S/PV.6479 Security Council

Let me begin by thanking you, Mr. President, and the Government of Brazil for focusing on the crucial linkages between peace, security and development. Recent events around the world are a sharp reminder of the need for political stability to be anchored in peace, opportunity, decent standards of living and the consent of the governed. Peace, security and development are interdependent. Evidence abounds. Nine of the 10 countries with the lowest human development indicators have experienced conflict over the past 20 years. Countries facing stark inequalities and weak institutions are at increased risk of conflict. Poorly distributed wealth and lack of sufficient jobs, opportunities and freedoms, particularly for a large youth population, can also increase the risk of instability. Drug trafficking and international organized crime have found fertile ground in places that lack basic services and economic opportunities, leading to fear in the streets and insecurity across entire regions. Just as the lack of development can feed the flames of conflict, economic and social progress can help to prevent it and secure peace. Sustained, broadly based development can help to address the roots of conflict through such steps as ensuring the equitable sharing of wealth, providing better access to agricultural lands, strengthening governance and ensuring justice for all. Above all, development should be inclusive. By definition, this means including women, who can play a critical role in negotiations and peace processes, and young people, who have vast potential to contribute to the development of their societies. In short, inclusive development on the basis of consensus and consultation is perhaps the most effective route to diminishing the risks of conflict and enabling long-term stability. In recent years, we have come a long way in incorporating these insights into our work. The Peacebuilding Commission, for example, brings together a wide variety of actors to develop common approaches, including the members of the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, troop contributors and key donors, with the participation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The equally new Peacebuilding Fund works to motivate and support the timely efforts of the full United Nations family for peacebuilding. I have also requested all United Nations presences in places where there is both a United Nations country team and a multidimensional peacekeeping operation or political mission to identify priority areas for peace consolidation and to develop integrated strategic frameworks to guide their work in these areas. It is increasingly recognized that these strategic frameworks must be developed with the host country to account for national priorities and to enable ownership of the development process. Furthermore, the 2008 United Nations-World Bank Partnership Framework for Crisis and Post-Crisis Situations provides a basis for developing coherent approaches to post-conflict countries. These are important steps, yet there is more we can do to ensure truly integrated, mutually reinforcing approaches to security and development. Let me highlight five areas. First, if the United Nations is to act as one across the security-development spectrum, we would benefit from a “whole of Government” approach applied by Member States across the multilateral system. In this respect, I welcome the increasing emphasis placed by Member States on strengthening coherence across different multilateral institutions, including through structured delivery and the engagement of the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Peacebuilding Commission, United Nations executive boards and the governing boards of the World Bank and the IMF. Secondly, we need to better manage the process of drawdown and withdrawal of Security Council- mandated operations, and provide a stronger basis for seamless transitions of specific tasks to the United Nations country team and other development actors. Thirdly, we need to find innovative ways to build and strengthen national institutions in fragile countries. As last month’s Security Council debate on institution- building made clear (see S/PV.6472), effective institutions and strong national ownership are central to sustainable peace. Fourthly, we must focus more on the climate change-security-development nexus. Lack of energy and the effects of climate change are having increasingly serious impacts on development and security. We cannot achieve security without securing energy and managing climate risks. Fifthly, we need to consider how to reduce criminal violence — an ever greater security concern in many parts of the world. In some regions, organized crime is threatening both development gains and the very fabric of international peace and security. Organized crime is a challenge to a modern functioning State. I would also add that, in too many places around the world, the proliferation of small arms and ammunition is a standing threat to the security of ordinary people. In this context, the Council may wish to consider strengthening its collaboration with the General Assembly to advance strategies to halt the illicit proliferation of small arms and ammunition. As highlighted in my recent report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and development in Africa, “the next generation of security challenges will require added emphasis on crisis management, disaster risk reduction strategies, stronger civilian components in peace operations and strengthening the rule of law” (S/2010/526*, para. 101). At the strategic level, it will be necessary to better prioritize and sequence security, governance and development efforts, and to reach out to new partners. The forthcoming World Development Report will provide important insights in these areas. We have ample experience and convincing evidence illustrating the close links between peace, security and development. I look forward to continuing to work with the Security Council and the full range of partners in bringing this knowledge to bear on our efforts to fulfil our Charter-driven mandate to promote peace and human well-being. I thank the members of the Security Council for their continuing focus on these challenges.

I thank the Secretary-General for his statement. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Eugène-Richard Gasana. Mr. Gasana: Within three weeks’ time, the Security Council has gathered twice to address ways and means for the United Nations to live up to its pivotal role to build and sustain peace. This high frequency of Security Council meetings in recent months and weeks testifies to an increasing conviction that sustaining peace is a multidimensional and complex undertaking. It calls for broad partnership among security, political and development actors. It calls for bold and innovative approaches. Three weeks ago, my predecessor and good friend Mr. Peter Wittig, Permanent Representative of Germany, addressed the Council’s debate on institution-building (see S/PV.6472) and affirmed that the engagement of Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) offers a political forum necessary to facilitate among national stakeholders the development of their own prioritization for peacebuilding. While the Commission’s record shows that some of these priorities may be categorized under political or security-related aspects of peacebuilding, such as security sector reform, the rule of law, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, and national reconciliation, one can hardly fail to note the organic linkages of these aspects with the overarching objectives of the socio-economic transformation of the societies concerned. In fact, the questions of health, education, infrastructure development, youth employment and economic generation have been repeatedly underscored as critical peacebuilding priorities. The facts and statistics presented earlier by the Secretary-General on the linkage between the challenges of post-conflict settings and achieving the Millennium Development Goals speak of the seriousness and urgency of the task at hand. Peacebuilding is a term that we like to use in describing the interlinkages between security and development interventions in post-conflict situations. The Peacebuilding Commission is the unique organ of the United Nations that brings together security and development actors to promote common, integrated and mutually reinforcing approaches to building and sustaining peace. In that connection, allow me to share with the Council three points for further reflection. First, the actions and measures designed to guide the United Nations security and development engagement with countries emerging from conflict should be conceived and put in place early enough following the cessation of hostilities, with the full participation of national stakeholders. The earlier we are able to agree on a common vision for what will sustain peace in a specific context, the more likely we will be able to ensure carefully sequenced and mutually reinforcing actions focused predominantly on security and socio-economic engagement in countries emerging from conflict. Secondly, the Council plays an important role in fostering early and mutually reinforcing engagement on the security and development ends of the post- conflict spectrum, most prominently through mandating multidimensional peacekeeping missions. The investment we collectively make in those missions can be further optimized by encouraging coherence and more meaningful integration of efforts between missions, United Nations country teams and other development actors, including the World Bank. (spoke in French) Today’s presentation on the upcoming World Development Report reflects the fact that the World Bank is always evolving and that it is now an essential partner of the United Nations in our joint search for lasting peace in the world. In that regard, the PBC is a flexible and inclusive political forum that can strengthen that partnership with the Bank and with other development actors on the ground. Moreover, through its various country-specific configurations, the PBC makes that partnership a crucial priority. In reviewing the mandate, structure and configuration of peacekeeping operations, the Council can rely on the views of the Commission in optimizing the contribution of those missions to reconstruction and development. That also means ensuring that the partnership on the ground functions with greater clarity when it comes to the roles and responsibilities of security and development actors. That would help us to avoid redundancy and wasted energy, as well as to more efficiently channel the necessary resources to support development following conflict. Thirdly, the Council should benefit from an ongoing and speedy assessment of the security situation on the ground and an awareness of elements for effective peacebuilding. An in-depth analysis of the causes and factors contributing to conflict should serve to highlight the manner in which security and development actors coordinate their efforts on the ground. In that regard, I believe that the PBC is the body best suited to carry out such a holistic analysis, in order to allow the Council to adapt its strategies on an ongoing basis and come up with realistic criteria to monitor and assess the progress made towards peacebuilding and minimize the risk of a relapse into conflict. Such an analysis would also help the Council to develop a realistic exit strategy, whether for peacekeeping or peacebuilding operations. In conclusion, following the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission, five years ago, the United Nations as a whole now has sufficient experience as to the links and interdependence between security and development. That experience should now be translated into a resolute political commitment and concrete tailored actions on the ground. The populations of countries emerging from conflict should not be doubly affected, first by devastating conflicts and subsequently by our difficulties in harmonizing and coordinating our efforts to help them build their future. Those people deserve our collective attention. The PBC is at the Council’s disposal in achieving that goal.

