S/PV.6954 Security Council

Under rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Abulkalam Abdul Momen, former Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh, to participate in this meeting. Under rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite Mr. Ranko Vilović, Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission and Permanent Representative of Croatia, to participate in this meeting. The Security Council will now begin its consideration of the item on its agenda. I wish to draw the attention of Council members to document S/2013/63, which contains the report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its sixth session. I now give the floor to Mr. Momen.

On behalf of the members of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), I am pleased to present the report of the Commission on its sixth session as contained in document (S/2013/63). We recall that it was you, Mr. President, in your previous capacity as Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission IN 2011, who presented the report of the PBC on its fifth session (see S/PV.6805). We are grateful for having this year’s briefing, Sir, under your country’s presidency of the Council. This year’s report of the Peacebuilding Commission is organized around the main functions and work of the Commission, placing particular emphasis on the results achieved and the challenges and opportunities relating to the impact of the Commission in the field and its relations with United Nations Headquarters. It mainstreams the implementation of relevant recommendations from the 2010 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture (S/2010/393, annex) and has incorporated a forward agenda for 2013 as an implementation framework for those recommendations. Allow me to highlight a number of issues of particular importance from the report. First, the reporting period saw particular attention focused on institutional consolidation, which is crucial for the Commission’s future role and impact. The Commission launched an ambitious exercise to improve and clarify its working methods, especially as they relate to its linkage and collaboration with the work of key actors in the field. Secondly, during the reporting period, the Commission continued its focus on facilitating the work of country configurations in order to achieve the Commission’s goals on the ground. To that end, the Commission had embarked on a work programme designed to support the Commission’s engagement with the six countries on the agenda, namely, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The peacebuilding process in each of those six countries is at a different stage, presenting different opportunities and posing different types of challenges. Some highlights of the Commission’s country- specific engagement during the reporting period included, first, support for the launching of a national reconciliation strategy and for the first regional hub for security and justice in Liberia; secondly, support for the successful holding of elections in Sierra Leone; thirdly, resource mobilization for the peacebuilding pillar of a new poverty reduction strategy in Burundi, including through support for the successful organization of the Conference of Burundi’s Development Partners held in Geneva in October 2012; and fourthly, the initiation of a resource-mapping exercise in Guinea with a view to supporting the development of a national aid management and coordination system. I thank the leadership of the respective countries for their commitment and support, without which the Commission would have not been able to achieve its goals. Conversely, the disruption of the presidential electoral process through an unconstitutional change of Government in Guinea-Bissau on 12 April 2012 undermined the progress in peacebuilding that had begun to take place in that country. That and the violence witnessed in the Central African Republic towards the end of 2012, which has led to the challenging security, humanitarian and political situation of today, underlined that the role of the Commission’s engagement needed to be more comprehensive, targeted and well coordinated. In addition, and in the absence of a broader, more vigorous and continuing national commitment, and in the absence of coordinated efforts to address the root causes of instability, the role of the Commission in certain situations remains seriously challenged. Thirdly, in parallel to the Commission’s focus on country-specific engagement, the work undertaken by the Commission on policy development in 2012 has given priority to partnerships as an area which gives substance and value to the Commission’s main functions in sustaining attention, forging coherence and mobilizing resource for the six countries on its agenda. The work of the Commission has therefore focused on strengthening the partnership with the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The Commission has taken important steps towards the promotion of the better alignment of national peacebuilding priorities in the countries on the agenda with the engagement of both banks in those countries, thus ensuring a greater degree of coherence of efforts, as well as sufficient focus on peacebuilding objectives in those countries. Given the nexus between peace and development, the Commission is also pursuing a thematic focus on job creation and rule-of-law assistance in partnership with banks and other stakeholders. The Commission sees an important linkage between those efforts to strengthen partnerships with key financial institutions and the work undertaken by the Peacebuilding Fund in support of peacebuilding priorities in the countries on the agenda. In that regard, the Commission has continued its regular dialogue with the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) Advisory Group and the Peacebuilding Support Office, with a view to further strengthening synergy and harmonization. Fourthly, the Commission sought to deepen its working relationship with key actors in the field, especially with senior United Nations leadership. An informal dialogue with the Executive and Special Representatives of the Secretary-General in agenda countries was launched in April 2012. The dialogue represented an important step in clarifying areas of mutual complementarity. That is certainly a crucial partnership requiring deeper and continuing commitment and support from the Commission’s membership and the United Nations top management. In addition, dialogue with regional organizations, including the African Union Peace and Security Council, continued during the reporting period, underscoring the recognition of the African Union’s central role in support of peacebuilding efforts on the continent. Fifthly, partnership with United Nations principal organs is of no less significance. The report stipulates that members elected from each of the three principal organs need to lead the efforts to deepen and substantiate the relations with the Peacebuilding Commission. That is an area in which we expect to see further advances in 2013. In 2012, however, in view of the need to strengthen the links with United Nations field missions and enhance the impact in the field, the Commission placed particular emphasis on the relationship with the Security Council and had a very meaningful interactive dialogue with the members of the Council in July 2012. The consideration of the Commission’s report on its fifth session last July in the Security Council offered an opportunity to revive the discussion on what the 2010 review described as the potential to create a new dynamic between a more forthcoming Security Council and a better-performing PBC. Suggestions aimed at energizing the relations between the two bodies have been followed up, including through the Commission’s Working Group on Lessons Learned, which explored in November 2012 the scope of the Commission’s advisory role to the Council on transitions of United Nations missions in countries on the agenda. The Commission could potentially demonstrate value added by supporting a process of drawdown and withdrawal of United Nations missions that is not only grounded in sound analysis and in country-specific realities and national needs, but also ensures that the international community remains committed to, and cognizant of, the essential links between peace and socioeconomic development beyond the lifetime of United Nations peacekeeping and political missions. Much discussion has taken place around the extent to which the Commission is delivering on the high expectations that accompanied its creation in 2005. Therefore, 2012 was a year when the question of the collective responsibility and commitment of the membership took centre stage in the Commission’s deliberations. I must say that while we collectively managed to instil some sense of urgency with respect to this topic, the task of translating such commitment into concrete actions and contributions remains unfulfilled. To that end, the High-level Event on “Peacebuilding: The way towards sustainable peace and security”, which was presided over by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh in September 2012, brought together, for the first time, a number of Heads of State and Government, Ministers and senior officials from among the Commission’s broader membership. The consensus political declaration that emanated from that event reaffirmed and reinvigorated the political commitment to the key principles, objectives and priorities that the Commission has consistently promoted, at both the policy and the country-specific levels. Finally, I cannot emphasize enough the need to envisage a new paradigm for South-South and triangular cooperation which could reinforce national ownership in peacebuilding through focused support on national capacity development and institution-building in critical peacebuilding priorities. That is an area which requires further commitment from Member States and the United Nations system at large. The Peacebuilding Commission is uniquely positioned to become a platform for the development of this new paradigm by piloting concrete projects of cooperation in the countries on its agenda. The Peacebuilding Commission can certainly facilitate the matching of needs identified by those countries with the most relevant experience and expertise, especially from the global South. In closing, I must underscore that the Commission continues to receive direct and substantive support from the Peacebuilding Support Office. As the Commission further seeks to strengthen linkages and ensure deeper collaboration and synergy with the PBF and other stakeholders, including philanthropic actors, civil society and the private and business sectors, the role of and the support received from the Office will become even more crucial. The pace at which the United Nations and the global peacebuilding agenda are evolving testifies to the urgency of the need to address sources of protracted instability and the drivers of relapse into conflict. To that end, we can no longer afford to remain in the custody of a traditional and business-as-usual approach to the link between security and socioeconomic development. We shall continue to face systemic challenges, but we must commit to facing them with the requisite resolve and determination. We have to take bolder and more courageous steps in support of sustainable peace and security.

