S/PV.7217 Security Council

In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite His Excellency Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak, Permanent Representative of Croatia and former Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission, to participate in this meeting. In accordance with rule 39 of the Council’s provisional rules of procedure, I invite His Excellency Mr. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Permanent Representative of Brazil and Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission, 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/2014/67, which contains the report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its seventh session. I now give the floor to Mr. Drobnjak.

On behalf of the members of the Peacebuilding Commission, I am pleased to present the report of the Commission on its seventh session, as contained in document S/2014/67. The report presents the progress made in taking forward the recommendations of the 2010 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture (S/2010/393, annex). It is organized around the three main functions of the Commission, namely, advocacy and sustained attention, resource mobilization and forging coherence. Allow me to highlight a number of issues from the report that deserve the particular attention of the Council. First, the Commission continues to place particular emphasis on ways to capitalize on the wealth of experience and diverse capacities that its membership can offer in support of peacebuilding objectives for the countries on its agenda. That was a key conclusion of the 2010 review. During the reporting period, additional emphasis was placed on engaging members from the region and subregion in support of the peacebuilding process in Burundi, the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau. That will continue to be a major priority for the Commission. Secondly, the Commission continues to recognize that its membership structure should also shape the nature and scope of its advisory role to the principal organs of the United Nations. I am pleased to note that, thanks to Rwanda’s efforts and commitment over the past year, the reporting period witnessed significant progress in identifying practical modalities for informal interaction between the Commission and the Security Council. The evolving practice of aligning the Commission’s calendar of field visits with the Council’s periodic consideration of mission mandates has proven to be particularly useful. At the same time, there is room for further improvement. In view of the Commission’ s engagement in a variety of post-conflict contexts, there is a particular need for greater clarity in the Council with respect to the Commission’s areas of strength and limitations in each specific context. The members of the Commission that are also members of the Security Council can play a central role in ensuring that the Council is able to draw more effectively on the Commission’s unique membership structure and outreach. Thirdly, through its engagement with Burundi, the Central African Republic, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the Commission is constantly reminded that peacebuilding is a process fraught with challenges that are typically context-specific. Our engagement therefore takes various forms at different stages of the peacebuilding efforts. I would like to highlight the following points in relation to the three functions of the Commission. First, the Commission’s country-specific engagement over the past year has confirmed that its accompaniment function depends first and foremost on the level of commitment demonstrated by national interlocutors and on the quality of the international response in support of such commitment. The Commission therefore continues to advocate for mutual accountability and commitments between the countries on the agenda and their main partners. Secondly, while it will continue to prioritize its resource mobilization function, the Commission has repeatedly confirmed that it is not a viable fundraising mechanism. Instead and as an intergovernmental body, the Commission provides a platform for highlighting the imperative for the timely deployment of targeted resources, especially in crisis situations such as in the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau, or as countries approach critical milestones, such as the elections that took place in Guinea last year and in Guinea-Bissau this year. The enhanced synergy with the Peacebuilding Fund has made these timely interventions possible. Thirdly, addressing the challenge of competing agendas and the fragmentation of peacebuilding activities remains a central objective of the Commission. The Commission undertakes its function of forging coherence by promoting greater focus on strategic opportunities that must be seized and by pointing to strategic gaps in response to peacebuilding priorities in the countries on its agenda. The complementarity between the roles of the Commission and the United Nations senior leadership in the field is a key factor for fostering the coherence of messages and actions. This was increasingly manifest last year in the Commission’s engagement with Burundi, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone. The transition from security and politically focused United Nations missions to development- oriented United Nations country teams highlights the interlinkage between the Commission’s three core functions. In 2013, the Commission positioned itself to support the Security Council’s decision to draw down and subsequently close the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone. The transition of the United Nations presence to a United Nations country team has ushered Sierra Leone into a new phase of its transformation towards socioeconomic development. The Council has also requested the Commission to support the planned transition of the United Nations Office in Burundi, where the dynamics and needs are quite different from those that prevailed in Sierra Leone. The Working Group on Lessons Learned decided to dedicate its work in 2014 to identifying areas where the Commission can effectively deploy the appropriate combination of its three core functions in support of transitions of Security Council-mandated missions. Recognizing the important contribution of women to peacebuilding efforts, the Commission approached its thematic focus on economic revitalization and national reconciliation during the reporting period by considering the gender dimension of both themes. A partnership with UN-Women has enabled the Commission to explore the transformative role of women in post-conflict societies. A high-level event on women’s economic empowerment for peacebuilding was convened in September 2013 and was chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of Croatia. The event resulted in a political declaration that affirmed the commitment of the Commission’s members to women’s economic empowerment for peacebuilding. A meeting of the Working Group on Lessons Learned in December 2013 also reaffirmed the importance of gender mainstreaming in the planning, priority setting, design and delivery of national reconciliation processes. The Commission convened it first-ever annual substantive session on 23 June. The decision to convene annual sessions was taken during the reporting period with a view to potentially strengthening the Commission’s contribution to the development of intergovernmental policy in areas that can improve outcomes for the people in countries emerging from conflict. The first annual session demonstrated the Commission’s unique power to convene Member States, United Nations entities, international financial institutions, regional development banks and civil society. It also confirmed that the Commission is a unique platform for exploring the multidimensional nature of peacebuilding and the policy-related opportunities and challenges. This year will mark the end of the second five-year review cycle for the peacebuilding architecture. A second comprehensive review by the General Assembly and the Security Council will take place in 2015. The Commission has initiated advance informal preparation that is currently exploring the potential scope and suggested terms of reference of the review. The outcome of this informal preparation will be transmitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council in the context of the next annual report for consideration. I wish to acknowledge the role of the Peacebuilding Support Office and Assistant Secretary-General Judy Cheng-Hopkins and her team in support of the Commission’s work and activities during the reporting period. I can only highly praise their contributions. In conclusion, I must emphasize that the past year has witnessed a number of positive and worrying developments that call for further intensified efforts both to seize opportunities and to address threats to sustaining peace. While we continue to face systemic challenges, we must commit to facing these challenges with the requisite resolve and determination. We are approaching a crucial year in 2015, where we can collectively help shape the future socioeconomic and peacebuilding agenda of the United Nations. These efforts must come together and must be mutually reinforcing.

