The new UN Peace Building Commission: Challenges and Expectation
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
June 19, 2009
Annual Parliamentary Hearings
Every year during the fall session of the General Assembly the IPU organizes a Parliamentary Hearing as an opportunity for members of parliaments to exchange views with United Nations officials, representatives of United Nations diplomatic community, as well as scholars and leading academics. The meeting is usually opened by the United Nations Secretary-General and the President of the IPU. Hundreds of parliamentarians from every region of the world participate.
Originally designed as a briefing session on a variety of topics, the meeting has evolved over the past few years into a substantive and interactive debate on the main issues of the international agenda. The conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing provide a parliamentary input into the work of the relevant bodies of the United Nations. The role of the Parliamentary Hearing as "a regular feature of the programme of events held at United Nations Headquarters on the occasion of the sessions of the General Assembly" was highlighted in a resolution of the General Assembly.
The annual Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations is organized in close cooperation with the relevant United Nations Departments, which also assist in the preparation of substantive background notes on the issues under consideration, with a particular focus on their parliamentary dimension. The debates therefore serve two main purposes: to help parliamentarians better understand United Nations decision-making processes and the status of negotiations on a variety of issues; and, conversely, to make it possible for parliamentarians from a large number of countries to take a fresh look at the questions on the table and convey to United Nations Member States their views born out of their own national and local experiences.
United Nation Peace Building Commission (PBC)
The Peace building Commission will marshal resources at the disposal of the international community to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict recovery, focusing attention on reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable development, in countries emerging from conflict.
The Commission will bring together the UN's broad capacities and experience in conflict prevention, mediation, peacekeeping, respect for human rights, the rule of law, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and long-term development.
Specifically, the Commission will:
Propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peace building and recovery;
Help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and sustained financial investment over the medium- to longer-term.
Extend the period of attention by the international community to post-conflict recovery;
Develop best practices on issues that require extensive collaboration among political, military, humanitarian and development actors.
Background
The notion of a Peace building Commission was first proposed in 2004 by the High-Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change, reasoning that the prevention of violent conflicts would be more effective, than ending existing conflicts. The seven members selected by the Security Council were China, Denmark, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States. The seven elected by the Economic and Social Council were Angola, Belgium, Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Poland and Sri Lanka.
Also, five top providers of assessed contributions to United Nations budgets and of voluntary contributions to the United Nations funds, programmes and agencies, including a standing peace building fund were chosen, as follows: Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway. Five top providers of military personnel and civilian police to United Nations missions were also elected: Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Finally, seven members, elected by the General Assembly, were Burundi, Chile, Croatia, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji and Jamaica.
Peace Building and Pakistan
Pakistan desires a peaceful environment in the world. A stable security environment is also important for peace in our region. Pakistan has proposed the creation of a Strategic Restraint Regime in South Asia, encompassing minimum nuclear deterrence and a balance of conventional forces. Pakistan does not want to enter into an arms race. But we will do whatever is necessary to preserve the credibility of our minimum defensive deterrence level.Pakistan has a legitimate requirement for nuclear power generation to meet the energy needs of our expanding economy. As a responsible nuclear State, Pakistan will continue to seek nuclear technology for power generation under IAEA safeguards. Pakistan cannot accept discrimination in the nuclear field.Pakistan have been engaged in a peace process with India, aimed at confidence building and resolving issues, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute which have been the source of tension and conflict between the two countries in the past. In this regard positive meeting of President Asif Ali Zardari with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Russia will help to carry forward the peace process which is vital for the future of both countries and for peace in South Asia and beyond.
Terrorism
Terrorism anywhere threat democracy everywhere. Terrorism is the greatest threat to international peace and security since the end of the cold war. In addition to the direct harm that acts of terrorism caused, they also sapped efforts towards progress and sustainable development. The international community must combat not only terrorism itself, but also its root causes. It is suggested that before the events of 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks had been limited in geographical scope and perpetrated mostly by independence movements. The attacks on the United States had marked a drastic change. Terrorist acts are now being carried out over borders, and with an unprecedented scale of damage.