I thank Mr. Momen for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Vilović. Mr. Vilović: Allow me to thank the Rwandan presidency for taking the initiative in organizing this briefing on post-conflict peacebuilding and to express my appreciation for the opportunity to deliver these remarks in my capacity as Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). The annual briefings to the Security Council represent valuable opportunities to apprise the Council of the Commission’s work, perspectives and priority areas. My predecessor’s presentation of the Commission’s report on its sixth session has shed light on where the Commission stands today with its country- specific engagement, institutional consolidation and policy-development efforts. Stemming from our founding resolutions, the main purpose of the Commission is to provide advice to the Council, and I believe that today’s briefing offers an opportunity to reflect on the envisaged scope of, and prospects for, the Commission’s advisory role to the Security Council. The Commission approaches its advisory function to the Security Council from the conviction that it can play a useful role in helping the Council manage an increasing workload. By focusing on and sustaining broader international attention to situations which may not be on the Council’s immediate radar, the PBC is supporting the Council in ensuring that the energy and resources invested in addressing and stabilizing conflict situations are preserved and protected for the long term. At the same time, we are convinced that this is a shared responsibility requiring improved two-way interaction between the Council and the PBC as well as much better clarity as concerns roles and responsibilities in relation to the other operational actors involved. Members of the Council will recall last year’s debate and interactive dialogue under the Colombian presidency, which highlighted a number of issues related to the Commission’s advisory function to the Security Council. Those issues were captured in a summary that was shared with the Council and is contained in document S/2012/791. Today, I wish to build on elements of that summary. First, three of the missions in countries on the PBC agenda are in the process of drawdown and transition. We believe that the Commission can and should play a role in support of the Council’s consideration of drawdown and transition strategies in those countries. Drawing on the synergies with the Peacebuilding Fund, the PBC’s advice in such situations could focus on assessing progress in national peacebuilding efforts and challenges facing those efforts; the level of support from and commitment on the part of the international community beyond the United Nations system; and the specific capacities required for the United Nations presence to continue to support long-term peacebuilding efforts. Therefore, the Council could usefully benefit from interaction with the PBC during the consideration of the outcome of technical assessment missions and the drafting of the Council’s resolutions on managing the transition processes. In that regard, it would be helpful if the Council were more explicit about the tasks that the PBC should undertake in support of United Nations leadership and actors in the field. The Working Group on Lessons Learned has worked closely with members of the Integration Steering Group and has developed pertinent findings on the possible role of the PBC in those transition contexts. Secondly, where the PBC continues to be engaged following the transition and exit of a United Nations mission in a country on the PBC agenda, the Council could also benefit from periodic updates on progress with regard to peacebuilding and risk factors. That would ensure that the Council remains abreast of country- specific peacebuilding-related developments that might require attention. The continuing collaboration between the PBC, the Peacebuilding Support Office and all lead United Nations departments and relevant entities in that regard is crucial. Thirdly, in situations where the peacebuilding process in countries on the PBC agenda faces serious challenges, the Security Council could draw on the PBC’s perspectives as it considers options for its response and formulates its strategy. The situations in Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic serve as reminders that peacebuilding is a process fraught with many risks and that there is a need for a coordinated response and strategy, which need to be adapted to evolving national and regional developments. Where it is engaged, the PBC can be viewed by the Council as a useful instrument of the international community’s strategy to address and reverse similar situations. At the same time, the Commission recognizes that a crucial element of its advisory role to the Council is to ensure, while working closely with the senior United Nations leadership in the field, that a timely and appropriate analysis of risk factors and drivers of conflict is brought to the attention of the Council placed for its consideration and action. The areas and situations presented here are inherently dynamic. There is, therefore, also a need for dynamic information-sharing with the Council on country-specific developments, opportunities and risks. The Chairs of the PBC country-specific configurations continue to value the opportunity to formally brief the Council on the situations in the countries concerned. We believe that more regular and substantive exchanges could possibly be of most value to the Security Council ahead of the Council’s field visits to countries on the PBC agenda, upon the return from a PBC field visit to those countries, in the process of the imminent drawdown and exit of United Nations missions, and in situations presenting an obvious challenge to the peacebuilding process. We also invite the penholders of Security Council resolutions to seek the advice of the respective Chairs of the country-specific configurations when drafting resolutions concerning countries under consideration by the PBC. In addition and most recently in its resolution 2086 (2013), the Council emphasized the need to harness the Commission’s role in advancing and supporting an integrated and coherent approach to multidimensional peacekeeping mandates in countries on its agenda. There is clearly a need to take forward that recommendation and have additional clarity on the scope of the Commission’s advisory role in anticipation of relevant future referrals from the Council. We look forward to discussing those and other suggestions in the context of the planned informal interactive dialogue with the Security Council to be held tomorrow. Let me conclude by reaffirming that the PBC is committed to enhancing its impact in the field by empowering national actors to own and lead the peacebuilding process and by ensuring that the United Nations and other key actors are positioned to help them achieve that goal. We are cognizant of the fact that the PBC needs to continue to sharpen its tools and learn from the lessons of its engagement. We are also convinced that, as a parent organ providing nearly 25 per cent of the Commission’s membership and having referred five out of six of the countries on the PBC agenda, the Council needs to contribute to those efforts. We must, therefore, work together to develop a practical and meaningful partnership.

I now give the floor to the members of the Security Council.

Thank you, Sir, for convening this briefing this morning. Let me also begin by thanking the current and previous Chairs of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) for their briefings. In March this year, the Council adopted resolution 2097 (2013) on Sierra Leone, paving the way for the transition of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone. That is a real success story. As a Council, we paid tribute to the work of the United Nations system and the international partners. That work was instrumental in supporting the Government of Sierra Leone in its efforts to build a secure peace following the brutality of war. Sierra Leone is an example of why the United Kingdom believes that the United Nations plays a vital role in helping national Governments and communities recover from the scourge of war. That is why we are the largest contributor to the Peacebuilding Fund, providing almost $20 million a year, and we will shortly fulfil our promise to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on official development assistance. We have committed to spending one third of that rising aid budget in fragile and conflict-affected States. The United Kingdom welcomes the recent report of the Peacebuilding Commission (S/2013/63). The report shows that the United Nations is moving forward on key peacebuilding issues and that the Commission is adding value in a number of areas. The Burundi donor conference, held in October last year, raised $2.6 billion for that country’s peacebuilding priorities. The Peacebuilding Commission visits to Monrovia and Freetown provided political counsel and support as the Missions there started to draw down, and in countries across its agenda, the Peacebuilding Fund is providing much-needed financing. But much work remains. The United Kingdom remains a friend of United Nations peacebuilding, and as friends, it is important that we are honest. We believe the PBC has not fully realized the potential that was envisaged for it when it was established in 2006. We must all share responsibility for that gap and work together to develop the Commission into the effective, efficient organization that it could and should be. The United Kingdom sees three key areas for action. First, the Commission must focus more on activities that add value and have a real impact on the ground in the countries on its agenda. The recent achievements of the country-specific configurations should act as an example for the Commission as a whole, and we would like to see a much greater emphasis on country-specific work. That should align with and take forward the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, putting into practice the Deal’s principles for engagement. Secondly, in order to free up time and resources to focus on countries on the PBC agenda, we must significantly reduce the level of process and procedure here in New York. More meetings on organizational issues, processes and procedure means less time available for country-focused work. The Commission should meet less frequently and with substantive agendas containing clear and necessary decisions to take. Thirdly, the Commission must continue to strengthen relationships with United Nations missions in those countries on its agenda. As we have seen from some of the successes of the past year, the Commission is most effective when it works through the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General and augments their work. The configuration Chairs should use their convening power in New York to bring the international system together around the work of the in-country mission and the Government of that country. We believe that improvement in those areas will build the foundation for a stronger relationship between the PBC and the main United Nations organs. With greater focus and drive to achieve results, the PBC can provide valuable advice to the Security Council and the General Assembly. We look forward to the next review of the PBC, in 2015, which will be an opportunity to look critically at where the Commission has been successful and where it has not. The United Kingdom stands ready to engage constructively in those discussions over the coming months and years. We should be ambitious in our drive to reform the United Nations peacebuilding architecture to ensure that it reaches its full potential and has tangible and positive effects for the countries on its agenda.

I thank Ambassador Momen and Ambassador Vilović for their briefings. Last year we witnessed both progress and setbacks in the peacebuilding efforts of the United Nations. Liberia, Sierra Leone and Burundi have achieved tangible results in their efforts to develop a national reconciliation strategy, including the successful conduct of elections and resource mobilization for a new poverty-reduction strategy. By contrast, the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau relapsed into conflict and have yet to restore constitutional order. Tolstoy once wrote that happy families are all alike, but every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. Similarly, the ways in which peace is maintained often resemble one another, while when it is disturbed, it is disturbed in different ways for different reasons. That is why a one-size-fits-all solution cannot work for every conflict. Peacebuilding is constantly evolving, a process informed by trial and error. It is therefore important to draw lessons from both successes and failures. It goes without saying that peacemaking, peacekeeping and peacebuilding overlap and intertwine with each other. For peacebuilding to be effective, therefore, early peacebuilding tasks should be carefully incorporated into all multidimensional peacekeeping mandates from the beginning. Since a particular success story does not guarantee the same result in another case, every situation requires its own tailored prescription. That need for a flexible response, however, presents the Security Council with a dilemma. The instruments that the Charter of the United Nations grants to the Council must be used with greater consistency and predictability. That is where the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Security Council can find room for mutual cooperation in the service of a common goal. The PBC’s architecture enables a flexible response to each specific situation through its platform of country-specific configurations. The Commission can be more receptive to the particular requests of countries on its agenda and can work with them through its unique advocacy role, building partnerships and marshalling resources, while the Security Council focuses on its primary responsibility for international peace and security. The PBC is a fund-raiser, promoter, counsellor and adviser. In that regard, the essence of cooperation between the Council and the PBC lies in their division of labour. The transition from political mission to country team is the phase that requires the greatest cooperation between the two bodies. In order for a transition to proceed coherently, national development plans must be made in consultation with the Government, development partners and civil society, starting with the initial planning stage. Resolution 2097 (2013), adopted last month, extending the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone, is a good example; the role of the PBC in the gradual drawdown of the political mission in Sierra Leone was properly stressed. All successful peacebuilding includes some common factors: substantial progress in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) and security sector reform (SSR); strong national ownership; active regional engagement; and the strong support of the international community. Support for SSR and DDR should be a particular priority in post-conflict peacebuilding. We have often witnessed how post- conflict societies with less successful SSR and DDR processes quickly relapse into conflict. We hope that the Secretary-General’s report on the assessment of United Nations support for SSR, prepared by the Inter-Agency Security Sector Reform Task Force, will provide comprehensive and systematic direction for future efforts. The significance of national ownership cannot be overemphasized. National actors should be empowered to own and lead the peacebuilding process. Without engagement at the grass-roots level, resilient peacebuilding will be elusive. Democratic and inclusive leadership is also indispensable for national reconciliation. The United Nations should work together with legitimate Governments with a view to integrating peacebuilding efforts into their national development strategies. Development plans in a post-conflict society are not sustainable without stable resources. We commend the Chair Group’s dialogue with senior officials of the World Bank, and expect the PBC to continue its cooperation with financial institutions, especially the World Bank and the African Development Bank. As suggested in the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, the product of the Fourth High-level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan in 2011, we should continue to develop an integrated development strategy and to align those resources to get results. My delegation hopes that the Security Council will continue to cooperate with the PBC to maximize the achievements of peacebuilding based on mutual comparative advantage.

