Security Council
Open Debate on Post-Conflict Peacebuilding
Report of the Secretary-General on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict
22 July 2009
Presentations:
-
Jordan Ryan, Director of the Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP)
Heraldo Muñoz (Chile), Chair of the UN Peacebuilding Commission
Alistair McKechnie, Director, Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries Group, World Bank
Other speakers:
-
Mark Malloch Brown, Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations of the United Kingdom;
Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim, Deputy Minister for International Relations and Cooperation of South
Africa;
Jean-Francis Bozize, Minister Delegate in Charge of National Defense, Veterans Affairs, Victims of
War, Disarmament and Restructuring of the Army of the Central African Republic;
Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Somalia
Representatives of France, Japan, United States, Mexico, Croatia, Costa Rica, China, Turkey, Libya,
Austria, Burkina Faso, Russian Federation, Viet Nam, Egypt (also on behalf of Ireland), Burundi,
Canada, Sweden (on behalf of the European Union), New Zealand, Australia, Peru, Morocco,
Germany, Guatemala, Brazil, Sierra Leone, Uruguay, Norway, India, Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh,
Italy, Republic of Korea and Switzerland.
Amb. Sam K. Kutesa, Uganda, President of the Security Council:
[speaking in national capacity]
In current practice, peacebuilding is not envisioned in countries still experiencing conflict. Right from
peacemaking and peacekeeping stages, there is a need to incorporate peacebuilding. There is a need to deliver
tangible pace dividends, including the provision of basic services and improving the standard of living of the
population. In every peacebuilding endeavor, national leadership and ownership are vital; national authorities
must take primary responsibility for re-establishing the key institutions of governance and economic recovery,
with the support of the UN and other international partners. This requires identifying key priorities,
developing and agreeing on a national strategy to address them through a widely consultative process, and
mobilizing the requisite political, financial and technical support in a coordinated manner.
Our experience in Uganda has shown us the importance of identifying national priorities based on our own
unique situation and conditions. We decided post-conflict peacebuilding was important beginning in 1986, and
from most critical elements, including guaranteeing security of life and property, national reconciliation and
unity through a broad-based government, establishing a Human Rights Commission to investigate human
rights abuses, and consolidating the concept of popular democracy. Security sector reform and constitutional
reform in 1995 were also important.
Peacebuilding is a shared responsibility in which the UN, sub-regional and regional organizations, as well as
the wider international community have a critical role to play. Where conflict situations arise, the role of
regional approaches to solving problems is key, as regional organizations have a more intimate knowledge of
situations on the ground. The experience of Africa, and that of the Great Lakes Region in particular, show that
regional efforts could be successful. The regional peace initiative chaired by Uganda and facilitated by South
Africa in Burundi is a good example in this regard. A good understanding of the social dynamics was critical
to resolving the conflict. Burundi is now making steady progress in post-conflict peacebuilding. ECOWAS has
played a positive role in Liberia, and the AU’s UNISOM is bringing about stability in Somalia. Other regional
organizations, such as ASEAN, the EU and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, are also
contributing to peacebuilding.
Regional organizations in Africa have human resources but clearly lack financial resources – this is where the
UN and the international community can be of great help. The challenge now is to address how the
international community can contribute to peace and security in a meaningful way while remaining relevant.
Post-conflict peacebuilding requires adequate, flexible, predictable funding. There is a need to ensure greater
coherence in peacebuilding, peacemaking, peacekeeping and development activities. I call upon the UN to
strengthen partnerships with the World Bank and other international financial institutions. We are encouraged
by measures to ensure flexible funding being undertaken by the UN through the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) as
well as in-country Multi-Donor Trust Funds (MDTFs). UN should also focus more on concepts of UN Vision
and integrated missions to support peacebuilding missions.
Secretary-General:
In May last year, the Security Council requested a report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of
conflict. I am pleased to present my report. It is the product of intensive, wide-ranging consultations. It sets
out an approach to peacebuilding that is better resourced, managed and coordinated. The Peacebuilding
Commission discussed it last week. I welcome their commitment to championing this important agenda.
Building peace is about much more than ending war. It is about putting in place the institutions and trust that
will carry people forward into a peaceful future. We often have a limited window of opportunity in which to
do this. The report focuses on that crucial two-year period when conflict has ended but insecurity often
persists and peace is fragile.
If peace is to be sustainable, the international community must make the most of this moment and provide the
right support at the right time. Decades of international experience have taught us that, while every case is
unique, certain types of support are almost always needed. Time and again, war-ravaged people have asked us
to help them establish security and safety, restore basic services and core Government functions, support a
political transition and jump-start economic recovery.
These are not easy tasks. I have seen the difficulties first hand. I have travelled to many countries emerging
from conflict, including Sudan, Haiti, Liberia and Timor-Leste. I have seen the costs of a slow or inadequate
response to urgent post-conflict needs. Yet I have also seen the profound difference a well-planned and
managed effort can make.
Let me highlight the five interconnected messages of my report. First, national ownership. Peace will not take
root if it comes from outside. Building peace is primarily a national challenge and responsibility. The United
Nations and the international community should play a catalytic and supporting role. Second, international
leadership. Member States expect the United Nations to lead the international community. I have created a
senior-level mechanism that will ensure that the right leadership and support teams are in place as early as
possible.
Third, coherence. Effective peacebuilding requires input from all parts of the United Nations system and key
partners. Peacebuilding is not separate from mediation, peacekeeping or development aid. It is all of these
working together.
Fourth, a common strategy. Immediately after conflict, everything feels urgent, and there are many pressing
needs. We need to align behind a shared approach with realistic priorities, against which national and
international actors can allocate scarce resources.
Fifth, predictable and credible delivery. Member States need to help ensure that we have sufficient
international capacity to respond rapidly and flexibly to the most urgent needs: basic safety, security and
services; strengthening the rule of law; supporting political processes; and revitalizing the economy. To that
end, we need a clearer understanding of responsibilities within the United Nations, outlining who will respond
in each of these key areas. We also need a deeper and more diverse pool of international civilian expertise.
We need pre-positioned pooled funding, like the Peacebuilding Fund, to jump-start action, followed by faster
funding from other sources. And we need more and better strategic partnerships with the World Bank,
regional organizations, civil society and the private sector. Member States, for their part, have a crucial part to
play. I urge them to speak with one voice across different multilateral forums, and to align bilateral support
with the common strategy in each country.
Almost a decade ago, in its debate on “No exit without strategy”, the Security Council articulated the many
challenges associated with the later stages of peacebuilding, when it is time to wind down an international
peace operation. In Sierra Leone, as was discussed in this chamber very recently, we have seen many of the
“No exit" lessons being applied.
In asking for this report, the Council recognized that it also needs to support peacebuilding more effectively
from the outset. This requires the engagement and coordination of many different actors. And it requires
adequate funding. Some key United Nations actors face serious challenges in securing timely financing.
I encourage the Council to look carefully at these issues as they pertain to existing and future mandates, and as
part of initiatives already under way to review peacekeeping mandates. I also encourage you, in the context of
next year’s review of the Peacebuilding Commission, to consider how you can make more effective use of that
body.
This report is part of a series of initiatives, including my recent report on mediation and the ongoing work on
peacekeeping. These efforts share a common goal: to enable the United Nations and its international partners
to respond more effectively to countries in crisis, in ways that are better tailored to needs on the ground. I am
determined to do my part. I am committed to driving the necessary changes through the United Nations
system. But I need your support and your commitment if we are to achieve real change.
I look forward to working with you to meet these challenges.
Amb. Heraldo Munoz (Chile):
[speaking in capacity as Chairperson of the PBC]
The PBC met on 13 July to discuss the report. I would like to share with the Council today my summary of
those discussions.
The PBC welcomed the report and endorsed the SG’s approach and recommendations. The preparation of the
report usefully brought together the many parts of the UN that deal with peacebuilding and highlighted
common understanding of peacebuilding. We were pleased that the broad consultation process allowed the
PBC to play a significant role in formulating the report. And we are delighted that many of the PBC’s
recommendations have helped to shape the final outcome.
Members of the PBC focused on some key points:
National ownership is the cornerstone of peacebuilding. However, the commitment to national ownership as a
key principle of peacebuilding will remain merely an abstract concept unless it is accompanied from the very
beginning by capacity-building, starting with a clear understanding of existing capacities on the ground.
National capacity-building must start immediately after the end of conflict, taking advantage of that narrow
window of opportunity to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and show some peace dividends. It must be
part of the entry, not the exit, strategy.
Another crucial piece of the early peacebuilding puzzle is an agreed common strategy that is nationally owned
and internationally supported, including – depending on the country’s concrete reality – basic safety and
security, political processes, basic services and core government functions. We welcome the recognition in the
report of the importance of early economic revitalization.
The PBC can support national governments in managing the difficult process of establishing clear and
attainable peacebuilding priorities, working closely with UN staff in country so as to ensure proper coordination and avoid duplication.
The SG’s agenda for action proposes “stronger, more effective and better supported UN leadership on the
ground.” He proposes to create “a senior-level mechanism at headquarters that will ensure that the right
leadership and support teams are in place as early as possible.” We welcome this suggestion and take due note
of his appeal to make the necessary funding available to enhance the technical support teams.
Predictable international support is needed for successful peacebuilding. One essential element is greater
clarity of roles and responsibilities within the UN, and enhanced coordination with other key actors like the
World Bank. The PBC welcomes the progress so far in clarifying lead entities within the UN, and looks
forward to further rapid progress.
Civilian experts are an important peacebuilding resource. We note the SG’s intention to ensure “sufficient
dedicated expertise to promote and coordinate capacity development efforts.” Country rosters of pre-vetted
civilian experts - not least from the global south, regional organizations and neighboring countries - could help
support the quick delivery of services. International experts must complement and not replace national
expertise.
We welcome the SG’s proposal for a review that would broaden and deepen the global pool of expertise and
enhance interoperability across rosters – support. We also support his call to encourage the UN Volunteer
Program “to prioritize…the recurring priority areas, and to explore the establishment of UN volunteers for
short-term service.” The diaspora may also be a significant resource in these areas.
We share the SG’s hope that donors will be “bold and innovative” in establishing “flexible, rapid and
predictable” funding for peacebuilding. We are satisfied with PBF pledges and funding, and we encourage the
SG to appeal to non-traditional donors, including middle-income countries and the private sector. Pooled
funding mechanisms, like country-level MDTFs should be established, paying particular attention to the needs
of women and historical gender imbalances.
Regional organizations “have increasingly been at the forefront of peace processes.” The challenge ahead
includes strengthening partnerships with regional actors, as well as with bilateral donors, civil society and
international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank.
Many of the report’s recommendations are addressed to the UN. We therefore welcome the SG’s early
initiation of an implementation plan of all parts of UN. We recognize that the PBSO will play an important
role in supporting his efforts to ensure system-wide coherence and facilitating implementation of the report.
The SG’s report poses several challenges for the PBC.
First, Member States recognize that peacekeepers are early peace-builders. Peacebuilding should therefore
come into play early on in the Security Council’s consideration of post-conflict situations. The mainstreaming
of peacebuilding into peacekeeping operations and the enhancement of civilian components of peacekeeping
operations are a must. The Security Council should consider more proactively the advice of the PBC, not
because the PBC is better qualified than the Council for such a task, but because the PBC will emphasize
linkage between security and development, and the longer-term stability factors contributing to sustainable
peace.
The review of the PBC in 2010 will allow for further reflection on the role of the Commission and how it
could better exercise its advisory role. Second, improving the working methods of the PBC is a goal on our
agenda. In particular we are exploring innovative, lighter and more flexible ways to engage with countries that
may seek the advice of the Commission.
A final reflection. The report stresses early emphasis on strengthening national capacity, with the support and
guidance of the PBC and the many other actors involved in peacebuilding. The continued emphasis on
coordination and coherence is fundamental; but a realistic appraisal will show that this is a most difficult task
among multilateral actors, bilateral donors, civil society and even within the UN System. Institutional
positioning and turf disputes do not help peacebuilding and efforts should be made to continue to minimize
them.
Since many of the Secretary-General's recommendations are addressed to the UN system, we believe he should
be invited to report back to the Security Council in consultation with the PBC on their implementation.
In conclusion, I want to reiterate the strong support of the PBC for the SG’s recommendations. Attention must
now turn to their rapid implementation. The people in post conflict countries will benefit if we move forward
to action.
Mr. Jordan Ryan, Director, Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery, United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP):
Under the leadership of Helen Clarke, UNDP is committed to work with partners within UN and other key
actors in the area of peacebuilding and early recovery. The PBC and PBSO will play an important role in
facilitating the follow-up process. UNDP pledges close cooperation with both.
UNDP contributes to peacebuilding in all aspects and stages. Many post-conflict countries are struggling to
make progress to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Effective and quick peacebuilding
action is essential in this regard. The development of national capacities must remain the core peacebuilding
objective. In moving the peacebuilding agenda forward, we must strive to effectively link short-term
peacebuilding activities with longer-term recovery and development.
Peacebuilding does not start from scratch. We should build on existing national capacities and draw on the
expertise of the in-country UN presence as well as humanitarian and development actors on the ground. At the
country-level, they must work together effectively under the Resident Coordinator. The UN country team
works with other partners as part of an integrated mission. This integration process needs to go forward by
strengthening accountability. The SG report’s emphasis is therefore rightly focused on the need for stronger
and more coherent leadership, with the right support staff, to coordinate the joint effort.
Women and youth require special attention. Peacebuilding efforts should make sure they benefit from peace
dividends, and are involved in the planning and decision-making processes. UNDP is currently employing
senior gender advisers in 10 post-conflict countries, and will support Res 1325 and Res 1820 in this regard.
The World Bank is an important partner for the UN in post-conflict situations. We have experience working on
the ground with the World Bank and others in a number of post-conflict countries, but we can do better with a
stronger emphasis on global agreements into practice at the country-level.
With the necessary support from Member States, UNDP would do its utmost under the leadership of the SG to
match expectations of quick and effective implementation of peacebuilding activities. UNDP looks forward to
contribute actively to the implementation of this report.
Mr. Alastair McKechnie, Director, Fragile and Conflict-Affected Countries Group, World Bank:
The President of the World Bank, Mr. Robert Zoellick, is unable to be here today and I wish to transmit his
greeting to you and to convey his appreciation for this important report and for inviting the World Bank to
address the Council.