There are differing views on which movements are terrorists and which are legitimate national liberation organizations. Killing civilians could not be justified under any pretext, on any grounds or in any circumstance. Those who thought doing so was justified by their own particular religious, ideological, political or social cause are criminally wrong. It is essential not to confuse terrorism and Islam, which is a religion of peace. Most terrorist operations originated in Islamic countries because they were the ones suffering from injustice.
Pakistan fully shares the concerns about globalized terrorism, especially since we are a principal victim and target of such terrorism. The acts of violence against innocent civilians should be regarded as terrorism. This simple proposition can serve as a working basis for a definition of terrorism. However, some qualifications are essential: Firstly, "innocent civilians" cannot include armed forces or other personnel which are involved in the violent suppression of peoples or nations seeking their legitimate right to self-determination and national liberation. Second, acts of individual terrorism by those involved in legitimate struggles for self-determination and national liberation do not, in themselves, de-legitimise their legitimate cause. Third, violence against innocent civilians, whether perpetrated by non-state actors or state actors, is equally reprehensible and also constitutes terrorism.
We should make strategy that incorporates the need to address not only the symptoms but also the root causes of terrorism. These causes arise from political and economic injustices against nations and peoples in many parts of the world. Some have sought, unjustly, to identify terrorism with Islam. This is defamation. Terrorism today does afflict and at times emanates from parts of the Muslim world. This is no coincidence since it is mostly Muslim peoples and nations – such as the Palestinians and Kashmiris – who are today being subjected to political and military repression and socio-economic injustice.
The IPU should consider establishing a working group or specialized committee to study the possibilities of enacting common legislation and measures on terrorism, including prevention, counter-terrorism measures, and penalties for terrorist acts, and to follow up on the implementation of counter-terrorist measures in the countries of its Members.
Challenges
United Nations activities in peace and security focussed on the prevention and resolution of conflict and the provision of assistance to post-conflict societies across the globe. Peacekeeping operations are facing many interrelated challenges, including disarmament, demobilization and reintegration; humanitarian assistance; institution-building; strengthening the rule of law; electoral assistance in post-conflict environments; and demining activities.
As of mid-June 2004, the United Nations administers 16 peacekeeping operations on three continents that deploy approximately 60,000 military personnel and civilian police. The number of operations has significantly increased, which will stretch the UN system to the limits of its capacity.
After stating that terrorism was a threat to international peace and security, Resolution 1373 prohibited all forms of financing of terrorist acts; prohibited the giving of support or refuge to terrorists; and called upon Member States to cooperate in combating terrorism, notably in the exchange of operational information about any terrorist act.
What were the specific challenges posed by terrorism at the present time? Firstly, the proliferation of suicide terrorism, secondly the marriage of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and thirdly cyber-terrorism.
According to a RAND Corporation study going back to 1968, almost two-thirds of the 144 suicide attacks, which had taken place in the world, had occurred in the past two years. Why the current proliferation? Terrorists had discovered the advantages of suicide terrorism. Firstly, it was inexpensive, secondly it almost always caused fatalities, and thirdly it did not require any particular skills. Suicide attacks attained the psychological goal of terror, that of undermining the confidence of citizens in the capacity of the state to protect them. It would be a mistake to consider that suicide terrorists were motivated only by religion, and it was equally wrong to think that suicide terrorists were people who were ignorant.
The Relationship between the PBC and Civil Society
The PBC has been conceptualized as an intergovernmental body and, consequently, the text of the UN resolutions that establish the PBC make only unspecific recommendations for the engagement of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
There are the following recommendations from civil society and non-governmental organizations:
The PBC should carefully take into account the realities on the ground when interacting with international and local NGOs;
There is a need to strengthen the capacity of indigenous NGOs, and international donors should guide their aid for this purpose, bearing in mind the absorption capacity of local structures;
Women NGOs can be particularly helpful for the PBC to access the population of the country that it assists in peace building;
The cooperation between the PBC and religious leaders / NGOs should be carefully assessed to prevent religious sentiments;
The PBC should employ media and public hearings for its purpose;
The private sector may become an important source of funds for peace building support. However, the PBC will have to make sure that corporate interests do not dominate the agenda during the peace building process.