The chief task of peacebuilding is to eliminate the root causes of conflicts and preventing their resurgence. All of that must be primarily based on States’ internal efforts, since in that area the role of the United Nations and regional organizations is one of support for national efforts. Peacebuilding assistance, given its long-term nature, should provide incentives for national Governments to rely on their own strengths. In that context, aid can be multidimensional and can extend to diverse areas: reaching and implementing peace agreements; stabilizing security; strengthening Government institutions, human rights, the rule of law and national reconciliation; and aid to development. The mobilization of international aid must be coordinated, so that it deals with the principal problems and supplements national efforts. As far as the United Nations is concerned, we are obliged, unfortunately, to conclude that, despite all the efforts of peacekeeping missions, peacebuilding offices and Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) country configurations, aid to post-conflict countries remains fragmentary. The importance of improving coordination and the division of labour between participants in the process, and of systematizing the peacebuilding processes, is obvious. The existing architecture’s potential is far from being fully realized. In our view, therefore, the relevant United Nations entities should implement their peacebuilding activities on the basis of their mandates in order to ensure the necessary legal basis for their own actions. Complying with the principles of respect for the sovereignty of post- conflict States and recognizing national responsibility and national priorities for peacebuilding should be absolute imperatives. The Government of the country concerned, representing the interests of the whole of society, must play a leading role in providing that responsibility. In our support for the work of the Peacebuilding Commission as one of the central intergovernmental bodies for coordinating peacebuilding assistance, we note the added value represented by the valuable consultative assistance it gives to the Security Council, when requested, concerning countries on the Council’s agenda. Within its existing mandate, the Commission should contribute to dealing with important crosscutting issues relating to peacebuilding that are relevant to the entire United Nations system and that require comprehensive discussion with Member States within the framework of United Nations specialized entities. Russia is an active participant in the activity of the PBC and is committed to improving its effectiveness. We are convinced that the Commission is a unique intergovernmental body and that we should. therefore, make full use of its potential. In that regard, it is essential that the Commission find solutions that are acceptable and supported by all its members. The key to that is to improve its standing and increase, commensurately, the interest in its work by the broader international community. Much remains to be done to optimize and improve the results of the Commission’s activity. In a number of countries on its agenda, significant results have been achieved in terms of alleviating the causes of conflicts, strengthening State institutions and coordinating and mobilizing resources. However, there are also the examples of Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic, where we see a drastic deterioration of the situation. In those cases, peacebuilding was clearly insufficient. It is clear that formulas that work well in some contexts do not always work well in others. In that connection, we would like to underscore once again the importance of the responsibility of national Governments for the peacebuilding process and in determining priorities, as well as the need to precisely determine peacebuilding assistance, tailoring it to the needs of individual States during the specific time frame. It is counterproductive to promote the most recent trends in peacebuilding, especially those based on a universal model, at the expense of the pressing needs of States. There is no doubt that peacebuilding is a political process. However, it is also clear that assistance for economic development, addressing pressing social problems and job creation can mitigate political conflicts. The United Nations funds and programmes play a key role in that regard. In taking stock of the activity of the Commission in 2012, I would like to express my appreciation to the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh, Mr. Abulkalam Momen, for his work as Chair of the PBC. The past year has been eventful for the Commission, and we welcome the results it has achieved. A number of challenges for the future were identified in the Commission’s report (S/2013/63). The programme is ambitious and aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the Commission’s work in coordinating international peacebuilding efforts and in formulating recommendations to ensure continuous coordinated international assistance to the countries on its agenda, as well as the streamlining of its working methods. We are convinced that the current Chair of the Commission, the Permanent Representative of Croatia, Mr. Ranko Vilović, will continue to move forward those endeavours.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for including the issue of post-conflict peacebuilding on the agenda of the Security Council during your presidency. I would also like to thank Ambassador Abulkalam Abdul Momen of Bangladesh and Ambassador Ranko Vilović of Croatia for their statements. The Organization, through regular debates on post- conflict peacebuilding, provides the members of the Council with the opportunity to assess the work being done on the ground by the Peacebuilding Commission, the country-specific configurations and the countries on its agenda. The importance of the work of the Peacebuilding Commission should be measured by its real contribution to the process of reconstruction and reconciliation and the establishment of the rule of law. Those actions are carried out over the long term, and the results are often not quantifiable in the short term. Taking into account the issues that fall within the comprehensive framework of reconstruction and development calls for the participation of as broad a group as possible of different actors, both national and international, in particular the United Nations system, in the identification of priorities. It is important that we place greater emphasis on such an approach. My delegation welcomes the fact that, in recent years, collaboration with and listening to the main beneficiaries have helped advance the agenda of the United Nations in the field of peacebuilding. The credit for that result is due to the Commission itself and the peacebuilding country teams. Togo believes that post-conflict peacebuilding remains, first and foremost, the responsibility of the State concerned. It goes without saying that the State’s role is a determing factor in ensuring the success of that endeavour, because it is up to that country to define the priorities and establish a framework for cooperation and partnership with the support of national, international and regional actors. However, it seems that, in defining priorities, there is a problem of non-inclusiveness — of not taking into account the interests of various parts of the population. For example, the identification of the needs of vulnerable groups, in particular those of women and children, is crucial in the peacebuilding process. Women are the main victims of conflicts, so it is fitting that they should be involved in all phases of the peacebuilding process. Moreover, an inclusive approach that takes into account all needs will facilitate the participation of all actors and will later strengthen national ownership of the actions undertaken within the peacebuilding framework. Another aspect relates to the assistance that should be made available to post-conflict States, which are still fragile, whatever their size and economic potential. It is therefore important that States in the region, financial institutions and the international community as a whole provide their support to those countries and help them to establish frameworks for sustainable cooperation and partnerships, which, in our opinion, are what determine the success of peacebuilding. In most cases, the interest attached to a country, especially one emerging from conflict, is determined by the wealth of its land and not really by the need to ensure that it does not fall into another conflict as a result of a lack of adequate support. Since the creation of the Commission, however, we are happy to see that the Commission is increasingly working to reverse that kind of tendency. That is why we believe that the African Solidarity Initiative, launched by the African Union on 13 July 2012, which aims to encourage and motivate African States to support the efforts of reconstruction and development in countries emerging from conflict and to strengthen their capacity to that end, should be supported. Another factor in the success of any peacebuilding process is the coordination of actions. Given that many institutions are involved in the peacebuilding process, we must ensure that a framework is in place to coordinate all the actions undertaken, so as to avoid duplication and wasting resources and energy. That coordination should make it possible to create frameworks for exchanging experiences in order to adopt actions that have been successful and consider how the implementation of those actions can be adapted to other countries that find themselves in similar situations. We note with satisfaction that the report (S/2013/63) under review shares that view. It is essential that the Security Council provide its support in order to implement the recommendations contained in the report. How long a post-conflict country remains on the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission depends on the progress achieved on the ground. In most cases, the countries concerned and the institutions that support them take time to establish the transitional mechanisms between peacebuilding and the country’s assumption of control over its situation. My country believes that those kinds of mechanisms should be established at the beginning of the process. Togo continues to believe that the various tasks assigned to the Peacebuilding Commission by the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council demonstrate the commitment of those bodies to providing assistance to countries emerging from conflict. They must act in a spirit of cooperation and complementarity. The international community should continue to sustainably support the Commission in its efforts to promote peace and security in post-conflict countries with a view to ensuring that the country does not slip back into violence. In conclusion, my country would like to take the opportunity of this debate to express its deep gratitude to the Peacebuilding Commission for the satisfactory results achieved in some countries, such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Burundi. Togo commends the efforts of the countries, organizations and institutions that support the daily work of the Commission and the country configurations.

