held hostage to the policies of any individual country, and no selectivity should be practiced on peacekeeping missions. Third, we should keep improving quality and efficiency and ensure the match between mandates and resources. On one hand, missions should be made more agile, flexible, and efficient. A culture of efficiency should be promoted throughout the entire process. Resource allocation should be continuously optimized. The use of funds should be more cost-effective, and efforts must be made towards greater cost-effectiveness and transparency in the procurement of peacekeeping supplies. The performance assessment system of missions should be improved by valuing the views of the countries concerned and turning the results of the assessments into the basis for improving the ways of operations, enhancing their effectiveness, and reducing expenditures. On the other hand, on the basis of actual needs of mandates, new technology should be leveraged in an active and prudent manner to enhance capabilities such as situational awareness, early warning, and logistical guarantees. And the integration of green, energy-saving, and unmanned intelligent technologies into peacekeeping should be promoted to strengthen the effectiveness of PKOs and the capacity to ensure their own safety and security. The liquidity issue remains a bottleneck constraining PKOs. Member States should provide PKOs with necessary resources. Fourth, we need to strengthen coordination among partners to build synergy for peacekeeping. PKOs are a systematic endeavor. We should further strengthen the communication and cooperation among the Security Council, the Secretariat, the host countries, TCCs, PCCs, and financial contributors to ensure that all parties will coordinate closely, support each other, and work in the same direction, and to improve the links between mandates, implementation of operations, resource guarantee, and strategic assessments. We need to enhance coordination and cooperation with regional organizations such as the African Union, support solving regional problems the regional way through regional strength. support AU and other regional organizations in improving their own peacekeeping capacity, and support the implementation of Security Council Resolution 2719 to fund the AU-led peace support operations. President, China is a firm supporter of and active participant in UN peacekeeping. For more than 30 years, China has sent over 50,000 peacekeepers, participated in 29 UN peacekeeping operations mandated by this Council, established an 8,000-strong peacekeeping standby force, and taken the lead in setting up the world's first standby peacekeeping formed police unit. More than 20 Chinese peacekeepers have made the ultimate sacrifice for peacekeeping operations. We're ready to work with all parties, to be guided by the global governance initiative proposed by President Xi Jinping, stay true to the commitment to multilateralism, never forget the mission of maintaining peace, stay grounded in reality, and uphold fundamental principles and break new ground, and make peacekeeping operations more pragmatic, efficient, and sustainable, and make greater contributions to the maintenance of international peace and security. I thank you, President.

I thank the representative of China for this statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the Kingdom of Bahrain.

Thank you, Mr. President. At the outset, I would like to thank the Secretary-General, Mr. Guterres, for his valuable briefing. I welcome the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama, Mr. Javier Peters, in this session. Here, I would like to thank all those working in peacekeeping operations. And we convey our condolences and sympathy to those who have lost their lives in the line of duty, as well as my deep gratitude to all Member States contributing troops to peacekeeping operations. In this regard, the Kingdom of Bahrain renews its call to build on Security Council resolution 2823 concerning the protection of peacekeeping personnel from any attacks directed against them. Mr. President, the Kingdom of Bahrain welcomes the issuance of the Secretary-General's report on the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations as one of the outcomes of the Pact for the Future. The Kingdom of Bahrain also expresses its concern at the fact that the world is currently witnessing the highest number of conflicts since 1945, as well as a rise in the number of deaths resulting from armed conflicts over the past five years. These have reached levels exceeding those recorded over the entire 20-year period preceding the year 2021. The Kingdom of Bahrain affirms that peacekeeping operations are of great importance today amid increasingly complex circumstances. They undertake tasks of peacemaking and mediation, the protection of civilians in situations of conflict, securing ceasefire agreements, as well as following up on their implementation. This is in addition to supporting national efforts to restore stability and build and sustain peace in cooperation with relevant regional partners. Mr. President, the Kingdom of Bahrain underscores the importance of providing the resources necessary to enable peacekeeping operations to implement their mandates effectively while ensuring the optimal use of available resources and enhancing efficiency, accountability, and financial sustainability in a manner that ensures resources are directed towards the priorities and tasks that achieve tangible impact on the ground. In this connection, the Kingdom of Bahrain has been committed to supporting the effort undertaken by peacekeeping operations for nearly eight decades. A commitment reflected in the kingdom's payment of its assessed contributions to the approved budgets of peacekeeping missions in full and on time over the past years. Mr. President, the Kingdom of Bahrain calls for strengthening the partnership between the Secretariat, host states and enhancing cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations through the sharing of responsibilities and the exchange of support, expertise and relevant information. In this regard, the Kingdom of Bahrain sees the importance of formulating a political compact as a consensus-based tool among the Security Council, the host State, and the Secretariat, in a manner that contributes to strengthening joint effort towards achieving the desired security and stability. Mr. President, the clarity and flexibility of the objectives and mandates of peacekeeping operations, the transparency of their implementation timelines, the importance of conducting periodic reviews and evaluations of these mandates, their adaptability to emerging challenges, and ensuring the optimal use of available financial and human resources all contribute to achieving the maximum possible impact of these operations on the ground. In this regard, the continuous review of the mandates and objectives of peacekeeping operations and working to develop them during the process of adopting mandate renewal resolutions is of particular importance. Mr. President, the Kingdom of Bahrain welcomes the expanded use of technology in peacekeeping operations, given its contribution to enhancing the capacity of these operations to adapt to various and diverse challenges and threats. The Kingdom of Bahrain calls for continued investment in technology and infrastructure required for peacekeeping operations and in their host states. along with the establishment of innovative partnerships in this regard. In closing, the Kingdom of Bahrain will continue to support all efforts aimed at strengthening joint action in support of peacekeeping operations in a manner that serves security, stability, and peace at both the regional and international levels. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Bahrain for the statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Liberia.

