Statement by H.E. Motohide Yoshikawa
Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations
PBC Organizational Committee Informal Meeting
The 2nd Agenda on
“Advance Preparation for the 2015 Review of
the Peacebuilding Architecture”
11 June 2014
I would like to thank you and the mission of Brazil for initiating and leading the Member States’ discussion on the 2015 Review of the Peacebuilding Architecture (PBA).
Japan places great value on this review and believes it should lead not only to the critical reassessment of the PBA’s work, but also to the redefinition of its raison d’ȇtre.
In this regard, Japan strongly supports Option 2 as elaborated in the paper by the Peace Building Support Office on the scope of the review.
With the PBA commemorating its 10th anniversary next year, it is high time to conduct a fundamental review of the Architecture.
This will require a critical examination of the continuing relevance of the original vision and purpose behind the PBA’s establishment and a reassessment of the major gap the UN has tasked the PBA to fill.
Thus, instead of simply reviewing the PBA in the context of its founding resolutions as the 2010 Review did, we should reconsider what role the PBA should play and how it should be structured to respond to emerging needs.
Since assuming the chairmanship of the Working Group on Lessons Learned in 2011, my predecessor and I have tried to make progress on the recommendations of the 2010 Review through the Group’s activities.
For example, in order to produce clear outcomes from Working Group meetings, Japan started a new tradition of sharing the “Initial Findings.”
With the Initial Findings, we try to go beyond summarizing the meetings and draw concrete guidelines for peacebuilding from the discussion.
Furthermore, regarding the PBC’s relations with the Security Council, Japan convened a Working Group meeting in December 2011, where this issue was taken up for the first time as an agenda item in the PBC meetings.
I would also like to recall that, as a member of the Security Council, Japan took the initiative in organizing the first informal interactive dialogue between the Security Council and the PBC held in December 2010.
To continue this progress, the Working Group is holding a series of meetings this year to identify the PBC’s roles in the context of UN missions’ drawdown or withdrawal.
We hope this exercise will benefit the 2015 Review by allowing substantial discussions on the capacities and limitations of the PBC when its agenda countries are progressing from a post-conflict stage.
Allow me to make a few comments on two issues that should be seriously considered in the 2015 Review.
The first is the relationship between the Security Council and the PBC.
In recent intergovernmental negotiations on the Security Council reform, I stressed that country-specific configuration chairs should participate in all the Council discussions on PBC agenda countries.
I hope that serious discussions on this suggestion will be conducted among Member States to draw concrete recommendations to further strengthen the relationship between the PBC and the Council.
My second point concerns the very small demand from countries to come on the PBC agenda.
The 2010 Review recommended the consideration of options for PBC engagement other than a full country-specific configuration.
The Review proposed, for instance, the appointment of a country-specific focal point, the establishment of an informal working group, or the creation of a region-specific configuration.
Unfortunately, these recommendations have been neither fully considered nor implemented.
We would like to emphasize that this issue should be given due consideration in the course of the 2015 Review.
Finally, I would like to reiterate Japan’s full cooperation for the 2015 Review process.
We will actively engage in the discussion with Member States, which we hope will provide a solid basis for a meaningful review of the Peacebuilding Architecture.