I thank Mr. Drobnjak for his briefing. I now give the floor to Mr. Patriota. Mr. Patriota: I thank the Rwandan presidency of the Security Council for its continuing commitment to advancing the Council’s consideration of post-conflict peacebuilding, including by drawing on the advice of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in a considered and meaningful way. My predecessor’s presentation of the Commission’s report on its seventh session (S/2014/67) shed light on its country-specific engagements, its ongoing efforts in the area of policy development, and the progress made in strengthening its advisory function to the Council. The Commission believes, however, that the annual briefings and follow-up informal interactive dialogue present the two bodies with a valuable opportunity to reflect on the critical challenges that continue to affect the United Nations contribution to sustaining peace in countries emerging from conflict. The recent crises in the Central African Republic and South Sudan are painful reminders that our efforts to prevent a relapse into conflict remain insufficient and that our tools are not fully adequate. Those crises have also reminded us that the consequences of relapse can cause untold human tragedy and create instability across State boundaries. The Security Council has been mandated to respond and seek to bring end to violent conflicts using a variety of strategies and tools. The Peacebuilding Commission was established, in 2005, to help the United Nations to strengthen those strategies and find complementary avenues to bring long-lasting stability to countries emerging from conflict. The Peacebuilding Commission, along with the Peacebuilding Fund, has continued to work intensively in a variety of scenarios. In the case of the PBC, a particular focus has been placed on supporting the countries on our agenda. The nature of our support and engagement varies according to the nature of the challenges in each situation. Despite the re-emergence of conflict in the Central African Repblic, the PBC has continued to support the United Nations and African Union missions, in order to seek to strengthen collaboration in the region and to ensure backing for early efforts at institution-building. In Burundi, the Commission has worked closely with the United Nations leadership and the World Bank to intensify and sustain regional and international engagement in support of national attempts to address the country’s political and socioeconomic challenges. In Guinea, the Commission leveraged its political weight in support of United Nations mediation efforts to help resolve the political stand-off prior to this year’s parliamentary elections. The Commission is now involved in efforts for strengthening the capacity of the new Parliament so that it can play its role as a key part of the country’s institutions and fully participate in the definition of Guinea’s political and economic development. Similarly in Guinea-Bissau, the Commission threw its political weight behind the efforts of the United Nations leadership to ensure a smooth return to constitutional order and more inclusive political arrangements in the wake of the 2012 unconstitutional change of Government. As Sierra Leone has approached the milestone of transitioning from a Security Council- mandated mission, the Commission continues to provide an inter-governmental platform that the Government can rely upon to support its political and developmental gains and to address outstanding issues and challenges. In each of those situations, the political nature of the Commission’s engagement was effectively reinforced by the timely and strategic programmatic interventions of the Peacebuilding Fund. The PBC’s varied context-specific engagements have highlighted areas in which broader intergovernmental policy development is necessary to help countries reduce the risk of conflict. For example, there is a need to consider the development of international frameworks that can help countries mobilize domestic resources to fund development efforts and build key institutions. During its first annual session convened on 23 June, the Peacebuilding Commission examined mechanisms for supporting domestic revenue-generation and combating illicit financial flows out of countries emerging from conflict. Those included, among other things, combating trade mis-invoicing and developing capacity and expertise to negotiate fair contracts with companies responsible for the extraction of national resources. Most States emerging from conflict struggle to develop the domestic revenue-generation systems necessary to sustain effective institutions and fully re-establish the legitimacy and authority of the State. The necessary political, technical and financial support required for critical institution-building in this area is slow to arrive. Support sustained over time is seen as a requirement for new institutions to become resilient and act as an effective brake against renewed conflict. At the same time, illicit financial flows deprive post- conflict countries of vital resources needed or basic services and recovery, often exceeding development assistance in volume. Drawing on the experience gained from its engagement with the countries on its agenda, the Commission is able to highlight three elements that should underpin a new generation of political strategies to reinforce our collective efforts to prevent a relapse into conflict. First, with regard to national ownership, national leadership and national political commitment are indispensable ingredients for durable peace. There is a need for political strategies to include measures and incentives that allow for broad inclusion in political life, thereby ensuring that key national stakeholders remain engaged and committed to the peacebuilding process. As Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson underscored in his statement at the opening of the PBC annual session, let us not forget that “international aid is of course necessary in many situations, but it rarely helps build a new social contract. It can also weaken national ownership. The best way to assist countries going through post-conflict transition is to help them generate their own resources and capacities.” In that regard, we would emphasize as well the importance of efforts towards national capacity building. Secondly, regional engagement and commitment are potentially extremely valuable for stable and sustainable peace. There is a need to ensure that the perspectives, interests and concerns of regional actors and neighbouring countries are factored into a broader political strategy in support of countries emerging from conflict. There is also the need to ensure that regional coherence is attained through active engagement by regional and subregional mechanisms and support from the United Nations and other partners. In that regard, one should highlight the positive dynamic that can be now observed between and among the four West- African countries on the PBC agenda  — namely, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone and Liberia — and the role played by the Economic Community of West African States and the Mario River Union, regional organizations of which they are part. Thirdly, a political strategy must be reinforced by programmatic interventions with particular focus on support to institution-building, involving bilateral partners, regional development banks and international financial institutions. There is also a need to prioritize support to those institutions and mechanisms that strengthen the capacity of societies to manage tensions, and the capacity of Governments to deliver basic services, protect human rights and facilitate access to justice. Those strategies should naturally be adapted to country-specific contexts. At the same time, they need to be pursued through long term, sustained and mutual commitments between the country concerned and its partners, regional and international organizations. I also wish to highlight the importance of developing improved interaction between the PBC and the Security Council. As Chair of the country-specific configuration on Guinea-Bissau, I have been encouraged by my experiencing of a high degree of attention on the part of the Council with respect to briefings I have made. The diplomatic expertise demonstrated by Special Representative of the Secretary-General Ramos-Horta should inspire us to attribute greater value to mutually reinforcing strategies between the Security Council and the PBC. We can further refine our procedures in future in order to maximize the potential gains from enhanced interaction. The Commission looks forward to further exchanging views with members of the Council on those and other elements in the course of the informal interactive dialogue to be convened by the Council’s presidency this afternoon. Next year, the Security Council and the General Assembly will embark upon the 10-year comprehensive review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. Our collective approach to preventing a relapse into conflict, as well as our successes and failures, must be a central aspect of the review. There is a need for deepening the analysis, supported by country examples, of how multifaceted United Nations efforts contribute to long-term and sustainable peace. There is also a need to analyse how United Nations political mandates and evolving operational practice have made a real difference in the countries affected by, or emerging from, conflict. The Commission will benefit from that analysis and from the outcome of the 2015 review as it seeks to further strengthen, deepen and focus its advisory function to the Council and its support to the United Nations leadership in the field as we collectively tackle the complexity of post-conflict situations and try to prevent the recurrence of conflict. Finally, before concluding, allow me to express my gratitude and acknowledge the highly professional and wise counsel that I have received from Assistant Secretary-General Judy Cheng Hopkins, as she prepares to assume new responsibilities. Let me also thank her team for its support to the Commission’s work and activities.

I thank Mr. De Aguiar Patriota for his briefing. I shall now give the floor to the members of the Security Council.

I want to thank you, Sir, for convening this meeting to discuss the report (S/2014/67) of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) of its seventh session. I would like to thank His Excellency Mr. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Permanent Representative of Brazil, for his committed leadership of the PBC, and indeed for a very lucid briefing this morning. I also want to thank His Excellency Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak, Permanent Representative of Croatia and former Chair of the PBC for his statement on the seventh session of the Commission. Nigeria commends the chairs of the country-specific configurations and the Peacebuilding Support Office for promoting the work of the Commission. We owe a great debt to Rwanda for chairing the PBC work stream to improve relations between the Security Council and the Commission. The annual debate on the report on the work of the PBC, I believe, provides an opportunity not only to review the work of the PBC and its various configurations, but also to reflect on how best to support the efforts of post-conflict countries to avoid a relapse into conflict. In fact, it is instructive that a recent World Bank report entitled “Conflict Relapse and the Sustainability of Post-Conflict Peace” indicates that 90 per cent of conflicts that have occurred in the past decade took place in countries that had previously experienced civil war. According to that report, the problem with civil war is not the challenge of preventing new conflicts from arising, but that of permanently ending those that have already started. For that reason, we must find sustainable and enduring solutions that address the roots of conflicts and not just their symptoms. Nigeria would like to comment on a few of the issues highlighted in the 2014 report of the PBC, including the working methods of the PBC, relations between the PBC and the principal organs of the United Nations, resource mobilization, the importance of forging coherence to coordinate the activities of stakeholders, and the role of the membership. We welcome the PBC’s efforts in pursuing improvements to facilitate engagement with and ownership of the Commission’s objectives by Member States, the United Nations system and international partners. We take note of the outcomes of the various working-level informal consultations held between February and November 2013. In particular, we applaud the compilation of a compendium covering aspects related to PBC’s country-specific engagement and serves as a useful reference for chairs of country configurations and external partners. Equally significant was the decision of the Organizational Committee to convene an annual session of the PBC in order to facilitate closer interaction and engagement among stakeholders in New York and capitals of member States. We are pleased to note that this decision has already been put into effect with the first annual PBC session, which took place on 23 June. That session, which we consider to have been a great success, addressed the challenges to post-conflict peacebuilding and took note of lessons learned so far in enhancing the work of the PBC. The convening of the annual session, in our view, represents a significant improvement in the working methods of the PBC, insofar as it allows for extensive discussions of important issues pertaining to the development of policy guidelines for the PBC. Despite those achievements, stakeholders broadly agree that the working methods of the Commission can be further improved. In that regard, we believe that, where appropriate, some of the rules of procedure of the PBC that have been in operation since its inception should be re-examined and reviewed for improvement vis-à-vis the objectives of the Commission. Indeed, that should be a key priority at the 2015 review. Improved performance by the PBC will, in part, depend on its relations with the principal organs of the United Nations, in particular the Council. We recall in that regard that the Council, in its resolution 2086 (2013), expressed its desire to utilize the advisory, advocacy and resource mobilization roles of the Commission in peacebuilding activities and to harness those roles to advance a more coherent approach with respect to multidimensional peacekeeping mandates in countries on its agenda. To attain those objectives, the advisory role of the Commission to the Security Council should be enhanced, its expertise should be utilized on all issues within the competence of the PBC, and the Commission should be central to the support for post-conflict countries. In our times, the PBC seems to be operating in a crowded setting. That calls for improvement in coordination and coherence and for the clear delineation of responsibilities between key stakeholders in the United Nations peacebuilding architecture to prevent duplication of efforts and maximize outcomes. In more specific terms, predictable and sustainable financing are essential for recovery activities in the countries on the agenda of the PBC. That requires a larger financial contribution to the Peacebuilding Fund and support for the efforts of the chairs of the country configurations for countries on the PBC agenda. We have learned over the years that national ownership and inclusivity are core principles of post- conflict peacebuilding. All stakeholders, national and international development partners alike, that are actively engaged in peacebuilding should be guided by those principles as they help post-conflict countries in their recovery efforts. More important, expressions of support must move beyond rhetoric and mere proclamations to specific action, which must be results-oriented. In that connection, through its Technical Aid Corps, Nigeria offers to place its expertise in a framework for South-South cooperation to support the countries on the PBC agenda in their civilian capacity-building requirements. We call on Member States capable of offering assistance to forge similar partnerships with the countries concerned as a way of complementing their efforts to build national capacities. Nigeria is firmly committed to the peacebuilding efforts of the United Nations. We have stood on the frontline of global peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts and have been a member of the PBC Organizational Committee since its inception. Indeed, Nigeria is a member of all the country-specific configurations of the PBC. We shall remain fully engaged in the discussions related to the scope and content of the 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture. We welcome the ongoing process of deliberations and consultations on this matter and look forward to the second review of the PBC, which can effectively put that fledgling intergovernmental entity on a firmer footing to propel it to its full potential.

