Statement by H.E. Gary Quinlan Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations General Assembly regarding the Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture, as delivered 29 October 2010.
(as delivered)
I would like to thank the President of the General Assembly for convening today’s debate. Building the defences of peace is the most difficult work we can undertake. It is also the most essential. At the outset, I would like to commend the Permanent Representatives of Ireland, Mexico and South Africa for their leadership of our efforts throughout the Review of the UN’s peacebuilding architecture.
Mr President
Australia’s own recent direct experiences in peacebuilding endeavours - in Timor Leste, in Solomon Islands, in Papua New Guinea – have taught us a number of lessons that have come to be accepted as self-evident truths about peacebuilding, and which are reflected in the co-facilitators’ report. For example:
- Effective peacebuilding requires a long-term commitment, in support of national ownership and national plans;
- Effective peacebuilding is a complex and challenging undertaking that demands coordinated engagement from a range of actors from the outset to address political, security, humanitarian and development needs in parallel; and
- Effective peacebuilding demands a continual focus on the delivery of actual outcomes on the ground – on helping countries emerge from conflict and develop as stable and prosperous nations.
The peacebuilding architecture in New York needs to support this reality. We therefore welcome very much the co-facilitators’report. It is firmly grounded in reality, and once implemented, should lead to what the co-facilitators envisage as a more relevant, flexible, empowered and better understood Peacebuilding Commission (PBC). And above all, a more ambitious one. More the kind of Peacebuilding Commission that our Leaders had in mind in 2005. Such an outcome is in the interests of all Member States.
There are three threads to the report which I would like to touch on quickly today.
The first is the need for stronger partnerships. The report notes, unsurprisingly, that effective peacebuilding must accompany peacekeeping from its inception. In other words, the planning of peace operations should not be seen as a military task alone, but as one that demands a multitude of voices, combining political, humanitarian and development considerations with the security dimension. Furthermore, adequate resources must be allocated to address those critical activities which, if left unfunded, have the potential to threaten peace.
The unique composition of the PBC, bringing together engaged Member States, UN partners, regional organisations and the International Financial Institutions, is vital to this endeavour. In turn, a closer and more organic relationship between the Security Council and the PBC throughout the Council’s consideration of a situation could provide an avenue through which these disparate voices are heard in the planning of peace operations.
It is equally important that a strong partnership exists between the international community and the conflict affected Member State. The PBC should be seen as a forum in which the international community listens, not only to itself, but also to the country under consideration, to ensure that a true partnership can develop between the two.
Second, there is a need for greater flexibility. We need to be cognizant of, and able to respond to, the rapidly changing political and security context in post-conflict societies. We need to equally balance the need for rapid responses to short-term issues against our steady efforts on longer-term goals. The report recommends flexibility in the modes of PBC engagement, tailoring its support to needs of a particular situation. This does not negate the need for a holistic approach to the peacebuilding challenges in a country as a whole. But rather it challenges the PBC to ensure that its engagement is adding value.
Third, the need for greater cohesiveness is well understood. The report recommends the use of a single overall planning document around which the national authorities and the international community can coalesce. This will ensure that all actors, both national and international, have a shared understanding of all the factors which affect a nation’s ability to build a sustainable peace; and are able to align their activities to achieve the best outcome. The PBC needs to encourage our collective peacebuilding efforts in support of the single national plan, and ensure that its own activities are equally aligned to the plan.
Mr President
Our debate today represents only the end of the beginning of our work. We now need to turn to the early implementation of the report’s recommendations. To this end, we strongly support the draft resolution which will be adopted at the end of this meeting and its mechanisms for keeping the process of implementation under annual review. We welcome the intention of PBC Chairman Ambassador Wittig to shortly convene an in-depth discussion on the way forward in implementing the report’s recommendations. We must collectively rise to the challenge of ensuring that we learn the lessons from the past five years as distilled in this very helpful review, and improve the operation of the peacebuilding architecture to deliver better results for countries emerging from conflict.
Mr President – to conclude - the report notes that a new approach to peace operations is a challenge confronting the UN as a whole. It calls for a shift in mindset, away from the current, predominantly peacekeeping one to a mindset in which peacekeeping is seen as one part of a broader peacebuilding effort.
I know we all agree that our key focus needs to be on helping countries emerge from conflict and develop as stable and prosperous nations. We need to let that focus be our guide, and shape our New York based structures accordingly.
Thank you Mr President.