S/PV.7359 Security Council

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 Chair 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/2014/694, which contains the report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict. I wish to warmly welcome my friend the Deputy Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Jan Eliasson, and I now give him the floor.

I thank you, Mr. President, for giving me this opportunity to brief the Council on the Secretary-General’s report on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694). The report reminds us that peacebuilding is at the core of United Nations aims and ambitions. The challenges and responses described in the report will directly affect the future of individuals, communities and societies and their chances of living in peace. I would like to highlight five key features of the report. First, peacebuilding is most effective when political, security and development actors support a common, comprehensive and clear strategy for consolidating peace. We have seen examples of this in Guinea and Burundi. In Guinea, the United Nations country team supported an interparty agreement on parliamentary elections that was facilitated by the then Special Representative of the Secretary-General for West Africa, Said Djinnit. The team held public meetings with local political leaders and helped train election monitors. In Burundi, the Peacebuilding Commission and the country team supported the efforts of the United Nations Office in pursuit of a more inclusive political environment. They did this by facilitating broad consultations with political parties and civil society. That led to the adoption of a new electoral code and a code of conduct for the upcoming elections. Secondly, strong and well-functioning institutions that are central to peacebuilding must based on effective and inclusive political agreements. Such agreements provide legitimacy and support for instititional development and reform. Without inclusive agreements, political divisions may persist and control of the State may remain contested. Under such circumstances, let us admit that nationally led peacebuilding strategies have a limited potential. We have seen that in South Sudan, where extensive investments in institution-building were lost when weak and unstable political agreements between different factions resulted in a tragic relapse into conflict. Thirdly, peacebuilding requires sustained international political, technical and financial support. Regretfully, we are seeing such gaps in several places, particularly where the establishment of basic Government functions and the provision of social services are required to sustain peace. The Peacebuilding Fund can partially address the financial gaps in the short term, but it remains problematic to ensure the necessary larger- scale and longer-term assistance and support. I encourage the Peacebuilding Commission to continue its efforts to mobilize the support of Member States for the United Nations missions and mandates. Groups of friends and contact groups can play an important role. Also, compacts between post-conflict States and key international partners can align international support with national priorities, as they did in Sierra Leone and Somalia. Fourthly, regional actors and neighbouring countries, working together with the United Nations, can play a critical role in creating an environment conducive to sustainable peace. The Peacebuilding Commission can help support such efforts, as it has done recently in the Central African Republic and Guinea-Bissau, by convening meetings with regional organizations, neighbouring States and international partners. This underlines how conflicts in today’s world are increasingly taking on a regional dimension, which I am sure Council membes have noted in their deliberations on many issues. That regional dimension, in my view, should be better reflected in how we in the future deal generally with both conflict-resolution and post-conflict peacebuilding. Fifthly, promoting inclusion means that we must ensure women’s equal participation in post-conflict political and development processes. The Secretary- General’s report details innovative approaches on the part of Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Kyrgyzstan and Liberia, including an initiative in Guinea called the Women’s Situation Room, which provided support to a network of local women’s organizations, enabling women to play a crucial role as election monitors. It also facilitated inter-party trust and strengthened women’s political participation. We need more initiatives like that, and I should like to say that this could be very valuable this year, as we mark the twentieth year since the holding of the important Fourth World Conference on Women, held in Beijing. I would like to present the Council with some reflections and thoughts on the important review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture that was launched by the General Assembly and the Security Council last month. As some here may recall — including you, Mr. President, in your capacity as Permanent Representative of Chile at the time — it was my privilege, as President of the General Assembly 10 years ago, to be part of the creation of the peacebuilding structures: the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. Council members may recall that this work was in response to the troubling phenomenon at the time of frequent relapses into conflict. Since then, we can see that peacebuilding efforts are more necessary than ever. In the recent past, the Central African Republic and South Sudan have tragically fallen back into conflict. The three Ebola-affected countries — Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone — are all on the Peacebuilding Commission’s agenda. In addition to the large and tragic loss of life, the epidemic has also had a dramatic impact on social cohesion and State institutions. As the Peacebuilding Commission noted in its early meetings on the epidemic, there is a need for comprehensive support that would ensure the resilience of state institutions and rapid recovery. The United Nations involvement in peacebuilding has evolved considerably since 2005, with broader mandates and more actors working in ever more difficult environments. Our peacekeepers and special political missions are often in these situations called upon to support inclusive political processes and to build effective rule of law and security institutions, together with United Nations agencies, funds and programmes. The Peacebuilding Commission was intended to be a diverse, flexible and dynamic political forum that would focus sustained international attention on the challenges facing countries at risk of relapse into violence. Although the Commission has made some important progress, many now agree that its structure and working methods need review, improvement and adaptation to a rapidly changing environment. In that regard, I should like to commend the efforts of the Permanent Representative of Brazil, Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, who, as Chair, of the Peacebuilding Commission, has set the direction in a very positive way, as have the new head of the Peacebuilding Support Office, Mr. Oscar Fernandez- Taranco, who is present behind me, and his predecessors. We are on the right track, and I think we need to go into this work with an open mind. We need a forum that can act quickly to mobilize the collective support of Member States for the United Nations mandates and missions. We also need to consider the circumstances in which the Peacebuilding Commission can be particularly useful. A more flexible, dynamic and strategically oriented Commission could be more relevant to a broader range of situations in today’s world. These and other ideas are included in the United Nations system’s input to the review. I hope Council members will give them their serious consideration. The United Nations system is committed to increasing its support to and engagement with a dynamic, flexible and focused Peacebuilding Commission. The Council’s review will coincide with the Secretary-General’s review of peace operations and the global study to assess progress in implementing resolution 1325 (2000). The work and outcomes of these three reviews and their follow-up should be complementary and, in my view, mutually reinforcing. These reviews come at a time of complex threats to peace, security and development. They provide us with an important opportunity to sharpen and reshape our thinking and our actions. We owe it to the people we serve to ensure that we are bold, ambitious and, above all, effective in our approach to modern-day peacebuilding. I urge Member States to be open, candid and constructive in their assessment of the peacebuilding challenges and potentials. I would add that, when we look at the life of a conflict, we have a tendency to focus on its middle section — when it is in the CNN stage, the stage of suffering, when urgent decisions are being taken on peacekeeping operations. I think we all need to consider extending that attention to the pre-stage and the post- stage. In the life of a conflict, we should start to act when we discover the first vibrations on the ground. And then, at the end of the conflict, with ceasefires and so forth, as with a convalescing patient we need to know that there is post-conflict work to be done so that we do not relapse into a vicious circle. We need a solid commitment from all sides to fulfil the original vision for the peacebuilding structures and to improve the United Nations system’s support for countries emerging from conflict. This could make the crucial difference between peace or continuing conflict for millions of people around the world. This is an opportunity that the United Nations and its Member States should not miss.

I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for his statement and for his kind words of friendship. I now give the floor to Mr. Patriota.

