Update Report No. 5: Peacebuilding Commission
Expected Council Action
The Council is expected to hold an open debate on the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) on 31 January to take stock of recent PBC work. It may also explore ways in which interaction between the Council and the PBC can be developed and improved. The Presidents of both ECOSOC and the General Assembly, in addition to the PBC Chair and Vice-Chairs, have been invited to participate. (A General Assembly debate is also possible.)
No formal Council action is expected at the time of the debate. However, it seems that the Council will hold closed consultations to review the outcome of the debate in February.
But even if there is no specific outcome, the revival of Council interest in exercising its oversight role with respect to the PBC is significant in its own right. And it may signal a growing concern that the PBC would benefit from a more structured interaction with the relevant principal organs.
Key Recent Developments
Russia, in its capacity as incoming Council president for January, proposed that the Council should take the initiative to review the work of the PBC. The proposal was generally well-received and was eventually expanded by the idea of also holding an open debate with the participation of the presidents of the General Assembly, ECOSOC and the PBC, recognising the Commission’s broad composition and the value of a wider, more transparent discussion.
By way of preparation, the Council held informal consultations on 23 January, during which the head of the Peacebuilding Support Office (PBSO), Carolyn McAskie, briefed Council members on the PBC’s activities. She indicated that a work program for Sierra Leone and Burundi is expected to be finalised in the next six months.
Within the PBC itself, country-specific meetings were held in December. PBC members have requested that detailed work plans and corresponding calendars on peacebuilding activities be presented for the next formal country-specific meetings. A mapping exercise is currently taking place, designed to identify ways in which international donor assistance in Burundi and Sierra Leone is currently allocated, with particular attention to the share of funds received by the PBC-identified priority areas.
PBC Members are currently exploring informally the possibility of working groups to discuss some of the specific aspects in country-specific meetings. One example is to establish a working group for discussion of issues such as rule of law.
No dates have been set as yet for the next rounds of country-specific meetings, but it is likely that they will take place by the end of April. (Burundi seems to have requested that its country-specific meeting take place after a donor roundtable expected for late March. It is likely that the Sierra Leone meeting will be held in April.)
There seems to be a growing interest in expanding the number of situations on the PBC agenda, with countries such as Timor-Leste, Haiti, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Guinea-Bissau being mentioned.
PBC Elections
On 11 January the Council elected two non-permanent Council members Panama and South Africa (to replace departing Council members Denmark and Tanzania) in the PBC Organisational Committee.
At time of writing, the election process for ECOSOC’s two seats on the Committee was underway, but had not yet come to a conclusion. Poland and Belgium will be replaced by countries from the same geographical groups, namely one from the Western European and Other States Group (WEOG) and one from Eastern Europe, expectedly by the end of January. The Czech Republic appears to be the front runner for Poland’s seat. Belgium is likely to be replaced by either Denmark or Luxembourg.
(For more details on PBC elections, please see our January 2006 Forecast report.)
Key Issues
The predominant mood in the Security Council for much of 2006, as the PBC got itself underway, was acceptance of the need for the Council to be sensitive about the links between the Council and the PBC. This arose not only because of a concern to facilitate a positive working environment in the PBC in its formative period, but also in recognition of the general climate of suspicion at the way decisions were taken in 2005 on the PBC’s creation. This led the Council in 2006 to take a very low key approach towards the PBC. It did not seek to elaborate on how its role under resolution 1645 would work in practice and it even went so far, when deciding to refer Burundi and Sierra Leone to the PBC, not to issue any Council documents regarding the decision. Instead the request from the Council for advice from the PBC only exists as a PBC document (PBC/OC/1/2).
The Council also adopted a very cautious approach to referring additional situations to the PBC, in light of the need to allow the PBC time to develop its own working methods and gather more experience before taking on new cases.
This new initiative in 2007 to hold a series of informal consultations and an open debate suggests that the Council feels the time is ripe for it to reassert and define its role. The issue will be how far in substance it will seek to go and, in terms of style, whether it will be able to achieve its goals without reawakening the controversies and suspicions that were present in 2005.
A second key issue is whether and when to consider additional items to be added to the PBC agenda.
Council Dynamics
The Russian proposal represents an important turning point in terms of the level of interest in the Council. Reactions in the Council to the Russian proposal for an open debate were positive in general and seem to signal a disposition within the Council that it was time to be more focused about its relationship with the PBC and define what this would mean in practice.
It seems that there is a strong consensus on the importance of the Commission succeeding in filling the “peacebuilding gap” in respect of the situations before the Council. The PBC is therefore seen in the Council as having significant positive potential. Nevertheless, some Council members are clearly becoming worried that this potential risks not being realised in practice.
Most Council members remain sympathetic to the concerns of PBC members and support preserving the PBC’s link with the General Assembly (as its other constitutive organ) and with ECOSOC and therefore readily agreed to the South African proposal for the involvement of the chairmanship of those bodies in the Council debate on the PBC in January.
The dynamic among Council members on when is the right time to refer new situations to the PBC is more complex. Most are sympathetic to the view that the PBC should be allowed at least a little more time to develop its own role in practice prior to taking on additional country situations. However, wider factors are tending to intrude with veiled suggestions for addition of Haiti (from China) and (from various sources) even DRC and Guinea-Bissau.
PBC Dynamics
The idea of holding an open Security Council debate on the PBC has been generally received positively by PBC members. Nonetheless, some are approaching it with caution. The possibility of a renewed strong Council involvement in the PBC raises a number of issues. Some want to preserve a balancing role for the General Assembly and ECOSOC.
Regarding the expansion of the PBC’s agenda, most PBC members do not consider it desirable to increase the PBC’s workload at this point. The country-specific meetings on Sierra Leone and Burundi have shown that there is still considerable unclarity regarding the PBC’s role at the practical level and members feel that these issues should be addressed before undertaking any additional activities.
Agreement on a number of procedural issues, including the participation of civil society and institutional donors in meetings and the refinement of the rules of procedure, is still pending. Some are in favour of devoting much less time to procedural issues in favour of a renewed focus on the country-specific meetings, while other PBC members consider clarification of those issues critical for the PBC’s functioning and its ability to move on.
There are varying views among the members of the Organisational Committee on whether civil society participation should be restricted to informal meetings and, if participation in formal meetings is allowed, on which basis-an ECOSOC-style accreditation process or self-selection- it should be authorised. (A working group has been established to explore the options, but, given the lack of progress, it is possible that members prefer to refer those issues back to the Organisational Committee).
| Selected Security Council Resolutions |
|
| Security Council Resolutions with a reference to the PBC |
|
| Security Council Presidential Statements with a reference to the PBC |
|
| Selected PBC Documents |
|
| Selected General Assembly Resolutions |
|
| Other |
|
| Selected Secretary-General’s Reports |
|
| PBC Organisational Committee Members (as of 20 December 2006) |
|
| Chairman of the PBC Organisational Committee |
| Ambassador Ismael Gaspar Martins (Angola) |
| PBSO Head |
| Carolyn McAskie (Canada) |
| PBSO Budget |
| US$ 1.571 million |
Previous Reports on the Peacebuilding Commission
-
Peacebuilding Commission (January 2007 Forecast)
-
Special Research Report on the Peacebuilding Commission (23 June 2006)
-
Peacebuilding Commission (October 2006 Forecast)