The SG report recognizes that the efforts of the international community immediately post-conflict have been
less than fully effective. The World Bank was involved deeply in the preparation of the report. We welcome its
findings. We applaud the critical leadership role that the UN can provide in post-conflict situations. We
support the report's efforts to resolve the inherent tensions that arise between the need for speed in responding
to fragile situations and the need for compliance with a coherent strategy that is nationally owned. Such
tensions often result from different perceptions of priorities by the international community and partner
countries, which paradoxically may want a greater emphasis on building their institutions and sustainable
development that reduces poverty. We should not forget also the demands for quality, effectiveness of our
support and the need for financial accountability to maintain long term, predictable financial support.
The report rightly recognizes that we should seek the views of the partner countries on what they consider to
be their priorities. Often we will find that the highest priority is personal security, justice and ending of
impunity, not the easier public services which the international community can provide.
There is a need for clear and agreed priorities around which recovery efforts can coalesce. But the inevitable
challenge remains - how can priorities be set when everything seems apriority? We support the
recommendations of the report for more effective planning based on a Post Conflict Needs Assessment.
We would suggest the following five points when setting priorities:
1. Be driven by country demand, not what we think best or are able to deliver.
2. Provide some short term results preferably consistent with mid-term priorities, and lay the basis for
sustainable development, growth and employment.
3. Aim to strengthen the legitimate authority of the state by enabling the state to set and enforce rules
and laws, manage its budget, deliver services effectively, and embody national traditions and values.
4. Not aim to replace the state, but to be its facilitator and enabler.
5. Consider an exit strategy -- how to transfer responsibility to the legitimate state as early as possible.
The Paris Declaration and the Accra Agenda for Action articulate a framework for delivering aid. Experience
has shown us that aid is most effective and most supportive of state-building when it is provided under national
leadership and through country systems.
In the context of peace-building - how do we increase our effectiveness? Effectiveness is often as much about
how foreign assistance is provided as it is about the volume of that aid. Experience suggests some guidelines
for effectiveness:
1. Tailoring our assistance to the country context;
2. Avoid taking a linear approach to our response - support for state-building needs to take place during
the peace-keeping phase, not only after it;
3. Developing institutions and policies, and preparation of investment in parallel with peacebuilding;
4. Sequencing reforms for economic stability with political cycles to avoid triggering governance crises
that will make economic reform impossible;
5. Reducing the administrative burden that donors impose on weak states by aggregating projects into
national programs and pooling finance through trust funds.
Finally, we need to recognize and manage risks, not only the risks that money will be misappropriated, but also
the risk that peace fails because we are too bureaucratic and too slow. There are ways to manage risks in high
corruption environments, including contracting fiduciary agents and giving voice to citizens. But we need to
recognize that things will go wrong and deal with problems quickly and decisively.
The report refers to the agreements signed last year between the Secretary General and the President of the
World Bank to strengthen our partnerships in post crisis situations. This is supported by a Fiduciary Principles
Accord now signed with 11 UN agencies to facilitate the timely transfer of financial resources under trust
funds administered by either the World Bank or the UN Development Group, when this is appropriate in the
country context.
We see synergies and complementarities in the operation of the World Bank's State and Peacebuilding Fund
and the UN's Peace Building Fund. Both instruments provide predictable, adaptable and responsive financing
mechanisms specifically tailored to meet the needs of countries emerging from conflict.
But the UN and the Bank are only elements of a wider set of agencies that work to assist countries recover
from conflict. Last year the European Commission, the United Nations Development Group, and the Bank
issued a joint declaration on how they will assess and support post-crisis situations and plan recovery efforts.
Greater coherence requires strengthening other partnerships as well, particularly with regional and bilateral
political, security and development organizations.
The demand for speed and effectiveness dictates that international cooperation is centered and anchored in the
field at the country level. Context matters and time and directives from the center may fail to capture the
realities of a dynamic post-conflict environment. We therefore endorse the proposal for the Integration
Steering Group to explore the development of mutual accountability measures at the country level and hope
that these efforts will encourage greater acknowledgement by other international actors that aid effectiveness is
born of coherency, coordination and joint mechanisms for funding and implementation.
While government leadership is a critical ingredient in guiding post conflict recovery and reconstruction
efforts, so too is the ability of the international community to coordinate its response. In most post conflict
situations, it is the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, which offers the key to this
coordination. The wider the recognition of the leadership role provided by the SRSG for the international effort,
the greater the level of delegation by agencies to senior management in the field and the better-aligned agency
support is to the demands of those officials, and the more that funding for UN agencies is programmed by the
SRSG's Office, the more likely we are to achieve the levels of coherence, coordination, and effectiveness we
seek.
The World Bank is ready to consider more formal roles within the specialized missions, including staff
secondments or better integration of conventional aid coordination mechanisms. The World Bank also stands
ready to participate in joint consultations and planning on crisis and post-crisis countries, so as to ensure early
and effective preparation of our joint response. Let me add that we are currently working on an exchange of
staff between the UN and World Bank headquarters to strengthen our joint response to situations of fragility
and conflict.
The international community should recognize comparative advantage arising from different mandates and
capacities. Divisions of labor will depend on what the country requires and the capacity of organizations to
respond. The agreements between the UN and World Bank set out the process for quickly agreeing our
responsibilities.
This report highlights one of the most difficult areas of development and proposes new ways of working such
as the establishment of deployable civilian capacity that will be challenging to implement. The report card on
the quality of coordination by the international community is mixed and we should not confuse capacity
building with technical assistance. The Secretary-General in this report challenges us to do better.
Going forward, we need to recognize how little we know on the effectiveness of the instruments we have to
avoid relapse of violent conflict. We need to learn as we go forward. We encourage that the impact of the
innovations set out in the report are monitored and evaluated and that we commit to continuing to seek out new
ways to improve our speed and effectiveness. This would include analysis of international support for state
building, prevention of conflict, poverty reduction and financial accountability. The current budgetary
constraints faced by donor countries as a consequence of the global financial crisis must be seen as an
opportunity to rationalize the international community's interventions and make them more effective.
We now need to move forward expeditiously to support country efforts to consolidate peace and to lay a sound
foundation for development that reduces poverty. And we need to continue our work together to make this
happen.
[Floor open to SC Members.]
Amb. Mark Malloch-Brown, Minister for Africa, Asia and the United Nations of the United Kingdom:
Today’s debate follows the initiative of my Prime Minister last year for the UN to be better in responding to
post-conflict situations. I am delighted to have a personal friend presiding over the Council for this issue – an
eloquent reminder to reduce conflict worldwide. Countries affected by conflict account for 1/3 people living in
extreme poverty, half of children are not in primary school, and half of children die before their 5th birthday.
Afghanistan and Somalia, among other places, have been safe havens for international crime or terrorism.
Today, UK and Ugandan soldiers and others are laying down their lives for peace. Peacekeepers play an
indispensable role, protecting the most vulnerable. Next month, we will address the Security Council with
France to see how we can strengthen peacekeeping.
But peacekeeping is not enough. Half of post-conflict countries relapse into conflict within 10 years of a postconflict agreement. Post-conflict countries need to quickly see a revitalized economy; job creation to offer an
alternative to violence; basic services to be kick-started; prisons and courts restored, for improved access to
accountable and affordable justice – in other words, the need to restore basic functions of a viable state. We are
discussing a critical period of 24 months after the post-conflict agreement is signed; if we don’t get it right
then, the risk of renewed conflict increases dramatically.
Building on report, the priorities for the next months should include greater clarity of the roles and
responsibilities of the UN and the World Bank, to ensure accountability for what happens on the ground. It is
also important to launch a review of civilian capacities; deploy accountable and effective senior UN leadership
to corral international action and drive delivery of assistance; and improve access to rapid and flexible
financing, including through the PBF and MDTFs. Building on the PBC’s achievements so far should focus on
addressing the barriers to peacebuilding. Also important is the harmonization of international efforts and
mobilization of additional resources.
The real test will be delivery on the ground. The recent UK white paper outlines our commitment to
cooperating with the UN, the World Bank and other Member States to make this happen. The SG has a critical
role to play – and we applaud his leadership. We urge Member States to rally behind his leadership. The
human costs are simply too great.
Amb. Jean-Pierre Lacroix, France:
We thank the SG for his report, which certainly provides the most in-depth source of information on postconflict peacebuilding so far. Peacebuilding is a major area of work for the UN. There is great potential here,
compared to tools we’ve used so far, namely peacekeeping. But we are only at the beginning of this process.
The report is an essential step to respond to the needs of peacebuilding. We must pursue further actions in this
area.
I would like to focus on two challenges:
Peacebuilding is not yet strategic enough. There is a need for greater analysis to begin to recognize the cycle of
violence in conflict to see the causes and factors. That approach is also true for conflict prevention. There is a
need to identify priorities. When countries emerge from conflict, the identification of priorities is not only a
rule of action, but also the only way to move forward. In this regard, assessment by political teams should be
more readily available. Only by working on a limtited number of priorities can we be effective. We need to be
consistently opportunist, in the good sense of the word, and flexible and ready to act. We must begin to
establish a post-conflict peacebuilding strategy before that strategy is required. What is outlined in the report
for competent civilian experts and teams is a step in right direction.
Peacebuilding is not yet fully mobilized. There is much progress to be made in this area. The UN has a central
role in peacebuilding because it alone has all the instruments – political, development, military, and social. But
the UN is still fragmented in its response. The Report is aimed at improving coherency in this regard, and we
welcome this.
The implementation of funding mechanisms to meet the challenges of post-conflict peacebuilding is even more
necessary now, because a few actors alone cannot meet the challenges at this stage. We can only fully play our
role if the international community is behind us, and the PBC is helping to perform this function –it has begun
to already play this role in four countries – by broadening its donor base and reaching out to non-traditional
donors, including the private sector.
We hope peacebuilding will be seen as an integral part of responding to countries emerging from crisis.
France fully supports the draft presidential statement.
Amb. Yukio Takasu, Japan:
Over the course of its history, the United Nations has been faced with a multitude of challenges. Despite its
best effort, however, conflicts have not been brought to an end. A violent conflict destabilizes a society by
causing human suffering, displacing the population and damaging its economy. Worst of all, peace agreements
are often broken within a few years, leaving the most vulnerable trapped into a vicious cycle of misery and
conflict.
The UN has mobilized several instruments to reverse such situation. By deploying PKOs and extending
humanitarian assistance, the UN has contributed to preventing recurrence of misery and conflict in many parts
of the world. The PBC has promoted an integrated support to peacebuilding concerns, but normally long after
a peace agreement is signed and peacekeepers leave the country. There is, however, clearly a gap which is not
fully addressed by those existing instruments.
The SG report addressed a wide range of issues and submitted many worthwhile recommendations which
require in-depth discussions in the various forums. I will highlight a few general points that are particularly
relevant to the Security Council.
Relationship and coordination with PKOs. First of all, when discussing the immediate aftermath of conflict as
up to 24 months after a peace agreement, it is important to clearly understand the relationship between
peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding efforts. When a peace agreement results from peacemaking efforts,
there is still security threat and it is often followed by deployment of a PKO mission. In this case, we have to
explore more precisely to what extent the mandate of a PKO mission could be expanded to include
peacebuilding activities such as DDR, democratic governance, rule of law, support to capacity building, etc.
The Council has authorized some of these activities in recent PKO mandates.
But there is a limit for PKO to cover all of peacebuilding activities, in the light of different expertise,
implementing agencies, backstopping authority at HQ, and method of financing. On the other hand, if some of
these peacebuilding activities are carried out by other UN programs and partners in parallel while a PKO
mission is deployed, we need to consider how the PKO mission can better harmonize and coordinate
effectively with those other activities. For this purpose, the comprehensive review by the Council on effective
implementation of PKO is important, including through the ongoing work by the WG on PKO. We commend
the Secretariat's initiative such as "New Horizon" project for peacekeeping. They are all integral parts of the
UN effort for stronger and coherent response to international peace and security. The Council should
acknowledge that PKO and peacebuilding should be pursued not in a sequence but simultaneously.
Strategy and Leadership. One of the characteristics of post-conflict peacebuilding is the requirements of active
participations of diverse expertise, many actors and programs with different method of work and financing. It
is dispensable for various UN organs and other stakeholders to work in a coordinated and coherent fashion
from the very outset. In promoting partnership, national leaders and diverse partners must share a common
vision to avoid relapse into another conflict. Different actors should not be bogged down with producing
competing plans and strategy papers. National ownership is the first order, but national capacity is often
limited at this stage. Fully respecting ownership of the country, the UN is expected to take a lead and has to
adopt an action-oriented approach, initially with a streamlined priority plan, and subsequently with a integrated
strategy. We have to be flexible in sequencing and simplify planning and prioritize projects for speedy action.
It is essential to produce visible outcome to gain confidence among local population even before an elaborate
integrated strategy is in place.
To pursue a common vision and coherence among various players, we need strong leadership. The most senior
representative of the UN in the field is normally tasked with challenges of bringing the partners to a table
(convening power) and mobilizing political and financial resources to produce changes on the ground. It is
equally important to ensure that field representatives receive coordinated guidance and support from the HQ.
We therefore welcome the SG's initiative to strengthen his senior level coordinating mechanism that will
ensure that the leadership and support team are in place as early as possible. The responsibilities of a lead
department and the role of other departments, funds and programmes at the HQ should be clearly defined to
maximize resources and impacts.
Implementing capacity---personnel and financing. We need to strengthen implementation capacity and
experienced civilians for diverse specialties are essential. Recommendations such as a standing capacity for a
quick reaction team, a roster and training are important and deserve detailed examination on a priority basis.
The UN should also tap into the existing knowledge and expertise of some member-states, especially from the
developing countries. Japan has initiated training program for Asian peacebuilding experts at Hiroshima
Peacebuilders Center and stands ready to support the UN efforts.
Mobilizing additional resources is also vitally important. The recommended financing mechanism such as
expanding the PBF, MDTF (country specific or general purpose) needs careful review on their feasibility.