I thank the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission for his briefing. I now give the floor to Ms. Sarah Cliffe. Ms. Cliffe: I would like to thank the Government of Brazil for the opportunity to participate in this meeting and for the work of Ambassador Viotti in consistently drawing attention to security and development linkages in the discussions of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) on Guinea-Bissau. I would also like to express my gratitude for the contribution of General dos Santos Cruz in the Advisory Council of the World Development Report, along with that of President Kagame, Minister Amado and the many other leaders of the Member States represented here. I want to say at the outset that, as His Excellency Mr. Gasana emphasized, we view this very much as a joint process with the United Nations. The early meetings with the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, as well as the input we receive from United Nations departments, funds and programmes, have been crucial in shaping the analysis of the World Development Report. The main message of the Report is that strengthening the national institutions and governance that provide citizen security, justice and jobs are crucial to avoiding repeated cycles of violence and instability. I will touch on four issues connected to that, namely, the ways in which security and development linkages are changing, national lessons, possible directions for international policy and the urgency of the stakes. With regard to changing security and development linkages, the Report highlights that there have been many successes in reducing global violence. There has been an enormous reduction in inter-State war. Civil wars, while still exacting an unacceptable toll, directly cause only one quarter of the deaths that they did 20 years ago. Much of that achievement should be credited as a success of the international architecture established after the Second World War — and subsequently adapted — including, of course, centrally, the intergovernmental bodies of the United Nations. Yet 1.5 billion people still live in areas where violence limits their ability to live normally, to go to work and to see their children educated. However, many of those areas are no longer dominated by classic inter-State threats or civil wars between Governments and well-organized rebel movements, but by much more fluid cycles of social protest and criminal and political violence. As the Secretary-General underlined, organized criminal movements can undermine the gains made by successful peace process, as we see in Central America. Criminal gangs can be mobilized into larger political violence during elections, as we saw in the case of Kenya. Protests over food prices or unemployment can spread into larger political unrest. The cross-border impacts of violence are considerable, from drug trafficking, which has affected even isolated West African countries, to refugee flows and terrorist attacks. Economic and political grievances often combine, as with the demand for both jobs and justice that we have seen in recent events in the Middle East and North Africa. What are the common elements among the different ways in which security and development links are manifested? New work completed for the World Development Report shows that the risks of violence are highest when institutional weaknesses in societies combine with high levels of internal and external stress. Societies are vulnerable when local institutions are unable to protect their citizens from abuse, either from their own security forces or from non- Government groups, or to provide equitable access to justice and economic opportunities. Those institutional vulnerabilities can then be exacerbated when countries face the stresses of populations with a high percentage of young people, high unemployment, growing inequality, or external events such as the infiltration of foreign fighting forces, trafficking networks or economic shocks. The specific triggers of crises vary by countries’ circumstances, but the risks of both political and criminal violence are consistently linked to underlying deficits in the ability of institutions to provide security, justice and jobs. Government capacity obviously matters greatly for violence prevention, but so do accountability and the legitimacy of relations between State and society. Societies with high levels of corruption or human rights abuses, for example, face greater risks of violence in future. The World Development Report draws together lessons from national reformers in preventing and recovering from violence. These have provided a number of interesting insights, which I will touch on briefly. First, successful national transformations are the result of multiple transitions, not one-off processes of change. One need only think of the multiple transitions in Ghana, in Chile, in Indonesia or in the Republic of Korea in terms of security, justice, economic policy and political reform. The Report has looked at the historical timelines for institutional and governance transformations. In the twentieth century, no country accomplished this in less than 12 to 15 years, and the average, for the fastest reformers, was between 20 and 30 years. Secondly, leaders have built coalitions that are inclusive enough to restore confidence, not necessarily including all political or armed groups, but broad enough to build national support for change and provide a platform for working with local leaders in violence-affected communities. Thirdly, producing some early results has been crucial to restoring confidence. These do not need to be many in number. I would cite, for example, Liberia’s programmes to restore basic security and some electricity, and to take action on corruption, or Colombia’s redeployment of the military to protect civilian transit on roads. Fourthly, countries have made tough choices over priorities for institutional change. Experience underlines the importance of early attention to the institutions that provide basic security, justice and employment, and has shown that new initiatives can decrease corruption. Our work confirms previous analysis by the Brahimi Panel, among others, that elections, while often a crucial part of transitions, are not a panacea for broader reform. They must be part of a package of change. Lastly, countries have historically innovated in their institutional approaches rather than copying from abroad. A focus on institutions and governance does not mean convergence on Western institutions. There are many examples demonstrating that the copying of institutions does not work, from colonial legacies to the transplant of models to Iraq. Even South-South copying does not always work smoothly. The institutions of South Africa’s transition, for example, while highly effective in those political circumstances, have not always been easily adapted to circumstances in other countries. At the national level, the Report also looks at a number of practical programme tools that have been used to restore confidence and transform institutions. Some lessons here are the importance of early signals on justice and inclusion that signal a break with the past but manage expectations of the timing of change; maintaining a focus on basic functions; making the connections between security and justice reform; pursuing community-based approaches, such as those supported by the United Nations Development Programme, the Department of Political Affairs and the World Bank; establishing back-to-basics job-creation programmes that give marginalized youth respect and status; and involving women in both economic empowerment and the hard areas of security and justice reform. The Report describes the successes of international action, but it also highlights some areas of deficit in linking security and development assistance, and four possible tracks for change. First, with respect to increasing capacity to support citizens’ security, justice and employment, we are underinvested in those areas, although they are central to today’s risks of violence. It is much harder, for example, for countries to get assistance for their police forces and their courts than for their military forces. It is much harder for them to get assistance for employment generation than for health, education or macroeconomic stability. It is much harder for countries to get assistance when they are struggling to prevent risks from rising than it is after they have had a civil war. As President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia said to us in our discussions: “After we have had a civil war, you guys provide us with all the assistance; but when we are trying to prevent it, there is very little that the international community is able to do to help”. In order to address this, we look at the potential for greatly expanded initiatives to draw together public- and private-sector investment in generating employment in insecure areas. On police and justice capacity, we note the value of a clear lead role for the United Nations, and the need for flexible capacity that links policing with courts and corrections assistance and can provide a range of advisory, executive and mandated mission functions. We also consider the need to move from talking only about coordination to combined operational support — for example, through the World Bank supporting the lead of the United Nations or regional institutions on mediated agreements and security and justice reform; or United Nations departments supporting the security and justice aspects of local economic development initiatives. Here, I would also like to reiterate what the Secretary- General said on the importance of coherence across the multilateral system and the ability, through signals from Member States, to ensure that multilateral agencies themselves have an integrated approach. The second track of change we look at is on internal agency reforms. International assistance, whether in development aid or peacekeeping, is often too slow to enter, too quick to exit, and insufficiently able to support national institutional capacity. Our systems and procedures in the international financial institutions — but perhaps it is fair to say that the United Nations and bilateral agencies face some of the same problems — were originally designed for environments that are stable, with strong institutional capacity and competitive markets. These three conditions do not apply in the majority of the most fragile situations. There is a need to rethink how systems can be made fit for purpose to support rapid confidence-building and institutional transformation, including through faster and less volatile aid, flexible peacekeeping, long-term mediation, and developing budget, staffing and contract systems that acknowledge the reality of insecure environments. The third track for change concerns regional approaches. International approaches are still primarily focused on individual nation-States, and they encounter difficulties in addressing regional challenges such as those in West Africa and Central America. We suggest scaling up action in two areas. The first is to support the political convening capacities of regional institutions to address cross- border economic and security issues in concert with the global financial and technical capacities of institutions such as the United Nations and the international financial institutions. Practical examples would include supporting the African Union border programme or the needs for pooled capacity to address drug trafficking in Central America. The second area is tougher action to stem illicit financial flows from trafficking, corruption and money-laundering. This would include action through more joint investigations and prosecutions between developed and developing country jurisdictions. The fourth track concerns marshalling the combined resources of low-, middle- and high-income countries, I will be a little more frank here than we are in the text of the World Development Report. In our country consultations, there were considerable divisions over approaches among national leaders in fragile situations, middle-income countries and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) donors. Some of those divisions were driven by disagreements over governance models — which norms of responsible leadership apply in fragile situations or situations of risk, particularly in terms of the speed of governance transformation and the models adopted, whether in the context of political reform or corruption. Different countries face different domestic pressures related to the risks and results involved in their international programmes — a problem we call the dual accountability dilemma. It would be presumptuous to claim to have complete answers on this issue, but three starting points can bring approaches closer. First would be to use factual and historical evidence on the speed of governance transformations to inform dialogue. Secondly, one could draw more on South-South exchanges, but also on exchanges between the South and the North that make it explicit that OECD countries are not immune from the problems of corruption and violence and that the challenge of justice and jobs and the grievances they can provoke is a shared challenge. Last, greater leadership must be provided to regional institutions where they are well positioned to convene both high- and middle-income, non-regional partners. We suggest that the Peacebuilding Commission’s unique composition may also give it unexploited potential to facilitate part of that dialogue on timetables for governance transformation. Let me conclude on the urgency of the stakes. The impact of the failure to prevent new and repeated cycles of violence and instability is considerable. Once countries have fallen into a cycle of weak institutions and violence, it is very hard for them to get out. The economic and social impacts are immense. Civil conflict costs 30 years of growth in gross domestic product of the average developing country. No low- income, fragile or conflict-affected country has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal. Countries that fall into protracted conflict and fragility lag 20 percentage points behind in poverty reduction. And as recent events have shown, deficits in the institutions that provide security, justice and jobs for citizens can spur conflict not only in the most fragile States, but also in countries that were long viewed as strong and stable. I would like to close by mentioning again the partnership between the United Nations and the World Bank in developing the World Development Report. It has been substantive, thoughtful, non-territorial and focused on a shared peacebuilding agenda, and we very much hope that this will continue in considering the implications for action of the Report.

I thank Ms. Sarah Cliffe for her briefing. I wish to remind all speakers to limit their statements to no more than four minutes in order to enable the Council to carry out its work expeditiously. Delegations with lengthy statements are kindly requested to circulate the texts in writing and to deliver a condensed version when speaking in the Chamber. It is now my pleasure to give the floor to the Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs and Deputy Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, His Excellency Mr. Guido Westerwelle.

I would like to thank the Brazilian presidency for preparing today’s debate. Also, I wish to thank the Secretary-General, Sarah Cliffe and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission for their briefings. They have set the stage for our discussions. Germany aligns itself with the statement to be delivered by the Delegation of the European Union on behalf of the Union. Almost 10 years ago, the United Nations Development Programme’s first Arab Human Development Report identified three major obstacles to development in the Arab world: first, a lack of political participation, second, shortcomings in the education system, and third, disadvantages for women in society, the economy and politics. Those conclusions are still valid today. We are witnessing turbulent times in the Middle East. The situation south of the Mediterranean Sea perfectly fits the topic of our discussion today. Egypt is a great country. The proud people of Egypt deserve to enjoy the peaceful transformation of their society. It is up to the Egyptian people to determine who will lead their country. They must be given the chance to do so now. The people who are demonstrating in the streets of Cairo are not demanding freedom or jobs; they want both at the same time. Both belong together. People want to decide themselves how to live their lives. They want the opportunity to shape a better future. Where people have little economic perspective and cannot participate in the political life of their country, that does not contribute to stability. On the contrary, repression of political participation, human rights and economic freedom will lead to instability. What the international community can do is to offer its support for democratic transition. Germany is ready to cooperate. Europe has offered a partnership for transformation. We are ready to give life to our offer. Progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals has been especially slow in fragile or conflict-ridden countries. No fragile or conflict- affected country has yet achieved one of the Millennium Development Goals. Because peace and security and development are inseparable, this discussion constitutes an essential part of our work here in the Security Council. Human rights are key to human dignity. They are the third element in the equation. Peace and security, development and human rights together shape a world worth living in. Almost all conflicts illustrate the extent to which these three elements are interlinked. Let me give some examples. In Afghanistan, it has never been enough to look at the conflict with an eye only on security. In that country, devastated by decades of war, development is urgent. That is the reason why we invest in developing the local economy and support creating a civilian future for the people. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the abundant natural resources should provide an income for the local population and reliable taxes for public tasks. Instead, we are witnessing some of the most abhorrent crimes of our time. Sanctions and peacekeeping alone cannot solve those problems. We need to invest more, and more intelligently, to achieve peace. That is why Germany supports projects for the certification of mineral resources. The economy of the entire region will also benefit from our ongoing efforts to rebuild the Goma airport. Through the referendum in the Sudan, the people have voiced their choice in an impressive manner. I commend the authorities of the Sudan for publicly accepting the outcome of the referendum. Now we need to prepare for the post-referendum process and for Southern Sudan’s independence. Germany stands ready to assist and to counsel both sides, North and South. We need both sides to be stable and to continue on the road to democracy and economic progress. Germany encourages the Security Council to address the issue of peacebuilding as early as possible. The idea of peacebuilding should guide our work when we mandate, extend or downsize peacekeeping operations. In that regard, the Peacebuilding Commission, which my country has had the honour to chair, can provide valuable advice to the Security Council. Development always has to do with institutional frameworks. Development presupposes a fair and efficient tax system. Respect for the rule of law is decisive. Development requires independent judges and a reliable police force. Development needs a public sector without corruption and as little red tape as possible. But, in the end, these institutional frameworks alone do not lead to the creation of jobs; business does. Development depends on an active private sector. On the one hand, we need to empower private actors so that they can create opportunities for a better future. On the other hand, business success brings with it responsibility. Businesses should commit to aligning their operations and strategies with the principles of the United Nations Global Compact in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and the fight against corruption. Every conflict is unique. There is no one-size- fits-all-approach. In some cases climate change may be a serious obstacle to development, and thus may become a major cause of conflict. In other cases other factors may be more decisive. In all stages of the process of building peace, signing peace agreements and introducing development programmes we need a stronger role for women and greater protection of children and their rights. The Security Council needs to look at every specific case on its own merits. Germany is and will continue to be a reliable partner when it comes to safeguarding peace and promoting development. This will not change. We will live up to our responsibilities.

I now give the floor to Her Excellency Ms. Maria Ángela Holguín Cuéllar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Colombia.

