News

Mr. President, Improving Security Council’s working methods is an issue of great interest to all UN member states. After all, while only 15 Council members legiferate, all 193 UN members are expected to implement their decisions.   Thus greater accountability, transparency, and openness in Council work are paramount. Council Presidency’s briefings at the beginning and end of the month have become routine. More Council meetings are taking place in an open format. 

We welcome the fact that more sanctions committees are now briefing the Council in public. Such practice in our view should become standard. It enables a better understanding of what these bodies do, which is key to better implementation, be it of sanctions regimes or counter-terrorism (CT) measures.

For Counter-terrorism Committee (CTC) in particular we believe it essential to engage with the wider membership of the UN to raise awareness and provide a platform for sharing good practices and insights on how best to tackle the threat of terrorism and foreign terrorist fighters (FTF). To this end, my delegation has sought to increase the number of CTC open briefings and special events, and through them tackle some issues which may not be on the Committee’s regular agenda.

In fact, there is nothing regular about the threat and the spread of terrorism these days, and UN’s CT machinery needs to adjust more vigorously to this new reality. Last year DPA took a useful step in bringing CTC and CTITF together for an informal briefing.

Such meetings should not be a one-off case. Especially as the gap between assessment and assistance, and for that matter, between SC- and GA- mandated bodies remains. Overcoming the silo mentality and making sure that we jointly respond to countries’ concerns and assistance needs early and promptly is paramount. A lot of works still needs to be done to this effect.  

Mr. President,

In our work on the sanctions committees, we have sought to engage actively with the countries concerned, their neighbours, and relevant regional actors, both formally and informally. Seeking a more comprehensive grasp of the situation, we expanded the lists of briefers addressing respective committees,

We took these initiatives with a purpose to improving understanding of the situation at hand, of how the decisions we take affect developments on the ground, including the concerns countries may have about sanctions impact and their capacity building needs. We believe these to be good practices which need to be continued. Visits by Chairs of subsidiary bodies to respective countries need to be further encouraged. The handover from Chair to Chair as non-permanent members rotate should be better managed and streamlined.

We need to strengthen UN Secretariat’s capacity to provide adequate assistance to sanctions committees’ work. Last year considerable work was done to this effect by some Council members. It should not be forgotten but rather taken up again, to see how we can move this forward with the best interests of countries concerned at the core of our efforts.

Closer cooperation among Council’s subsidiary bodies, where appropriate, should also be considered. Our experience with joint meetings between CTC, AQ and Yemen sanctions committees as well as between Yemen sanctions committee and working group on CAAC has been a positive one, both on the substance and for practical reasons. It saves time for both, experts and briefers, and it can also help accommodate better the ever growing demand for meeting space and interpretation services.

We welcome DPA’s steps aimed at establishing consolidated sanctions lists and providing  more systematic information on UN website and social media. Press statements and other forms of media engagement by relevant subsidiary bodies – or their Chairs, although not a common practice- offer additional avenues for outreach and disseminating relevant information and should be further explored. 

Speaking of websites, we call on the Council members to take a fresh look into the possibilities of adjusting the structure of SC Annual Report in line with the realities of the information age. To this effect, my delegation has submitted a number of proposals to the Informal Working Group on Documentation, aimed at reducing the redundancies of the Annual Reports. We are open to further engage with all Council members on the matter.  

Mr. President,

As the Council endeavours to tackle an unprecedented number of crises simultaneously, better use of AOBs during consultations is welcome. A flexible use of AOBs and informal briefings by the UNSG, DPA or the HCHR for that matter (because HR violations are usually a harbinger of  more serious trouble to come) is a useful option, which can strengthen the Council’s preventive approach.

With regard to the increasingly heavy work load of the Council, we believe there is some scope for reviewing existing mandate cycles, especially where the situation remains static and may not warrant the prescribed frequency of deliberations, as in the case of quarterly meetings on Kosovo.

Council members need to bring the “interactive” into interactive debates. The rare meetings with force commanders, police commanders, regional organisations and other relevant actors should be opportunities to engage in genuine exchanges and not be limited to the reading of prepared statements.

Likewise, there is room for improvement in Council’s dialogue with the Peace Building Commission (PBC). While chairs of PBC country configurations do brief the Council occasionally, their experience and insights could be used more extensively, also in consultations.

Mr. President,

Open debates remain a highly important tool in the work of the Council. More thought however should be given how to better structure such debates. It is frankly painful to see ministers of non-Council members addressing the Council with only junior experts there to listen to them. Or think of our own colleagues speaking at 8:30 p.m. Further improvements are needed on how non-members’ views are reflected- if at all- in Council outcomes; how to manage the speaking time, arrange speakers’ lists, and other points. Previous Council documents contain useful indications to this effect, and should be revisited.  

Mr. President,

During UNGA high level week last month several events dedicated to the issue of veto restraint  drew large numbers of participants. It is simply unacceptable that veto power should be used to protect the perpetrators (as has been the case with  Syria or MH17 vetoes), and not the victims. Lithuania fully supports relevant initiatives and has joined the group countries calling for adopting a code of conduct to this effect. 

Failure to bring the perpetrators to account fuels impunity. Repeated failure to do so puts the Council’s credibility into question. We believe that the Council should make better use of the tools available to pursue justice, including cooperation  with the ICC, both regarding new referrals and follow-up on existing referrals. 

Finally, let me touch upon the election of the next SG.  As the UN claims its rightful place in the 21st century, so should the selection of its chief executive officer meet the 21st century standards. After all, whether he or she, the next SG will take up one of the most challenging jobs on earth. For the first time, a General Assembly resolution on the Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly (A/RES/69/321) envisaged a joint activity on the subject, by calling on Security Council and General Assembly presidents to start the selection process by circulating a joint letter inviting candidates to be presented in a timely manner and to circulate joint information on candidates on an ongoing basis.

While realistic about the limited scope of change in the short term, we remain convinced that greater transparency, inclusiveness, interactivity, and gender diversity are definitely in order in the process of selecting and appointing the individual who will lead the United Nations at a time of unprecedented challenges and tasks ahead.