Under the current situation where PKO budget is expanding at an unprecedented pace, and in the light of
substantial resource requirements in the immediate aftermath of conflict, we all need to think creatively and to
make best use of existing channels, including IFIs like World Bank. The creation of new mechanism needs to
be attractive from donors' point of view. We also need to identify non- traditional partners and expand the
donor base.
Role of PBC. The Peacebuilding Commission has played an important role in mobilizing support to four
specific countries designated by the Security Council. They are making serious effort after PKO mission
completed mandate. The strength and comparative advantage of the PBC is its convening and coordination
power on the basis of integrated strategy. What is needed for the PBC is to consolidate its achievement rather
than to over-extend the responsibility beyond its capacity.
Japan is open to examine how PBC can make a difference in the early phase of post-conflict recovery. But we
need to realize that the peacebuilding activities in the immediate aftermath of conflict require different method
of work and support mechanism on the ground and at the HQ from what PBC is used to do. We should also
recognize the situation under consideration is that PKO mission is most likely deployed in parallel. The
Security Council, as its parent body, may find it useful to task PBC to give advice and assistance on specific
aspects of peacebuilding challenges.
Amb. Rosemary Dicarlo, United States:
too many populations that have endured the hardships of conflict experience persistent violence and instability.
They often lack the conditions necessary to restore governance, restart economies, and rebuild communities.
Shoring up peace processes at risk can often take attention from the wider efforts needed to put countries on a
steady path to long-term stability and development.
The overarching objective of our peacebuilding efforts must be to assist local authorities develop the capacity
to manage their own transition to recovery. This means helping them to restart basic functions of governance,
establish the conditions for economic recovery, and create a secure environment in which affected populations
can begin to rebuild shattered lives.
While other actors besides the United Nations have a role in peacebuilding, an effective United Nations can
provide an unparalleled platform for unity of effort and overall success. The Secretary-General’s report
provides a clear road map for the UN system to ensure that its assistance is well-conceived, well-led, and
sufficiently resourced. We welcome the Secretary-General’s personal commitment to ensuring an improved
UN response in post-conflict situations.
The United States strongly supports the report’s recommendations on strategy, leadership, and accountability,
which are essential to delivering critical support to national authorities. And we agree that effective civilian
capacity and response should be at the core of international efforts to support sustainable peace.
We welcome the report’s emphasis on the need for rapid deployment of high-quality leadership and multidisciplinary teams to backstop it. And we particularly welcome the emphasis on southern capacity, an undertapped and invaluable resource.
Let me also underscore the important contribution of women to post-conflict recovery and the need to involve
women more actively in the essential tasks of rebuilding communities and lives. The Secretary-General’s
report also makes a number of observations regarding financing post-conflict activities. The United States
agrees that early and flexible assistance is crucial. We also support the call to revitalize efforts to strengthen
cooperation in peacebuilding between the United Nations and international financial institutions. The division
of labor within the UN system and between the UN and other key partners continues to be a high priority for
us, and we stress the need to make progress in this area.
Efforts to build national capacity must start early. Capacity building cannot be delayed until the day an
international security presence departs.
Early and sustained attention to the requirements of peacebuilding must occur alongside peacekeeping in order
to ensure successful transition to a durable peace. To this end, we welcome early dialogue with the
Peacebuilding Commission.
The United States will work to ensure that the Council takes earlier account of peacebuilding in decisionmaking on peace operations and in reviewing mandates. We have already expressed our intention to consider
critical peacebuilding requirements when we review peacekeeping missions in Liberia and Haiti this fall.
Council Members will soon have had the opportunity to consider questions related to mediation, peacebuilding,
and peacekeeping, including the UN’s “New Horizons” initiative. The United States believes that now is the
time to move forward on these issues in a more integrated way.
Finally, we also are fully supportive of the draft presidential statement.
Amb. Guillermo Puente Ordorcia, Mexico:
Thank the SG for a very important document.
The initial phase following the end of conflict is vital for laying the foundation for true peacebuilding. In this
phase, it is essential to have the cooperation among lead actors in order to promote coherent strategies and
plans of action. Obviously, priorities must be established. Then, once progress is made in security and basic
needs have been met, it would be essential to establish measures to restore institutions of legitimate
governance. The introduction of political, legal and economic reforms would allow for a harmonious approach.
National ownership is key in peacebuilding efforts. At the same time, collective international support must be
there, without ignoring the appropriate balance between local responsibility and international assistance. In this
context, political reconciliation efforts are particularly relevant. They are essential for defining and ensuring a
functioning framework for re-establishing trust, as well as ensuring that security and development policies are
comprehensive and effective in the longer term.
The SG underscored the improvement of coherence and coordination of functions and responsibilities in postconflict peacebuilding, through promoting national capacity, ensuring the availability of necessary resources,
conducting conflict needs assessments and strengthening accountability. These areas are crucial for improving
UN response. Mexico supports measures aimed at these objectives, as well as the initiative of the SG to
provide properly trained personnel to carry out the organization’s actions both on the ground and at
headquarters.
We support the use of permanent staff and specialized peacebuilding experts. We should recruit staff from the
global south, and also involve women in peacebuilding tasks. Mexico supports the SG’s proposal on creating a
high-level mechanism to ensure that the right management and support teams are in place. This group could be
headed by an eminent person from the south.
The delegation recognizes as a positive step forward the joint agreement signed by the UN Development
Group and the World Bank in the area of peacebuilding efforts. It would allow for improved strategic
coordination and impact of our collective work.
With regard to donors, measures should be taken to establish modalities for flexible, rapid, predictable and
risk-tolerant financing. It is appropriate to encourage donors to stick to timetables of disbursement so that
funding arrives in a timely fashion.
Mexico believes that the work carried out by PBC is crucial in achieving a coherent and comprehensive
approach to promote immediate post-conflict peacebuilding. We recognize efforts taken so far by the PBC and
encourage it to broaden its advisory role with PBC countries, by providing timely follow-up on progress made.
The PBC must play a central role in coordination with other agencies in the implementation of the SG’s
recommendations. It is not only the Security Council, but also the GA and ECOSOC’s responsibility to seek
greater partnerships with external actors and incorporate peacebuilding and peacekeeping.
Mexico has participated in Lebanon and in Timor-Leste in the area of electoral cooperation. In Guinea-Bissau
and Burundi, we will continue to make a contribution through our federal electoral commission by providing
technical assistance and training. My delegation is committed to the efforts of the SG and the SC.
Amb. Ranko Vilovic, Croatia:
Croatia aligns herself with the EU statement to be made later. I will make further remarks in my national
capacity.
Post-conflict reconstruction and stabilization are critical for peace. The early success of peacebuilding efforts
is a collective interest, as failed peacebuilding risks backlash and new wars. Given that window for action may
not be longer than couple of years, peacebuilding must offer rapid support alongside peacekeeping deployment.
Effective leadership and coordination, adequate resources and a good mandate are important.
We welcome the report as an important contribution to strengthening the UN’s efforts. Croatia fully supports
the report. We are pleased that the SG’s approach prominently endorsed the principle of national ownership.
From our own experience in the 1990s, when we had UN missions and agencies on the ground, we saw that
external actors did not understand the real needs of population and cooperation was fragmented. External
actors alone may be ill-equipped. Peacebuilding efforts anchored at the country-level are linked to legitimacy
and sustainability and should ensure early peace dividends.
A key demand regarding peace operations is their sustainability. Peacekeeping operations are not quick fixes.
Early windows of opportunity – must build on early successes in the field, cannot let small setbacks discourage
us. Should factor in the issue of peace spoilers – must fight with patience and resilience.
Peacebuilding efforts remains anchored in the UN architecture, notably in the PBC, which, together with the
PBSO and PBF, remains a key mechanism to maintain the coherence of international efforts, including one
critical issue – sustainable financing for peacebuilding.
The Security Council is well placed to provide suggestions for peacebuilding on its agenda. At the same time,
the UN is often just one among many actors on the ground. The report rightly points out need to build on
partnerships, particularly with the World Bank. We must look at the comparative advantages of different actors
at international, regional and sub-regional levels. There is the need for greater clarity in delineating
responsibilities both within and without the UN, and well-defined mandates that are mutually reinforcing and
achievable.
We are grateful to the SG for concrete agenda for action. We support strengthening the UN’s response in the
immediate aftermath of conflict based on coherence and predictable financing, accountable senior UN
leadership on the ground, a common vision, and post-conflict needs assessments. Local actors and
development of their capacities must be at the heart of the process. The UN should provide for the deployment
of civilian experts, with a focus on improving existing national capacities. Reliable funding mechanisms and
support are also important. The UN can enhance its response through a coherent, effective and focused
approach as a parcel of wider efforts in conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding in
an integrated manner.
Amb. Jorge Urbina, Costa Rica:
Costa Rica believes that peacebuilding is not just an ingredient we should think of when ending a
peacekeeping operation. It is actually an objective we should bear in mind when preparing for the UN to
intervene. We advocate that the international community include this aspect from the earliest stages of a
peacekeeping operation. If the international community led by the UN system acts speedily, consistently and
effectively, we can significantly increase the possibility for lasting peace and development.
We must bear in mind that peacebuilding is primarily a national responsibility that requires the participation of
all leading national agents. Peacebuilding should focus on strengthening national capacities as the basis for
reconciliation.
That said, this responsibility is also a shared responsibility. The international community should provide active
support. To this end, we need well-established leadership as well as coordinated, coherent and consistent
efforts to produce solid and credible results.
The UN must also enhance existing national capacities by deploying staff capable of supporting the local staff
active in diverse areas. In the immediate post-conflict phase, there may be a necessary presence of forces to
end violence – however, we must broaden the contingent of civilian experts to provide for the varied needs of
the population to promote national capacities at all phases of intervention.
In combating the threat of poverty, there is need for balanced economic growth, including the creation of
employment, in particular for youth and demobilized combatants. In this area, women could play a leading role,
since they are often the greatest victims of conflict. They are key in reactivating the economy and in
peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts. The UN must do everything possible to protect women and children
during the conflict phase and promote their active participation in all areas related to peacebuilding and
reconstruction.
There is a need to take account of equity, namely public policies and state practices that promote equal
opportunities for state services, such as education and health. This is also an important time for development
cooperation to ensure longer-term sustainable development.
A substantial reduction in military spending would be effective in promoting socioeconomic development. We
should encourage states to step back from military spending and instead support health and education sectors
as well as reconstruction and housing – this would provide greater opportunities to benefit from peace
dividends.
We praise the work of the PBC and the PBSO. We believe that it is very useful to have the advice of both of
these bodies when this Council drafts mandates for peace missions it authorizes.
We also thank the SG for his report, which represents considerable progress in peacebuilding. Eradication of
root causes of conflict is essential.
We express support for the presidential statement.
Amb. Liu Zhenmin, China:
Peacebuilding, especially in the immediate post-conflict period, is a recognition by the international
community that the challenges faced by war-affected countries do not end with the end of conflict. China
supports efforts to strengthen the leading role the UN plays in peacebuilding, as well as efforts to enhance the
role of the PBC.
Post-conflict countries should commit themselves to national reconciliation and economic recovery. The
international community needs to tailor its assistance to the specific needs of the countries, all the while taking
into account the priorities established by the national authorities. There is no “one-size-fits-all” formula. The
international community must listen closely to the requests of the post-conflict countries and respect their
cultural traditions and national priorities.
Predictable funding is vital to peacebuilding. In post-conflict situations, everything is in shambles. Swift and
timely support is indispensable. China supports PBF activities aimed at expediting disbursement. The SG’s
recommendations on the need to consider innovative and MDTFs merit serious consideration.
Conflicts today are very complex, and as such peacebuilding requires an integrated and systematic approach.
Peace processes need to be built on a solid foundation, with political stability and economic reconstruction.
Without development, justice and the rule of law, peace efforts would remain “castles in the air.” There is a
need for overarching political dialogue.
The UN should continue to play a leading role in peacebuilding and coordinate the activities of donors and
international actors, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The PBC must
play a greater role in coordinating peacebuilding work in this regard.
In Africa, the international community should step up assistance to post-conflict countries, in particular to help
strengthen peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction capacities. We support the AU to play a greater role
in peacebuilding. Africa is indeed a litmus test for the UN peacebuilding architecture. The GA, ECOSOC and
the SC should work together to scale up efforts in support of the AU.
Amb. Fazli Çorman, Turkey:
We support the Secretary General in his efforts to streamline UN's response in the immediate aftermath of
conflicts, and share his ideas with respect to the way forward. Yet, I would like to emphasize and reiterate
some issues which we deem particularly important.
As experience shows, winning peace is often more difficult than winning war. Peace processes, in their early
stages, are often fragile and relapsing into conflict poses even greater threat. Thus, the risk of failure is very
high if peace is not supported from day one. In that respect, the first two years after the end of a conflict is
maybe the most critical period.
It is also a fact that tangible results in that period can only be achieved if political, social, humanitarian and
economic considerations, as well as the security needs are addressed in a holistic manner. In this context and as
it was pointed out in the thematic debate held under Turkey's Presidency of the Council on 29 June,
peacekeeping and peacebuilding are inseparable, integral parts of a whole and success can come only if we
treat them as such.
In the realm of peacebuilding, the UN has undoubtedly a significant role to play. And there is ample room for
improving UN's own response to post-conflict situations, including first and foremost, taking the necessary
measures to ensure that the entire UN system acts in unison towards a single set of objectives and delivers as
one. Quick and effective results can be achieved through such a synergy of efforts. Thus we welcome and
support Secretary General's recommendations in this direction.
That said, notwithstanding its key leadership responsibility the UN is not the only actor that can make a
difference on the ground in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. Indeed, given the manifold and multifaceted
challenges, effective peace building requires a much broader international support. Thus, the coherence and
coordination of international endeavors becomes key to helping countries succeed in their efforts to construct
and implement a viable road map to peace.
Indeed, echoing the words of the Secretary General "… national authorities, the UN system and other
international actors can have a much greater and earlier collective impact if all partners agree on an early
strategy with defined and sequenced priorities, and align action and resources behind strategy."
In other words, the strategy to build peace ought to be devised as early as possible; should cover all aspects of
the requirements of the post-conflict situation, has to be based on the common vision of both national and
international partners, and must be well-supported by the financial resources and the technical expertise.