Expectations
On 10 November 2001, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly and in his characteristically hushed tone condemned the forces of terror and pledged United Nations full support and cooperation in the battle against terrorism. Yet, he also gently reminded the assembled dignitaries that while the world had indeed changed, "none of the issues that faced us on September 10th had become any less urgent". In a sense, the events of "9/l1" have sent the United Nations back to its inception when, in the aftermath of a devastating war, the world body was established to stabilize international relations, and give peace and security a stronger foundation. Mr. Annan reminded us that even in a drastically changed and changing world, that mission continues to provide a compass for the Organization. And the best way to respond to today's heightened global vulnerability is for the United Nations to continue its life-saving work around the world: fighting poverty, reducing hunger, providing better health are, preventing and containing conflict, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, defending human rights, protecting the environment and promoting democracy.
Since the United Nations founding, considerable progress has been made. We produce enough food for a growing population. Infant mortality in developing countries has been cut nearly in half since 1970. Life expectancy has increased by ten years. The gap between rich and poor countries has declined. Through humanitarian and development programmes around the world, the hungry are being fed and the sick are being treated. The poor are given loans to start businesses, girls are kept in school, and the needs of mothers and children are being met. We are beginning to understand how human activity affects the environment. We are in the midst of an information revolution that will bring unparalleled access to knowledge. We know that open markets create more wealth, and open societies are more lust. The world's poorest nations, crushed by the burden of debt, are receiving debt relief, freeing resources for education, health and growth. We have come closer together to advance common global interests and values through the United Nations and other multilateral institutions.
But this promising future is far from certain. The potential of far too many is still being squandered. We should expect the United Nations to redouble its efforts to reduce poverty--one of the root causes of the despair and hopelessness that gives rise to terrorism. Today, virtually 3 billion people-nearly half the world's population--survive on less than $2 a day. Forty million people a year die of hunger and over a billion lack access to safe drinking water. Over the next ten years in Africa, AIDS is expected to kill more people and orphan more children than all the wars of the twentieth century combined.
And each year, fully preventable diseases, like malaria, tuberculosis and pneumonia, leave millions of children without parents, and millions of parents without children. No country can break poverty's bonds if its people are disabled by disease and its Government overwhelmed by the needs of the ill. Still, powerful and dangerous forces are violently resisting these advances. Primitive claims of racial, ethnic or religious superiority, when married to advanced weaponry and terrorism, threaten to destroy the greatest potential for human development in history.
Will we ever be free from the fear of weapons of mass destruction? Will globalization bring shared prosperity or make the desperate of the world even more desperate? Will science and technology be used to increase the world economy and protect the environment, or put them at further risk? Our remarkable progress has not fully resolved these issues, but it has generated a clearer road map for the new millennium and provides markers for a new set of challenges which helps to shape reasonable expectations of the United Nations in the years ahead.
The Organization is not a sovereign body, and decision-making within the UN system is not easy. All actions by the United Nations depend on the will of its Member States to accept, fund and carry them out. In matters of peacekeeping especially, a complex, often slow, process of consensus-building is required that takes into account the often opposing perceptions of national sovereignty and global needs. But precisely because of these obstacles agreements ultimately reached have far more weight internationally.
A second reasonable expectation of the United Nations is to work harder to strengthen the capacity of the international community to prevent and stop outbreaks of mass killing and civilian displacement. This requires shared responsibility. During the Kosovo conflict, the Secretary-General spoke forcefully when he said that "ethnic cleansers and mass murderers can find no refuge in the United Nations, and no source of comfort or justification in its Charter". The world expects more to make these words real. The United Nations should vigorously pursue an international coalition against genocide and bring nations together to stop the flow of money and arms to those who commit crimes against humanity. And when the world is faced with deliberate, organized campaigns to murder whole peoples or expel them from their land, the care for victims is important but not enough. Decisive steps need to be taken to end such violence quickly.
