Home » UN Reform Watches » December 21, 2005, No. 6

An Expert view on The Peacebuilding Commission: A Unique and Unusual Experiment

By Niamh Gibbons
23 November 2005, updated on 21 December 2005

On December 20, 2005 the General Assembly and the Security Council approved resolutions establishing a new U.N. Peacebuilding Commission, one of the reform proposals the heads of states agreed to during a U.N. summit in September. In late November, we talked with Dr. Necla Tschirgi, vice president at the International Peace Academy, about the new body. Tschirgi describes the Peacebuilding Commission as “a very unusual and unique experiment”. Having worked on peacebuilding issues since the early 1990s, she says that experts would have preferred to see an entity with much more muscle than the model agreed upon by governments in September. In its current form, the commission is an intergovernmental advisory body. Tschirgi says “considerable ground was lost as a result of the negotiations leading up to the [2005 World] Summit. This led to a much reduced concept than was advocated by many experts …We had a meeting in October of last year, and proposed that peacebuilding needs a home at the U.N. where decisions can be taken and implemented. As it is, the proposed model will have little money and authority. It will therefore be a much less effective body than what many had wished for”.

Under the resolution passed on Tuesday, the new commission will have 31 members, seven each from the Security Council [including the permanent members] and the 54-nation Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), plus five each from the top financial and military contributors [excluding those already appointed from the Security Council]; and seven from the General Assembly to ensure over all geographical representation. Members will serve for renewable terms of two years. The agenda will be set based on either an invitation from the Security Council, the country in question, the secretary general, or ECOSOC and the General Assembly, with the consent of the country in question. The commission will report directly to the Security Council on cases on the Council’s agenda, and to the General Assembly on an annual basis. The current arrangements for the commission will be reviewed in five years to determine whether the commission is working well, needs revision, or is not meeting its intended purpose.

Where did the need to create a Peacebuilding Commission come from? What problem will this body fix at the United Nations?
The Security Council has very little machinery to deal with countries which are in danger of failing or which are in need of reconstruction as they emerge from conflict. The job of the Peacebuilding Commission is to propose strategies for their recovery efforts, ensure sustained international attention and financing, and coordinate the activities of the parties involved [such as –national authorities, neighboring countries, regional and international organizations, international financial institutions and NGOs] in post-conflict situations.

Do you think the new commission, in its current “watered down” form, can still make a contribution?
Yes. It can be a platform where different stakeholders can come together, exchange views, develop common strategies. The commission can also be an arena where experiences, lessons learned, knowledge and information can be accumulated and disseminated. In that sense, it is a tremendous improvement.

Who will fund the new commission?
The peacebuilding fund will be derived from voluntary contributions [from governments, regional organizations, IMF and World Bank] and will be used as seed-money or as a quick disbursal mechanism to avoid going through the lengthy process of generating funds for immediate needs. So it is almost like petty cash. Much thought has to be given to expanding the pot and mechanisms to replenishing the pool regularly. The support office and its staff will be funded through the regular U.N. budget.

Some observers suggest at least $2 billion should be made readily available. How much do you think is adequate?
That is a totally unrealistic figure, and since the Peacebuilding Commission does not have an implementation role, it does not need a standing fund of that order. Moreover, donors will never be prepared to relinquish control over their contributions to another body. Accordingly, the commission should see its role as a catalyst for deploying donor funding around a common framework.

Do you see the commission taking over from the U.S. in Iraq?
Absolutely not, I think it would be the kiss of death for the commission. If the commission is used initially for cases where the international community can do a good job and is successful, it will strengthen the commission. If it starts with very difficult cases where there is a tremendous amount of polarization, then it will be very destructive for the commission. Plus it really has to be a post-conflict situation; in Iraq the violent phase of conflict continues.

What should be the new commission’s first priorities?
The Peacebuilding Commission would be well advised to start with countries that voluntarily seek support, or where the U.N. is already active - countries that are ready to move from the docket of the Security Council to a developmental stage. It is, in the first instance, definitely going to be more of the cases where there is agreement that its time for the international community to engage more effectively, more constructively – such as Burundi, probably Haiti.