I would like to convey my gratitude to Ambassador Momen and Ambassador Vilović for their briefings. During the past year, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) has continued to very actively implement the tasks entrusted to it under the relevant mandates of the General Assembly and the Security Council to attempt to assist post-conflict States in rebuilding themselves, and it continues to play an important role in that respect. Bangladesh, during its chairmanship of the PBC, undertook the initiative in September of organizing a high-level meeting of the PBC, thereby lending renewed momentum to the work in the field of peacebuilding. China wishes to express admiration for that sterling work. It is also necessary to recognize that peacebuilding is a long-term, complex, difficult and comprehensive task. In the current context, it is facing a great many new obstacles and challenges. This state of affairs requires serious consideration that could result in an appropriate response on the part of the international community. The Chinese delegation would like to make the following comments. First, respect for the ownership of relevant States should be one of the principles underlying all peacebuilding. Post-conflict countries bear the main burden for peace and security in their own territories, and the international community should fully respect their sovereignty and the will and provide constructive assistance pursuant to the priorities determined by those States themselves. We advocate working on an equal footing with less arrogance, more friendly consultations and fewer attempts to force recipes on the affected countries. Secondly, we want to help post-conflict countries to devise comprehensive strategies for post-conflict reconstruction in accordance with their own specificities. All our histories are different; all our specific circumstances are different. There is no single model for peacebuilding. The international community should fully abide by and respect the cultural traditions of the countries concerned, listen attentively to their views and not just mechanically copy existing templates. The international community should give this in-depth consideration. Thirdly, socioeconomic development should be the main way to build peace. In its peacebuilding efforts in post-conflict States, the international community has longtended to focus on human rights, the rule of law and security sector reform, perhaps without granting sufficient attention to economic and social development. Real investment is often lacking. We urge the international community to grant heightened attention to the socioeconomic development of States by providing them with more genuine assistance. Assistance should not come with preconditions. We hope that the PBC will look at where it can add value, assist countries in mobilizing the necessary resources, and coordinate the efforts undertaken by the international community as a whole. Fourthly, there is a need to pursue efforts aimed at improving the working methods and effectiveness of the PBC. We support the PBC in its desire to improve its internal working methods, learn lessons, identify best practices, and improve coordination and cooperation with the main United Nations bodies, including the Security Council, the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, among others; to involve the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund; and to fully listen to relevant regional organizations. It is important for all of us to work together to achieve progress in peacebuilding in post-conflict countries.

At the outset, allow me to thank the delegation of Rwanda for having organized this informative meeting. We would also like to express our appreciation to Ambassadors Abulkalam Abdul Momen and Ranko Vilović for their briefings on the recent evolution of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). We also appreciate the 29 January report of the Commission (S/2013/63). For Guatemala, the Peacebuilding Commission, despite its complex architecture and its growing pains, which have had their ups and downs, is an important institutional link between the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly and the Bretton Woods institutions. We therefore believe that its creation marked an important milestone in the institutional development of the United Nations. It became clear during the debates organized under the Colombian presidency of the Council in July (see S/PV.6805) and that of Morocco in December 2012 (S/PV.6897) that there is a consensus that the Peacebuilding Commission has not yet reached its full potential. At the same time, there also appears to be a consensus on the enormous potential of that forum to draw on the efforts of the Security Council in peacekeeping in order to cover the reconstruction and transformation stages leading to the normalization of a country emerging from conflict. In that regard, the United Nations has the experience of more than six decades in addressing the needs of societies in conflict with respect to peacemaking, peacekeeping, peacebuilding and peace consolidation and in trying to prevent countries that have emerged from conflict from relapsing. The stages of those different categories are not necessarily sequential; they overlap and support one other in a reciprocal manner. The link between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, which is the matter before us today, is therefore especially relevant. Ambassador Vilović noted that the main purpose of the Commission is to provide advice to the Council, particularly when it relates to countries on the agenda of the Council that form part of a specific country configuration. With all due respect, we believe that of equal or even greater importance is the role contemplated in paragraph 2 of General Assembly resolution 60/180, which refers to the need of all interested actors in a country-specific situation — and these certainly include the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission — to act in a coordinated manner and, as the English expression has it, “be on the same page”. Those coordinated efforts are also reflected in the 2012–2013 strategy prepared by the Peacebuilding Support Office. Under either of those functions — advisory or coordination — it should be recognized that there is still a long way to go, as I said earlier, to meet the expectations placed on the PBC when it was created. To fulfil those expectations, there are undoubtedly concrete actions that could be taken by the Commission, and others that we can and should take in the Security Council. I will mention five points. First, although resolution 60/180 grants the Security Council the opportunity to appoint seven members of the Commission, including the five permanent members, nothing prevents other Council members from being elected as part of the representation of the General Assembly or the Economic and Social Council. In fact, that has happened. Last year, 11 members of the Council were also members of the Commission, and we have seen cases in the past — we have one such case at the present time — whereby Council members have presided over country-specific configurations. Presumably, those representatives who are members of both forums ought to bear in mind the potential for seeking closer cooperation and mutual support. Secondly, the Council should continue and broaden the past practice of inviting the Chairs of the country- specific configurations to take part in our discussions when the country concerned is on the Council agenda. That practice could also be expanded to other contexts, such as informal consultations among Council members and the country-specific configuration, when countries that are in the process of peacebuilding slip back into a recurrence of conflict. The current situations in the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau are such examples. Thirdly, when drafting mandate renewals for peacekeeping operations, it would be worthwhile to include, when appropriate, some linkages to the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission. Our experts should at least bear that possibility in mind. Fourthly, and here I am borrowing an idea from Ambassador Vilović, we should consider the participation of the PBC in the technical assessment missions that are carried out prior to the gradual drawdown of a peacekeeping operation. Fifthly, when a Security Council mission travels to a PBC country-specific configuration, that configuration should be involved. Similarly, when a PBC mission travels to a country that is on the agenda of the Security Council, consultations between both bodies should take place. Before concluding, I would like to refer very briefly to Ambassador Momen’s statement, which is organized around the main functions and work of the Commission, placing particular emphasis on the results achieved and the challenges and opportunities related to the impact of the Commission in the field and its relations at United Nations Headquarters. We particularly appreciate the comments from Ambassador Momen and would like to thank him for the fact that during his presidency he launched, in September of last year, the initiative of organizing a high-level event, entitled “Peacebuilding: the way towards sustainable peace and security”, which was presided over by the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. The consensus political declaration that emanated from that event reaffirmed and reinvigorated the political commitment to the key principles, objectives and priorities of the Commission. In summary, we have the impression that both bodies — the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission — tend to function too much like two distinct and separate compartments, with minimum communication sufficient only to fulfil formalities and apparently with little enthusiasm, as was pointed out in the recent publication by the non-governmental organization Security Council Report dated 18 April 2013, which focused precisely on that subject. If I may be allowed to make a personal comment, as a member both of the Security Council and the PBC, I believe that it is within our reach to change that situation and overcome it.

I would like to thank Ambassador Abulkalam Abdul Momen, outgoing Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and his successor, Ambassador Ranko Vilović, for their briefings and their strong personal commitment to the Commission. A number of recent crises, such as that in Guinea- Bissau last spring or that which began in December in the Central African Republic, show the extent to which the peacebuilding process is a hard road. The United Nations and the PBC in particular face a number of very complicated problems. The most recent report of the PBC (S/2013/63) quite rightly underscores both the potential and the limitations of the Commission — a body which would be hard tasked to singlehandedly address the underlying causes of instability. The support that the Commission can provide must indeed itself be accompanied by a strong commitment on the part of national stakeholders — national ownership is essential in that context — and lasting support from international partners. The PBC has, of late, achieved encouraging results in a number of fields. First, in terms of political assistance, the PBC has, for example, helped in implementing a national reconciliation strategy in Liberia and is supporting the Government as it resumes its responsibilities, which are being transferred back from the United Nations Mission in Liberia. Secondly, with regard to partnership development and resource mobilization, the poverty reduction strategy in Burundi, for example, was able to make progress, which was crucially the result of cooperation between the PBC and the World Bank. That strategy enjoyed the support of a donors conference held in Geneva, which provided an opportunity for dialogue between Burundi and its partners. Thirdly, with regard to strengthening the coherence of activities carried out in the field of peacebuilding, I would refer to the example of the cooperation between the Government of Guinea and the Peacebuilding Fund, which allowed approximately 4,000 troops to be retired, which has contributed to progress in security sector reform in that country. All of that progress is positive, but efforts must be continued so as to ensure that the Commission be able to play its full role. Among the principles in the field of peacebuilding, set as priorities by the Secretary- General in 2012, I would like to underscore two in particular. First, a long-term approach is essential, because peacebuilding is a difficult process that requires solid foundations to be laid, starting with the rule of law, a police force and a justice system. The absence of those elements makes it impossible for a lasting peace to be built. The PBC must also enable a country to emerge from a cycle of violence. In the absence of credible police or military forces, it is too often armed groups that take control of a region or a State. The current crisis in the Central African Republic shows us the extent to which peacebuilding is a process that is both very fragile and reversible. The work of the PBC must therefore have a long-term perspective. Secondly, in order to be viable, peacebuilding processes must be inclusive, that is, they should bring together all sectors of society. The increasing recognition of the role of women in peacebuilding is positive. We welcome in particular the decision of Nepal, which, on the basis of resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008), has drawn up a national action plan to make women an integral part of peacebuilding. The efforts of the PBC and of its Organizational Committee regularly to address that issue should continue. Beyond the general principles for implementing peacebuilding, we believe that the PBC must also improve its methods. In that regard, there are two critical aspects. First, the coordinating role of the PBC must be strengthened in order to prevent the assistance provided to countries on its agenda from being too fragmented or inconsistent. Within the United Nations, exchanges among the various bodies and relevant agencies should continue. We welcome the Security Council’s holding of an interactive dialogue with the PBC. We are interested in the conclusion of the Commission’s report that proposes considering areas in which the PBC could more closely cooperate with the General Assembly. We also underscore the fact that subregional organizations play an increasing role in post-conflict periods. It is therefore important that their views be taken into account in the context of country configurations. A more fluid dialogue with such organizations is desirable. Finally, the initiatives outside the United Nations, such as, for example, the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, also merit the Commission’s attention. The partnership between the PBC and the international financial institutions, the private sector and philanthropic organizations is also important. We believe that the work in that direction must be pursued in order to mobilize resources, identify financing gaps and duplication and define priorities in partnership with the State concerned. Lastly, we believe that relations between the Commission in New York and in the field must be improved. For instance, there should be a more flexible exchange of information between the Commission here and its field offices. For example, there are regular contacts between the Chairs of the PBC country configurations and the Special Representatives of the Secretary-General.