We express our appreciation to Rwanda for its leadership on peacebuilding, including the relationship between the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). I thank Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak and Ambassador Antonio Patriota for their briefings this morning. Today’s meeting is a key opportunity for us to reflect on the United Nations peacebuilding efforts in the lead-up to the 10-year review next year. In doing so, we should recall the genesis of the Peacebuilding Commission and what drove its establishment. Kofi Annan referred to a gaping hole in the United Nations institutional machinery. The United Nations had no formal mechanism to support post-conflict countries’ transition to stability and to sustain international attention beyond the headline-grabbing conflict period. The PBC and Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) have made essential progress in filling that gap, with critical support from the Peacebuilding Support Office. Since the PBC was established, in 2005, peacebuilding efforts have evolved considerably. The PBC report (S/2014/67) we are discussing today includes success stories in which country-specific configurations have demonstrated their value. We have seen the transition out of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone in Sierra Leone, in which the PBC and PBF have played a bridging role in sustaining international attention and ameliorating the so-called financing cliff. Liberia is similarly making progress in its transition, supported by the PBC configuration. But we have also seen a relapse in the Central African Republic and South Sudan, which has caused extreme suffering, erased development gains and threatened regional stability. We encourage the PBC to continue to work with the Security Council during the stand-up of the United Nations Integrated Peacekeeping Mission in the Central African Republic. We have seen the emergence of the G7+ and the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States, which champion national ownership and leadership of the country’s own path towards the sustainable development agenda in a very practical way. We commend the leadership of Timor-Leste and its partners on that important agenda. We have also just held the first annual session of the PBC, at which the Deputy Secretary-General highlighted that the best way to assist post-conflict countries was to help them to build their own futures. We share his view that countries’ capacity to raise their own revenues, including through taxation, and to fight illegal flows by supporting action on corruption, bribery and transparency of tax information, for example, is critical to peacebuilding efforts. Such transformative assistance should be a core element of the peacebuilding function, and we very much welcome the focus on that aspect at the first annual PBC session. The Peacebuilding Fund has developed into an effective mechanism to deliver fast, flexible funding, while taking risks and filling vital gaps. We welcome the increased involvement of the Peacebuilding Fund to support post-conflict peacebuilding — in Papua New Guinea, for example. With the referendum om Bougainville’s future political status to take place between 2015 and 2020, the next few years there will be critical to consolidating the peacebuilding process. We are pleased that gender and women’s empowerment is the focus of the Peacebuilding Fund business plan for 2014-2016, although we are still a long way from the target of 15 per cent of funding for projects focused on gender equality. We need to do better on that. We welcome the fact that there are now more players in the peacebuilding field. The World Bank and other international financial institutions are strongly focused on post-conflict issues, as are regional and subregional organizations. That brings to bear a valuable range of experience and analysis. The 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture, which is mandated to be comprehensive, should therefore take into account all of those developments. It should take as its starting point the original purpose of the peacebuilding architecture — namely, the gaping hole — because clearly important gaps still exist. We should also look at the full range of actors involved in peacebuilding, including United Nations funds and programmes, to ensure we are fostering coherence and coordination across the United Nations system. We must avoid artificial divides between the peacebuilding and development architecture of the United Nations. The review should provide recommendations for the United Nations development system that can be taken up in the next quadrennial comprehensive policy review, in 2016, to allow the system to fully deliver on the post-2015 development agenda. A fundamental question for the Security Council is the nature of the relationship between the Council and the peacebuilding architecture. The review provides an opportunity for us to articulate clearly how the PBC can most effectively complement the Council’s work. Australia has been a consistent advocate for deepening that relationship with more frequent, formal and informal interaction. We must promote effective engagement between the two. The PBC can act as an early-warning mechanism and a key source of advice. We agree with the Chair of the PBC that the Council should draw on that advice in a considered and meaningful way. The Burundi configuration provides a good case study of the value added that the PBC can bring to the Council at a delicate time in Burundi’s peacebuilding process. The configuration’s cooperation with the Council has been important. We hope that will continue and that Burundi will take the actions necessary to maintain stability and hold free and fair elections in 2015. In conclusion, we need to remember that peacebuilding is a complex process and that, as others have said this morning, is very context-specific. It is about building citizens’ confidence in their Government and renewing that trust. The PBC must ensure that the United Nations has the most effective architecture possible to help ensure that the 1.5 billion people living in States affected by violence and conflict are spared from the devastating impact of relapse, and have an opportunity to live their lives in a stable and secure environment. We look forward to the December report from the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict and to an opportunity to debate what more the Council can do to promote effective and coherent United Nations peacebuilding.

I would like to thank the Rwandan presidency for organizing this annual debate on the work of the seventh session of Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). I also thank Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak of Croatia and Mr. Antonio de Aguiar Patriota of Brazil for their briefings. First of all, I would like to welcome the commemoration of Peacebuilding Day and the holding of the first annual session of the Commission on 23 June. We welcome the informal debates launched by the Organizational Committee as well as the new partnership between the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation. We also welcome the holding of the informal interactive dialogue of 26 April 2013, which allowed members of the Security Council, the Chairs Group and the countries on the PBC’s agenda to identify prospects for developing the partnership between the Council and the Commission. In that regard, we welcome the designation of Rwanda as coordinator of an informal process of evaluation and review of the progress made and the challenges encountered in the management of relations between these two bodies. We also reiterate the important role of the Commission in taking stock of the potential risks and the gaps in the efforts of the PBC undertaken in the countries on its agenda, the follow up in the level of attention given and engagement of national, regional and international actors, the promotion of coherence and alignment in national policies, the activities and aims of the United Nations and of other entities,as well as in a successful transition for the United Nations missions in the countries on the agenda. We welcome the support for the transition of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone (UNIPSIL) as well as for the country’s own transition. With the adoption of the prosperity programme, the launch of the transition and the withdrawal of UNIPSIL, the work and functions of the Commission in Sierra Leone need to be refocused and adapted to the specific needs and an evaluation of the situation on the ground. In that regard, we welcome the regular dialogue with the Government of Sierra Leone and its partners. We call upon the international community to continue to meet the needs of the country in terms of peacebuilding. We also welcome the support for Burundi in the follow-up to the Geneva Partners Conference in 2012, and welcome the follow-up activities to the conference in question in awareness-raising and in regard to preparations for the 2015 elections. By the same token, we also welcome the support to Liberia in designing and launching the national reconciliation process, as well as the support to the activities carried out by the United Nations and the region in preparing for the legislative elections in Guinea. We also welcome the launching by the Government of Liberia of the Road Map for National Healing, Peacebuilding and Reconciliation and the National Palava Hut Programme. We encourage the Commission to make concerted efforts with the Government and its partners for their implementation. We also note the holding of a workshop on security sector reform in order to strengthen the links between justice and security actors and between them and the legislature. We note that $5 million was provided by the Peacebuilding Fund’s Immediate Response Facility to facilitate the work of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Guinea-Bissau to help the country to continue the process of re-establishing constitutional order. We deplore the difficulties that the Commission has encountered in Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic due to the unconstitutional changes that have taken place. We also note that the programme for marshalling resources has made it possible to promote and to advance the implementation of the programme of political and economic reforms, and that, by October 2013, approximately 52 per cent of the $2.5 billion in pledges made had been disbursed. We welcome the partnership established among the international financial institutions and regional development banks within a multidimensional framework, as well as support for the actions taken by the States themselves to mobilize resources. In that context, Burundi’s experience, in particular the positive results of the finance division, has shown that strengthening countries’ capacities to generate domestic funds has enabled them to finance priority reconstruction and peacebuilding actions themselves. Such experience could be shared with other countries on the PBC’s agenda. We encourage efforts to find ways and means of involving the private sector, with a focus on economic growth and job creation in countries emerging from conflict. We welcome the strengthening of the consistency of peacebuilding actions in the countries concerned and coordination between the Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund in that respect, and encourage a strengthened partnership between the Commission and high-level United Nations officials on the ground. We also welcome the informal consultations leading to the PBC’s new working methods involving the countries on its agenda, the mutual learning among the country configurations, and the convening of annual sessions of the Commission to allow for deeper interaction and closer cooperation among the actors in New York and those on the ground and in the capitals of Member States. We note the Commission’s debates to consider the four action areas — namely, work in the field, results and impacts, forms of cooperation, and transition and results — as the essential core of its future programme of work. My country encourages the PBC to convene other such debates, as necessary. We note the conclusions of the programme of work, in particular relating to future matters concerning the roles of the Commission’s members, as well as the role of the main United Nations bodies concerning the strategic dimension of the Commission’s essential functions and the working methods and preparations for the 2015 review. Chad welcomes the taking into account of gender equality issues in the work of the Commission and welcomes the partnership with UN-Women in examining the role of women in reform efforts in post-conflict countries. In that context, it is essential to raise awareness and draw lessons. The economic emancipation of women can indeed contribute to effective economic growth in countries emerging from conflict, as well as to improving the quality of life and the social impact of economic recovery policies and efforts. We encourage the emancipation and participation of women in recovery efforts in post- conflict countries, and urge the lifting of all obstacles to women’s access to justice, resources, financial means and economic participation. Furthermore, it is important to consider the gender dimension in the process of national reconciliation. The Commission could assist countries in establishing reconciliation processes that take due account of women’s role. To conclude, Chad welcomes the role of the PBC in the countries on its agenda and calls for strengthening its role in advocacy, the mobilization of resources and the formulation of integrated strategies aimed at peacebuilding and post-conflict reconciliation. However, Chad is concerned about the many remaining challenges, particularly in the Central African Republic, the Sudan, South Sudan and elsewhere. We anticipate the 10-year peacebuilding review that will take place in 2015 to evaluate progress made in implementing the main recommendations formulated following the 2010 review and to take stock of the challenges that remain.