Additionally, priority setting must reflect the unique conditions and needs of the country, taking into account
the lessons learned from past experiences and matching the existing capacities available to the task in hand.
The expertise and accumulated experience in the World Bank and the UNDP, in particular, can be extremely
helpful in guiding post-conflict recovery and reconstruction.
We also believe that the rapidly progressing PBC could and should play an important role in promoting an
integrated approach to peace building. We thus look forward to the review in 2010 with a view to further
enhancing its capacity and effectiveness.
We strongly support the view that building national capacity and thus ensuring national ownership is an
essential priority and that it has to be considered from the outset as the central element of all peace building
efforts. We have to seize the rather limited window of opportunity in the immediate aftermath of the conflict
by responding rapidly and effectively to support the development of national capacities across the entire
spectrum, ranging from security to rule of law, from national reconciliation to electoral processes, and from
basic socio-economic services to the return of refugees and IDPs.
Turkey continues to focus its support in post-conflict societies on these key deliverables. Our policies and
programs in Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, where we continue to undertake rather ambitious
reconstruction and development activities are precisely designed for that purpose. Turkey's Provincial
Reconstruction Team in Vardak, Afghanistan, in particular, is a good example of our comprehensive and
multi-faceted approach, placing national capacity-building at its core.
We do also recognize the importance of rapidly deployable civilian capacity to help achieve these key
deliverables, and we support the Secretary General's recommendation to broaden the pool of civilian experts.
Better peacebuilding practices require better financing. Thus we recognize the need for more flexible and
predictable funding for post-conflict peace building efforts. In this context, the PBF actually sets a good
example. Turkey stands fully behind its commitments to this Fund, and makes its contributions to the Fund
without any caveat. We also share the observations of the Secretary General that the in-country MDTFs
should be used more extensively and that the partnership between the UN and the World Bank must be further
improved.
Amb. Ibrahim Dabbashi, Libya:
Over the past two decades, the UN has done much to maintain peace and stability. Nonetheless, in the period
following a ceasefire or peace agreement, there remain many challenges that require in-depth study.
The Secretary-General rightly identified the most urgent objectives, including security, support for the political
process, strengthening international support to ensure initial peace dividends. The main challenge is the rapid
deployment of an effective UN team, with a strategic response from the outset. UN response should focus on
supporting national efforts. Standing capacity is also desirable. Cooperation with Member Stats and donors is
necessary for more flexible, speedy and risk-tolerant financing mechanisms.
The sine qua non for consolidating peace is restoring the legitimacy of state institutions. The first priority
should therefore be stabilization of the political system, through capacity-building to ensure the delivery of
basic state services to the citizens. This would help with economic recovery and improving the labor market.
Capacity-building must start immediately, based on local expertise, through regional sources where possible.
International organizations should benefit from local expertise, and avoid the excessive use of international
staff.
There are two most crucial sectors in this regard. First, the security sector; stability and justice are necessary to
restore trust among citizens. Second, the financial sector; there is a need for an effective tax system and state
revenue management to ensure the delivery of state services.
In addition, reconstruction efforts need financing, and this is not always adequate. Funding should be
predictable, flexible, rapid, sufficient and timely. We hope that the framework agreement between the UN and
the World Bank would provide for more effective management of various funds. We hope the PBC will play a
more important role in finding innovative ways of promoting peace. The PBF could make improvements to
provide speedier, risk-tolerant funding.
We welcome the SG’s work plan for the initial phase and reaffirm the important role to be played by the SRSG
in bringing together various actors. We reiterate the need to rally behind the national approach, supported by
external financial assistance.
Amb. Thomas Mayr-Harting, Austria:
Austria associates herself with the statement to be delivered by Sweden on behalf of the European Union later
in this meeting.
Seizing the window of opportunity in the immediate aftermath of a conflict is a crucial investment in order to
lay the ground for long-term peace and stability. Peacebuilding efforts must be undertaken and supported from
the earliest stage onwards, hand in hand with the possible deployment of integrated peacekeeping missions.
National ownership must be at the centre of efforts. All peacebuilding efforts should draw upon existing
national capacities, while at the same time assisting with capacity-development, also including the
identification of opportunities for local private sector engagement.
The protection of civilians, effective disarmament as well as demobilisation and reintegration programs must
be key priorities in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. There should be a clear focus on long-term
reintegration of former combatants as well as on strengthening of the rule of law and institutional reform,
including security sector reform.
Short term peacebuilding measures must be undertaken with a view to long-term peacebuilding. The
establishment and support of effective and independent justice and reconciliation mechanisms is crucial. This
will contribute to justice, long-term peace as well as reconciliation in war-torn societies and thereby minimise
the risk of future violations.
Successful peacebuilding can only take place if all relevant actors are included. We therefore should
acknowledge the vital role played by women in re-establishing post-conflict societies. Women have a specific
insight into the needs of their societies, which is why their involvement in peacebuilding efforts should be
enhanced and the provision of gender-specific funds ensured.
Enhanced coordination, not only within the UN system but also with other international partners, is a
prerequisite for avoiding duplication and ensuring efficiency of peacebuilding efforts. It is essential to make
maximum use of partners with a comparative advantage on the ground. We therefore highly appreciate efforts
to intensify cooperation with regional and sub-regional organisations. Furthermore, Austria supports the
Secretary General's recommendation to strengthen authority of senior United Nations leadership on the ground
as a means of increasing accountability.
Austria also welcomes the crucial role of the Peacebuilding Commission in addressing a country's post-conflict
needs and would like to underline the necessity to involve the PBC from the outset. By promoting a coherent
and integrated approach highlighting the principles of national ownership and regional cooperation, the PBC
provides valuable support for long-term democratic consolidation and sustained economic development. It is
therefore best placed to develop an international consensus on peacebuilding, necessary to bridge the gap
between early stabilisation and recovery efforts and longer-term development planning.
We attach great importance to building further on the Commission's accomplishments and look forward to the
refinement of its working methods and tools in the context of the 2010 review. To underline our commitment
to the work of the PBC, Austria has recently asked to become a member in its Country Specific Configuration
for Sierra Leone. We are happy that this request has met with the PBC's approval and will actively contribute
to its work.
We support the presidential statement.
Amb. Michel Kafando, Burkina Faso:
While engaging all actors, the peacebuilding process should be nationally owned, with a firm commitment
from the national government and the inclusion of all national elements. There is a need for strong
international support to ensure the re-establishment of functioning institutions, restoration of rule of law,
sustainable development, economic revitalization, and support for the political process. the internationally
community has a duty to provide a speedy and effective response in these areas. This assistance should be
provided while reinforcing local, national and regional efforts.
We must first identify the roots of the conflict, then bring in actors of the region. The UN’s experience of
peacebuilding in Burundi has been important in this regard. The UN should enhance synergies and
coordination, but also better define the roles and responsibilities of UN leadership on the ground. We agree
with the recommendation of the SG for a strengthened UN leadership and the suggestion of including a
standing capacity.
The PBC is the optimal forum for coordinating peacebuilding efforts, in particular with regard to resource
mobilization. We welcome the commitment of the World Bank.
We support the presidential statement.
Amb. Vitaly Churkin, Russian Federation:
We share the approach to peacebuilding expressed in the SG report, based on national ownership and capacitybuilding. A peacebuilding strategy should be formulated at the earliest stages of a post-conflict situation. In
this regard, the UN should seek greater synergies, and external aid should be targeted at strengthening national
capacities.
Right now, efforts are fragmented, and funding mechanisms inadequate. The SG report expresses with great
frankness that UN efforts have been hindered by systemic problems, the division of labor. We welcome the
SG’s initiative to improve integration. The report rightly states the need for a common vision. Many of the
report’s recommendations, such as the establishment of standing capacities at national or regional levels,
should be put before Member States, especially with regard to budgetary implications of such activities.
The PBC plays a primary role in coordinating UN peacebuilding efforts and measuring progress to this end.
Overall, we are satisfied with the work of the Commission so far, but we believe it needs to improve its
working methods. In effect, the SG report does not devote enough attention to the PBC as such. The time is
ripe for recommendations on its operating procedures. Peacekeepers should be given only the initial tasks of
post-conflict peacebuilding, and the rest should be left to the PBC, regional organizations, and UN agencies. It
is necessary to strengthen the relationship between the PBC and the Security Council. We support the GA
resolution on reviewing the Terms of Reference of the PBF.
Amb. Hoang Chi Trung, Vietnam:
Post-conflict peacebuilding has evolved into an integral part of the collective efforts by the international
community to remove the prolonged effects of conflicts and support the smooth transition to lasting peace and
sustainable development. Experiences in Namibia, El Salvador, Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Burundi,
Liberia and Timor-Leste remain vivid examples demonstrating that effective peacebuilding can break the
vicious circle of instability of under-development to bring about a virtuous cycle of security, reconciliation and
reconstruction.
The immediate post-conflict period is critical to address a pool of opportunities as well as challenges to disarm,
demobilize and reintegrate ex-combatants: strengthen the rule of law and security sector reform, promote
inclusive dialogue and reconciliation, support the return, and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced
persons,, restore government functions and jump-start economic revitalization.
In the longer run, substantive investments into poverty reduction and hunger eradication, essential public
services, employment creation, social parity, institutional capacity-building and the Millennium Development
Goals, among others, will serve as lynchpins to remove the root causes of conflict. These should be addressed
early in the post-conflict period.
Standing at the very heart of the international peacebuilding architecture, the Peacebuilding Commission, the
Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund have played a central role as the dedicated
institutional mechanism to sustain attention, mobilize resources and improve coherence while addressing
critical gaps, needs and priorities in countries emerging from conflict.
Given that many conflicts trigger cross-border dimensions, regional and sub-regional organizations have
established support frameworks to bring their comparative advantage on knowledge of the local specific
conditions to bear on the peacebuilding work. It is imperative that UN agencies and international financial
institutions and other organization efforts be coordinated and integrated.
We look forward to further concrete results in implementing the Secretary-General's agenda on strengthening
and supporting leadership teams in the field, promoting earlier strategic coherence, reinforcing national
capacity from the outset, improving the ability to provide rapid and predictable capacities, and enhancing the
speed, flexibility, amount and risk tolerance of post-conflict financing.
Even with the best intentions, external assistance to promote and strengthen war-to-peace stabilization
processes will likely be regarded as an imposition unless the cardinal principles of respect for the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-intervention into internal affairs of States are strictly
persevered and the beneficiary host countries are given ample space to determine policy options and decisionmaking in the pursuit of their goals and objectives. International assistance should be tailored to and driven by
the specific needs and priorities of the country, with the consent of local parties and within the overall
framework of drawing on and developing the national ownership, self-resilience and self-reliance.
Amb. Ebrahim Ismail Ebrahim, Deputy Minister for International Relations and Cooperation, South
Africa:
This debate follows many robust consultations which sought to create a common plan and strategy to
effectively respond to challenges of post-conflict peace building. The establishment of the Peace building
Commission (PBC) in 2005, as an inter-governmental body to advice countries emerging from conflict, was a
direct response by the international community to address these challenges.
In this regard, South Africa welcomes the fact that the compilation of this report was done in consultation with
the PBC. While South Africa supports initiatives and programmes that augment the work of the Commission,
it is important that the PBC should continue to be strengthened and should remain the focal point of peace
building activities in line with its mandate. Therefore, the report of the Secretary-General should be seen as an
attempt to strengthen and enhance existing mechanisms within the United Nations and to streamline those
outside the United Nations in an effort to better respond to the immediate aftermath of conflict.
In his report, the Secretary-General acknowledges that the immediate aftermath of conflict while challenging,
also offers a window of opportunity for the international community to provide basic security, deliver peace
dividends, confidence to the peace process and strengthen core national capacities. The Secretary-General also
proposes an agenda on how the UN can be strengthened in order to respond to the immediate aftermath of
conflict and identifies the following areas as priorities: basic safety and security, basic welfare, economic
reintegration and support to the political processes.
South Africa fully concurs with the Secretary-General that national ownership of the peace building process is
critical for confidence building and strengthen fragile governments. Our experience in the African peace
missions, such as the DRC, Burundi and Cote d'Ivoire has also shown us that the peace agreement alone is not
sufficient to bring stability in the country. Effective communication and inclusive dialogue between national
actors and the civilian population are critical in building confidence to the process, which allows for realistic
expectations by the population.
Accordingly, it is important that national actors should be capacitated in order to meet these expectations.
Again South Africa's engagement in the African peace processes has also shown that lack of due attention to
national capacity development has the potential to constrain national actors from taking ownership of their
recovery process.
In this regard, South Africa would like to stress the important role that women continue to play in peace
building efforts in post-conflict societies.
South Africa believes that regional and sub-regional organisations have always been an important element of
the multilateral system. Many within their own capacities are making direct contribution to peace and security
in accordance with Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. For instance the African Union with its peace and security
architecture continues to demonstrate commitment and desire to successfully contribute to the achievement of
stability, peace and political solutions in the continent. These organisations also possess considerable amount
of human capacity which need to be harnessed and utilised effectively in order to augment the UN capabilities.
South Africa's own experience has also shown that the use of civilian expertise can be a valuable tool in the
immediate aftermath of conflict.
The Secretary-General identifies an agenda for action by the international community on key priority areas
among which is the role of the UN. The UN possesses enormous comparative advantages which should be
marshalled to provide effective leadership, coordination and accountability, particularly as relates to its country
teams on the ground.
South Africa has always supported the idea of integrated peace missions in view of the interdependence of UN
efforts in the countries emerging from conflict. We believe that this integrated approach will go a long way to
maximise the impact of UN responses.
Related to this is the issue of the Post-Conflict Needs Assessment (PCNA). South Africa is of the view that the
PCNA should be synergised with the Peace-Building Commission. The experience of the last four years has
shown that the advisory role of the Commission has been instrumental in assisting the countries on its agenda
to develop their national strategy frameworks. South Africa believes that the PCNA needs to compliment the
PBC's work.
With regard to the PBC, the Commission had demonstrated the ability to deliver effectively on its mandate,
notwithstanding the challenges of the last four years. South Africa looks forward to the forthcoming five year
review of the Commission in 2010 which will be critical in giving an assessment of the Commission’s work
and progress achieved so far.
