Open Debate of the Security Council on “Post Conflict Peace-Building”

Statement by Mr. Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry, Acting Permanent Representative (26 May 2005).

Mr. President,

Let me join others in congratulating you and the Danish delegation led by Ambassador …. for the able and professional manner in which it is conducting the Council’s work during this month. I would also like to commend Ambassador Wang and his team for a successful Chinese Presidency of the Council last month.

  1. We welcome your decision to hold this open debate on post conflict peacebuilding. The discussion paper circulated by the Presidency provides a good food for thought. We are sure the ideas advanced today will feed into the already rich array of proposals made by member states on how best the United Nations can address the multifarious challenges of peacebuilding, particularly in Africa.

Mr. President,

  1. We agree in general with most of what has been said before. I would like to make a few quick points, however,
    2. First, the increased focus on peacebuilding during the last couple of years has its roots in the now well established interlinkage between peace and development. Second, peacebuilding is a complex task. It has many facets including security, political, economic, social and humanitarian. [It often involves assistance for institutional capacity building, economic recovery, governance, reconciliation, rule of law, human rights, organization of elections, etc.] It is clear that no single UN organ has an exclusive mandate over these issues. Successful peacebuilding strategies have to be based on a comprehensive and integrated approach, greater system wide coherence, increased inter organ coordination and engagement of all relevant actors.
    Third, though peacebuilding is associated mainly with post conflict situations, where one of the main concerns is to help prevent a relapse of conflict, in our view it is equally important to prevent conflict in the first place. Apart from preventive diplomacy and pacific settlement of disputes, we believe development should be promoted as the best means to prevent conflict. Assistance in economic, humanitarian or other fields may be provided on request of a country to avoid slipping towards conflict.
    Fourth, At the policy level, a primary challenge is to recognize and respect the respective competencies of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the ECOSOC with regard to peacebuilding. Besides, the integration of peacebuilding activities in the filed and at country level logically necessitates coordination between the relevant organs and other actors at the headquarters. We believe complementarity in the work of the three principal organs should be used to promote synergy in peacebuilding efforts. The interaction between the Security Council and the Ad Hoc Advisory Groups of the ECOSOC on countries emerging from conflict is a good basis which should be built upon.
    Another challenge is to preserve and promote the national ownership of the peacebuilding programs and activities and to ensure that the priorities of the country concerned have the precedence.
    Fifth, it is widely acknowledged that we need an institutional mechanism dedicated to peacebuilding. It may not merely be a gap filling mechanism but should promote and coordinate a comprehensive approach. It should be an intergovernmental body with the flexibility to bring together all relevant actors in specific situations including UN agencies and IFIs as appropriate.
    Sixth, all said and done, experience from various specific situations, Guinea Bissau for one, shows that the major challenge remains the provision of adequate, timely and sustained assistance for peacebuilding activities. Special circumstances of the countries emerging from conflict should be kept in mind while recommending policy changes and negotiating aid packages. IFIs should show some operational flexibility. Debt write offs should be considered in the first instance. While the recipient countries are expected to meet some minimum requirements, there should be no shifting of the goal posts by the donors. Proposal of a standing fund for peacebuilding has merit. [The Fund should, however, be operated by the new institutional mechanism to be created.]

Mr. President,


  1. I am sure answers to many of these and other questions all of us are trying to find in the Secretary General’s proposal for the establishment of a Peacebuilding Commission. We hope the various ideas advanced today by member states will feed into the rich array of proposals already on peacebuilding in general, and Peacebuilding Commission in particular.

  2. During the discussions in the General Assembly recently Pakistan circulated its specific proposal on the proposed Commission. Let me recall that in 2003, Pakistan first floated the idea of ad hoc composite committees comprising of members drawn from the three principal organs of the UN to effectively address complex crises and conflicts in all their phases. In May 2004, during our Presidency of the Council, we circulated a non paper on ad hoc composite committees during a public meeting on “Complex Crises and UN Response”. We therefore have a special interest and natural sense of ownership in the proposed Peacebuilding Commission which basically follows the same concept of a composite approach. We are working with other member States to further crystallize the proposal. We are hopeful the General Assembly would be in a position to establish the Commission during the forthcoming session.

I thank you.