Conclusion of the Annual High-Level Meeting Between the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the United Nations and Partner Organizations in the 'Tripartite-Plus' Format

Secretary General Davis,
Mr. Fau,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank you all for a very stimulating and fruitful two days. Our Outcome Document reflects the scope and depth of our meeting. This is in line with the spirit of the Tripartite-plus process that provides an informal framework for constructive dialogue and cooperation.

Today we identified, discussed and evaluated the impact of cooperation between our organizations in peacebuilding. We searched for ways in which to enhance security through multilateral peacebuilding. We reviewed our cooperation with a view to promoting peacebuilding and we determined criteria and benchmarks of progress in this important problem. We have also looked into the issue of when peacebuilding is achieved.

I think you will all agree that we have had a very productive exchange of views. Before we close, I would like to highlight some of the main points of the discussion, which appear to command a broad measure of agreement.

We concur that the United Nations and regional organizations must cooperate closely and share information for a better analysis and understanding of the origins and dynamics of peacebuilding. While each organization has to conduct peacebuilding activities on the basis of its own mandate, we have to keep in mind each other’s capabilities to complement each other’s efforts for maximum impact on the ground.

In this context we welcome the Council of Europe’s focus on long-term conflict prevention and identifying terrorism as the main threat that we have “to fight hard” and “to fight smart”.

Our discussions clearly reflected the conviction that the Peacebuilding Commission should bring all relevant actors in peacebuilding together at an early stage of the negotiations of a peace agreement, since this is the only way to ensure effective implementation and to avoid duplication of efforts.

We are also all aware that peacebuilding has to be basically a home-grown process, in which the international community can only play a supportive role of national endeavours.

It was emphasized that without addressing the root causes of a conflict, no peacebuilding strategy can be successful. In this context, we also have to be aware of the political character of any peacebuilding situation in order to avoid unintentional consequences. All components of a peacebuilding strategy have to aim at preventing at best the outbreak or recurrence of conflict.

In our discussions we realized that peacebuilding requires a comprehensive strategy, which has to touch upon political, social, developmental and humanitarian areas, which have to be tailor-made for each situation as well as the need for mapping all peacebuilding assets and activities, including best practices so as to address the optimum way in which to implement all aspects of peacebuilding.

In order to reach a sustainable peace, peacebuilding requires action to support good governance, the rule of law, democratisation and human rights.

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Our discussions also identified a number of obstacles to more effective peacebuilding. Often, for example, there is a lack of sustained political support by the international community for long-term peacebuilding after the signing of a peace agreement. In addition, the mandates given to the United Nations and regional organizations are not always supported by adequate resources and capacities. And the resources for peacebuilding are limited, often drawn from the same pool of funds provided by Member States for other activities. We, thus, have to apply more energetic efforts to the creation of the Peacebuilding Fund.

There is also an inherent contradiction in peacebuilding. On the one hand, effective peacebuilding requires the long-term engagement of the international community. On the other hand, there is always the danger of making a society permanently dependent on development assistance. That is why so many of us stressed today that since peacebuilding needs to be a home-grown process, supported by the international community it should be aimed ultimately at promoting national self-reliance. In assisting this self-reliance, economic recovery has been identified as one of the main tenets of peacebuilding. The decent work agenda was considered a proven tool for peacebuilding.

The Peacebuilding Commission was created precisely to address these shortcomings and to ensure that all resources and activities are brought together and applied in a coherent way across the political, military, developmental and humanitarian sectors. Likewise, in cooperation with regional organizations, it will address the lack of coherence and the problems of coordination. It is exactly this deficit of coordination, which the Peacebuilding Commission wants to eliminate. In addition, it will develop integrated strategies for reconstruction and development, and – what is also crucial – make sure that political attention remains focussed and that reliable, long-term funding for peacebuilding is secured. I was pleased to hear that all contributors in today’s discussion welcomed the creation of the Peacebuilding Commission as a new and potentially strong mechanism in the UN toolbox.

One of today’s key questions was as to when we should get involved. The simple answer is now. But not in haste and taking into account the three pillars of peacebuilding: to define the objectives, to adequately resource the mission and include a sunset clause in the mandate that guarantees an exit strategy.

We identified three chronological phases in a successful peacebuilding process: first the implementation of a peace accord, then the strengthening of the power of the state and nation-building, and finally the institutionalisation of peace. Unfortunately, we could not identify a single example of a successful case study.

I would also like to congratulate the participants of yesterday’s Expert-level Meeting on their deliberations and report. Their findings will be made part of the overall report from our two days of deliberations.

Regional cooperation is a vital element of global stability and peace. Progress made through regional fora represents a constructive parallel track to ongoing strategies at the global level within the United Nations that must incorporate early warning mechanisms that can result in a crisis management strategy that avoids violence and/or the recurrence of conflict.

Today’s meeting has touched on the key questions of peacebuilding. I am confident that our discussions and deliberations have clarified some of the issues. What is clear, is that there is a lot of work to be done, and we have to do it together.

Let me thank the OSCE and the Council of Europe as well as our partner organizations for what has been a most productive meeting. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to our UN colleagues who have come from the field and from New York. And finally let me thank all who participated in today’s discussion.

As I mentioned early this morning, this is a results-oriented meeting. I think we can all leave the meeting with a much clearer picture and understanding of this issue. Through the Tripartite-plus process, our organizations have established a practical framework for information-sharing and cooperation. Let’s ensure that there is effective follow-up to this meeting.

We will convey today’s findings and practical recommendations to the 7th High-Level Meeting between the United Nations and Regional Organizations, which the UN Secretary-General will convene in New York next September, as well as to the Peacebuilding Commission, as a practical contribution in support of its work.

Thank you for coming. We look forward to next year’s meeting in Vienna. Have a nice evening and a safe trip home.