In the wake of September 11, however, the greatest expectation of the United Nations is to move aggressively against the possibility that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will ever be used again. The world has seen constant advances in the destructive power of weaponry. Planners fear additional terrorist attacks that could easily wreak unprecedented havoc utilizing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or other means which defy traditional classification, like dirty bombs, turning airplanes into missiles, etc. These new methods are no less threatening to our society and our expectations for the future. This trend can continue, or we can reverse it with specific initiatives to address these threats, and by implementing global norms and standards of behaviour that are universally respected. Some general progress has been made, but with the United States and other Western countries wondering whether terrorists will turn their nuclear power plants into weapons of mass destruction, the urgency for prev enting such horrific acts has become all the more immediate. The spread of nuclear weapons materials and expertise must be stopped at the source. It is true that the nightmare scenario of deadly weapons flowing unchecked across borders, and of scientists selling their services, en masse, to the highest bidder, has been reduced. But the consequences of even one successful attack are so horrific that much more needs to be done.
The tragic events of September 11 bring home the challenge of keeping deadly options from terrorist groups, who may have weaker capabilities than States, but have less compunction about using such weapons. The possibility of terrorist threats cannot be met with panic. It requires serious and deliberate disciplined efforts and the effective cooperation of the international community. Strong leadership by the United Nations and other global institutions will be critical to effectively confront these frightening risks. The United Nations should play a lead role in these efforts, although at other times a supporting role may yield a better outcome. Regardless, the moral authority the United Nations generally projects, and the irreplaceable infrastructure for multilateral communications it provides, ensure that it can and should have a central role in addressing the challenges that must be met for our common survival and advancement.
The PBC´s relationship with regional actors
Regional actors are valuable interlocutors and play a key role in post-conflict peace building. Some regional organizations are themselves adapting institutionally to meet the current challenges of fragile states and civil war, and in many conflict cases, the UN is no longer the main operational actor on the ground. There is hope the PBC will provide further tools, guidance and resource mobilization and will actively engage all who can contribute at the regional and sub-regional levels. However, although the resolutions establishing the PBC explicitly mention the involvement of regional and sub regional actors in the country-specific committees, it is still not clear what form such involvement will take.
At the practical level, there are many stages at which the partnership could develop and, in this, the contacts with the Peace building Support Office (PBSO) will be essential. This includes early consultation and strategy formulation, and importantly, implementation of particular peace building tasks by regional actors. The PBC should also incorporate a regional approach to post-conflict situations by giving ample consideration to regional linkages in country-focused work. Regional organizations are often much better placed to assess such linkages, and would play an important role in helping to counter the cross border dimension of many conflicts, such as the Great Lakes region in Africa, the Balkans, and Central Asia.
However, it is also important to note that ´regional actors´ is a broad term covering a variety of entities, including the governments of neighboring states, NGOs active in the region, regional development banks, and regional and sub-regional organizations.
Success at peace building will require combining the expertise and assets of a multiplicity of these players in any one case. But successful engagement will also require a realistic assessment of the capacities of all actors to implement the tasks assigned to them.
NGOs are in a particularly ambiguous position with regards to the PBC. Although the resolutions establishing the PBC call for it to ´consult with civil society, nongovernmental organizations, including women´s organizations, and the private sector engaged in peace building activities, as appropriate´, civil society groups are not included as members or observers of the Organizational Committee and country-specific configurations.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the PBC meetings in New York are only one element of the new UN peace building architecture. Engagement with the PBSO in strategy discussions will also be an important entry point for civil society.
When it comes to its country-specific work, the PBC should help to encourage national governments and international actors in the field to adopt broader consultation strategies with civil society leaders to foster broad support throughout the country. NGOs could play a key role in ensuring these linkages on the country level, regardless of their role in formal PBC meetings. Regional NGOs also have a critical role to play in helping to organize national civil society groups, advocating for their involvement at the earliest possible stages, and ensuring links with the PBSO.
