Statement
by
Ambassador Ivan Šimonovic Permanent Representative of the Republic of Croatia
in the Security Council
Open Debate:
Peace-building: Towards a comprehensive approach
New York
5 February 2001
Mr. President,
I thank you for organizing today’s open debate, as it affirms a much welcome practice of giving voice on important matters to the Member-States constituency outside the Council. I wish to commend you for following the example set by your predecessor Singapore and circulating a background document for today’s debate (S/2001/82). I hope that such a procedure will be endorsed as a common practice by future presidencies of the Council.
I found the document helpful, but most of all, enticing, as it spelled out clearly the twofold objectives of today’s debate: to reaffirm the political will of the international community and, to make progress towards defining a common approach to peace-building. I believe that today’s turnout of speakers serves as a good proxy for ascertaining the interest in and commitment by the international community to cultivating a commonly shared approach to peace-building.
In the past three years, my delegation has participated in several open debates, such as the two debates on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants, the November 1998 debate on “Maintenance of peace and security”, and November 2000 debate on “No exit without strategy”. Each of these debates explored or at lest touched upon a number of peace-building components. Together with the lucid reports by the Secretary-General, actions by the Security Council and doctrinal developments elsewhere in the field, they certainly advanced our common understanding of the potentials and limitations of the past practical approaches to peace-building. I emphasize the attribute practical, because it seems that it is in the course of implementation of peace-building that we encounter problems rather than in its conceptual dimensions.
Indeed, in the 21st century, the concept of peace-building went mainstream. We all recognize the underlying empirical interdependence between peace, security and development in the era of globalization. Hence, we no longer question the intrinsic truthfulness of the statement that conflict-prevention, peacekeeping and peace-building represent a continuum for peace operations. We know that the causes of conflict -- be it poverty or pauperization, oppression or other forms of exclusion and societal marginalization -- if left to fester will reignite the conflict. So, we no longer ponder on the general usefulness or ideological appropriateness of peace-building. But, we do continue to ponder its costs.
We can think of costs of peace-building in a number of different ways. As an illustration, here are three crude examples of binary oppositions. The first pair involves the costs related to engaging vs. not engaging in peace-building activities. The second pair involves the costs of selective vs. comprehensive peace-building strategy. The third pair concerns the costs incurred by the international community vs. those by the post-conflict society. Let me elaborate briefly on these constructs.
It has been proven time and again -- from recurrence of conflicts in Asia and Africa to Europe -- that the costs of not engaging, in a timely and comprehensive manner, in peace-building can quickly outpace the costs of investments in peace. Relatedly, engaging only in a selective few peace-building activities or in a discontinuous fashion, can also be proven to outweigh the costs of devising and executing a comprehensive and sustained effort in peace-building. Finally, in terms of costs bearers -- in the era of globalization of markets in goods, services and increasingly labor -- one can argue that costs of non-intervention in peace-building are born by both the post-conflict society and the international community. The costs involved in managing the refugees outflows, their temporary or permanent resettlement, spread of crime, infectious diseases and other maladies are just some examples that come to mind from the perspective of the international community. In addition to these, the host societies often have to grapple with a number of other difficulties, usually on shoestring budgets.
Post-conflict societies exhibit all the characteristics of weak societies, regardless of whether they have a week or strong state. Their infrastructure is destroyed, damaged or still mined, they suffer from de-population or over-population in certain regions, the people are needy, resources are scarce, human rights are not efficiently protected and painful memories are still fresh. Unfortunately, we know of these ills first hand. Croatia is still grappling with some of them, while trying to help others that are much worse-off in the region. In this regard, we sincerely hope that we can all heed the call issued by the Secretary-General in his report on “Renewing the UN: a program for reform”. In that report the Secretary-General obliquely stated that successful peace-building requires a mutually reinforcing political strategy and assistance program, incorporating human rights considerations and humanitarian and development programs. The importance of mutual reaffirmation of these two approaches to peace-building cannot be overemphasized.
The post-war reconstruction and reconciliation processes in Croatia are processes that necessarily take time, but can be accelerated through international support. Many displaced persons and refugees have returned, even though the economic and social situation in war-affected areas remains difficult, with soaring unemployment rates. There is a significant shortage of capital for new investment, job creation and specific projects, in particular demining. Over a million mines are still scattered on Croatian soil. Therefore, the already invested political, human and financial resources of the international community in Croatia should be coupled with development assistance, if the desired results are to be achieved. Investment in peace, followed by investment in development, is part of the same continuum.
The establishment of truth about a conflict and the punishment of perpetrators of conflict-related grave breaches of humanitarian law is another prerequisite for the reestablishment of peace and security. On the global level, the establishment of the International Criminal Court should serve to aid and expedite the healing and reconciliation process. However, one must take heed of a serious warning: if we intend to develop the ICC into a credible institution, we absolutely must avoid the traps and shortfalls discovered in the practice of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The Security Council cannot tolerate different standards of cooperation by any state or entity under its Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Such a discriminatory practice will distort the true picture of the conflict and thereby, instead of dispelling, contribute to historical mystification. Culture of peace cannot be sustained without a serious commitment to historical demystification. In turn, such a commitment can then sustain and build upon the investments of international community in reconstruction, economic growth and development, civil society and good governance.
Mr. President,
In closing, I would like to make a few observations and suggestions regarding a need for a shared comprehensive strategy for peace-building for the Security Council to ponder upon. First, I commend the Council for incorporating DDR components in several of the past and ongoing peace operations. This is useful, and should become a standard bracket in each applicable peacekeeping mandate, as early on as possible. Likewise, the provisions regarding refugees and displaced persons, demining and other stimuli for effective economic recovery, as well as provisions on strengthening the rule of law and democratic institutions must be anticipated and mandated by the Council in the timely fashion. This of course, rests upon three important pillars: (i) cooperation of the post-conflict society; (ii) a sustainable political will on the part of the international community, and (iii) an adequate bureaucratic capacity of the UN in general and the Secretariat in particular.
The UN system has a proven record of cooperation in peace-building activities with intergovernmental regional organizations, as well as NGOs. This is certainly a fertile avenue for future expansion of cooperation, and the Security Council can play an important role in this effort. However, we must recognize that the UN Secretariat needs capacity to coordinate these efforts with its partners, as well as among its own agencies. In some areas of expertise the Secretariat lacks the minimum standing capacity. If we ask from the Secretariat to anticipate and respond to peace-building needs in a well orchestrated, timely and, therefore, efficient manner, we must provide them with the capacity to do so.
Besides its role as an advocate for and guarantor of peace-building implementation, the Council can actively reach out to other principal UN bodies. In this regard, the role of ECOSOC complements that of the Security Council. Indeed, ECOSOC with its broad agenda concerning the eradication of poverty and economic and social development remains best equipped to both identify in a timely manner, as well as act preemptively upon these very causes of new or recurrent conflicts. As a member of the ECOSOC bureau, I see a great value in a potential follow-up joint meeting of the two Councils on this or related matter in the near future. We must make an effort to build closer informal and formal ties in order to address responsibly and competently the converging agendae of world peace and world development.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Press releases