At the outset, allow me to congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council for the month of February, as well as to thank you for convening this thematic debate on the interdependence between security and development and for circulating the document that serves as the basis for the discussion of this matter (S/2011/50). I also convey my thanks to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for being here today and for his statement, as well as to the Chairperson of the Peace Building Commission and Ms. Sarah Cliffe, representative from the World Bank, for their reports on their respective areas of responsibility. We take note of the thematic continuation with regard to the recent debate on institution building (see S/PV.6472) held at the initiative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Recent United Nations reports give accounts of the transformations that are being seen in the activities of peacekeeping operations on the ground. Police forces and civilian experts are participating ever more frequently and in greater numbers. This trend shows that activities of a strictly military nature are not enough in themselves to take on the task of achieving sustainable peace. In making the Peacebuilding Commission operational, the Security Council recognized that development, peace and security were interrelated and mutually reinforcing. Likewise, it agreed on the need to take a coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to peacebuilding. Today’s debate on the interdependence between security and development in the context of the responsibilities and situations under the purview of the Security Council is important for establishing the need to consider ways to mainstream or give greater weight to the development dimension in peacekeeping operations. We must not lose sight of the fact that peacebuilding, as a long-term objective, is a cross- cutting task that must start in the early phases of peacekeeping. This is supported by the need to provide long-term solutions, ensure the sustainability and strengthening of democratic institutions, promote the well-being of the population and prevent cycles of dependence that discourage development. In that regard, when drafting mandates, the Council could place greater emphasis on the strengthening of coordination activities and structures that have a high impact on the development of national capacities. Such activities are not new in the context of peacekeeping operations. Activities aimed at the strengthening of security institutions, the judicial system and the rule of law, institutional provisions for the protection of civilians and those aimed at disarmament, demobilization and reintegration already play a substantive role in laying the foundations for development. For example, promoting working methods for local employment recovery or adopting business programmes that build on social organization, with an immediate emphasis on women and youth, can be seen as options that do not conflict with peacekeeping goals. Adequate coordination on development activities among United Nations agencies present on the ground is essential. The Council could adjust peacekeeping operation mandates to address issues in this area and avoid valuable long-term development going to waste. The Special Representative of the Secretary- General could, in each case, act as a coordinator between peacekeeping and peacebuilding tasks. As part of such a coordination effort, the President of the Security Council could establish a strategic dialogue on specific areas of concern with the Peacebuilding Commission, and through it with the World Bank and other actors. It is clear that the Council is not the body to make decisions regarding development. Nevertheless, we must not ignore that its decisions have an impact on the long-term development of countries and that this is a fundamental component of any sustainable peace, which is the preeminent purpose set out in the Charter of the United Nations: to protect future generations from the scourge of war. The Council could therefore benefit, in its activities related to peacekeeping, from the practice and doctrine of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly, as well as from the lessons learned from the work of the Peacebuilding Commission. The presence of seven members of the Commission in the Security Council could serve as a bridge for establishing greater communication and consultation on development best practices. We understand that not all members of the Council have the same financial means. This should not become an obstacle to finding mechanisms that offer long-term solutions. After 65 years of existence, the United Nations must be able to provide for the configuration of comprehensive mechanisms to promote peacebuilding. The United Nations of the twenty-first century will be relevant as long it responds to the development needs of great sections of the world population. In this regard, it is imperative that the activities of its main organs effect real change, make a meaningful contribution to the well-being of populations and have a genuine impact on situations that have been on their agendas for decades.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Sven Alkalaj, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

I would like to commend you, Minister Patriota, for convening this meeting to discuss such an important topic. My appreciation also goes to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Ms. Sarah Cliffe of the World Bank and His Excellency Mr. Eugène-Richard Gasana, Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their insightful remarks. It is our view that the objectives of security and development go hand in hand, which means that security is a prerequisite for development. Discussions about security therefore lead us inevitably to a discussion of development, indicating an inherent link between these two issues. Improvements in one area enhance the chances of progress in the other, while failure to provide either security or development could jeopardize success in both fields. Various dimensions of development and security are interconnected and mutually reinforcing, which suggests that the link between them requires a coordinated approach. It is therefore important to have a clear understanding of the mechanisms that govern the security-development nexus. That nexus also calls for a reassessment of the boundaries between those two issues. At the core of the matter is the ability to contribute on the ground to conflict prevention and the creation of an atmosphere conducive to sustainable peace. The peacebuilding process entails overlapping agendas for peace and development aimed at preventing and managing conflicts and encouraging post-conflict reconstruction. The United Nations has a central role in promoting such agendas. In order to address the deep-rooted causes of violent conflicts, new and innovative approaches must be found to generate resources for conflict prevention and peacebuilding. In addition, the various actors within the United Nations system must seek out the best possible ways to contribute to their common purpose of development and security. It is crucial to extend assistance to countries in a wide range of sectors, including governance, human rights, justice, reconciliation, demilitarization, demobilization and reintegration, as well as security sector reform. Assistance programmes in those areas should be sensitive to the connection between development and security agendas. It is also important that strategies regarding security and development are integrated and implemented alongside the other priorities in a coherent peacebuilding framework. Security sector reform and disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, as parts of comprehensive peacebuilding strategies, can be successfully implemented only in an environment that offers economic opportunity and favours development. When early peace dividends are evident and accepted, the security sector is well-managed and democratic norms are in place, opportunities for development are present in the true sense. Weak national institutions, whether they are in the political, security or development domains, can increase the risk of a relapse into conflict. Bosnia and Herzegovina believes that one way of addressing the security-development link is to focus on building and strengthening institutions that are indispensable to security and development. That issue was the topic of our thematic debate held in the Security Council last month (see S/PV.6472). Governments and societies need proper funding and assistance in consolidating their efforts to provide security for their populations and to improve economic conditions. Much has been achieved through the United Nations peacebuilding architecture and the activities of the Peacebuilding Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund. Yet, more remains to be done. With regard to the donor community, it is essential to establish better cooperation between donors and international financial institutions. United Nations agencies and international organizations need more specialized expertise in areas such as natural resource management and wealth-sharing. They must also coordinate their efforts towards achieving meaningful results and adjust their responses to the specific situation in a given country. A well- implemented and integrated strategy on the parts of agencies, funds and international financial institutions can significantly increase prospects for the success of efforts to ensure peace and security. With all of that in mind, Bosnia and Herzegovina emphasizes the importance of an integrated, comprehensive and coordinated approach that includes the establishment of good governance, the rule of law, the promotion of human rights, institution-building, security sector reform, economic reconstruction and development in order to achieve irreversible peace. Furthermore, we firmly believe that particular emphasis should be placed on empowering women and on their greater involvement in peacebuilding efforts, including in development processes. Finally, we are fully aware that the Security Council is not responsible for making decisions directly related to the issue of development. However, we believe that the Council can and should contribute through its work to the transformation of post-conflict settings into environments that foster long-term development. Given the correlation between security and development and the Council’s primary role in maintaining international peace and security, it is safe to say that this body already invests significant efforts to that end. Nevertheless, in the course of its deliberations, the Security Council should also endeavour to address development issues with the attention they warrant, in order to ensure a smooth and effective transition to lasting and sustainable peace.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Luís Filipe Marques Amado, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal.

Let me congratulate Brazil on its presidency of the Council. Let me also thank you, Sir, for the organization of this debate and the concept paper (see S/2011/50) that was distributed beforehand. Allow me to also thank the Secretary- General for his statement, as well as Ms. Sarah Cliffe and Ambassador Gasana for their contributions to this debate. As this is the first time that I have the privilege to address the Security Council, permit me to forgo reading out the text that has been circulated and instead share with the Council some reflections related to the problem being debated today. I would like first of all to make a general remark on the situation we face globally. We live in times of change and deep transformations. I think that we are living in one of those periods when history suddenly accelerates and human reason has difficulty keeping up with, adapting and responding to the situations created by that speeding up of history. In such a time, we have to assume our particular responsibilities. We act as politicians and, in this particular place, we have that responsibility. As the great recession of 2009 showed, we are in the midst of a huge process of transformation, of restructuring of the global economy and of change in the distribution of resources and wealth all over the world, as well as a rebalancing of power among nations and among regions. Peace processes have a huge geopolitical impact, which we cannot ignore. I think we are also in the midst of a long, complex, difficult and very dangerous process of reconfiguration of the geopolitical order. I think that the Security Council will be at the centre of that process, and we have to assume that responsibility. To control that process and avoid a global confrontation, we need to address every tension, conflict and situation of unrest with particular sensitivity and, more than ever, collective commitment. That is why I completely concur with Guido Westerwelle’s remarks about the determining role that the Peacebuilding Commission has to play in the context of the United Nations system. I think that we also need to address the different situations that we face all over the world in a more comprehensive way. In that regard, we certainly also need to address the interdependence of the political, security and development dimensions with a comprehensive approach. We need to address the complexities of these situations, which are really vital in managing the difficulties that we need to manage. The timing in choosing this issue for our debate is also appropriate from the perspective of the global challenges that we face, with which we need to deal in a more comprehensive way. And to do that the political, security and development dimensions have to be addressed in an appropriate way. At the end of the 1990s, I served as Development Minister, and during that time I saw how difficult it was to conciliate the security and political dimensions with development policy. On the ground, it was always difficult not only to coordinate, but also to promote interaction among the security, military and development sectors. There were many preconceived ideas among the various agencies on the ground. Fortunately, it seems that those times have passed. There has been a long-standing debate within the United Nations, mainly on how to manage conflicts in Africa, and a comprehensive process is evolving. I think it is also important in today’s debate to have had the opportunity to listen to Sarah Cliffe from the World Bank. I had the privilege of participating in some sessions in the preparation of that very important report, which I believe for the first time will address all these issues in the comprehensive way needed to face today’s reality. Finally, I would like to make the following point on what is happening in the Middle East. Minister Westerwelle addressed the Council on this particular issue, but I would also like to stress this point. Given the dynamic of the events flourishing there, it is our fundamental responsibility to manage the geopolitical tension between war and peace. I would like to add to what Mr. Westerwelle said. More than ever, we need a very comprehensive approach to the realities of the Middle East. It is a mistake to look at the conflict, unrest and tension in a fragmented way. If we do not address them in the next couple of months or years in a comprehensive way, interlinking the political, security and development challenges of the region, I would say that we will be facing a tragic situation. I am sure that the Security Council will have to play a much more difficult role if we are not able to handle these situations, as I said, in a more comprehensive way, engaging the whole of the international community, including the Security Council.

I now call on the Minister of External Affairs of India, His Excellency Mr. S. M. Krishna.