Every year during the fall session of the General Assembly the IPU organizes a Parliamentary Hearing as an opportunity for members of parliaments to exchange views with United Nations officials, representatives of United Nations diplomatic community, as well as scholars and leading academics. The meeting is usually opened by the United Nations Secretary-General and the President of the IPU. Hundreds of parliamentarians from every region of the world participate.
Originally designed as a briefing session on a variety of topics, the meeting has evolved over the past few years into a substantive and interactive debate on the main issues of the international agenda. The conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing provide a parliamentary input into the work of the relevant bodies of the United Nations. The role of the Parliamentary Hearing as "a regular feature of the programme of events held at United Nations Headquarters on the occasion of the sessions of the General Assembly" was highlighted in a resolution of the General Assembly.
The annual Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations is organized in close cooperation with the relevant United Nations Departments, which also assist in the preparation of substantive background notes on the issues under consideration, with a particular focus on their parliamentary dimension. The debates therefore serve two main purposes: to help parliamentarians better understand United Nations decision-making processes and the status of negotiations on a variety of issues; and, conversely, to make it possible for parliamentarians from a large number of countries to take a fresh look at the questions on the table and convey to United Nations Member States their views born out of their own national and local experiences.
United Nation Peace Building Commission (PBC)
The Peace building Commission will marshal resources at the disposal of the international community to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict recovery, focusing attention on reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable development, in countries emerging from conflict.
The Commission will bring together the UN's broad capacities and experience in conflict prevention, mediation, peacekeeping, respect for human rights, the rule of law, humanitarian assistance, reconstruction and long-term development.
Specifically, the Commission will:
Propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peace building and recovery;
Help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and sustained financial investment over the medium- to longer-term.
Extend the period of attention by the international community to post-conflict recovery;
Develop best practices on issues that require extensive collaboration among political, military, humanitarian and development actors.
Background
The notion of a Peace building Commission was first proposed in 2004 by the High-Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change, reasoning that the prevention of violent conflicts would be more effective, than ending existing conflicts. The seven members selected by the Security Council were China, Denmark, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States. The seven elected by the Economic and Social Council were Angola, Belgium, Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Poland and Sri Lanka.
Also, five top providers of assessed contributions to United Nations budgets and of voluntary contributions to the United Nations funds, programmes and agencies, including a standing peace building fund were chosen, as follows: Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway. Five top providers of military personnel and civilian police to United Nations missions were also elected: Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Finally, seven members, elected by the General Assembly, were Burundi, Chile, Croatia, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji and Jamaica.
Peace Building and Pakistan
Pakistan desires a peaceful environment in the world. A stable security environment is also important for peace in our region. Pakistan has proposed the creation of a Strategic Restraint Regime in South Asia, encompassing minimum nuclear deterrence and a balance of conventional forces. Pakistan does not want to enter into an arms race. But we will do whatever is necessary to preserve the credibility of our minimum defensive deterrence level.Pakistan has a legitimate requirement for nuclear power generation to meet the energy needs of our expanding economy. As a responsible nuclear State, Pakistan will continue to seek nuclear technology for power generation under IAEA safeguards. Pakistan cannot accept discrimination in the nuclear field.Pakistan have been engaged in a peace process with India, aimed at confidence building and resolving issues, including the Jammu and Kashmir dispute which have been the source of tension and conflict between the two countries in the past. In this regard positive meeting of President Asif Ali Zardari with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Russia will help to carry forward the peace process which is vital for the future of both countries and for peace in South Asia and beyond.
Terrorism
Terrorism anywhere threat democracy everywhere. Terrorism is the greatest threat to international peace and security since the end of the cold war. In addition to the direct harm that acts of terrorism caused, they also sapped efforts towards progress and sustainable development. The international community must combat not only terrorism itself, but also its root causes. It is suggested that before the events of 11 September 2001, terrorist attacks had been limited in geographical scope and perpetrated mostly by independence movements. The attacks on the United States had marked a drastic change. Terrorist acts are now being carried out over borders, and with an unprecedented scale of damage.