I thank Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak, former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their comprehensive briefings. Lithuania highly values the contribution of the PBC, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office in support of durable peace and development in a number of countries emerging from conflict. The advisory, advocacy and resource mobilization capacities of the Commission need to be better harnessed. Complex peacebuilding processes are receiving more attention, as evidenced by the increasing number of United Nations, African Union and European Union political missions. The integration and coherence of peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities remain crucial. Over the past year, the PBC has achieved encouraging results. In Burundi, the Commission has engaged in high-level advocacy initiatives and supported the political dialogue and preparatory process for the 2015 elections. In Liberia, PBC support to the implementation of the National Palava Hut Programme has been crucial for the coherent national reconciliation process to take place. Impressive progress has been registered in Sierra Leone as the drawdown of the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone calls for the refocusing of the Commission’s activities. In light of the upcoming 2015 elections in many countries on the PBC’s agenda, the PBC should remain actively engaged in support of political dialogue and other preparatory processes. We would like to highlight three key elements for sustainable peacebuilding. First, national institution-building remains key to preventing relapse into conflict. In the process of building, the focus on how those institutions are put to use is of no less importance. Secondly, another crucial aspect is national ownership. Peacebuilding cannot be outsourced. It must be locally owned. It is important to include local communities in the process and to prevent peacebuilding from remaining a purely foreign intervention. Strengthening societies and increasing their resilience and capacity to withstand crises are key factors in assessing peacebuilding success. Thirdly, women can and should play a very active role, not only in conflict resolution but also in peacebuilding activities. Women, with rare exceptions, are still marginalized as players in efforts to rebuild war-torn communities and States. They are the ones who take the brunt of the conflict. Women should be in a position to envisage the path to empowerment with their full-scale participation in post-war social, economic, political and security structures. We support the advisory role of the PBC and further encourage strengthening the links between the Commission and the Security Council. The interaction between the two organs should remain mutually proactive. We see the periodic and situation-specific stocktaking briefings as a useful and informative tool for the work of both bodies. The PBC should draw the Council’s attention to emerging crises in the countries on its agenda. What is more, we agree that the PBC can and should play a role when the Council is considering mandate renewals and the transitions of United Nations missions. We would welcome a more proactive dialogue between the PBC and regional and subregional organizations. Partnerships between the PBC and the international financial institutions, the private sector and philanthropic organizations are also important. We believe that work in that direction should be further pursued in order to mobilize resources, identify financing gaps and avoid any possible duplication. We also support and encourage South-South exchanges in the peacebuilding efforts. There have been a number of examples of such successful cooperation. In Côte d’Ivoire, expertise from Burundi, Liberia and Senegal supported the reform of security sector. In Liberia, Rwanda provided specialized capacities in the areas of police management and administration. In South Sudan, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan benefited from expertise from Sierra Leone in legislative work. To conclude, peacebuilding is a long and delicate process, involving many actors and stakeholders with different interests and visions. We value this discussion and look forward to the interactive dialogue this afternoon. We have much to learn and draw lessons from in preparation for the comprehensive review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture in 2015.

I thank you, Sir, for having organized today’s meeting on the important subject of post-conflict peacebuilding. I would also like to express my appreciation to Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak and Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota for their contributions and leadership. The first annual session of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) held last month was a meaningful step forward with a view to achieving a qualitative upgrade through a comprehensive review of the achievements and challenges of peacebuilding activities. Catering to the particularities of each post-conflict situation is a very complicated task. Empirical evidence illustrates the fact that the same input does not guarantee the same output. The key variables may include the degree of clarity of the national vision and the strength of the national leadership’s commitment to its people. However, international support and the consolidation of national ownership are not mutually exclusive. We believe that the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Security Council can contribute positively to fostering the unity of post-conflict societies and assisting national stakeholders in the process of nation-building. It is necessary for the Security Council to vigilantly monitor the nature of cooperation among key partners for post-conflict peacebuilding, including the Peacebuilding Commission. Today I would like to stress three points related to the partnership between the PBC and the Security Council. First, enhanced cooperation between the two bodies can contribute to detecting any potential relapse into conflict and thereby preventing it. While peacekeeping missions and special political missions do not always succeed in issuing early warnings, the various components of the PBC have the potential to effectively and closely examine the situation on the ground and bring it to the attention of the international community. The Council and the PBC must therefore further solidify their joint efforts for periodic situation-specific stock-taking reviews. In that vein, we express our appreciation to Rwanda for its role as the coordinator for interaction between the two bodies. The Chairs of the country-specific configurations also play critical roles in enhancing the exchange of views with the Council. Secondly, maintaining coherence is crucial for effective peacebuilding, as also emphasized in the two presentations by the PBC Chairs this morning. Even though the Peacebuilding Commission itself does not coordinate field operations, it can inform and remind the key stakeholders of where the strategic gaps lie and suggest which specific areas need to be prioritized. In order to do so, the PBC should broaden the scope of its work and deepen its expertise using lessons learned and strategic reviews. The PBC and the Security Council can also pursue a division of labour so as to maximize their respective comparative advantages. The PBC deals with a politically less sensitive agenda and can take advantage of its capability for resource mobilization. We believe that the Security Council can efficiently empower the country-specific configurations by supporting the activities of the PBC in the Council’s resolutions. Thirdly, the PBC should be able to play a value-added advisory role. Regular meetings and informal interaction between PBC leaders and the senior leadership of the United Nations are encouraged in order to sharpen the perspective of the PBC. The PBC’s wide scope can be a tool to enhance a comprehensive understanding of post-conflict situations. The root causes of conflict often lie in underdevelopment, inequality or a winner-takes-all political culture. All of these problems require long- term remedies beyond peacekeeping and political presence. With its advocacy role, the PBC should work to keep the world’s attention on its work, with a long- term vision, in cooperation with key partners, including international financial institutions. In conclusion, creating a synergy between the PBC and the Security Council is a long-term task. During the decade since the launch of the Commission, the Security Council and the PBC have worked hard to develop a solid partnership based on their complementary relationship. The Republic of Korea hopes that the 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture will be another significant step forward in that direction.

