Corporation
of New York
Vol. 4/No. 4
Spring 2008
A Note About the Carnegie Reporter
African American
Philanthropy:
A Deep-Rooted Tradition Continues to Grow
The Impact of Data on Education
In Memoriam:
William T. Golden and Joshua Lederberg
Also in this issue:
2007 Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy Winners
Past Issues:
Request
a free subscription to the print edition
Peace in Our Time?
A Threat to One
Is a Threat to All
The High-Level Panel spent a year reviewing virtually every aspect of
international security and, in December 2004, officially announced 100-plus
recommendations for change, urging the adoption of new, far-reaching ground
rules to help the world face evolving security threats and to shore up
the United Nations. The Panel’s report, A More Secure World:
Our Shared Responsibility, argued that “a threat to any nation
or people is a threat to all,” and that “nations must work
together to maintain their security.” Their recommendations ranged
from new guidelines on the acceptable use of force to detailed proposals
for strengthening the nuclear and nonproliferation regime; from elements
of counterterrorism strategy to renewed approaches to human rights.
Peacebuilding stood out among the Panel’s many recommendations because it pulled together a range of related concerns and, notably, urged the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission—a new entity to identify countries at risk of violent conflict, organize prevention efforts and marshal and sustain the international community’s ongoing post-conflict peacebuilding. The panel urged more effective peacekeeping efforts overall, requiring greater human and financial resources, and enhanced development as “the first line of response” against threats to human security. Stressing the critical need for reform, the report noted that although the UN “has been much more effective in addressing the major threats to peace and security than it is given credit for,” serious changes would be needed to make it “effective, efficient and equitable in providing collective security for all.”
Successful peacebuilding requires the deployment of peacekeepers, the report said, with the right mandates and sufficient capacity to deter would-be spoilers (who have their own reasons for wanting the conflict to continue); funds for demobilization and disarmament built into peacekeeping budgets; a new trust fund to fill critical gaps in rehabilitation and reintegration of combatants, as well as other early reconstruction tasks; and a focus on building state institutions and capacity, especially in the rule of law sector. Doing this job successfully should be a core function of the United Nations, the panel insisted, but the UN often devoted too little attention and too few resources to this critical challenge.
Handing over the report to the UN General Assembly for consideration and action, Secretary-General Annan wrote in his accompanying letter that it “offers the United Nations a unique opportunity to refashion and renew our institutions,” highlighting its call for a “broader, more comprehensive system of collective security: one that tackles both new and old threats, and addresses the security concerns of all states—rich and poor, weak and strong.” He applauded the Panel’s consensus on the need for collective action, recognizing that “we cannot treat issues such as terrorism or civil wars or extreme poverty in isolation.”
In March 2005, Annan delivered his own report to the UN General Assembly, In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, to restate his support for the High Level Panel’s finding and spur the UN to action. “I believe this concept can bridge the gap between divergent views of security and give us the guidance we need to face today’s dilemmas,” he wrote. “Yet, at this very point there is a gaping hole in the United Nations institutional machinery: no part of the United Nations system effectively addresses the challenge of helping countries with the transition from war to lasting peace. I therefore propose to member states that they create an intergovernmental Peacebuilding Commission, as well as a Peacebuilding Support Office, within the United Nations Secretariat, to achieve this end.”
In September 2005 a World Summit at UN headquarters in New York—billed as the largest gathering of world leaders in history—brought together 170 heads of state dedicated to making “bold decisions in the areas of development, security, human rights and reform.” During the summit the UN member states agreed to the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission by the end of that year. They also agreed to create a Peacebuilding Support Office to set objectives, handle strategy and provide guidance, as well as a Peacebuilding Fund to guarantee resources between the end of conflict and resumption of longer-term development assistance.
The following December the General Assembly endorsed the Commission, defining it as an advisory body to help strengthen and support countries so they can endure the very difficult post-conflict years when, even if fighting has stopped, the economy, rule of law and institutions of governance may be extremely weak. It is the Peacebuilding Commission’s job to bring all stakeholders to the table: International financial institutions, including the World Bank, nongovernmental organizations, governments, donor countries, representatives of civil society and the private sector and others to facilitate collaboration among political, military, humanitarian and development activities. Its intention is to offer countries emerging from conflict informed advice on strategies for recovery, including reconstruction, institution building and sustainable development, and to help provide financing for early post-conflict activities as well as investment for the longer term, focusing the international community’s attention on all these issues for an extended period of time.
The Commission is made up of a 31-member organizational committee as well as country-specific committees, including country representatives and regional organizations, whose participation will be tailored to the specific case. As an advisory body, the Commission lacks an enforcement mechanism, but its recommendations are expected to carry weight because of the diversity and relevance of the participants: members of the Security Council, top troop contributors (who have direct experience with the challenges of achieving sustainable peace and security), top financial donors and key institutional players. Countries may ask for advice from the Commission directly or requests may be made on their behalf by the Secretary-General and major UN bodies. The UN requires that the peacebuilding process involve officials from the country in conflict, and take place only with that country’s full participation. The Commission will not intervene in a country unless requested, and will do so only with the approval of the organizational committee. The plan is to deal with countries after the establishment of a peace accord and cessation of violence with the aim of keeping the international community engaged even after the peacekeepers have gone.
| Carnegie Corporation States-At-Risk Grantees | |||
|
Brookings Institution: Research on global poverty,
weak states and national