South Africa is of the view that, in order for post-conflict peace building to succeed, it is imperative that
immediate, predictable and flexible financial resources are made available. Therefore forming solid
partnerships with the institutions like the World Bank in a sustained manner is vital. Lastly, my delegation
supports the draft Presidential Statement to be adopted by the Security Council later today.
Amb. Jean-Francis Bozizé, Minister Delegate in charge of National Defense, Veterans Affairs, Victims of
War, Disarmament and Restructuring of the Army, Central African Republic:
In spite of relative stability in CAR, several challenges remain. The economy is ailing, and there are still many
displaced persons. After the Inclusive Political Dialogue in December 2008, the country saw a wave of
violence in the northeast of the country due to UFDR activities. Efforts by the government to regain control of
the territory was not enough. We saw the re-emergence of armed groups in a struggle over power.
The social fabric is fragmenting, the infrastructure is failing, the economy and state institutions are in a
precarious state. These factors make difficult the implementation of social programs. At the same time, foreign
aid is dropping so there are inadequate resources.
IDPs are amassing on the Chad frontier and are placed in precarious situations. The government, following the
Inclusive Political Dialogue, established a program of DDR as part of the larger security context. The
protection of the people, security, reintegration, relaunching the economy, political dialogue, and restoration of
the economy are crucial factors.
It is also difficult to identify where armed people are operating. There has been some disorder, but we are
forward-looking, and there will be calm. Some of the groups are still reluctant to join the peace talks, but the
peace process must start right away, as part of an overall global strategy.
The World Bank and UNDP have become an important part of our DDR process. Thousands of ex-combatants
have already been demobilized. In recent years, child soldiers have become an issue of enormous concern as
well. An estimated 700 children are within armed groups – children are especially vulnerable. Rehabilitation
programs have been launched to free children from armed groups. The intention is to give back their
childhoods. In this respect, we are pleased that post-conflict rehabilitation programs take into account girls and
children.
Minimum security and stability are required for the political process to move forward. In this regard, the
Inclusive Political Dialogue was an important step forward. There is also a need to effectively assess the
structural causes of conflict in CAR so that priorities could be established in the struggle for stability and
development. Availability of financial resources is also another important factor.
We support the presidential statement.
Amb. Mohamed Abdullahi Omaar, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Somalia:
We welcome the proposals and recommendations contained in the SG report.
Somalia and South Asia are proof that we have no choice but to make peace and build on it. Piracy on the
Somali waters has impacted lives of almost every region of the world, as a result of the lawlessness prevailing
in the wider region. Peacemaking needs vision and a common strategy. The peace that we seek is subregional—the Horn of Africa. Wider peacemaking is the only guarantee for peace.
Our activities in peacebuilding and peacemaking have progressed in a parallel manner, but they are also
incremental. Despite the problems we still face, 2/3 of the country in the north and in the northeast are at peace,
and are in the peacebuilding phase. We are frankly and fully engaged in the Djibouti peace process in the south.
Local development initiatives are being undertaken in the north and northeast. Somalis have shown national
ownership in stable parts in the north and northeast, as well as the Djibouti peace process in the south. But
those achievements came at a high cost in human life. They must be accompanied by institutional capacitybuilding and other timely international support, led by UN agencies—these are two priorities. The Transitional
Federal Government stands ready to work at making efforts in these areas successful.
[The meeting is suspended.]
[The meeting is resumed at 3:15pm.]
Amb. Maged Abdelaziz, Egypt:
As I am sure that you and distinguished members of the Council are aware, the first part of my intervention
will be on behalf of both Egypt and Ireland, the Co - Chair's of the meeting entitled "Post Conflict
Peacebuilding: Contemporary Challenges and the Way Forward", convened by the Governments of Egypt and
Ireland in Cairo, Egypt on 18 and 19 May 2009, which touches on many of the issues contained in the Report
of the Secretary General subject to our discussion today.
Egypt and Ireland took the initiative to convene Cairo's meeting to engage senior officials from all regional
groups in a discussion on the contemporary challenges and opportunities for peacebuilding and on possible
solutions to these challenges. The Cairo meeting took place against the backdrop of emerging lessons and
experiences in peacebuilding from the four countries on the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission
(PBC), namely Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau and the Central African Republic, as well as other
countries emerging from conflict. Another important factor to the meeting is the forthcoming review of the
PBC, PBSO and the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) in 2010, in accordance with the Commission's founding
resolutions.
The Meeting emphasized the importance of addressing the underlying social and economic causes of crises,
enhancing coordination and cooperation between regional organizations and institutions and donor countries
and the significance of national ownership, and the need to build confidence at the sub national level. The
importance of capacity-building, which should be country-specific and tailored to the needs of the country in
question, was underscored as well as the need to build institutional capacity particularly outside of the Capitals,
and the need for international actors to reduce the administrative burden on local actors. It was highlighted that
there should be an effective and coherent international response to peacebuilding coordinated by the UN, and
that the UN must not substitute the government in exercising its functions and responsibilities, but should
support and strengthen its capacity to effectively address the challenges it faces. Participants stressed the role
of the PBC, the important role of the World Bank and its partnership with the UN, the lack of consistent
international support and funding in critical areas, the need for more simplified donor procedures that would
enable quick and more flexible funding and to reduce the timeframe for disbursement of funds and
encouraging Diaspora remittances.
The Meeting highlighted the important role of regional organizations in supporting peacebuilding efforts, both
in terms of political support, and in developing peacebuilding capacities in the region. They emphasized that
the United Nations should continue to strengthen partnerships and create greater synergies with regional
organizations to better support countries emerging from conflict. It was recognized that some regional
organizations lacked the appropriate capacity to play their potential role and donor organizations are therefore
encouraged to support them.
In this regard, I would like to inform the Council of Egypt's initiative to strengthen the peace and security
structure of the African Union, within the framework of the European Union - African strategic partnership.
The aim of this initiative is to operationalize and develop the Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development
Framework of the African Union (PCRD) through the establishment of a regional center in close institutional
collaboration between the African Union, the United Nations and other international and regional
organizations.
Commenting, on my national capacity, on the Report of the Secretary General on peacebuilding in the
immediate aftermath of conflict, I would like to commend the Secretary General and his team for preparing
this comprehensive report which highlights the challenges that post conflict countries and the international
community face in the immediate aftermath of conflict, and provides, in this context, an agenda to strengthen
the United Nation's response, taking into account the relevant experiences and lessons learned within the past
years, particularly since the establishment of the PBC.
I express support to the ideas and conclusions reflected in the Report, particularly the importance of an early
emphasis on strengthening national capacity and ensuring that it is part of an entry strategy and not merely the
basis for exit, the necessity to respect the principle of National Ownership and that peacebuilding efforts must
be anchored at the country level, taking into consideration the support and guidance from the UN system. The
UN is expected to play a leading role in the field, by facilitating engagement between national and
international actors and among international actors, without prejudicing the role of the PBC.
While we welcome the report, there is still a need for clarification concerning some of the issues. First, the
Report gives the impression that the Security Council is the major player when it comes to peacebuilding
efforts in the immediate aftermath of conflict (paragraph 14 for instance), at the time that the General
Assembly and the ECOSOC should play a similar role.
Second, the whole matter of the pool of civilian experts and the standing capacities, as one of the components
of the proposed agenda by the Secretary General, should be further discussed in details from all its aspects. I
propose, in this regard, that the Secretary General presents a comprehensive report, which could be used as
basis for discussions among Member States.
Third, the subject reflected in the report regarding enhancing the United Nations leadership teams on the
ground, and the steps undertaken by the Secretary General, as enshrined in the Report, to strengthen the
accountability of the Special Representatives, need further discussion and elaboration. Fourth, the section of
the Report relating to the role of the PBC did not include specific proposals aiming at strengthening the role of
the Commission to make it more flexible and efficient in the immediate aftermath of conflict, other than
recommending to the Security Council to consider how the advice of the PBC could contribute to its work
during the early phase of the Council's consideration of post conflict situations. This recommendation, though
will lead to increasing the role of the PBC, could lead on the other hand to increasing the domination of the
Council on the work of the Commission vis a vis the role of the General Assembly and the ECOSOC.
There is a need to further discuss this proposal to ensure that it will be implemented properly. Fifth, there
should be a clear understanding about the sequence of peace consolidation activities in the immediate
aftermath of conflict, and stress in this regard the relation between peacekeeping and peacebuilding from all
aspects, including financing these activities.
Amb. Zacharie Gahutu, Burundi:
Our government fully supports the guiding principles contained in the report. While all of them are closely
linked and interdependent, I will emphasize, first of all, national ownership. Peacebuilding efforts belong
essentially to the country concerned. The international community should therefore play a catalytic support
role in strengthening national capacity as soon as a ceasefire agreement is signed.
We agree with the SG’s proposal to establish a senior-level mechanism to ensure effective leadership by the
UN on the ground, including support teams. With respect to coherence, restoring peace, peacekeeping,
peacemaking and post-conflict reconstruction should go hand in hand. This requires all organs of the UN to
work together.
After a conflict, the challenges are immense. Each case has its own specific features. This debate is taking
place at a time when the peacebuilding process in Burundi has seen significant progress. We note, as an
example, the establishment of the national Independent Electoral Commission, the agreement between the
government and the PalipeHutu-FNL, which has become a political party, and the commitment of the parties to
DDR. In good governance, the culture of dialogue between national actors continues. In security, defense and
security corps reform and the disarmament of civilians have continued.
The Ministers of Defense of the CEPGL have decided to fight the negative forces in the region together. In the
rule of law and the fight against impunity, consultations have begun with the view to implementing transitional
justice. The government has adopted a new land code, which is adapted to the situation today.
The peacebuilding process in Burundi requires additional input with respect to the priority actions. The global
financial and food crises have called into question our prior financial forecasts. The government is still waiting
for the marshal plan for Burundi that the PBC called for last year, as well as funds promised at the roundtable
of 2007 – we express gratitude to those who have honored those promises already.
The PBC brings together governments, national and international partners around a set of common
peacebuilding objectives. In general, the trends, progress made and commitments undertaken for Burundi have
shown much progress. Burundi thanks the SG for the report and the support he has continually given to the
peacebuilding process in my country.
Amb. John McNee, Canada:
I join others in thanking the SG for his report.
Canada has a long history of peacemaking, and in that vein we welcome the Secretary-General's Report on
Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict as an important step forward for peacebuilding at the
United Nations. The report is a call to action that points to areas in which the United Nations and the
international community has been either unresponsive or disjointed.
Over the past decade, the international community has come to recognize that the fragility of states in the
immediate aftermath of crisis represents both a central development challenge and a potential risk to global
stability. Failure to adequately address the early recovery needs of fragile states risks deepening poverty,
increases the risk of a relapse to violence, and poses real threats to regional and international stability.
Indeed, reducing the number of states that relapse into violence will spare countless numbers from hardship,
and increase the efficiency of international assistance to fragile states, thereby ensuring better regional stability
and cooperation. At the same time, attention to the early recovery agenda does not, and must not, occur in a
vacuum. In this regard it is significant that this debate comes after the recent publication of the conflict
mediation report and during ongoing discussions about the future of peacekeeping missions. As the United
Nations considers its range of responses to conflict, the benefits of investing in peacebuilding are increasingly
clear.
Peacebuilding is a complex multifaceted task. While the focus of peacebuilding will vary from case to case and
across time, the key pillars remain the same. The first is restoring the capacity of the state to provide public
goods to its citizens, including justice and the rule of law, basic social services, and an enabling economic
environment. The second is rebuilding the legitimacy of the state by ensuring democratic accountability of
political leaders to their citizens. The third challenge is to bring about social reconciliation through pro-active
efforts to heal the wounds left from conflict. Fourth, rapid economic revitalization must provide jobs and a
future to weary populations and ex-combatants.
The final, and perhaps most important component, is visionary political leadership that puts the interests of the
country and its people above all else. Given this context, the report's critical contribution is to emphasize
cooperation, coordination, and coherence. International actors must pursue common priorities, based on an
agreed assessment of the situation and a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. Special effort must
be made with the World Bank to clarify respective responsibilities for core peacebuilding sectors.
Strengthening leadership teams in the field is an important step towards improving the United Nations
contribution. Canada is also encouraged by the emphasis placed on the Post-Conflict Needs Assessment as a
unified and inclusive assessment tool, provided it includes strict, deliverable and tangible benchmarks so the
affected population can rapidly benefit from peace.
Establishing durable peace and prosperity is difficult without a functioning state. Building peace is the primary
responsibility of national actors. Canada welcomes the recommendations of the report to urge an initial
assessment of existing national capacity, bolster capacity for development efforts, and support national
oversight of international assistance. Canada also urges peacebuilding actors to consider how the expertise that
is resident in diaspora communities can be better mobilized during post-conflict recovery. During this critical
period, more can be done to utilise the strengths of regional organisations, and to encourage greater South-toSouth cooperation in support of peacebuilding.
This raises an important issue: timely access to effective technical assistance. The report offers useful
recommendations to improve support to United Nations personnel in the field. Existing experience with
models such as the Standing Police Capacity, Mediation Support Unit, and Justice Rapid Response should also
be applied to other areas of need. Closer cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations also offers
great promise. The international community should also re-examine how bilateral and multilateral civilian
response mechanisms such as expert rosters can be better coordinated and respond more quickly to crises.
The Secretary-General has identified core peacebuilding objectives, but several general points are worth
emphasizing. Questions of transitional justice and national reconciliation are central for post-conflict
peacebuilding. Local populations must have access to formal and informal structures that facilitate communal
healing and address abuses committed during the conflict. A functioning justice system is also critical for
fostering accountability, building trust in national institutions, and establishing basic security. Above all,
international assistance must help establish legal institutions that embrace transparency and respect for human
rights. In this respect, Canada warmly welcomes the report's emphasis on the full participation of women and
children in the peacebuilding process and the protection of their human rights.
Improved financing is crucial. The creation of the Peacebuilding Fund was an important step and work is also
underway in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) with the Development
Assistance Committee to clarify best practices in post-conflict assistance. Canada welcomes both the recent
revision of the PBF terms of reference and the Secretary-General's recommendations for the Fund.
Peacebuilding financing represents both higher risk and higher reward. Rapid and flexible funding now may
help prevent the need for more expensive interventions later.
