Mr. President,  Thank you for promoting a debate on peacekeeping that focuses on the actual effectiveness of peace-keeping operations, based on the capacity to assist a Country in its transition from conflict to peace. I also thank you for inviting Italy, the most important European troop-contributor to UN peace-keeping missions, to add its reflections to this debate. I would also wish to fully align myself to the statement which has been delivered by the European Union.  A debate on transition and exit strategies requires a focus on at least three different levels. First, the strategic level, here in New York, with participation of the Peace Building Commission and the troop contributing countries in drafting mission mandates and planning from the outset; second, the involvement, whenever possible, of the regional organizations most affected by the crisis; third, national contributions, which should be focused, among other priorities, on building the security conditions indispensable to any transition.

 On the first point, Italy deems essential that the main protagonists, present and future, be brought in at the very first stages of forging a peace mission: the Countries that contribute military and police forces and the Peace Building Commission, an organ conceived specifically to coordinate efforts to consolidate institutions in a State emerging from conflict. Only integrated participation, a strategic vision, and shared responsibility between the various actors of a peace-keeping operation from the outset, will allow a timely preparation of the “changing of the guard” between military blue helmets and civilian workers deployed to assist a Country in its stabilization. Such a joint effort will inevitably lead to draft clearer mandates and fill present transition gaps.  This is not a new idea, Mr. President. In its presidential statement adopted last August, the Security Council underlined the following conclusion, quote: “The Security Council reemphasizes the need for coherence between, and integration of, peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and development to achieve an effective response to post-conflict situations from the outset.” In the same statement, the Council recognizes that a peace-keeping mission should be a complement, not an alternative, to a political strategy.  The five-year review of the Peace Building Commission (PBC) offers us the chance to move from words to deeds. It is an opportunity to establish new working methods, more cooperation, and greater synergy between the Security Council and its national and institutional partners – such as the PBC – that are called on to share the burden of a responsible transition. In this context we cannot ignore the issue of strengthening the status of the Peace Building Commission in the framework of the United Nations’ institutional architecture.

 On the second point, recent history shows the growing role of regional organizations in the international context. Sharing the burden of peace-keeping with them maximizes the global effectiveness of the UN, rationalizes the resources available, and often increases the possibilities of a successful transition. One example should suffice: once the status of Kosovo has been clarified, the United Nations is gradually passing the baton to the European Union. Similar cooperation has proven useful with the African Union, an organization that should be encouraged and supported to share the burden of peace-keeping.  Because of their sharing of geo-political interests, economic and trade relations, historical ties and cultural affinities, the regional organizations are the natural partners most interested in the management of a crisis afflicting one of their members or neighboring States. They are also increasingly institutionalized international actors, as the recent Lisbon Treaty shows. We thus need to encourage deeper and more structured partnerships between regional organizations and the United Nations, foster adequate recognition of them, and structure better cooperation and working methods with the Security Council. The UN-African Union Panel has made important efforts in these directions.
Finally, Mr. President,  The Secretary-General has reminded us that, “Transition and exit strategies are dependent on Countries assuming responsibilities for their own security.” Security and rule of law are thus crucial to assuring the handover from the Blue Helmets to peacebuilding workers. The police component of peacekeeping missions and the insertion of civilian capacities, particularly in the rule of law sector, are indispensable to assisting a Country toward full re-assumption of national ownership and responsibility.  Italy provides a key contribution in this sector. The deployment model for Italian peacekeepers, especially Carabinieri, is to help reestablish State control and security over the territory. But it is accompanied by an ability to relate to the local population and an approach that integrates the civilian components of a mission. The perception of police forces in relation to training projects, infrastructure protection, reconstruction, and liaison with the local authorities naturally increases trust in the peacekeepers. If we add to this the training activities done in Italy in favor of foreign police units assigned to serve on UN peacekeeping missions, the amplifying effect of this approach increases. Mr. President,  Italy, together with the European Union, will continue to make its contribution, in the conviction that, under United Nations leadership, a comprehensive approach at the strategic level combined with national ownership are the essential ingredients to assuring a successful transition strategies to peacekeeping missions.