There are differing views on which movements are terrorists and which are legitimate national liberation organizations. Killing civilians could not be justified under any pretext, on any grounds or in any circumstance. Those who thought doing so was justified by their own particular religious, ideological, political or social cause are criminally wrong. It is essential not to confuse terrorism and Islam, which is a religion of peace. Most terrorist operations originated in Islamic countries because they were the ones suffering from injustice.
Pakistan fully shares the concerns about globalized terrorism, especially since we are a principal victim and target of such terrorism. The acts of violence against innocent civilians should be regarded as terrorism. This simple proposition can serve as a working basis for a definition of terrorism. However, some qualifications are essential: Firstly, "innocent civilians" cannot include armed forces or other personnel which are involved in the violent suppression of peoples or nations seeking their legitimate right to self-determination and national liberation. Second, acts of individual terrorism by those involved in legitimate struggles for self-determination and national liberation do not, in themselves, de-legitimise their legitimate cause. Third, violence against innocent civilians, whether perpetrated by non-state actors or state actors, is equally reprehensible and also constitutes terrorism.
We should make strategy that incorporates the need to address not only the symptoms but also the root causes of terrorism. These causes arise from political and economic injustices against nations and peoples in many parts of the world. Some have sought, unjustly, to identify terrorism with Islam. This is defamation. Terrorism today does afflict and at times emanates from parts of the Muslim world. This is no coincidence since it is mostly Muslim peoples and nations – such as the Palestinians and Kashmiris – who are today being subjected to political and military repression and socio-economic injustice.
The IPU should consider establishing a working group or specialized committee to study the possibilities of enacting common legislation and measures on terrorism, including prevention, counter-terrorism measures, and penalties for terrorist acts, and to follow up on the implementation of counter-terrorist measures in the countries of its Members.
Challenges
United Nations activities in peace and security focussed on the prevention and resolution of conflict and the provision of assistance to post-conflict societies across the globe. Peacekeeping operations are facing many interrelated challenges, including disarmament, demobilization and reintegration; humanitarian assistance; institution-building; strengthening the rule of law; electoral assistance in post-conflict environments; and demining activities.
As of mid-June 2004, the United Nations administers 16 peacekeeping operations on three continents that deploy approximately 60,000 military personnel and civilian police. The number of operations has significantly increased, which will stretch the UN system to the limits of its capacity.
After stating that terrorism was a threat to international peace and security, Resolution 1373 prohibited all forms of financing of terrorist acts; prohibited the giving of support or refuge to terrorists; and called upon Member States to cooperate in combating terrorism, notably in the exchange of operational information about any terrorist act.
What were the specific challenges posed by terrorism at the present time? Firstly, the proliferation of suicide terrorism, secondly the marriage of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, and thirdly cyber-terrorism.
According to a RAND Corporation study going back to 1968, almost two-thirds of the 144 suicide attacks, which had taken place in the world, had occurred in the past two years. Why the current proliferation? Terrorists had discovered the advantages of suicide terrorism. Firstly, it was inexpensive, secondly it almost always caused fatalities, and thirdly it did not require any particular skills. Suicide attacks attained the psychological goal of terror, that of undermining the confidence of citizens in the capacity of the state to protect them. It would be a mistake to consider that suicide terrorists were motivated only by religion, and it was equally wrong to think that suicide terrorists were people who were ignorant.
The Relationship between the PBC and Civil Society
The PBC has been conceptualized as an intergovernmental body and, consequently, the text of the UN resolutions that establish the PBC make only unspecific recommendations for the engagement of civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
There are the following recommendations from civil society and non-governmental organizations:
The PBC should carefully take into account the realities on the ground when interacting with international and local NGOs;
There is a need to strengthen the capacity of indigenous NGOs, and international donors should guide their aid for this purpose, bearing in mind the absorption capacity of local structures;
Women NGOs can be particularly helpful for the PBC to access the population of the country that it assists in peace building;
The cooperation between the PBC and religious leaders / NGOs should be carefully assessed to prevent religious sentiments;
The PBC should employ media and public hearings for its purpose;
The private sector may become an important source of funds for peace building support. However, the PBC will have to make sure that corporate interests do not dominate the agenda during the peace building process.