The report also has significant implications for the Peacebuilding Commission. The Commission remains
underutilized and it is important to reconsider its role in the immediate post-conflict period. Greater ambition
with respect to the nature and scope of the work of the Commission is warranted. The Peacebuilding
Commission has the potential to be a central and effective actor with respect to the prioritization, coordination,
and support of peacebuilding strategies. We should not be willing to settle for less.
It is now up to the United Nations system to implement the recommendations in the Report. It will be
important to provide regular updates to member states on progress being made. In other areas - notably
national capacity building, civilian rapid response, and financing - member states must also take the lead. As a
committed member of the Peacebuilding Commission, a major donor to the Peacebuilding Fund, Canada
stands ready to support these efforts.
Amb. Anders Lidén, Sweden:
I am speaking on the behalf of the European Union. The Candidate Countries Turkey and the Former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and Potential
Candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia, as well as Ukraine, the Republic of
Moldova and Armenia align themselves with this statement.
During the past decade, the international community has increasingly been called upon to prevent states from
collapsing, fracturing or falling back into conflict. The task we are confronted with is often that of assisting in
the building of functioning state structures in areas torn by political strife and the legacy of violence. Over the
years, we have learnt important lessons, and the report of the Secretary-General provides an opportunity to
further strengthen the UN's peacebuilding capacity. Many of its important recommendations need to be
urgently implemented. We look forward to the Secretary-General's continued engagement and commitment to
this important agenda.
The report rightly focuses on the immediate aftermath of conflict. We know from experience that this is a
particularly vulnerable and critical phase of peacebuilding, characterized by fragile security conditions, severe
humanitarian and human rights needs, and significant political uncertainty. For the international community, it
is a phase where our ability to deliver assistance is put to a difficult test.
While a basic level of security is vital in order to achieve a peaceful development, all aspects of peacebuilding
must be considered from the beginning of the process. Successful disarmament and demobilization of former
combatants require a framework in which they can be reintegrated. Alongside the deployment of peacekeepers,
efforts must also be made to stimulate economic recovery, support the provision of basic services, and restore
the rule of law, good governance and respect for human rights.
The central challenge is to build the structures of functioning state institutions. The process requires the
participation of all relevant stakeholders. National ownership is essential, as underlined in the SecretaryGeneral's report. Special efforts should be made to reach out to women, youth and minority groups at risk of
exclusion. A coherent strategy among international actors in field operations is crucial in order to effectively
support national processes. Unfortunately, such coherence is often lacking.
The EU supports the Secretary-General's recommendation on the need for an effective and accountable UN
leadership on the ground, empowered to lead the immediate international efforts in support of national
authorities. A common set of priorities is necessary to bridge the gap between early stabilization and recovery
efforts and longer-term development planning. Mechanisms for more effective monitoring, evaluation and
adjustment of strategies also need to be developed.
The EU welcomes the emphasis in the report on joint needs assessment, planning and support. Ways must now
be found to put this into practice. In this regard, we look forward to the recommendations on the integrated
task forces and the HQ support to Resident Coordinators and the UN Country Teams.
We also share the Secretary-General's call for greater clarity on the roles and responsibilities of core
peacebuilding actors, both within the UN and between the UN and the World Bank, and other international
actors. Those designated as lead agencies bear a special responsibility to make the appropriate investments in
order to provide timely and predictable support. These arrangements should be subject to regular review.
We have been encouraged by the positive assessment of the Standing Police Capacity and would welcome the
further development and expansion of rapidly deployable civilian capacities to other areas of rule of law. We
look forward to the proposed overall review on how the UN can help broaden and deepen the pool of civilian
experts, particularly from the affected regions and from the South. In this context, the EU would also like to
stress the important role of women in peacebuilding, as outlined in SC Resolution 1325.
The Peacebuilding Commission has existed for three years. It is unique in its membership structure, its
involvement of civil society and its country specific approach. The strategic potential of the Commission lies
in its ability to stimulate coordination, mobilise resources, maintain a spotlight on countries emerging from
conflict and provide advice to all relevant bodies of the UN system. As suggested by the Secretary-General, the
EU would like to see the Commission's advice be more proactively considered. The 2010 review offers an
important opportunity to learn from the first years of operation and make appropriate improvements. In this
context, it is also essential that the Peacebuilding Support Office is utilized to its full potential.
To this end, the role of the PBSO should be clearly defined. Access to timely and flexible funding is often one
of the main challenges to maintaining the momentum in a peace process, immediately after the conclusion of a
peace agreement. The EU welcomes the Secretary-General's recognition of the need to strengthen the role of
the Peacebuilding Fund in the early stages of peacebuilding.
We must strive towards a Peacebuilding Fund that sets an example by providing seed funding to bridge the gap
between conflict and recovery at a time when other funding mechanisms may not yet be available.
Over the past decade, the European Union has gradually enhanced its capacity to support efforts to secure
peace in war-torn areas around the world. Today, the EU is one of the main contributors to peacebuilding
activities, working closely with the UN, the African Union and other actors in these efforts. The continued
strengthening of these partnerships, particularly with the United Nations, is a key priority for the EU.
Amb. Jim McLay, New Zealand:
We join others in welcoming the SG report.
The report rightly focuses on the critical period immediately after conflict, when "virtuous cycles" must be set
in motion to lay foundations for lasting peace. So often, however, we have failed in that, with nearly 30 percent
of all conflicts that ended in negotiated settlement resuming again within five years.
Time is of the essence in the immediate post-conflict period. The availability of expert teams that can deploy
and begin work at very short notice is an essential bridge to a fuller and more coordinated response. The pace
of deployment to missions such as UNAMID, where, a year after establishment, less than 35 percent of
international civilian posts were filled, and MINURCAT, with first year vacancies of 91 percent, are of great
concern. Those are stark and depressing numbers and help make the case for civilian standby capacity and for
UN human resources management reform.
We were pleased that the report also acknowledges that the UN must improve its coordination, both internally
and with national and international actors. The Delivering as One philosophy must underpin UN peacebuilding
efforts, just as it must in other areas. UN country leaders need greater powers and support from headquarters to
achieve their most immediate - invariably urgent - objectives. Competent appointees, with well-defined
delegations given the freedom to act quickly and decisively, could save lives, save time and save infrastructure
and institutions essential to the peacebuilding process.
The report recognises the need for rapid assessments to determine both existing capacity and the most
immediate demands for external support. Capacity development, where it is needed, should not be part of an
exit strategy; it should begin straight away.
New Zealand follows the work of the Peacebuilding Commission with considerable interest. Its composition,
objectives and working methods offer significant promise; but, despite this, we are yet to see concrete results.
We therefore welcome the SG's consideration of how it might better realise its potential, including channelling
its resources and promoting greater coherence.
New Zealand favours an integrated approach to address the underlying causes of conflict, with participation of
security, diplomatic, development and local actors; and we commend the report for emphasising the
importance of local context in developing a peacebuilding strategy.
New Zealand has been significant contributor to peacebuilding activities which have made a tangible
difference on the ground. The Regional Assistance Mission in the Solomon Islands - "RAMSI" - promotes
long-term stability, security and prosperity by supporting improved rule of law, more effective, accountable
and democratic government, economic growth, and enhanced public service delivery; and we also adopt an
integrated, whole-of-government approach to our contributions in Timor-Leste and Afghanistan.
Amb. Gary Quinlan, Australia:
We fully endorse the principle that peacebuilding following a conflict is the responsibilityof the government of
the affected country. There must be local ownership of all efforts.
At the same time stronger, better resourced UN leadership on the ground will result in better outcomes. To
improve analysis, planning and coordination, for example, the role of the Resident Coordinator's office should
be strengthened. We also welcome the recognition that there should be a commensurate increase in the
accountability of UN senior leadership.
The collective role of civilian, police and military in supporting peacebuilding efforts must be recognised, and
we encourage the UN and its partners to strive for greater coherence between peacekeeping and peacebuilding
efforts. Ahead of this debate, we and the World Bank held a small seminar on this topic, based on the findings
from the Bank's survey of Australian experiences in post-conflict Cambodia, Solomons and Timor Leste. What
this reinforced was we need to recognize the importance of the security-development nexus and ensure an
integrated approach between the various mission elements. The respective capabilities that each element brings
to the overall mission effort need to be carefully considered at the strategic planning and operational levels.
We'd argue the importance of effective civil-military-police relations needs to be a key consideration for those
taking leadership roles in missions, and in the training and preparedness of civilian deployees. This is an issue
just as much for national and regional actors as for multilateral agencies. Getting it right - bringing the very
different working cultures together, be they from the development world, the military, the police or the
political - would significantly improve the quality and efficiency of our response, and, more importantly, lead
to better outcomes for the countries concerned.
We welcome the report's acknowledgement of the role that local and traditional authorities and civil society
have in recovery and development. We also welcome the report's emphasis on the needs of women and girls.
The early post-conflict period provides an opportunity to consolidate new leadership and employment roles
which may have been taken on by women during the period of conflict.
Australia welcomes the enhanced cooperation framework recently agreed between the World Bank and the UN.
We encourage efforts to improve coordination and further clarify the roles of multilateral agencies.
On deployable civilian capabilities, Australia is in the process of developing such a capability. We look
forward to cooperating with the UN and others in undertaking a comprehensive review of how to broaden and
deepen the pool of civilian experts, and improve inter-operability.
Amb. Gonzalo Gutiérrez Reindel, Peru:
Timing is relevant in the current context of financial crisis. We must strive to prevent impacts on
peacebuilding processes underway. We should do our utmost to ensure early recovery processes are
maintained and indeed, in this crisis context, strengthened.
An effective response to post-conflict situations faces a whole range of problems that impede its
implementation—lack of cooperation, lack of trained personnel, security situations, slow rate of availability of
funds. Given this situation, several immediate steps need to be taken. Government and institutional capacity
are a fundamental aspect, since national actors are the real protagonists of peace processes.
With regard to the nature of the conflicts themselves, notwithstanding some similarity in economic and social
factors, every conflict has internal and external dynamic, together with ethnic or historical determinants. No
two cases are alike. Given the complexity and sensitivity for handling peacebuilding processes, strategies
should promote effective management including efficient division of labor for the implementation of projects.
There is also the need to involve women and girls more in the process, as well as to promote coherent decisionmaking through structures of organizations working in cooperation. This would bolster the capacities of all
actors involved in the peacebuilding process.
Strengthening government institutional capacity is crucial. Action should be directed at both facets – the
peacebuilding process and the state-building process. This exercise is important given the prognosis given by
the SG to strengthen institutional capacity of the nations concerned.
With regard to governance, security and development, we are striving to strike a fair balance between spheres.
With regard to international cooperation, this should be a priority. Projects with rapid social impact is crucial
to achieve support among local population. For this purpose, international financial institutions, including the
World Bank, are natural ally for UN peacebuilding efforts, and essential for success. All of this requires
medium- to long-term commitment of the international community.
An effective response requires a strategic vision of the peacebuilding process. It is crucial to build a strategic
alliance between national and international actors. It should be clear that international cooperation is designed
to strengthen the exercise of sovereignty – that cooperation should have a timeframe and follow an agenda
with clear targets to make it viable.
We underscore the important work done by the PBC. My delegation reaffirms Peru’s support for the leadership
of the UN in peacebuilding efforts.
Amb. Mohammed Loulichki, Morocco:
We should seek to fill gaps in UN efforts better tailored to the needs of countries. We will mention four
fundamental elements.
Peacebuilding efforts should be launched as soon as peace agreements are signed. They should be integrated
during the formulation of a peacekeeping operation.
National ownership is key. This includes the government and civil society. Ownership is fundamental to
peacebuilding strategies and their effective implementation. The practice of the principle remains insufficient,
however. The contribution of the international community in terms of financial and technical assistance and
strengthening capacity needs work.
Financing should be rapid, flexible and predictable with the view to implementing peacebuilding strategies. In
this respect, we hope that the recent revision of the Terms of Reference of the PBF will allow for flexibility
and speed in the disbursement of funds.
Coherence and coordination of international presence in the field are required. Competence and experience
accumulated by the UN should make it possible for the organization to assume a leadership role that meets the
specific needs of the people.
Regional actors have an important role to play in creating favorable conditions for countries emerging form
conflict. Experience continues to show that contribution by neighboring countries as well as by regional and
sub-regional organizations can make an important contribution to peacebuilding. Involvement of these actors is
extremely important. The UN should be involved in constructive way to ensure regional cooperation.
Economic recovery should be integrated into other peacebuilding tasks such as SSR, rule of law, including
protection of human rights, reinforcing state authorities and transitional justice.
We emphasize the important role played by the PBC. I have been participating for 8 months; I see the
enormous work the PBC is engaged in, as well as its pragmatic and useful work. It has played a critical role in
designing peacebuilding strategies and a country-specific approach, promoting integrated strategies, and
mobilizing resources. The role of the PBC should be strengthened and better integrated into the architecture of
the UN system, including by promoting strengthened cooperation with this Council.
Amb. Thomas Matussek, Germany:
Germany fully supports the statement of the EU.
.
The report provides an excellent road map for the way ahead with its numerous recommendations. I would like
to focus my statement on three particularly important challenges.
National ownership is key to all peace building efforts, but it cannot be taken for granted. There are often not
sufficient national capacities to fully enable the country to exercise its ownership. It is vital to strenghten
national capacities to re-establish the institutions of Government, restore the rule of law, provide basic services
and handle other key peacebuilding needs. We also must support the national authorities with establishing a
prioritized early strategy to address the causes of conflict.
Secondlv, there is need for effective and accountable senior UN leadership on the ground. This is a prerequisite
to corral the international assistance behind the early national strategy, to provide timely and predictable
support. For a comprehensive and coherent approach we need a clear division of labor and responsibilities
between the different actors, especially close coordination between the UN and the World Bank.
Finally, there is the timing of international support. It is essential for peace building efforts to start as early as
possible after a conflict, if possible already alongside peacekeeping efforts. The new Terms of Reference for
the PBF provide enhanced opportunities for faster and more flexible funding for peacebuilding activities in the
crucial moments directly after a conflict.
Germany will, in particular, strengthen her national capacities to contribute to international peace building
missions. We will also support efforts within the framework of the UN and regional organizations to increase
the rapidity and efficiency of our response to conflicts.
