Statement by Deputy Permanent Representative Anna Evstigneeva at an informal UNSC Arria-Formula Meeting on the topic “Advancing New Paradigms for Peacebuilding: Fortifying Inclusive and Sustainable Approaches to Peacemaking”
Dear colleagues,
We are grateful to the Somalian presidency for organizing today's meeting. We welcome the participation of the Chair of the UN Peacebuilding Commission, Germany’s Permanent Representative Ricklef Beutin, as well as that of briefers Mr. Bert Koenders and Ms. Hiba Quasas from the NGO Principles for Peace Foundation.
A month and a half ago, on November 26, 2025, the UN Security Council and the General Assembly unanimously adopted a number of flagship resolutions reviewing the global governance architecture and outlining its development for the next five years. We view today's discussion as a logical continuation of deliberations on how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of global governance.
We are pleased by the fact that the concept note for today’s meeting stresses the importance of experience-centered approaches in peacebuilding. It has always been important to us that States asking for assistance and advice from the UN Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) give honest feedback. We hope that this information will be provided to us by those participants of today’s Arria formula meeting who are non-members of the Security Council and are receiving peacebuilding assistance. Only in this way can the global governance architecture remain relevant and adapt to rapidly changing circumstances.
This is particularly important in light of the ongoing liquidity crisis in the UN and dwindling voluntary contributions. We must abandon the outdated paradigm whereby it was donors that defined peacebuilding priorities depending on their own domestic political preferences. It is high time to reinstate the right of national governments to define and advance their own priorities based on the pressing needs of their people, as enshrined in the latest review of the UN peacebuilding architecture.
A good example in this regard is the PBC meeting of December 15, which was centered around ways for a peaceful resolution of border disputes in Central Asia. Our friends from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan have illustrated by their own example what regional actors can achieve when they opt for dialogue and cooperation and shoulder responsibility for the peaceful resolution of disputes. In this regard, the UN and the international community are supposed to provide assistance when it is needed and when there is consent from the host country; and the ultimate goal of these efforts must be enhancing the capabilities of countries to surmount the consequences of crises and prevent their recurrence. Attempts to impose extraneous solutions on countries and interfere in their internal affairs have never ended well.
On a separate note, I would like emphasize the issue of incorporating local ownership into peacebuilding activities. We firmly believe that any interaction with the host country must be carried out exclusively through close coordination with the national authorities. This is particularly important in highly sensitive contexts of multi-confessional and multi-ethnic countries, as well as in countries where centrifugal tendencies are observed. International and bilateral assistance in the field of peacebuilding should in no case be exploited to deepen dividing lines; it should be geared towards strengthening the unity of society and the state.
Actually, there are instances of harnessing development assistance to blackmail countries whose governments are not to the liking of donors, with many donors, however, calling to build up peacebuilding assistance. We deem such acts as nothing but yet another manifestation of double standards.
In this context, we would like to note that, according to our observations, peace processes are hampered not only due to limited societal participation. In many cases, this is precisely the result of external interference, whereby it is not societal needs that come to the fore, but rather the interests of foreign powers, which rudely impose their interests. What must also remain unacceptable is the practice of applying unilateral coercive measures, which are often geared against the poorest countries of the Global South and are fraught with catastrophic socio-economic and humanitarian consequences for the above-mentioned countries. As UN Member States, we are duty-bound to call a spade a spade and support countries that are subject to external pressure.
By way of conclusion, I would like to remind you that it is Member States themselves that bear responsibility for conflict prevention and peacebuilding in their countries. We must remember that the main goal of the peacebuilding architecture is to assist post-conflict countries that really – not just theoretically – need help in order to avoid recurrence of conflict.
Thank you.