Let me thank Ambassador Momen for his capable chairmanship of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2012 and to congratulate Ambassador Vilović on his assumption of the Chair for 2013. I thank them both for their briefings today. The United States appreciates the contributions of Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office and recognizes the value of the PBC as a common platform for international actors working in support of sustainable peace and development. From mobilizing resources to developing partnerships and building bridges among the different United Nations entities in support of peacebuilding objectives, the PBC continues to evolve to reach its full potential. We share the Secretary- General’s view that strong national ownership of the peacebuilding process, a closer relationship between Headquarters and United Nations actors in the field and the prioritization of resources are essential to the PBC’s success. In that regard, I would like to focus on three areas where the PBC has a great opportunity for added value: political governance, economic governance and justice and security sector reform. Peace and security require a basic political agreement on the structures of Government and the rules of politics. Effective, resilient and inclusive governance institutions are essential to ending recurring conflict and to enabling long-term and broad-based economic growth and development. As President Obama said in 2009, good governance is the ingredient that can unlock Africa’s enormous potential. Following the successful national elections in Sierra Leone, for example, the PBC’s role in developing coherent and short- and long-term peacebuilding objectives and in identifying national capacity gaps, particularly related to governance, is increasingly important. International support however cannot substitute for the national Government or overcome the absence of a durable political settlement. We note that the PBC’s engagement in Guinea-Bissau has been suspended following the April 2012 coup d’état and that the Central African Republic has started down a similarly troubling path. Before the Central African Republic can stabilize and develop, the constitutional order must be restored and the Libreville and N’Djamena Agreements implemented. The Commission must be prepared to step in and facilitate international support for effective Government institutions once conditions allow. Unlocking the vast and untapped potential of women as political leaders and in building governance institutions is essential. Every effort must be made to ensure that women are included and supported, as the PBC helps national actors to interface with the United Nations system, to mobilize the appropriate resources and to generate the momentum for further support and positive action. Economic governance is equally important to post- conflict peacebuilding and recovery. Partnerships with the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and regional development banks are critical since those organizations have the tools and the expertise to build the capacity of public finance institutions. In Burundi, the PBC’s engagement with the international financial institutions led to the inclusion of the peacebuilding priorities in its second-generation poverty reduction strategy. Furthermore, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Ambassador Seger and the country configuration, more than $2.5 billion was pledged at the October 2012 Burundi partners conference. Indeed, the PBC’s ability to mobilize resources and to ensure the inclusivity of women and underrepresented groups is crucial to countries transitioning from conflict to development phases. However, donors must have confidence in the country’s capacity to absorb and manage its contributions responsibly. Beyond the need for capable political and economic governance, ordinary citizens must feel safe and secure in their daily lives for peacebuilding to succeed. They need to be able to trust in the rule of law and the State security forces. Yet, in the aftermath of conflict, there is usually a need to build up the justice sector, while the security sector is typically in need of reform and downsizing. Women need to take part and to be included in reforming the institutions of law and security so that the needs of the entire society are met. The PBC can and should help sustain the political momentum for such efforts. In Liberia, the PBC not only facilitated the participation of key stakeholders in establishing justice hubs to bring security and justice services to Liberians outside the capital. It also helped to enable a structured road map that kept the project on track and coordinated. We understand that the first hub is already providing essential services, including counselling to victims of sexual and gender-based violence. Too often our attention is focused acutely on ending the fighting and stopping the bloodshed but, when the guns fall silent, the wounds of war are far from healed and the causes of conflict far from resolved. For that reason, the PBC remains important and must continue to improve its effectiveness in catalysing the political momentum and in mobilizing the resources needed to assist countries transitioning from conflict to peace.

At the outset, I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting to discuss the report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its sixth session (S/2013/63). We also express our appreciation to the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh, Mr. Abulkalam Abdul Momen, for his excellent leadership of the Commission last year. I would also like to welcome the Permanent Representative of Croatia, Mr. Ranko Vilović, as the new Chairperson of the Commission and wish him every success in fulfilling that demanding responsibility. The issuance of the present report in a new format allows for an in-depth assessment of progress and limitations in the implementation of the recommendations of the 2010 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture (S/2010/393, annex). It is noteworthy that, by drawing examples from the experiences of the country-specific configurations, the report places particular emphasis on the results achieved and the challenges and opportunities related to the Commission’s work in the countries on its agenda. The Peacebuilding Commission was established to bring coordination, coherence and integrity to the United Nations peacebuilding efforts with a view to addressing the special needs of countries emerging from conflict. Because peacebuilding processes depend heavily on existing circumstances on the ground and changing global realities, such as the current international financial situation, the Commission cannot meet all expectations or fully secure a central role in rebuilding war-torn societies. The Commission’s added value will be most apparent if it takes more practical approaches, such as marshalling potential donors and mobilizing resources for the countries on its agenda in line with their priorities. The sense of national ownership is at the core of peacebuilding. The Governments of countries on the Commission’s agenda bear primary responsibility for post-conflict reconstruction policies, including identification of their own needs and priorities. Positive developments, such as the launch of Liberia’s national reconciliation strategy, the successful conduct of elections in Sierra Leone and resource mobilization in support of a new poverty reduction strategy in Burundi underscore the critical importance of national ownership in and continued commitment to peacebuilding. Serious setbacks in the Commission’s activities caused by the crises in Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic highlight the urgent need for cardinal solutions to the root causes of recurring instability in those countries. Peacebuilding efforts will yield true results if they strive to build and develop the institutional capacities of post-conflict countries. The establishment of viable State institutions with solid capacities is a key prerequisite that underpins the effectiveness of peacebuilding and fosters national ownership. International assistance for the countries on the agenda should be aimed at developing national systems that are able to attract sustainable financial and technical support. The Commission’s efforts to strengthen partnership with international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank, on the basis of complementarity between their respective roles in support of national peacebuilding strategies, should be further continued. It is also important to establish proper mechanisms and procedures that will ensure greater coordination and coherence among key actors in the field and the alignment of their activities with the recipient Governments’ agendas. We also underline the necessity of improved interaction and coordination between the Commission and senior representatives of the United Nations in the countries concerned. That interaction will increase the shared understanding of respective comparative advantages, roles and responsibilities and help identify areas where relations could be mutually reinforcing. I would like to conclude by commending the dedicated work of the Chairs of the country-specific configurations. The relevance of the Commission and the effectiveness of its overall work are judged by the impact of its configurations on the ground. We are looking forward to tomorrow’s informal interactive dialogue, where we will reflect on various aspects of the Commission’s and configurations’ activities, assess achievements and analyse existing challenges in a candid and detailed manner.

