General Assembly Session 62 meeting 23

The President

The 2005 United Nations World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1) called on the General Assembly and the Security Council to create new institutional mechanisms for strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to support countries emerging from conflict. As a result, the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund were established. Those innovative achievements represent the most significant outcomes of the Summit to date. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to open the first joint debate to review the annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/62/137) and the report of the Secretary-General on the Peacebuilding Fund (A/62/138).

Over the past two decades, the United Nations has been at the centre of expanding peacebuilding activities in all parts of the world, including my own region, South-Eastern Europe. The United Nations has a unique comparative advantage in addressing the huge challenges faced by countries emerging from conflict. The demand for our peacebuilding operations and capacities is obviously set for growth.

The evidence shows that half of the countries emerging from conflict will relapse into violence within five years. To break that vicious circle, it is critical that the international community provide sustained practical support and resources to assist national efforts.

There is feedback between peace and stability, on the one hand, and economic development, human rights and the rule of law, on the other. The Peacebuilding Commission has a critical role to play in balancing both sides of that equation and in accelerating post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery. In addition to that substantive operational role, the Commission coordinates international efforts, marshals donor resources and focuses the attention of global opinion on peacebuilding issues. We all have a duty to ensure that the Peacebuilding Commission works well and that the decision to create it is translated into practical action aimed at promoting the well-being of millions of people trapped in post-conflict situations.

I believe that the Commission has now firmly established itself; it has made a good start. However, that is just the beginning of a longer process. Given the organizational complexity of the Commission, it is crucial that its coordination with all other United Nations organs and with other parts of the system be maintained in a balanced and proportionate manner. We also need to ensure that duplication is avoided.

The success of the Commission will clearly depend on cooperation from all of us to support its work -- in particular, our full commitment to resolving the few remaining procedural hurdles, so that it can be fully effective. In that context, it is important to recognize that it has been operational for a little more than a year.

However, even during that short time, the Commission has brought a more coherent system-wide approach to peacebuilding and has strengthened the impact of the international community. We should learn from that example and apply what we have learned to the context of other areas in which we seek to improve the effectiveness of United Nations activities. I am confident that the Assembly will seize this opportunity to review and assess the work undertaken thus far by the Peacebuilding Commission and to provide it with a strategic vision of the way forward.

The two reports before us include thought-provoking recommendations and conclusions that the Assembly may wish to address. In particular, the Assembly may wish to reflect on the progress achieved by the Commission and the Fund in the two countries under their consideration, thus demonstrating our continued commitment to the peoples of both countries. In that regard, I look forward to the remarks to be made by the delegations of Burundi and Sierra Leone. Their views and experiences related to working with the Commission on the ground will be invaluable.

Looking ahead, the Commission should continue to refine its strategies in the countries under consideration, develop its advocacy role among all stakeholders engaged in peacebuilding activities and become more effective at marshalling resources. The Commission will also need to identify ways to improve coherence and synergies in its numerous activities in order to contribute to better peacebuilding policy and practice.

The main challenge now facing the Commission is to maximize its impact on the ground. In order to be as effective as possible, the United Nations peacebuilding architecture must be based on the principle of national ownership.

It is also critical that the $250 million funding target of the Peacebuilding Fund be met. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al-Khalifa, President of the General Assembly at its sixty-first session, for her efforts to raise additional resources -- with the support of the former Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Gaspar Martins, Permanent Representative of Angola -- and for her unique personal contribution to the Fund.

Going forward, I am sure that the membership will lend its full support and cooperation to the new Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Takasu, Permanent Representative of Japan, in his efforts to strengthen the Commission and to fund the remaining $20 million shortfall in the Peacebuilding Fund.

I hope that our debate today will send a strong signal that we will reach out to meet the needs and aspirations of all peoples who have suffered the horrors of war. For the people in countries emerging from conflict, this Organization represents the best and only hope of attaining a more dignified life.

Therefore, the only relevant standard against which we can judge the success of the new peacebuilding architecture is by the practical results it achieves on the ground.

I now give the floor to the Permanent Representative of Japan, who is also the Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission.

