For Peacekeeping Missions to Lead to Sustainable Peace ‘Overarching Strategy’

 

Must Unite Follow-on Presence, Secretary-General Tells Security Council

 

Following are UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s remarks to the Security Council open debate on Transition and Exit Strategies for Peacekeeping Operations, in New York, 12 February:

I should like to thank France for having taken the initiative to focus our attention on the crucial question of the transition and exit strategies of peacekeeping operations.

In the broadest sense, our objective should be very clear.  The blue helmets should themselves strive tirelessly to bring their own work to an end, but of course there is a great deal of time between the beginning and the end of an operation and many phases to go through.  The road to follow is strewn with difficulties, dangers, setbacks and problems.

Over the years, we have learned many valuable lessons about how best to ensure a transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding and, ultimately, to societies that can function and maintain stability on their own.

Considerable work is under way to strengthen our response to conflict.

Last year, the Security Council held a series of valuable debates on mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding.  Member States, the United Nations system and our partners have gained a common understanding of the challenges involved.  I welcome today’s debate as a further step in making the best possible use of all our tools and assets.

The United Nations must be ready to help national authorities to implement peace agreements, re-establish core government functions, restore the rule of law and achieve at least a minimum level of sustainable security throughout their territory.

We must promote reconciliation and inclusive political processes, help provide basic services, and help generate employment and economic activity.

All of this is essential for addressing the roots of a crisis, sustaining peace and achieving a viable exit strategy for United Nations peacekeeping missions.

The United Nations engagement in a country emerging from conflict will closely track the path that country takes.

We are usually present well before a peacekeeping operation is deployed.  We will usually remain well after the exit of our blue helmets.

The post-peacekeeping United Nations presence might be a Special Political Mission, a Peacebuilding Office or some other configuration.  It might be large and multidimensional, or small and specialized.

Whatever the case, peacekeeping activities must pave the way for what comes next.

For peace to be sustained, there must be an overarching strategy that unites the efforts of all United Nations actors and the international community, and that strengthens national capacity.

The past decade has seen a continuous surge in United Nations peacekeeping operations. 

No-one can predict the future, but in the years ahead we are likely to focus not so much on new missions, but on ensuring that current missions -- and their successor presences -- can help consolidate peace and support lasting stability, so they can withdraw.

To achieve this, a peacekeeping mission requires a good entrance. 

This was emphasized in the 2001 report to the Security Council titled “No exit without strategy”.

Allow me to recall that one of the authors of that report, Andrew Grene, was among those who perished in the earthquake in Haiti. 

His legacy lives on in a report whose recommendations remain valid today.

A good entrance means that the very mandate of an operation addresses the root causes of a conflict.

It means charting a path out of violence through a solid and sustainable peace process.

It means articulating a clear goal which can be jointly owned by national stakeholders and the international community.

And it means the timely allocation of enough human and material resources --including, if necessary, the rapid deployment of standing police and other civilian capacities.

Exits must be equally well-considered from the very outset of a mission.

In assessing whether and when a peacekeeping operation should be drawn down, we must look at the strength of national governance structures, including for security and the rule of law.

We must consider the prospects for socio-economic recovery.

We must examine the risks that a country could backslide into conflict, and ask whether the security guarantee provided by uniformed peacekeepers is still needed.

We must look at how to reconfigure our presence.  Drawing down in one area, such as security, might require temporary strengthening in another.

Peacekeeping missions should not stay longer than necessary. 

But we should also be wary of withdrawing prematurely, only to have to return because of renewed violence.

A key lesson of the 1990s was the need for some type of follow-on presence to protect gains and continue the process of building durable peace.

In several recent cases, the transition has been made to a United Nations Peacebuilding Office. 

But other models, such as regional offices, could also be considered.

Such presences may have smaller footprints, but still have complex and demanding mandates. 

They require resources and the support of the Security Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the wider international community.

This year’s review of the United Nations Peacebuilding architecture is thus very timely. 

We should discuss the transition from the core security components of a peacekeeping mission to longer-term peacebuilding. 

And we should also reflect on how the Peacebuilding Commission can engage early.

The engagement of United Nations country teams is critical throughout all phases of peacekeeping and peacebuilding. 

But the United Nations is only one of many international actors in peacebuilding. 

Regional institutions, bilateral partners and international financial institutions are also engaged.  We need all these partners to be working coherently, with a shared sense of purpose. 

If stakeholders pursue competing individual agendas, all our efforts will suffer. 

We must guard against this risk.

Our collective results will determine when and how a peacekeeping operation can exit.

I urge that we explore how to ensure that the Security Council has the necessary benchmarks and information -- including the advice of the Peacebuilding Commission and the input of host governments -- to measure progress.

Three of my Special Representatives are with us today to give us the benefit of their great experience of, and their thinking on, transition and exit strategies.  The countries whose missions they head illustrate the different phases in which United Nations peacekeeping and peacebuilding initiatives can find themselves, as well as the different models that exist and the different problems that they have to deal with.  The activities of these three missions are invaluable, for they allow us to establish and build peace and give hope to millions of men and women.

I hope that we will be able to learn the right lessons and extract the full benefit of what there is to be learned from all who will speak today.

* *** *

__________

*     Reissued to include text translated from French.

For information media • not an official record