FHSMUN 37 PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS PEACEBUILDING ARCHITECTURE. Author: Jenn Russi

Transcription

1 FHSMUN 37 PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE UNITED NATIONS PEACEBUILDING ARCHITECTURE Author: Jenn Russi The establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission in 2005 was seen as a groundbreaking step, holding new promise for the populations of countries emerging from conflict despite committed and dedicated efforts, the hopes that accompanied the founding resolutions have yet to be realized. We are now at a crossroads: either there is a conscious recommitment to peacebuilding at the very heart of the work of the United Nations, or the Peacebuilding Commission settles into the limited role that has developed so far. 1 Introduction After two decades of steady decline, major internal conflicts and civil wars are once more on the rise. These complex conflict dynamics call for a much broader and more comprehensive approach to sustainable peace than ever before, and so it comes as no surprise that the United Nations has set out to facilitate this process. In 2005 then Secretary- General Kofi Annan remarked that there is a gaping hole in the United Nations institutional machinery: no part of the United Nations system effectively addresses the challenge of helping countries with the transition from war to lasting peace. 2 Characterized by a lack of collective and coherent action to address the complex challenge of sustaining peace, this gaping hole reflected an emerging need for greater support from the United Nations (UN) and other parts of the international system to effectively address societal needs for assistance with long-term post-conflict transitions. The UN s response was the development of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture, which is set around three inter-connected agencies: the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), Peacebuilding Fund, and the Peacebuilding Support Office. In the decade since the architecture s establishment, numerous policy frameworks and operational response mechanisms have been developed within these and other related agencies to better facilitate effective peacebuilding initiatives with varying degrees of success. But in this increasingly volatile political climate, are UN peacebuilding agencies doing enough? Delegates to the Peacebuilding Commission should be mindful that the goal of the review process is to assess the extent to which the current architecture, particularly the Peacebuilding 1 Report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture. A/69/ In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All A/59/2005, para. 114

2 Commission, is effective and to identify persistent gaps or inadequacies of the current system to develop means of engaging with them more effectively. The Role of the Commission Peacebuilding can be defined as actions that support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict. 3 These structures meet the basic needs of post-conflict societies including safety and security; clean water and access to food, healthcare, and primary education; support to political processes and reconciliation; development of new national institutions and public administration; and economic revitalization. To meet its goal of assisting in the establishment of these structures, the Peacebuilding Commission is mandated to undertake tasks related to three core objectives: liaising with relevant actors to collect resources and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery; draw attention to reconstruction and institution-building efforts necessary to facilitate post-conflict recovery and sustainable development; and provide information and recommendations to improve coordination between relevant actors to achieve best practices for sustainable development. 4 Considered to be the lynchpin of UN peacebuilding architecture, the Commission is responsible for identifying opportunities for early engagement in postconflict societies and working with relevant actors both within and outside of the UN to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of identified countries. In its advisory role to both the General Assembly and the Security Council, the commission not only highlights potential opportunities for engagement but advocates for financial support for countries that do not attract the attention of big donor countries and whose peacebuilding initiatives may thus be undermined by insufficient funding. The Peacebuilding Commission is currently headed by Ambassador Macharia Kamau of Kenya and retains country-specific configurations to ensure policies are tailored to the needs of recipient countries. The Commission s Organizational Committee attempts to ensure that countries with experience in peacebuilding and insight into regional dynamics have an opportunity to contribute through its dynamic membership scheme: seven from the Security Council (including the five permanent members), seven from the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), giving particular consideration to countries with experience in post-conflict recovery; five from the top 10 financial contributors to the UN budgets, including voluntary contributions to UN agencies and programs and the Peacebuilding Fund; five from the top 10 providers of military personnel and civilian police to UN missions; and seven additional members, to redress geographical imbalance and include countries with post-conflict experience, to be elected by the General Assembly. There are six countries on the current agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission: Burundi, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, and Central African Republic. 3 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace. A/47/277 (1992), para The Peacebuilding Commission A/RES/60/80 and S/RES/1645 (2005), para. 2(a,b,c)