I would like to begin by thanking the Brazilian presidency for organizing this debate. Brazil and India have a very special relationship. It is a great honour for me to make my first appearance in this Council under the Brazilian presidency. India returns to the Security Council after 19 years. These years have been transformational for India. We believe that an effective and efficient Security Council is in our common interest and we will work towards strengthening it. Mahatma Gandhi, the father of our nation, said that “poverty is the worst form of violence”. The Charter of the United Nations, recognizing that violence and the lack of development are interrelated, commits the United Nations to promoting social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. The international community, over the past two decades, has invested a large amount of human and material capital in peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding initiatives. Our collective experience in dealing with these conflicts shows that without peace, development suffers. At the same time, the lack of development and prospects for economic progress creates fertile ground for violence and instability, which further set back development. The unevenness of the development process and the disparities prevailing on a regional, national, and global scale feed into a vicious cycle. Our efforts should therefore focus on promoting development for all by encouraging economic activity and enhancing livelihood security. India brings to this table almost 60 years of experience in overcoming many of the challenges of transforming a colonial legacy into a modern dynamic nation of a billion people who are trying to meet their aspirations within a democratic system dedicated to the rule of law. India has taken significant steps designed to accelerate the range and depth of welfare and social justice programmes. In recent years, they include the assurance of 100 days of employment to every person living in rural areas, the enactment of the Right to Information Act to help our citizens to become more aware, the right to education to help every Indian share in the benefits of the country’s economic progress and also to contribute to it, and the initiative for reservation for women in Parliament and in state legislatures to ensure equal partnership of women in our progress and the increase in reservation for women to 50 per cent in local bodies. Development has to be accompanied by inclusivity and tolerance. In that context, I quote the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh: “The goal of the development process must be to include every last member of our society, particularly those who are at the margins. This not only broadens the support base for development, it also strengthens the Government’s ability to perform its core developmental roles.” The lessons of inclusivity can also be applied to international efforts in the maintenance of peace and security. The process of implementing a peace agreement must run along with the provision of humanitarian and emergency assistance, resumption of economic activity and the creation of political and administrative institutions that improve governance and include all stakeholders, particularly the weak and the underprivileged. We are greatly encouraged by the African Union’s efforts to develop post-conflict reconstruction capacities. The success of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development — NEPAD — and the African Peer Review Mechanism has lessons that are relevant to national ownership. The international community needs to ensure a predictable and enhanced flow of resources. It is instructive to note that the United Nations peacekeeping budget, which is about $8 billion annually, is more than the combined budgets of the United Nations Development Programme and UNICEF. It is obvious that development expenditures need to be enhanced greatly if they are to make a dent on security problems. We also need to ensure that collective security mechanisms intersect with our collective efforts for economic progress to mitigate the causes of persistent insecurity at a global level. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi once said that “A nation’s strength ultimately consists in what it can do on its own, and not in what it can borrow from others”. The international community can encourage, motivate and facilitate. It cannot impose solutions. The temptation to create a new orthodoxy, of talking down rather than of listening, must be avoided at all costs. No country has contributed as many peacekeepers to as many peacekeeping operations as India. Our peacekeepers have been early peacebuilders. We are also committed to contribute, bilaterally and multilaterally, to development initiatives. To that end, we are working through the IBSA — India, Brazil and South Africa — mechanism, with the African Union and with regional African groupings to promote South- South perspectives on development and security. The international structure for maintaining peace and security and peacebuilding needs to be reformed. Global powers and the capacities to address problems are much more dispersed than they were six decades ago. The current framework must address these realities. We understand the expectations that accompany our Council membership. We are acutely conscious of the need for effective coordination between the Permanent Five and the elected members, especially those whose credentials for permanent membership stand acknowledged. On issues concerning international peace and security, all of us are on the same page. I am happy to note that this process of closer cooperation is making headway. I would like to conclude by reaffirming India’s commitment to making its vast experience in more than six decades of nation-building available to global efforts towards greater development and improved security.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Paul Bunduku-Latha, Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Gabon.

Allow me first of all to pay tribute to you, Mr. President, and to your country, Brazil, for the initiative of holding this ministerial debate on the interdependence between security and development in the framework of the maintenance of international peace and security. On behalf of the delegation of Gabon and its Government, I wish to thank His Excellency Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General, for his steady commitment to peace and development in the world. I also wish to thank my friend, Mr. Eugene-Richard Gasana, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for his statement, and Ms. Sarah Cliffe for the quality of her report on conflicts and for the relevance of her statement. The end of the cold war announced a new era of international peace and security, but since then new forms of conflict have appeared. Those new conflicts have taken the form of internal crises to which are added threats to peace and security such as terrorism, drugs, international organized crime and the proliferation of small arms. In that context, we wish to point out that during his term of office President Omar Bongo Ondimba spared no effort in devoting himself, through diverse mediation efforts, to resolving conflicts in the subregion of Central Africa and the Great Lakes. The success of his action was based on a consistent method of constant encouragement of dialogue, tolerance and peace. Moreover, Gabon, with its counterparts in Central Africa, has contributed to setting up instruments to prevent and resolve conflicts and build peace. Following the same lines, the President of the Republic, His Excellency Mr. Ali Bongo Ondimba, is continuing the work of his illustrious predecessor. In that regard, his social programme, based on the triad of peace, development and sharing, remains the perfect illustration of the inseparable link between security and development. It is illusory to imagine development without solidarity. Likewise, no State can achieve development without taking the concepts of peace and security into account. As Pope Paul VI once stated, the new name of peace is development. This is therefore the opportunity to underscore that it is in the best interest of States to support social cohesion by promoting the well-being of populations and policies conducive to strengthening basic infrastructure and improving living conditions. Indeed, the populations of the world aspire not only to live in peace and security, but also to a prosperous existence through their active participation in the economic and social development of their nations. The unemployment of young people, shortcomings in the education and heath-care systems, and the absence of economic prospects and a reliable social security can become destabilizing factors in the long term. Equally disturbing, in many countries terrorism continues to feed on the distress of populations and today is one of the greatest threats to international peace and security. Recent events clearly show the extent to which insecurity can give rise to demands for deep-seated social and political change. Thus, in many countries, we have seen hunger strikes degenerate into popular uprisings with destabilizing effects on peace and security. Security and development are not therefore only requirements, but remain closely linked and are two sides of the same reality. In that regard, if we accept that poverty or the absence of development is the cause of conflicts, we can also assert that wide-spread destitution significantly increases the risks of instability and violence. Furthermore, while crises and violence alone do not explain the absence of economic and social development in nations, nevertheless they hinder development. On behalf of the Government of Gabon, I am therefore delighted to note that the topic chosen here, the interdependence between security and development in the maintenance of international peace and security, is in line with the policy advocated by President Ali Bongo Ondimba, who also attaches particular importance to issues regarding the improvement of the status of women, widows, orphans and people with disabilities, the fight against pandemics and the environment. In parallel, good governance, social justice, the rule of law, respect for national laws and human rights, freedom of expression, pluralistic democracy, the fight against corruption, as well as the acceptance of the results of free and transparent elections, are certainly essential factors for stable States and dynamic development. With regard to State ownership in post-conflict situations, the conclusions of the debate on institution- building of 21 January, under the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, (see S/PV.6472), stressed its importance. Indeed, national ownership of the peace process is essential to restoring security and promoting development. The restoration of such States will be even more sustainable if it is based on the capacities of their populations and on the credibility of their institutions. Moreover, such States must ensure the effective control over their natural resources, since the illegal exploitation and trade of such resources hinder development and peace. My delegation remains convinced of the need to include in political processes all national actors, public and private, including civil society. Likewise, close cooperation among all national and international actors is essential to the successful efforts of our States. That is why we are convinced that better coordination among all bodies of the United Nations system will enable States to achieve the economic and social development crucial to lasting peace. Security and development are two concepts that share close dynamic links, both conceptually and in practice. One aims to increase the freedom of choice, while the other allows those choices to be made in a secure environment. It would therefore seem crucial for the United Nations to give a more central role to conflict prevention in their international policy and security strategy. Our debate today shares that logic. That is why my country, Gabon, remains firmly committed to conflict prevention as the preferred instrument to promote harmonious peace, security and development among nations. Finally, before concluding, allow me to thank you, Mr. President, for the draft presidential statement submitted for adoption and for which I reiterate my delegation’s support.

I now give the floor to the representative of South Africa.

We wish to congratulate the delegation of Brazil for organizing this debate on the maintenance of international peace and security focusing on interdependence between security and development. We welcome His Excellency Minister Antonio Patriota to the Council, and are pleased to see him presiding over this meeting. We acknowledge the presence and participation of the Foreign Ministers of India, Germany, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Portugal, and the Vice Minister of Gabon at this meeting. Unfortunately, my Foreign Minister, Ms. Nkoana-Mashabane, could not be with us today. She sends her best wishes, and is confident of the positive outcomes of this meeting. We also thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, the Chairman of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) His Excellency Mr. Eugène-Richard Gasana, Permanent Representative of Rwanda, and the World Bank Special Representative, Ms. Cliffe, for their informative contributions. We thank the delegation of Brazil for its concept paper for this debate (S/2011/50, annex). My delegation will focus on five key areas, namely, the changing nature of conflicts and the nexus between security and development, the role of regional organizations, South-South cooperation, integrated approaches, and resource mobilization and coordination. Since 1945, the United Nations has been seized with the task and responsibility of addressing the critical issues of peace, security, human rights and development within the framework of the Organization’s Charter. The United Nations report “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”, highlighted that: “Not only are development, security and human rights all imperative; they also reinforce each other … [W]e will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development, and we will not enjoy either without respect for human rights. Unless all these causes are advanced, none will succeed”. (A/59/2005, paras. 16 and 17) In that context, South Africa is convinced that peace and stability in the world will remain elusive if we do not address the nexus between security and development. As a result of that conviction, we see our own development as inextricably linked to the peace and security of the southern African region, the African continent and the rest of the world. The nature of contemporary conflicts reveals that such conflicts are, to a large extent, precipitated by dispute-related economic development issues, including access to mineral resources, the disproportionate distribution of wealth and power, bad governance, the lack of people’s participation in democratic processes, and corruption, to mention but a few. In the context of Africa, the illegal exploitation of natural resources has contributed to the fuelling of conflicts. As a consequence of that reality, it is important to assist countries emerging from conflict to manage and redistribute the revenues derived from those resources in a manner that enhances people’s livelihoods. Consideration of the interdependence of security and development in the work of the Security Council on the maintenance of international peace and security does not necessarily mean the Council taking over the developmental functions undertaken by other bodies within the United Nations system. It simply means that the Council should take social and development issues into account in relevant deliberations within its Charter mandate. South Africa is of the view that it is vital to integrate developmental aspects in international efforts in the areas of conflict prevention, resolution and management and post-conflict peacebuilding. In that regard, we welcome the efforts of the United Nations interdepartmental Framework Team on Early Warning and Prevention and the ongoing review of the Economic and Social Council. We also welcome the work of other members of the international community, including the international financial institutions, in particular the World Bank, as important and critical partners in sustaining peace efforts with development in countries emerging from conflicts. Equally, we emphasize the importance of context-specific and nationally owned interventions, such as the poverty reduction strategies. In addition, the international private sector and institutions should be involved in development efforts to reinvigorate the lives of the populace by providing jobs, especially for vulnerable groups, such as young people and demobilized and demilitarized armed groups, in an attempt to create sustainable livelihoods. In this connection, the importance of building sustainable social safety systems cannot be overemphasized. Development requires a significant amount of resources that most post-conflict countries do not have. In light of this fact, we encourage the international community to make available sufficient, timely and predictable resources for post-conflict peacebuilding and development programmes. The establishment of the PBC in 2005 was a recognition of the need to fill the gap between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, thus complementing the interdependence between security and development. Similarly, we welcome the recognition by the Security Council of the link between peace, security and development, which is reflected in the integrated approaches to peacekeeping today. In this context, we appreciate the fact that some United Nations peacekeeping and political missions, including the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and others, have civilian components that are structured under development and security pillars. The Council is unified in welcoming the outcome of the historic Southern Sudan referendum. The international community should be cognizant of the huge development needs of a new, independent South Sudan. A future successor mission to the United Nations Mission in the Sudan will have to incorporate a strong element of State-, institution- and capacity- building in its mandate, while addressing issues of security, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, and security sector reform, among others. South Africa also calls for a strengthened and enhanced cooperation and information-sharing between the Security Council and other United Nations bodies, such as the PBC, the Economic and Social Council and the United Nations Development Programme, aimed at concretizing the crucial interdependence between security and development. My delegation strongly supports the call for greater coherence, coordination and interaction between various United Nations organs and agencies. We encourage the Council to seize the opportunity and make optimum use of the advisory role of the PBC in relation to socio-economic and other peacebuilding matters. We also encourage close coordination between all stakeholders, including the inclusion of women and civil society in peacebuilding and development issues. Regional and subregional organizations have a crucial role to play in efforts aimed at promoting the nexus between security and development. The African Union (AU) has, over the years, shown commitment to resolving African conflicts and promoting socio-economic development on the continent. In this context, the stabilization of Africa needs to be anchored in concrete socio-economic development programmes. The AU has adopted the New Partnership for Africa’s Development as a key mechanism for the achievement of this socio-economic development paradigm. Further, the AU has adopted a post-conflict, reconstruction and development programme as one tool to promote reconstructive development programmes in countries emerging from conflict and to offer peace dividends that hold better hope for anchoring peace and stability. The creation of regional economic communities at the subregional level and the development of conflict-resolution mechanisms within these structures are crucial steps towards sustainable peace through sustainable economic development. South Africa continues to work through bilateral, trilateral and multilateral forums towards the advancement of development as a long-term measure for preventing conflicts. Within the South-South realm, the India, Brazil and South Africa mechanism plays an important development role through projects in Haiti, Palestine, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi and Sierra Leone, among other countries. Additionally, South Africa is currently in the process of establishing a South African development partnership agency, which will play a significant role in supporting socio-economic and human resource development in the countries of the South, particularly in Africa, including through trilateral cooperation with the countries of the North. In conclusion, my delegation supports the adoption of the draft presidential statement on this crucial topic at the end of this meeting. We hope that today’s debate will highlight the importance of development aspects in dealing with conflict situations that the Council is seized with, and thus enhance the work of this body.

