20 December 2012

Statement by:

H.E. Mohammad Khazaee

 Ambassador Permanent Representative

of the Islamic Republic of Iran

 On behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement

 Before the Security Council

On the Agenda Item: “Post-Conflict Peacebuilding”

(New York – 20 December 2012)

 

     I have the honor to speak on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on this important agenda item. I would like at the outset to thank you Mr. President for organizing this open debate on post-conflict peacebuilding. I also thank Mr. Ban ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well as, the Permanent  Representative of Bangladesh, the Chair of PBC, for their respective statements.
     The Non-Aligned Movement stresses, once again, its principled positions concerning the post-conflict pracebuilding activities contained in the Final Document of the 16th Summit Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Movement, held in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran, in August 2012.

Mr. President

The 2009 report of the Secretary General on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of conflict set out an agenda to strengthen the UN response to peacebuilding challenges and to facilitate an earlier and more coherent response of the international community. Since then, several steps have been taken by the UN and the broader range of relevant actors to restoring sustainable peace in countries emerging from conflict, as reflected in the progress report of Secretary General S/2012/746.  Nevertheless, we must recognize that much more is still to be done to address the whole challenges of peacebuilding and to intensify the nexus between peace and development. The Movement would like, in this regard, to stress on the following points: 

First, Peace building is continuously evolving. There remains a lot to be learned, in order to devise the right policies and to identify appropriate sequencing of priorities that fully respond to specificities of each local context. It is also necessary to take into account multidimensionality of conflict situations and their changing nature which indeed needs having an eager eye on multi-faced root-causes of conflicts.
It is also important to further leverage our collective effort of peace building, to guarantee more coordinated and coherent actions on the ground. This requires also that UN maintains its central role in identifying a common vision of peacebuilding and in forging a closer partnership with all relevant actors for a better livelihood of people emerging from conflicts. 

Secondly, the Movement would like to reiterate that all peace building initiatives and planning should be based on the principles of national ownership and timely, predictable and sustainable financing. We also maintain our position that there cannot be lasting and sustainable peace without development. Therefore, the importance of the economic recovery and development dimension in the peace building process hardly needs reiteration. 

     Third, with regard to the Peacebuilding Commission, the Movement believes that the Commission indeed constitutes a platform for a coordinated, coherent an integrated institutional mechanism to address the special needs of countries emerging from conflict. We also reiterate the central role of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) in providing the United Nations with policy guidance and strategies in its post-conflict peacebuilding activities. In this regard, a special attention of PBC should be given to the necessity of developing national capacities and further institution building, through the needed mechanism and the required financial and technical resources. 
We share the Secretary General report’s recommendation, encouraging the Security Council and the Peace building Commission to build on the important elements emanating from the debate and interactive dialogue held in July 2012 and also encouraging the Security Council to continue to articulate the advice that it requires from the Commission, including during the mandate discussions. Moreover, we would like to emphasize those institutional relations between the PBC and the General Assembly as well as the ECOSOC should also be further promoted.
We would like also to underline the need for the PBC to develop multiple forms of engagement that are appropriate to the specific circumstances of different countries, on case by case basis, and their evolving needs, as well as fully exerting its preventive role in avoiding relapse into conflict. Moreover, we hoped that the Secretary General report would further elaborate on how respective roles and responsibilities of the PBC and the UN actors on the field could be better clarified, in order to enable the PBC fully exerting its mandate.

 Fourth, turning to the part of the report on «Women and peace building», the Movement underlines the need to alleviate the challenges faced by women and girls in post-conflict situations and to strengthen the effective participation in the peace building process. The potential contribution that women can make to peace process hardly needs reiteration. In this regard, the Movement appreciates the ongoing efforts of the Secretary General to ensure women’s participation in and the availability of gender expertise to peace process and emphasizes that women are crucial partners in shoring up the three pillars of lasting peace: economic recovery, social cohesion and political legitimacy.

Fifth, we do consider that the priority areas contained in the 2009 report on peace building in the immediate aftermath of conflict remain consistent. In the same context, we stress the need for reinforcing inclusiveness of peace building process and national reconciliation, so that all national actors could be in a position to engage meaningfully in the peace building process. Active participation of all national actors, including marginalized groups, may ease the situation and contribute significantly in ensuring national ownership for achieving peace building goals through a common vision of national development. Full and effective participation of women can further strengthen the process.

Sixth, we reiterate that national ownership is a fundamental principle for reviewing civilian capacities. The Movement reaffirms the importance of civilian capacity that exists already within the developing world and expresses readiness to support national capacity development and institution building in support of peace building activities in post-conflict situations, as well as enhanced regional, south-south and triangular cooperation. We would like also to underline the need for involving the C34 and the Fifth Committee that will continue to have a key role in consideration of the review of civilian capacities, given its administrative and budgetary implications.

Seventh, and as underlined by the Secretary General report, the rebuilding of national institutions requires sustained international political and financial support. The Headquarters must match the abilities to undertake these tasks in the field. In this connection, while emphasizing the necessity to ensure the sustainability of funding for countries in the agenda of the Peacebuilding Commission, we express our concern regarding the lack of coordination and coherence among financial donors resulting in duplication and redundancy in particular areas and the neglect of other catalytic projects. In this regard, we call for the setup of a mechanism within the PBC to review, within each country configuration, ways and means to ensure unity of efforts by donors, in close collaboration with host countries.
In conclusion Mr. President, the Movement reiterates, once again, its full commitment to share its inputs and to constructively engage in future discussions on peace building.

Thank you Mr. President

Bookmark and Share