Although the budget cap was successfully lifted by the UN General Assembly on Friday, there is growing concern that the lack of reform movement preceding this lifting of the cap may generate a negative reaction on Capitol Hill.  These concerns may indeed be well founded.  Late last week, the House of Representatives passed a series of amendments that would withhold US support from Human Rights related activities at the UN unless state sponsors of terrorism (including Cuba) are removed from the newly created Human Rights Council.  And while this is not specifically connected to Secretariat funding and management reform, it does show a continued willingness on Capitol Hill to financially withdraw from UN activities that the United States feels to be unilaterally undesirable.  This new legislation is further created in the shadow of the Hyde Bill, which was approved by the House of Representatives Foreign Relations Committee last year and threatens to substantially decrease US funding of the UN in the case that adequate reforms are not achieved.

However, there have also been voices of support for the UN coming from both the US Department of State and the US Senate.  A State Department representative called for continued financial support of the United Nations Human Rights Council and expressed hope that the United States could potentially run for a spot on the council in 2007.  Once again, while this does not refer directly to management reform and Secretariat funding, it should be indicative of a wider attitude of support for the institution and a continued willingness to financially support its endeavors.  Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), a ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, also reinforced an attitude of US commitment to the United Nations, suggesting that, "as we are pushing the UN to get its financial house in order, we should certainly not fall deeper into arrears on our obligations.”  Senator Biden has further successfully introduced legislation that allows the United States to increase its Peacekeeping dues to the UN from 25% of the UN Peacekeeping budget to 27% for the year 2007.

Written by: Momoyo Ise, Member of the Board, UNA Japan

The world is entering a new era, and I hope that the reform of the United Nations will be capable of responding to the global challenges that arise from it, such as the growing number of internal violent conflicts. In the UN reform debate, little attention is being paid to the important task of establishing an effective relationship between the UN and civil society. Yet, civil society and NGOs make essential contributions in the areas of humanitarian aid, peace negotiations, community development and various recovery-related activities, including the removal of landmines. Although the constituents of the UN are its member countries, a greater role for civil society and NGOs in peacebuilding missions could considerably enhance the effectiveness of the organization. UNAs could play a central role as intermediaries between the UN and civil society and help find solutions to complex problems of the 21st century.

The General Assembly established the Peacebuilding Commission in order to respond to the need for a coordinated, coherent and integrated approach to post-conflict peacebuilding and reconciliation resulting in sustainable peace. The purpose of the PBC may be summarized as follows: (a) to bring together all relevant actors to consult on and propose integrated strategies; (b) to focus attention on construction and institution-building in order to lay the foundation for sustainable development; and (c) to help insure financing for early recovery activities. The establishment of the PBC is thus an attempt to prevent incoherent strategies and inconsequent field actions that have in the past resulted in wasting of funds and ineffectiveness in post-conflict areas.

The participation of all relevant member countries as well as the UN and regional and international financial institutions in the PBC has been ensured. With regard to civil society, the GA resolution 60/180, “encourages the Commission to consult with civil society, non-governmental organizations, including women’s organizations, and the private sector engaged in peacebuilding activities, as appropriate.” I believe that the PBC cannot effectively realize its objectives and formulate relevant strategies without closely cooperating with civil society.

Real stakeholders, i.e. community leaders, residents of the post-conflict community, victims of the conflict, and actors providing aid to victims, need to play a major role in the peacebuilding process. In addition, consultations with those who are essential in the recovery and reconstruction process of the affected community, including teachers, legal personnel, merchants, etc. as well as relevant NGOs are crucial. While politically viable and neutral solutions are vital to the whole peacebuilding process, voices of ordinary citizens, particularly women who hold family together, must be heard and incorporated into strategies. Sustained peacebuilding and reconciliation must also include due actions addressing the psychological wounds caused by conflict, such as memories of brutality, hatred, guilt and shame.

“Citizen participation” doubtlessly brings some challenges with it. While the need to establish functional relations between the UN and civil society persists, a number of obstacles, including political hesitation, uneven capacities of NGOs, and difficulties in the selection of civil society representatives in light of the vast number of citizen organizations and groups, make this a difficult undertaking. Nevertheless, I hope the UN will address the issue of civil society participation as part of its reform agenda.

What UNA Japan could do more vigorously is to enhance people’s understanding of conflict situations and the living conditions of victims. A better comprehension of conflict will inspire the Japanese people to assist in community recovery activities. In particular, UNA Japan could educate young people about peacebuilding and its capacities.