Allow me to begin by thanking the Permanent Representatives of Croatia and Brazil for their comprehensive briefings this morning. The end of a given conflict and the cessation of hostilities will not lead to peace so long as the root causes of the conflict remain, as these could lead to a spiral of violence. We must therefore address the root causes of conflict and try to resolve them. Let us recall the words of the Secretary-General, who said, in paragraph 63 of his report (S/1998/318): “By post-conflict peace-building, I mean actions undertaken at the end of a conflict to consolidate peace and prevent a recurrence of armed confrontation.” The concept of peacebuilding entails a vision for the post-conflict era and addresses the very sensitive period that follows armed conflicts. However, this period might appear even more sensitive in non-international conflicts, given their nature, as they have a higher potential for problems that could make the recurrence of conflict more likely. It is therefore extremely important to ensure integration and coherence between peacebuilding on the one hand and peacemaking on the other, so as to realize permanent peace and security and prevent a recurrence of armed conflict. The activities of peacekeeping operations are different from those of peacebuilding ones; however, the developments witnessed by peacekeeping operations make such forces capable of playing a part in the peacebuilding process, particularly in the context of multidimensional peacekeeping operations. Those forces are capable of undertaking certain aspects of a peacebuilding operation requiring particular security and military skills. The process of enabling a State to regain its ability to undertake its tasks and shoulder the burden of governance must include many aspects relating to assisting the more vulnerable segments of the population, that is, women and children, as well as laying the foundations of a development process in the post-conflict era. That would be achieved by working with United Nations partners at that stage. Peacebuilding therefore requires more than diplomacy and military action. We must stress here the role of women in the post-conflict peacebuilding agenda. A follow-up to the measures aimed at enhancing the participation of women in the implementation of the vision set out in Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) is vital in this context. Returning to the report of the Commission on its seventh session, my delegation welcomes the fact that the Commission has maintained the format for reporting on the progress in taking forward the recommendations of the 2010 review, which it introduced for the first time in the report on its sixth session (S/2013/63). We also stress our support for the Organizational Committee and commend in particular its efforts with regard to the series of informal discussions aimed at generating shared understanding within the membership on areas requiring immediate action, outreach and practical implementation. We also stress the role of the emerging partnership between the Peacebuilding Support Office and the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, which aims at supporting the Commission’s consideration of a number of policy-related work streams. We believe that the Commission’s giving greater priority to the role of its membership, especially in view of its unique compositional structure, is vital to maximizing the results and impacts of the Commission. We must note the importance of the role of the Commission with respect to addressing issues, including identifying risks and loopholes that peacebuilding operations could face in countries on its agenda, to identifying the level of interest and commitment on the part of active parties at the national, regional and international levels, to promoting coherence among United Nations policies, activities and objectives and those that are outside the United Nations, and to garnering support for United Nations missions’ processes in the countries on the Commission’s agenda. In conclusion, I would like to stress the importance of the consultative role of the Peacebuilding Commission in peacebuilding activities and its current role in the fields of advocacy and mobilization of resources. I would also request that the international community remain engaged and active with regard to responding to the peacebuilding needs of countries in which such activities have been undertaken.

I thank you, Sir, for convening today’s debate. I would also like to thank Ambassadors Drobnjak and Patriota for their briefings. This meeting is a timely opportunity to reflect on the experience of the United Nations in helping countries recover from conflict with a particular focus on the importance of preventing relapse into conflict. There have been successes. The United Nations should be proud of the central role it played in helping Sierra Leone recover from its devastating civil war. That is an example of how effective, tailored and well- planned United Nations peacebuilding interventions can improve people’s lives. Similarly, in Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia, the United Nations has helped put those countries on paths towards more stable and peaceful futures. But, as Ambassador Patriota highlighted, alongside those examples of success, we have also seen the tragic recent relapses into conflict in both the Central African Republic and South Sudan. That demonstrates that we must continue to hone our approach to preventing countries from slipping back into devastating spirals of conflict. In both of those cases, the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) cannot say that there was no information on the potential for an outbreak of violence. The early warning indicators were there in both countries, but we collectively failed by not taking early action. We live in an age in which we have immediate access to information about potential risks of instability in countries around the world. We can no longer say that we did not know about possible indicators of future conflict, such as human rights abuses, political repression or a rise in ethnic or religious tensions. The challenge for the Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the whole United Nations system is to find the appropriate response when we receive those early warnings. We all know that tackling potential risks to stability early is the most effective approach. Early action can prevent enormous human suffering, fear and displacement. It also makes economic sense. It is far more cost-effective to invest in conflict prevention and de-escalation upstream than to pay the high human and financial costs to responding to a relapse into conflict. Effective early action requires political will and commitment from the Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and key regional actors, inter alia. We must all be proactive in considering the most appropriate way to mobilize the various tools at our disposal in order to prevent relapse in each specific case. That could, for example, include the use of good offices, sanctions against potential spoilers or reconfiguring development activities to ensure that they are conflict-sensitive and contribute to stability. To take one country on the PBC’s agenda, the United Kingdom believes that the situation in Burundi is a current example of where we should take such an approach. We must work together to monitor the situation and ensure that we do not allow worrying political developments to reignite conflict, especially in the run-up to Burundi’s elections next year. The issue of how we can work together to prevent relapse into conflict will undoubtedly be a major theme in the 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture. That important review will allow us to reflect on progress and consider ways in which we can improve our approach to peacebuilding. The United Kingdom welcomes the ongoing informal consultations on the scope of the review, in particular the emerging consensus that the review needs to revisit the original vision behind the creation of the architecture in 2005 and take stock of the developments in United Nations peacebuilding over the last 10 years. In that time, peacebuilding in the international system has moved on. The key elements of peacebuilding are now mainstreamed within operational entities in the Secretariat and agencies, funds and programmes. The gap or gaping hole in the international community that was perceived to exist in 2005 has been filled by an array of multilateral and regional entities, both from the development and the political and security spheres. The United Kingdom believes that the review must therefore avoid a narrow focus on the Peacebuilding Commission, Peacebuilding Fund and Peacebuilding Support Office. It should not just tinker at the margins of the architecture and there should be no sacred cows. The United Kingdom believes it is important to have a thorough and ambitious review that reconsiders the architecture in the light of our common ambition to improve the ability of the United Nations to support countries recovering from conflict on their road to peace.

First of all, I would light to commend the leadership of Rwanda on the subject that brings us together today, which has been expressed through other initiatives and contributions that it has made during its two presidencies of the Security Council, in April 2013 and this month, in convening informative meetings of this body to discuss the annual reports of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), as well as in coordinating the process aimed at promoting the joint participation of the Council and the Commission in informal follow-up and stock-taking of the progress and difficulties in the interactions between the two bodies. I would also like to specifically thank the President of the Commission, Ambassador Antonio Patriota of Brazil  — and take this opportunity to congratulate him on the success of the PBC’s annual session last June  — and his predecessor, Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak of Croatia, for their statements. As the co-facilitators pointed out in their report of July 2010 (S/2010/393, annex) on the review of the peacebuilding architecture, an effective response on the part of the Organization requires developing a broad-based and coordinated strategy for peacebuilding that is based on identifying priorities on the part of local authorities and that sets goals and concrete and achievable time frames. The report also points out that such work requires stepping up humanitarian assistance efforts, re-establishing the rule of law, drafting and implementing security and justice policies, and promoting sustainable development and a rigorous, democratic policy for protecting, promoting and ensuring human rights. No doubt, that remains an ongoing challenge. We believe it necessary to support a strategy for post-conflict peacebuilding based on three elements: first, the principle of national responsibility; secondly, United Nations coordination; and thirdly, the complementarity of regional organizations. With regard to the work of the Peacebuilding Commission at its seventh session, we underscore the process led by Rwanda aimed at strengthening the interaction between the Council and the Commission so as to take advantage of the Commission’s important role in order to, inter alia, identify risks and gaps in the peacebuilding process; oversee a level of attention and commitment by regional, national and international stakeholders; promote coherence and harmonization among the policies, activities and objectives of the United Nations and other partners; and support the successful transition of United Nations missions in countries included in the programme, which is then reflected in the Council’s resolutions. There can be no doubt that the integration and coherence of peacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts remain essential to achieving lasting peace and security and to preventing relapses into conflict. In that framework, the need to increase complementarity has been established, as has the need to rationalize and focus more attention on the socioeconomic dimension of peacebuilding, in particular the development and promotion of social well-being and not only poverty reduction, while bearing in mind the promotion and protection of human rights and the strengthening of the rule of law in countries included on the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission that are also on the agenda of the Security Council. The role of the Peacebuilding Commission in the area of promotion and support is closely related to its function in mobilizing resources and cooperative alliances. The United Nations occupies a privileged position in mobilizing and making more efficient use of financial, technical and political resources earmarked for peacebuilding activities, and in establishing agreements and strategic partnerships with regional and other international stakeholders, while ensuring that all efforts contribute to strengthening the institutions and are in line with the country’s priorities. The cooperation of international financial institutions in particular with countries that request their support and need it cannot be carried out with a one-size-fits-all model or imposed formulas, especially when those models and formulas continue to be imposed when it is clear that they have been a complete failure in other countries and regions in terms of economic growth and social inclusion. As the final element, with regard to the topic of partnerships and the promotion of coherence, I will say that the role of subregional and regional organizations, in accordance with Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations requires the strengthening of the capacity of regional organizations with a view to supporting countries that need to recover and rebuild themselves after a conflict. In that connection, I think it is useful to incorporate South-South cooperation model, which is governed by the principles of complementarity and solidarity. The focus on South-South cooperation could also be used to understand and guide the role of regional and subregional cooperation, with the understanding that the principles of complementarity and solidarity should guide the situation because more than once we have seen that the loss of security and destabilization of a country has an impact on the security of neighbouring countries and destabilizes their security. If a region is unstable, we cannot expect the countries in the region to develop and maintain security. Lastly, the effectiveness of post-conflict economic activities and economic growth, as well as the improvement of the quality and the social impact of economic recovery policies, depend on the empowerment of women and their participation on an equal footing with men and their access to security and justice, as is recognized in the report of the Commission (S/2014/67). In that context, it is important for the Commission to continue to develop its cooperation with UN-Women, which allows the Commission to draw lessons and raise awareness with regard to the transformative role of women in post- conflict societies, including in the process of national reconciliation with regard to planning, establishing priorities and formulating and implementing policies. Furthermore, we should take into account that while there are common lessons to be drawn in all situations, the focus in each case should be different and specific to each situation. In conclusion, as a member of the Security Council and the Peacebuilding Commission, Argentina remains hopeful for and will actively participate in the process of the 2015 review of the Peacebuilding Commission, in the conviction that it will be an opportunity to review, inter alia, the progress achieved in the relations between the two bodies and with the various agencies who have operational responsibilities within the system, as well as the role of the Peacebuilding Commission in resource mobilization, in order to strengthen our response in peacebuilding.