Expectations
On 10 November 2001, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan addressed the General Assembly and in his characteristically hushed tone condemned the forces of terror and pledged United Nations full support and cooperation in the battle against terrorism. Yet, he also gently reminded the assembled dignitaries that while the world had indeed changed, "none of the issues that faced us on September 10th had become any less urgent". In a sense, the events of "9/l1" have sent the United Nations back to its inception when, in the aftermath of a devastating war, the world body was established to stabilize international relations, and give peace and security a stronger foundation. Mr. Annan reminded us that even in a drastically changed and changing world, that mission continues to provide a compass for the Organization. And the best way to respond to today's heightened global vulnerability is for the United Nations to continue its life-saving work around the world: fighting poverty, reducing hunger, providing better health are, preventing and containing conflict, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, defending human rights, protecting the environment and promoting democracy.
Since the United Nations founding, considerable progress has been made. We produce enough food for a growing population. Infant mortality in developing countries has been cut nearly in half since 1970. Life expectancy has increased by ten years. The gap between rich and poor countries has declined. Through humanitarian and development programmes around the world, the hungry are being fed and the sick are being treated. The poor are given loans to start businesses, girls are kept in school, and the needs of mothers and children are being met. We are beginning to understand how human activity affects the environment. We are in the midst of an information revolution that will bring unparalleled access to knowledge. We know that open markets create more wealth, and open societies are more lust. The world's poorest nations, crushed by the burden of debt, are receiving debt relief, freeing resources for education, health and growth. We have come closer together to advance common global interests and values through the United Nations and other multilateral institutions.
But this promising future is far from certain. The potential of far too many is still being squandered. We should expect the United Nations to redouble its efforts to reduce poverty--one of the root causes of the despair and hopelessness that gives rise to terrorism. Today, virtually 3 billion people-nearly half the world's population--survive on less than $2 a day. Forty million people a year die of hunger and over a billion lack access to safe drinking water. Over the next ten years in Africa, AIDS is expected to kill more people and orphan more children than all the wars of the twentieth century combined.
And each year, fully preventable diseases, like malaria, tuberculosis and pneumonia, leave millions of children without parents, and millions of parents without children. No country can break poverty's bonds if its people are disabled by disease and its Government overwhelmed by the needs of the ill. Still, powerful and dangerous forces are violently resisting these advances. Primitive claims of racial, ethnic or religious superiority, when married to advanced weaponry and terrorism, threaten to destroy the greatest potential for human development in history.
Will we ever be free from the fear of weapons of mass destruction? Will globalization bring shared prosperity or make the desperate of the world even more desperate? Will science and technology be used to increase the world economy and protect the environment, or put them at further risk? Our remarkable progress has not fully resolved these issues, but it has generated a clearer road map for the new millennium and provides markers for a new set of challenges which helps to shape reasonable expectations of the United Nations in the years ahead.
The Organization is not a sovereign body, and decision-making within the UN system is not easy. All actions by the United Nations depend on the will of its Member States to accept, fund and carry them out. In matters of peacekeeping especially, a complex, often slow, process of consensus-building is required that takes into account the often opposing perceptions of national sovereignty and global needs. But precisely because of these obstacles agreements ultimately reached have far more weight internationally.
A second reasonable expectation of the United Nations is to work harder to strengthen the capacity of the international community to prevent and stop outbreaks of mass killing and civilian displacement. This requires shared responsibility. During the Kosovo conflict, the Secretary-General spoke forcefully when he said that "ethnic cleansers and mass murderers can find no refuge in the United Nations, and no source of comfort or justification in its Charter". The world expects more to make these words real. The United Nations should vigorously pursue an international coalition against genocide and bring nations together to stop the flow of money and arms to those who commit crimes against humanity. And when the world is faced with deliberate, organized campaigns to murder whole peoples or expel them from their land, the care for victims is important but not enough. Decisive steps need to be taken to end such violence quickly.
