UN Peacebuilding Commission – Inaugral Session – Woman Vice-Chairperson
Author: Womens UN Report Network
Date: June 26, 2006
elected as Vice-Chairpersons Carmen Maria Gallardo Hernandez ( El Salvador) and
Johan L. Løvald ( Norway).
the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women – http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/
|
|||
Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York |
Peacebuilding Commission
Organizational Committee
1st Meeting (AM)
OPENING INAUGURAL SESSION OF PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION, SECRETARY-GENERAL
STRESSES IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING COUNTRIES EMERGING FROM CONFLICTPresidents of
General Assembly,Security
Council, Economic and Social Council also Address MeetingThe United Nations took an
historic step towards bridging the relief-to-development gap today, with
Secretary-General Kofi Annan opening the inaugural session of the
Peacebuilding Commission, a new advisory body aiming to shore up wobbly peace
agreements that tend to disintegrate within five years, and to help prevent
war-ravaged countries from lapsing back into deadly conflict.“There are
few issues on which there is greater consensus, or higher expectations, than
on the responsibility of the United Nations to help states and societies
recover from the devastation of war,” Mr. Annan told the Commission, meeting
also today as an Organizational Committee of the whole. “The
international community now has at its disposal a unique intergovernmental
body: the first devoted specifically to peacebuilding. This new
Commission will aim to provide more sustained, more coordinated and more
focused support to countries emerging from conflict.”“You begin your work as the
world grapples with a paradox in its efforts to promote durable peace,
stability and development,” he told the 31-member body, noting that there had
been a very welcome decline in the overall number of conflicts, and the United
Nations had done its best, through peacekeeping and other assistance, to
contribute to that trend. “At the same time, however, we have seen an
unacceptable number of peace agreements disintegrate within five years after
the end of a civil war, with countries lapsing back into deadly
conflict.”But, Mr. Annan warned that
peacebuilding involved more than just preventing renewed fighting and securing
physical reconstruction. A core task was to build effective public
institutions, within constitutional frameworks and the rule of law,
particularly since, all too often, war-affected populations raise their hopes
for new, more equitable governance arrangements, only to see exclusionary
social, economic and political structures left untouched, perpetuated, or
inadvertently strengthened.“It is essential for citizens to
regain their trust in State institutions. Peacebuilding can help
solidify the social compact by which States deliver on their obligations to
citizens, while citizens exercise their right to participate, and take charge
of their destiny,” he said, telling the members of the Commission that they
would be called upon to act as like-minded supporters, and as allies who will
remain engaged in a country beyond the lifespan of a peacekeeping
mission.“Peacebuilding is about
liberating people from the conflict trap and laying the foundation for
sustainable development,” said Ismael Gaspar Martins of Angola, elected by
acclamation as the Commission’s first Chairman. He vowed to work
unstintingly to serve the noble cause of peacebuilding, with a view to
breaking the cycle of conflict that affected the lives of millions of people
in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and other parts of the world
where conflict had occurred.He said the Commission was
unique, in the sense that it brought together a membership drawn from the
three principle organs of the United Nations — the General Assembly, the
Security Council and the Economic and Social Council — major financial donors
and troop contributors, and international financial institutions among
others. It also featured the innovation of close involvement and
cooperation with the countries concerned, in order to inspire ownership in the
overall process. They bore the responsibility for creating an
environment in which the Commission’s recommendations could be
implemented. That required generating national political will, as well
as the involvement of a broad spectrum of local-level actors, particularly
women and youth, he added.General Assembly President Jan
Eliasson, of Sweden, said that victims of conflict had often had very little
choice, but to place their fate in the hands of the international
community. But that community had often failed them, leaving far too
frequently with the television cameras. Further, there had been an
awareness of the gaps in the international community’s response to countries
in post-conflict situations, but donors had not found efficient ways to link