Thank you, Mr. President. Liberia joins in thanking the Secretary General for his very thoughtful and insightful briefing. And we welcome the participation of the distinguished Foreign Minister of Panama. Excellencies, Liberia is proof that peacekeeping works. But we are proof of something more precise. Peacekeeping works as a spectrum, not a single instrument. In 1990, ECOMOG intervened to stop our war. In 1993, UNOMIL observed our fragile peace. In 2003, UNMIL kept the peace. By 2018, Liberia carried it alone. Four instruments, one country, one continuum, Because the objective determined the tool, not the other way around. The lesson for us is simple. Peace is not built by one hammer and every crisis is not a nail. That is the first lesson we bring to the four questions this council has posed today. First, on new forms of peacekeeping for modern crisis, the question before us should not be whether the United Nations deploys a mission, but what form of engagement best meets the political and security realities on the ground. Preventive diplomacy, a special political mission, a peacekeeping operation, or a council-authorized regional arrangement. Liberia has lived this full continuum. From ECOMOG to UNAMIL to UNMIL, and ultimately to national ownership, our experience demonstrates that effectiveness lies not in choosing one instrument over another, but in matching the tool to the task. We therefore encourage the Council to recognize this continuum as a matter of doctrine, not ad hoc practice. Peacekeeping should be designed as a bridge out of conflict, strong enough to carry a nation toward stability, but never intended to become its destination. Second, on sharper, better-tailored mandates. Mandates must be clearer. leaner, and more honest about what peacekeeping can deliver and certainly what the situation on the ground requires. When a mandate promises everything, it risks protecting too little, prioritizing too late, and exiting without a plan. Peacekeeping should concentrate on political facilitation, protection of civilians, and security stabilization, while governance and development tasks are carried by the UN country team and national institutions. At each renewal, the Council should ask, what has changed? What is still unfinished? What must now change in the mandate? Liberia proposes mandatory joint transition compacts negotiated at least two years before drawdown with measurable benchmarks, including youth reintegration. Our experience is clear. Peace endured when young people were treated as citizens and partners in recovery, not as risks to be managed. A peace that leaves its youth behind is a peace still waiting to be secured. Third, on genuine dialogue with host countries, Consent cannot be a signature at the start and a formality at the end. Consent must be a conversation, a continuing one, and not a ceremony. We propose a structured political dialogue between the Council, the Secretariat, and host governments at deployment, at every major mandate adjustment, and at transition. So that national ownership shapes a mission from its first day, not merely its last. Liberia's own transition succeeded because it was negotiated with us at each stage, not announced to us. Fourth, on technology. The Brahimi Report told this Council a quarter century ago that the Secretariat must tell it what it needs to know, not what it wants to hear. Liberia knows what that discipline requires in practice. Our own response to Ebola succeeded because real-time, community-level data reached decision-makers before the outbreak outran them. We call for extending peace operations technology and readiness framework, secure communications, geospatial analysis, early warning systems, and responsible use of emerging technologies. funded as a line item, not as an afterthought. In modern peacekeeping, information delayed can become protection denied. Technology must serve political judgment, not substitute for it. Mr. President, this organization has just adopted A $5.1 billion peacekeeping budget, 10% lower than last year. Discipline is welcome. But discipline without direction is retreat, not reform. Resolution 2719 remains a framework still waiting on its financing. up to 75% of AU-led operations covered by assessed contributions and 25% still unresolved nearly three years after its adoption. If this Council expects regional partners to shoulder global burdens, it must close that gap and do so now, not at the next crisis. Liberia agrees with the Secretary General that predictable mandates require predictable financing. Peace cannot be financed by uncertainty. In conclusion, Mr. President, in our use of the tool of peacekeeping, may we never forget that the measure of this Council's success It's not how many missions it authorizes, but how few nations ever need one again. Liberia is the case study. Let us now make it the standard. Let Liberia's story remind us, peacekeeping succeeds best when it makes itself ultimately unnecessary. I thank you for your kind attention.

I thank the representative of Liberia for the statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Colombia.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. We'd like to thank the Secretary-General for the briefing today. And we'd like to welcome the Foreign Affairs Minister of Panama, His Excellency Mr. Javier Martinez-Acha Vazquez, and thank all of the other delegations for being with us today in the room. Mr. President, there is broad agreement on the diagnosis of the situation before us. While recognizing that peacekeeping operations are valuable tools available to the organization in the discharge of its functions, Substantive adjustments are still needed in order to respond to emerging challenges. These are challenges measured in human lives and which, driven by technological developments, are evolving at a pace that outstrips the ability of geopolitical dynamics and institutional practices to respond. The question is whether the Organization overall is taking the measures necessary to adapt its responses to current needs The report prepared on the future of all United Nations peace operations, prepared by the Secretariat, provides a basis for frank reflection on this issue and also for action. Mr. President, Colombia recalls that operations have taken different forms throughout their history, precisely in response to security challenges. also in response to geopolitical dynamics and the prevailing paradigms for addressing conflicts. The current context calls for decisive action, a pragmatic, results-oriented multilateralism, entailing profound reforms within the organization and adjustments to the Council's working practices. In this regard, allow me to highlight four calls that are of particular importance to Colombia. Firstly, the design and continuation of operations must respond to concrete needs on the ground and include clearly defined objectives, and it must have verifiable results. Colombia agrees on the need to strengthen the planning and monitoring of mission performance. Likewise, as a country hosting a significant United Nations presence, we recognize the importance of strengthening coordination so that tasks are carried out by the entities best qualified within the system, avoiding silos, inefficiencies and also duplication. Second, Colombia welcomes the recommendations addressed to the Council concerning the process of drafting and renewing mandates. Membership of this organ entails an enormous degree of responsibility, which must itself also be subject to review and accountability. Likewise, my country would expect the Secretariat to play a proactive role by providing realistic information on progress, impact, obstacles and budgetary implications, thereby strengthening its advisory role to the Council. Along the same lines, my country underscores the importance of consultation and coordination with the host state, ensuring that its views and priorities are taken into account throughout the decision-making cycle. Thirdly, the technological modernization of existing and future missions is an urgent imperative. The review of operations must result in missions having the appropriate capabilities to address threats and strengthen the safety and security of mission personnel. At the same time, we must capitalize on the benefits that technologies can offer peacekeeping in terms of cost-effectiveness, situational awareness, risk analysis, and early warning, including those powered by artificial intelligence. Fourth, we need a coherent institutional response to meet these challenges whilst balancing expectations, resources, and mandates. The publication of the report is a first step in a process requiring the commitment of multiple actors, including the Secretariat, the Council and the General Assembly. Colombia reiterates its readiness to contribute to the discussion in the various forums with a view to a more coordinated and effective international action. Lastly, Mr. President, allow me to conclude by recognizing the milestone represented by the adoption of resolution 28/23 on accountability for crimes committed against United Nations peacekeeping personnel and pay tribute to the women and men who have given their lives in the service of peace under the flag of the United Nations. Honouring their memory requires us to renew our commitment to the safety and security of deployed personnel, to justice, and to the fight against impunity. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Colombia for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the United States.