In the wake of September 11, however, the greatest expectation of the United Nations is to move aggressively against the possibility that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons will ever be used again. The world has seen constant advances in the destructive power of weaponry. Planners fear additional terrorist attacks that could easily wreak unprecedented havoc utilizing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, or other means which defy traditional classification, like dirty bombs, turning airplanes into missiles, etc. These new methods are no less threatening to our society and our expectations for the future. This trend can continue, or we can reverse it with specific initiatives to address these threats, and by implementing global norms and standards of behaviour that are universally respected. Some general progress has been made, but with the United States and other Western countries wondering whether terrorists will turn their nuclear power plants into weapons of mass destruction, the urgency for prev enting such horrific acts has become all the more immediate. The spread of nuclear weapons materials and expertise must be stopped at the source. It is true that the nightmare scenario of deadly weapons flowing unchecked across borders, and of scientists selling their services, en masse, to the highest bidder, has been reduced. But the consequences of even one successful attack are so horrific that much more needs to be done.
The tragic events of September 11 bring home the challenge of keeping deadly options from terrorist groups, who may have weaker capabilities than States, but have less compunction about using such weapons. The possibility of terrorist threats cannot be met with panic. It requires serious and deliberate disciplined efforts and the effective cooperation of the international community. Strong leadership by the United Nations and other global institutions will be critical to effectively confront these frightening risks. The United Nations should play a lead role in these efforts, although at other times a supporting role may yield a better outcome. Regardless, the moral authority the United Nations generally projects, and the irreplaceable infrastructure for multilateral communications it provides, ensure that it can and should have a central role in addressing the challenges that must be met for our common survival and advancement.
The PBC´s relationship with regional actors
Regional actors are valuable interlocutors and play a key role in post-conflict peace building. Some regional organizations are themselves adapting institutionally to meet the current challenges of fragile states and civil war, and in many conflict cases, the UN is no longer the main operational actor on the ground. There is hope the PBC will provide further tools, guidance and resource mobilization and will actively engage all who can contribute at the regional and sub-regional levels. However, although the resolutions establishing the PBC explicitly mention the involvement of regional and sub regional actors in the country-specific committees, it is still not clear what form such involvement will take.
At the practical level, there are many stages at which the partnership could develop and, in this, the contacts with the Peace building Support Office (PBSO) will be essential. This includes early consultation and strategy formulation, and importantly, implementation of particular peace building tasks by regional actors. The PBC should also incorporate a regional approach to post-conflict situations by giving ample consideration to regional linkages in country-focused work. Regional organizations are often much better placed to assess such linkages, and would play an important role in helping to counter the cross border dimension of many conflicts, such as the Great Lakes region in Africa, the Balkans, and Central Asia.
However, it is also important to note that ´regional actors´ is a broad term covering a variety of entities, including the governments of neighboring states, NGOs active in the region, regional development banks, and regional and sub-regional organizations.
Success at peace building will require combining the expertise and assets of a multiplicity of these players in any one case. But successful engagement will also require a realistic assessment of the capacities of all actors to implement the tasks assigned to them.
NGOs are in a particularly ambiguous position with regards to the PBC. Although the resolutions establishing the PBC call for it to ´consult with civil society, nongovernmental organizations, including women´s organizations, and the private sector engaged in peace building activities, as appropriate´, civil society groups are not included as members or observers of the Organizational Committee and country-specific configurations.
However, it is important to keep in mind that the PBC meetings in New York are only one element of the new UN peace building architecture. Engagement with the PBSO in strategy discussions will also be an important entry point for civil society.
When it comes to its country-specific work, the PBC should help to encourage national governments and international actors in the field to adopt broader consultation strategies with civil society leaders to foster broad support throughout the country. NGOs could play a key role in ensuring these linkages on the country level, regardless of their role in formal PBC meetings. Regional NGOs also have a critical role to play in helping to organize national civil society groups, advocating for their involvement at the earliest possible stages, and ensuring links with the PBSO.
Print
Email
