VZCZCXRO9608
PP RUEHGI RUEHTRO
DE RUEHC #4378/01 1972356
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P R 162339Z JUL 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 6885
INFO UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE
RUEHAB/AMEMBASSY ABIDJAN 2457
RUEHGI/AMEMBASSY BANGUI 1405
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 3528
RUEHJB/AMEMBASSY BUJUMBURA 2447
RUEHRY/AMEMBASSY CONAKRY 1497
RUEHFN/AMEMBASSY FREETOWN 9496
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 2128
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 2074
RUEHKI/AMEMBASSY KINSHASA 9980
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 5745
RUEHPU/AMEMBASSY PORT AU PRINCE 8579
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 7682

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 074378 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNSC KPKO
SUBJECT: JULY 22 UNSC OPEN DEBATE ON POST-CONFLICT 
PEACEBUILDING 
 
¶1. This is an action request, please see paragraph three. 
 
¶2. On June 11, 2009, the UN Secretary-General issued his 
report on peacebuilding in the immediate aftermath of a 
conflict.  On July 22, Uganda will convene a meeting of the 
UN Security Council on the report and post-conflict 
peacebuiliding.  In commenting on the report and 
post-conflict peacebuilding, USUN should draw from the points 
in paragraph 3, as appropriate, and provide the Department 
with a read-out of the session. 
 
¶3. Begin points. 
 
We welcome the Secretary-General,s timely report on 
Peacebuilding in the Immediate Aftermath of Conflict. 
 
The importance of getting peacebuilding right cannot be 
overestimated. Conflict rarely "ends8 completely or 
irreversibly.  Too many countries that have endured the 
hardships of war or armed conflict experience persistent 
violence and instability.  Too often, they confront delays in 
the restoration of governance and the establishment of 
conditions for social and economic recovery.  The 
opportunities for post-conflict countries to lay the 
foundations for sustainable peace are at their highest ) as 
well as the most easily missed ) in the earliest stages of a 
peace process.  We appreciate the Secretary-General,s report 
shining a light on this critical phase. 
 
Let me first touch on a few issues raised in the Report and 
then offer some comments about the longer-term peacebuilding 
challenge. 
 
We broadly agree with the Report,s analysis and 
recommendations, starting with the insistence that 
post-conflict countries need to be in the driver's seat of 
their own recovery.  Of all the multiple issues that cry out 
for attention in post-conflict environments, the overriding 
goal has to be helping national and local authorities develop 
the capacity and tools to manage their own transition and 
recovery in ways that are inclusive, conflict-reducing, and 
sustainable. 
 
The UN, regional actors, donors, and others now increasingly 
recognize this priority.  We have also made progress in 
reorienting the way we do business to help achieve it. 
 
The Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) has played a useful role 
in this regard in Burundi, Sierra Leone, and now 
Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic.  Beyond 
countries on the PBC agenda, we would welcome initiatives to 
learn further from other countries which have successfully 
made the war-to-peace transition, including fellow PBC 
members. 
 
We still have a long way to go to make &national 
ownership8 more than a slogan, however, and to ensure that 
our various forms of assistance genuinely contribute to the 
essential tasks of statebuilding in post-conflict 
environments. 
 
That the same priorities often recur across countries gives 
us a good indication of where we must deliver targeted 
support: demobilizing and reintegrating combatants, reforming 
security sectors, and establishing safe and secure 
environments for the population; transitioning from bullets 
to ballots and restarting political processes in which the 
entire society can safely participate; ensuring basic service 
delivery, including the return of internally displaced 
persons (IDPs) and refugees; supporting the restoration of 
core government capacities, especially public finance and 
administration that is transparent and accountable; and 
providing the resources for early and lasting economic 
recovery. 
 
 
STATE 00074378  002 OF 003 
 
 
The Report gives us a clear roadmap for much of what the UN 
system, for its part, needs to do to ensure that UN 
assistance to countries undergoing post-conflict transition 
is well-conceived, well-led, and sufficiently resourced.  We 
strongly agree with the report,s recommendations on 
strategy, leadership, and managerial accountability, which we 
see as essential to the UN,s ability to deliver the kind of 
support that national authorities ask for.  To this day, too 
many of our collective efforts remain fragmented and 
inconsistent, posing unnecessary burdens on post-conflict 
authorities at precisely their most fragile stage.  Of 
course, many actors beyond the UN contribute to this 
fragmentation, but a well-coordinated UN can provide a strong 
platform for unity of effort. 
 
We strongly welcome the Report,s emphasis on the need for 
rapid deployment of high-quality leadership and for small, 
multi-disciplinary teams to backstop it.  Special 
Representatives of the Secretary-General (SRSGs) have a 
particular responsibility to ensure that UN assistance to 
national authorities is effective and well-coordinated.  The 
measures detailed in the Report to strengthen and support the 
SRSG role are sensible and overdue.  We would further note 
that all members of the UN family have a related 
responsibility to ensure that UN efforts are integrated under 
the overall leadership of the SRSG, or Resident Coordinator 
where no SRSG is in place. 
 