emergency relief with reconstruction, institution-building, reconciliation and
development. “The United Nations has been successful in ending wars, but
building sustainable peace has proved much more difficult,” he said.The recent events in Timor-Leste
had reminded the international community of the need for sustained action, a
need that had been seen earlier in Haiti, in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and in Liberia, he said. But, this week, history was being written
at the United Nations: last Monday had seen the opening of the Geneva-based
Human Rights Council and today witnessed the inauguration of the Peacebuilding
Commission. Through that new intergovernmental body especially, the
Organization has a chance to make a tangible difference in the future.Per Stig Møller, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Denmark, whose country holds the Security Council
Presidency for June, said the Council was seized of many post-conflict
situations that would be relevant for the new Commission’s agenda. In
such situations, the Commission’s main purpose was to provide advice to the
Council, particularly when there was a United Nations-mandated peacekeeping
mission on the ground or under way. The Council would take advantage of
that advice in its own deliberations and when reviewing the mandates of the
relevant missions. In order to fulfil its intended role, and for its
advice to have an impact, the Commission should focus on country-specific
situations.The aim should not be to create
an additional layer of coordination at Headquarters level, but rather to
support and reinforce local coordination at the country-level, he
stated. With all the relevant actors around the same table, there was a
standing invitation to all to take action on the common advice, and, if
necessary, adjust their activities in the country concerned accordingly.
But, he warned that, without the strong cooperation of the country on
the agenda, the Commission’s efforts risked failure. He was pleased that
Burundi and Sierra Leone had already expressed their desire to be placed on
the Commission’s agenda, and the Council had communicated its request for
advice on the situation in those two countries.Economic and Social Council
President Ali Hachani, of Tunisia, said the Commission would mark a turning
point for countries struggling to manage the difficult road to recovery from
war to peace and lay the ground for sustainable development. The Council
had long stressed the need for the joint consideration, with the other major
United Nations organs, of situations of international concern or importance.
Indeed, it had been integral in the development of Ad Hoc Advisory
groups on African Countries Emerging from Conflict — Burundi and
Guinea-Bissau — as well as on Haiti.He said that the establishment
of the Peacebuilding Commission was not an end in itself, but only the first
step in an overall effort whose success would be first seen, and ultimately
judged, in the field. The three main organs of the United Nations needed
to work together to ensure the new Commission’s success, because peace and
development were interlinked, and both were critical to long-term
stability.In other business today, the
Organizational Committee adopted its draft rules of procedure, with the
understanding that those rules would be further developed at future
meetings.It also adopted its provisional
agenda, and elected as Vice-Chairpersons Carmen Maria Gallardo Hernandez ( El
Salvador) and Johan L. Løvald ( Norway). Before suspending its first
meeting, the Commission agreed to reconvene within the next few weeks to
continue consultations and to consider the Security Council’s request to
provide advice on the situations in Burundi and Sierra Leone (document
PBC/OC/1/2).The meeting was also addressed
by James Adams, Vice-President of the World Bank, and Reinhard Muzberg,
Special Representative of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).Background
The notion of a Peacebuilding
Commission was first proposed in 2004 by the High-Level Panel on Threats
Challenges and Change, reasoning that the prevention of violent conflicts
would be more effective, than ending existing conflicts. In his 2005 report
In Larger Freedom, Mr. Annan envisioned the Commission as an
intergovernmental advisory body, which could marshal resources to advise and
propose strategies for post-conflict recovery.The General Assembly and the
Security Council had adopted joint resolutions last year, launching the
Commission in time of the 31 December 2005 deadline set by the World Summit.
The texts set out the panel’s membership, and countries were
subsequently elected for renewable two-year terms, beginning today with the
Commission’s first meeting.The seven members selected by
the Security Council were China, Denmark, France, the Russian Federation, the
United Kingdom, the United Republic of Tanzania and the United States.