I give the floor to the representative of China.

At the outset, I wish to thank Brazil for its initiative to convene this open debate on the important issue of the interdependence between security and development. I welcome the presence of His Excellency Foreign Minister Patriota in the Council Chamber to preside over this meeting. I thank Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Ambassador Gasana, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and Ms. Cliffe, Special Representative of the World Bank, for their statements. Security and development are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. Security is a prerequisite for development, and development is possible only in a peaceful and stable environment. Development is a guarantee of security. Sustainable peace is possible only through the maintenance of development momentum. The maintenance of peace and the promotion of development are important, Charter- driven mandates of the United Nations. The Security Council must attach great importance to the nexus between security and development. I wish to emphasize the following five points. First, we must increase input into development and eradicate the sources of conflict. Poverty and underdevelopment are the major root causes that trigger conflict and breed terrorism. The international community, and the United Nations in particular, must place greater emphasize on promoting the international development agenda. Developed countries must further increase their development assistance, provide debt relief to developing countries, open their markets, transfer technology, and help developing countries to achieve the Millennium Development Goals as soon as possible. Secondly, development must be anchored in environments free of war and turbulence. The United Nations and the Security Council should vigourously promote the culture of peace and encourage and support the peaceful settlement of disputes through dialogue, consultation, good offices and mediation. The use or threat of use of force must be avoided in international relations. Thirdly, greater emphasis must be placed on peacebuilding so as to prevent relapses into conflict. In post-conflict countries or regions, progress must be made simultaneously on the political, security and development fronts throughout the development and reconstruction process. Capacity-building efforts must be expedited in post-conflict countries in order to enhance governance, provide basic services and advance development and reconstruction so that the population can enjoy peace dividends at the earliest opportunity. That will help to consolidate the political reconciliation process and to stabilize post-conflict situations. United Nations peacekeeping operations can make greater contributions to early recovery, development and reconstruction. Fourthly, relevant United Nations agencies and international organizations responsible for security and development must enhance their coordination and form synergies. The Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, but in strengthening peacebuilding and development the PBC, the United Nations development agencies and the Bretton Woods institutions must play their roles to the full. Fifthly, the United Nations and the Security Council should pay greater attention to Africa. Seventy per cent of the items on the Council’s agenda involve Africa. The interconnections between peace and development are most pronounced in Africa. There can be no international prosperity or stability without peace and development in Africa. The international community must provide greater support to Africa’s development and greater assistance to individual African countries, the African Union and other regional and subregional organizations in order to maintain peace and security in Africa.

I give the floor to the representative of Nigeria.

My first words must be to thank the Brazilian presidency for the choice of theme for this debate. Since the 1992 Rio Summit, Brazil has demonstrated undisputed leadership on the question of security and development. We believe that leadership remains strong as we prepare for the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. The Council has often called for an integrated approach to issues of peace, security and development. This debate takes us a step closer to realizing that aspiration. I also want to thank the Secretary-General for his useful briefing, as well as Ms. Cliffe for the insight she has provided on this complex and multi-faceted issue. I also welcome and thank my colleague Ambassador Gasana for his significant contribution. Although development is not strictly within the scope of the Security Council’s remit, we recognize not only the inextricable linkage but also the interdependence between security and development. Our work, whether it relates to peacekeeping, peacebuilding or preventive diplomacy, does not and should not operate within a vacuum. In his 2005 report entitled “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all” (A/59/2005), then Secretary-General Kofi Annan told us, as the South African Ambassador has already pointed out, that we would not enjoy development without security, we would not enjoy security without development and we would not enjoy either without respect for human rights. At the 2005 World Summit, our leaders stressed the need to translate that conceptual understanding into concrete actions in the field and in the Security Council — which, I must point out, is well-placed to promote that process. In championing development efforts in tandem with activities related directly to peace and security, we in fact further our conflict- prevention objectives, which go to the very core of our Charter obligations. The draft presidential statement before us today recognizes that allowing space for national actors to determine security and development priorities early enough will no doubt ensure sustained goodwill and sustained impact alike. It is our duty to remember that, in securing any society, we are but one actor among many committed to the long-term stability of that nation. That long-term perspective is crucial, as guarding against a relapse into conflict preserves the gains from development, which are frequently among the first casualties of war. Indeed, the complementarity between security and development can also lead to more efficient deployment of efforts and resources towards achieving development and security. Moreover, by standing on points of principle such as the full participation of women in peace and governance processes, the provision of youth employment and the promotion of human rights we can assist a society emerging from conflict in achieving lasting peace. Our work here in the Council is very pivotal to strengthening Governments, civil society and the private sector in readiness for an orderly transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding and, ultimately, to a timely exit and the sustenance of peace. Although the task of maintaining a peaceful and just society is the primary responsibility of national Governments, the expertise that the United Nations system can provide to societies at a tipping point can make an immense difference. I wish to highlight the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) as a key interlocutor in that regard. Sierra Leone is a concrete example of how the PBC can bring all relevant international and national actors together to settle upon a long-term peacebuilding strategy. The momentum following last year’s PBC review must not be lost. It is our sincere hope that the Security Council will have a stronger relationship with the PBC. Many developing countries, including those experiencing recent unrest, are home to large youth populations that place pressure on already strained labour markets, which is a point well made in the concept note to the World Bank’s 2011 World Development Report. Such problems are exacerbated by the march of globalization, which has not only increased overall global wealth but has also led to more uneven distribution of wealth within countries, regions and the world as a whole. The challenges of the security-development paradigm are starkly in evidence in Somalia, for example, where it is widely recognized that youth unemployment, poverty and weak governance are the major contributing factors in the persistent piracy problem. Development activities can help to rehabilitate economies, thereby playing a critical conflict-prevention role. It is therefore important that United Nations agencies directly engaged in development possess the resources and political backing to be effective. Nigeria takes very seriously its responsibility to facilitate peace through development. In 2009, 0.7 million units of account of debt relief under the Nigeria Trust Fund was approved for Burundi and Togo. Easing fiscal pressure in that way may create room for home- grown development activities. In addition, within the Economic Community of West African States, we have provided enormous support to Guinea-Bissau and other members in diverse ways, including concessionary sales of crude oil. Those measures are aimed at promoting subregional economic integration as the bedrock for lasting peace in our subregion. The Security Council has the challenge and opportunity to promote security policies that integrate development in order to progressively rid humankind of the scourge of war. Through our work in that regard we can help countries avoid conflict altogether and reap the benefits of development. All peoples deserve freedom from want as well as freedom from violence. Development is therefore in itself freedom. However, if we fail to recognize the impact that our policies have on a society’s path to development and larger freedom, I submit that we leave our task only half done. Let me emphasize that the consideration of the development-security paradigm in the Council today should by no means be regarded as an attempt to duplicate the work of either the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council. Rather, it provides the missing political link that is so essential to promoting synergy in the United Nations partnership for peace, security and development. In supporting the call for a new security consensus based on the interdependence of security and development, we must recognize that development is indeed a foundation for peace. We hope that the Council will build on today’s debate to harness its role in helping countries transition from war to irreversible and sustained peace. That is a plea for genuine cooperation, and indeed an appeal to make good on our commitment to deliver as one in the United Nations family.

I now give the floor to the representative of the United States.

The United States would like to express its appreciation to you, Mr. President, for organizing today’s meeting on this important issue. We would also like to thank the Secretary-General, Ambassador Gasana and Ms. Cliffe for their thoughtful remarks. The links between security and development are complex but compelling. Stalled development and violent conflict deal a double blow to far too many people and countries. Conflict and violence impoverish and severely undermine development gains through displacement, disease and desperation. While there has been an unparalleled drop in global poverty in recent years, countries devastated by conflict and violence have been left out of that trend. The statistics are stark, as we understand from the World Bank’s and other recent studies. A person from a country in conflict, compared to one from any other developing country, is more than twice as likely to be undernourished; more than three times as likely to be unable to send her children to school; twice as likely to see her children die before they reach the age of five and twice as likely to lack access to clean water. And no low-income, conflict-affected country is on track to meet a single Millennium Development Goal. Poverty and the lack of economic opportunities also contribute to violence, as President Obama said at the Millennium Development summit last September (see A/65/PV.9). When millions of fathers cannot provide for their families, it feeds the despair that can fuel instability and violent extremism. We have heard today that combating both poverty and conflict requires us to prioritize core State capacities, especially the rule of law, justice and security, and to create jobs and immediate economic opportunities. We have also heard about the need to bring women into decision-making on key political, security and economic issues. The United States could not agree more. We see these issues at play in almost every conflict situation before the Council. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, one of the chief priorities of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission is to help strengthen the justice sector through training Congolese police officers and supporting magistrates in courts. In Liberia, we strongly supported the Government’s attention to rural electrification as a key confidence-building measure, and also welcomed the Peacebuilding Commission’s support for Monrovia’s initial efforts to improve rural communities’ access to trained police and magistrates. In Afghanistan, we have urged for international efforts to focus on reviving the country’s once-vibrant agricultural sector, in order to create sustained economic alternatives to narcotics production. In Haiti, the United Nations Stabilization Mission has done important work with the Haitian national police to build community confidence and strengthen the rule of law. We have urged consistently that attention be paid to building core national capacities because we see that, until the basic infrastructure of peace is in place, countries will be blocked from progress. Twenty years ago we were just beginning to understand the links between security and development. A little more than 10 years ago, we began systematically incorporating peacebuilding elements into peacekeeping mandates. Five years ago, we created the Peacebuilding Commission to promote coherence and coordination between security and development actors. And, in the past two years, we have held eight separate thematic debates on peacebuilding and related issues. And yet we are still not where we need to be. Ninety per cent of today’s conflicts arise in countries where we have been unsuccessful in consolidating peace after prior wars. There are no easy answers here, and we should not overestimate the international community’s role in rectifying deep-seated problems that may have festered for decades. Peace is ultimately in a country’s own hands. But we must do more. A few areas are particularly ripe for fresh thinking. First, while national actors bear the primary responsibility for rebuilding their countries, they often seek timely assistance from genuine international experts. We have been encouraged by early briefings about the forthcoming international review of civilian capacity, which emphasizes more diverse and flexible arrangements for international civilian support to crucial State-building tasks. We look forward to considering the report’s recommendations as we review peacekeeping operations. Secondly, we see scope for new ways for United Nations peace operations to have a positive impact on daily life within their host communities: for example, by using spare engineering capacity to fix a road or clear debris, or increasing local procurement to help revitalize the local economy. We need to be open to such ideas, while also not insisting that peacekeepers undertake key development tasks that others may be more qualified or mandated to do. Thirdly, the United Nations on its own does not have the resources or capacity to help fully rebuild Government institutions in the aftermath of conflict. We are therefore pleased that the World Bank was invited to brief us today. The Security Council needs a robust and continuing dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions, multilateral development banks and major donors, which will often underwrite key dimensions of recovery. Last December, the United States presided over a special Security Council event on voices of a new generation. Young people from around the world sent in e-mails and videos repeating a common refrain: they long for peace, they worry about conditions that could ignite conflict and they see a clear link between security and development. Through the debate you have convened today, Mr. President, the Security Council is demonstrating that their voices are being heard.