Thank you, President. Thank you, Secretary-General Guterres, for your briefing, and, of course, a warm welcome to the Foreign Minister of Panama. The United States welcomes this debate and the opportunity to offer our reflections on the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations. The United States is a leader in stopping conflicts and forging peace deals. We believe that decisive diplomacy, backed by real leverage, is what actually ends wars. The United Nations, by contrast, is mired by bureaucracy and process, including lengthy reviews and statements, when addressing conflicts actually requires timely, concrete adaptation. Peacekeeping is no exception. This review, however, does little to address current conflict realities or adapt peacekeeping. Successful peacekeeping demands clear mandates, real accountability and articulated benchmarks to work towards, not indefinite mandate renewals that substitute for strategy. If I can put this another way, the work we do here in New York must be worthy of the brave women and men working in the field, the civilians they work to protect, and of course, the taxpayers, the hardworking taxpayers who make all of this work possible. So let me be direct. We have lost confidence that peacekeeping, as we currently design and resource it, delivers results proportionate to its cost and footprint. We must rigorously assess missions and hold them accountable for defined outcomes. The United States therefore seeks reform organized around five principles. First, the secretariat and mission leadership must provide unvarnished feedback to this Council. The review itself repeats, as my colleague, our colleague from Liberia pointed out, the review itself repeats the Brahimi report's central assertion: the Secretariat must tell the Council what it needs to know, not what it wants to hear. Candor gives Council members the ability to adapt mission priorities as circumstances evolve. This candor includes specific recommendations from the secretariat so the council can effectively reconfigure or terminate underperforming missions when needed. For example, recently, the secretariat produced a report that was supposed to detail plans for a mission's transition and drawdown. Instead, what we received detailed very little. We asked for tangible plans, not prose about process. Second, the secretariat must develop genuine, integrated mission level planning. We are pleased to see other countries agree on this, as well as on the importance of establishing a strategic vision and viable end state at a mission's inception. Missions need to have realistic and achievable goals and, as the review recommends, we must be willing to terminate missions that fail to adapt. Third. Mandates must stay focused on security functions in service to a political plan, as highlighted in the Secretary-General's recommendations in the review. The Council must stop adding superfluous language to resolutions that lead to lengthy, unfocused mandates. These efforts veer missions off course by miring them in political niceties instead of focusing them on core efforts. Fourth. The review makes a critical point regarding the need to enhance accountability for performance and conduct. The Council must collectively demand that all stakeholders in peacekeeping uphold high performance standards and address misconduct. This includes the rigorous application of the zero tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse. Deployment eligibility and continued participation in the mission must hinge on these standards. We expect the Secretariat and all contributing countries to match rhetoric with action. Fifth, we demand continued strategic cost efficiencies across UN peacekeeping, especially where cuts do not undermine a mission's ability to implement its mandate. The UN80 Initiative savings that this review cites are a starting point, but not a finish line. Good stewardship of US taxpayer dollars requires greater efficiency and accountability in how the secretariat manages peacekeeping funds. Our support depends on demonstrated results and responsible use of assessed contributions. When missions are stretched thin, that is generally a function of poor prioritization, not insufficient resources. So let there be no ambiguity, peacekeeping has grown too big and too broad. It is trying to do too much. Peacekeeping missions as currently constituted are not unqualified successes. Rather, they are flawed instruments in need of fundamental reform. We call on this Council to match our resolve and restore peacekeeping to its foundational purpose of maintaining international peace and security, and to do so with the urgency that this moment demands. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the United States for their statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Somalia.

I thank France for convening this important and timely debate and the Secretary-General for his insightful briefing. We welcome the presence of His Excellency Mr. Vasquez, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama, in this meeting, and other distinguished representatives joining us today. Allow me to begin by paying tribute to the women and men serving under the United Nations flag, often in extremely difficult conditions. We honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. As Somalia approaches the end of its tenure on this Council, one lesson is clear: peacekeeping succeeds or fails long before a peacekeeper enters the field. It begins with our political decisions, the clarity of our mandates, the unity of this Council, and our willingness to match expectations with adequate resources. The Secretary-General's review on the future of United Nations peace operations offers a sobering assessment. Conflicts are multiplying, increasingly internationalized, protracted, and technologically advanced, while geopolitical divisions continue to constrain collective action. No new United Nations peacekeeping operations has been established since 2014. Peace operations remain relevant, but we must ask whether we are creating the political conditions necessary for their success. For Somalia, we have seen what international solidarity can achieve when grounded in national ownership and guided by clear political objectives. We also know the human cost when mandates, resources, and political realities fall out of alignment. Against this backdrop, allow me to make five points. First, politics and prevention must come first. Peace operations cannot manufacture political will or substitute for a genuine commitment to dialogue. We must make fuller use of Chapter VI tools systematically, offering good offices, fact-finding, and Article 34 engagement. As highlighted in the review, small regional offices and envoys provide cost-effective preventative diplomacy. Prevention's true value is measured in conflicts avoided, families not displaced, and children spared from becoming refugees. Second, partnership with host states must be strengthened. Operations are most effective when built on trust, sustained consultation, and respect for national sovereignty. Host states must play a central role across missions design, mandate reviews, and transitions. Establishing compacts on mutual commitments can clarify operational parameters as well as capabilities. Ultimately, partnerships should reinforce national institutions to enable host countries to assume full responsibility for sustaining peace. Third, mandates must be realistic, prioritized, and adaptable. The Security Council must use mandate renewals to assess progress, incorporate new priorities, or discontinue unachievable tasks. Transition planning and exit strategies must be embedded from the mission's inception. accompanied by an early division of labor with the United Nations country team to consolidate peace-building gains. Such clear frameworks ensure missions leave behind stronger and enduring national capacities. Fourth, efficiency and adequate resourcing must go hand in hand. Peacekeepers facing drones, improvised explosive devices, cyber threats, and disinformation require enhanced mobility, situational awareness, and appropriate technology. Efficiency must not become another word for under-resourcing. We cannot authorize ambitious mandates and then de-prioritize missions mandate in achieving the means and ways to implement them. Therefore, Member States must pay assessed contribution in full and on time. Streamlining administrative structures under UN initiative must never translate into under-resourcing, nor can financial liquidity crisis compromise peacekeeper safety or operational delivery. Attacks against United Nations personnel must also be investigated and prosecuted consistent with Resolution 2823. Fifth, and my last point, cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations must be deepened. For Somalia and Africa, the partnership between United Nations and the African Union remains vital. Regional arrangements bring essential proximity, legitimacy, and operational capability. Resolution 2719 provides an indispensable framework for predictable, adequate and sustainable financing for African-led peace support operations. The Council should proactively operationalize this landmark framework on a case-by-case basis. To conclude, Mr. President, when a mission completes its mandate and lowers the United Nations flag, its legacy should be assessed not by the duration of its presence, but by whether the host nation is more resilient and equipped to sustain peace and development. Somalia reaffirms its commitment to working constructively with the United Nations, the African Union, TCCs, and all partners to advance peace operations that are effective, nationally owned, and capable of delivering sustainable peace.

I thank the representative of Somalia for his statement, and I give the floor to the representative of Greece.