3 Multi-dimensional Peacebuilding: The Quest for Cooperation The extensive nature of the Commissions mandate means that it must rely on the support and cooperation of numerous other UN agencies to carry out its initiatives. Most notably, the Commission works in close collaboration with the two other constituent agencies of the peacebuilding architecture in all aspects of its work. The Peacebuilding Fund aims to provide financial support to the Commission and other agencies work in the following four areas: combating imminent threats to the peace process; supporting and strengthening national capacities to promote peaceful conflict resolution; stimulating economic development; and re-establishing essential administrative services. The Fund has raised more than $360 million since it was launched in 2006 and has provided financial support to over 140 peacebuilding projects around the world. 5 The work of the Fund connects closely to the Commission s objective of rapid response to peacebuilding opportunities by ensuring that funds are available when potential opportunities arise for early engagement with peacebuilding processes. The Fund also assists with the advocacy component of the Commission s work by helping to raise money for underfunded projects. While the Fund assists the Commission and other agencies on the financial side, the Support Office (PBSO) provides policy guidance and strategic advice on how to develop and implement peace-building projects. Taken together, these three agencies seek to provide a support mechanism for the creation of adequately funded projects tailored to the needs of local populations in post-conflict societies. However, their work cannot be done without coordinating with other major UN agencies involved in conflict resolution. Before peace-building projects can be launched in post-conflict countries, adequate security and stability must be attained to allow for the infrastructure and staff necessary to engage effectively. The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) acknowledges that interventions often play a part in peace-building initiatives through disarmament programs, security sector reform, electoral assistance, promotion of human rights, and the re-establishment of rule of law. 6 Today, over 100,000 soldiers and related personnel are deployed throughout the world in 16 separate UN peacekeeping missions and in one "special political mission" (the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, or UNAMA) under the auspices of DPKO. One of the biggest challenges faced by DPKO in rapidly deploying missions with adequate resources is acquiring the necessary funding and resources from member states. While this is an area in which the Commission could play an active role through financial advocacy, it has yet to prove effective, with member states still owing more than $2.2 billion in peace-keeping dues. 7 As with most, if not all, UN System bodies, the effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission is often undermined by inadequate and/or irregular funding. During the 2015 Annual Session of the Peacebuilding Commission, UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson noted that development, security, human rights and humanitarian activities are often funded from different budgets with separate decision-making processes, which leads to unpredictable donor engagement, inefficiencies and persistent underfunding of critical 5 Peacebuilding Support Office Department of UN Peacekeeping Operations "Financing peacekeeping." Department of UN Peacekeeping Operations. 2015

4 peacebuilding areas. 8 Delegates to the Peacebuilding Commission may wish to examine effective avenues for scaling up and regularizing voluntary contributions to peacebuilding activities, both domestically and internationally. While UN peacekeeping endeavors have seen important successes, as well as several high-profile controversies, the UN and its partners, including national governments regional organizations, and civil society representatives, must correct previous mistakes, build upon past successes, and embrace new roles. To that end, the Peacebuilding Commission plays an important role in facilitating good relationships between international actors including peace-keeping missions and national actors to further mutual peacebuilding interests. UN agencies also working to create environments hospitable to peacebuilding activities include special political missions, broadly defined as United Nations civilian missions that are deployed for a limited duration to support Member States in good offices, conflict prevention, peacemaking and peacebuilding. 9 Special political missions are currently grouped in three main clusters: special envoys; sanctions panels and monitoring groups; and field-based missions. Each of these types of missions builds upon the overall legitimacy of the UN System as well as the UN s Peacebuilding Architecture. Special political missions also engage with some of the cross-cutting programmatic themes of the Commission and other peacebuilding agencies in that these missions now routinely carry out multidimensional mandates that go beyond their traditional political functions to cover activities in areas such as rule of law, constitutional and electoral assistance, human rights, security sector reform, gender and conflict-related sexual violence. 10 For example, the envoys of the Secretary-General, sometimes designated Special Representatives (SRSGs), are amongst the most well-known of the special political missions and often are designated as heads of missions when peace-keeping forces are also present in a country. Considering the broad spectrum of peace-building structures, the Peacebuilding Commission must also maintain close working relationships with other UN agencies including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNWOMEN. The UN System has prioritized gender mainstreaming in recent years as well as incorporating achieving gender equality into both the previous Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the current Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); while important progress has been made, significant work remains to be done. In 2014, under the second Gender Promotion Initiative, incorporated within the new business plan for , the Peacebuilding Fund allocated 9.3% of its funding to projects promoting women s empowerment and gender equality as their principal objective. 11 This new level of allocations does represent real progress but it still falls well short of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon s goal of 15%. Delegates to the Peacebuilding Commission may wish to consider how to quickly and efficiently achieve gender mainstreaming throughout the UN 8 Peacebuilding Commission, Annual Session 2015 Predictable financing for peacebuilding: Breaking the silos June 23, Ban Ki-moon, Report of the Secretary-General: United Nations Political Missions 2013 p Ban Ki-moon, A/69/325 August 18, 2014 p Ban Ki-moon, Report of the Secretary-General: The Peacebuilding Fund A/69/745 January 29, 2015 p. 3.