I thank the Rwandan presidency for having organized today’s meeting. We thank the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh, Ambassador Abulkalam Abdul Momen, and appreciate his dynamic and successful stewardship of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in 2012. We also thank the Permanent Representative of Croatia, Ambassador Ranko Vilović, for his briefing and wish him success in his role as Chairman of the PBC for 2013. Peacebuilding has become an integral part of the United Nations architecture for the maintenance of international peace and security. Embedding peacebuilding tasks in early phases of United Nations interventions and missions fosters stability and prevents relapses. Last year, the Security Council’s thematic meetings and the PBC’s own work led to coherent, efficient and predictable responses by the United Nations to peacebuilding in the countries emerging from conflict. The efforts of the Council and the PBC are focused on the following three concepts: first, prioritizing targeted areas of post-conflict peacebuilding to focus on security sector reform, the rule of law, local capacity- building and economic revitalization; secondly, forging a coherent and seamless response to conflicts by refining the nexus between peacekeeping and peacebuilding, while drawing on comparative advantage of the various United Nations entities, with a view to ensuring stable transition, consolidation and sustainable peace; and thirdly, sharpening the emphasis on development aspects to move post-conflict peacebuilding towards recovery and socioeconomic development. By virtue of its unique composition, the PBC is well placed to advise the Security Council on policy developments, institutional consolidation and country- specific engagements with respect to post-conflict peacebuilding. For the Security Council, the advisory role of the PBC is pertinent in the context of both specific situations and thematic issues. There is a need to harness the PBC’s role in the work of the Security Council, particularly while conceiving peacebuilding mandates. In January, the Security Council adopted resolution 2086 (2013), which underscored the centrality of the PBC as an advisory and resource mobilization body for peacebuilding. The resolution identifies priority areas of peacebuilding in a multidimensional peacekeeping mandate. It clarifies and reinforces the relationships between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The resolution helps build stronger partnerships for a collective response to challenges to peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding. While steering resolution 2086 (2013) in the Council, we were guided by our experience as a founding member of the PBC and a leading troop contributor to United Nations peacekeeping. Since the creation of the PBC in 2006, we have learned the value of aligning the strategic framework of peacebuilding with respective national priorities and policies. All peacebuilding endeavours should be under complete national ownership and tailored to local requirements. The gender perspective is very important in peacebuilding. Lasting peace will remain elusive without improving the conditions of women and other vulnerable segments of society. For a long-term economic recovery and social cohesion, women’s access to health, education and entrepreneurship is essential. We value the work of the country-specific configurations of the PBC. Those configurations are taking important initiatives in resource mobilization through international financial institutions (IFIs) and non-United Nations sources of funding. The success of a country-specific configuration is ensured by its ability to fine-tune its contributions as dynamics of a post-conflict situation evolve. We support regular interaction among the respective configurations, the PBC Organizational Committee and the Security Council so that lessons learned may be shared and coherence promoted. Post-conflict peacebuilding should instil confidence and provide tangible benefits to the countries on the agenda. Peacebuilding assistance must be distinct from classical models of development assistance, both in terms of target sectors and conditions attached to the funding. As funding for peacebuilding increasingly taps into international financial institutions, we should remain sensitive to the distinction between peacebuilding and development needs. The engagement of IFIs with peacebuilding does not diminish the importance of the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). The catalytic role of the PBF in attracting other sources of funding makes it an essential component of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Pakistan has been contributing to the PBF. We agree with the apt characterization of contributions to the PBF as an “investment in peace”. Member States and the Secretariat need to provide the PBF with the resources and operational flexibility to make it more efficient. Besides finances, peacebuilding initiatives require adequate human resources. The Secretary- General’s initiative on civilian capacities is important in identifying expertise to be tailored to specific needs in the context of for post-conflict peacebuilding. The civilian capabilities process should stand up to intergovernmental scrutiny and avoid duplication of roles, and it must be compliant with United Nations rules and procedures. As a member of the Organizational Committee of the PBC, we reiterate our strong commitment to and support for United Nations peacebuilding endeavours. We share the hope that our collective peacebuilding efforts will benefit conflict- affected peoples in different parts of the world.

I wish to thank you, Mr. President, for convening this briefing. Allow me to take this opportunity to thank Ambassador Momen and Ambassador Vilović for their briefings and for their respective leadership of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). This discussion and the interactive dialogue that we will have tomorrow are very timely as we head towards the 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We all are familiar with the statistics on the relapse of post-conflict States into violence. The situations preoccupying the Council provide clear illustrations: the relapse into violence in the Central African Republic; last year’s coup in Guinea-Bissau, its fourth since independence; and the recent violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The PBC, together with the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) and the Peacebuilding Support Office, were established to fill gaps in the United Nations capacity to assist post-conflict States to avoid relapses. At that time, there was little in the way of peacebuilding architecture in other forums. The field is now relatively crowded. While it has been rightly acknowledged that the PBC has yet to realize its full potential, there are useful lessons we can draw on to provide it with guidance on fulfilling its core mandate. I will focus my remarks on three areas. First, the PBC’s value-add and impact in the field. The core challenge is how a New York-based organization can make an impact on the lives of people on the ground. The PBC works well when it uses its comparative advantage as a Member States-based entity to play a strong political accompaniment role. The organization can deliver coordinated and targeted messages at key times. We saw this in the lead-up to Sierra Leone’s successful elections last November. However, further efforts will be needed to strengthen practical impact in the field. Country- specific configurations must focus on supporting Special Representatives of the Secretary-General, Executive Representatives of the Secretary-General and Resident Coordinators. They can add weight to advocacy, mobilize Member State engagement and draw attention in New York to threats and challenges. Their effectiveness depends on their relationships with host Governments and with Special Representatives and Executive Representatives of the Secretary-General, and the depth of their understanding of the situation on the ground. The second issue is partnerships. As noted in the annual report (S/2013/63) before us today and as mentioned by Ambassador Momen, the PBC has made serious efforts over the past year to strengthen partnerships and build valuable synergies with financial institutions, especially the World Bank and the African Development Bank. We are pleased to see those strands coming together. Greater coherence between the PBF, the World Bank’s State and Peacebuilding Fund and the African Development Bank’s Fragile States Facility helps minimize duplication and ensures that we can leverage economies of scale. The PBC can play a strong political role to complement the work of the financial institutions. Often the PBC is criticized for failure to mobilize resources, but this is a constant challenge at the moment in times of fiscal austerity. The PBC must therefore look to non-traditional donors, including the private sector. Country configurations can help coordinate donor efforts to minimize duplication and identify gaps. We welcome the pilot mapping exercise of Guinea’s peacebuilding priorities, and the Working Group on Lessons Learned is also doing important thinking on the organization of donor conferences, building on the successful conference on Burundi last year. We welcome the efforts of the PBC to support new models of partnership between conflict-affected States and development partners. It absolutely makes sense for the PBC to align its country-specific commitments with national peacebuilding priorities. For example, the Sierra Leone and Liberia configurations have supported the two pilot countries in implementing the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States by aligning their mutual commitments with those countries’ development strategies, which is logical. The third issue is the role of women. Engaging women in peacebuilding settlement and post-conflict decision-making processes is vital to ensuring sustainable recovery and long-term peace. More effort is needed to take forward the Secretary-General’s seven- point action plan on gender-responsive peacebuilding. As an example of efforts in that area, we are working closely with Pacific Islands chiefs of police to support female police officers to undertake the relevant training, and we are developing police deployment gender strategies to promote the participation and protection of women in conflict and post-conflict settings. We encourage the Peacebuilding Fund to maintain its commitment to the Secretary-General’s target of allocating 15 per cent of United Nations-managed funds to projects addressing women’s needs and empowerment. Finally, let me say a few words on the interaction between the Council and the PBC. The key issue is how both bodies can work in pursuit of the same objectives. The Council should draw on the PBC’s expertise more readily, and the PBC should draw to the Council’s attention emerging threats in the countries on its agenda. We fully agree with Ambassador Vilović’s comment that the PBC can and should have a role during the Council’s consideration of mandate renewals and in transitions in United Nations missions. Sierra Leone is a good example. Similarly, in Liberia, as the United Nations Mission in Liberia continues its transition process, the PBC configuration is well placed to highlight to the Council any risks to the timeline and provide guidance to it. In concluding, let me assure the Council of our commitment to ensuring that the PBC continues to develop its role and strengthen its partnerships so that it can make a real difference to the people who suffer the most from relapses into conflict.

Allow me to thank you, Mr. President, for having convened this briefing. We would also like to congratulate the Permanent Representative of Bangladesh and former Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) on the outstanding work that he did during his mandate. We would like also to congratulate Ambassador Vilović on his assumption of the chairmanship of the PBC, and we wish him every success in the discharge of his mandate. Since its creation, the PBC has played a pivotal role. Its composition, with its members representing various United Nations bodies, must continue to be used effectively so as to increase its value added. The new format of the report (S/2013/63), which we welcome, makes it possible to highlight both the progress made and existing gaps where the Commission should focus its efforts. The progress made in 2012, which is based mostly on the 2010 recommendations, is undeniable. With regard to the mobilization of resources, the success of the Burundi donors conference and the work done by the Guinea configuration with the help of the Working Group should serve as a basis for a best-practices model that could be duplicated elsewhere, adapting it, of course, to the specific needs of each configuration. In addition, the strengthening of partnerships with international and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and the African Development Bank, is encouraging and should be further developed. As part of that strengthening, we welcome the upcoming participation of the Peacebuilding Support Office in the annual meeting of the African Development Bank, to be held next May in Marrakesh. Among the successes achieved, I would cite the achievements made with respect to hubs for access to regional security and justice in Liberia, in supporting the electoral process in Sierra Leone, and in providing support to the planning process for the new poverty- reduction strategy in Burundi. All of those examples are an illustration of the political support provided by the PBC to the countries on its agenda. Of course, gaps remain in terms of the political accompaniment of the Commission, as was shown by the institutional crises affecting Guinea- Bissau and, more recently, the Central African Republic. The situation in those countries reminds us of the need to attack the root causes of instability and should encourage us to start an in-depth reflection on the measures to take in similar situations. Of course, we must keep in mind that it is when political instability prevails that those countries most need the attention and support of the international community the most. On another topic, we note that national ownership, a principle that is widely accepted and supported by all, is closely linked to the strengthening of civilian capacity. In September 2012, Morocco hosted a regional consultation on the strengthening of civilian capacities in the Arab world in Rabat, and we attach particular importance to this issue for a number of reasons. The strengthening of South-South and triangular cooperation is a diplomatic priority for Morocco, and over the past few years my country has developed, in this respect, a proactive policy on the sharing of expertise in a number of areas. However, we are aware that there is a need to clarify how the initiatives on this issue are to be implemented. In that respect, we support the idea of a new paradigm under which South-South and triangular cooperation would be able, under the Peacebuilding Commission, to respond to the priorities identified by the countries concerned and strengthen national ownership. Another crucial issue is the relationship between the Peacebuilding Commission and the other United Nations organs, in particular the Security Council. Significant progress has been made in that regard. Indeed, resolution 2097 (2013), which provides for the progressive drawdown of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone, spells out in a detailed manner the role of the Commission in that sensitive process. The Commission will also be called upon to contribute to the upcoming adaptation of the mandate of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in the Central African Republic. During Morocco’s presidency of the Council in December 2012, we convened a debate on post-conflict peacebuilding (S/PV.6897) that culminated in the adoption of a presidential statement (S/PRST/2012/29). That statement noted in particular the important role played by the Commission in prioritizing an integrated and coherent to peacebuilding and the relationship between the two bodies. In the same vein, with respect to the discussion on the situation in countries on the Commission’s agenda, we welcome the participation by the Chairs of the country-specific configurations of those countries. It is clear that those configurations provide undeniable added value and a specific perspective that helps the Council in its consideration of and decision-making concerning issues that are also under consideration by the Commission. With respect to the Peacebuilding Fund, we have taken note of the report of the Secretary-General (A/67/711), and we welcome the significant increase in contributions to the Fund. As a result, we call on the Fund to increase its support to the countries on the agenda of the Commission and to countries that are still fragile that request it. Finally, we have taken particular note of the programme of work for the future, and we reiterate Morocco’s willingness to participate actively in the ongoing reflection aimed at refining the work and approach of the Peacebuilding Commission.