At the outset, I should like to thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to present our report to the Council under your presidency. (spoke in English) I thank the delegation of Chile, in its capacity as President of the Security Council, for inviting me to address the Council in my capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and for its commitment to advancing the Council’s consideration of post-conflict peacebuilding. I am pleased to recall, Sir, that the first report (S/2009/304) of the Secretary- General on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict was presented during your leadership of the PBC in 2009. The periodic reporting to the Security Council and the General Assembly on peacebuilding, which that report initiated, offers an opportunity for Member States and United Nations operational entities to assess the coherence and effectiveness of our efforts to prevent the outbreak of conflict and its recurrence, as well as to consolidate stability in post-conflict situations. The release of the fourth report on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694) and its consideration by the Council today is particularly significant, coming with the launching of the 10-year review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. To that end, the Commission is pleased to note that, on 15 December, the Security Council and the General Assembly decided to endorse the terms of reference for the review and to formally initiate the process. As indicated in the terms of reference, the review will take the original vision and motivation behind the establishment of the PBC, the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) and the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO) as its starting point. The exercise will critically assess the developments since 2005 in United Nations, global and regional peacebuilding-related approaches and practices. The review will further identify areas of progress and remaining gaps in international assistance to countries emerging from conflict. The terms of reference stipulate that the review will be grounded in specific country studies, which will be conducted in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, South Sudan and Timor-Leste. That will help the Security Council and the General Assembly place the challenges, needs and aspirations of the countries emerging from conflict at the core of our future efforts. Adjustments and improvements resulting from the outcome of the review should aim at enabling the PBC, the PBF and the PBSO to realize their full potential, and for the broader peacebuilding architecture to become more effective and relevant. It should also propose practical ways to strengthen and improve the Commission’s working relationship with the Council. The Commission also takes note of the Secretary- General’s communication of the United Nations system’s collective input to the review. That input signals the potential for joint ownership of the review’s outcome by both Member States and operational entities of the United Nations. We should aim for greater coherence and complementarity between the United Nations political and operational response to post-conflict situations, as well as improving coherence in the overall international response. That is an imperative that, unfortunately, continues to elude our collective efforts. The broad scope for the 2015 review points to Member States acknowledgement that the political and operational components of a broader United Nations and global peacebuilding architecture must work in synergy. Therefore, we welcome the Council’s reiteration in the draft presidential statement prepared for adoption today that the analysis underpinning the 2015 review should also be undertaken in conjunction and synergy with the upcoming Secretary-General’s review of peace operations. I strongly recommend to all a thorough reading of the Secretary-General’s report, which I found to be written in a particularly useful, informative and substantive manner. The core messages presented in the Secretary- General’s report on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict are reflected in the terms of reference of the 2015 review. For instance, both documents point to the importance of further sharpening the tools at the disposal of the United Nations with a view to preventing relapse into violent conflict. The crises in the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Libya, as well as the risks posed by the Ebola crisis, serve to remind us that our response must be multifaceted, carefully sequenced and sustained over the long term. Attention and support to nationally owned and inclusive political and socioeconomic development and institution-building processes should be prioritized. In my intervention before the Council on 19 March 2014 (see S/PV.7143), I noted the centrality of building peace as a central objective of the United Nations peace and security architecture. However, despite its importance, it is still not granted the sustained attention and commitment that is required by the international community to meet the complex and long-term challenges to sustainable peace. The Peacebuilding Fund provides catalytic funding in many situations, but that is insufficient to overcome the longer-term and larger scale gaps in financing and capacity that put our initial investments in peacemaking and peacekeeping at serious risk. Meanwhile, the PBC continues to focus its attention not only on the six countries on its agenda, but also on cross-cutting issues such as illicit financial flows, resource mobilization, gender, and food security. The PBSO remains a valuable source of expertise and support for our work, and I join the Deputy Secretary- General in commending the very able work done under Assistant Secretary-General Oscar Fernandez-Taranco and his team. The recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa has demonstrated the frailty of peacebuilding gains and the slow pace of institutional strengthening in the aftermath of conflict, where investment in national and local institutions is insufficient. The Commission requested the Secretary-General to undertake a multifaceted assessment of the long-term implications of the Ebola crisis on political and security institutions, as well as on social cohesion and economic recovery, in the three affected countries. Through that assessment, the Commission hopes to draw the international community’s attention to the nature of the challenges facing countries emerging from conflict, especially when their nascent institutions and recovering societies and economies are confronted with unexpected shocks. The Commission also hopes that the outcome of the assessment will shed light on the scope of the technical, financial and political support required for those countries to ensure their continued progress and resilience. Let me share with the Council an informal conversation I had with the Special Envoy and Head of the United Nations Mission for Ebola Emergency Response, David Nabarro, on the situation in the three most affected countries, which happen to be on the agenda of the PBC, according to whom the impact of the outbreak would have been even more devastating had it not been for the work that the Commission undertook in the past years, and continues to carry out. Allow me also to remind Security Council members that a first early-warning of the peace and security implications of the epidemic was made through a statement issued by the PBC in August 2014, thereby illustrating the preventive role played by the Commission. The drawdown of Security Council-mandated missions represents a milestone that brings to light the challenges of long-term peace consolidation in countries emerging from conflict. An adequate transition from emergency to development remains essential but, to a great extent, is still an ideal fraught with challenges. The change in the nature of the United Nations presence and mandate on the ground in Burundi and Sierra Leone, and soon in Liberia, calls for calibrated yet sustained attention to ongoing political and socioeconomic challenges associated with nascent national institutions, governance practices and development. On that topic, I strongly recommend the useful report recently issued by the PBC Working Group on Lessons Learned under the very competent guidance of the Permanent Representative of Japan, which can be found on the Commission’s website. Security Council mandates have increasingly emphasized the necessity of providing appropriate support to the Governments of countries emerging from conflict in order to establish sustainable peace. Early investment in peacebuilding activities, including security sector and justice reform as well as socioeconomic development, is a necessary complement to political and security-focused mandates. As the Secretary-General’s report makes clear, however, there continues to be serious gaps in the implementation of those aspects of Security Council-mandated missions. Greater financial and technical support for peacebuilding in collaboration with international financial institutions and regional and subregional organizations is necessary for the fulfilment of those ambitions. Securing predictable and sustainable financing continues to be a major challenge for countries emerging from conflict, limiting the provision of basic services, economic opportunities and the rebuilding of State institutions. At the same time, such countries are most affected by illicit financial flows and by unbalanced contractual arrangements for the exploitation of their natural wealth. The Commission made that particular challenge a priority in 2014. There are obvious gaps in international mechanisms to ensure timely, targeted and sustained support for countries emerging from conflict in the area of domestic resource mobilization, including curbing illicit financial flows and negotiating fair and balanced natural resources contracts. The Commission will continue to support regional and national efforts aimed at catalysing greater international commitment to address that challenge. Let me call attention to the forthcoming report under the authority of the High- level Panel chaired by former President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki, which will be of special interest in that regard. Finally, the Commission wishes to underscore the importance that we must continue to attach to the contribution of women to building and sustaining peace. While they endure the tragic consequences of violent conflicts, women are also strategic agents for transformation and emancipation in post-conflict societies. In that regard, the Commission is of the view that women’s empowerment greatly contributes to enhancing inclusivity and cohesion in post-conflict situations. Our collective understanding of post-conflict peacebuilding has continued to evolve over the past few years. Perhaps many of us, Member States and operational entities, tend to define peacebuilding in terms of certain mandated tasks or programmatic activities, but experience generated through years of engagement with countries at different stages of their post-conflict struggle confirms otherwise. Peacebuilding is indeed the political framework within which many of the mandates and activities must be conceived, sequenced and implemented. It rests on a delicate balance between State-centric and people-centred approaches to rebuilding institutions, strengthening social cohesion and regenerating a sense of an inclusive and nationally owned vision of the country’s future. As noted by the Deputy Secretary- General, peacebuilding is at the core of the United Nations ambitions in countries affected by conflict. The main conclusions from the Secretary-General’s report before us today offer us a unique opportunity to renew our commitment to the peoples in the countries emerging from conflict who struggle to chart a new course towards a better future.

I thank Ambassador Patriota for the important information he has given us. Following consultations among the members of the Council, I have been authorized to make the following statement on their behalf: “The Security Council recalls its resolutions and the statements of its President on post-conflict peacebuilding, in particular S/PRST/2009/23, S/PRST/2010/20, S/PRST/2011/2, S/PRST/2011/4 and S/PRST/2012/29, and reaffirms the critical importance of peacebuilding as the foundation for sustainable peace and development in the aftermath of conflict. “The Security Council takes note with appreciation of the Secretary-General’s report on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694) and the country-specific evidence of impacts and lessons learned it contains. “The Security Council recognizes that peacebuilding is an important element of the United Nations efforts in countries emerging from conflict, and reaffirms that sustainable peace and security requires an integrated sustained approach based on coherence among political, security and developmental approaches, which are essential for effectively improving respect for human rights, advancing gender equality, strengthening the rule of law and advancing economic development in countries emerging from conflict, recognizing the specific needs and situation of the country concerned. “The Security Council underlines that the primary responsibility for successful peacebuilding lies with national Governments and relevant local actors, including civil society, in countries emerging from conflict. “The Security Council emphasizes the importance of inclusivity in advancing national peacebuilding processes and objectives in order to ensure that the needs of all segments of society are taken into account. “The Security Council reaffirms that national ownership and leadership are key to establishing sustainable peace and reaffirms also the primary responsibility of national authorities in identifying their priorities and strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding. “The Security Council underscores that peacebuilding, in particular institution-building, the extension of State authority and the re-establishment of core public administration functions, requires sustained international and national attention and financial and technical support in order to effectively build and sustain peace in countries emerging from conflict. The Security Council recognizes that the gaps in the provision of rapid and sustained financial support continue to hamper peacebuilding efforts. The Security Council welcomes the role played by the United Nations Peacebuilding Fund in filling these gaps and urges Member States to contribute to the Fund and other relevant multi-donor trust funds that support countries emerging from conflict in order to replenish them. “The Security Council recognizes the recent successes in collective peacebuilding efforts of the United Nations and the wider international community and also acknowledges the setbacks and the challenges that the United Nations system, including the Council and the wider international community, have faced in preventing or reducing the risks of relapse into conflict. The Security Council expresses its determination to continue to take into consideration the underlying causes of relapse into conflict. “The Security Council looks forward to the outcome of the 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture and to the consideration of its recommendations in order to improve the peacebuilding capacity of the United Nations system, inter alia, by strengthening the performance and impact of the peacebuilding architecture with a view to realizing its full potential in line with the agreed terms of reference. “The Security Council underlines the need for the review of the peacebuilding architecture to be undertaken in conjunction and synergy with the upcoming Secretary General’s review of peace operations. “The Security Council recognizes the continuing need to increase women’s participation and the consideration of gender-related issues in all discussions pertinent to the prevention and resolution of armed conflict, the maintenance of peace and security, and post-conflict peacebuilding. “The Security Council recalls its resolution 1645 (2005) and acknowledges the important role of the Peacebuilding Commission in the peacebuilding architecture and stresses its willingness to strengthen its links with the Peacebuilding Commission by, inter alia, making greater use of its advisory role. The Council calls upon the Commission to make further efforts in promoting improved coherence and alignment of partners’ policies around national peacebuilding strategies and priorities, and ensuring regional and international support and effective responses through engagement and establishing partnerships with international financial institutions, neighbouring countries and regional and subregional organizations. The Security Council underscores the importance of the regional aspect of peacebuilding and the need for engaging and collaborating with regional actors in policy-related and country-specific issues in the advice provided by the Peacebuilding Commission. “The Security Council notes that the Peacebuilding Commission’s advisory role to the Council is particularly appreciated in view of its contribution to the implementation of the Council’s mandates on the ground in countries on its agenda. “The Security Council requests the Secretary- General to brief the Council by December 2015 and to submit a report to the Council no later than December 2016 on further United Nations peacebuilding efforts in the aftermath of conflict, including progress towards increasing the participation of women in peacebuilding, taking into consideration the views of the Peacebuilding Commission.” This statement will be issued as a document of the Security Council under the symbol S/PRST/2015/2. I shall now make a statement in my capacity as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile. At the outset, I thank the Deputy Secretary-General, Mr. Jan Eliasson — who has been a great friend of mine for quite some time now, since the Peacebuilding Commission was established — for introducing the report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694). I also thank the Permanent Representative of Brazil, Ambassador Antonio Patriota, in his capacity as Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, who led the preparatory process for the review of the peacebuilding architecture that will be carried out this year. When the first report (S/2009/304) was submitted in 2009, as Ambassador Patriota rightly pointed out, I was Chairperson of the Peacebuilding Commission. Since the Commission’s establishment in 2005, as can be seen from the reports, we have learned to manage conflicts better and made progress developing criteria and arrangements to make the work of the United Nations system more efficient. Cases such as that of Sierra Leone, which is categorized as a post-conflict country, show that through the coordinated work of national, political, economic and social players, supported by the United Nations system and regional and subregional bodies, the foundations for lasting peace and development can be laid. Despite those efforts, conflict still arises, sometimes with alarming frequency, intensity and diversity of players, because its causes — in particular, in our view, exclusion and inequality — not only endure, but have intensified in many communities. Therefore the role of the Commission is as important today as it was a decade ago. Its core mission is to ensure that conflict-affected countries achieve lasting peace and do relapse into a spiral of violence and confrontation. We appreciate its work done and acknowledge its political nature, which requires leadership, the multidimensional support of the international community, and a favourable regional environment. National ownership, we believe, is crucial for the acceptance and viability of post-conflict processes and the commitment of national players to its successful outcome in the long-term. That task requires sustained financial, technical and political support. The commitment of the World Bank and other regional and subregional financial institutions should be enhanced and coordinated, as should the actions of participating States. That support should be viewed not as complementary to the national economy, but as a contribution to the peacebuilding process. Accordingly, my country, Chile, contributes annually to the Peacebuilding Fund; in 2014, we contributed the modest sum of $300,000 to the fight against Ebola, an epidemic that has affected post-conflict countries in political transition. It is noteworthy that the report recognizes the essential role played by women in peacebuilding processes, especially since it is girls and women who are primarily affected by armed conflicts. In that connection, women should be able to participate on an equal footing in all matters related to those processes. Some very positive results have been achieved, and more could be done if a larger share of the Fund’s resources were devoted to projects designed to promote the empowerment of women and gender equality. In addition, we believe that the review of the peacebuilding architecture to be conducted this year will provide an opportunity to build on the experience gained, and to considerably improve the capacity of the United Nations system to support those processes and make progress in conflict prevention. We are also convinced of the need for synergy between that review and those of the United Nations peacekeeping operations and special political missions undertaken by the Secretary-General; the Council’s 2015 high-level assessment of progress made in the implementation of resolution 1325 (2000); and the global study on the implementation of the said resolution. Experience shows that it is vital to strengthen institution-building processes based on political systems that enjoy civic legitimacy, giving priority to the essential functions of public administration. The establishment of security and rule of law institutions, whose mission is to protect civil society, can promote the implementation of peace agreements, national reconciliation processes and transparent and verifiable elections. In that context, the Secretary-General’s Rights Up Front initiative is an important tool for evaluating the way in which peacebuilding processes protect and respect international standards of human rights and humanitarian law. The identification of the factors that gave rise to confrontation is essential to peacebuilding. It is necessary to understand what happened and why in order to restore institutional order, legitimized by inclusive political agreements, and to ensure its viability. Without such analysis, it is difficult to predict the outbreak of a conflict or, once it has begun, to devise and implement long- and medium-term actions that address the root causes and ensure that there is no recurrence. Exclusion in all its forms, poverty, marginality and the lack of education and opportunities are fertile ground for outbreaks of violence. If peacebuilding actions acknowledge that reality and are undertaken in that broader context, the efforts of States and the United Nations system will achieve their goals of peace and development. I now resume my functions as President of the Council. I now give the floor to the other members of the Security Council.

