Another successful example would be Mozambique. An agreement was reached in 1991 and 1992, settling the civil war between the government and the rebel movement, the Mozambican National Resistance (RENAMO). Again, part of the process was to send in a peacekeeping force to ensure that both sides were abiding by their promises under the agreement, as well as to disarm and demobilize forces—particularly, but not exclusively, those of RENAMO. The disarmament component became very complicated. Other duties included oversight of elections as well as a reconstruction component geared toward reintegrating and employing all the demobilized soldiers. The level of complexity in these operations increased as people understood the limitations of traditional peacekeeping and the necessity of complementing peacekeeping with other activities to ensure sustainable peace.

We now face even more complex challenges. Sierra Leone, for example, was virtually destroyed by more than a decade of civil war. It lost its infrastructure and governmental structure—essentially all of the things that one needs in order to have some semblance of a state. Therefore, the task of rebuilding after the war is far more complex and far more demanding than it was in Mozambique, for example. That, too, has challenged the international community as it attempts to resolve the issue of what elements need to be put in place in order to ensure that the investment we made in finally getting peace does not result in a return to conflict. What is it that we need to do in order to sustain that over some period of time? Sierra Leone was one of the first countries chosen for attention by the Peacebuilding Commission. The Commission's challenge, therefore, is to design a program with the elements necessary to ensure that the country can be put in a sustainable path toward peace and development—because we can’t have one without the other.

In your address at the 57th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, you said that “development is one of the keys to a stable, secure, and prosperous world.” How should efforts to promote development be integrated into peacebuilding operations?

The United Nations can negotiate a peace in a country experiencing civil conflict, and it can provide troops to help keep that peace. The United Nations can often organize and monitor elections to install a political regime with some degree of legitimacy and, hopefully, popular support. But after it has done all of this, if it does not figure out a way to actually give people the sense that their lives are going to change and improve economically and socially, that there are going to be opportunities for employment, that they are going to find a way to send their kids to school, then it has not created the conditions for long-term stability. This was one of the premises of the Peacebuilding Commission.

But there is a related question of how much development is needed in a peacebuilding plan in order to make it viable. How much does one wish to get involved in the development of the medical system or the education system? What are the parameters that define a peacebuilding operation as distinct from a normal development program? This is going to be one of the challenges that the members of the Commission and the staff of the peacebuilding office are going to face because, at some point, we must put some boundaries around the operation. It cannot be all-encompassing, because then it becomes too complex, unwieldy, and unmanageable. The question of what elements are embraced by peacebuilding, therefore, is going to be a very interesting and challenging one. And the answer will vary, as every peacebuilding operation will have to build upon the unique situation of the country in question.

You have also asserted that “the protection of basic civil and political rights is indispensable to sustainable growth.” How do you envision the Peacebuilding Commission enforcing human rights protection?

Monitoring human rights is another area where experience over time has taught us to do things that were not originally envisaged in traditional peacekeeping operations. This has required changes in the operation of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as in the staffing and the resource management of that office. For example, after the genocide in Rwanda, it was very important that human rights be monitored in order to attempt to prevent revenge killings in the aftermath, which would have simply created new grievances and perpetuated old ones.

An essential problem of any peacekeeping operation is how to protect people’s rights in this transition period, because if you cannot do that, then you have not dealt with what is often the principal grievance that led to conflict in the first place. Most of these conflicts result from the fact that certain groups feel they have been disenfranchised, badly treated by the government, or that their civil and human rights have been abused. If one cannot provide some sense of assurance that that situation is going to change, then one has not really dealt with the underlying causes of conflict. This task requires specific instruments. One is human rights monitoring. Another is setting up some kind of justice system, even if it is only a transitional justice system, which allows people to have some sort of accountability. Every situation requires some kind of an element that gives people assurance both that past grievances and crimes are going to be dealt with, and also that their basic civic and human rights are going to be protected during the transition period and beyond.

The United States was one of the seven members elected to the Peacebuilding Commission by the Security Council. What role do you predict the United States will assume in the new body, specifically in terms of manpower and funding?

The United States’ support of the Peacebuilding Commission is certainly positive, in contrast to the position that the Bush administration ultimately took on the Human Rights Council. I think the decision to support the Commission reflects recognition from Washington that this capacity is important. I would hope that the United States would be actively involved in the discussions in the Commission about which countries deserve and urgently need the support of the Commission. And I would also hope that the United States would be among those that make a significant contribution to the Peacebuilding Fund, which is essential to being able to launch any peacebuilding operation. One of the challenges that the Peacebuilding Commission faces is having resources available immediately, without having to go through the normal process of programming and planning that is usually required by most UN agencies. Quick money available for programming is an absolute necessity. I expect the United States is going to be a positive and constructive actor in this Peacebuilding Commission.