by
Ambassador Sun Joun-yung
[Vice-President & CEO, United Nations Association of Republic of Korea]
posted February 26, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
 Preface : |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Article : |
* This paper was originally presented at The International Forum
on UN Reform, Beijing, October 12-13, 2006.
I. Introduction
The Peacebuilding Commission of the UN has been formally
launched on June 23, 2006 as an inter-governmental advisory body
aimed at inter alia bringing together all relevant actors to
marshal resources and to advise on integrated strategies for
post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery.
The creation of the Peacebuilding Commission has been hailed as
a historic step forward in the reform process of the United
Nations. It is indeed an important part of the evolutionary
process of the UN, reflecting new challenges in the 21st century
faced by all the member countries of the UN, and the
responsibility of the universal organization that is charged
with maintaining peace and security of the world.
The advent of the peacebuilding commission has provided many
people with high expectations, and euphoria for facilitating and
ensuring post-conflict recovery and sustainable development in
countries emerging from conflicts, thus contributing to the
peace and security of the world.
The idea of creating a peacebuilding commission was first put
forward in 2004 by the High-Level Panel appointed by the UN
Secretary-General through its report "Threats, Challenges and
Change," assuming that the prevention of violent conflicts would
be more effective than ending existing conflicts. In his report,
"In Larger Freedom," submitted to the General Assembly in 2005,
Secretary General Kofi Annan proposed the Commission as an
intergovernmental advisory body, which could consolidate
resources to advise and propose strategies for post-conflict
recovery.
Joint resolutions were passed in December 2005 by the General
Assembly and the Security Council, following the time limit set
by the World Summit.
The Commission will be inclusive of an Organizational Committee
and country-specific committees. As a result of concessions and
compromises among the member states, it was agreed that the
Organizational Committee be made up of 31 member countries of
the following categories: 7 from the Security Council (including
5 permanent members); 7 from the Economic and Social Council; 5
out of the top 10 financial contributors to the UN budgets,
including voluntary contributions; 5 out of the top 10 providers
of military personnel and civilian police to UN missions; and 7
additional members, to redress remaining geographical imbalances
and include countries with post-conflict experience, to be
elected by the General Assembly. Inaugural session of the
standing Organizational Committee of the Peacebuilding
Commission was held on June 23, 2006, with the chair and two
vice-chairs elected.
Country-specific meetings will be held with the participation,
in addition to 31 members of the Committee, of representatives
from: 1) The country under consideration; 2) countries in the
region engaged in the post-conflict processes, relief efforts
and political dialogue, and relevant regional and sub-regional
organizations; 3) the major financial, troop and civilian police
contributors; 4) the UN representatives; and 5) regional and
international financial institutions as may be relevant.
It was also decided that representatives of the World Bank, the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other institutional donors
should be invited to participate in all meetings of the
Commission (as observers.)
The Organizational Committee shall establish the agenda of the
Commission on the basis of request for advice from the Security
Council, ECOSOC, General Assembly and the Secretary-General, and
in exceptional circumstances from Member States on the verge of
lapsing or relapsing into conflicts.
A peacebuilding support office has been established, within the
Secretariat from within existing resources, for the purpose of
assisting and supporting the Commission including gathering and
analyzing relevant information.
A multi-year standing "Peacebuilding Fund" has been established
in June this year with the objective of ensuring the immediate
release of resources needed to launch peacebuilding activities
and the availability of appropriate financing for recovery. The
initial funding target of the fund is set at 250 million dollars.
Voluntary contributions to the fund will be accepted from member
states of the UN, intergovernmental organizations, and other
sources including private sector. Under the authority of the
Secretary-General, the head of the Peacebuilding Support Office
will provide overall direction and guidance on the program
management of the fund and monitor its operations. The UNDP has
been appointed to serve as the fund manager responsible for the
administration of the fund, the receipt of donor contributions
and the disbursement of funds. The overall management fees for
both program implementation and fund management shall not exceed
11 percent of funds received. The Secretary-General will appoint
an independent advisory group to provide advice and oversight on
the speed and appropriateness of the fund allocations and to
examine performance and financial reports. The advisory group
will be composed of up to 10 eminent personalities, selected on
the basis of their peacebuilding experience and in consideration
of geographical and other balances. However, the Secretary-
General does not enjoy full support from the membership of the
UN for the raison d'etre of the advisory group.