I thank Deputy Secretary- General Eliasson and Ambassador Patriota for their briefings. I also thank the Secretary-General for his report on progress in United Nations peacebuilding efforts in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694). The report indicates that, while progress has been made in United Nations peacebuilding efforts, challenges still remain. I would like to briefly touch on three aspects of the report: the participation of women in peacebuilding, the need for an integrated approach to peacebuilding among United Nations entities, and developing lessons on good practices in peacebuilding. With regard to the participation of women in peacebuilding, Nigeria shares the view of the Secretary- General that the promotion of inclusive politics requires that attention be paid to the concerns of women in all stages of peacemaking and peacebuilding. We welcome the priority that the Secretary-General accords to the advancement of women’s participation in post-conflict political and development processes. It is significant that over the past five years more women have been appointed as mediators and envoys by the Secretary- General. Since women are disproportionately affected by conflicts, it is appropriate that women mediators, who can relate better to them, be involved in the search for peace. Increased United Nations support to women’s civil society organizations involved in post- conflict political participation and the progress made in the funding of gender-responsive peacebuilding programmes are key indicators of the United Nations efforts in enhancing women’s participation in peacebuilding. We commend the use of a gender marker to track the allocation of funds to women’s empowerment and gender-equality. We encourage the Peacebuilding Fund to intensify its efforts at reaching the 15-per cent target for the allocation of funds to projects having as their main objective the promotion of women’s empowerment and gender equality. Nigeria recognizes the difficulty of adopting an integrated approach to peacebuilding among United Nations entities having different mandates. We therefore see merit in having one set of objectives and a single vision to guide the actors on the ground towards the consolidation of peace. That calls for closer coordination and integration between the Secretary- General’s Special Representatives, Special Envoys and Special Advisers on the one hand, and the United Nations country teams on the other. Nigeria commends the Peacebuilding Fund for its efforts in promoting this integrated approach. Concerning the development of lessons on good practices in peacebuilding, we note that there are challenges in obtaining comprehensive information on the impact of programmes. That in turn has made it difficult to quantify the impact of peacebuilding. Nigeria believes that it is important, and indeed crucial, for the United Nations to be able to assess the impact of peacebuilding in order to identify gaps that need to be filled. We therefore encourage the Organization to take measures that would help it improve its capacity to evaluate the impact of peacebuilding programmes. Nigeria recognizes the importance of the ongoing reforms by the Peacebuilding Commission. The 2015 review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture should help us to identify areas of progress and gaps in international assistance to countries emerging from conflict. Nigeria welcomes the emphasis placed by the Commission on forging greater regional coherence as a critical factor in helping countries sustain peace and avoid a relapse into conflict. We share the Commission’s view on the importance of the regional dimension of peacebuilding. That calls for closer engagement and collaboration with regional actors. We believe that this regional dimension deserves attention in the 2015 review process. Finally, Nigeria would like to reaffirm its strong support for the Peacebuilding Commission. The role of the Commission in the peacebuilding architecture remains crucial. Its efforts at attaining peace and inclusive development in the aftermath of conflict are yielding results. We call on Member States and other stakeholders to strengthen their engagement with the Commission with a view toward improving its capacity to build peace and promote development in countries coming out of conflict.

I would like at the outset to thank Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson for his briefing, as well as Ambassador Patriota, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). I would also like to thank the Chilean presidency of the Security Council for taking the initiative to convene this important and welcome debate on a complex issue to which we have not found a satisfactory response despite the collective efforts we have made since 2005. Ten years after the establishment of the peacebuilding architecture, clear progress has been made, on the one hand, towards better understanding of the specific challenges facing post-conflict countries, and on the other, towards better coordination of various international efforts, particularly those of the United Nations entities in the countries concerned. The report of the Secretary-General on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694), which is the basis for our discussion, cites numerous examples in which the peacebuilding architecture has actually improved situations. Yet, progress can still be made in our collective efforts. The capacities to mobilize long-term resources and to coordinate different donors in support of strategies defined together with the host States remain a challenge for which we still need to find a satisfactory solution. In the case of countries emerging from conflict that relapse into critical situations, we see these as failures that challenge us to do better. In this regard, France supports the review of the peacebuilding architecture to be carried out in 2015. The review will be held together with the strategic review of peacekeeping operations. That these two events will be conducted concurrently is particularly appropriate. In short, with the help of these two reviews, all modalities of United Nations intervention in countries in crisis or emerging from crisis will be critically considered throughout the entire lifecycle of a conflict, as the Deputy Secretary-General said earlier — from conflict prevention to post-conflict stabilization, via the peacekeeping and transition-management phases. These beneficial exercises are welcome. In this context, I would like to draw particular attention to three crucial ideas. First, there is a need to be firmly anchored in the field and local conditions in order to provide an appropriate response. We see it as very positive that the method for reviewing peacebuilding uses country- specific case studies. Similarly, France believes that it is in the country-specific configurations of the Peacebuilding Commission that the real work can be accomplished, with the determined commitment of ambassadors in the configurations that they chair and in operational meetings on specific and concrete issues that will enable follow-up of projects. While organizational considerations are important, they must not distract us from the heart of the matter — the work to be done on the countries on the agenda. Second is the issue of articulation among the various missions and how they are sequenced. This issue is at the heart and intersection of the two reviews in progress. It is crucial. France thanks Japan for its report on the lessons learned in the transitions between missions. Our thinking and efforts in this area need to be continued. This reflection on the sequencing and prioritization of international action applies not only to the succession of different missions, but also within missions in the implementation of their mandates. This is what France has done with its partners within the framework of the phased approach mandated for the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic. Third and last is the issue of coherence of international actions and the need to ensure a long- term commitment in support of national processes. Institutional reconstruction, restoring functioning State structures throughout the territory, national reconciliation, transitional justice, and economic recovery and development are challenges that take years or even decades to address. Managing these emergencies is one thing, but meeting these long-term challenges is another, and our progress in these areas has been immense. In this regard, the involvement of regional and subregional organizations in peacebuilding is a major challenge. In conclusion, France fully supportsAmbassador Patriota’s earlier comments advocating women’s roles as a factor for social stability and cohesion that needs to be a critical pillar of the brainstorming under way.