5 Peacebuilding Architecture, including staffing and funding of peacebuilding activities and missions. Challenges and Criticisms of the Peacebuilding Architecture The Peacebuilding Commission has described the current peacebuilding architecture as working relatively well 12 and while some projects have achieved some degree of success, the Commission and the architecture more broadly have struggled to create a sustainable positive impact in post-conflict societies. The five-year review of the peacebuilding architecture in 2010 highlighted a number of challenges in its functioning and effectiveness. Notably, the review called upon the Commission to reduce its transactions cost of engagement with countries, increase capacity building of countries on its agenda, and strengthen regional dimensions of peacebuilding while intensifying efforts on resource mobilization. Additionally, the review expressed concern about the relevance of the Commission, expressing a desire for better branding on the part of the Commission so that countries would have a clearer understanding of what the Commission has to offer, thus facilitating better relationships between it and the General Assembly and Security Council. It also identified a need for more diversity amongst the countries on the Commission s agenda and a more flexible approach to engagement with both UN actors and national actors. 13 The findings of the 2010 review highlight some of the fundamental challenges facing the Peacebuilding Architecture and the Commission. As an advisory body, the Commission works at the request of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The Commission has been underutilized by both bodies, primarily because it is not always clear what exactly the Commission does that other bodies like DPKO, UNDP, and others do not. Where the Commission has great potential to contribute is in its ability to design and acquire funding for projects that can be implemented in partnership with these other UN agencies. However, the architecture has failed in this endeavor thus far largely because of weak policy development from PBSO and because the Commission and Fund lack a sufficient platform in the General Assembly, Security Council, and the Secretariat to advocate for increased financial support to its projects. To gain a greater foothold with decision-making bodies and the Secretariat, the Commission and PBSO in particular must be able to demonstrate greater capacity to design and implement effective programming, a task that has proved difficult thus far. The 2010 review criticized the PBSO for not doing more to draw upon in-country knowledge when conducting policy research, and it was suggested that the architecture as a whole would benefit from an increase in core capacity through increased staffing and resource allocation at the headquarters level. Unfortunately, many of the recommendations of the 2010 review are still applicable in the 2015 cycle. However, this time, a greater portion of the responsibility for the architectures failure may be placed at the feet of the member states, with the preliminary review panel going so far as to state that member states must engage more in this policy area or the UN s peacebuilding architecture will continue to fail. The 2015 review panel 12 Frequently Asked Questions. UN Peacebuilding Commission Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture. A/64/868 p.3

6 noted that going forward, the Organization s peacebuilding architecture cannot be understood as limited to the Peacebuilding Commission, the Peacebuilding Fund and the Peacebuilding Support Office. Rather, the shortcomings in efforts to fill the gaping hole in the Organization s institutional machinery for building peace are systemic in nature. They result from a generalized misunderstanding of the nature of peacebuilding and, even more, from the fragmentation of the United Nations into separate silos. 14 Policy reform that can address this misunderstanding would foster better cohesiveness and coherence between UN bodies working towards peacebuilding goals and would see the Commission and the broader architecture better positioned to effectively carry out its mandate. Conclusion The recent resurgence of violence and civil strife make the need for effective peacebuilding strategies greater than ever before. The current architecture is an ambitious one whose greatest fault may be the idealism of those who created it; by profoundly underestimating the bureaucratic challenges of working across agencies in an organization the size of the UN, the architecture is in many ways a failure by design. To achieve lasting success will require taking a hard look at the foundations of the architecture to determine whether it creates a platform upon which effective policy reform can take place. While the Commission has enjoyed some success in its first ten years, it may require substantial changes in operation and approaches to relationships with other UN bodies in order to live up to its own lofty aspirations. Guiding Questions Has your country been the recipient of UN peacebuilding support through the work of the Commission or other related UN agencies? If so, what forms of programming were put forward by these agencies and how successful was their implementation? Does your country currently provide financial assistance to the Commission and the broader peacebuilding architecture? If so, to which agencies does your country prioritize its financial support? How can the UN System most effectively scale up the financial aspects of post-conflict planning and peacebuilding initiatives? How might your country use its position in other UN bodies like the General Assembly to promote the work of the Commission and the broader architecture? What steps might your country be willing to take to address the concerns of the 2015 review panel? Are there specific areas of peace-building that your country has unique experience with or expertise in that could be utilized by the architecture and the Commission? 14 Report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture. A/69/989 p.3

7 How effectively has your country incorporated gender mainstreaming into post-conflict planning and peacebuilding initiatives? How might your government enhance existing gender mainstreaming initiatives? Resolutions: United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture S/RES/1947 October 29, United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Review of the United Nations peacebuilding architecture A/RES/65/7 November 23, Suggested Reading An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peacekeeping. Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. 17 June The Peacebuilding Commission. S/RES/1645 (2005) Report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture A/64/868 Report of the Advisory Group of Experts on the Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture A/69/989