Deputy Secretary-General, at Interactive Dialogue, Encourages Empowerment of Peacebuilding Structures, Examination of Their Advisory Role

Following are UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson’s remarks at the fourth Annual Informal Interactive Dialogue between Members of the Security Council, the Peacebuilding Commission Chairs and countries on the Commission’s agenda, in New York today:

I am glad to be invited to this informal interactive dialogue.  In particular, I welcome the Council focusing its attention on the crucial and expanding UN peacebuilding agenda.

Ten years ago, I was President of the General Assembly when world leaders recognized that the UN needed dedicated institutional mechanisms to help build and sustain peace in complex and fragile situations.

They recognized that the UN was in need of an inclusive, flexible political forum that would help sustain international attention on the longer term challenges facing countries emerging from conflict.  This was necessary in order to prevent a relapse into conflict.

World leaders recognized that the causes for a country to relapse into conflict outlast the, I would say, relatively limited span of attention of the Security Council and the duration of field missions.  To draw upon the comparative advantages of the United Nations, we need to do much more in the pre- and post-conflict phases.

Out of this recognition, the PBC [Peacebuilding Commission] was born and the PBSO [Peacebuilding Support Office] was created.  And to help catalyse resources for institution-building and the necessary political and economic processes, the Peace Building Fund (PBF) was created.

In the past 10 years, the wider UN peacebuilding architecture has continued to evolve in structure and practice.

The Security Council has deployed multidimensional and integrated peacekeeping and special political missions, with explicit peacebuilding tasks.  There have been successes, such as in Sierra Leone and Timor Leste.  But, the difficulties and challenges remain, not least in Mali and South Sudan, continue to grow.

Today, 10 years later, the vision behind the creation of the PBC, PBF and PBSO remains valid, as we adapt to the changing nature and drivers of conflict, as evident from Syria to Yemen, and from Mali to South Sudan.

This year, we are presented with a unique opportunity — the completion of three reviews:  the review of the peacebuilding architecture, of peace operations and of resolution 1325 (2000).  These reviews provide us with an opportunity to make our prevention and peacebuilding efforts more effective.

It is an opportunity we must not miss.  And today’s discussion is an excellent opportunity to consider how we can use the various instruments at our disposal more strategically.

The PBC has made important contributions.  With its diverse membership, it is well placed to ensure international coherence of efforts and the sustained attention of a wider set of actors.

But, there remain questions as to when and how the PBC can be most helpful.  To stimulate our discussions on ways to strengthen the role of PBC in support of the Security Council, Mr. President, you have posed three key questions to us.  I would like to provide some thoughts on each of them.

The first question posed by the President is:  what specific role could the PBC play in support of mandated peace operations? 

The missions in the Central African Republic, Mali and South Sudan, to name three examples, could better benefit from the PBC’s broad-based membership and partnerships, including with international financial institutions.  By that, they can secure the engagement of relevant regional and international actors in support of their Security Council mandates.

The second question is:  how can the PBC best support the Security Council in the draw-down phase of peace operations?

The partnerships I have mentioned are particularly valuable as the Council prepares to draw down and terminate mandated missions. From Côte d’Ivoire to Haiti to Liberia, the Council needs to preserve the investments made in peacekeeping operations.

To avoid relapse into violent conflict, we need sustained commitment from the international community to build institutions, promote social cohesion and address drivers of conflict in countries in transition.  By integrating efforts in the security, justice, political and development sectors into a coherent strategy, the PBC can help break the silo approach that, almost chronically, undermines the effectiveness of our collective response.

The third question is:  at which stage of the conflict and post-conflict cycles would the Security Council view the role of the PBC as most effective?

In Burundi and its critical situation, timely and sustained attention and engagement by regional and international actors helped contain the crisis and prevent further escalation.  The PBC demonstrated that it was suited to play this role in support of the Council’s objectives beyond the life cycle of past mandated missions in Burundi.  But, I am indeed extremely worried about the current situation.

In Sierra Leone, the PBC accompanied the transition from a mandated UN mission to a more development-oriented UN presence.  The Ebola crisis reinforced the importance of building resilient institutions.

The Security Council could also benefit from PBC political support to post-conflict countries focused on specific, time-limited tasks, such as an election period, or on a complex aspect of a mission’s mandate, such as the extension of State authority.

Mr. President, in addition to these three very relevant questions, I would like to put forward a fourth one:  what role can the PBC play in prevention?

The PBC’s engagement in Guinea, a country that was never placed on the Council’s agenda, proves that our efforts aimed at building peace do not have to follow armed conflict.  The PBC can and should become engaged wherever national actors believe they could benefit from international accompaniment during difficult periods of political transitions.

In closing, I would like to leave you with some overarching thoughts about the PBC.

For the PBC to truly play the advisory role for which it was established there is a need to carefully consider its orientation, its focus, its working methods and its structures.

It is understandable that multilateral institutions take time to evolve and to carve out their niche.  This is even more challenging for a body, like the PBC, that was provided with an ambitious mandate in a crowded field of actors.  We should, therefore, not shy away from adjusting our course along the way.

The PBC is a subsidiary organ of this body and it can only be useful if the Security Council empowers and utilizes it as a tool for peacebuilding and, by that, for prevention of a relapse into conflict.

Likewise, we need to consider how to further strengthen the PBF to play a more important role in filling gaps in support of early and sustained building of critical institutions, to sustain political dialogue and to stimulate economic growth.

Greater synergy between the political role of the PBC and programmatic support by the PBF would reinforce the effectiveness of the Security Council’s important investment in the maintenance of peace and security.