Mr. Takasu (Japan)

First of all, on behalf of the members of the Peacebuilding Commission, allow me to express our heartfelt gratitude to you, Mr. President, for providing a timely opportunity to discuss the annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission.

In September 2005, our leaders adopted the 2005 World Summit Outcome, which explicitly emphasized the need for a "coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation with a view to achieving sustainable peace" (A/RES/60/1, para. 97). The document further states that the Commission was established "to bring together all relevant actors to marshal resources and to advise on and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery" (ibid, para. 98).

With that in mind, let me briefly look back on the first year of the work of the Commission. The first annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission, as contained in document A/62/137, provides a detailed account of the work and activities of the Commission during the first year of its operation. The process of compiling the report reflected the seriousness with which the Commission's membership has undertaken its work and the significance it attaches to its anticipated contribution to peace consolidation and the promotion of national ownership of peacebuilding measures in post-conflict situations. Here I would like to pay special tribute to Ambassador Martins of Angola for his dedication and leadership in steering the initial stage of the Commission.

In the course of approximately 50 formal and informal meetings and briefings held in various configurations, the Peacebuilding Commission addressed critical organizational, methodological and thematic issues, as well as country-specific issues relating to Burundi and Sierra Leone, coordinating various contributions to sustainable peace and opening avenues for mutual commitments between the international community and the countries under consideration. I believe that, in its first year, the Peacebuilding Commission contributed significantly to the promotion of integrated post-conflict peacebuilding strategies in Burundi and Sierra Leone.

In addition, the Peacebuilding Commission sought to accumulate best practices and lessons on critical peacebuilding issues. By establishing the Working Group on Lessons Learned, the Commission was able to benefit from existing experience in peace consolidation in many parts of the world.

As clearly underlined in its first annual report, the Peacebuilding Commission faced tremendous challenges during its initial phase involving establishing its organizational structures, defining its working methods and finding ways to fulfil its core mandates. Some of these challenges are likely to be the subject of additional discussion during the second session. The "Conclusions" part of the report contains serious reflection on key outstanding issues and challenges before the Commission, including the question of financing its field missions.

The United Nations peacebuilding architecture is now in place and the Peacebuilding Commission is entering its second year of activity. The Peacebuilding Commission's activities need to be carried out in a coherent manner. We believe that it may be appropriate for the Commission to begin addressing the addition of new countries for its consideration, in close consultation with the referring bodies.

Strengthening the Commission's relationship with relevant bodies and actors, such as the United Nations' principal organs, namely, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the Secretariat, funds and programmes, regional and subregional organizations, international financial institutions and civil society, is essential. As part of such efforts, I, as this year's Chairman of the Commission, will devote constant efforts and avail myself of every opportunity to establish closer working relationships with those organizations.

Exploring thematic issues relevant to peacebuilding is also a matter of great importance. I am particularly convinced that discussing broad policy guidelines on peacebuilding activities in general, without focusing on a specific country, is also worth pursuing.

Raising awareness of the Commission's work, not only among relevant actors but also among the public at large, would greatly enhance the understanding of and necessary attention to the work of the Commission and the countries under its consideration. In this regard, we intend to make every effort to heighten the visibility of the Commission's work. At the same time, we would hope that individual Member States will join our efforts to promote the work of the Commission.

As Chairman of the Commission, I would like to assure all Members of our full dedication and commitment to the real success of the Commission, that is to say, making change in the field. In that spirit, we request all of you to lend your valuable and much needed support to our work at the Commission.

I would like to add just a few words in my capacity as Permanent Representative of Japan. Japan has provided very active support for the Peacebuilding Commission and the Fund. It coordinates its activities with those of the Commission. Recently, we sent high-level missions to Burundi and Sierra Leone, headed by then Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hamada, for the purpose of enhancing the peacebuilding process in those two countries, and a report on his visit to Sierra Leone was compiled for the Commission's forthcoming discussion. Japan shares the views of the Commission in its annual report with regard to the critical priority areas, and we have accordingly provided those countries with development assistance in fields such as basic infrastructure. Our activities have included the rehabilitation of power plants in Sierra Leone and community development in Burundi.

