Editor-in-Chief: Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman Making UN peacebuilding a success Dr Rifaat Hussain At their world summit gathering in New York in September 2005, member states of the UN recognized a critical deficiency in the United Nations system: there was no central department dedicated to the promotion of peace, despite the UN's mandate to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.' Even though many UN agencies are involved in different aspects of the complex peace puzzle -- from violence reduction to arms control to peacekeeping -- yet, these operations often fail to work in an integrated way, leading to waste and inefficiency. At the World Summit, governments took an important step to remedy this deficiency by establishing the UN Peacebuilding Commission. Membership in the Commission consists of seven Security Council members, including permanent members, selected by the Council; seven members of ECOSOC elected from regional groups, five top contributors to UN budgets, funds, programmes and agencies; and five top providers of military personnel and civilian police to the United Nations missions. Seven additional members, with special consideration for states that have experienced post-conflict recovery, are elected by the General Assembly. This week, after long negotiations, it was announced that Pakistan would be one of 31 members of the Commission. The peacebuilding commission will marshal resources at the disposal of the international community to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-conflict recovery, focusing attention on reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable development, in countries emerging from conflict. Specifically, the commission will: • Propose integrated strategies for post-conflict peace building and recovery. • Help to ensure predictable financing for early recovery activities and sustained financial investment over the medium- to longer-term. • Extend the period of attention by the international community to post-conflict recovery. • Develop best practices on issues that require extensive collaboration among political, military, humanitarian and development actors. But will this new body make good on its intentions to provide a central nexus within the UN system to coordinate peace building work? The challenges are daunting. Half of the countries that emerge from armed conflict lapse back into violence within five years. The development impacts are catastrophic, and it is now clear that widespread armed violence will be one of the factors that prevent many of the world's poorest nations from achieving the Millennium Development Goals. It is crucial to break the spiral of violence, not only because of the human and material costs, but also because armed conflicts destabilise whole regions. Recent history provides a mixed track record for the UN response to conflict. A lack of political will was certainly a factor in the disasters that played out in the Balkans, Somalia and Rwanda -- can we expect that to change overnight simply because of the new commission? Today, violence in the Darfur region of Sudan threatens to spill over into neighbouring Chad again-- and the response remains inadequate. A coordinated and long-term approach is needed that involves not just UN agencies, but donors, international organisations and civil society. While the Peacebuilding Commission holds out some promise in helping to move conflict-affected areas towards longer-term sustainable peace, a number of difficulties will need to be overcome. • At 31 members, the commission is large and this might pose challenges in regard to effective and quick working of the commission and its decision making process. • Despite its size, it is only an advisory body with no independent authority. The Security Council and ECOSOC, to which the commission reports, are not bound to adopt its recommendations and findings. * The commission has no mandate to prevent conflicts, which inhibits its ability to act on early warning signs. Given that the impacts of armed violence escalate when fighting breaks out, this was a regrettable sacrifice in the negotiations that established the body. * The tasks are monumental, and the size of the commission's staff office and its budget are not up to the job. It took months of negotiations to agree to the hiring of only a handful of qualified staff. And at $250 million, the consensus is that the Peacebuilding Fund falls woefully short. Despite these obstacles, it is of great importance that the commission shows results over the first few years of its works, so that donors and allies can have a strong basis to call for its expansion and for increased funding. The commission can show success on a number of fronts: Develop coherent selection criteria for countries on which to focus. At the moment, the plan to select a few troubled countries now and a few next year is non-transparent. For the future it will be important to develop a more systematic approach, and one that takes into consideration regional concerns. Do not completely ignore unselected countries. It will be impossible for the commission to set to work in all armed violence-affected countries, and it is understandable that it will deal with a limited amount of cases in the first year of its existence. But neither should those countries, such as Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo and Ivory Coast that are likely not to be selected be completely ignored. Therefore, hopefully the Peacebuilding Support Office will find ways to also pay attention to these non-selected cases. Strengthen the commission's authority. As an advisory body, the peacebuilding commission has no clear authority over the range of agencies, authorities and institutions that must work together to raise the prospects of peace. Stronger and more focused leadership is needed to achieve the complex transformation from war to stability. Develop a strategic framework for peace building. With the multitude of national and international actors that must cooperate effectively to bring about peace, it is crucial to organise an open, consultative and inclusive process to put together a vision of peace building and how it will be achieved. The commission is ideally positioned to shepherd such a process. Involve civil society in every step of the process. If the commission becomes a forum of bureaucrats alone it will surely fail. The work, expertise and commitment of civil society organizations -- both on the ground in conflict areas and at the regional and global level -- should be involved at all levels of the commission's work, not only at the Headquarter Level, but most importantly at the field level. To this end, the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict is ready to stimulate discussion and dialogue on the challenges ahead that we must all meet together. The writer is executive director of the Regional Centre for Strategic Studies (RCSS) in Colombo. Email: rifaathussain@yahoo.com