At the outset, I would like to thank the Secretary-General for his valuable briefing, and I welcome the participation of the Foreign Minister of Panama to this meeting. UN peace operations remain one of the most visible and effective tools to maintain international peace and security. We want to pay tribute to the courage and dedication of the Blue Helmets, the men and women who serve under the UN flag, often in extremely difficult conditions, far from home. We honour the memory of those who have paid the ultimate price in the line of duty. Attacks against peacekeepers are unacceptable and constitute serious violations of Security Council resolutions and international law. And in this regard, we welcome the unanimous adoption of Resolution 2823. Mr. President, in today's increasingly complex environment, peace operations need to adapt. We should be open to different approaches when circumstances require them. The recently deployed Gang Suppression Force in Haiti is one example of a new hybrid model. Such arrangements may not work everywhere, but they broaden the options available to us. At the same time, the Council must retain its central role in mandating and overseeing peace operations. I wish to highlight four points in this regard. First. The review gives us a useful roadmap for adapting peace operations to today's realities. We need mandates that are clear and achievable, rather than mandates that try to address everything. But adaptation should not come at the expense of the core tasks of peacekeeping, including monitoring ceasefires and protecting civilians. Missions also need clear political objectives and, from the outset, a realistic sense of how they will eventually transition or draw down. Second, technology can help. Artificial intelligence, in particular, can improve situational awareness, make operations more effective, and help keep our personnel safe. UAVs are one example. But we should also be clear about the risks. The same technologies can be used to spread disinformation, manipulate information, and target or discredit peacekeepers. Their use must therefore remain consistent with international law, human rights, and accountability. Third, the Security Council must play its part. We should translate the relevant recommendations of the review into our own practice. This means, among other things, listening more closely to host states, both when missions are established and when their mandates are reviewed. Above all, peace operations must remain politically driven. They cannot substitute for a viable political process. Fourth, Peacekeeping cannot succeed without strong partnerships. We need close cooperation among the UN, host countries, local communities, troop and police contributing countries, and regional organizations, including the African Union. The next peacekeeping ministerial, to be hosted by Indonesia and the Netherlands in Jakarta, will be an important opportunity to strengthen these partnerships. In conclusion, Mr. President, The future of UN peace operations will depend not only on the tools we develop, but on whether we have the political will to use them. We need peace operations that can adapt, that enjoy political support, that have the resources to do their job, and that remain firmly grounded in the UN Charter and international law. Greece will continue to work with the Secretary-General, the Secretariat, and with all Council members to strengthen UN peace operations and take forward the recommendations of this review. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Greece for their statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Mr. President, the Democratic Republic of the Congo thanks the French Presidency for organizing this debate on the issue that directly affects the credibility and capacity for action of our organization. We also thank the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his presentation and recommendations, and we welcome the presence of Mr. Javier Martinez de Chaves, His Excellency, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama. The Democratic Republic of the Congo, which hosts on its territory one of the oldest and largest peacekeeping operations, is following with particular attention the reflections on their future. And we do so not as observers, but on the basis of more than two decades of experience with its achievements, difficulties, sometimes disappointments, but also with the conviction that peacekeeping remains one of the most valuable instruments at the UN. And this experience invites us to beware of overly simple answers. Indeed, in the face of protracted conflicts, changing security environments, and scarce resources, the temptation can be great to measure the effectiveness of an operation by solely reducing its footprint, its personnel, or its costs. For my delegation, however, streamlining does not mean giving up. A less endowed mission is not necessarily a more effective one. It can simply become a mission less capable of discharging the mandate from this Council. Similarly, the observation that there is sometimes no real peace to maintain cannot in itself exhaust our reflection on the relevance of the UN presence. Rather, it should lead us to question the nature of this presence. the instruments it mobilizes, and its ability to evolve with the conflict it is called upon to accompany, and the establishment of lasting peace. The experience of our country has taught us a great deal, in particular that the trajectory of peace operation is never linear, that the circumstances can lead a host state to consider a gradual reduction in an international presence, can change abruptly when threats we thought contained reemerge or a new security situation emerges. And that is why We plead for the transitions to be responsible, concerted, and above all, reversible when the realities on the ground require it to be so. It seems to us, therefore, that the real question is no longer just how to maintain peace, but how to enable the United Nations operation to more effectively cover the entire path to peace. When peace exists, it must be possible to preserve it. When it remains fragile, it must be consolidated. And when it moves away, we must have the political and diplomatic instruments to recreate the conditions for it. It is guided by this that my delegation sees particular potential in much closer articulation between peacekeeping, peacebuilding, prevention, and mediation. The clarity of mandate should not be an impediment to the assessment of the situation. It needs to guide its progress and guide the reassessment of its potential instruments. Generally speaking, peacekeeping should be basing itself also on the political tools of this organization, support the mediation process, help with the ceasefire, and create the political space necessary for the settlement of conflict. Our experience confirmed us in this. MONUSCO participation in the joint verification mechanism and others shows existing mechanism can use their mechanism for a broader security architecture. It's not just keeping the acquired peace, but making sure that a lasting peace can be maintained. Mr. President, this adaptation of peace operations cannot be thought without the host state for the mission. For the DRC, this is a fundamental principle. The consent of the host state cannot be viewed as a formality at the time of deployment and then eventually relegated to the background. It has to fuel the entire mission, the definition of its priorities, the development of the mandate, deployment, reconfiguration, and the conditions for its transition. Peace operations are only cannot be successful when there is a gap between the environment and the state's needs. The partnership with the host state has to be permanent, substantive, and based on shared responsibility. The future of peace operations must be worked out together with the host states. This also means that the mandates have to be provided with the means that they need, and the liquidity crisis is not an abstract accounting difficulty. It is expressed on the ground through lesser presence in some areas, different reaction times, and definite consequences for civilian population, which means that other missions need to have the means to implement their mandate. We therefore need to be a predictable funding mechanisms and also when they're conducted by regional organizations. And we think that resolution 2719 need to be given its full expression. Lastly, rethinking peace operations also means that we need to protect those who are serving on the UN banner. Attacks against the blue helmets and the civilians of the United Nations, restrictions on their freedom of movement and arbitrary detention are all diminishing our capacity to act. The Government of the DRC, therefore, is constantly recalling that the freedom of movement of MONUSCO, its access to various areas, such as the M23 areas, remain essential for the fulfilment of its mandate. Mr. President, in conclusion, The Democratic Republic of the Congo believes that the future of peacekeeping should not be reduced to a choice between maintaining the architectures of yesterday and reducing the presence of the United Nations of tomorrow. It must be one of transformation, a transformation that allows our operations to move from peacekeeping to peacebuilding when the circumstances require, from protection to support to mediation, from the observance of a ceasefire to support for the mechanisms that make it possible to preserve it. A transformation that makes regional organizations true partners, and above all, a transformation that keeps the host state at the heart of any decision affecting the evolution of an international presence on its territory, because conflicts evolve and therefore the path that leads to peace change with them. Our operation must be able to evolve with our commitment to peace remaining. I thank you.