The seven elected by the Economic and Social Council were Angola, Belgium,
Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Indonesia, Poland and Sri Lanka.Also, five top providers of
assessed contributions to United Nations budgets and of voluntary
contributions to the United Nations funds, programmes and agencies, including
a standing peacebuilding fund were chosen, as follows: Germany, Italy, Japan,
the Netherlands and Norway. Five top providers of military personnel and
civilian police to United Nations missions were also elected: Bangladesh,
Ghana, India, Nigeria and Pakistan. Finally, seven members, elected by
the General Assembly, were Burundi, Chile, Croatia, Egypt, El Salvador, Fiji
and JamaicaOpening Address by
Secretary-GeneralKOFI
ANNAN, Secretary-General of the United Nations, opening the Peacebuilding
Commission’s inaugural session, said that few issues had generated greater
consensus, or higher expectations, than the responsibility of the United
Nations to help States and societies recover from the devastation of
war. So, it was not accidental that world leaders, at the 2005 World
Summit, had stressed the Organization’s vital role in post-conflict
transitions and had called on the General Assembly and the Security Council to
establish the Commission.“The
international community now has at its disposal a unique intergovernmental
body: the first devoted specifically to peacebuilding,” he said, adding that
the new Commission would aim to provide more sustained, more coordinated and
more focused support to countries emerging from conflict. Taken
alongside the new Human Rights Council, the strengthened Central Emergency
Response Fund, the Democracy Fund and other changes and reforms put in place
or set in motion recently, the Peacebuilding Commission marked another major
step towards a United Nations that was fully equipped to meet the challenges
of the times.“You begin your work as the
world grapples with a paradox in its efforts to promote durable peace,
stability and development,” he said, noting that there had been a very welcome
decline in the overall number of conflicts, and that the United Nations had
done its best, through peacekeeping and other assistance, to contribute to
that trend. “At the same time, however, we have seen an unacceptable
number of peace agreements disintegrate within five years after the end of a
civil war, with countries lapsing back into deadly conflict,” he
added.Some of the weaknesses in
current international responses to post-conflict situations were well known,
he said, citing the shortage of funds, the lack of international coordination
and the tendency for international actors to leave too hurriedly. “As we
have seen in the case of Timor-Leste, undue haste to disengage from a
transitional situation can result in reversals and a need to redeploy, at
great cost to all, particularly the helpless civilian victims,” he said,
adding that all those challenges directly informed the design and mandate of
the Peacebuilding Commission, as well as the creation of the Peacebuilding
Support Office and Standing Fund.“But we must also recognize that
increased resources and improved coordination will not, in themselves, be
enough to bring about lasting peace,” he said, pointing out that peacebuilding
required national ownership and must be home-grown. Outsiders, however
well-intentioned, could not substitute for the knowledge and will of the
people of the country concerned. It was the latter who best knew their
own history, culture and political contexts, and it was they who would live
with the consequences of the decisions taken. “And it is they who must
feel that peacebuilding is their achievement, if it is to have any hope of
lasting in the longer term,” he added.Experience had shown that
peacebuilding involved more than just preventing renewed fighting and securing
physical reconstruction, he said. A core task was building effective
public institutions within constitutional frameworks and the rule of
law. All too often, war-affected populations raised their hopes for new,
more equitable governance arrangements, only to see exclusionary social,
economic and political structures left untouched, perpetuated, or
inadvertently strengthened. It was essential for citizens to regain
their trust in State institutions.Peacebuilding could help
solidify the social compact by which States delivered on their obligations to
citizens, while citizens exercised their right to participate and take charge
of their destiny, he said, urging everyone to also remember that peacebuilding
was inherently political. At times, the international community had
approached it as a largely technical exercise involving knowledge and
resources. The international community must not only understand local
power dynamics, but also recognize that it was itself a political actor
entering a political environment.He went on to say that the
members of the Peacebuilding Commission would be called upon to act as
like-minded supporters, and as allies who would remain engaged in a country
beyond the lifespan of a peacekeeping mission. That would mean managing
expectations, since many elements of peacebuilding -– such as reconciliation
–- could take years or decades, whereas people emerging exhausted from a
conflict, understandably, wanted results much quicker than that. The
Commission was expected to support the development of peacebuilding strategies
and to build consensus among international actors for their