We welcome you, Sir, to the presidency of the Security Council and thank the delegation of Chile for organizing this meeting on the subject of peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict. We would also like to thank the Deputy Secretary-General for his briefing and Ambassador Patriota of Brazil for his effective leadership of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2014. The primary aims of States engulfed in the hot phase of conflict is to strengthen national reconciliation and to restore safe and favourable living conditions for the entire population of the country. That is absolutely necessary in order to avoid a relapse into armed conflict. It is particularly important in that such countries frequently have limited human and institutional resources to address the entire range of problems in the areas of security, law and order, social and economic development and other pressing issues. At the same time, we believe that it is counterproductive to overemphasize, in the recovery context, gender and human rights issues that have no direct bearing on the root causes of the crisis situation. Given the scope of the peacebuilding tasks, of particular importance is the assistance of the international community in building the national capacities of post-conflict States. Moreover, while it is critical and frequently fundamental to provide outside peacebuilding assistance to national efforts, it is imperative to uphold such fundamental principles as the consent of the recipient States and respect for national sovereignty and political independence. Governments must determine their own priorities when carrying out reform, coordinate them and bear primary responsibility for the outcome. As experience shows, in order to achieve and truly sustain long-term results, we must take into account the country-specific context and the root causes of the emergence of a crisis situation. Otherwise, relapse into conflict is practically unavoidable, as we saw, for example, in the Central African Republic and the South Sudan. It is no secret that in those instances priorities were imposed from the outside for the activities of the entities involved, with insufficient justification. There was a diffuse and irrational use of limited funds and resources, as well as an encroachment upon the remit of other players. The United Nations clearly has a particular role to play in coordinating international efforts in post- conflict recovery. To date, however, as the report of the Secretary-General (S/2014/694) rightly points out, the activities of the entire team of peacebuilders — including the Secretariat, the programmes and funds, the Member States, regional organizations and international financial institutions — are fragmented. There is inefficient division of labour, and there are gaps in the mechanisms of financing. Many early peacekeeping issues are also currently included in the mandates of United Nations peacekeeping operations. In carrying out their primary task of facilitating peace processes, United Nations peacekeepers also play a critical role in creating favourable conditions for providing broader peacebuilding assistance. However, peacebuilding is a long road that goes far beyond the framework of a time-bound peacekeeping operation. We see the Peacebuilding Fund as an important mechanism of emergency funding that contributes to the involvement of long-term mechanisms in assistance to recovery and development. My country backs up its position with a $2 million annual contribution to its budget. Our global Organization is entering a very important anniversary year. A slew of review processes have been initiated with a view to objectively examining various areas of the activity of the United Nations, and peacebuilding is no exception. We believe that the upcoming review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, as approved by Member States, will focus on affirming the Commission, with its unique intergovernmental nature, as its central element, and on proposing concrete, achievable recommendations for improving that architecture, with strict regard for the prerogatives of the principal organs of the United Nations, as enshrined in its Charter.

The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela is honoured to see a Latin American country presiding over the Security Council. Building peace in countries emerging from armed conflict is one of the fundamental tasks of the United Nations system and deserves our full attention. Venezuela would like to thank Ambassador Antonio Patriota for his briefing, and we acknowledge the important work the Peacebuilding Commission is doing. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson for his statement. Venezuela acknowledges the United Nations system’s peacebuilding efforts, including its recent successes in countries such as Sierra Leone. At the same time, however, we are aware of the current setbacks and challenges in other countries, such as the Central African Republic, which has reminded us that dealing with the underlying reasons for the emergence of conflicts and countries’ relapse into them continues to be a significant challenge to the system. My country supports the decision to evaluate the performance of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. In that regard, we reaffirm the importance of keeping the centrality of the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination constantly in mind. We also recognize the need for improving women’s participation in peacebuilding activities and taking into account their ability to contribute, among other things, to expanding access and support for women at the local level, facilitating the submission of complaints, and enhancing women’s empowerment in affected areas. Venezuela has contributed significantly to peacebuilding efforts in Haiti since the earthquake that devastated our sister nation in 2010. Besides forgiving a debt of more than $395 million, we contributed more than $3 billion in aid to Haiti’s recovery between 2010 and 2014, while always respecting Haiti’s own primary role in peacebuilding and the Haitian Government’s fundamental authority in defining the purposes and objectives of the peacebuilding process. Our efforts have focused on strengthening the institutional capacity of the State in the areas of development, inclusiveness and human rights. Peacebuilding can succeed when the underlying causes of conflicts are properly addressed. Sustainable development and putting an end to every sort of exclusion and discrimination are essential conditions for a peaceful and prosperous society. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela awaits the report on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture with anticipation, and we trust that the process will produce concrete initiatives aimed at dealing with the reasons for the emergence of conflicts and countries’ relapse into them, including poverty, inequality, the legacy of colonialism, foreign interference, economic dependence, the illegal exploitation of natural resources and the asymmetries of power that govern contract negotiations for extracting such resources. In conclusion, Mr. President, Venezuela would like to take this opportunity to affirm its full support to you during your presidency and to wish you every success.

At the outset, I would like to warmly thank Deputy Secretary- General Jan Eliasson and Mr. Antonio Patriota, Permanent Representative of Brazil and Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their thorough briefings. I would also like to welcome Mr. Heraldo Muñoz, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, and to thank him for presiding over this important meeting on post-conflict peacebuilding. This is a particularly important year for the role of the United Nations in peacebuilding. There will be full reviews of peacekeeping operations and the peacebuilding architecture, which leads us to emphasize that these two complementary processes are indeed inseparable when it comes to ending violence and enabling countries emerging from conflict to find a path to lasting peace. Peacebuilding requires comprehensive efforts that include both international and regional support, as well as the cooperation of the Governments and institutions of the countries emerging from conflict. That cooperation is necessary not only to enable the work to get done, but above all because the countries themselves are essential partners in peacebuilding. Those countries must therefore provide the necessary tools and contributions, to the degree they are able, to help the United Nations entities comply with their mandates and implement their programmes. Peace consolidation, which can also be described as a period of reconstruction and rebuilding, is by its nature a civilian-oriented operation employing a relatively small staff, which enables such missions to be more easily accepted by societies emerging from conflict. They therefore assume the different role of understanding the specific features and nature of those societies and tackling many different areas, which distinguishes them from peacekeeping operations. In practice, they help to strengthen political processes and economic activity, improve infrastructure and human rights situations, and develop plans for services designed to improve living conditions. It is therefore essential to take into account the concerns and aspirations of countries in conflict situations, as well the regional environment, particularly since some countries are dealing with issues that are a threat to their neighbours, too. The review of the peacebuilding architecture should take into consideration the principles of flexibility and adaptability, in view of countries’ different needs, the challenges facing them and their policies, and the speed with which they can be implemented in different countries, particularly when it comes to transferring power to the local authorities. We support the United Nations peacebuilding mandate and the strengthening of its three principal entities, the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. We greatly appreciate their efforts to strengthen the role of the United Nations in countries emerging from conflict. The review of the peacebuilding architecture will provide a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of actions already undertaken and should help to address the gaps that in the past have had a negative effect on the work of the United Nations in this field. We should also review the factors that may influence the United Nations peacebuilding work and the obstacles it may encounter, including limited funding and a lack of political will and genuine cooperation on the part of the countries concerned. The latter shows how important it is to maintain a positive partnership between countries and the relevant entities of the United Nations. It should also be borne in mind that States emerging from conflict can be affected by instability in neighbouring countries as well. We therefore hope that the review will result in the creation of a road map that will promote the conditions necessary for effective intervention on the part of United Nations peacebuilding, so as to respond to the needs and demands of the countries dealing with such situations. Sustainable mechanisms to promote sustainable development are crucial in this area. We urge donor countries to pursue their efforts in financing peacebuilding and to find an effective and optimal way to manage these funds. Women’s participation is critical and constructive, and we attach great importance to it. Women can contribute in many ways to strengthening peacebuilding, and we therefore support initiatives aimed at strengthening the role of women and providing them with appropriate training. Jordan believes that the United Nations vision and work on post-conflict situations should involve experts in various areas, acting in accordance with their United Nations mandates, in order to ensure cooperation and partnerships with national authorities and regional bodies, help restore the stability of the countries concerned and prevent their relapse into conflict.