All agree that the national authorities of the subject country should play a key role. But how would the commission deal with a situation where the national authorities are either non-existent, non-cooperative or illegitimate?
At this stage we can only speculate. The Peacebuilding Commission will work in different configurations, and will address diverse problems, with varying levels of political engagement, political incentive and disincentive etc. None of us quite know what exactly the content of the commission will be. That will depend on who is at the table, and what level of expertise and quality of advice will be lodged in the support office.

Some countries are concerned that this is yet another way for powerful countries in the Security Council to exert their influence in the rest of the world. Are their concerns well placed?
I don’t think so. The commision is designed as a multi-stakeholder mechanism to assist countries who want international support and assistance. It is also intended to ensure that the international community does not lose interest in countries that are making a difficult transition from conflict to peace. The challenge for the commission would be to overcome international neglect rather than to ward off unwanted international intervention.

Do you think the Peacebuilding Commission will be operational by January 2006?
There will be a lot of loose ends to tie up in the New Year. This is not a one-shot type of deal - I anticipate ongoing discussions about some of the different aspects of the commission and the establishment of the peacebuilding support office well into the New Year.

Necla Tschirgi was the Vice-President of the International Peace Academy (IPA) from September 2001 through December 2005. IPA is an independent, organization which works with the United Nations and other stakeholders to promote the prevention and settlement of armed conflicts through research and development.


Published in UN Reform Watches, December 21, 2005, No. 6

» printer friendly version

Latest Updates

The Council on Foreign Relations posts video talk on Security Council Reform
On 11 January 2012 the Council on Foreign Relations posted a video talk by Stewart M. Patrick on Security Council Reform, entitled “UN Security Council Reform: Is it Time?”. Click here to watch the video talk on the CFR website

Meeting on General Assembly Revitalization 1 December 2011
By Mie Hansen, 5 January 2012
On 1 December 2011 the General Assembly met to discuss Agenda Item 120: Implementation of the Resolutions of the United Nations and Agenda Item 121: Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly.
This article provides an overview of the debate.

Former consultant with the Center for UN Reform Education wins prestigious award
By Thomas Colerick, 13 December 2011

Meeting in the General Assembly on Security Council Reform, 8 and 9 November 2011
By Mie Hansen, 7 December 2011
On 8 and 9 November 2011 the 51st and 52nd plenary meetings of the 66th General Assembly session were held with a discussion of Agenda Item 122: Question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters. This article gives an overview of the debate and the statements made during the meetings, as well as an update on the developments in regard to Security Council reform leading up to the debate.

The 2011 Annual Report of the Human Rights Council
By Thomas Colerick, 8 November 2011
The 2011 Annual Report of the Council is now available.

Highlights of the Human Rights Council’s 18th Regular session
By Thomas Colerick, 11 October 2011

New report on the Human Rights Council’s fifth year
By Thomas Colerick, 4 October 2011

The Human Rights Council’s 18th Session (12-30 September 2011)
By Thomas Colerick, 28 September 2011

Update on Revitalization of the General Assembly: A RECAP OF DEVELOPMENTS DURING THE 65th GA SESSION
By Mie Hansen, 27 September 2011
Even before heads of state from around the world gathered last week at UN headquarters in New York for the opening of the 66th annual session of the UN General Assembly, the world’s main deliberative body, continuation of the ongoing negotiations to make the Assembly more effective, efficient and relevant were assured for yet another year. Member States have been discussing the “Revitalization of the General Assembly” for the past twenty years, but according to some critics only minor improvements have been made, leaving deep-seated reforms untouched. Even though all Member States seem to agree that reform of the Assembly is vital, recent developments confirm that it is still very difficult to reach an agreement on what should be done.

Chronology: The Human Rights Council – elections, sessions and important developments
By Thomas Colerick, 23 September 2011
As the Center for UN Reform Education once again will be covering the Human Rights Council more systematically, this chronology of the Council is provided. It includes elections, selected sessions and major developments and takes the reader from the Council’s birth in 2006 to today where the Council is currently holding its 18th Session in Geneva, Switzerland.



Panel on Improving Security Council Working Methods
On 23 June 2011, The Center for UN Reform Education held a panel discussion on “Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council”. The basis for the discussion was the most recent version of the S5 draft proposal on Reforming the Working Methods of the Security Council.