implementation. It would work closely with other United Nations
bodies.“And, of course, the active
participation of national authorities in the Commission’s country-specific
workings will be essential,” he said. “This will give further weight to
the dialogue at country level between the respective authorities and the
international community.” It was to be hoped that the Commission would
also find ways to reach out to local civil society, the private sector, and
others in a position to contribute.The Peacebuilding Support Office
would support the Commission by providing information and analysis, and by
ensuring that the Commission’s recommendations were translated into concrete
action at the country level, he said. The Peacebuilding Fund, meanwhile,
would provide additional means, complementing other funding sources, he added,
urging Member States to endow it generously and consistently.The Commission represented a
symbol of both hope and perseverance: hope for the many millions of people
throughout the world who were striving to keep their societies on the fragile
road to peace; and perseverance, because the international community had
overcome considerable difficulties to get the new and vital endeavour up and
running. “I am sure you will show similar resolve in carrying out your
mandate, and I wish you every success as your important work now
begins.”Ismael Gaspar Martins, Permanent
Representative of Angola, was then elected, by acclamation, as the
Commission’s first Chairman.Address by Chairman of
Peacebuilding CommissionISMAEL GASPAR MARTINS
(Angola) said that he was humbled that his country had been elected as
the first Chairman of the historic Peacebuilding Commission, and that he would
work unstintingly to serve the noble cause of peacebuilding, with a view to
breaking the cycle of conflict affecting the lives of millions of people in
Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in other parts of
the world where conflict had occurred. As the representative of a
country that was in the process of overcoming many years of conflict, and from
a continent with the largest number of countries in post-conflict situations,
his election was a symbolic recognition of the purposes for which world
leaders had decided to establish the Commission at the 2005 Summit.Today, the international
community was witnessing another turning point in the way in which the United
Nations dealt with post-conflict situations, he said. The negotiations
leading up to the present moment, which had at times been tense, had led to
the adoption of joint resolutions -– in both the Security Council and the
General Assembly -– that had launched the important new body. And, while
the Organization had previously lacked a dedicated entity to oversee the
post-conflict recovery process or ensure its coherence over the long haul to
sustainable peace and development, the Commission would be uniquely placed to
fulfil that role, by enabling partnership and cooperation among all relevant
stakeholders, particularly within the United Nations system.He said
that the new body was unique, in the sense that it brought together a
membership drawn from the three principle organs of the United Nations, major
financial donors and troop contributors, international financial institutions
and other relevant actors engaged in peacekeeping. It also featured the
innovation of close involvement and cooperation with the countries concerned,
in order to inspire national ownership in the overall process. The
countries concerned bore the responsibility of creating and enabling an
environment in which the Commission’s recommendations could be
implemented. That required political will at the national level, as well
as the involvement of broad-spectrum, local-level and community actors,
particularly women and children, which was pivotal to building political
will. And the contribution of civil society organizations would be
invaluable.“Peacebuilding is about
liberating people from the conflict trap and laying the foundation for
sustainable development,” he said. Financial support would be crucial
and world leaders had noted that the Commission’s main purpose was to bring
together all relevant actors to marshal resources, as well as advise on and
propose integrated strategies for post-conflict and peacebuilding
recovery. The levels of funding needed to be sustained and
predictable.Address by General Assembly
PresidentJAN ELIASSON ( Sweden), General
Assembly President, said that many had seen the despair in the eyes of women,
men and children in war-stricken countries. The victims had often had
very little choice but to place their fate in the hands of the international
community. But, that community had often failed them, leaving far too
frequently with the television cameras. This week, history was being
written at the United Nations. Last Monday had seen the opening of the
first Human Rights Council meeting and today witnessed the inauguration of the
Peacebuilding Commission. The United Nations had been successful in
ending wars, but building sustainable peace had proved much more
difficult. Through that new intergovernmental body, the Organization had
a chance to make a tangible difference in future.Through the new Commission, the
United Nations had ensured that, for countries emerging from conflict,
post-conflict did not mean post-engagement of the international community, he
said. The recent events in Timor-Leste had reminded the international
community of the need for sustained action, a need that had been seen earlier
