STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR MUNIR AKRAM PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF PAKISTAN IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON Agenda items: Integrated and coordinated implementation of and follow-up to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits in the economic, social and related fields [47]: Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit [113]; United Nations reform: measures and proposals [149]: progress achieved in the work of the Peace-building Commission 6 February 2007

Madam President,

  1. Pakistan appreciates the holding of this important debate on the work of the Peace-building Commission at a short notice, and we welcome the opportunity to participate in it. Pakistan supports the statement made earlier by the representative of Jamaica on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement.
  2. The establishment of the Peace-building Commission by the 2005 World Summit was a landmark achievement in the United Nations reform process. The Peace-building Commission is structurally capable of promoting a comprehensive and coherent system wide approach to the complex task of peace-building. The new body, by design, was also meant to be innovative and flexible.

Madam President,

  1. The Commission is still in its formative phase and is evolving and developing. It would of course be incorrect to assert that the Commission has accomplished very little. Indeed we have done a great deal and continue to achieve further progress, while we learn in parallel. The Commission needs to clearly chart the trajectory of its future work in the coming months.
  2. The Commission is facing two categories of issues: one, problems relating to organization and procedure; and two, problems relating to its substantive work.
  3. In the first category, three major issues need to be resolved in the near future.
  • One, the lack of clarity regarding the relation of the PBC with the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. Paragraph 15 of resolution 60/180 provides some clarity on the relation between the PBC and the General Assembly with its decision that the Commission shall submit an annual report to the General Assembly, which shall hold an annual debate to review the report. However, such clarity is largely absent as regards the relationship with the ECOSOC. There are vast areas where the PBC needs to interact with the ECOSOC. For instance, debt relief, capacity building, governance, strengthening of democracy, economic recovery, budgetary support, youth unemployment are all areas within the purview of the ECOSOC. The PBC should devise an institutional mechanism to utilize ECOSOC’s Charter role and responsibilities.
  • The relationship of the PBC and the Security Council is clearer. Two situations, i.e. Burundi and Sierra Leone have been put on the agenda of the PBC in response to the request for advice by the Security Council. However, the relationship between the Commission and the Security Council should be interactive. It would be useful to evoke responses from the Security Council to some broad questions. For example, how is the advice given by the PBC being utilized? Hoe could it be best put to use by the Council? Has the PBC’s deliberations influenced the Council’s decisions on the two country issues? How could Council’s interaction with the Commission be improved? Is the interface of the seven Council members in the Commission sufficient or is there a need for wider consultations between the Commission and the Security Council?
  • Another organizational issue relates to modalities for the participation of Civil Society groups and NGO’s. This should be flexibly resolved bearing in mind the Commission’s intergovernmental character.
  • Third, there have been efforts to downplay the position and role of the Organizational Committee. This is unfortunate. While there is a general understanding that most of the PBC’s work will be done in the country specific formats, it is evident that there are issues – especially general or systemic issues – which can only be discussed in the Organizational Committee. This Committee should also have an oversight role over the work of the country specific groups. Furthermore, the interaction of the PBC with the Security Council, the ECOSOC and the General Assembly as well as other institutional actors should be coordinated and conducted by the Organizational Committee, which needs to meet more frequently and regularly.
  1. . On the substantive aspects of the Commission’s work, the Commission is still in the process of “learning by doing”. Despite difficulties and constraints, the PBC, which held its first country specific meetings only three months ago, has embarked on some serious work. The preparations for, and the quality and scope of discussions in the country specific meetings have progressively improved. Key priorities have been identified and work plans are now under preparation with corresponding timelines for actions to be undertaken by various actors on those activities. To further improve the substantive work of the Commission, Pakistan would propose the following:
  • Better planning and preparation for country specific meetings.
  • We have UN Integrated Offices in both countries to support peace consolidation. In our view, the reports of the Secretary General on the activities of these offices should be substantially discussed in the Peace-building Commission.
  • The PBC should not become merely another donor recipient forum; the contributions of other members e.g. the troop contributing countries as well as those with experience of post-conflict reconstruction, ought to be welcomed and reflected in the Commission’s conclusions.
  • There should be greater emphasis on elaboration and implementation of integrated national plans by the authorities of the country concerned.
  • There is also a need to harmonize the Commission’s work in identifying the key peace-building priorities for the countries on its agenda, with the broader objective of pursuing integrated peace-building strategies in respect of these countries.
  • There needs to be a clearer identification of the gaps in the implementation of integrated national plans and relevant actors who can help to bridge such gaps.
  • There are other pressing issues, like Security Sector Reform, economic reform, rebuilding damaged or destroyed key infrastructure and Human Resource investment which all require funding and technical support, technology transfer, and expert advise. These are substantive areas in which the PBC could make important contributions by defining the problem areas and identifying the actors and the modalities to respond to them.
  • Sharing of information should be improved substantially, especially with the countries on the agenda and PBC members and stakeholders.
  • One of the key areas of attention for the Commission should be the mobilization of resources. The Peace-building Fund is a good option to meet immediate and pressing requirements. Timely replenishment of the Fund should be ensured. However, it is essential to ensure that the PBC is able to marshal and sustain adequate resources for implementing agreed objectives, plans and programs in the concerned countries. All possible mechanisms should be deployed for this purpose, including donor conferences.

Madam President,

  1. Finally, we must all be clear about the rationale for the creation and existence of the Peace-building Commission. This is firstly, its capacity to adopt a comprehensive approach to all issues of peace-building. Secondly, it is the capacity to promote complementarity and synergetic actions at three levels; one between the national government and authority and the international community; two, between the UN system and all other actors involved including the Bretton Woods Institutions; and three, between the three principal organs of the United Nations – the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and this General Assembly.

I thank you.