Allow me to welcome you to the Council, Mr. President, and to congratulate Chile on its accession to the presidency of the Council. I thank you for having organized this meeting on post-conflict peacebuilding. I also thank Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson and Ambassador Antonio Patriota, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their briefings. The success of peacebuilding in post-conflict States requires, inter alia, three elements that we believe are essential. These are the identification of priorities, the strengthening of institutions, and the broad support of the international community. In terms of peacebuilding priorities, the countries involved must set their own priorities in accordance with the principles of national ownership. Furthermore, the establishment of open political mechanisms should be part of any peacebuilding strategy. We welcome the example of Tunisia, where the broad participation of political parties and civil society has led the political process to the adoption of a new Constitution and to the holding of free, transparent elections. Furthermore, the participation of women and young people in political and development processes is critical to post-conflict recovery. In that regard, we firmly recommend the strengthening of investments in activities that support the economic empowerment of women and young people. With respect to institution-building, we note that this is a long-term effort involving robust interaction at various levels. In that regard, we believe that the emphasis should be on restoring State authority and the essential functions of the Government and on providing basic public services to the people. From this perspective, we welcome the capacity-building efforts in South Sudan, Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and elsewhere, as well as the support of partners. In South Sudan, the initiative to build the capacities of the public civil service, launched by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, has been possible due to the involvement of civil service training personnel from neighbouring States. In Côte d’Ivoire, the simplification of birth records and the issuance of identification documents has improved access to services and electoral participation, and strengthened social cohesion. We believe that this example deserves to be replicated in other countries, particularly in the Central African Republic. Indeed, public trust needs to be restored in law enforcement in those countries, and social cohesion must be strengthened in order to speed up the return of refugees and displaced persons. In Liberia, the justice and security centres are a crucial element in the Government’s strategy to extend justice and security services beyond the capital. We welcome the support of the United Nations and the major financing provided by the Peacebuilding Fund for these initiatives. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the restoration of State authority through the redeployment of State functions in areas previously controlled by armed groups remains essential to the stability of the country. It should be emphasized that the sound management of natural resources and transparency are major factors in terms of minimizing the conflict and restoring trust. With respect to the support of the international community, we recall that peacebuilding depends to a great extent on multifaceted support, particularly political, financial and technical. In this respect, Chad welcomes the role of the Peacebuilding Fund in supporting peace processes, promoting the prompt implementation of peace agreements, and investing in the rapid strengthening of institutions. We therefore call on the international financial institutions and multilateral and bilateral partners to continue to support the recovery of countries in post-conflict situations. We hope that the necessary resources will be mobilized in order to create conditions conducive to lasting peace in post-conflict countries. At the same time, we remain concerned about the many pending challenges, including transnational organized crime, drug and arms trafficking, and epidemics, such as the Ebola virus, which continue to have a very negative impact on the capacities of the institutions of a number of countries, particularly in West Africa. In conclusion, we hope that the adoption of the new peacebuilding architecture this year will help us establish better adapted mechanisms in this area in order to better contribute to the recovery of post- conflict countries and to preventing their disastrous relapse into violence.

I wish to welcome you, Mr. President, to New York and thank you for presiding over this meeting. Your presence today indicates clearly the importance Chile places on this important subject. I would like to thank the Deputy Secretary-General and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission for their respective briefings. I wish to welcome the Secretary- General’s report on peacebuilding in the aftermath of conflict (S/2014/694), which provides a comprehensive overview of progress in United Nations peacebuilding efforts in the aftermath of conflict, including the issue of women in peacebuilding. Malaysia has always placed importance on the Peacebuilding Commission’s capacity as an intergovernmental advisory body to provide strategies and approaches on peacebuilding within the United Nations system. We firmly believe that the Commission plays a significant role, in particular in providing a common platform for international actors working in support of sustainable peace and development in countries emerging from conflict. We support the United Nations continuing efforts to pool all available and relevant resources with a view to assisting countries in post-conflict peacebuilding, recovery, reconstruction and sustainable development. My delegation also wishes to underscore the three key priority directions for the engagement of the United Nations system in peacebuilding, as highlighted by the Secretary-General: inclusivity, institution-building and sustained international support, and mutual accountability. We believe that these key priorities are interlinked and serve as fundamental principles in assisting countries emerging from conflict. Malaysia is encouraged by the progress made in a number of countries to consolidate peace following conflict despite far-reaching challenges. However, it is distressing and unfortunate that we continue to witness instances of situations relapsing into conflict across various regions today. Against the backdrop of such developments, we believe that there remains room for further improvement in United Nations peacebuilding efforts. We fully share the Secretary-General’s view on the need for the United Nations to work in a more integrated and coherent manner in assisting countries emerging from conflict. In this regard, Malaysia wishes to make the following comments. Malaysia continues to believe that the Security Council has benefited from its increased interaction with the Peacebuilding Commission, in particular in the light of the linkages between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. In our view, the integration and coherence of peacekeeping and peacebuilding efforts remain crucial for achieving durable peace and security and for preventing relapses into conflict. Resolution 2086 (2013) highlighted and reaffirmed this important interlinkage in the context of multidimensional peacekeeping missions and expressed the Council’s continued willingness to make use of the advisory, advocacy and resource-mobilization roles of the Peacebuilding Commission in peacebuilding activities. Malaysia has been a consistent advocate of deepening the relationship between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council. Given its unique composition, the Peacebuilding Commission is well placed to advise the Security Council on many issues, in particular the root causes of conflict, including the socioeconomic causes, and the possible risk of relapse into conflict. Malaysia sees the merit of more frequent formal and informal interaction between the two bodies. In our view, the advice and assessments by the Chairs of country-specific configuration should be considered in a meaningful way by the Council. In this regard, Malaysia reiterates its position that there should be greater connectivity and interaction between the Peacebuilding Commission and the Security Council so as to enhance further work in the development of practical peacebuilding policies. My delegation reaffirms that efforts to support post-conflict countries must be premised on the principle of national ownership. Through national ownership, any policy of post-conflict reconstruction, institution-building and the formulation of an economic development programme will reflect the needs of local stakeholders and ensure inclusivity and legitimacy. In addition, the role of women in conflict prevention should be further mainstreamed. In Malaysia’s view, engaging women in peacebuilding, settlement and post-conflict decision-making processes is vital to ensuring sustainable recovery and long-term peace. In this regard, more effort is needed to take forward to Secretary-General’s seven-point action plan on gender- responsive peacekeeping, particularly on gender- responsive civilian capacity, women’s representation in post-conflict governance and conflict resolution. We welcome the fact that there are other players in the peacebuilding field, such as the World Bank and the African Development Bank. The Commission’s efforts to strengthen partnerships with international financial institutions on the basis of complementarity between their respective roles in support of national peacebuilding strategies should be further continued. Malaysia believes that regional engagement and commitment are imperative 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. As for the case of the Ebola outbreak, the Peacebuilding Commission has been instrumental in maintaining the focus of the international community on the Ebola crisis and in coordinating efforts among all partners, including regional and subregional organizations. Malaysia welcomes the efforts of the Peacebuilding Commission in the area of resource mobilization. We are of the view that resource mobilization should not end at fundraising alone, but should broaden the base and securing the buy-in of traditional and new bilateral and multilateral donors to engage in support of peacebuilding processes in the countries concerned. In Malaysia’s view, efforts should also be made to develop the revenue-generation capacity of those countries. We believe that this would be an important step in strengthening the governance of countries and preventing relapses into conflict. This would also entail greater responsibility and legitimacy for the Government and call on support from Member States in providing training to enhance administration and governance. My delegation well welcomes the adoption earlier of presidential statement S/PRST/2015/2 as the outcome of this briefing. Malaysia wishes to express its deep gratitude to the Peacebuilding Commission for the progress achieved in countries such as Liberia, Sierra Leone and Burundi. We are fully supportive of the aims and objectives underlying the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission, as well as the excellent work that the Commission has undertaken to date. In conclusion, Malaysia looks forward to the outcome of the 2015 review of the peacebuilding architecture with a view to further improving the United Nations’ peacebuilding efforts. We believe that the review will be in a position to acknowledge the potential of the Peacebuilding Commission as an advisory body and as a support to countries emerging from conflict. To this end, Malaysia is committed to working together with all partners to support and promote peace efforts in countries emerging from conflict.

