On April 25, I moderated a Reflection and Strategy Meeting at the conclusion of the Thematic Debate of the President of the General Assembly on "Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies." (I already wrote about it a little.)
The event, drawing a full room of 35-40 participants, began with introductions and reflections from civil society representatives on the Thematic Debate: Rosa Emilia Salamanca González, of
Corporación de Investigación y Acción Social y Económica (CIASE) (Colombia), Richard Smith of
Action Support Centre/Action for Conflict Transformation (South Africa), and Laura Ribeiro Pereira of
Global Partnership to Prevent War and Armed Conflict (GPPAC) (New York). These reflections were followed by a group discussion on priorities and strategies moving forward across the intersections of peace and security and development priorities, through various pieces of the UN apparatus.
From my perspective as moderator, Rosa Emilia touched on two issues that are at the heart of both what was discussed at the Thematic Debate and of the current state of the post-2015 discussions more broadly. The first is the question of the relevance and legitimacy of the UN – how to ensure that lived realities of people on the ground, e.g. civil society, meaningfully influence this global intergovernmental space. The second is how to resolve the tension between the three pillars of the UN (human rights, peace and security, and development) and the three dimensions (economic, social, environmental) of sustainable development. As raised by Ambassador Gert Rosenthal of Guatemala during the Thematic Debate, how can it be that the UN’s other two pillars must somehow be kept separate from its development work – especially at this moment when we are setting a universal and global agenda?
Richard’s remarks pointed to another central tension of the Thematic Debate, in my view: the issue of whether the global sustainable development agenda should address the internal factors related to peaceful societies, more external, international factors, or both. Focus Area 16 of the
Working Document of the
Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs) is currently framed in terms of national issues of organized crime and violence, in response to Member States’ argument that only the issues of peace and security that directly relate to development should be covered. As Ambassador Antonio Aguiar Patriota of Brazil (also on behalf of Nicaragua) raised so pointedly during the Thematic Debate, this narrow definition of the factors contributing to peaceful societies ignores issues of disarmament, embargoes, sanctions, military spending, and claims of “exceptionalism” by certain countries with regard to international law. While I understand the argument made by Magdy Martinez-Soliman of UNDP during the Thematic Debate that “a line must be drawn” at some point, Ambassador Patriota clearly and effectively reminded us that the broader, international dimensions of peaceful societies can affect development to an even greater extent than the internal ones. It begs the question, at least for civil society organizing around these issues: while Member States or UNDP may indeed have to draw a line, do we? And are we drawing the line where it most needs to be drawn?
Regarding the terminology of “peaceful societies,” I was particularly taken by Ambassador Sofia Mesquita Borges of Timor-Leste, who identified the usefulness of this approach as a non-linear, comprehensive alternative to business-as-usual and a way to capture the connections between development and security through encouraging national institution and capacity building. Timor-Leste has spoken strongly in favor of a “peaceful societies” goal, while Bangladesh and other Member States have pointed out the conundrum of the “chicken and egg” problem: if development and peace are mutually reinforcing, which should be addressed first? In the context of the Open Working Group, these States call for a strict adherence to the mandate of Rio+20 and the three dimensions of sustainable development, while Ambassador Borges used her country as an empirical illustration of the need to simultaneously integrate both concerns, and indicated that post-2015 provides the opportunity to “recalibrate” the global approach to peace and development.
A significant portion of the discussion focused on addressing roadblocks in the SDGs negotiations. The UN representatives who spoke at the Thematic Debate addressed several issues that have come up among Member States, among them potential difficulties in the measurability and universality of a “peaceful societies” goal and how it might negatively affect national sovereignty, including through the imposing of aid conditionalities based on a country’s progress in this area. These are legitimate concerns, the latter in particular, and one thing that the pro-“peaceful societies” countries will have to do is figure out how to assure (the mostly South) countries that this goal would not establish a new “condition” for development assistance. Canada offered that assurance at the Thematic Debate, but so far I haven’t heard the “how” – and if I were a “fragile” or “conflict-affected” Member State, such assurances would not be particularly convincing anyway. That said, it was a bit disheartening to hear the UN reps, particularly Sarah Cliffe, ASG of Civilian Capacities, assuring those present at the Thematic Debate that the inclusion of “peaceful societies” would not be used to signify “external criticism, conditionality, or additional reporting.” I worry that in the desire to reach consensus, the UN as well as the Member States will reach a “lowest common denominator” that reduces this concept to the point where it is no longer meaningful. Figuring out how to make this norm robust without establishing new conditions will be key to ensuring the inclusion of a “peaceful societies” goal, but even more, to ensuring one that has any potential at all of making a difference to communities worldwide.
Read the full summary of the Reflection and Strategy Meeting
here.