I thank Rwanda for having organized this briefing on the annual report of the Peacebuilding Commission (S/2013/63). Allow me to congratulate Ambassador Momen on his dynamic chairmanship of the Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in 2012 and to thank him for his briefing. I also welcome the statement of Ambassador Ranko Vilović, which quite rightly focused on the strengthening of the relationship between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. As our exchanges on the subject have shown, there is consensus on how important the work of the PBC is. Its mandate, which is based on resolutions 1645 (2005) and 1646 (2005)and has been refined through the work of the Organizational Committee and the country- specific configurations, is to ensure that the countries on its agenda do not relapse into conflict and violence. It seeks to achieve that noble goal by providing political support and advocacy, support to coordination among international partners, and support for resource mobilization. Thanks to the help of all its members and the concerned parties in the countries on its agenda, and with the support of the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), the Commission achieved encouraging success in 2012, as documented in the report before us. Despite the progress achieved by the PBC in 2012, the report notes that much remains to be done. I would therefore like to focus on what we, as members of the Security Council, can do to support the Commission in its mandate in service to our common objective. From the experience I have gained as Chair of the Guinea- Bissau country-specific configuration since February 2011 and as a member of the Council for several months now, I would like to address three conditions that we believe are important for the success of the PBC. The first condition is to be found within the countries supported by the PBC. They must find the political will to rise above the deeply rooted causes of the conflicts of the past: poverty; socioeconomic exclusion; political, ethnic and identity-based rivalries; corruption; bad governance; and external impacts and interference. We all recognize that those primarily responsible for peacebuilding are the State entities of the country in question, foremost among which is the Government. It is in that respect that the Commission can and must establish trusting partnerships in which it identifies and supports the reformers within Governments who are prepared to fully invest in the future of their country and work for the good of its citizens. The six countries supported by the PBC have highlighted their willingness to emerge from their fragile situation by joining the Group of Seven Plus and contributing to the creation of the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. That solemn commitment is primarily centred on cooperation between a national Government desirous to fulfil its duties and its international partners desirous to cooperate in a responsible and sustainable manner. It also sets the milestones for an irreversible exit from a fragile situation by putting forward a unique national vision and transition plan. In that respect, we believe that additional efforts must be made to align peacebuilding commitments with a given country’s vision for the success of its transition. On a more technical level, we believe that the civilian capacities initiative is a good chance to simplify and accelerate the strengthening of the institutional capacities in the countries on the PBC agenda. At the same time, we must remain aware of the fact that the countries supported by the PBC should be viewed in their regional context. The common and cross-border challenges and obstacles involved in peacebuilding must necessarily be part of our analysis so that we can find appropriate solutions to them. To that end, the country-specific configurations of the countries that are members of the Mano River Union — Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Sierra Leone — are planning a meeting on the challenges that face the region as a whole, with the help and under the guidance of the Secretary General of the Union. In 2012, during the debate held on this issue (S/PV.6897), almost every Council member highlighted the importance of the improved coordination of peacebuilding activities, and most wanted to see it done by the country-specific configurations of the Commission. Such coordination requires close ties among all the international stakeholders that support peacebuilding and the strengthening of the State in the countries in question. That will be carried out primarily within the countries themselves, through the United Nations high representatives on the ground, as well as in New York. The second condition that is necessary for the success of the Peacebuilding Commission is a Peacebuilding Support Office that is strong and capable of playing the support and coordination role within the United Nations system that is expected of it. Under the firm hand of Assistant Secretary-General Judy Cheng- Hopkins, the personnel of the Peacebuilding Support Office has done commendable work. Like other Council members, we believe that the Peacebuilding Commission is most useful in its country-specific configurations. Therefore, the Office must devote more significant resources to support for those configurations. The PBSO must also take on a central role as coordinator of peacebuilding work within the United Nations system, both to ensure a better exchange of information and analysis between the various departments and entities of the system and the country-specific configurations, and to contribute to including, in a crosscutting manner, the idea of peacebuilding in the work of the United Nations. In that context, maintaining triangular, close and constructive relationships of trust between country configurations, high United Nations officials on the ground, the Special Representatives and executives of the Secretary-General, the resident coordinators and the Peacebuilding Support Office is particularly important. The third condition for success is that we must overcome the uncertainties that seem to persist in relations between the Security Council and the Commission. The success or failure of a peacebuilding process affects the Council as well as the Commission. The work and responsibilities of the Council and the Commission are inextricably entwined — a fact that is also reflected in their overlapping makeups. Thus the five permanent members of the Council also have permanent seats on the PBC’s Organizational Committee. Guatemala and Morocco will participate in its work in 2013. As one of the principal troop- contributing countries, Pakistan is active in the Commission. Finally, Luxembourg, a non-permanent member of the Council in 2013 and 2014, has chaired the Guinea country configuration since February 2011. I would therefore like to reiterate in particular the recommendation that the Chairs of the country configurations be allowed to participate in the Council’s private consultations. Luxembourg is convinced that it can bring added value in terms of analysis and perspective. It can help shed light on the root causes of conflicts, especially socioeconomic factors and the effects of exclusion, through which countries run the risk of relapsing into conflict. The country configurations may be able to support States more closely than the Council can; their input, based on a relationship of trust established with the country’s authorities, can only be of benefit to the Council’s consultations. I would also like to encourage my colleagues on the Council who will be assuming the presidency in the next few months to consider inviting the Chairs of the country configurations to private consultations, particularly when discussing mandate renewals. I welcome the possibility of engaging in deeper discussions at the interactive dialogue that will be held tomorrow between the country representatives, along with the Commission, the Chairs of the country configurations and the members of the Security Council.