I thank the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for their statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

Mr. President, We thank the French presidency for organizing the traditional Security Council's debate on U.N. nations -- United Nations peacekeeping operations. We listened very carefully to the Secretary General's assessment of the state of affairs in this area. Today, when the line surrounding war and peace is becoming increasingly blurred and long-term conflict resolution is often being replaced by palliative measures, when armed groups have gained access to technologies that we previously thought were privileges of individual states. At this time, adaptation of the UN to contemporary reality is particularly relevant. And we see a worthwhile attempt to launch a process of rethinking approaches to UN peacekeeping in the recently issued review of the future of all UN peace operations, which we already had an opportunity to discuss in August during the Danish presidency of the Council. Peacekeeping now is going through difficult times. The number of missions and the number of blue helmets is decreasing. And the reasons for that are varied. The liquidity crisis directly linked to the failure of certain member states to meet their budgetary obligations, declining confidence on the part of host countries, and in some cases, changing geopolitical realities. The fact that since 2014, not a single new peacekeeping mission has been deployed is not evidence of problems with the effectiveness of the UN in this area, but rather the result of a whole range of factors, and not always directly related to UN activities. We think it's wise to focus the discussion on what can realistically be changed in the work of peacekeeping missions in order to bring them into line with present-day realities. First and foremost, we should finally, definitely move away from the paradigm that has proved ineffective, the paradigm in which peacekeeping missions are viewed as a tool used to transform a host state in accordance with certain international standards. The purpose of PKOs, as rightly noted in the review of the future of all UN peace operations, is to support the peace process or to create conditions for a political settlement. Any assistance in state building should be provided only at the request of the host state with a strict respect for state sovereignty. And this brings us to one of the key recommendations of the review regarding the fundamental importance for the effective functioning of the missions of consent and cooperation with the host state, which bears primary responsibility for the security of its population. And this also means the need to be receptive to justified criticism from national authorities and local populations, which should be taken as guidance for action, rather. It is important to understand that disinformation, the need to combat which is often discussed within these walls, is only powerful when it is at least partially based on truth. We would also like to note the long overdue need for serious work on focusing peacekeeping mission mandates on priority tasks directly related to security and politics. In the context of the ongoing liquidity crisis, when thousands of peacekeepers are returning home solely for financial reasons, such functions as human rights monitoring, promotion of women in local government bodies, or monitoring climate change are becoming an unaffordable luxury. We are confident that specialized UN entities can handle these tasks perfectly well if requested by the host state to do so. Russia, as a responsible permanent member of the Security Council, will continue in practice to advocate for clear and realistic mandates aimed at advancing political settlement and achieving national reconciliation through the unique advantages of the blue helmets, which are unavailable to any other forms of UN presence. And above all, this concerns the doctrine characteristics of UN peacekeeping, which are based on the UN Charter and the three fundamental principles, namely consent of the parties, impartiality, and the use of force exclusively in self-defense and defense of the mandate. Only this enables the Blue Helmets to play their unique role in creating the conditions necessary for the sustainable resolution of crises. Mr. President, we have consistently been proceeding from the understanding that the optimal forum for discussing major trends in peacekeeping has been and remains the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations of the General Assembly, whose strength lies in the principle of consensus. The final word on reforms in this area should remain with States. Attempts to substitute decisions of Member States with some kind of creative initiatives including those of the UN Secretariat, such as its Action for Peacekeeping initiative and its subsequent iterations, they are unacceptable. Mr. President, in conclusion, we would like to reaffirm our commitment to active participation in UN peacekeeping activities. 54 Russian nationals are serving in the organization's missions in Africa and the Middle East, in Latin America, and in Cyprus. Russia is among the top 10 contributors to peacekeeping operation budgets. And on a continuous basis, we train both Russian and foreign multidisciplinary specialists, including women. and personnel from defense and law enforcement agencies. These centers are certified by the UN Secretariat, and these are centers of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. I thank you for your attention.

I thank the representative of the Russian Federation for his statement, and I will now make my statement as a representative of France. I would like to begin by thanking the Secretary-General for the study on peace operations, as well as for his briefing today. And France would like to express our thanks to all personnel serving in peace operations, as well as thank the troop and police contributing countries for their essential role. And I'd like to pay tribute to the memory of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of peace and the United Nations. We are currently living through a paradoxical time. Despite the resurgence of conflicts around the world and the continued political support enjoyed by peacekeeping, it is losing momentum as a peacekeeping operation. There can be no doubt, however, that guaranteeing international peace is the main raison d'etre of the United Nations, and that peace operations in all of their diversity are the most effective instrument that this Council has to act. France fully endorses one of the principal findings of the study of the Secretary-General, namely, peace operations are first and foremost political instruments. Their successes and failures are determined primarily by the political processes they are mandated to support. It is also essential to mobilize the resources necessary for the implementation of mandates, which notably requires all Member States to pay their contributions in full and on time. This is the obligation that they have according to their commitments. France welcomes the contribution made by this study to the reform of peacekeeping And we thank the Department of Peace Operations and the Department of Political Affairs, as well as the Secretariat overall, for their work. We would like the Council to work more specifically in the future around three basic areas. First, greater agility, modernization, and diversification. Firstly, agility. On the basis of agile analysis by the Secretariat of the situations on the ground and appropriate planning, the Council must be able to review mandates whenever circumstances so require. This means developing our capacity to restructure missions and to move swiftly from one peace operation model to another in order to better respond to the complexity of the threats and situations. This is the rationale behind the concept of a spectrum of peace operations within which peacekeeping operations retain their full relevance. Second, better access to technology. In order to strengthen the operational effectiveness of missions, this requires human, logistical and financial resources better adapted to the pace and increasingly challenging nature of operational environments. The review proposed in the study of the key capabilities required by operations must be a priority. Thirdly, diversification. Diversification of operational approaches. This requires the strengthening of a culture of partnerships and promoting interoperability. The operation in Haiti is a good illustration of this. And with regard to operations linked to regional organizations, the African Union is a major partner, and the implementation of Resolution 2719 remains a priority whenever circumstances are conducive to it. Colleagues, France also attaches particular importance to security of blue helmets and we firmly condemn any attacks on them and we welcome the unanimous adoption of Resolution 2723 at the initiative of Denmark and Pakistan this year, strengthening our... means to combat attacks on peacekeepers. I will conclude by recalling the many comparative advantages enjoyed by the UN in the field of peacekeeping, the ability to mobilize capacities and resources rapidly, the political legitimacy of the Security Council and its impartiality, the commitment and experience of troop and police contributing countries, comparatively lower costs and recognized technical and normative expertise. These advantages remain. France recently co-chaired, together with Morocco, the second ministerial conference on peacekeeping in French-speaking environments that was held in Rabat on the 20th of May. We will continue to work with all states involved in peace operations to adapt them to contemporary challenges and to make them a renewed instrument. in the service of international peace and security. I resume my functions as President of the Council, and I now give the floor to the representative of Indonesia.

Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking France for convening this important debate. I also thank the Secretary-General for his insightful briefing. Excellencies, peacekeeping operations have long stood as a symbol of multilateralism at its best. embodying the credibility and legitimacy of these organizations. In 1957, Indonesia deployed its first peacekeepers to preserve international peace and security. Since then, over 60,000 Indonesian finest sons and daughters have served across peacekeeping operations worldwide. While the global security environment has transformed, Indonesia's pride in peacekeeping remains steadfast. Peacekeeping operations must evolve to become more agile, adaptive, cost-efficient and fit for the future. Above all, our strategy must be anchored in the fundamental conviction that peacekeeping must support political solutions. I wish to highlight three priorities. First, ensuring an inclusive, Member State-driven, for implementing the Secretary-General's review on the future for all forms of UN peace operations. We welcome the Secretary-General's report on the review on the future of all forms of UN peace operations, which precisely underlines that peace operations can only succeed with the political support from the Council through clear, achievable mandates. To translate this landmark review into meaningful operational impact, implementation must be guided by a spirit of shared and inclusive stewardship. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, C-34, stands as the intergovernmental forum where the voices of troop contributing countries, host states and the broader membership converge. By aligning the work of the C34, the Council and the Secretariat, we ensure that reforms carry genuine ownerships and remain deeply rooted in operational realities on the ground. Second, strengthening deterrence and technology to protect those who protect the peace. Attacks against peacekeepers are unacceptable. For Indonesia, the safety and security of peacekeepers is not an abstract concept. It is a painful reality felt deeply when our own brave personnel made the ultimate sacrifice under the UN flag. We welcome the unanimous adoption of Resolution 2823, which reinforced accountability for crimes committed against UN personnel, establishing credible deterrence against future attacks. Deterrence must also be reinforced by operational capabilities. harnessing digital tools, real-time situation awareness, early warning systems, counter threat technology, and specialized capability to protect personnel on the front lines. To this end, the push for cost efficiency on the context of reform must never justify any arbitrary cost-cutting that compromises adequate resources or personnel safety. Third, Indonesia is proud to hosting the upcoming UN Peacekeeping Ministerial toward the end of 2027 in Jakarta, together with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Indonesia's vision aligns with the Netherlands' longstanding advocacy for more effective UN peacekeeping, including through the A4P, A4P+, and A4P Impact. Indonesia has focused on strengthening community engagement and the safety and security of peacekeepers. while the Netherlands has advanced this agenda by championing protections of civilians and mission performance. We look forward to the support and close cooperation with all Member States to ensure the success of the Ministerial, including its preparatory conferences. Looking ahead, UN peacekeeping must remain an indispensable tool for international peace and security. We stand ready to work with all Member States to ensure that peacekeeping remains effective credible and firmly anchored in the principle of the United Nations. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of Indonesia for his statement, and I give the floor to the representative of Lebanon.

Thank you, Mr. President. Allow me to thank the French presidency for convening this debate. I'd also like to thank the Secretary-General for his briefing and his report, which is coming at a key time for the future of peace operations. We, for our part, are convinced that a reconfiguration of peace operations involves a multilateral approach that is anchored in international law, particularly in the United Nations Charter. I wish to pay tribute to all of those who have served under the blue flag and to those who have given their lives, particularly in the service of UNIFIL. Lebanon will not forget this sacrifice, and there can be no impunity for crimes committed against soldiers of UNIFIL. Since 1978, the United Nations force in Lebanon has been part of our daily life. Let us remind ourselves of what UNIFIL is and what it has never claimed to be. Its purpose is not to prevent conflict, nor can it on its own guarantee the absence of violence. Its role is to contain escalation as far as possible. Without it, the situation would have been far more serious. What it has helped achieve is the avoidance of collapse rather than the attainment of peace. It has helped to preserve space for de-escalation through its presence on the ground, through the tripartite mechanism that it facilitates, through its support for humanitarian access and through its contribution to the protection of civilians. It supports efforts towards a political settlement. And that is the very spirit and the letter of Resolution 1701 of the Security Council whose full implementation must remain our common objective. A peace operation derives its value only from the political process it serves, never from acting as a substitute for that process, and a lot of speakers that took the floor before me have recalled this today. Mr. President, we have to see that the situation has deteriorated since the adoption of resolution 2790, and particularly since the 2nd of March. We have witnessed the continuation of deadly Israeli attacks, as well as the continued occupation of the south of the country. This is not the time to weaken the instrument tasked with observing, reporting, and supporting efforts on the ground. That is why This transition, when it takes place, must be organized and planned, without creating a security vacuum. On the contrary, it must strengthen the presence of the Lebanese state and its institutions, foremost among them the Lebanese Armed Forces. It's for this reason that the government of Lebanon supports the maintenance of a temporary international presence until our Lebanese army is able to fully deploy throughout the territory. In that context, maintaining a United Nations presence remains the preferred option, both operationally and logistically, as well as in terms of cost-effectiveness. We would, of course, wish to see that option embodied in a resolution of this Council. This is also a very concrete expression on the ground of the need for agile mandates and viable transitions, highlighted in the Secretary-General's report. It should also be emphasized that this presence would complement the current discussion process sponsored by the United States. A neutral and credible presence remains in the interest of all parties without exception. We need an impartial mechanism capable of ensuring, over the long term, the monitoring, verification, and reporting of violations of the cessation of hostilities. Finally, we welcome the support provided by all States to our armed forces, and I'm thinking in particular of the ongoing commitment of France, and I think in particular of the meeting held yesterday, 17th of September, in Paris, in preparation for the international conference in support of the Lebanese armed forces. The Lebanese Government intends to shoulder its responsibilities. What it asks of its partners is support. a road map, a clear timetable and a verifiable mechanism for following priorities and measuring their impact over time. Everything we have said is directed towards a single goal: the full sovereignty of the Lebanese State over its entire territory, sovereignty whose benefits extend beyond our borders and could potentially reach the entire region. France itself, speaking from this very Chamber in 2017 through your representative, recalled the following: "UNIFIL is a regional public good." That is true. At the same time, we look forward to the day when it will no longer be necessary, the day when that Lebanese sovereignty is fully exercised. That day, more than any other, will mark the success of this mission, a mission, in Lebanon as elsewhere, on which depend lives protected, lines held, and the prospects for peaceful settlements preserved. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Lebanon for the statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Portugal.

Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to thank the French presidency for convening this debate on a very important issue, central for the United Nations.

I also welcome the presence of the Foreign Minister of Panama at this meeting.

The detailed briefing and for the comprehensive report. We strongly welcome this comprehensive review that deserves broad support from our side. Our central message is clear and here we break it down in six points. First, primacy of politics must come first. Peace operations need more focus and adaptable mandates, as well as greater agility. But flexibility must not become disengagement. When crisis erupts, we should act earlier and adapt faster. Second, mandate renewal should be genuine strategic reviews, with clear political objectives, realistic resources and transitions planned from the outset. Third, we need prevention, mediation, good offices and fact-finding missions, including through Article 34. These instruments should be used before crises are then. Fourth, we should also use the full spectrum of peace operations more strategically. Traditional peacekeeping will not always be the right instrument. Special political missions, regional offices, peacekeeping and peacebuilding should be combined or sequenced according to the political objective. Fifth, more adequate division of labor through stronger partnerships, both within UN system, including different agencies, and with regional organizations. Portugal strongly supports deeper UN-African Union cooperation and the effective implementation of Resolution 2719. But partnerships must remain anchored in a coherent political strategy and clear Council responsibility. Sixth and last, we must also ensure the safety and protection of peacekeepers and humanitarian personnel, including through full respect for international humanitarian law. In sum, peace operations must become more political, more strategic, more adaptable and better equipped for increasingly complex and challenging environments. Mr. President, as the Secretary General recently reminded us, no peace operation supported by the United Nations can succeed without solid and cohesive support from Member States. Portugal has contributed over 20,000 personnel to UN peacekeeping missions over the last 65 years. As both an incoming member of this Council and a long-standing contributor to the UN peace operations, Portugal will continue to play its part. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Portugal for the statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Austria.

Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Jerome.

We thank Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for his briefing and welcome his review on the future of all peace operations as an important contribution to making peace operations fit for purpose. I also want to appreciate and acknowledge the presence of Under-Secretary Jean-Pierre Lacroix. As a long-standing troop-contributing country and supporter of UN peacekeeping, Austria considers the future and the credibility of UN peace operations a core priority. We need to remain open to new forms of peace operations, mandated by the Security Council. Austria advocates stronger partnerships with regional organizations, including the African Union and the European Union. We see resolution 2719 as an important step towards predictable, sustainable and flexible financing for AU-led peace support operations and are keen to see it implemented. Second, peace operations must be equipped for the future. New technologies are not only changing the security environment, but also the modalities of peace operations. We must ensure that missions can keep pace and have access to the capabilities they need to protect peacekeepers. At the same time, the Council and the Secretariat should consider more closely how new technologies can be applied to ensure more effective mandate implementation. Third, mandates must remain responsive to realities on the ground. We need a clear, shared vision of what a mission is meant to achieve, along with sustained support from the Security Council, of course. And responsive mandates also require better dialogue with local communities and civil society, with particular attention to the voices of women and youth. Fourth, we need Stronger integrated mission planning. Translating Security Council guidance into effective action requires civilian, police and military components to work towards a shared strategic vision. Integrated planning can strengthen strategic alignment, resource allocation and accountability. Austria has been working with Denmark and with the support of many others, including here on the Council, to advance this issue within existing structures and resources. Finally, implementation of the review should be focused and realistic. Looking ahead, further than planning well, it would make a great difference if we could move forward towards a more integrated review mechanism for peacekeeping missions and special political missions alike. As we prepare to assume our responsibilities on the Council in 2027, Austria will remain a steadfast, constructive and engaged partner in these efforts. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Austria for this statement. I now give the floor to the representative of the African Union.

Mr. President, esteemed members of the Council, the African Union thanks France for convening this debate and the Secretary-General for his briefing and report on the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations. Most United Nations peacekeepers serve in Africa, and most of the operations under review are on the African continent. On behalf of His Excellency Ambassador Mohammed Idris, Permanent Observer of the African Union to the United Nations, I will make the following five quick points. First, three weeks ago in Luanda, Angola, the Assembly of the African Union, in its 21st extraordinary session on conflict prevention, adopted a decision urging this Council to implement Resolution 2719. That is the voice of our continent's highest organ, and it converges with the Secretary-General's report. which frames the resolution as a renewed interpretation of Chapter 8 of the Charter and recommends that this Council act proactively on a case-by-case basis in authorizing support to African Union-led peace support operations. Whilst this resolution notes that AU-led peace support operations and their mandates must be matched with the required support by the UN, It goes beyond enabling predictable and adequate financing and offers greater opportunities for continuous enhancement of AU-UN strategic partnership and cooperation. The task now is implementation. Second, where UN support arrangements are in place for mandated operations that are in transition, the report warns against the abrupt or premature withdrawal of such support. to avoid the risks of reversing hard-won gains. Orderly and predictable successor arrangements must be the alternative. Third, the Luanda Assembly took note of the African Standby Force Strategic Review adopted by the 17th meeting of the African Union Specialized Technical Committee on Defence, Safety and Security. and directed a review of AU peace support operations and development of a peace support operations strategy for presentation to the next AU ordinary summit. In this regard, both the AU and the UN are renewing our instruments in the same season. Alignment between the two reviews and the effective implementation of the recommendations should therefore be the shared ambition. Fourth, Troop and police contributing countries, most of them African, must have a stronger voice in mandate design. Peacekeepers should also be respected by host states, equipped with the technology the report rightly demands, and be fully protected to enable effective mandate implementation. Within this context, the African Union welcomes Resolution 2823 and its full implementation. France has placed youth, peace and security at the heart of their presidency for this month. This resonates with Africa's status as the world's youngest continent. Within this context, the report's first priority is peacemaking, and peacemaking succeeds where young people help to author and commit to sustaining peace. The African Union works to that end through the continental framework on youth, peace and security, its 10-year implementation plan, and the African Youth Ambassadors for Peace Initiative. This review's implementation should therefore carry youth participation into mandates and transitions, alongside the full implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security agenda. Finally, adopting peace operations to current dynamics requires, in the Secretary-General's own words, a more representative Security Council. beginning with redress of the historical injustice against Africa. The African Union will include these positions in next month's joint consultations between our two councils and stands ready to work with every member of this council accordingly. Within the same context, the African Union encourages council members to reflect the recommendations addressed to this council in today's debate in your third year review of resolution 2719 by December this year. This offers this council a golden opportunity to embrace the progress achieved in implementing the resolution's roadmap and align these efforts with the implementation of the recommendations of the UN PSO review with the AU peace support operation strategy directed by the Luanda summit towards further enhancing AU and partnership and cooperation to further enhance the conduct of peace operations. in Africa and beyond.

I thank you.