I thank Rwanda for organizing, under its presidency, this informative meeting on the activities of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). I commend the Permanent Representative of Croatia, Ambassador Drobnjak, and his predecessor, Ambassador Vilovic, for their commitment at the helm of the Commission in 2013. I commend the Permanent Representative of Brazil, Ambassador Patriota, for his leadership of the Peacebuilding Commission in general and for his leadership of the Guinea-Bissau configuration in particular. I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Assistant Secretary-General Judy Cheng- Hopkins for the work she has undertaken with the team of the Office of Peacebuilding Support. Luxembourg has worked actively during the past year to strengthen the interaction between the PBC and the Security Council. While there has been no progress on the participation of the Chairs of the country configurations in Council consultations, practical arrangements have been established with a view to going beyond the stage of formal interactions. At this time, it would be appropriate to deepen those exchanges, engage in substance and discuss topics such as the root causes of conflict, including their socioeconomic causes and the possible risk of relapse into conflict. The countries that are on the agenda of the Commission, especially those in West Africa, are faced with complex and entangled crises. The risks of conflict are often exacerbated by the political dimension or by the weakness or absence of State institutions. We cannot ignore the realities of the political economy of a country, the root causes of conflict, the risks of corruption, governance that is not conducive to development; political, economic or social exclusion; human rights violations; transnational organized crime or even political cultures in which the winner takes all. To overlook those root causes is to risk a resurgence of conflict and violence. We saw that painfully in Guinea- Bissau in 2012 and in the Central African Republic and South Sudan in 2013 and 2014. In order to learn from past mistakes, the Secretariat has undertaken significant initiatives, such as the “Rights up Front” action plan. We must also learn to question some of our approaches with regard to peacebuilding and State-building. I am thinking, for example, of the approach to the principle of national ownership. Sustainable peacebuilding requires the establishment of processes, inclusive political settlements and competent and accountable national institutions to negotiate and implement a new social contract. That undertaking can take more than a generation. The long-term support and partnership of the international community are needed. In that regard, we welcome the efforts made ​by the fragile States meeting in the context of the Group of Seven Plus and the conclusion of national agreements under the New Deal for Engagement in Fragile States. States and Governments have fundamental responsibilities towards their populations. By carrying out its regulatory functions, the State preserves its legitimacy. The State must assume its responsibilities in the promotion and protection of human rights, the rule of law and the delivery of public services to citizens. In post-conflict situations, peacebuilding processes must be inclusive. We should aspire to reflect a true national consensus. By supporting the establishment of inclusive partnerships at the national level, the Peacebuilding Commission can make a real difference, in particular in strengthening the full participation of women, young people and other groups that are too often excluded. In 2013, the Guinea configuation of the Peacebuilding Commission, which I have the honour to chair, began its third year of activities. The efforts of the Peacebuilding Commission in Guinea were focused on supporting the organization of the legislative elections that took place on 28 September, following an inclusive political dialogue, facilitated by the United Nations. It is now important to consolidate those gains in order to enable the Guinean people to fully benefit from the dividends of peace and democracy. Allow me to conclude by turning to next year. In 2015, the peacebuilding architecture established in 2005 will be reviewed in depth. That review should acknowledge the true value of the Peacebuilding Commission’s potential as an advisory body and a support to countries emerging from conflict. The review should be based on lessons learned not only by the Commission but also by the Secretariat and the entire United Nations system in order to make our support in restoring States and societies in the aftermath of a conflict more strategic and sustainable. Luxembourg is ready to contribute to that sensitive but necessary exercise so as to strengthen the work of the United Nations in support of peacebuilding.

We thank the delegation of Rwanda for having convened this briefing. We also convey our gratitude to the current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Permanent Representative of Brazil, and would like to thank his predecessor, Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak, Permanent Representative of Croatia, for his thorough report today. We also appreciate the January report of the Peacebuilding Commission (S/2014/67). This meeting, as well as the interactive dialogue that we will have this afternoon, are important stages in preparing for the upcoming review of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2015, pursuant to resolution 1645 (2005). We take this opportunity to underscore the convening of the Commission’s first annual meeting, which took place on 23 June. The report of the Peacebuilding Commission on its seventh session describes the progress made and pending challenges, as well as the Commisssion’s value added in various areas of peacebuilding. The reversals in the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau during the reporting period demonstrate the need for the Commission’s ongoing support and the international community’s continuing attention in post-conflict situations. On the other hand, the developments in Sierra Leone and Burundi and the support provided by the Commission have had a positive impact and reflect its capacity to adapt to changing needs and scenarios. Its role will continue to be important in future processes. Peacebuilding is a complex and difficult process that needs ongoing attention until stability is achieved, as demonstrated by the cases that I have mentioned above. That effort also requires the commitment of the national authorities and the continuous support of the international community. That has led us to understand that the entire peacebuilding process is a multidimensional, specific and individual activity, in which, inter alia, the rule of law and the existence of inclusive processes aimed at national reconciliation should be fundamental aspects. In order to achieve the required consistency in such efforts, we underscore the importance of the Commission maintaining sustained and ongoing communication and dialogue with senior United Nations staff and the organizations on the ground, as well as among the configurations themselves. The exchange of information and goals, sharing experience, lessons learned and learning from mistakes should help to provide a better understanding of and connection with the policies that we seek to implement. In that regard, we underscore the importance of the Chairs of the various configurations holding meetings with the relevant actors ahead of their visits. With regard to mobilizing resources, we acknowledge the Commission’s capacity to broaden the donor base and to ensure donor participation and the provision of forums for resource mobilization in order to foster and support the various reform processes with respect to peacebuilding. We welcome the cooperation efforts with the international financial institutions and regional development banks. We call for the ongoing consideration of the current mechanism for including the private sector in those undertakings. As the report notes, any peacebuilding effort should include the gender dimension across all areas. The systematic inclusion of women supports political processes, social cohesion and long-term economic recovery. Given the importance of their full and effective participation in political and post-conflict planning processes, we recognize and understand their specific needs. We underscore the importance of maintaining ongoing contact with the national mechanisms and the groups and/or non-governmental organizations that are present in the country. We also call for the effective use of the 15 per cent of the Peacebuilding Fund earmarked for projects geared to meeting the needs of women and their empowerment. With regard to the Council, we see the work of the Commission and the Council as intrinsically linked. In that regard, the mandates that the Council adopts should include from the outset peacebuilding tasks that take into account local interests and the principle of national ownership. We therefore call for continuing the practice of inviting the Chairs of the configurations to participate in discussions when the Council’s agenda includes their countries. That would improve the mechanisms for understanding their points of view when the respective mandates of their countries are under consideration. The underlying goal would be for the Council to make more efficient use of the Commission’s knowledge and experience as an intergovernmental advisory body. Peacebuilding is part and parcel of maintaining peace and international security. We therefore urge recognition of that complementarity and greater opportunities for communication between those two bodies.