Qatar hosts workshop on Security Council Reform
On 12 & 13 May 2011, Qatar hosted a workshop on Security Council Reform in Doha. Lydia Swart of the Center was invited and she shared ten observations on this key reform process.

To move the process along, Member States, the Chair of the Intergovernmental Negotiations, and/or the President of the General Assembly will need to provide leadership by proposing a timeline/trajectory for the negotiations and by formulating a compromise solution that can garner support from all factions.



S5 presents draft resolution on Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Mie Hansen, 2 May 2011
On 14 April, 2011, the Small Five Group (S5), consisting of Costa Rica, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Singapore and Switzerland, presented a draft resolution for Improving the Working Methods of the Security Council. The resolution was presented under agenda item 115 of the General Assembly (GA) that deals with follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit. The S5 had presented its first draft resolution on the topic (A/60/L.49) in 2006 also as follow-up to the 2000/2005 Summits.

Update on Security Council Reform
By Mie Hansen, 5 April 2011
Since the Center’s latest update of 22 June 2010, Members States conducted text-based negotiations on 21 October 2010, 11 November 2010, 14 December 2010, and on 2 March 2011 in their efforts to reform the Security Council. Some countries apparently continue to slow down the negotiations, while others may push for a vote sooner rather than later.

Book Launch, The Group of 77: Perspectives on its Role in the UN General Assembly.
25 April 2011
Pictured from right to left: Center President William R. Pace, Minister Marcelo Suarez Salvia from Argentina (current G77 Chair), Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz of Egypt, Ambassador Herman Schaper of the Netherlands, and co-author Lydia Swart. For their remarks, click here: Minister Suarez, Ambassador Schaper, Ambassador Abdelaziz (pending) and Lydia Swart.





Text-based Negotiations in Full Swing
22 June 2010
On June 16th the negotiations on Security Council reform proceeded with the third meeting of the fifth round. The meeting aimed at getting member states to discuss specific language on the fourth “key issue”. Many countries seemed to have misunderstood the intention of the Chair, however, and restated their positions rather than making suggestions for specific changes to the document at hand.

Potentially Historic Text on Security Council Reform
By Jakob Lund, 13 May 2010
On May 10th, Zahir Tanin, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on the question of equitable representation and increase in the membership of the Security Council and other matters related to the Security Council, sent out a long-awaited fax to all member states containing a “negotiation text”. The text and the annex can be accessed on the website of the PGA. The text includes the proposals sent by member states to Tanin's office since he opened the process of moving towards a text-based solution.

Open Debate on the Working Methods of the Security Council
By Jakob Silas Lund, 28 April 2010
On April 22nd, the Security Council’s Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Issues held an open debate on the working methods of the Council. The debate raised some key questions that are relevant to the ongoing Security Council reform negotiations. Furthermore, to keep the issue of its working methods on the agenda of the Security Council is, in and of itself, an accomplishment.

A New Phase in Security Council Reform Has Started
10 February, 2010
On February 5th, the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, sent out a letter to all member states with an attachment of sixty pages. The document (available here and here) includes all “substantive input” submitted by Member States to the Chair thus far in the fourth round of negotiations. This marks the beginning of the fifth round, which, for the first time, will be text-based.

Moving Towards Text-Based Negotiations?
By Jakob Silas Lund, 21 January 2010
The previous month was an eventful one in terms of the Security Council reform process. On December 23rd, a group of countries sent a letter to the Chair of the intergovernmental negotiations, Ambassador Tanin of Afghanistan, urging him to present a composite paper. Following that, Tanin received a number of other letters concerning the process and on January 14th he replied with his own letter to all member states. This all culminated in the latest round of negotiations on January 19th and 20th in which the consequences of the letter exchanges were discussed.

Pros and Cons of Security Council reform
By Jakob Silas Lund, 19 January 2010
Through extensive interviews with experts as well as current and former Ambassadors and diplomats who have been close to the reform process, this article outlines and analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of the components incorporated in the proposals currently on the table.

The Long and Winding Road
by Jakob Silas Lund, 11 December, 2009
On November 16th, the chair of the intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform, Ambassador Zahir Tanin of Afghanistan, sent a letter to all member states inviting them to the first meeting of the fourth round of negotiations. The negotiations ended up spanning over two days rather than the planned one-day session.