I now give the floor to the representative of the Russian Federation.

We are pleased to welcome you, Mr. Minister, as President of the Security Council. In today’s interdependent world, development issues are closely linked to security issues. The Russian Federation views sustainable social and economic development as an essential element of today’s collective security system. Global challenges and problems in the area of development — such as destitution and poverty, population migration, limited access to water, energy and food resources, the illegal arms trade, infectious disease pandemics, natural catastrophes and environmental and man-made disasters — can all have negative consequences for peace, stability and security, and, in some cases, the potential for international conflict. These problems should of course be dealt with in depth by the relevant specialized agencies of the United Nations system and its partners. In addition, something else that could be essential is the possibility set forth in the Charter of the United Nations for presenting to the Security Council special reports of the Economic and Social Council, which is responsible for coordinating activities in the socio-economic sector of our universal Organization. It is our view that the basic prerogative of the Security Council is maintaining international peace and security using the tools it has at its disposal. It would thus help the Council carry out its tasks relating to dealing with the items on its agenda if it received the most complete and timely information possible from the other agencies of the United Nations system that are responsible for addressing socio-economic development processes at the global, regional and national levels. Interlinkages between security and development are particularly relevant for States that have experienced conflict. The development processes taking place in such countries in the areas of post- conflict stabilization and building State institutions and law-enforcement, judicial and penal systems all require adequate efforts in the areas of economic recovery and the rebuilding of physical and social infrastructure — in other words, creating a kind of safety net to protect against the recurrence of conflict. Taking those circumstances into account, the mandates of peacekeeping operations and special peacekeeping missions — in particular in Haiti, the Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and Liberia — include early peacebuilding tasks, which United Nations bodies deal with well on the whole. Experience shows that the orderly drawdown of a peacekeeping presence as a situation normalizes in many cases requires concurrent active and targeted actions in the area of peacebuilding. Peacebuilding activities and development planning rely on the principle of national responsibility for determining priorities and approaches to implementation. A key component of successful post- conflict peacebuilding is the creation and strengthening of national institutional capacity. The United Nations plays a special role in coordinating international efforts at post-conflict and socio-economic recovery. The Organization has acquired vast experience in this area, although this activity gives rise to new challenges, requires the existence of well-trained and qualified personnel and dictates the need for coordinated activities by the Secretariat, United Nations funds and programmes, Member States, regional organizations and international financial institutions at United Nations Headquarters, its various offices and in the field. In that regard, a particularly relevant factor would be to strengthen the coordinating functions of the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General who head United Nations peacekeeping operations and political missions. Another aspect whose potential should be fully utilized is the Peacebuilding Commission, in close cooperation with the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. In conclusion, I would like to express our appreciation to the delegation of Brazil for preparing the draft presidential statement on the subject of today’s meeting, which is a useful contribution to our joint work in this important area.

I now give the floor to the representative of Lebanon.

I would like to thank the delegation of Brazil for organizing this important debate, the first of its kind in the Security Council. Today represents a valuable opportunity to discuss the question of interdependence between security and development. Therefore, allow me to thank Their Excellencies the Ministers from Germany, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Portugal, India and Gabon for joining us, and as well to thank Ambassador Gasana and Ms. Cliffe for their valuable contributions. The United Nations, the Bretton Woods institutions, the African Union, the European Union and the Organization of the Islamic Conference have all acknowledged that in an increasingly interconnected world, there is no security without development and no development without security. Despite that broad conceptual acknowledgment, the political debate continues, first, on the nature of the security-development nexus; secondly, on the types of policies that should be pursued to achieve durable peace, security and sustainable development, including to address the root causes and drivers of conflicts; and thirdly, on the way forward for the Security Council to prevent the eruption or protraction of, or relapse into, violence, given the changing nature of conflicts and the security-development nexus, as well expressed in the concept note prepared by the Mission of Brazil (S/2011/50, annex). Since the end of the cold war, conflicts have been affecting more civilians, as they have become increasingly entangled with the collapse of State structures, ethnic rivalries, human rights violations and acts of terrorism. Therefore, since 1990 the Council has authorized the deployment of 49 peacekeeping missions, compared with only 18 between 1945 and 1989. These missions have faced many challenges on the ground, including the severe developmental consequences of armed conflict, particularly among vulnerable populations, whereby societies experiencing civil war and large-scale, violent crime generally achieve lower development outcomes, as expressed in the Concept Note for the World Development Report 2011. The Note also sheds light on some of the root causes of conflict, many of which have developmental dimensions. Indeed, environments with high risks of violence are typically characterized by corruption, inequalities, conflict over natural resources, poverty, high unemployment, weak socio-economic institutions and governance, and vulnerability to shocks. Furthermore, climate change and its environmental consequences are likely to increase the risk of war and conflict, due to the stress they exert on already scarce resources. Given the interdependence between security and development, peacebuilding has emerged as an important tool for bridging the gap between them. In this context, the Security Council noted as early as 2001 “the need for enhancing peace-building activities by formulating a strategy based on the interdependence between sustainable peace, security and development in all its dimensions” (S/PRST/2001/5, seventh para.). For example, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, peacekeeping mandates have increasingly incorporated peacebuilding tasks. The seminar on United Nations peacekeeping held in Rio de Janeiro in June 2010 recognized that peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts should be implemented in parallel and that peacebuilding should include socio-economic activities, such as youth employment generation, the development of infrastructure and the provision of basic services, which can reduce the risk of relapse into conflict and help maintain stability. For all the reasons mentioned thus far, one cannot deny the need to promote sustainable development to achieve sustainable peace. Development is a key component in conflict prevention, post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding. Peace cannot be sustained without job creation, equitable ownership of assets, empowerment of women and adequate allocation of resources. Moreover, peace cannot be sustained without enabling a country’s leadership, through appropriate resources, technical capacity and the support of the international community, to unlock those dividends. In that context, we note the example of Burundi. As the Secretary-General clearly stated in his latest report, “Peace, justice and the rule of law cannot be sustained without development.” (S/2010/608, para. 71) Let me also mention that the Taif Accord of 1989 — which helped put an end to 15 years of war and violence in my country, Lebanon — illustrates how development can play an important role in post-conflict recovery and peacebuilding. Indeed, one of the foundations of that Accord is the principle of balanced development. Furthermore, key agreed-upon reforms included the need to draw a comprehensive and balanced development plan to foster socio-economic development. The Accord also provided for the creation of a socio-economic council for development to enable greater participation of the various socio- economic actors. Another key reform is the commitment to provide education for all, including mandatory primary education and restructuring of the public education system to meet the country’s developmental needs and foster social cohesion. Experience in Haiti and with other peacekeeping missions has led some troop-contributing countries to the conclusion that mandates need to be adjusted to better reflect the development mission. Once more, the seminar held in Rio supported that conclusion and acknowledged that peacekeepers ought to be involved in socio-economic development activities. Therefore, when socio-economic issues are identified as drivers of conflicts, or as threats to the consolidation of peace, it becomes of the utmost importance for the Council to address those issues. That will indeed require greater cooperation with other United Nations bodies and organs, the international financial institutions and regional and subregional organizations, based on the principle of comparative advantage.

I give the floor to the representative of the United Kingdom. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): We are grateful to you, Sir, and to the Brazilian presidency for bringing to the Council today the issue of the relationship between security and development. It was good to see the many honourable Ministers in the Council, as well as Ambassador Gasana in his first appearance in his role as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission. I would also like to thank the Secretary- General and Sarah Cliffe from the World Bank for their briefings. The links between security and development are clear cut. Countries affected by conflict and violence have fallen far behind in development. No low-income, fragile or conflict-affected country has yet achieved a single one of the Millennium Development Goals. And as we discussed last month in the debate on institution- building (see S/PV.6472 and Resumption 1), under the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, fragility and conflict are symptoms of institutional failure to manage stress, whether that be high unemployment, organized crime, political disputes or climate change. Building stronger links between security and development is therefore critical for preventing conflict and building sustainable peace. We have been grappling with these issues in the United Nations for many years, particularly in the peacebuilding arena. The creation of the peacebuilding architecture was the result of the failure to bring critical political, security and development components of the international community together to address the needs of a country emerging from conflict. The Peacebuilding Commission has started to provide this glue for the countries on its agenda, and we need to continue to strengthen the Commission. The Secretary-General’s report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict (S/2010/386*) has also helped to highlight the need for improved leadership, planning and financing. And we are waiting for the review of civilian capacities. But are we now getting the right response on the ground, in places such as the Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo? We need to be assured that the United Nations is geared up to deliver assistance, so that there is a rapid progress to build people’s confidence in the peace process and in State authorities. We have heard from Sarah Cliffe this morning that creating confidence and trust is key. That requires building institutions that can generate security, justice and jobs. We also need to ensure that longer-term institutional reform gets under way quickly so that the causes of conflict are addressed, mechanisms to resolve disputes peacefully are in place and States are both able to respond to public expectations and are accountable. If we are to achieve this, I believe we should focus on four issues in particular in the coming months. First, we need better integration of efforts. Peacekeeping missions and the United Nations funds and programmes should plan together. We need a clear sense of who is doing what, based on a realistic assessment of capacities, competence and the sequencing of action. Secondly, there must be a clearer delineation of roles and responsibilities for the core peacebuilding sectors. Without this, we will not get the right investment to ensure predictable and professional response. This is ever more important in an environment where resources are constrained. We do not want peacekeepers drifting into development work. That is neither their mandate nor their field of expertise. Third, and in response to this, development partners should engage earlier. This means Member States themselves sending consistent signals about priorities in their engagement in the boards of the funds and programmes We should ensure that the agencies have the flexibility to be able to scale up action quickly enough to meet demands on the ground. Lastly, we look forward to the release of the World Development Report. This will give critical insights into the issue we are discussing today. We hope that it will also stimulate better links between the United Nations and the World Bank in fragile and post- conflict countries. We need the World Bank to come actively alongside the United Nations to support peacebuilding. Perhaps one way to help realize this is for the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the President of the World Bank to undertake a joint visit to a number of post-conflict countries. The United Kingdom stands ready to support the Secretary-General in this important endeavour.

