|
Statement by H.E. DR. R. M. Marty M. Natalegawa Permanent Representative of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations at the General Assembly’s Joint Debate on the Report
of Peacebuilding Commission (Agenda item 10) New York. 10 October 2007 Mr. President, Let me first express our gratitude to you for convening this important joint debate on reports of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and the Peacebuilding Fund (PBF). We are thankful to the Secretary General for the presentation of his report on the PBF, and to the PBC for its first annual report. Indonesia associates itself with the statement made by the distinguished representative of Jamaica on behalf of the NAM Caucus in the PBC. The rationales of establishing the PBC and the PBF are to support fragile societies recovering from the devastation of war, prevent the relapse into conflict, and address the gaps in the post-conflict peacebuilding effort. Entrusted as a member of PBC, we are particularly pleased to see the Commission and PBF come of age during their first year of operation. Having been involved in the PBC during this first year, we would like to offer some remarks that would hopefully contribute towards making the international peacebuilding architecture more robust. First, our deliberations in the PBC have rightly emphasized the importance of addressing good governance, rule of law, security sector reform, fight against corruption, and human rights for all – the necessary ingredients for formation of a pluralistic and tolerant society. While these issues are of relevance in crafting a sound peace consolidation, the PBC should facilitate an equal attention to the issues of development. There is overwhelming evidence that lasting peace can not be realized in the absence of economic development and an improvement in state capacity. It is not a coincidence that nine out of ten countries, that have experienced conflict at one point or other since 1990 are impoverished with the lowest human development indicators. And even when there has been a formal peace agreement, the vicious cycle of poverty and instability has heightened the risk of relapse into violence. The Secretary-General in his report on the work of organization rightly states that “there can be no development without peace and no peace without development, always in the spirit of respect for human rights and the fundamental freedoms of humankind”. This conviction should be implemented in a concrete manner in our deliberations to draw up peacebuilding strategies for countries under the agenda of the PBC. Second, it is very well understood by all members of the UN that national ownership is a fundamental principle for the peacebuilding processes. PBC needs to maintain this as its core principle and practice it. It should be willing to listen attentively, and to pay heed to the concerned national governments. We also need to go the extra mile to listen more carefully to what the people in the field genuinely need. There should be listening with an open mind without superfluous pre-conceptions as to what may be needed in the concerned countries. We agree that the voices of civil society and other relevant stakeholders in the field are essential to enhance national ownership. Such a perspective is consistent with the fact that, as a matter of principle, the voice of the democratically-elected government is the prime source for the PBC’s consideration since it is only the elected government that can be held accountable by the people through vote. Partnership and synergy between governments and civil society is the key. Third, the integrated peacebuilding strategies (IPBS)
proposed by the Commission would only help lay the foundations for
sustainable recovery and peace consolidation if they are truly comprehensive,
and fully assisted by the international community, including with
the full-involvement and support of the Bretton-Woods institutions,
and the other relevant actors. We would underline that such a mechanism, necessary as it is, should not be too complicated and put unnecessary burden on the government, which faces severe capacity constraint. It must also be seen that the responsibilities of all sides in any monitoring tool are balanced, keeping with the essence of the global partnership for development. Fifth, the biggest challenge is how to implement in a concrete manner the peacebuilding strategies in the field, as has also been very aptly stated in the conclusion of the PBC’s Report. The fine-tuning efforts by the peacebuilding system in New York should have impact on the ground, and that should be felt directly by the community. The maximum effect will be achieved if the PBC focuses on being practical and results-oriented. Moreover, in order to realize the impact in the countries concerned, the Commission needs to intensify its efforts for bringing together all relevant actors to marshal resources. Apart from taking this up in the country configurations, the Organizational Committee of the PBC can explore this as a specific subject. In this context, the Committee may wish to explore engagement with the non-traditional partners as well such as corporate sector, which has seen the emergence of numerous organizations interested in making double bottom line on profit and social welfare investments. The ‘recommendations of coordination by the Commission’ is another crucial aspect that will enhance cooperation and coherence in the international post-conflict field, enhancing synergies on the ground. There is also a requirement to dwell on perhaps developing a template communications strategy with the assistance of the PBSO that can be put to use with case specific adjustments in different scenarios. The ability of PBC to garner international attention long after the conflict stories slip from media headlines is intrinsic to its capacity for advocacy and resource mobilization. Final point Mr. President, I would like to share with the house a few thoughts on how Indonesia sees the General Assembly playing its important role in ensuring that the UN peacebuilding machinery functions well to generate maximum output in the field. The GA needs to enhance its interaction with the PBC. The GA could provide recommendations to the PBC in driving the peace consolidation efforts. The GA has a role and the mandate for the overall policy guidelines in the peacebuilding related matters, since the GA uniquely can take up the issues of security and development. The ECOSOC, can also play an important role with its advocacy capacity and the technical capabilities of its various commissions and subsidiary bodies. There needs to be regular interaction between the PBC and ECOSOC where relevant lessons learned and best practices can be shared. Another contribution by the GA could be in its assisting of the PBC in the Commission’s mandate to marshal resources. The GA, among others, could encourage member states to contribute in the Peacebuilding Fund. The role of the Fund is critical in its offering of quick and concrete peace dividends. The GA at the same time can monitor how resources in the PBF are being used. There is also a need to speed up the process of disbursement from the Fund, and to ensure that projects are well coordinated with other mechanisms inside and outside the UN, and the duplication is minimized. Before I conclude, allow me to reiterate Indonesia’s commitment to the cause of PBC and PBF. We will continue to engage with others towards our aim of making the outcomes of both tangible.
|