We take note of the proposals to improve the UN,s civilian 
capacity, and agree that an effective civilian response is at 
the core of international efforts to contribute to 
sustainable peace. 
 
We particularly welcome the Report,s emphasis on southern 
capacity, an under-tapped and invaluable resource, and we 
look forward to exploring ways to diversify the expertise, 
knowledge, and resources that can be brought to bear in 
peacebuilding environments. The Secretary-General,s proposal 
to explore innovative deployment of UN Volunteers is also of 
interest. 
 
We also note the Report,s comments and recommendations on 
post-conflict finance.  It is true that the donor community 
needs to do a better job of delivering early and flexible 
assistance as well as tailoring its support to the unique 
needs of post-conflict situations.  We note the leadership of 
Sweden and the Democractic Republic of Congo, in the context 
of the OECD,s Accra Action Agenda, in seeking to identify 
more effective modes of financing for early recovery and 
generally welcome fresh ideas in this regard. 
 
We do believe that the report could have gone farther in 
clarifying internal division of labor within the UN system, 
and we look forward to a rapid and decisive conclusion of 
that work. 
 
We stress the importance of the Secretary-General,s 
personal commitment to seeing through these recommendations. 
We further note the need for his continuing personal 
engagement in ensuring an effectively coordinated UN response 
in post-conflict situations.  The Peacebuilding Support 
Office (PBSO) provides the Secretary-General with an 
important tool to help fulfill these responsibilities, 
alongside its function of supporting the PBC. 
 
Soon, Member States will have had the opportunity to 
consider in close succession: the Secretary-General,s report 
on mediation; the current report on peacebuilding; and the 
New Horizons non-paper prepared by the Department of 
Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and the Department of Field 
Support (DFS).  All three topics are of course closely 
interconnected.  We believe that we need to give thought to 
how best to move forward on these interrelated issues in an 
integrated way. 
 
Turning to broader peacebuilding questions, we would like to 
reaffirm the importance the United States attaches to the 
peacebuilding agenda. 
 
Let us return to this simple proposition: ensuring that a 
 
STATE 00074378  003 OF 003 
 
 
national government has the capacity and tools in place to 
manage its own transition and recovery is the key goal of 
peacebuilding.  And real capacity building cannot be delayed 
until the day an international security presence leaves, or 
the risk of conflict relapse will be high ) a phenomenon we 
have witnessed in Haiti and elsewhere.  This squanders human, 
political, and financial capital, and threatens both security 
and development. 
 
Efforts to build national capacity to manage a country,s 
own recovery must instead start early so that those 
capacities are well advanced when an international security 
presence eventually draws down. 
 
Many countries have much to contribute to this process.  For 
example, we would like to pay tribute to Brazil,s important 
peacebuilding role in Haiti; and India,s, Pakistan's, and 
others contributions to post-conflict reconstruction in 
Afghanistan.  Discussions of post-conflict peacebuilding too 
often assume a north-south division among donors, troop 
contributors, and others. The reality is more diverse ) a 
fact that the PBC can do more to take note of and encourage. 
 
As a member of the PBC, and as a Permanent Member of the 
Security Council, we will work to ensure that the Council 
takes earlier account of peacebuilding needs in making 
decisions about peace operations, reviewing mandates, and 
generally exercising its core responsibilities for the 
maintenance of international peace and security.  We have 
already noted in the recent thematic debate on peacekeeping 
presided over by Turkey that we intend earlier consideration 
of the recovery and peacebuilding activities needed to enable 
peacekeeping operations to carry out their mandates 
successfully and, on that basis, eventually conclude.  This 
in no way signals an intention to consider abrupt or 
premature downsizing. Quite the contrary: it is a sign that 
we recognize the need for early and sustained attention to 
the requirements of peacebuilding alongside peacekeeping in 
the interests of an ultimately successful transition to 
durable peace. 
 
To this end, we welcome early dialogue with the PBC and an 
opportunity to benefit from advice and ideas developed in 
this body, as well as from peacebuilding expertise and 
perspectives from elsewhere. The seriousness of the issues at 
stake requires that we move beyond some of the concerns about 
respective prerogatives that have in the past preoccupied us. 
 We see no contradiction between the Council,s primacy in 
the oversight of UN peacekeeping missions, on the one hand, 
and the PBC beginning early preparation with post-conflict 
authorities on economic development and national capacity 
building. 
 
Finally, as PBC members, we see value in revitalizing that 
aspect of our original mandate that encourages close 
cooperation between the Bretton Woods Institutions and the 
United Nations. 
 
As we look ahead to the 2010 review of the PBC, we will keep 
all of these issues in mind, and look forward to working 
closely with all of you in order to strengthen the UN,s 
ability to help countries emerging from conflict build the 
lasting peace they deserve. 
 
End points. 
CLINTON