I now give the floor to the representative of France.

I thank you, Sir, for having organized this debate. I will address two points: first, the particular links between security and development, and then the specific case of peacekeeping operations. First, the links between security and development. While there is no unequivocal relationship between economic growth and international security, the unequal distribution of wealth and the marginalization of particular groups or vulnerable regions are often factors in a conflict, particularly intrastate conflict. Other factors can be sources of conflict, including competition for access to basic resources such as water or agricultural land and rivalry for control over precious raw materials and energy resources. More recently, new threats to security have emerged. I will cite two examples. First is climate change, which can have tragic consequences for people and countries. This is why France and the European Union urge the community of nations to redouble efforts on the basis of the momentum launched at Cancún last December. Second is the issue of food security and the volatility of agricultural prices, which have destabilizing effects. That is one of France’s priorities during its presidency of the Group of 20. The French Minister of Agriculture will be in New York next week for the General Assembly before organizing a ministerial meeting of the G-20 on this topic. In turn, the need for security as a prerequisite for development is well established. In post-conflict situations, national capacity-building in the area of security in keeping with norms for the rule of law is essential in order to establish favourable conditions for development. For example, in a number of countries where the economy relies almost entirely on the work of women, there is a direct link between security and development. When insecurity prevents women from going out to the fields, the ability of families to survive is compromised. That in turn can lead to further escalation in violence. Development actors must therefore take the safeguarding of security into account in their strategies. For all of those reasons, it is the responsibility of the international community to establish conditions for shared and sustainable development that limit the risk of conflicts breaking out, or continuing. Thus the Peacebuilding Commission, in the countries on its agenda, has made the emancipation of young people and women one of its priorities, alongside security sector reform, as both factors contribute to stability. In the same spirit, the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations must all play their role in seeking to improve effectiveness and coordination of their activities on the ground. Here we note the important contribution of the European Union, the leading donor of development aid, accounting for almost 60 per cent of the aid provided by the member States of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), totalling approximately €50 billion. To take a well- known example, the European Union spends in Somalia one quarter of the €215 million devoted to development just on security capacity support. Nonetheless, we must not lose sight of the responsibilities of States themselves. Respect for the law, good governance, the strengthening of civil society and the economic integration of marginalized populations — which can be achieved first and foremost through decisions taken by national authorities — are determining factors for peace and security. I shall now turn to the specific case of peacekeeping operations, where we must draw on three principles for action. First, we must give greater attention at an earlier stage to the link between security and development. This Council has several times affirmed the need not only to ensure the security of a given area but also to support the political processes as soon as possible and to support the national institutions, particularly in the areas of the rule of law and security. We therefore believe that the links between security and development needs must be taken into consideration as early as possible, starting with the drafting of the mandate for the operation by the Security Council. The implementation of security sector reform and of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes will be effective only if they are carried out in the framework of an improvement of the living conditions of the population. Secondly, there is the adaptation of tools to situations. We are convinced of the need to give greater attention to development aspects in the peacekeeping mandates. I will refer to two examples. The Blue Helmets of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, among whom the Brazilian contingent plays a remarkable role, ensure security and take on a number of civilian tasks in logistics and health support, which are necessary in reconstruction and development. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is supporting the authorities in their efforts to clean up the mining sector in order to prevent the plunder of resources. At the same time, the central factor of peacekeeping operations must remain that of maintaining peace and security. Other stakeholders, including United Nations agencies and bilateral partners, have as their mission to take on the tasks more directly related to development. It is therefore essential to clarify the tasks and responsibilities of each party in the framework of a coherent and comprehensive strategy. Thirdly, let me address the coordination of partners and national ownership. Aid provided the international community, be it multilateral, regional or bilateral, must be coordinated and integrated as part of a strategy set out in close coordination with the host country. National ownership by the country concerned in that strategy is the fundamental prerequisite for addressing the underlying causes of instability. The Peacebuilding Commission carries out such activities through integrated strategies in collaboration with the countries on its agenda. Such coordination is crucial in the transition phases when responsibilities are transferred to host countries once they are capable of taking on again all the prerogatives linked to sovereignty. That is a condition for achieving lasting peace on the ground. The links between security and development are proven, numerous and complex, calling not only for a comprehensive, coherent and coordinated strategy but also for determination and subtlety on our part. I therefore once again thank you, Sir, for having organized this important debate, which will allow us to further our reflection on strengthening international peace and security.

I will now make a statement in my capacity as the Minister of External Relations of Brazil. I am greatly pleased that Council members have adopted such a positive response to our proposed debate on the interdependence among peace, security and development. In addition to thanking the Secretary-General, the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and the representative of the World Bank for their statements, I would particularly like to thank the Ministers of Germany, Colombia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Portugal and India and the Vice Minister of Gabon for their presence among us today. Allow me to start by making a brief historical digression before looking at some of today’s challenges and suggesting courses of action. As we are all keenly aware, the United Nations was created to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war by avoiding a repetition of the mistakes made after World War I. An important aspect of that approach involved parallel initiatives aimed at creating improved economic and social conditions for the recovery of the countries that had been most severely ravaged by World War II, whether they had been the victors or not. Instrumental in the success of that effort was the Marshall Plan, which embodied the notion that a more stable and peaceful international order required not only a credible system of collective security, but also what we might call a recovery or development agenda. Even though the term “development” was not in use then, the Charter of the United Nations already incorporated the idea of interdependence between peace, security and development. Article 55, on international economic and social cooperation, states that: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development”. In subsequent years, the concept of development was further refined through the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean — ECLAC — and the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD. In the aftermath of the decolonization process, demands for improved terms of trade and increased development assistance would motivate, in the 1970s, the adoption of a General Assembly resolution calling for a new international economic order (resolution S-VI/3201). The right to development was recognized in a General Assembly declaration in 1986 (resolution 41/128, annex), and in 2000, the General Assembly established the Millennium Development Goals, thereby calling attention to the centrality of combating poverty to our overall agenda. Over the past two decades, challenges to peace and security brought before this Council have followed new patterns. Once the East-West rivalry was superseded, many situations placed before the Council involved parts of the developing world recently emerged from colonialism in vulnerable conditions. In some cases, their plight was made worse through the proxy wars of the bipolar period. I am not implying that the most serious threats to peace are to be found today in comparatively poorer and less developed places. That would be a serious misreading of both the current international scenario and historic trends. Many of the situations we are called upon to deal with in the Security Council — from East Timor to Haiti, from Liberia to the Democratic Republic of the Congo — involve societies that do not, in and of themselves, represent a global threat to peace and security. Yet these are countries that have, to varying degrees, suffered conflict and instability in the context of pre-existing situations of poverty, unemployment and fragile institutions, among other conditions, and that deserve our differentiated attention. We are convinced that purely military or security strategies will not, by themselves, be able to adequately deal with the overwhelming majority of today’s situations of conflict. The Security Council has indeed already recognized this by incorporating reconstruction tasks into peacekeeping mandates. As early as 2001, the Council noted the need to enhance peacebuilding activities by formulating a strategy based on the interdependence among sustainable peace, security and development in all its dimensions. But the main point I would like to make in our debate today is that we can do more and we should be able to do better. We are not proposing to reconfigure the responsibilities of different United Nations organs or agencies, or to transform this Council into a development programme. Today’s debate will, in our view, achieve its objective if it contributes to raising awareness of the importance of associating development with the security strategies we conceive for sustainable peace. This is particularly relevant when dealing with situations in Africa and the Middle East and the one situation in the Americas that is part of our agenda, namely, that of Haiti. From the early stages of the development of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, Brazil, with the invaluable support our Latin American partners and others, has argued for mandates that incorporate reconstruction and peacebuilding activities in parallel with peacekeeping actions. I am particularly gratified that we are in the Council with India and South Africa, which through IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa) have been making a very important contribution — as our friend from South Africa mentioned earlier — to Haiti, the occupied Palestinian territories and several other places. The same perception has guided us in leading, for the past three years, the Peacebuilding Commission’s configuration for Guinea-Bissau, a sister lusophone country, where the linkage between security and development is very plain to see. Sustainable peace implies a comprehensive approach to security. Without economic opportunity, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration in and of themselves rarely lead to the desired results. Peacebuilding activities such as support to youth employment and the provision of basic services play an essential role in increasing support for peacekeeping missions, and therefore they have a bearing on the missions’ political sustainability on the ground. Unfortunately, we are all aware of the worrying levels of frustration sometimes associated with the presence of the United Nations in certain parts of the world. We believe this situation could improve if the Council were also to focus on the positive impacts of a well executed, integrated strategy on the part of the agencies, funds, programmes and international financial institutions. With these considerations in mind, increased cooperation by this Council with the Economic and Social Council is clearly needed, as is greater interaction between this body and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). The PBC came into being to fill an institutional gap in the United Nations. It was born out of the many bitter lessons the United Nations learned from countries lapsing and relapsing into conflict and instability. Its mission is to act as a catalyst or coordinator, within and beyond the United Nations system, for support and dedicated efforts in consolidating peace and promoting development in countries emerging from conflict, apart from its mandate as a source of advice when there is a risk of conflict. I hope today’s debate will enhance the ability of the United Nations, and this Council in particular, to help post-conflict societies move from a vicious circle of violence and instability into a virtuous circle of peace, security and development. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I have been authorized to make the following statement on behalf of the Council: “The Security Council reaffirms its primary responsibility under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security and its readiness to strive for sustainable peace in all situations under its consideration. “The Security Council underlines that security and development are closely interlinked and mutually reinforcing and are key to attaining sustainable peace. The Council recognizes that their relationship is complex, multifaceted and case-specific. “The Security Council reiterates that, in order to support a country to emerge sustainably from conflict, there is a need for a comprehensive and integrated approach that incorporates and strengthens coherence between political, security, development, human rights and rule of law activities and addresses the underlying causes of each conflict. In this regard, the Council affirms the necessity to consider relevant economic, political and social dimensions of conflict. “The Security Council affirms that national ownership and national responsibility are key to establishing sustainable peace. The Council reaffirms the primary responsibility of national authorities in identifying their priorities and strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding, with a view to ensuring national ownership. “The Security Council reemphasizes the importance of considering and initiating peacebuilding activities from the earliest stages of planning and implementation of peacekeeping operations, including through clear and achievable mandates. The Council stresses the importance of clarity of roles and responsibilities of the United Nations peacekeeping operation and the United Nations country team and other relevant actors for the delivery of prioritized support to a country consistent with its specific peacebuilding needs and priorities, as outlined by national authorities, in order to ensure effective integration of effort. The Council recommends that particular focus be given to improved integration of United Nations effort where peacekeeping missions are operating together with peacebuilding activities of other United Nations actors, such as in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Sudan. “The Security Council notes that successful implementation of the many tasks that peacekeeping operations could be mandated to undertake in the areas of security sector reform; disarmament, demobilization and reintegration; rule of law and human rights requires an understanding of and acting with a perspective which takes into account the close interlinkage between security and development. In this context, the Council notes with appreciation the contribution that peacekeepers and peacekeeping missions make to early peacebuilding, including through creating a conducive environment which enables economic recovery and the provision of basic services. The Council acknowledges that this contribution can help to establish and build confidence in the mission. “The Security Council undertakes to consider how peacekeeping operations can best support national authorities, as appropriate, to articulate peacebuilding priorities, and acting in accordance with these priorities, can both support other national and international actors to implement peacebuilding activities and undertake certain early peacebuilding tasks themselves. The Council underlines that reconstruction, economic revitalization and capacity-building constitute crucial elements for the long-term development of post-conflict societies and in generating sustainable peace, and, in this regard, attaches special importance to national ownership and stresses the significance of international assistance. “The Security Council notes that in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security under its consideration, conflict analysis and contextual information on, inter alia, social and economic issues is important, when such issues are drivers of conflict, represent a challenge to the implementation of Council mandates or endanger the process of consolidation of peace. “In this regard, the Council requests the Secretary-General to ensure that his reporting to the Council contains such contextual information. “The Security Council stresses the importance it attaches to the sustainability of peace in post-conflict situations. In this regard, it reaffirms that the overarching objective of peacekeeping missions should be to achieve success through creating the conditions for security and sustainable peace on the ground, thereby allowing for reconfiguration or withdrawal of the mission. “The Security Council recalls the role played by the illegal exploitation of natural resources in fuelling some past and current conflicts. In this regard, it recognizes that the United Nations can play a role in helping the States concerned, as appropriate, upon their request and with full respect for their sovereignty over natural resources and under national ownership, to prevent illegal access to those resources and to lay the basis for their legal exploitation with a view to promoting development, in particular through the empowerment of Governments in post-conflict situations to better manage their resources. “The Security Council encourages close cooperation within the United Nations system and with regional, subregional and other organizations on the ground and at Headquarters in order to properly engage in conflict and post- conflict situations, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter of the United Nations, and expresses its willingness to consider ways to improve such cooperation. “The Security Council underlines that integrated action on the ground by security and development actors needs to be coordinated with the national authorities and can significantly contribute to stabilizing and improving the security situation and ensuring the protection of civilians. The Council also notes the importance of cooperation with civil society in this context. The Council affirms that sustainable peace and development cannot be achieved without the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders and underlines that women must be included as active participants in all stages of peacebuilding, peace agreements and development programmes. The Council expresses its willingness to engage in dialogue, where necessary, on specific situations on its agenda with other actors, including United Nations agencies, funds and programmes and international financial institutions. “The Security Council encourages Member States, particularly those represented on the governance structures of the United Nations agencies, funds and programmes, to promote coherence in the United Nations work in conflict and post-conflict situations. “The Security Council reiterates its support for the work of the Peacebuilding Commission and its readiness to make greater use of the Commission’s advisory role. The Council further recognizes the need for coordination and dialogue with the Commission. The Council calls upon the Commission to continue to promote an integrated and coherent approach to peacebuilding and to seek to ensure that development and security- related activities supported by the Commission are mutually reinforcing. “The Security Council highlights the contribution that the Economic and Social Council can make in addressing economic, social, cultural and humanitarian issues and underlines the importance of close cooperation in accordance with Article 65 of the Charter of the United Nations.” This statement will be issued as a document of the Security Council under symbol S/PRST/2011/4. I recognize the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Costa Rica and Slovenia. I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. René Castro Salazar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica.