I will try to be brief, since my positions coincide with a number of the suggestions made by my colleagues. I would like to thank Rwanda for having organized this meeting on the work of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and the Chair of the PBC and Mr. Abulkalam Abdul Momen of Bangladesh for their statements. As noted in the 2010 review of the peacebuilding architecture (S/2010/393, annex), an effective response on the part of the Organization is required to produce a broad and coordinated strategy based on local authorities’ identification of priorities so as to establish goals and specific deadlines. The review also stated that this task requires countries to undertake activities promoting humanitarian assistance and the restoration of the rule of law, develop plans for security and justice policies, and promote sustainable development and a vigorous and democratic policy aimed at protecting and promoting human rights. Those challenges are still very much with us, and we feel it is important to support a peacebuilding strategy in post-conflict situations based on three elements that various speakers have highlighted. The first of these is the issue of national responsibility, the second is coordination with the United Nations, and the third is the complementarity of regional organizations. The first of these areas, the principle of national responsibility in peacebuilding activities, is a priority. At the same time, it must be founded on the protection and promotion of human rights, ensuring the involvement of society as a whole, without any discrimination, and encouraging the conditions and opportunities that allow all to participate on an equal footing. Such involvement and broad-based participation, without discrimination or exclusion, should be reflected throughout the entire reconstruction process and based on the priorities established by the local authorities and demanded by society as a whole. We realize that this is complex and difficult, but what is important is consensus and agreement; that is the best way to deal with such situations effectively and legitimately and to address the challenges of the realities that emerge after a conflict. We are pleased to see that in its 2012 programme the PBC reaffirmed the centrality of a strong national role in peacebuilding, as exemplified by the its support during the transition of the United Nations Mission in Liberia, and for the holding of free, fair and peaceful elections in Sierra Leone — long sought by the international community — as well as the mobilization of resources in support of a new poverty-reduction strategy in Burundi. All of these unquestionably demonstrate the real and potential importance of the work of the PBC, shown on the practical level in its ability to mobilize, promote and launch constructive dialogue with the relevant national actors. Regrettably, the collapse of constitutional order in Guinea-Bissau interrupted the electoral process there during the period covered by the report (S/2013/63). And, most recently, the failure of constitutional order in the Central African Republic was preceded and followed by renewed hostile activities, revealing the limits of the PBC’s ability to help countries if the countries themselves do not possess a credible, firm and stable national commitment, and if they cannot take the necessary steps themselves to address the fundamental causes that can lead to instability or situations where conflict will overwhelm peace. It is clear that the degree of legitimacy that the PBC’s political support can bestow on countries on its agenda must be sustained and combined, as has been said, with the effective, clear commitment of the countries themselves. For the second aspect, the coordination of the peacebuilding efforts of the United Nations, the Commission is in a privileged position when it comes to mobilizing and making assistance with resources for peacebuilding activities — financial, technical and political — more effective, as well as in its ability to establish agreements and provide strategic links with regional and international actors in order to help ensure that every effort contributes to strengthening institutions and is in line with the country’s priorities. On that point and because I promised to be concise, the representatives of China and other countries underscored an intangible but decisive factor that arises when financial, economic or technical cooperation is being established with countries that request and need it. If we consider the lessons learned in the cases of our countries in Latin America, there is a very high social, economic, cultural and institutional cost involved. Based on lessons learned, we support the idea that such cooperation cannot be used as the sole model or as an imposed solution, particularly when attempts are made to continue imposing such models or solutions even after economic growth and social inclusion have clearly failed. That is not only the case in countries in my region; it is also clear that such one-size-fits- all solutions being imposed on countries are today actually impeding and undermining the possibilities for well-being, social cohesion and the rule of law in the countries concerned. Therefore, we should not impose solutions, but rather should favour them; we should not preach, but rather discuss and respect the will and the priorities of the countries concerned. The bottom line should be full respect for the rule of law and human rights. At the same time, as noted by the Ambassador of Guatemala, it is not enough to have a more fluid, ongoing, frank and strategic relationship between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council. We must also look at the capacity and functions of all of the parts of the Organization and ensure that there is an efficient, comprehensive and clear link among them. When we talk about cooperation with post-conflict countries and societies, I think it would also be very interesting to consider what is happening with regard to financial cooperation. What is the situation with regard to the conditions for access to credit, for example, that are imposed on post-conflict countries? What is happening with economic and financial cooperation and the need to guarantee gradual, progressive, continuous and effective access for post-conflict societies to universal economic, social and cultural rights, not to mention political and civilian rights, particularly with regard to women’s equality, education, culture, jobs for young people and the human rights of children. I think that all of those aspects must be considered as well because we are discussing the conditionalities tied to financing and cooperation mechanisms in other forums and bodies outside of the Organization. The practice of inviting the Chairs of the country configurations for Liberia and Sierra Leone to inform the Council before renewing the mandates of the peacekeeping missions undoubtedly ensures that the Commission can fully carry out the advisory role assigned to it by the United Nations and enables the Security Council to draw further on the experience of the Peacebuilding Commission. We believe that this practice should be applied to the other countries on the Commission’s agenda where there is a United Nations presence on the ground, as we saw recently with the Central African Republic, and where developments are incompatible with the peacebuilding agenda in the country. The interactive dialogue scheduled for tomorrow with the Chairs of the country configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission, which recently has followed Security Council meetings on the subject, certainly affords us a great opportunity to think across the board about the core problems and challenges, not only for the Peacebuilding Commission, but also for the Council. The issue of the associations and the promotion of cohesion leads me to affirm, as my last point, that the role of regional organizations and subregional organizations, as established under Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, entails the need to strengthen the capacities of the regional systems to support countries recovering and rebuilding after a conflict. In that regard, I think it would also be interesting to include the model of South-South cooperation, which is governed by the principles of complementarity and solidarity. The progress that we have made in focusing on South-South cooperation could also help us to understand and guide us in how we think about the role of regional and subregional cooperation with the understanding that it is only the principles of complementarity and solidarity that should really guide us. That is because once again we are seeing that the lack of security in and destablization of a country affect security and stability in neighbouring countries. If a region is unstable, we cannot expect every country there to develop and prosper. Therefore, that relationship and link between post- conflict countries with regional organizations has key strategic power. It does not exclude the mission and functions of the United Nations as an international system, but gives it predictability that further strengths the complex and challenging stage of ensuring lasting peace, which, as we know, goes hand in hand with political stability and social justice.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Rwanda. I would like to thank the former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh, Ambassador Abulkalam Abdul Momen, and the current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and Permanent Representative of Croatia, Ambassador Ranko Vilović, for their statements. Let me start by saying that Rwanda considers peacebuilding processes to be of vital importance and constitutes a fundamental stage if countries are to overcome the root causes of conflicts. Within the United Nations system, the Peacebuilding Commission has been given the role of proposing and advising on strategies for post-conflict recovery and bringing together all the relevant actors involved in political, financial and technical resource mobilization. That continues to be an important, yet very complex and challenging role. I also believe that the Security Council can and should contribute to the Commission’s effort to play such a role. Therefore, my statement today will focus on two main issues: first, the impact and effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission, and secondly, the relationship of the Peacebuilding Commission with the Security Council. With regard to the impact and effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission, Rwanda believes that the Commission can have an impact only if it is able to leverage its unique membership structure by bringing political support to its engagement in the field, as well as within intergovernmental forums and with strong advocacy. Furthermore, being on the PBC agenda must entail certain responsibilities and expectations, such as readiness to undertake specific financial, political and technical tasks or to share expertise and experience around country-specific priority areas. Collective support for the countries on the PBC agenda should focus on building national capacities. We know from experience that there is no substitute for strengthening national institutions as the only way to achieve sustainable results. The generation of local and national capacities and ownership of processes, strategies and policies are indispensable to averting a relapse into conflict. It is of the utmost importance to create the conditions for countries to enjoy their sovereign rights, generate development and promote the welfare of their populations. Within the PBC’s unique membership structure, there is a wealth of expertise and experience, as well as financial resources, which each member should be prepared to share and contribute depending on its capacities and comparative advantages. The Commission could become a viable platform for promoting South-South cooperation that is focused on experience-sharing in strengthening core Government functions and the development of core national institutions. There is also a need for coordination and coherence within the United Nations. Rwanda calls upon the PBC to maintain mutually reinforcing relations with the senior United Nations leadership in the field. The PBC can put the political weight of its membership behind the United Nations leadership at the country level, and the United Nations missions are expected in turn to support and pursue the PBC areas of engagement and overall objectives. We also believe that the PBC should support the United Nations in delivering as one, remain focused on nationally identified priorities in the field, and ensure that United Nations guidance to field missions is aligned with national peacebuilding priorities. Coordination and coherence are relevant not only between the PBC and United Nations entities, but also among external actors. The PBC should continue to explore practical ways to align such activities as the assessment and planning of bilateral, regional and multilateral actors behind national peacebuilding priorities. Regional and subregional organizations play an important role in that process. The World Bank and the African Development Bank play an important role in supporting intermediate and long-term recovery and in rebuilding the social, economic and financial structures of countries in transition from conflict. Resource mobilization is also linked to coherence and coordination, as well as to political progress. We call for continued advocacy on behalf of the countries on the agenda of the PBC in order to help underscore political and socioeconomic progress to attract assistance and/ or investment, as well as to identify entry points to tap into the potential of foundations, the private sector and other non-traditional donors. It is also important to pursue the mapping of capacities, actors and resource flows with a view to identifying gaps, channeling the necessary resources to fill them, and supporting the creation of viable national donor coordination mechanisms. We can therefore certainly conclude that the effectiveness and strength of the PBC lie in the capacity and readiness of its members to use it as the linchpin of multilateral and coordinated support to sustainable peace and development, and to bridge the traditional gap between the global security and development architectures. On the relationship between the Security Council and the PBC, let me first emphasize that the joint membership should play a leading role in guiding the nature and scope of the PBC advisory role. Among other things, the PBC should be tasked with monitoring the effectiveness of the peacebuilding mandates of United Nations missions, and suggest course adjustments as necessary. The PBC should be asked by the Council to provide specific information on coherence among key actors, the support of international partners, the political commitment of national actors, and risks to the peacebuilding process in the countries concerned. In countries on its agenda, the PBC is in a good position to support a successful and smooth transition and drawdown of United Nations missions. The Security Council needs to provide clarity on the division of roles and responsibilities between the PBC and the senior United Nations leadership in the field, and ensure that United Nations missions report on support to the peacebuilding priority areas and to PBC engagement in these areas. In order to improve the modalities of engagement and interaction, we agree with the PBC Chairperson that there is a need for greater use of informal interactive dialogues, with particular attention to timing and purpose. In that spirit, and building on the initiative of the Colombian presidency of July 2012, Rwanda will hold an interactive dialogue among the Security Council, the leadership of the Commission and the countries on its agenda in order to provide an opportunity to exchange opinions on how we can further strengthen the nature and scope of the Commission’s advisory role to the Security Council. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on my list. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.