in Haiti, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and in Liberia. The
international community had struggled to find ways to provide sustainable
assistance to States emerging from conflict. There had been an awareness
of the gaps in the international community’s response to countries in
post-conflict situations, but donors had not found efficient ways to link
emergency relief with reconstruction, institution-building, reconciliation and
development. Everyone was not only talking about institutional gaps, but
also about a financing gap and a gap in coordination between different actors,
including within the United Nations.He said that the proposal to
establish a Peacebuilding Commission, first presented by the
Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel and later developed in the
Secretary-General’s report In Larger Freedom, was an important
contribution to the Organization’s reform agenda. The United Nations had
legitimacy and much experience to draw upon in the field of
peacebuilding. Preventing countries from sliding back into conflict or
becoming failed States must be a top priority of the United Nations in the
years to come.Member
States had given early and strong support to the Commission’s establishment at
the 2005 World Summit, he recalled. Coupled with that endorsement, the
decision had been made to establish a Peacebuilding Support Office and a
Peacebuilding Fund. Carolyn McAskie, whose wide experience would greatly
benefit the Commission, was to be congratulated on her appointment to head the
Peacebuilding Support Office. Everyone was aware of last fall’s arduous
negotiations leading to the adoption of resolution 60/180 on 20 December 2005,
and to the long-awaited election of the members of the Organizational
Committee in May. But, Member States had been able to put their
differences aside and prove that the General Assembly could take decisions
that were meaningful to the people of the world.He said it
was in the country-specific settings that the Peacebuilding Commission’s work
would ultimately be judged. The Commission was truly an innovative body
-– one for the twenty-first century –- bringing together different actors in
peacebuilding for strategic discussions on how best to assist countries on
their journey from conflict to peace and development. Important to the
Commission’s future work were: the active engagement of the concerned
Government; close coordination between peacekeeping and peacebuilding; the
crucial role to be played by the Economic and Social Council; the opportunity
during the General Assembly’s general debate to discuss, in a broader
perspective, the role of the United Nations in peacebuilding; the opening of a
new chapter in the Organization’s relations with the Bretton Woods
institutions; the design of a suitable arrangement for dialogue with civil
society; and the use made of the valuable experience of Member States in
post-conflict recovery.In the end, he said, the
Commission’s success would depend on how the resolution was translated into
action on the ground. Hopefully, an efficient, flexible and
field-oriented body was now being created. The Commission’s first
members had a great responsibility towards all those whose lives and futures
it could improve after debilitating conflicts, and, hopefully, they would
accept that responsibility with determination and a serious sense of
purpose.Address by Security Council
PresidentPER STIG MØLLER, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Denmark, whose country holds the Security Council
Presidency for June, said that two of the major goals for institutional
reform, set out by the 2005 World Summit, had been met: on Monday, the Human
Rights Council had initiated its inaugural session in Geneva; and today, the
Peacebuilding Commission had begun its work. It had been a long process,
but there was reason to be satisfied with the outcome. Good things took
time to build, and unity among Member States was important, so as to ensure a
solid foundation for the new Commission. The tasks and expectations, as
a result, were immense. It was humbling to be faced with such a
challenge, but, at the same time, members must remain ambitious in their
approach. Creating a new body whose main purpose was to bring together
all relevant actors and to focus attention on reconstruction and
institution-building efforts was an institutional innovation that would
strengthen the Organization.During negotiations, he
recalled, everyone had striven to find a formula for the new body, which would
duly reflect the cross-cutting nature of the mandate entrusted to it. A
unique model had been chosen for the Peacebuilding Commission, with the
General Assembly and the Security Council acting concurrently to implement the
World Summit’s decision. Over time, the Council had mandated a large
number of peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding missions throughout the
world, in order to fulfil its responsibility to maintain international peace
and security. It was constantly reminded that building peace was a
complex, multifaceted endeavour with the involvement of multiple instruments
and actors.The Security Council was seized
of many post-conflict situations that would be relevant for the new
Commission’s agenda, he said. In such situations, the Commission’s main
purpose was to provide advice to the Council, particularly when there was a
United Nations-mandated peacekeeping mission on the ground or under way.