Japan accords high priorities to post-conflict peacebuilding efforts. Last month, the Japanese Government contributed to these efforts by launching a new programme for training civilian peacebuilding professionals from Japan and also other Asian countries. The training takes place in Hiroshima and many other places in the world.

Japan will redouble its efforts to achieve the Commission's goal of building and consolidating sustainable peace by hosting the fourth Tokyo International Conference on African Development and the G-8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit.

Mr. Salgueiro (Portugal)

I have the honour of speaking on behalf of the European Union and the candidate countries of Turkey, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the countries of the Stabilization and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, as well as Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia, align themselves with this statement.

The European Union would like to congratulate you, Mr. President, for organizing this important debate. The Peacebuilding Commission is a key achievement of the United Nations reform process. Created to address a gap in the United Nations system to support countries emerging from conflict, this new advisory body, together with the establishment of the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Peacebuilding Fund, has provided an innovative institutional framework within which the Governments concerned, the international community and civil society have begun to address some key peacebuilding issues.

This was made possible thanks to the commitment of the previous Chairpersons of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins and Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, the two Vice-Chairpersons and the two Chairpersons of the country-specific configurations. The European Union would like to congratulate them for their valuable work and for the progress achieved under their leadership.

We would also like to congratulate Ambassador Yukio Takasu for his recent election as Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission and wish him all the success for his mandate. The European Union looks forward to the Commission having a real impact on the ground, including by bringing about greater coherence in international efforts to build peace. The reports of both the Peacebuilding Commission (A/62/137) and the Peacebuilding Fund (A/62/138) submitted to the General Assembly stress that consolidation of peace must be based on national ownership and international partnership. The European Union agrees that efforts to consolidate peace and development must be based on the needs and perspectives of the affected countries themselves. Experience shows that a nationally owned and led process is the veritable key to success of peacebuilding and ultimately of sustainable peace. Experience equally shows that an inclusive and participatory peacebuilding process is the only way to ensure nationwide shared priority-setting and nation-building, a truthful correspondence between real needs and external assistance, and a sustained conformity between commitments and implementation.

In this sense, it is crucial to engage all stakeholders, including national civil society, the private sector, Governments, non-governmental organizations and current and potential donors. Close coordination between United Nations Headquarters and the national actors is essential in order to identify the most pressing priorities, such as good governance, youth empowerment, job creation, the promotion and protection of human rights, gender, rule of law and justice or security sector reform.

In order to ensure that peacebuilding efforts are sustainable, they should be monitored and tracked with quantitative and qualitative indicators at the strategic level to assess progress towards agreed goals, to take appropriate action when threats to peace arise, to enhance coherence of multidimensional efforts and to track fulfilment of mutual commitments by national and international actors. In this context, the Working Group on Lessons Learned should help the Peacebuilding Commission apply best practices to its work at the field level. Additionally, in order to maximize the Commission's positive impact on the ground, we believe that the link between Headquarters and the field should be strengthened. Where possible, representatives from the field should participate in the Commission's discussions in New York via video conference or in person, not just to brief the Commission, but also to engage in the assessment of progress and the detailing of next steps to be taken. In addition to existing coordination meetings, Commission meetings could also be held in-country so that more actors can be involved.

Another priority that would enable the Commission to consolidate its added value and maximize its impact would be to increase its visibility in the field through improved outreach and communication strategies as well as greater publicity. Also, we are of the opinion that the Peacebuilding Support Office needs to be equipped with the adequate resources necessary to continue to efficiently support the Commission's growing work.

The European Union welcomes the engagement that the Peacebuilding Commission has shown in Sierra Leone and Burundi in the past year. We commend the intensive work of all stakeholders that have contributed to the Strategic Framework for peacebuilding in Burundi and consider it a critical instrument providing guidance for the Government of Burundi, the Commission itself, and all partners for their common work in peacebuilding. We underline the importance of the monitoring and tracking mechanism that is currently being developed between Burundi and the Commission to allow for reviewing progress in peacebuilding activities and objectives on a regular basis. Without this mechanism, the Strategic Framework will not have much impact on the ground.