Thank you, Mr. President, for convening today’s sessions. I also thank Ambassadors Drobnjak and Patriota for their briefings. I would also like to thank the Permanent Mission of Croatia for its work in chairing the seventh session of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) Organizational Committee. Peacebuilding is a critical task, but it is not an easy one. As Ambassador Patriota reminded us, recent events in South Sudan and the Central African Republic are stark examples of how quickly countries can slide back into conflict. But in other places, some with the PBC’s engagement, we have seen progress. We share the Secretary-General’s view that the PBC should focus on its three core functions: advocacy and sustained attention, resource mobilization and forging coherence. The PBC can play a vital role in identifying risks and gaps in peacebuilding in countries on its agenda, marshalling resources and coordinating among donors, actively integrating civil society and women as equal partners and ensuring that countries at risk of sliding back into conflict remain on the international community’s agenda. I would like to raise a few specific points that highlight the impact of the PBC over the past year. First, we are very glad to see a strengthened relationship between the PBC and the Security Council. Briefings from the Chairs of the country-specific configurations, including on Liberia, Burundi, Guinea- Bissau and Sierra Leone, provided valuable insight and served to sustain international attention to the ongoing political and socioeconomic challenges facing each of those countries. We know that keeping a careful focus on countries recovering from conflict but no longer in the headlines is essential for peace to take hold and bear fruit. That remains a critical function of the Commission. Secondly, we see a clear link between peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts. The Security Council affirmed the need for coherence among peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts with resolution 2086 (2013), which recognized peacekeepers as early peacebuilders. In the past year, we put that concept into operation with the creation of two multidimensional peacekeeping operations, in Mali and the Central African Republic. Both are mandated to support peacebuilding tasks, including strengthening the security sector and the rule of law. Similarly, other missions have major peacebuilding roles, such as those in Haiti, Liberia and Côte d’Ivoire. Their efforts will gain increased attention as they continue to draw down their role and make sure that the transition to host-country ownership is effective and successful. Thirdly, of course, is the role of the PBC as a platform to help international efforts for sustained peace. In Burundi, the PBC has promoted mutual accountability between donors and the Government of Burundi. It has maintained a strong focus on the political environment in the lead-up to national elections — for example, by convening regular meetings to discuss a united strategy on the way forward. The United States counts on the PBC to continue its engagement in Burundi as the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi winds down. We welcome the PBC’s close cooperation with the Council-mandated election observation mission. In the Central African Republic, the PBC’s reengagement can help identify gaps in the international community’s response to the situation, helping to provide critical support for the beleaguered national Government. Of course, none of that works without a national commitment to peacebuilding. The PBC can be most effective in supporting the implementation of nationally owned peacebuilding and development plans. The post- election transition plan for Guinea-Bissau is a case in point. That emphasis on national buy-in and control over peacebuilding initiatives must bring with it the good-faith efforts of national Governments. Last month’s first annual session of the PBC focused on resource mobilization. As the international community works to identify innovative ways to broaden the tax base and build the post-conflict capacity of national Governments, it is critical that those Governments be transparent in how they spend funds and that such funds be directed towards national peace and State-building priorities. We are also glad to see that the PBC continues reform efforts such as building stronger partnerships within financial institutions and the Peacebuilding Fund, which has proved to be a flexible and catalytic instrument to address the immediate needs of countries in crisis. Finally, the United States shares the view that we should make the most of the upcoming 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We should be clear and candid about how to make it as effective as possible. The United States is enthusiastically participating in that review process and looks forward to the views of those most involved in its efforts to date, including this morning’s briefers and some of the members of the Council.

I would like to thank the current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), the Ambassador of Brazil, as well as his predecessor, the Ambassador of Croatia, for their briefings. At the heart of the activities of the United Nations, peacebuilding remains a challenge that deserves the full attention of the international community. The recent crises in the Central African Republic and South Sudan remind us of the importance of a continued shared commitment to support States in post-conflict situations. We therefore welcome your initiative, Mr. President, in convening this debate, which provides the Council with an opportunity to consider the issue and, in particular, to review the activities of the Peacebuilding Commission. The United Nations provides both an opportunity and a framework to work in a coordinated way to promote peacebuilding. Coordination among all the actors that contribute to peacebuilding is indeed vital. The Commission and the Peacebuilding Fund can play a very useful role in support of efforts on the ground — for example, by acting synergistically with international stakeholders that are physically present. In that regard, we welcome the establishment of justice and police poles in Liberia, which were financed by the Peacebuilding Fund and supported by the United Nations Mission in Liberia, which is just one example of cooperation between actors within the United Nations. In Guinea, the PBC has also made possible effective coordination among international actors, in particular with respect to financial organizations. In addition, in order to avoid duplication and in preparation of exit strategies, there needs to be a successful handover among the different actors. There was an effective transition in Sierra Leone, where the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office was recently closed, which bears witness to the progress achieved since the civil war. Moreover, with respect to complex peacebuilding efforts, it is important to ensure strengthened links between the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, who relies on measures provided by the operations of the PBC, and the country teams of United Nations agencies, which are led by the Resident Coordinators. Finally, it is critical to proceed in stages in order to allow the stakeholders concerned to participate at the moment when they can play the most suitable role. In order to respond to the numerous challenges posed by regions or States whose national structures have virtually disappeared, peacekeeping operations often play a decisive role in laying the foundation for peacebuilding. However, the implementation of such operations must correspond to a sequential logic, without attempting to accomplish multiple tasks in a single year. It was in that spirit that the Security Council developed the mandate of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic. Peacebuilding processes can succeed only if the following priorities are respected. Peacebuilding presupposes the implementation of inclusive processes, especially national dialogue. It is essential that all stakeholders accept this process and participate fully in it. In Burundi, it is important for the international community to continue to work with the Government in order to encourage open dialogue and the development of an environment conducive to fair and credible elections in 2015. The work to build peace after a conflict must include all segments of society. We have consistently supported the implementation of the Council’s resolutions on women, peace and security and the recommendation contained in the Secretary-General’s report to ensure the full participation of women in all peacebuilding processes. In that regard, the presence of Ms. Samba- Panza as Head of the Transitional Government of the Central African Republic is a strong symbol. To ensure lasting stabilization, it is important to work on justice and the fight against impunity, both of which are essential vectors of all reconciliation. National Governments clearly have the primary responsibility to prosecute and punish those responsible for atrocities. However, if they fail to do so or are unable to fulfil their responsibilities, the International Criminal Court must play its full role. The Court is already seized of cases relating to the Central African Republic, Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Moreover, it is essential to engage in long-term work to rebuild institutions and enable sustainable resource mobilization. This theme was addressed in a meaningful way at the annual session of the Peacebuilding Commission in June. Resource mobilization is indeed crucial. In the Central African Republic, in parallel with security work, it is important to act now to restart the Central African State and to restore its attributes as a State of laws. Resources are necessary to undertake such projects. The international community must continue to mobilize to this end. The review of the architecture of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2015 will provide an opportunity to go further in terms of coordination. The Commission must continue to play its role as a catalyst of goodwill and to enhance its impact on the ground. We must pursue that effort, launched in 2010, so as to improve the transparency of its actions, for instance by continuing work to link the actions of the PBC to those of the Peacebuilding Fund. It is also necessary to pursue the contacts made with the international financial institutions. We must seize the opportunity of the review to further improve the functioning of the PBC, including by making it more flexible and responsive. In that regard, the development of close relations with the Security Council has proved useful, as evidenced by the Council’s interaction with the chairs of the PBC country configurations. In conclusion, I welcome the mobilization of the many actors working daily for peace and encourage them to further improve their cooperation. That is how we can improve the coherence of international action for peace.

I thank the delegation of Rwanda for organizing today’s meeting on peacebuilding. I am grateful to the former and current Chairmen of the Peacebuilding Commission, Ambassadors Drobnjak and Patriota, for their informative briefings and skilful leadership of the Commission. It is clear to all that the prevention or timely ending of armed conflict is the most effective way to establish conditions to restore lasting peace and security. A decisive role in consolidating the outcome of that process is played by peacebuilding support, which should be delivered in a timely manner and in sufficient quantity and focus on tasks that are directly related to the underlying causes of the conflict. That conclusion, which has been reiterated today, has become especially relevant in the light of recent events in various regions of the world, in particular the new waves of instability in several countries of Africa. The United Nations has been assigned a central role in the area of peacebuilding. In that context, we commend the work of peacekeeping missions, peacebuilding offices, the country configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission, United Nations programmes and funds, and regional organizations. We note, moreover, that international cooperation in that field remains fragmented. It is important to ensure a clear division of labour among all the structures involved so that they can work strictly within the scope of their mandates and on the basis of established norms. The Russian Federation supports the work of the Peacebuilding Commission in enhancing the effectiveness and strengthening the coordination of international efforts in assistance to post-conflict States on the part of the United Nations and the international financial institutions. This should be done in strict respect for the prerogatives of the principal entities of the Organization, the Security Council above all, and in line with the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of State sovereignty. From the moment of its establishment, the Peacebuilding Commission has gained considerable experience, in close cooperation with national Governments, in achieving success. We are convinced that the Commission’s current mandate and unique intergovernmental composition and structure are fully aligned with its role as a key body in the coordination of peacebuilding support. The many positive examples of this include the stabilization of the situations in Sierra Leone, Liberia and Burundi. We need to build on those successes, inter alia, by focusing our efforts on such areas as ongoing security sector reform, progressive socioeconomic development, and the fight against poverty and unemployment. United Nations programmes and funds have a particularly important role to play in that regard. At the same time, negative experiences — such as in Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic — require a thorough analysis of bottlenecks in peacebuilding efforts. The development of a balanced strategy dictates the need to set the right priorities, with a focus on assistance in addressing the most critical problems and taking into account the particular features of post-conflict situations, without squandering scarce resources on what may at first to be very noble goals. That having been said, the mechanisms and methods of the Commission’s work require further adaptation, development and streamlining. Much needs to be done to optimize and enhance the practical impact of its work, including through closer coordination with the Peacebuilding Fund. In that regard, we welcome the first session of the Peacebuilding Commission devoted to the issue of resource mobilization, held in June. We hope that the event will have significant added value in strengthening cooperation among all the participants in the peacebuilding process and facilitate a future open dialogue and exchange of views on the broad range of issues related to post-conflict recovery. We expect that such forums will be held on a regular basis. The 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture will seek to improve the Commission’s functioning, enhance its practical impact and consolidate its role as the central peacebuilding structure. Priority attention should be focused first and foremost on the work of its various components: the Commission, the Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. It will also be important to consider the functional capacities of those relatively new components and their interaction within the United Nations system, above all with the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. It will be important to analyse the lessons learned, including its successes and disappointments, including in specific countries. Such a focused approach will allow us to develop concrete and feasible recommendations to improve the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We are convinced that any peacebuilding support of the international community must be undertaken with the consent of national Governments and taking into account the particular characteristics of their respective countries. Any successful post-conflict peacebuilding must be based on national responsibility and efforts to enhance the institutional capacities of countries involved in the peacebuilding process and in developing peacebuilding strategies, all undertaken at the earliest stages of post-conflict reconstruction. Russia plays an active role in international efforts towards peacebuilding and the recovery of countries and regions that have undergone armed conflict. We intend to continue increasing our national contribution in line with international efforts and with active participation of our partners.