The Council would take advantage of that advice in its own deliberations and
when reviewing the mandates of the relevant missions. In order to fulfil
its intended role, and for its advice to have an impact, the Commission should
focus on country-specific situations. The aim should not be to create an
additional layer of coordination at Headquarters level, but rather to support
and reinforce local coordination at the country-level.Recommendations emanating from
country-specific discussions should not only flow to the Security Council or
other United Nations bodies, he said. With all the relevant actors
around the same table, there was a standing invitation to all to take action
on the common advice, and, if necessary, adjust their activities in the
country concerned accordingly. The primary responsibility for building a
nation, of course, rested with the national or transitional authorities of the
individual country. Without the strong cooperation of the country on the
agenda, the Commission’s efforts risked failure. It was pleasing that
Burundi and Sierra Leone had already expressed their desire to be placed on
the Commission’s agenda, and the Council had already communicated its request
for advice on the situation in those two countries.He said that peacebuilding was
not a new term or a new task. For as long as there had been conflict,
there had been the need to build peace and the relevant mechanisms were
already in place in countries, within international organizations, including
the United Nations, and among donors and other contributors. The
international community should strive to build on them and, in order to
improve common efforts, take advantage of the unique new body for coordination
and support for the development of integrated strategies among all the
relevant actors. The world could and must do better, as too many
countries relapsed into conflict. The common responsibility was to use
all available means to prevent that.The new Commission would bring
together the maximum resources and experiences available to assist a given
country, he said. It was a major achievement that the Member States had
agreed to include the international financial institutions and other
institutional donors on the Commission. Their contributions would be of
significant value, and they were encouraged to engage actively. The
ground had been prepared to produce concrete results, and the measure of the
Commission’s success should be improvements in the field. With the new
body working effectively, its members would prove the relevance of the United
Nations in the twenty-first century, and remind each other, as United Nations
Member States, of their responsibility to bring peace and prosperity to all
parts of the world.Address by Economic and
Social Council PresidentALI HACHANI ( Tunisia),
President of the Economic and Social Council, said the Commission would mark a
turning point for countries struggling to manage the difficult road to
recovery from war to peace and lay the ground for sustainable
development. The Council had long stressed the need for the joint
consideration, with the other major United Nations organs, of situations of
international concern or importance. Indeed, it had been integral in the
development of Ad Hoc Advisory groups on African Countries Emerging from
Conflict — Burundi and Guinea-Bissau — as well as on Haiti.He said
that the establishment of the Peacebuilding Commission was not an end in
itself, but only the first step in an overall effort whose success would be
first seen, and ultimately judged, in the field. The three main organs
of the United Nations needed to work together to ensure the new Commission’s
success, because peace and development were interlinked, and both were
critical to long-term stability.Statement by World
BankJAMES ADAMS, Vice-President of
the World Bank, speaking on behalf of its President, Paul Wolfowitz,
said that the institution had repeatedly been made aware of the importance of
the link between peace, security and development. Conflict was both a
cause and a consequence of poverty. A 2003 World Bank report had laid
out the close links between development and conflict. Where development
failed, countries were at risk of being caught in a “conflict trap”: violence
wreaked havoc on the economy, exacerbated poverty and social distress, and
increased the risk of future conflict. Poor countries suffered
disproportionately from civil war. For example, a country with an annual
per capita income of $250 had a 15 per cent risk of experiencing a civil war
in the following five years. With a per capita income of $5,000, that
risk dropped to less than 1 per cent.More than
1 billion poor people were either directly affected by civil wars, or at high
risk of being so in the foreseeable future, he said. Indeed, 80 per cent
of the world’s 20 poorest countries had suffered a major war in the past 15
years. The risk of conflict in poor countries had risen. The
legacy of conflict was one of huge direct costs and incalculable indirect
costs. Since the 1990s, some 6 million people in Africa had lost their
lives and more than 15 million had been displaced. In turn, physical
infrastructure had been destroyed, while institutional capacity and social
capital had been lost, a flight of financial and human capital and an average
2.2 per cent loss in annual growth per conflict-affected country. The
death toll from conflict-induced economic dislocation, epidemics and
insecurity was much higher.For example, more than 3 million
conflict-related deaths in the Democratic Republic of the Congo had occurred
since 1998, compared to about 200,000 people killed in combat, he said.
