Statement  by  Mr. Amit Narang, Counsellor, on Ensuring Stable and Peaceful Societies   at the Thematic Debate of the General Assembly on April 24, 2014

 

Mr. Moderator,

Thank you for giving me the floor.

Before I share some views in my national capacity, I would like to make a comment and also perhaps invite the panelists to share their views.

While we are debating today the topic Ensuring peaceful and stable societies  , we have heard several other terms in this context. Some of these include ‘violence , ‘conflict , ‘armed conflict , ‘crime , ‘security , ‘safety , ‘defence , ‘occupation , ‘fragility , ‘justice etc. While these are being used inter-changeably, is it appropriate to do so? Is there not a risk of over-simplification or over-generalization in putting all these concepts under the same basket, as if there is no difference among them and as if they require uniform approaches?

Mr. Moderator,

Let me at the outset thank the President of the General Assembly for his leadership in providing a platform for a free and frank exchange of views ahead of the launch of formal intergovernmental negotiations on the Post-2015 Development Agenda. This exchange of views is particularly important for issues such as one under discussion today, which, while undoubtedly very important, does not enjoy consensus among member states.

Mr. President,

We support the notion that peace and stability are closely linked with poverty eradication and development. Indeed, lack of peace and stability can seriously undermine the developmental efforts of societies. Violence and instability also often affect the poor the most.

It is also equally true that there can be no durable peace and stability without growth and development. At the same time, peace and stability within societies cannot be considered in isolation from their international context. They are directly connected to and are affected by conditions of instability and insecurity at the international level.

The question therefore is whether questions of peace and stability can be brought to the centre of the Post-2015 Development Agenda and if so, in what form?

To our mind, the following 5 points are important in this context:

First and foremost, as part of the Post-2015 Development Agenda, we need to focus on the developmental links to peace, on how development can advance our common objective of ensuring peace and stability. The Post-2015 Development Agenda is first and foremost an agenda for development. It can and will make a lasting contribution to the creation of peace and stability, if we are able to create conditions for rapid sustained and inclusive economic growth and put the world on a more sustainable pathway. By concentrating on the three pillars of sustainable development and by addressing the root causes of instability and conflict in particular poverty, exclusion and lack of development we can create a more favorable environment for peaceful and stable societies and indeed a more stable international order.

Second, we must bear in mind that the international community has an elaborate institutional framework to address peace and stability. The Security Council, Peacebuilding Commission and UN Peacekeeping operations specifically address issues related to peace, stability and post-conflict reconstruction. Indeed, if there is any aspect of UN s work which is relatively underfunded, it is development. Therefore, we must respect the mandates of existing institutions in this area and not seek to duplicate their work as part of a development agenda. On the other hand, we would do well to ensure that more resources are made available to the UN for sustainable development and poverty eradication.

Even if we were to import discussions on peace and stability into the development agenda, then where do we draw the line? Would we then consider civil wars, unilateral sanctions, foreign occupation, disarmament, arms trafficking etc into the ambit of discussions. Are we then prepared to discuss, for example, the issue of private gun ownership in developed countries, which has an established connection with crime and violence?

Third, placing considerations of peace and security at the heart of the Post-2015 Development Agenda begets legitimate concerns voiced by many developing countries over a possible securitization   of the development agenda. These concerns need to be fully addressed. Can we be assured, for example, that this would not translate into new conditionalities for the flow of international aid and the diversion of funds away from poverty eradication and human development to security-related activities?

Fourth, it is expected that the SDGs will form the core of the Post-2015 Development Agenda. In this context, it is crucial to remember the organic linkage of the SDG process with the Rio+20 Conference, from where it derives its mandate and terms of reference. The Rio template, which must be fully adhered to, has only 3 pillars ‘ economic, social and environment. Our work under the SDGs is clearly framed by this template and there seems no convincing reason to add any presumptive fourth pillar.

Fifth and finally, our concern with ensuring peace and stability, particularly at the international level, would remain hollow if we do not address the abiding democratic deficit in the institutions of global governance, in particular in the UN agencies and bodies responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. Developing countries need to be given real voice and participation in global decision making. Institutions responsible for global peace and security must be fully reflective of contemporary realities.

 

I thank you.