I thank Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson and the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), Ambassador Antonio de Aguiar Patriota, for their comprehensive briefings. My delegation commends the Chilean presidency of the Security Council for this initiative and welcomes the adoption of presidential statement S/PRST/2015/2 earlier today. This exchange of views on post-conflict peacebuilding is very timely as we embark on the review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We have seen some successes in recent years, as in the cases of Timor-Leste or the conclusion of peace operations in Sierra Leone in March 2014. Such successes, however, remain the exception rather than the rule. Repetitive cycles of violence threaten a reversal of peace and development efforts in various parts of the world. The youngest State Member of the United Nations, South Sudan, has seen its progress unravel due to the eruption of violence over a year ago. In the Central African Republic, the current fragile signals of improvement should be carefully watched and actively supported to prevent yet another repetition of the cycle of violence and coups. The dramatic fragility of the situations in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere demands the improved coherence and synergy of efforts on the part of the various actors on the ground. Even where success has been clear, as in Sierra Leone, unexpected developments, such as the unprecedented Ebola outbreak, threaten to undermine peacebuilding gains. Ebola’s overall impact on peacebuilding and development in that country, Guinea and Liberia, as well as its broader regional implications, are yet to be seen. The United Nations can and should do better in many areas, including by ensuring across-the-board delivery as one, developing effective transition and exit strategies, continuous analysis, stronger synergies and coherence, as well as constant adjustment of responses. We welcome the upcoming review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture, which we see as an opportunity to come up with concrete recommendations on its functioning, resources and modes of engagement. We fully agree with the Deputy Secretary-General on the importance of establishing positive synergies with the review of United Nations peacekeeping operations undertaken by the Secretary-General, and the high- level review to assess progress in the implementation of resolution 1325 (2000), on women and peace and security. We believe that, while distinct in nature and scope, those reviews cannot be conducted in isolation and that their outcomes should be mutually supportive and reinforcing. National institution-building is key for successful transitions from conflict to a lasting peace. Strengthening the resilience of States, building legitimate, accountable and effective institutions, and consolidating the rule of law is a long-term endeavour, which requires national leadership and ownership and sustained international attention and support alike. Inter alia, it calls for holistic approaches and the identification of specific destabilizing factors, such as a lack of accountability, corruption or unaddressed grievances and disputes, including those regarding property, land ownership and access to vital resources. Furthermore, the illicit flow and accumulation of weapons can quickly wipe out years of institution-building, as political actors would be tempted to achieve their objectives through violence and force. If a peaceful dialogue is to be sustained, the United Nations must ensure the cohesiveness of its efforts, including through disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programmes and assistance in security sector reform that not only create a safer and more conducive environment for institution-building, but also offer incentives to former combatants to become a part of the peaceful solution. At the same time, as former combatants are reintegrated, it is essential that they be properly vetted and retrained and that their former victims do not feel threatened by their new roles in the community. If that is not ensured, their reintegration will undercut trust in the institutions and in justice itself, with the inevitable negative consequences for building a lasting peace. Inclusivity is another crucial aspect of sustainable peacebuilding. In particular, women can and must play an active role both in conflict resolution and in the peacebuilding efforts that follow. Peace and development cannot be sustained if half of the population is left out because of gender. When peacebuilding efforts are based on inclusive societal consultations, where credible, viable mechanisms for effective and broad public participation exist, and no group or segment of the society feels excluded or marginalized, that generates legitimacy and trust in the state and its institutions. Conversely, the absence of such inclusivity threatens peace and reconciliation processes and the stability of the State itself. We may recall, for example, that the Council urged the Governments of Mali and Iraq repeatedly to ensure inclusivity and address the lingering grievances among the various groups of society. The consequences of such failure stand as a stark warning to all States transitioning out of conflict. Furthermore, the success of transition from conflict to sustained development demands that the issues of justice and accountability be most seriously addressed. Failure to ensure justice and put an end to impunity can sabotage post-conflict peacebuilding efforts and eventually rekindle the conflict itself. Lithuania highly values the contribution of the PBC, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office in building durable peace in a number of countries coming out of conflict. We encourage a further strengthening of the links between the PBC and the Security Council aimed at ensuring a seamless transition from peacekeeping to sustainable and durable development and peace. In that respect, periodic stocktaking briefings and interactive exchanges can be very useful in the work of both bodies. We believe that the PBC can also have a useful role when the Council is considering mandate renewals and in transitions of United Nations missions. Furthermore, the PBC should draw the Council’s attention to emerging threats in the countries on its agenda. The PBC should also remain actively engaged in support of the political dialogue and other preparatory processes, in the light of the upcoming elections in countries on its agenda. We would welcome a more proactive dialogue of the PBC with relevant regional and subregional organizations. Partnerships between the PBC and the international financial institutions and private sector entities are also important. We believe that work in that direction should be further pursued in order to mobilize resources, identify financing gaps, ensure coherent responses and avoid duplications. Peacebuilding is a long and painstaking multi-stakeholder process. The upcoming review of the peacebuilding architecture provides us with an opportunity to revisit our approaches, identify continuing and emerging challenges and broader systemic gaps in order to adjust our collective responses and realize the full peacebuilding potential of the United Nations.

I thank the mission of Chile for organizing this debate and Minister for Foreign Affairs Heraldo Muñoz for presiding over this meeting. I also thank Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson and Ambassador Patriota, Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission, for their briefings. The reasons for which the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) was established a few years ago remain as regrettably relevant as they ever were. Important progress has been made, but significant challenges remain. With respect to the progress made, I can state with satisfaction that there are very positive signs in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau and Burundi. With respect to the challenges, those can be seen in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. Of course we await the review exercise that should enhance the efficiency of the PBC and will be based on the experiences and lessons learned over a short period of years. We trust that the basic outcome will, precisely, avoid relapses into conflict. Of course, the process will be a long one extending over years and decades, because peacekeeping and peacebuilding, unfortunately, are tasks that we will always have to deal with. There are many areas of convergence between the ideas that have been shared around this table, so I will just briefly review them and the text of my statement will be available on my mission’s website. In terms of post-conflict situations, there are four major ideas that I would like to highlight. First, it is important that political dialogue processes be inclusive and that all political movements be involved in them. Secondly, the State should be endowed with institutions that are perceived — and I would highlight this — as legitimate, effective and responsible. Thirdly, it is important for national actors to enjoy ownership. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, there is a need to promote reconciliation, coherence and coordination among national, international and, most importantly, regional actors. Now, as I said earlier, the PBC has a unique role in achieving three objectives: securing predictable technical, financial and political support in the short and medium terms; reconciling the positions of the various national, regional and international players involved; and thirdly — and I would like to underscore this — maintaining international actors’ focus on the peace processes in post-conflict countries. I would like to mention Africa, in particular the growing responsibilities being shouldered by African actors, including regional and subregional entities in Africa. I think it is important that they continue to focus, as required, on the terrible impact of Ebola. I would conclude by saying that Spain has been a member of the PBC since the beginning. I would recall that Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson has also been there from the beginning. We have been there almost continuously, working on peacebuilding with the PBC. Now that the United Nations is undertaking a triple review process — namely of peacekeeping operations, the PBC and resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security — it is crucial that those three processes begin interacting now so that we can avoid overlaps and together achieve the ultimate objective that we all want, which is to maintain and enhance the effectiveness of the Organization in the maintenance of international peace and security.

