High Level Dialogue with relevant United Nations entities on the promotion of preventive approaches within the United Nations system

Question from the moderator:
The United Nations Office at Geneva facilitates the Organization’s work in the promotion of peace, development and human rights. It builds partnerships with civil society, research, academia and other international actors and promotes cultural exchanges. From this perspective, can you tell us about the role of the UN system as a whole in prevention?

Thank you for the invitation to be here. Conflict prevention is very much a subject close to my heart.
It almost goes without saying that prevention is at the core of the United Nations’ work. It could not be stated more clearly than in the preamble to the Charter: our mission is to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Article 33 highlights the central place of prevention in the collective security architecture, and sets out mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of conflicts.

But all too often, we find ourselves in a reactive rather than a proactive mode. The examples of where we – as a system – were unable to confront situations that were clearly escalating and eventually caused immense suffering shame us. And I find the Council’s focus on prevention therefore very timely indeed.

I have personally been engaged in pushing the prevention agenda within the United Nations for many years. Not always an easy task. But, I have seen much progress: 15 years ago, the words ‘human rights’ could hardly be spoken in the Security Council. Today, human rights are an integral part of all new peacekeeping mandates and increasingly the common thread in all that we do as a system.

But I also believe that we need to get much better at using the tools that we have, and at communicating our successes and failures much better. I have been encouraged by the strong calls during the high-level segment yesterday and today for placing human rights at the centre of conflict prevention. There can be no doubt that human rights violations are at the root of many of today’s conflicts – just as human rights must be at the heart of efforts to build peace in the aftermath of conflict.

Let me start with a few words on where we are today, and then outline the tools at our disposal, before concluding with a couple of reflections on the challenges that we face.

Since taking office, the Secretary-General has refocused the United Nations’ efforts on prevention, and he has included prevention as one of the five priorities of the second term Five-Year Action Agenda.

As a result, the Organization’s conflict prevention engagements are now more field-oriented, flexible and fast. And yet, we still face huge challenges. The number of blue helmets deployed in the field has never been higher. Our peacebuilding successes remain fragile – as we have seen with the recent developments in the Central African Republic and mounting tension in Burundi, for example. We are increasingly facing threats that cross borders, and even oceans: terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime. And we are more and more being called to support complex peace processes, and help national stakeholders undergo difficult and volatile political transitions.

Prevention is a human rights imperative. This notion is enshrined in the Secretary-General’s Rights Up Front initiative, which seeks to improve the Organization’s response to safeguard human rights around the world, built around the idea of early responses to human rights violations, protection of civilians, and the importance of preventive work. Rights Up Front represents a profound recognition on the part of the United Nations of our human rights responsibilities, following the systemic failures of the Organization in the final stages of the armed conflict in Sri Lanka. As the Secretary-General said yesterday in this chamber, the premise of the Rights Up Front Action Plan is that violations of human rights are signals that we must act on to prevent atrocities from happening.

As we know all too well, prevention does not work in every case, or even close, given all the political constraints. But common sense and experience tells us that if we are present in trouble spots, with early and skilful diplomatic interventions, we will be successful at times in either preventing conflict or keeping it in check.

Let me share a couple of concrete examples:

The United Nations’ preventive efforts in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia in the mid-1990s, with the United Nations Preventive Deployment Force, is a clear example of the successful deployment of United Nations peacekeeping forces in the prevention of conflict and violence against civilians.

Preventive efforts stopped the spread of violence in Yemen, which remains, to this day, the only negotiated transition of the Arab Spring. The national dialogue that is currently taking place is the broadest consultation ever seen in that country, and a striking example of inclusivity, particularly of women’s groups.

In the case of Guinea, the dogged diplomatic work of the United Nations, regional organizations and a number of key Governments, played a crucial role in keeping that process on track. Had Guinea been allowed to drift into ethnic-based conflict as many feared, we might very well have been facing a large humanitarian crisis and the deployment of a multi-million dollar peace operation.

The United Nations’ toolbox for prevention has also been expanded over the past few years:

The number and complexity of the Special Political Missions have grown significantly. We have established regional offices in West Africa, Central Asia and Central Africa, which have greatly contributed to prevention activities in their respective regions, given their knowledge of local dynamics, proximity to stakeholders and national counterparts, and close cooperation with regional and sub-regional organizations. Special Envoys are deployed rapidly to de-escalate tensions and initiate a political dialogue. We have enhanced our professional expertise through the establishment of a Mediation Support Unit within the Department of Political Affairs, with rosters and a stand-by team of mediation experts that can be deployed to the field on 72-hour notice to support peace negotiations. We are building more and stronger partnerships with regional and sub-regional organizations, and supporting their own capacity-building. And finally, the United Nations has increased its focus on early conflict prevention, addressing long-term structural questions that can constitute drivers for the onset of violent conflict. Here systemic human rights violations are key aspects, together with inequitable sharing of land, natural resources and political power among different groups.

Let me conclude with four observations for our discussion:

First, while we have made progress, the failures put us to shame. And these are not simply historical failures but ongoing conflicts and situations of instability – Syria, the Central African Republic Mali, Ukraine, Venezuela and others. We cannot congratulate ourselves or allow ourselves to become complacent – there is still a long way to go.

Second, we have the necessary tools: professional mediation capacity, good envoys, partnerships with regional organizations, and close contacts with national and local actors. But, ultimately, the effectiveness of our engagements will depend on the commitment of the parties, the existence of political space in which to operate and as the continued support of the international community.

Reforms within the Secretariat, including Rights Up Front, must be backed by the willingness of Member States to confront the failings in prevention and take remedial action, and give us the resources to do so. The Human Rights Council and other intergovernmental bodies have a central role in promoting and supporting meaningful preventive action.

Third, prevention is cost effective and it gives value for money. But it is not free. We must invest in capacity-building. This also requires better communication on the instances of effective prevention, just as it requires us to be honest in reviewing the cases where prevention failed – and then the political courage to take remedial action. And this is obviously easier said than done in both cases.

Fourth – and finally – the ultimate goal is to link the security, development and human rights pillars effectively. Unless we find a way to truly link these three dimensions, not just conceptually, but on an operational level, we will fail in preventing the outbreak of new conflicts or previous conflicts from flaring up again.

Above all, what is needed is a change in mind-sets. This goes beyond both resources and capacity, which in the final analysis are only technical barriers. We need a fundamental change in culture for an integrated, cross-cutting approach that brings together all relevant actors and issues. And I do not think that we are there yet – neither at the intergovernmental level nor within the United Nations system. It is definitely a work in progress!

Geneva brings together all these dimensions of conflict prevention. The multilateral machinery and the variety of actors present enable Geneva to bring all the relevant partners together. The presence here of the Human Rights Council and human rights treaty bodies are, of course, a particular asset in this respect, as we can see with today’s debate. This city is the chosen home of several non-governmental organizations working in the field of prevention and mediation, such as the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and Interpeace – among many others. The rich civil society and academic presence here is an indispensable asset.

As you said at the outset, the United Nations Office at Geneva works to facilitate cooperation among all these actors, and we are now actively working to enhance these efforts, including by adding – with Switzerland’s generous support – capacity to strengthen the Organization’s overall mediation and conflict prevention efforts.

Thank you very much.