I would like to thank Ambassadors Drobnjak and Patriota for their briefings. In the past year, the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) has actively implemented the mandate set out by the relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and has done a lot of work in helping post- conflict countries to consolidate peace and proceed with reconstruction and development programmes. Last March, the United Nations Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone smoothly completed its mandate, thereby becoming an example of peacebuilding success. Peacebuilding is a long, complex and arduous task. Through years of practice, the PBC has built up a great deal of valuable experience. But it has also faced multiple challenges, including inadequate responses to the root causes of conflict and the need to strengthen coordination and cooperation among all the relevant parties. China believes that, in order to strengthen post- conflict peacebuilding efforts, the various parties must make additional efforts in the following four areas. First, there must be respect for ownership by the countries concerned. Post-conflict countries bear the primary responsibility for peacebuilding. The PBC and the international community should fully respect the will of the Governments and the peoples concerned and provide assistance in accordance with national conditions and key priorities determined by the countries themselves. Secondly, we must pay attention to resolving the root causes of conflict, which include underdevelopment. The international community should focus on helping post-conflict countries to achieve economic recovery and reconstruction as soon as possible so that the people can quickly enjoy a peace dividend, thus contributing to political reconciliation and the stabilization of the security situation, providing a solid political foundation for the peace process and avoiding a recurrence of conflict. Thirdly, there is a need to focus on capacity- building in the countries concerned, because giving one a fish is not as good as teaching someone how to fish. In its engagement in the peacebuilding process of the countries concerned, the international community must always proceed from capacity-building and human resources training and prioritize developing and utilizing the existing human resources of the countries concerned. Fourthly, we must strengthen cooperation and coordination among agencies in order to generate synergy. The PBC should strengthen its cooperation with major United Nations bodies, such as the Security Council, as well as other specialized agencies, the international financial institutions and regional organizations in order to develop a comprehensive strategy for peacekeeping, peacebuilding and the promotion of economic and social development. It should also fully exploit the comparative advantages of the various agencies and organizations, in order to better provide assistance to the peacebuilding efforts of those countries. China attaches great importance to United Nations peacebuilding efforts and has always supported the efforts of the PBC and the Peacebuilding Fund. We actively support the PBC in playing a greater role in the peacebuilding efforts of post-conflict countries. Along with the rest of the international community, we will continue to make a positive contribution to helping post-conflict countries to achieve lasting peace and sustainable development.

I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the representative of Rwanda. I would like to thank Ambassador Vladimir Drobnjak, Permanent Representative of Croatia and former Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for presenting the report (S/2014/67) of the Commission on its seventh session. We join others in noting with appreciation the quality of the report, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the progress made thus far in implementation of the recommendations of the 2010 review as well as the challenges that the Commission continues to face ahead of the 2015 review. I also thank Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, Permanent Representative of Brazil and current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for his statement and for his demonstrated leadership at the helm of the Commission. I also take this opportunity, through him, to commend the Chairs of the five configurations for their dynamism and advocacy on behalf of the countries on the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). I cannot forget to pay tribute to our friend and dear colleague Judy Cheng Hopkins, Assistant Secretary- General for Peacebuilding Support, for her outstanding achievements over the past five years, as well as for her passion for our continent of Africa, along with her valuable team. During our previous briefing on post-conflict peacebuilding, held in March under the presidency of Luxembourg (see S/PV.7143), Deputy Secretary- General Jan Eliasson recalled that the PBC was a subsidiary organ of the Security Council and could be of optimal use only if the Council empowered it and utilized its potential. In that regard, Rwanda believes that the Security Council can benefit more from the advisory function of the PBC, not only because of its unique membership structure but also because of its broader post-conflict perspective. The Council may recall that, during our first presidency of the Security Council, in April 2013, Rwanda organized a briefing on post-conflict peacebuilding (see S/PV.6954), which was followed by an informal interactive dialogue with the Chairs of the PBC configuration and countries on the Commission’s agenda. The objective of the dialogue was to exchange views on how to strengthen the PBC’s advisory role, engagement from the Council and the modality of interaction between the two bodies. As mentioned in the report of the PBC on its seventh session, Rwanda was designated by the PBC Organizational Committee as coordinator of a process aimed at engaging the joint membership of the Council and the Commission in informally monitoring and taking stock of the progress and challenges in managing the interactions between the both bodies. We have held quarterly stock-taking meetings since June 2013. This afternoon, we will organize the second informal interactive dialogue to reflect on the progress in our interaction and to address one of the critical issues in peacebuilding, as we have been reminded by the situations in the Central African Republic and South Sudan, namely, the relapse into conflict. Rwanda fully endorses the three elements presented by the Chair of the PBC aimed at reinforcing our collective efforts to prevent a relapse into conflict. We are particularly convinced that the three ingredients for durable peace, as the PBC Chair named them, are intertwined. Without a national political commitment, there can be no national leadership; and without national leadership there can be no national ownership. In that respect, therefore, we believe that relapse into conflict on the African continent is mainly a direct consequence of a lack of leadership, institution-building, inclusive dialogue and genuine reconciliation and good governance. Furthermore, Rwanda is of the view that the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes is indispensable in every post-conflict society willing to consolidate peace and avoid a relapse into conflict. Impunity trivializes violence and lays the ground for mass atrocities. Nonetheless, to be effective, the fight against impunity must be adapted to the historical and cultural reality of the country concerned. Indeed, in many post- conflict societies, traditional justice may in some cases not be appropriate, as it sets aside the reconciliation component of justice. That is why Rwanda believes that in countries emerging from conflict, transitional justice and truth and reconciliation mechanisms would be better tools to render individual justice while ensuring collective reconciliation. Rwanda welcomes the holding of the first annual session of the PBC on Peacebuilding Day, on 23 June 2014, which considered, inter alia, the mobilization of domestic resources and revenue generation. This is indeed a critical issue for countries emerging from conflict, as we have always believed that Africa and other developing countries need to take control of their own destiny by graduating from international aid. However, as we own our destiny, we need to earn it and work for it. In this regard, we hope that action will be taken on the recommendations proposed during the first annual session of the PBC, particularly those related to transparency and accountability as well as to illicit financial flows. Furthermore, we believe that the PBC, in supporting the countries on its agenda, also has a role to play in fostering regional engagement and commitment. In that respect, the PBC’s advisory function should also aim at forging greater regional coherence through links with the countries of the region, regional economic communities and the African Union Peace and Security Council. Here I particularly thank the Chairs of the country-specific configurations, who have integrated the regional dimension into their efforts. To conclude, I wish to remind my colleagues once again that this afternoon I will be convening an informal interactive dialogue between the members of the Council, the members of the PBC Chairs Group and the countries on the Commission’s agenda to reflect on the developments that have taken place since the dialogue held on 26 April 2013, in order to draw on the full potential of the PBC’s advisory role to the Council in a variety of country contexts as well as in policy-related areas. I count on the participation of all members. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. There are no more names inscribed on the list of speakers. The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.