I welcome you, Mr. President, back to New York and thank you for convening this important discussion today. I also thank Ambassador Patriota, not only for his briefing today, but also for his chairmanship of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). We value that very much. Finally, I thank the Deputy Secretary-General for his briefing. We particularly appreciate the fact that the Secretary-General’s report not only includes some very useful and illustrative examples of country- specific situations in which particular peacebuilding mechanisms have worked, but also gives us examples of where they have not. That, I think, is the real value as a report such as this. This briefing and the presidential statement S/PRST/2015/2 we have just adopted come at the start of a very important year for peacebuilding as the 2015 comprehensive review gets under way. It is central to the work of the Council that we achieve the best possible peacebuilding architecture. The Deputy Secretary-General spoke of that as being core to our operation, so New Zealand encourages the expert panel to be ambitious in its work and in its recommendations. We would also encourage the panel to be mindful of, and where possible to coordinate its activities with, the high-level review of United Nations peace operations, which is proceeding contemporaneously. A robust assessment of lessons learned from countries on the PBC agenda will be important in ensuring that the Panel’s findings are underpinned by real-world examples, not least those built on proven linkages among development, human rights and peace and security. It is our view and feeling that it is much more difficult to dispute proven facts, on which the Panel will rely, than it is to argue unproven theory. Facts work; theories are just theories. New Zealand comes to the Council to promote practical approaches and practical solutions, so we attach very real importance to the review. We particularly welcome the case-study model that has been endorsed by the Council, and overall we shall be looking for a process that, in due time, sees the Council and the General Assembly adopting recommendations that make a practical difference by better equipping United Nations peacebuilding to prevent relapses into violent conflict. As the review team begins its work, and drawing on New Zealand’s experience — not least through participation in United Nations missions in Timor- Leste and others in our region and beyond — I want to offer six very brief thoughts. First, we echo the Secretary-General’s call for United Nations peacebuilding work to be more integrated and coherent. It is essential that peacebuilding be carefully integrated into broader post-conflict efforts, so we have been very pleased with recent efforts to improve the integration of mandated peacebuilding tasks into the earliest possible phases of mission planning and deployment. Coordination among peacebuilding actors is also important. A thorough assessment of the comparative advantage of all actors in specific situations — including those that are not part of the United Nations system — is key to avoiding duplication and to ensuring that the most capable entity is given the job and can then get on with the job. Secondly, New Zealand supports the Secretary- General’s observation concerning the crucial role played by regional actors and neighbouring States. In the Pacific, the involvement since 2003 of all 15 members of the Pacific Islands Forum in the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands exemplifies the success of strong regional peacebuilding partnerships. Thirdly, we would urge the Panel to focus its attention on progress made in strengthening the United Nations own capacity for rapid identification and deployment of relevant peacebuilding expertise, not least by drawing on recommendations from the civilian capacity review. Fourthly, careful planning of peacekeeping transitions is essential for building on early peacebuilding gains. The reconfiguration of the United Nations presence in Timor-Leste preceding the withdrawal of the United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste in 2012 provided valuable lessons in that regard, so we are pleased to see Timor-Leste included as one of the Panel’s case studies. Fifthly, it is time for us to address how we can tangibly strengthen the interaction between the Council and the Peacebuilding Commission. The PBC’s work is so intimately linked with ours that more frequent, in-depth interaction is in the best interests of both entities. We would, for example, see value in the Council making much better use of the first-hand knowledge, expertise and analysis of PBC country-configuration Chairs, including their more consistent inclusion in relevant Council consultations. Finally, New Zealand encourages the review team to draw on the peacebuilding work of the Group of Seven Plus, led by Timor-Leste, reflecting insights drawn from decades of peacebuilding practice, and from the unique perspective of the recipients of peacebuilding assistance. Successful peacebuilding helps lay the foundations for sustainable peace. Again, I echo the Deputy Secretary-General’s comment that it is core to the work of the Council. The Council has a major stake in ensuring that the United Nations peacebuilding architecture is capable of delivering the results the international community demands and, above all, the very positive results and the very positive outcomes that are so deserved by communities emerging from violent conflict. Sir Mark Lyall Grant (United Kingdom): I thank you, Mr. President, for convening this debate and for coming to New York to chair it personally. I also want to thank the Deputy Secretary-General and Ambassador Antonio Patriota for their important and insightful comments this morning. The United Kingdom welcomes the Secretary- General’s report on peacebuilding (S/2014/694) and his update on progress made on the key themes of inclusivity, institution-building and mutual accountability. In particular, we fully support the report’s emphasis on the vital role of women in all peacebuilding efforts. In August last year, the Council had the opportunity to visit Somalia and South Sudan. We saw first- hand the contrasting peacebuilding fortunes of those two countries. In Somalia, we witnessed a country slowly getting back on its feet; in South Sudan, we saw a country tearing itself apart. The experiences of South Sudan and Somalia allow us to draw some important lessons on the effectiveness of United Nations peacebuilding. There is no doubt that the United Nations has significantly improved its support to countries emerging from conflict over the past 20 years. Countries like Côte D’Ivoire and Timor-Leste are rightly celebrated as success stories. However, we must also acknowledge that there have been too many tragic examples of countries relapsing into violence, with the Central African Republic being the most prominent recent example. The United Kingdom believes that there are three overarching lessons that we can draw from recent United Nations peacebuilding experiences. First, the context in which the United Nations is trying to deliver peacebuilding support is changing. Although peacebuilding was first conceptualized as a post-conflict endeavour, we are now increasingly asking the United Nations to support political processes and build institutions in the midst of ongoing violence and conflict. Almost 90 per cent of United Nations personnel in special political missions are working in peace operations in countries that are still experiencing high-intensity conflict. There are also several new drivers of conflict. Civil wars are becoming internationalized, with regional actors fuelling and sometimes actively participating in intra-State conflicts. The growth of transnational organized crime and illicit trafficking as a lucrative funding stream for armed groups acts as a disincentive to reaching durable political settlements. The increasing number of violent extremist groups making maximalist demands, and that view United Nations personnel as legitimate targets, makes it harder to bring conflicts to an end. When wars even appear to end, often they do so without a clear resolution or with violence persisting. These contexts are likely to become the new normal for peacebuilding. We therefore need to develop a more sophisticated approach to core peacebuilding tasks in countries affected by conflict. To achieve that, the United Nations must improve its capacity to undertake rigorous and objective analysis of the conflict drivers in each context, and to use that improved understanding to present the Council with sequenced, prioritized and tailored recommendations to deal with the root causes of violence. Secondly, we must remember the primacy of politics in peacebuilding. Too often the international community takes a technical approach to supporting countries in conflict, such as building police stations or improving budgetary processes. While those may be critical tasks, peacebuilding activities will fail if they become detached from a broader political strategy. The United Nations must ensure that its good offices mandates are used to create the political space required for key peacebuilding interventions to gain traction. Missions must seek to align security development and political activities into a single, coherent, integrated strategy. And although the principle of national ownership should, of course, sit at the heart of all peacebuilding strategies, we need to be realistic about the limits of national ownership in situations of State collapse where political legitimacy remains contested. Thirdly, peacebuilding requires sustained political attention and financial support. The Ebola crisis in West Africa has demonstrated the fragility of peacebuilding gains. But even without an external shock like Ebola, there are no shortcuts to building durable national institutions. The World Bank estimates that making meaningful improvements to institutions takes between 10 and 17 years at the very minimum. International efforts to build institutions will inevitably extend beyond the lifetime of a peace operation. Effective, well-planned transitions are therefore essential. We must ensure that a missions drawdown does not result in a huge drop in donor financing. The United Nations Peacebuilding Fund is an important mechanism to achieve this, and that is why the United Kingdom continues to be the Peacebuilding Fund’s largest donor, providing $70 million since 2011, and we encourage others to contribute generously to this important peacebuilding tool. As many colleagues have pointed out, 2015 will be an important year for peacebuilding. The United Kingdom hopes that both the review of the peacebuilding architecture and the Secretary-General’s review of peace operations will provide innovative recommendations to improve the way in which we support countries recovering from conflict. In particular, we need bold and meaningful reform of the Peacebuilding Commission if it is to adapt to the changing context and remain relevant in the future. We also hope that these reviews will emphasize the importance of conflict prevention as a core peacebuilding task. As the Deputy Secretary- General so eloquently said this morning, too often the Security Council focuses solely on the intensive care phase of the conflict spectrum. We need much more attention to be focused both on conflict prevention and on post-conflict peacebuilding, which we one might call the “convalescence” treatment of the problem. We live in an age where we have immediate access to information about potential risks of instability in countries around the world. The challenge for the Council, the Peacebuilding Commission and the whole United Nations system is to act early, because early action can prevent enormous human suffering, fear and displacement, and it is far more cost-effective than the high human and financial costs of peacebuilding after conflict has take root.

China thanks Chile for taking the initiative to convene today’s meeting on peacebuilding. I welcome Minister for Foreign Affairs Muñoz to New York to preside over today’s meeting. I thank Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson and Ambassador Patriota for their briefings. Peacebuilding is an important and integral part of the international community’s effort to help countries with their post-conflict rebuilding. In recent years, the United Nations has devoted greater attention to and increased its input in peacebuilding, and has made outstanding achievements in countries such as Sierra Leone, Timor-Leste and Haiti, which have won the recognition of the countries involved and the international community at large. The Peacebuilding Commission has earnestly implemented relevant General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, successfully held its first annual meeting, started preparing for the 2015 comprehensive review of the peacebuilding architecture, and focused the attention of the international community on the impact of Ebola on peacebuilding. China commends the Peacebuilding Commission for its work and Ambassador Patriota for the leadership role he played as Chair of the Commission. At the same time, we should not lose sight of the fact that United Nations peacebuilding is still in an exploratory stage and has room for improvement and is faced with many difficulties and challenges. China believes that for the next phase of peacebuilding work the United Nations should focus on the following four areas of work. First, with regard to respect for the leadership role of the countries involved, United Nations peacebuilding operations should follow the nationally owned, nationally led and nationally driven principle. The timing of peacebuilding should be decided in light of local situations. The programme of work should be tailored to the specific needs of the countries involved and formulated with a priority focus on backing the relevant efforts of the countries involved and should assist them in strengthening institutional and capacity- building so as to address the root causes of the conflicts. The national initiative and dynamism of the countries involved should be brought into play. Efforts should be made to avoid simply copying the peacebuilding models of other countries. Secondly, with regard to promoting synergies among the countries involved and other relevant parties, peacebuilding is a project involving system engineering and requires the broad participation of national Governments and other players. The United Nations should help national Governments to play the central role in deciding their own peacebuilding priorities and, at the same time, encourage the countries involved to strengthen their communication and coordination with other relevant parties so as to take into account the opinions of all parties and synergize their efforts. Thirdly, with regard to strengthening integrated management in an effort to rationally allocate resources and enhance efficiency, Member States, regional organizations and specialized agencies all play an important role in peacebuilding. The United Nations should clearly illustrate the Peacebuilding Commission’s role in integrated management and facilitate the relevant parties’ coordination so that they will bring forth their respective advantages and complement each other. In planning peacebuilding operations, efforts should be made to budget carefully and allocate human and material resources rationally with a focus on efficiency and to avoid lopsided expansion. Fourthly, taking into account both short-term results and long- and medium-term goals, peacebuilding is a long, complex and arduous task, and its ultimate goal is to help countries involved enhance their self-preserving capacity and achieve self-sufficiency and sustainable stability and development. At the same time, various tools can be used in a flexible manner to introduce quick-impact projects without a huge investment so that the people in a country involved can enjoy the peacebuilding dividend sooner. When the people’s hearts and minds have been won, they can support and consolidate our achievements. In that regard, the Peacebuilding Fund should play a bigger role. This year, the United Nations will undergo a comprehensive review of its peacebuilding architecture that will help it fully take stock of its experiences and draw lessons from its past work in order to further improve its peacebuilding work in an effort to better realize the purposes and principles of the United Nations. China recognizes the progress already achieved in preparing for the review. China expects that relevant parties will, on the basis of prior consensus, earnestly carry out their respective responsibilities, conduct a review according to the set time frame and effectively implement the results of the review in the actual work of the United Nations. China will actively participate in the above-mentioned process and play a constructive role in enhancing the work of peacebuilding.