We look forward to a strengthened role of the PBC in tackling the challenges ahead. The Comprehensive
Review in 2010 will provide a good occasion to discuss the PBC’s future role and activities.
Amb. Gert Rosenthal, Guatemala:
We have had our own experiences since signing of the peace accords in 1996, with a significant presence of
the UN. We welcome the emphasis placed by the SG on the importance of national ownership, a central idea of
the report.
At the same time, we must promote a coherent and efficient response by the UN system. It is important to
make full use of the potential of the PBSO. We concur with the SG on the importance of clearly defining what
its role is, taking into account the complementarities it could offer to other relevant Secretariat bodies. Equal
importance should be given to NGOs by promoting engagement in a coherent and sustained manner. This is
important to build confidence in the peace process on the ground.
With regard to enhanced civilian capacities for rapid deployment of personnel, this proposal still seems
complex to us because of the budgetary implications.
The report of the SG reminds us of the importance of responsiveness, harmonization, flexibility and risktolerance in the financing mechanisms. Establishment of MDTFs and other financing mechanisms seems
appropriate, but we are concerned about the trend of allocating funds that are earmarked to the detriment of
core or regular funding – this is the main cause of incoherence within the UN.
With regard to role of PBC, we have been interested to see the proposals of SG in improving its function for
mutual accountability and resource mobilization. The review offers an important opportunity to learn lessons
from the first few years of the Commission’s operation, and to take decisions on what improvements need to
be made. We welcome the report’s reference to the work of ECOSOC, but regret that it is limited to the issue
of Financing for Development. This ignores its function to coordinate specialized agencies and provide
recommendations to them, especially within the framework of the humanitarian and operational activities
segments it convenes during its annual substantive sessions.
An issue that is not mentioned in the report is the need to consider initiating peacebuilding activities in
countries where conflict is still ongoing, taking into account the importance of effective coordination and
mobilization of resources between the peacekeeping and peacebuilding phases.
Amb. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil:
Brazil welcomes the report of the Secretary-General. It provides valuable insights on how to improve the UN’s
effectiveness in post-conflict situations. In particular, I would like to comment on six aspects mentioned in the
report.
Firstly, we appreciate the strong emphasis the report attaches to country ownership. This principle should be
the sine qua non condition of any strategy for peacebuilding. Country ownership brings enormous challenges.
Governments often lack human and material resources to undertake the most elementary tasks. But there is no
shortcut. We should spare no effort to strengthen local capacity so that the country concerned can tread its own
path towards peace and development.
Secondly, the report correctly acknowledges the importance of regional actors in peacebuilding. Countries
from the region usually share linguistic and cultural values, as well as similar political and economic contexts.
They are therefore very well placed to provide assistance. Also, the contribution from the Global South should
not be underestimated. South-South cooperation in post-conflict peacebuilding offers very promising venues
yet to be fully explored. It is under such light that we should consider the Secretary General's proposals to
ensure adequate and timely leadership on the ground. Standby civilian capacity mechanisms could benefit from
the contribution of regional actors and developing countries. Their mandate should include first and foremost
the support to domestic institutions. Also, as the report indicates, they should not replace ongoing efforts to
improve regular recruitment process and human resources management.
Thirdly, the Secretary General noticed that there are recurrent priorities to be taken into consideration in
peacebuilding. They encompass a broad range of areas, from the restoration of key functions of the State to the
promotion of economic recovery. Setting priorities among priorities is indeed necessary. However,
peacebuilding is a multidimensional enterprise. Priorities will necessarily contemplate different areas,
especially in the fields of security and development, in which coordinated and simultaneous actions are
indispensable. It is true that lack of security hampers economic development. But it is also true that peace
cannot be sustainable in the midst of misery and despair.
Fourthly, we endorse the appeal by the Secretary General for innovative and more flexible financing schemes,
tailored to the specificities of peacebuilding. The PBF has been extremely useful - and will continue to be
under its new guidelines. But it was envisioned as a catalytic tool that needs complementary funding from
other sources, on a reliable and continuous basis.
Fifthly, we praise the focus of the report on the immediate aftermath of conflict. Peace dividends should
become visible to the population as soon as possible. Brazil believes the PBC can also play an important role
in countries in the immediate aftermath of conflict, should their governments so request.
However, it should be borne in mind that many countries where conflict subsided years ago either suffer from
donor fatigue or, worse still, have never been able to attain sustained international assistance. That is the case
of Guinea-Bissau and the other countries currently on the agenda of the PBC. The contribution of the
Commission in these cases has been much valuable - most notably with regard to the galvanization of
international attention and the mobilization of resources.
We hope - and that is my sixth and final point - that the recommendations by the Secretary-General to the PBC
can serve as a good basis for a comprehensive dialogue on how to enhance even further its work. Particular
attention should be devoted to ways of streamlining the PBC in the UN system and strengthening its
coordination with UN bodies and other stakeholders - including regional organizations, the international
financial institutions, civil society and the private sector. The 201 0 review process will be a golden
opportunity to address this and other issues.
Amb. Rupert Davies, Sierra Leone:
The PBC was established to advise strategies for post-conflict recovery with a special focus on institutionbuilding and sustainable development. The PBC has four objectives:
-
Integrated peacebuilding strategies
Help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery and mid- to long-term
Sustain international attention to post-conflict countries and recovery
Develop best practices on issues among political, military, humanitarian and development actors
Proposed integrated post-conflict peacebuilding strategies and best practices have evolved substantially over
the PBC’s years of work. To advance the objective of predictable financing is important.
The international community has been focused on recovery assistance, rather than the preventive aspect.
Consolidating peace in societies emerging from conflict depends entirely on the efforts undertaken in the
immediate aftermath of conflict. The complete disarmament of communities, provision of relief and the return
and reintegration of displaced persons and ex-combatants--these are key components for post-conflict
stabilization to pave way for various reforms. Rapid and effective engagement in the above areas is crucial,
given many studies that show that countries emerging from conflict are more likely to relapse.
We just had a quarterly review of the mandate of UNIPSIL in Sierra Leone. Actors on the ground are well
coordinated. The second generation of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), as well as the UN Joint
Vision for the UN country team as a coordination mechanism, has been realized. The recent “hiccup” [violent
clashes between supporters of the ruling and opposition political parties in March] was swiftly addressed by
the government and the ERSG. Inter-party dialogue served to restore stability.
Amb. McNee sought to advance the peacebuilding agenda this June by calling for support for the President’s
Agenda for Change, the UN Joint Vision for Sierra Leone, and a MDTF. We are looking forward to successful
donor mobilization, beginning with the consultative group meeting in London in November this year.
Amb. Gustavo Alvarez, Uruguay:
I will highlight certain aspects of the SG report.
We stress the need to instill greater coordination and coherence within the UN system and beyond it. This
point, together with the need to tackle this issue in a comprehensive way that encompasses key areas in
economic and social development, is absolutely crucial.
The PBC is therefore a key tool. We hope that the review process will provide an opportunity to ensure an
enhanced role of the PBC in the area of coordination. I note that the PBC is unique in being probably the only
intergovernmental forum that brings together countries to link together both political aspects with security and
development. This lends the PBC a level of legitimacy.
We agree with the need to strengthen national ownership and give priority to specific needs of countries,
focusing on strengthening national capacities. Successful peacebuilding requires a minimum framework of
stability. It requires support for governmental institutions, reintegration of IDPs, job creation, basic
infrastructure and other aspects of economic revitalization. Dialogue should be representative – regional
organizations could play a positive role in this regard.
From the standpoint of a developing country that has contributed in early recovery activities, Uruguay
emphasizes the need for the UN to benefit from capacities existing in the global south. We hope to see this
implemented by creating new systems of qualified personnel from developing countries. Uruguay, with the rest
of the region, possesses valuable resources that could contribute to peacebuilding.
I will mention an issue that is not fully covered in the report – military personnel deployed in peacekeeping
operations could contribute to the transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, as well as cases where both
peacebuilding and peacekeeping tasks are being undertaken simultaneously. This is the idea of peacekeepers as
early peace-builders, in the areas of the provision of security, rule of law, DDR, SSR and strengthening state
institutions. We should also keep in mind the positive effects of quick impact projects.
We must renew our support to the PBC and take full advantage of the 2010 review in order to strengthen the
body and make it a more efficient tool.
Amb. Ola Brevik, Norway:
We fully agree with the report's emphasis on national ownership and the need to meet countries’ demand for
strengthening of national and local capacities.
The role of the UN should be to coordinate international efforts. The UN country team must be able to draw on
staff quickly and assign them to appropriate positions without having to engage in time consuming
administrative rules and regulations. Norway supports the Secretary General's recommendation to member
states to approve reform packages on human resources. We also welcome the Secretary General's initiative to
create a senior-level mechanism.
Despite the comprehensiveness of the report, Norway would have liked to see the roles of the various sectors
described more fully in the report. We believe that undefined responsibility leads to a lack of accountability.
We trust that the work in this area will continue in the time ahead.
Although significant progress has been made in comprehensive strategic planning, there still remain serious
challenges when trying to coordinate security, political, humanitarian and development efforts in post-conflict
situations. The report addresses this fundamental dilemma by stating that the senior UN leadership team has
the responsibility to ensure strategic coordination and linkages between the relevant frameworks. All parts of
the UN system need to improve dialogue and coordination, and they should be provided with incentives to
avoid duplication, inefficiency and delays in the commencement of operations.
Member States need to take a lead role in requesting and supporting these improvements. In this regard
Norway commends the steps taken to improve the working relationship between the UN and the World Bank
with the "Partnership Framework Agreement". This is of vital importance and will hopefully improve both the
strategic coordination and the collective impact of the UN and the World Bank efforts on the ground.
The PBC should play a more central role in ensuring that the international community is a more reliable
partner to governments of post-conflict countries. The PBC’s role in promoting greater coherence and
synergies between the different parts of the UN system and other partners should be strengthened. It is
essential that adequate resources are made available to the PBSO in order to support the PBC and administer
the PBF in an efficient manner.
As stated in the report, the PBF should strengthen its focus on core peace building activities. Thus far, the
Peacebuilding Fund has largely supported later stage peace building activities rather than providing a rapid,
flexible and risk tolerant approach directed at the immediate aftermath of conflict.
The Secretary General's report sets out an agenda to strengthen the UN response in the immediate aftermath of
conflict and the facilitation of an earlier, more coherent response from the wider international community.
Successful implementation of the agenda requires political will, prioritization, alignment and funding from
Member States. Let me reiterate Norway's commitment to the reinforcement of the existing peace building
mechanisms and our support to the recommendations stated in the report.
Amb. Manjeev Singh Puri, India:
The report collates several significant findings and recommendations. Key among these is the need for a more
coherent and effective international engagement during the brief window between the cessation of conflict and
the establishment of a peace process, and the more complex process of ensuring that such processes remain on
track.
There are clearly two levels of intervention in support of a peace process. The first is at the national and local
level, and the second is at the regional and international level. Both processes must move in lockstep.
However, there is the need to ensure that the supporting external interventions focus on delivering a peace
dividend, expanding national capacity and ensuring the expansion of basic economic capacity so that surplus
labor-especially the youth-can be gainfully employed. Such efforts need to be based on recognition of the
complexity of post-conflict scenarios. Not all peace processes and agreements address the underlying causes of
conflict. Similarly, not all local actors are untarnished by the rigours of conflict. Yet we need to work
pragmatically with actors and circumstances as we find them, not as we would wish them to be.
From this standpoint, it is important to ensure that priority-setting is a local endeavour. It is both politically
unworkable and strategically perilous for the international community to involve itself in determining national
priorities. Sustainable peace requires genuine national ownership of the process, not a process that is
nationally-owned only in times of difficulty.
It is therefore essential that from the outset, peace consolidation efforts are focused upon expanding the
capacity and competence of the local government to deliver services. Without this, there can be no national
ownership or development, and without either, there will be no sustainable peace. There is a particular
contribution that the nations of the South can make in this context, both with regard to providing training and
services, and with regard to providing appropriate technologies. These potentialities need to be explored
further.
There is also a need for greater efforts to align regional and international efforts in multilateral fora. This
requires better horizontal and vertical coherence – more coherent efforts by the international community to
integrate sometimes disparate efforts in dealing with cross-cutting themes in a peacebuilding context, as well
as within the UN and its Agencies and Programmes,to ensure a common objective and a clear roadmap.
Coordination and consultation between the UN and the international financial institutions, especially the World
Bank, must also be expanded.
The report clearly recognizes that if the UN is to be a lead actor in the process of peace building in the
immediate aftermath of conflict, more must be done to improve its efficiency. It is of course positive that the
report recognizes such lacunae. It is also important that the report implicitly recognizes that of itself, the
significant convening power that the UN brings to the table is not enough. Thus section V of the report dwells
at length on the means by which the UN and its Funds and Programmes may be able to contribute more
effectively to the process. Naturally, while practitioners on the ground would be able to better assess the
potential efficacy of such measures, perhaps in time, more deep-rooted reform will be required.
I should like to conclude by highlighting the need for further consideration and discussion on the complex
issue of post conflict peacebuilding. We need to frame this debate within a conceptual framework that tries to
answer certain larger questions regarding the purposes and principles of international involvement, such as the
question of where early recovery fits within the larger continuum of peacekeeping and peacebuilding, and
where the transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding, and from peacebuilding to peace consolidation and
development begin. We also need to ask ourselves how international investment-both money and political willcan be expanded in support of peacebuilding. In that context, there is clearly a need to expand the role of the
PBC and to deepen its strategic relationship with the Security Council, the General Assembly and the
ECOSOC.
Amb. Siriporn Chaimongkol, Thailand:
First, Thailand welcomes the report of the Secretary-General and would like to thank the PBSO for its
commendable work. We agree with the emphasis of the report on early action and national ownership. The
report has highlighted a critical gap in peacebuilding efforts and provided useful recommendations.
Second, Thailand supports the strengthening of UN leadership and coordination. It is in a unique position to
bring all relevant actors on board. With a common vision and a coherent coordination mechanism among the
United Nations agencies, donors and other relevant actors, country-specific needs and priorities would have a
better chance of being fulfilled and limited resources would be more optimally utilized.