Such losses had far-reaching consequences: in Rwanda, every third household
was headed by a woman, and 1 million children, or 12 per cent of the
population, had been orphaned. Through the 1990s, some 24 of Africa’s 53
States had experienced sustained civil strife. Conflict and State
fragility produced a vicious cycle. And the spill-over costs of having a
fragile State as a neighbour could average 1.6 per cent in lost gross domestic
product each year.He said, however, that there was
hope behind those gruesome statistics. The Human Security Report
of 2005 had indicated a dramatic decline in conflict in Africa since 2002,
during which there had been 16 conflicts. That figure had now fallen to
four. Also importantly, most of the former conflicts in Africa had
internationally recognized peace agreements and ensuing transitional
processes, behind which international actors could harness their
support. The poorest citizens of the world needed jobs, education and
health care, but they also needed to know that their children could grow up in
peace and security, and with responsible political governance. Security
needed development, and development needed security. Research over the
last decade had demonstrated the development benefits of successful
peacebuilding for poverty reduction, within fragile and conflict-affected
countries and with neighbouring States. Those links should be recognized
and the international community should work together to support sustainable
peace for countries in crisis.Among the Commission’s
objectives was maintaining long-term support for countries emerging from
conflict, even after the spotlight of the international press moved on to
other crises, he noted. In Timor-Leste, Afghanistan and the Sudan,
progress towards stability and prosperity was a long road, with many setbacks
along the way. It should be made clear that the international actors
supporting political, security and economic recovery were there for the long
haul. The value of the Commission would be judged by the difference it
made in the countries concerned, and not by meetings and reports.
Countries emerging from conflict needed progress driven from within, and there
were many courageous reformers struggling to lead their countries out of
conflict, as could be seen now, impressively, in Liberia. With
unprecedented speed, the World Bank Board had just approved an emergency World
Bank/International Development Association credit of $50 million to help that
country’s new Government fulfil the hopes and expectations of its
people. The Bank could support those people through a compact that
mobilized diplomatic, security, economic or other resources, in partnership
with responsible leadership and commitment to good governance on their
side.Statement by International
Monetary FundREINHARD MUNZBERG,
International Monetary Fund (IMF), agreed that the Commission was a
useful forum, where all relevant aspects of a country in a post-conflict
situation could be addressed comprehensively. The Fund was prepared to
cooperate actively with it, and it appreciated being invited to its
meetings. Satisfied that the Commission would be an advisory body, the
IMF would take back to its governing organs information on the new organ’s
work, which would ensure that the Fund’s decisions were informed by the
Commission’s deliberations on the whole spectrum of aspects relevant to a
specific case. The Fund was already involved in several post-conflict
situations, including in the two countries expected to be selected first by
the Commission.* ***
*
================================================================
To
leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.
Categories: Releases