With regard to Sierra Leone, the European Union considers that the Peacebuilding Commission has made a valuable contribution to enhancing international attention and financial support and in aiding the overall peace consolidation process. The European Union stands ready to continue to assist in the finalization of the Sierra Leone Compact and in developing tools to track progress. The Commission should ensure that the peacebuilding process remains on track and that gaps are addressed in a timely and coherent manner. The European Union believes that the Compact should build on existing frameworks, such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, the Peace Consolidation Strategy and the frameworks of assistance of other main donors. We have to ensure the optimal articulation of these frameworks while highlighting national and international commitments and encouraging their implementation.

The fact that the monitoring and tracking mechanism of the Strategic Framework for peacebuilding in Burundi will be based to the extent possible on the monitoring mechanism and timelines of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper is an encouraging development in the right direction. In this context, the European Community, as a main multilateral donor in both Burundi and Sierra Leone, stands ready to work constructively towards this end at the strategic and field level.

The European Union recognizes the importance of sustained and predictable financing for peacebuilding. The Peacebuilding Fund, in operation since January 2007, plays a critical role in providing countries with start-up funding for early recovery. The European Union member States have been contributing to this Fund, and the Union is collectively its largest donor. It is important to ensure that additional countries are declared eligible for support from the Peacebuilding Fund and that mobilization of resources is enhanced in order to achieve the $250 million funding target and to effectively address the transition gap.

The European Union sees the Peacebuilding Fund as a catalyst for work on peacebuilding efforts, but long-term funding must still come from multilateral and bilateral donors. The scope of the Fund should not overlap with other existing instruments. In order to ensure broad and effective use of the Fund, all of its three funding windows should be fully utilized. The role of the Peacebuilding Fund Advisory Group can be particularly helpful in providing guidance on the effective use of the funds.

As recognized in both reports, it is crucial that the distinction between the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Commission is clarified for all the parties involved in peacebuilding from the outset of the process. We should further reflect on the interrelationship between the Commission and the Fund, in particular what the sequencing is between them and how to link short-term early interventions with a long-term strategy.

The European Union's assessment of the first year of the Peacebuilding Commission is positive. At the same time, we are aware of the major challenges that still lie ahead. The Commission must prove its ability to deliver real benefits to the countries under its consideration. Effective working practices for the Commission's relationship with other United Nations bodies also need to be established. The Commission's relationship with the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Bretton Woods institutions should be enhanced, and those organs, in particular the Security Council, should take better advantage of the Peacebuilding Commission's advisory role.

The Peacebuilding Commission can consider new countries in its second year. At least one country has already expressed its wish to be included in the Commission's agenda. The Commission should ensure that it has the capabilities to address those countries, in terms of human resources and capacity, and that it has learned the lessons from its experiences with Burundi and Sierra Leone. The Peacebuilding Commission should also continue its reflections on the appropriate time for scaling down and ending the Commission's engagement with a country.

To conclude, the European Union will maintain its positive contribution to the work of the Peacebuilding Commission. We are determined to help the Commission make a positive and measurable impact in the regions where it is engaged. In this context, we stress the importance of the standing invitation extended to the European Community as an institutional donor to participate in the meetings of the Peacebuilding Commission. We look forward to the arrangement finally implemented, allowing for adequate representation of the European Union, given the major contributions that the Union, as an international actor, makes in a number of post-conflict countries and regions worldwide, particularly in the areas of diplomacy, military and security.

Mrs. Angella Brown (Jamaica)

Please allow me, Sir, on behalf of the caucus of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in the Peacebuilding Commission, to extend sincere congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of this body. We are confident that under your able leadership the General Assembly will complete its slate of activities in a cordial, efficient and professional manner commensurate with the high office of the presidency and the expectations of the many delegations which make up this Organization.

The report of the Peacebuilding Commission (A/62/137) to the Assembly, as mandated by the founding resolutions -- General Assembly resolution 60/180 and Security Council resolution 1646 (2005) -- is a strong signal that the latest initiatives in the United Nations reform process are under way, in earnest. The completion of its first year in operation and the presentation of this report to the Assembly not only is a defining moment in the existence of the Commission, but will also form a solid basis for work to move forward and add another facet to the already existing body of knowledge, aiding in the consolidation of peace and laying the foundation for the immediate rehabilitation and sustained economic recovery and development of the post-conflict countries under consideration.

