Summary

On 21 January 2011, the Security Council held an Open Debate on Post-Conflict Peacebuilding: Institution Building. The debate featured 45 statements including from the Secretary-General, the permanent and nonpermanent members of the Council, the Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), and twenty-eight other delegations (including the European Union, African Union and G7+ coalition of fragile states). The Security Council adopted Presidential Statement S/2011/2, which Bosnia and Herzegovina delivered as President this month of the Council. The Statement did not include any reference to women and/or gender.

Gender Summary

The general themes of the debate were largely limited to traditional themes of national ownership and coordination between international and national actors. Of the 45 statements made in the Council, 24 referenced women and/or gender. While recognizing the important role that women can play in peacebuilding and in institution-building, half of these references were broad and brief recommendations, absent in measurable or operational entry points.

Yet, a handful of statements were more comprehensive and captured the importance of women’s roles in post-conflict reconstruction. These include Bangladesh, Brazil, Croatia, the European Union, Germany, Slovenia, Uganda, and the US. Slovenia referenced Resolutions 1325 and 1820, while also calling attention to the SG 7-Point Action Plan on Women’s Participation, UN Women and the need for women’s participation in politics, peacekeeping, and peace processes. Croatia, the European Union, and Peru similarly referenced these elements in their statements to the Council. Bangladesh highlighted the need for gender mainstreaming throughout all phases of institution-building and throughout all realms of reconstruction, including economic, social and political realms. Their statement stressed the importance of integrating the voices and consent of women in the creation of institutions. 

Many of the statements, which made gender references discussed the need for the Council and national governments to better engage civil society actors, including women’s groups, and to communicate with all civilian stakeholders, once again including women. While such mentions of participation and civil society are important, Member States did not accompany them with sufficient references to women participating at all levels and sectors of peacebuilding, particularly in positions of elected office or power. Women tended to be grouped together with children, the disabled, and other marginalized groups, again glossing over the positive powerful contribution that women can make outside of generalized “participation”. Such a limited scope represents a shallow gender mainstreaming of institution building and risks limiting the depth and diversity of women’s roles in future institution building. Aside from women's participation and empowerment, statements did not reference other issues in the women, peace and security agenda. Wholly absent from the debate and references to building rule of law and justice institutions were calls to end impunity for acts of sexual violence and related crimes against humanity.

Of particular regret was the Presidential Statement, adopted by the fifteen members of the Council and delivered by Bosnia and Herzegovina, which remained silent on the women, peace and security agenda. It was expected that as the current Council President Bosnia and Herzegovina would have been more proactive and gender inclusive, especially given their recent history of conflict.

In the statement by the current Chair of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC), Ambassador Wittig (Germany) noted that institution building exists in a broader scope than that of “establishing and nurturing organizational structures.” He expanded this to the active participation of women in decision-making processes, a welcomed recognition of the Commission’s and the Council’s responsibility to incorporate SCR 1325 in their work. However, given that this is part of the Commission’s mandate (A/RES/60/180, op20), this statement was notably weak on issues of women, peace and security. Of the institutions and actors essential to advancing national reconciliation, rebuilding the social fabric, and generating economic opportunities in conflict-affected countries, women were not included. Although Ambassador Wittig described the open debate as an opportunity to “delve deeper into the critical aspects of institution building in complex post-conflict settings,” the scope of his statement was largely limited to traditional themes of national ownership and coordination between international and national actors.

Statements were delivered by SG Ban Ki-Moon, the PBC, Timor-Leste, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, South Africa, China, Russia, Columbia, Brazil, Lebanon, Nigeria, India, Gabon, Portugal, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belgium, Egypt, Turkey, Costa Rica, Croatia, Afghanistan, Uganda, Morocco, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Peru, Nepal, Mexico, Australia, Armenia, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Slovenia, Serbia, Benin, Pakistan, Tanzania, Botswana, Argentina, the European Union, and the African Union.
(Note: Bolded names represent those who included gender/women in their statements)

See the General Summary for further information.