Third, both security and economic challenges must be addressed simultaneously and given equal weight when
determining priorities. Security and development are interconnected and cannot be tackled in isolation. There
is no one-size-fit-all solution; competing demands and interests of all parties should be taken fully into account
when setting national priorities and strategies of a country. It has to be a bottom-up process to be durable.
Fourth, to promote national ownership and sustainable peace in the long-run, local expertise and resources
should be fully mobilized and the resources management capability of the country should also be strengthened.
When international experts are called upon to deliver advice and services on the ground, geographical balance
of their representation should be taken into consideration. Also, upon entering a peacebuilding process,
relevant actors should have an end goal in sight. Peacebuilding is not a perpetual process, but a beginning to
sustainable peace and development.
Fifth, the role of regional actors can significantly influence the peace process. We encourage closer and more
systematic consultations, as well as sharing of experiences, between the UN and relevant regional partners
from the very start of, and throughout, peacebuilding processes.
Six, Thailand strongly supports the Secretary-General's recommendation that the Security Council should
consider more proactively how to more actively utilize the advice of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in
the Council's consideration of post-conflict situations. We also support the Secretary-General that, for
countries on the Security Council's agenda, the respective roles of the Council and the PBC need to be seen as
complementary and in parallel, rather than sequenced in a manner that would diminish the PBC's role during
earlier phases where it could add significant value.
In conclusion, I wish to reiterate Thailand's firm commitment to peacebuilding and our strong
support for a holistic approach to the issue of peace and security. We believe that, in the present age of
globalization and increasing interdependence, it is imperative to address conflicts comprehensively from
upstream to downstream. Conflict prevention, peacekeeping and peacebuilding should always be looked
at in totality. We are committed to supporting the work of the United Nations in this regard. We look
forward to constructive consultations leading to the review of the arrangements of the PBC in 201 0.
Amb. Abdullah Hussain Haroon, Pakistan:
We thank the SG for his report which contains an objective analysis of the challenges and opportunities of
post-conflict peace-building. While the challenges in the report may not be new, the report could provide fresh
impetus on means of addressing such challenges in a more timely and effective manner.
Since there is a proven risk of relapse of conflict within the first five years, it is important for the international
community to devote particular attention to doing things right in the immediate aftermath of conflict. The
challenges are immense in this period, but the people affected by conflict are determined to seize the
opportunity of peace. They must have full leadership and ownership of this process.
However, since the countries emerging from conflict are faced with complex and fragile situations and most
often lack the capacities and resources to overcome the challenges on their own, it is incumbent on the
international community to provide support. This partnership is at the heart of successful peace-building.
Today peacebuilding is an established component of the comprehensive approach to conflict-prevention and
resolution. It is a direct manifestation of the inter-linkage between peace and development. The general
principles of effective peace-building are well recognized. As the Secretary General has observed, it entails a
common strategic vision based on clearly defined and agreed national priorities, and a coherent and concerted
action backed with required capacity and resources aligned with that strategy. We believe that in order to
succeed, this endeavour must be people centric, responsive to their specific needs and circumstances and
designed to reinforce their confidence in and support for the peace process. The central objectives – of
establishing security, promoting inclusive political processes and reconciliation, delivering early tangible peace
dividends, and building national capacities for governance, economic recovery and development – should all
be sensitive to this human dimension of peace-building.
The true test of the report would be in implementation of its recommendations. This requires, above all, the
political will and commitment of both national actors and international partners to a common strategy. While
the latter need to demonstrate more understanding and flexibility to align their support with the national
priorities and to eliminate the conditionalities, the former need to demonstrate responsibility and good
governance that correspond to ownership.
Investment in national capacity building should be part of the entry rather than the exit strategy. Priority should
be on identifying, tapping and harnessing the civilian capacities available nationally, before resorting to
regional or international expertise as required.
There is a critical gap in funding and resources. The recommendations in the report would require cooperation
and support of the Member States, particularly the donors, as well as enhanced collaboration with the
International Financial Institutions. They need to show more operational flexibility. From the point of view of
enhancing national ownership and capacity, it will also be important that most of the funding is provided
through government channels. Attention should be paid from the outset to mobilizing internal resources, in
particular through better management and exploitation of natural resources for the benefit of the country and
its people.
Given its wide ranging mechanisms, capacity and expertise, the UN is well placed to coordinate and lead the
international action in peacebuilding, with the support of other partners, particularly the World Bank. The PBC
with its unique composition and specific mandate holds a pivotal role. Strengthening of the Commission and
utilizing its full potential is essential in advancing UN’s peacebuilding objectives. The PBC should be engaged
from the outset of UN’s involvement, particularly where integrated peacekeeping missions are deployed. The
Commission also has a critical role to play in the follow-up of the Secretary General’s report. A fuller
implementation of the report would also entail the engagement and contribution of the General Assembly and
ECOSOC.
Amb. Ismat Jahan, Bangladesh:
The PBC should have a central role in post-conflict peacebuilding. The PBC and PBSO constitute the primary
body for ensuring coherence and coordination of peacebuilding activities. We also need a more cohesive
relationship between the PBC and the rest of the UN system, including the Security Council, General
Assembly and ECOSOC. My delegation looks forward to working closely with all concerned in strengthening
its mandate during the 2010 review.
My delegation supports the report’s emphasis on the need for post-conflict countries to take charge of their
own destiny. International financial, technical and political support should be aligned around nationally owned
priorities and strategies.
Women, youth, ex-combatants and child soldiers are another issue of concern.
National capacity-building should be a priority. Existing national strategies should be taken into account.
We encourage the role of NGOs and civil society on the ground. A leading Bangladeshi NGO has recently
begun reconstruction in Uganda, Southern Sudan, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and other countries. It is
an ideal example of south-south development initiatives and cooperation.
The report’s recommendation on rapidly deployable civilian capacity requires further discussion and
examination. It is also important to establish more rapid and flexible funding mechanisms in support of
national and local authorities in the early stages of peacebuilding.
The UN country team, national government and the PBC should work together. Efforts by the UN should aim
to promote country-specific mechanisms in peacebuilding. My delegation stresses the need for increased
harmonization within the UN; in this respect, we should draw lessons learned from the mandates of integrated
peacebuilding offices in the future.
DDR, SSR and rule of law directly emanate from peacekeeping operation mandates. Sustained political
dialogue with the participation of all national stakeholders is also important. We should strive for unity of
vision among UN agencies at an early post-conflict stage in order to avoid the duplication of efforts and to use
our resources effectively.
Amb. Giulio Terzi Di Sant’Agata, Italy:
I align myself to the EU statement that Sweden delivered. As underlined by the Secretary General, the postconflict phase offers a window of opportunities, but the situation also often remains fluid, and the peace,
fragile: “getting the timing and sequencing right among priorities requires a delicate balance”. A coordinated
approach is needed, as well as, the definition of clear priorities, flexible tools, quick deployment and
availability of human and financial resources. In this light, the revision of the Terms of Reference of the PBF is
welcome. The international community as a whole should collaborate in this process, at the multilateral and
bilateral level.
Peacebuilding should be conceived as single process in which everyone can participate and contribute in an
integrated manner. This is the spirit by which the 2005 UN Summit decided to establish the PBC. Italy
welcomes the Secretary General’s Report, since it represents a road map for the activities to be performed in
the aftermath of conflict: a real policy document for all the actors involved.
The principle of national ownership is central: “the peacebuilding intervention should be anchored on the
ground” with the engagement of all the actors involved. This means an inclusive process, sensitive to the
requests of civil society. It must be emphasized the fundamental role of regional and sub-regional
organizations – in particular the AU - as well as the need to develop forms of collaboration with the UN.
There is a need to improve effectiveness and coherence of the UN response as a system, along with the concept
of “accountable UN leadership on the ground”. An effective peacebuilding action requires deployment
capabilities on the ground, of civilian experts. We are encouraged by the positive assessment of the “Standing
Police Capacity”, which constitute a useful reference to build a “Rule of Law Standing Capacity”. Rightly, an
overall review has been proposed on how the UN can help broaden and deepen the pool of civilian experts.
The PBC plays a central role by bringing coherence to the recovery of countries emerging from conflict. An
interesting suggestion has been made by the Secretary General to the Security Council to consider more
proactively the advice of the PBC: an important point, which aims at enhancing the consultative role of the
PBC vis-à-vis the UN organ responsible for the definition of mandates and for conflict management. Our
approach to peacebuilding seeks to foster political and democratic stabilization, while stimulating economic
growth.
Italy’s assistance in the energy sector in Sierra Leone is one possible example of this. Another, concerns fight
against drugs and crime. During its tenure in the Security Council, Italy actively promoted the inclusion of
these aspects in the mandate of the United Nations in Sierra Leone and Guinea Bissau, contributing to a
number of SSR and rule of law initiatives led by ECOWAS, UNDP and UNOGBIS. We intend to strengthen
our technical support for UNODC’s work in West Africa. A task force of selected police officers of the
Guardia di Finanza, Italy’s customs police, will be deployed in Dakar in the framework of UNODC’s Law
Enforcement Capacity-building Program in the Fight Against Illicit Drug Trafficking. As the country chairing
the G8 this year, Italy has been actively engaged in fulfilling the commitments taken by the G8 Leaders at Sea
Island and Hokkaido. In the G8 Leaders declaration the emphasis was put on the need for a comprehensive
approach to peacekeeping and peacebuilding. During the previous meeting in Trieste, the G8 Foreign Ministers
welcomed the UN Secretary General’s Report on Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict –
which we are discussing today - and encouraged all relevant actors to consider its recommendations.
Amb. Park In-Hook, Korea:
We welcome the SG report, and would like to highlight a few points.
Efforts at all stages in early recovery should be focused on quick impact projects in all sectors, including basic
services and strengthening of national capacity. Hopefully, such projects, which are being carried out
effectively in Sierra Leone, could be included in other countries.
Integration of UN leadership on the ground is important. we therefore support the SG’s proposal for the
establishment of a senior-level mechanism and the rapid deployment of civilian capacity. Certain priorities are
recurring in post-conflict situations; we suggest developing a tool kit.
Civil society should be recognized in peacebuilding. We look forward to the enhanced use of UN volunteers.
The participation of women in peacebuilding processes should also be enhanced.
Partnerships with the World Bank and other development actors are important. early engagement with them
will ensure paving the way for both early recovery and longer-term development. The UNDP plays an
important role in restoring and strengthening national capacities. We must also think about how to integrate the
efforts of the UN country team and integrated peacebuilding offices. We will follow this matter closely.
The Security Council should engage the PBC’s advice in a more proactive manner. Our discussions on
peacekeeping operations should take into account the peacebuilding dimension very closely.
Finally, national ownership is key. Countries must take the responsibility to rebuild their societies. National
ownership must be respected, as it is critical to the overall success of any peacebuilding process.
Amb. Heidi Grau, Switzerland:
Switzerland has for a long time attached great importance to peacebuilding in its various forms. I would like to
focus on three aspects of the report that we are discussing today.
First: the importance of a common vision. We welcome the process of intensive and inclusive consultation that
was prompted by the preparation of this report. This development illustrates well the potential role of catalyst
that the PBSO can play. But it also clearly showed that, to be fully effective, the Office must play this role in
conjunction with very strong leadership by the Secretary-General. What is at stake is the coherence and the
effectiveness of the United Nations in carrying out its most crucial mandate.
The Security Council has an important role to play by recognizing their role and by supporting them. We
strongly encourage the Council to make greater use of the possibilities of support that the system offers to it. In
particular with regard to the management of its missions, we invite the Council to make increased use of the
consultative and advisory functions of the Peacebuilding Commission, whose potential forte is its ability to
mobilize the skills of a wide range of relevant and competent actors. In this context, we support the proposal
by Belgium that the chairmen of the Country-Specific Meetings of the PBC should be invited to participate in
the work of the subsidiary bodies of the Council concerning the countries in question. This proposal forms part
of the framework for improving the Council's working methods.
We currently have a specific example of the challenges related to coherence, with two reports by the SecretaryGeneral, one on mediation and one on peacebuilding, in addition to the 'New Horizons' non-paper on
peacekeeping. We would like to see an overarching note by the Secretary-General which covers these
important and complementary aspects of the UN system, highlights their complementarity, and provides us
with an overview of the various available financial instruments. Only if the complementarity of instruments
and the transparency of financial flows are considerably improved, will there be more effective, flexible and
predictable funding for peacebuilding.
Second: the importance of investing in human resources. The report stresses the need to develop national and
regional capacities as well as the skills of the senior managers and of the teams deployed by the United Nations
in these situations. It also advocates the strengthening of response capacities in certain priority areas. We
welcome these recommendations, and my country is willing, particularly in the framework of the current
review of existing capacities, to share the experience it has acquired with our national expert pools.
The credibility and the effectiveness of the UN depend above all on the skills of its permanent staff and on
raising awareness of conflict issues in an inter-disciplinary manner within the UN. Peacebuilding is not the
exclusive preserve of any one body, but is a responsibility of all actors under the active leadership of the
Secretary-General.
Third: the importance of building an effective system of support. The headquarters of the UN and of the World
Bank as well as our capitals need to provide the personnel in the field with the best possible support by
establishing a more effective, coherent and coordinated support system. The report points to a number of
existing instruments which favor a joint approach to situations affected by conflicts, such as the Post Conflict
Needs Assessment or integrated task forces. The first task must be to ensure the effective use of these
instruments. However, parallel to this, we should also make additional efforts to avoid multiplying the number
of planning instruments and to simplify the monitoring and the reporting systems. This effort must clearly be
made together with the development banks, regional organizations and the donor community.
It is important to ensure qualified leadership backed up by solid teams on the ground. We call upon the funds,
programmes and specialized agencies to recognize the reinforcement of the authority of the Resident
Coordinator vis-a-vis the UN Country Team, particularly when he or she holds the post of Deputy Special
Representative of the Secretary General (DSRSG). We also call upon the Chief Executives Board to take a
corresponding decision.
I would like to stress that improvements must be measured by positive impact in the field. It is the same
benchmark that we will follow during our chairmanship of the Country-Specific Meeting of the PBC on
Burundi.
[The draft presidential statement is adopted. The meeting is adjourned.]