The Commission's consideration of a country-specific situation
will be terminated, when foundations for sustainable peace and
development are established, or upon the request of national
authorities of the country under consideration.
All the activities relating to the functions of the Commission
will be subject to review after 5 years of the Commission's
creation to ensure the appropriateness thereof.
II. Assessment and Prospect
The Commission is an advisory body, not a decision-making body.
The Commission aims at working closely with national and
international authorities involved, placing importance on the
national ownership of the peacebuilding process.
The weaknesses in international responses to post-conflict
situations lie, among other things, in the shortage of funds and
poor international coordination. Creation of the Commission is
an attempt to overcome such weaknesses, and thus to contribute
to building more secure and stable world.
Success of the work of the Commission remains to be seen. We
have witnessed so many important decisions taken by the United
Nations, on the occasions of 50th and 60th anniversaries of the
Organization, the Millennium Summit of 2002, and thematic
special sessions of the General Assembly, such as special
session on AIDS, Women, and Financing for Development, to name a
few. We need to reflect from time to time on where the UN is
standing in terms of implementing those important decisions.
Composition of the 31 membership of the Organizational Committee
was not agreed upon easily and without pain, because almost all
of the 192 membership of the UN wanted to join it and had their
respective reasons to claim a seat. The Committee with 31
members, selected on the basis of regional and other balances,
is now in a position to act in all matters under a consensus
rule.
Money is the name of the game in any UN exercises of this nature.
The Peacebuilding Fund is to depend mainly on voluntary
contributions from the member states and other sources.
Cooperation from the Bretton Woods Institutions is not
necessarily assured, because they have their own projects to
deal with those countries emerging out of civil conflicts. The
interactions that take place annually between the ECOSOC and the
Bretton Woods Institutions have yet to produce meaningful and
tangible outcome.
Proverbially speaking, there is always a risk that we start
drawing the head of a dragon, but ends up with a snake's tail.
The perception that the reforms of the United Nations are
frequently synonymous with creating new positions, in most cases
high-level positions, of the Organization, should be eliminated
by actions and tangible results.
Provision of resources and improved coordination of the
international actors are not enough to build a lasting peace and
prosperity. Peacebuilding requires national ownership. The
primary responsibilities of peacebuilding rest with the people
and the political leadership of the country concerned.
The effectiveness and values of the Peacebuilding Commission's
work should be evaluated above all from the country-specific
settings. The success of the Commission would depend on how the
resolution can be translated into action on the field.
Frequently one should come back to the reality that the
Commission's main role is to provide the Security Council and
others with advice. Such advice will prove to be particularly
useful and valuable, when there is a UN peacekeeping mission is
on the ground. It is desirable that the work of the Commission
should be focused on country-specific situations, rather than
engaging in discussions of general nature at the Headquarters
level.
It is encouraging to note that the international financial
institutions and other institutional donors have been included
to the Commission. Their contributions will make a meaningful
difference, if they come forward, as expected, to cooperate with
the Commission to this end.
But to what extent such institutions as the World Bank and the
IMF would financially cooperate with the Commission, remains to
be seen. The two Bretton Woods Institutions are carrying out
their own projects with regard to supporting recovery and
reconstruction of the countries emerging from civil and other
conflicts. For example, the World Bank approved an emergency
credit of 50 million dollars to Liberia. The IMF is already
involved in several post-conflict situations, including the two
African countries placed on the Commission's agenda.
III. Conclusion
Brundi and Sierra Leone have become the first countries that
were placed on the agenda of the Commission upon their requests.
The Security Council had already communicated to the
Organizational Committee its request for advice on the situation
in those two countries. It is expected that some more countries
will be placed on the Commission's agenda in the months to come.
Those two initial countries will prove to be important exemplary
cases through which the value of the Peacebuilding Commission
and its ability to make a real difference in the countries
concerned can be judged.
The Commission, if it falls into division and disagreement
between different groupings during the course of consensus
building may run into donor-fatigue and inefficiency. The
reform of the United Nations is an ongoing process. The creation
of the Peacebuilding Commission is no doubt a big step forward
in the reform process of the UN. It is important that the
Commision should be given an opportunity to grow, through the
support and cooperativeness of all the membership of the UN and
other participating actors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