I would like thank the delegation of Brazil for convening this open debate. My country commends this initiative, which reflects Brazil’s international leadership and its relevant contributions to global discussions. I would like to thank the representative of the Peacebuilding Commission and the representative of the World Bank. I should also like to highlight the linkages between the subject of our discussion today and the debate on institution-building as a means of peacebuilding (see S/PV.6472), which was held on 21 January at the initiative of Bosnia and Herzegovina. That is consistent with of our commitment to human security. We therefore associate ourselves with the statement to be made by Ambassador Norachit Sinhaseni, Permanent Representative of Thailand, on behalf of the Human Security Network. Costa Rica is convinced that a better approach to the challenges of development will generate greater security, just as a more balanced and civilian-oriented approach to security generates development. The most urgent problems related to violence and insecurity more easily take root, and grow especially unmanageable, in countries and regions with a pronounced lack of opportunities. Problems such as piracy in various parts of the Indian Ocean and the recruitment of young people into violent gangs linked to drug trafficking in some Latin American countries are, in great measure, consequences of that lack of options. Furthermore, the lack of solid democratic institutions and respect for civil and political rights, the distortion of national priorities and the lack of connections between those who govern and those who are governed hinder development, produce insecurity and generate conflicts that can have global repercussions. A consideration of the link between development and security, including coherent actions, should therefore also include dimensions relating to the rule of law, improving institutions, a culture of tolerance and democratic practices. The problems of development and security in the developing world are stunning, but their contributing factors are not solely home-grown. A large number of the weapons that kill and mutilate innocent people in developing countries and also serve to increase violence and generate conflict in those countries are manufactured in developed countries, including some with long-standing democratic institutions and Governments characterized by a high level of integrity. Some of those countries also serve as the main markets for drugs and as facilitators for money laundering. Others practice immigration policies that often encourage human trafficking. Having referred to those issues, it is not my intention to fix blame. Costa Rica believes that we ourselves are primarily responsible for our successes and failures. However, we are convinced that entrenching security requires that we promote development, good governance and a comprehensive approach to conflict — all of which require greater coordination at the global level, better legal instruments and more focused multilateral action. To achieve that, the United Nations needs to take several courses of action. I should like to refer to a few. They are to work on both preventive diplomacy and preventive development; to move from peace processes towards development processes, including institutional development; to set up integrated and multidimensional missions; to ensure the organic involvement of civil society and non-governmental organizations; and to work seriously on disarmament and arms control policies. No less important are efforts at sustainable development, with a clear human dimension. In some of those tasks, the Security Council has very clear mandates and resources, and has issued very significant statements. In others, responsibilities and action belong to other bodies, ranging from the General Assembly or the Secretariat to specialized organizations. We must also bear in mind the contribution of entities outside the framework of the United Nations. During the past 10 years, global military expenditures increased by 45 per cent to the outrageous sum of $1.531 trillion in 2009. If 10 per cent of those resources had been devoted to attaining the Millennium Development Goals, we would be very close to their achievement. Costa Rica therefore emphasizes efforts such as the negotiation and adoption of an arms trade treaty. My country’s interest in international peace and disarmament instruments stems from considerable experience of the close interdependence between security and development. Sixty-two years ago, when Costa Rica abolished its army as a standing institution and earmarked the majority of Government resources for the well-being of its citizens, it put into practice a security paradigm linked to development. Our security system is founded on two basic pillars. Domestically, it is based on social cohesion and implicit agreement on collective adherence to democracy, human rights, opportunities, sustainable development and capacity-building. We have entrusted the second, external, pillar to international law, in particular to collective security systems and international tribunals. That paradigm has produced significant progress on human development, within a context of peace and democracy. Nothing will divert us from that path, which is currently being severely tested. Little more than 100 days ago, our country suffered a foreign armed intervention. Part of our territory is still occupied. In the face of that serious situation, Costa Rica has maintained its good sense and its faith in international law and the multilateral system. We trust in their effectiveness and in international solidarity to protect peace and to promote the development of Central America. If international security is not grounded in respect for the law, it can be based only on balancing force, which is as fragile for peace as it is unproductive for the development and well-being of peoples.

I now give the floor to His Excellency Mr. Samuel Žbogar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Slovenia.

At the outset, allow me to thank Brazil and my friend Foreign Minister Antonio de Aguiar Patriota for convening today’s important and timely debate on the interdependence between security and development. I welcome the decision to build upon the relevant conclusions of recent Security Council debates addressing peace and security from different angles. The adoption of the presidential statement (S/PRST/2011/4) is a significant contribution to that end. I want to thank the Secretary-General for his insightful remarks, which gave us a clearer idea of the problems and opportunities. At the same time, I appreciate the respective contributions by the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and by the representative of the World Bank. Let me also take this opportunity to congratulate the new non-permanent members of the Security Council, namely, Colombia, Germany, India, Portugal and South Africa. I also wish to congratulate Bosnia and Herzegovina for its very successful presidency in January. Slovenia fully aligns itself with the statements to be delivered on behalf of the European Union and of the Human Security Network. Over the past few years, increasingly more attention has been paid to conflict prevention and to the security-development nexus, including the complementarity, coordination and coherence of multilateral cooperation. We have come to realize that in today’s globalized world, distance has lost its meaning. A country may be situated on the other side of the world, but its problems reach us all. We know that there can be neither peace nor security without sustainable development, and vice versa. It is more likely for conflicts to break out in countries with a large population living in poverty and inequality of wealth and in those where human rights and the rights of minorities and ethnic groups are not respected. We therefore need to focus on addressing the root causes of conflicts, achieving sustainable development, good governance and the rule of law and promoting respect for human rights and a culture of tolerance. Preventing unnecessary deaths and ensuring that all people live free of fear and want and in dignity are a matter of solidarity and moral imperative. Over 1 billion people live in fragile and conflict-affected States. We need to help build effective and resilient national institutions that prevent a country from slipping back into conflict. We need to invest more in prevention. The costs of conflicts are high, and the unrest can spill over to neighbouring countries and the wider region. Economic development reduces the risk of the onset of a conflict, while deprivation from economic and political participation can catalyse one. Unstable security situations and armed violence and conflict, which lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and, very often, to massive human rights violations, pose a serious threat to human development and the progress made on the Millennium Development Goals. We need to effectively manage the crucial phase of transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. Peacekeepers should be able to contribute to the early phases of peacebuilding where they are in a position to do so. A well-coordinated and timely combination of political, development, security and humanitarian measures is needed in order to provide an efficient response to such situations. The Peacebuilding Commission plays an important role in that respect. Slovenia supports the strengthening of institutional arrangements between the various United Nations actors, along with closer cooperation and dialogue between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. We welcome ongoing efforts to enhance coordination between the United Nations and the World Bank. There is a need to strengthen international civilian capacities for post-conflict peacebuilding, and we welcome the recommendations of the Secretary- General’s report on the review of international civilian capacities in that respect. Slovenia has been an active participant in peacebuilding and institution-building efforts. Slovenia implements various humanitarian and development cooperation projects to provide help in areas affected by war or other security challenges — for example, demining projects carried out by the International Trust Fund for Demining and Mine Victims Assistance and the project for the rehabilitation of children affected by the recent conflict in Gaza. Humanitarian demining and mine-victim assistance contribute to security in post-conflict societies and enable the restoration of economically viable land and institutions, thus helping victims and their families while, at the same time, lessening the suffering and contributing to the rebuilding of social structures. Based on Slovenia’s experiences in the Western Balkans, we can affirm that humanitarian demining can offer the parties a technical platform for dialogue, which can consequently lead to regional cooperation. In societies where the local population suffers the consequences of conflict, the understanding of national and local contexts is crucial to effective conflict resolution and peacebuilding. However, one must not forget that political conditions are country-specific and that blueprint solutions may not be universally applicable. For successful human, economic and social development, the dependence of a society on international assistance has to be gradually but steadfastly reduced, and its self-reliance promoted. That has to be a step-by-step process. Nevertheless, it is vital to increase the local population’s stake and ownership as the guiding principles of partnerships between security and development actors on the ground. Therefore, the participation of civil society, including the most vulnerable groups, in the development and implementation of peacebuilding and post-conflict processes is of major importance. That is why we must consistently promote the significant role of women and encourage their participation and full involvement in post-conflict activities and societies, especially because women are important drivers of social, family and economic lives in conflict and post- conflict situations. Allow me to conclude by saying that the partnership between security and development needs to be strengthened and must include global, international, regional and local actors and civil society. There is no development without security, and a lack of security can seriously undermine development.

There are still a number of speakers remaining on my list for this meeting. I intend, therefore, with the concurrence of the members of the Council, to suspend the meeting until 3 p.m.