I thank the representative of the African Union for their statement. I now give the floor to the representative of India.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening this open debate and for France's stewardship of the Council this month. I also thank the Secretary-General for his remarks. I welcome the presence of the Foreign Minister of Panama. I also acknowledge the presence of USG Jean-Pierre Lacroix. At the outset, I pay homage to the brave peacekeepers we have lost this year, a reminder of the price our troops pay for the maintenance of international peace and security. India has a long history in UN peacekeeping, deploying nearly 300,000 troops across more than 50 missions, the largest troop contributor to date. 184 Indian peacekeepers have made the supreme sacrifice as blue helmets. Our approach is shaped not by rhetoric, but by their sweat and blood. And in that spirit, we offer these observations. First, we know the Secretary General's review on the future of peace operations and its call for a reset grounded in peacemaking and political solutions. Peacekeeping remains irreplaceable for its restraint, impartiality, consent and force used only in self-defense of the mandate. which is why blue helmets are received as protectors, not intervening powers. Second, peace operations succeed when accompanied by a clear political process, with which this Council must stay engaged. Third, mandates must be matched to resources at authorization, so peacekeepers are not asked to do more with less. Fourth, Troop and police contributing countries should have a structured voice in shaping mandates through consultation before they are adopted or reviewed. Fifth, peacekeeper safety is paramount. Personnel face asymmetric, technologically enabled threats, and those who attack them must be held accountable, as reflected in India's leadership on Resolution 2589. Sixth, rationalization is very essential. Aligning host state priorities with mission mandates is needed to ensure that missions do not become long-term auxiliary political instruments. Missions sustained on political life support without operational rationale drain resources that are needed elsewhere and undermine the credibility of peacekeeping as a whole. Seventh, technology and renewable energy can improve efficiency in achieving mandate goals and their infusion into peacekeeping must be expedited. Lastly, India has deployed women peacekeepers since 1960 and regards them as central to mandate delivery, reflected in our first all-women formed police unit and three consecutive UN Military Gender Advocate of the Year awards. Mr. President, Because we regard peacekeeping as irreplaceable to this Council's core purpose, India has made it a priority for our Security Council candidacy for 2028-29. We reaffirm our commitment to a peacekeeping architecture better resourced, protected, and representative of the world it serves. I thank you, Mr. President.

I thank the representative of India for his statement, and I'll give the floor to the representative of Japan.

Thank you, Mr. President. convening this important debate and providing us with the opportunity to participate. First of all, allow me to pay tribute to the peacekeepers who have made the ultimate sacrifice and to extend Japan's condolences to their families and countries. I also thank the Secretary-General Guterres for his briefing and welcome his report on the future of all forms of UN peace operations. Peacekeeping operations remain one of the most effective tools available to the UN to promote international peace and security. In responding to the report, let me highlight three points. First, The personnel on the ground play the most critical role in implementing mandates decided by the Security Council. Their safety and capability are paramount. We call on the Council to give due weight to the discussions among troop and police contributing countries, as well as financial contributing countries, in order to ensure that the individual mandates are realistic, focused and effective. The Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, or C-34, may serve as the most representative platform for such a discussion. Japan will continue to support UN peacekeeping as one of its major financial contributors and through the efforts to enhance mission effectiveness, including capability-building initiatives in partnership with TCCs and PCCs. Second, Japan believes that peacekeeping can best perform when it is aligned with host states' long-term political objectives. In this regard, a comprehensive approach to peace remains indispensable. It should be grounded in the HDP nexus and built on close and constructive relations between the UN actors, including development and humanitarian agencies, and host states, inclusive of the whole of society. This is in line with the report's call for stronger partnerships with host states and whole of UN response to sustaining peace. Third, in line with the report's call for peace operations to move towards nimbler, more adaptable models, Japan requests the Secretariat in its ongoing review of mission structures and command and control arrangements We'll also explore closer integration among the civilian, military, and support components of mission headquarters, rather than establishing new coordination bodies. Mr. President, Japan reiterates its continued commitment to the collective effort to shape future UN peace operations, including through the Action for Peacekeeping Initiative and its subsequent implementation frameworks, in solidarity with the Council TCCs and PCCs, financial contributors, the Secretariat and missions in the field. I thank you.

I thank the representative of Japan for his statement. I now give the floor to the representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Mr. President.

To address the Council today and for this very timely meeting. would like to firstly express our appreciation for the many women and men serving in peacekeeping operations around the world, often under very dangerous circumstances. Thank you also to the Secretary-General for his briefing and for the report, the review on the future of all forms of United Nations peace operations. We are proud to have provided input to the review and to have hosted last year's peacekeeping ministerial. where over 140 member states expressed overwhelming political support for peacekeeping. Mr. President, the gap between the potential of peacekeeping as an instrument for conflict resolution in the spirit of true global burden sharing on the one hand, and the practice of peacekeeping operations on the other hand is significant and deserves our attention. So as we start into the discussion of the future of peacekeeping and the follow-up to the SGE report, the leading question is to our mind, How can we design, mandate, and equip missions to make them more effective and assure the necessary political support? And I would like to make two points today, one on substance and one on process and follow-up. On substance, missions require mandates that allow them to succeed on the ground. And we have a collective responsibility to design mandates in a way that allows a mission to achieve tangible and sustainable results first and foremost for the affected population of the host state. That does not mean, to our mind, finding the smallest common denominator or compromising for the sake of agreeing on a mandate. Very concretely, we would suggest that we think more about the following aspect of mandates. For example, using a sequenced approach. starting with a modest, narrowly defined mandate and then widen it as conditions on the ground allow. It could mean utilizing a broader spectrum of mission setups and configuration as described in the independent study on the future of peacekeeping which was prepared for the Berlin Ministerial. We could look at limited presence that would be more appropriate or in other cases we could look at setting long-term objectives beyond standard yearly mandate cycles and depending, of course, on what is more expedient and realistic in a specific environment. Mr. President, the UN has a proven positive track record of adapting its peace operations to different contexts And we should follow on on that record with increased flexibility. And by making progress achievable and more visible, we should find our way back to employing an underutilized instrument we all agree still provides one of the most cost-effective and legitimate approaches to conflict resolution. And my second point on process and follow-up concern is concerning the implementation of the Secretary-General's report. We would like to encourage the Secretariat to actively seek Member State support and commitment for the implementation of recommendations from the report, a framework which already has proved helpful and successful for the implementation of the Action for Peacekeeping initiative. Reforming and strengthening all peace operations must remain at the center of all our attention amongst Member States, in the Security Council, the General Assembly, and as part of the priorities of the next leadership of this organization. Germany remains committed to peacekeeping and will continue to contribute to these efforts, and we hope that together we can achieve real change and provide better solutions to those affected by crises we currently fail to address. Thank you very much.

I thank the representative of Germany for his statement. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. The meeting is adjourned.