I welcome you, Mr. President, back to New York and back to a debate on a theme that you addressed with distinction when you were Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission. I would also like thank Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson for his very insightful briefing this morning. He made a very important contribution when he was President of the General Assembly, in 2005, when the Peacebuilding Commission was established. It is good to see him back at the Councl as we debate the problem of how to make peacebuilding meet our needs. We have not yet accomplished that task, as said by a number of participants this morning. The issue that brings us here together is fundamental to ensuring long-lasting sustainable peace in countries emerging from conflict. In the past years the United Nations peacebuilding system has deployed important resources to support countries to move forward from war to peace and to development. While some experience has been successful, as mentioned, in other cases the efforts by national States, the United Nations and international partners were not able to avert a relapse into conflict. As we welcome the review of the peacebuilding architecture after 10 years of the existence of the Peacebuilding Commission, we expect that the review will enable us to have a better understanding of the challenges and insufficiencies. Above all, we hope that it will provide us with recommendations to improve the system, thereby rendering it more effective and better able to serve goals for which it was established. Based on our experiences as a post-conflict country, Angola would like to share with the Council some views and some flag some aspects that we consider essential in order to ensure a successful peacebuilding process. In political terms, taking into account the principle of national ownership, peacebuilding requires trust and good faith by the main stakeholders who are working towards the achievement of genuine national reconstruction. In Angola the peace and reconstruction process required, in the first instance, the extension of State authority to the whole country, institution-building, respect for human rights and the rule of law. Social and political inclusion is a fundamental feature of any peacebuilding process. The efforts deployed by the Angolan authorities to reach out to former adversaries and to integrate them into society, State institutions and economic life in general was a determining factor for the success of peace, reconstruction and nation-building. Furthermore, the full participation of political actors, women, youth, civil society and media in the national debate led to the adoption of constitutional and legal mechanisms associated with peacebuilding. In social and economic terms, peacebuilding required the rebuilding of infrastructure destroyed by war, especially to provide basic services to the population such as roads, bridges, railroads, airports, ports, schools and hospitals. The success of the disarmament, demobilization and social reintegration process of more than 100,000 military personnel was a pivotal element in the consolidation of peace, which established the foundation for a sound social and economic recovery. The prevalence of conflicts in general entails a regional dimension. In the case of Angola it was the struggle to end apartheid and colonialism in Southern Africa and the external interference that fuelled the conflict. As such, regional and subregional institutions should be an integral part of the solution of conflicts and of peacebuilding efforts. It is therefore essential that the subregional dimension of peacebuilding be properly addressed and that comprehensive solutions be sought at the same time. The review of the peacebuilding architecture offers a unique opportunity to arrive at a clear definition of the partnership that should be established between the African Union Peace and Security Council and the United Nations Security Council as the organ with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, the debate that was initiated some time ago did not advance sufficiently — a shortcoming that we hope the present review will also address. In that connection, we hereby agree with the suggestion made by Deputy Secretary-General Eliasson during our debate this morning on the need for synergies between peacekeeping and peacebuilding. The joint review of both peacekeeping operations, initiated by the Secretary-General, and peacebuilding, now under way, offers a very good opportunity to address the critical problem of the allocation of resources, as both peacekeeping and peacebuilding have to be seen as complementary. I would like to conclude by expressing our full support for the presidential statement (S/PRST/2015/2) adopted this morning. I think it is a good start for the review we will undertake to ensure peacebuilding definitively rests on foundations that are crucial for us as an organ to play our essential role of keeping the world at peace.

Let me begin by thanking the Deputy Secretary-General and Ambassador Patriota for their leadership on this issue and for their briefings this morning. I also thank you, Mr. President — Foreign Minister Muñoz — for your presence here today, I also thank Chile for convening this important discussion. Preventing a relapse into conflict was the primary objective for the establishment of the peacebuilding architecture in 2005. A decade later, it remains an urgent undertaking. Others have said this: we know that war is not like the weather. It does not just happen and it is not inevitable. It can be stopped. But we also know that countries that have experienced conflict once have a heightened risk for relapsing into conflict again and again. We have seen the devastating consequences of that deadly cycle of conflict, from South Sudan to the Central African Republic. But while war and conflict should never be deemed inevitable, too often, too many adopt a cynical passivity in the face of signs of emerging tension or indicators of potential conflict — a passivity that assumes the futility of efforts to prevent potential conflict from metastasizing into actual conflict, and a cynicism that assumes, essentially, that certain places are just destined to fight it out. The peacebuilding architecture is a living challenge to that dangerous cynicism and deadly passivity. It is a challenge to us to turn expressions of concern into coordinated actions that ensure that countries recovering from conflict do not relapse back into it, and it is a commitment to the belief that our past can indeed be put behind us and our shared future built together and in peace. We know that when the international community mobilizes in concert with national authorities, together we can change behaviour and assumptions and put a stop to things that some may have written off as inevitable. Peace is built through hard work, As the Secretary- General notes in his report (S/2014/694), we have made significant gains in places and countries as diverse as Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Tunisia in our efforts to consolidate peace. In Sierra Leone, the integrated work of successive United Nations missions and a country team, as well as the engagement of the Peacebuilding Commission, has been critical to breaking the cycle of violence, providing space for a country and a people hungry for peace to turn their focus from war to prosperity, from conflict to electoral contests, from isolation to sustainable development. Sierra Leone has held three peaceful, credible elections since the end of the civil war in 2002, and new institutions, supported by the international community, are finding their place in society and contributing to the important work of building a Government that is responsive to its citizens. Support from the United Nations has been critical to that transition. For instance, United Nations support for institutions such as the All Political Parties Women’s Association, with a target of 30 per cent female participation in all political parties, has increased women’s participation in Sierra Leone’s elections, thereby building public trust in the election process. And we know that women’s full and equal participation, whether in forging peace agreements, electing leaders or leading post-conflict reconstruction, is absolutely critical to sustainable peace and stability. We cannot build peace for half of a society and expect that peace to be meaningful or lasting. That is why the work of entities such as the United Nations Peace Fund for Nepal, which has designated 30 per cent of its funding for projects that address the needs of women and girls — including in the areas of land reform, conflict prevention, the rule of law and the reintegration of child soldiers — is so important. A project on land issues ensured extensive participation by women in consultations on land- use planning, a domain from which women had traditionally been excluded. Developments in Nepal demonstrate that appreciable progress can be made with targeted funding, leadership and capacities for gender-responsive programming. In Guinea, as the Deputy Secretary-General noted, the creation of a women’s situation room for support to a network of local women’s organizations during the 2013 parliamentary elections not only increased women’s participation in the elections, it enabled them to take an active part as election monitors and helped build confidence in the entire electoral system. The creation of community-led early-childhood development centres in Côte d’Ivoire enhanced social cohesion by bringing together women of diverse backgrounds focused on the well-being of children. Kyrgyz women, with training from UN-Women and the United Nations Development Programme, have formed women’s peace committees and become important actors in monitoring tensions and Government response within their communities, again building social cohesion, as well as trust, between local populations and authorities in regions affected by conflict. The full and equal inclusion of women and girls is not merely just; it is essential to building the peace of which we speak. Yet the participation of women in peacebuilding still receives too little attention and is too often underfunded and thought of as an effort to be inclusive rather than a recognition that women’s full participation is a precondition for lasting peace. We must change that mindset and, in the process, change minds. We must build our peacebuilding efforts to ensure that they are inclusive, because in doing so we will make them more effective. The recent outbreak of Ebola presented a new kind of threat to international peace and security that has indeed demanded an unprecedented response. We commend the critical efforts of the United Nations to mobilize human, financial and technical resources to deliver an integrated response in the post-conflict countries of Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. The Peacebuilding Commission can play an important role in bringing together key partners to coordinate assistance efforts and maximize the impact of the international community on the ground. Unfortunately, international efforts have been less successful in producing results aimed at ending the enduring and daily threats to international peace and security in places like South Sudan. Despite a hard-won independence, South Sudan has erupted into deadly and devastating conflict, exacerbating ethnic tensions, eroding hope and provoking a dire and man-made humanitarian crisis. Despite one of the most comprehensive United Nations peacekeeping mandates ever adopted by the Council, historic levels of international support and almost infinite goodwill on the part of international partners, political leaders in South Sudan have prioritized political power and conflict over peace and stability. Their actions have exacerbated tensions, brought about tens of thousands of deaths and displaced nearly 2 million innocent people, and are bringing that young nation, the newest Member State of the United Nations, to the threshold of State failure. We cannot give up and we cannot allow the parties in South Sudan to abandon their people’s aspirations and right to live in peace and prosperity. In standing with the people of South Sudan, we must be unified in our demand that the violence end and those responsible for the carnage be held to account. Until recently, successive conflicts in the Central African Republic received too little attention from the international community. A lack of vision on national reform, limited political will on the part of the international community and successive weak United Nations presences with little capacity to help develop State institutions further destabilized the country’s weak governance structure and undermined social cohesion. Our action last year in authorizing an integrated peacekeeping mission to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian access and support the State as it seeks to re-establish governance was necessary to stop the ensuing bloodshed. Bolstered by the contribution of troops from Member States from several regional organizations, and by humanitarian donations from around the globe, those collective actions represent the most comprehensive level of international engagement in the Central African Republic to date. We must reflect on those lessons as we undertake the five-year review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. We have learned that peacebuilding requires sustained — not sporadic — and coordinated commitment on the part of national, regional and international actors. It requires inclusivity, meaning that women and girls are at the forefront and at the table, not an afterthought or excluded. It means that the international community holds political actors accountable to the agreements they undertake and the agreed frameworks to which they subscribe. And it means that addressing human rights abusers, hate and discrimination head-on is the path to sustainable peace, not a diversion or an obstacle. We hope that the peacebuilding architecture review’s advisory group of experts will heed those lessons and develop concrete recommendations to enhance the Peacebuilding Commission’s relevance and real-world impact by focusing on achieving results through its core competencies of coordination, resource mobilization and advocacy. As others have noted, 2015 will also see the Secretary-General’s high-level review of United Nations peace operations, as well as the global Ten- year Impact Study on Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security in Peacekeeping. We must challenge ourselves not to hive off our thinking about these issues in silos. Peacekeepers are essential to establishing stable foundations for peace and development, and they are increasingly and appropriately being called on to protect civilians in dire need. Protecting civilians is not only an essential element in creating space for peace, it is vital to the credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of local populations and around the world. As such, it is essential for United Nations peacekeepers to carry out their protection of civilian mandates robustly and in a way that gives people confidence that we mean what we say. In that vein, let us mean what we say when we sit at this table and recommit ourselves to the work of the peacebuilding architecture. Let us translate our commitment to the inclusion of women into the actual inclusion of women, and let us translate our hope for peace into the hard work of building it.

The Security Council has thus concluded the present stage of its consideration of the item on its agenda.