Throughout the preceding 12 months, the Peacebuilding Commission successfully grappled with several administrative, organizational and directional issues as it sought to establish itself and fulfil its mandate, catering for the peacebuilding needs of Burundi and Sierra Leone, the first two countries under its consideration.

The Non-Aligned Movement caucus in the Peacebuilding Commission is particularly pleased with the comprehensive character of the content of the report, which in our estimation represents a factual and faithful account of what transpired over the period and in so doing, provides an accurate record of the Commission's work for posterity.

The Non-Aligned Movement continues to emphasize that the development aspects of any strategy geared towards extricating countries emerging from conflict cannot be over emphasized. The Movement strongly agrees that the Peacebuilding Commission cannot ignore fundamental principles such as the rule of law, security sector reform and human rights. But certainly those principles cannot be emphasized at the expense of providing immediate post-conflict risk-reduction strategies, which is the precise and direct purpose of the Commission. Such strategies are geared towards poverty reduction and include education and training, rural agricultural development, private sector reform and other capacity-building initiatives, including the creation of an investor-friendly climate -- all of which lead towards job creation, together with enhanced employment opportunities and, by extension, overall improvement in the lives and living conditions of local populations.

The Non-Aligned Movement looks forward to the continuation of the dialogue within the Peacebuilding Commission as we continue to build on the successes of the past months, always mindful that the countries under consideration by the Commission require swift action to implement priority projects as part of the rehabilitation and reconstruction process.

Additionally, the Peacebuilding Commission must continue to identify the means by which funds that are approved for disbursement by the Peacebuilding Fund reach the recipient countries in the shortest possible time. It is not sufficient to identify the urgency of the need while paying scant regard to or becoming lax in the critical follow-up actions at the most crucial stage of the process.

The second year of the Peacebuilding Commission will demand close coordination between the Commission, other United Nations bodies, the Peacebuilding Fund and donor countries and agencies, particularly those on the ground in post-conflict situations, if some of the pitfalls of the recent months are to be avoided. It is also important that the Commission continue its work in the next months with the same level of commitment, dedication and drive that was evident during the period under review. In that connection, the Non-Aligned Movement would like to reiterate several key principles which should continue to guide the Commission's work.

While we welcome the commitment of the donor community in the activities of the Peacebuilding Commission, the Commission is not a donor organization. Its activities involving all stakeholders must be executed in a far broader, more comprehensive and participatory context consistent with its mandate. Decisions regarding the provision of financial resources should, therefore, be guided by national priorities and be based on the collective decision of members of the Peacebuilding Commission. Recommendations for assistance must highlight the priority areas established by the Government of the country under review by the Commission. The matter of Government guidance should also be uppermost in planning the way forward and will certainly serve to strengthen the process of national ownership. This holistic and inclusive approach to evaluation and recommendations adopted at country-specific meetings can only add to the integrity of the process within the Commission.

We believe that, with the architecture of the Commission now completed, its work should take on another dimension as it responds to the expectations of the international community, particularly those of countries emerging from conflict, by producing tangible results with greater and more robust activities in the coming months, including the addition of more countries for consideration as they try to consolidate peace and engineer prosperity.

The Non-Aligned Movement caucus in the Peacebuilding Commission calls for the streamlining of the meetings of the Commission. We must move to dispel the misconception that, because of its different configurations, there is more that one Commission. In this regard, the Organizational Committee must be the focal point of all Commission activities, including the work of the country-specific meetings.

Finally, the NAM continues to pay tribute to Angola, the first Chair of the Commission, under whose guidance the achievements of the Commission during the initial stage were accomplished.

Please allow me to also express appreciation to the respective chairs of the country-specific meetings and the Peacebuilding Support Office for their tireless efforts and excellent contributions during the first session of the Commission.

We also take this opportunity to welcome and extend best wishes to Japan, the new Chair of the Commission, and other incoming members of the new Bureau of the Commission.

Mr. Akram (Pakistan)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xf8' in position 631: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg007-bk01-pa01">The decision to establ... the disposal of the international community.</p>', 631, 632, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 632
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg007-bk01-pa01">The decision to establ... the disposal of the international community.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 631