Australia, explained.
Convening the Peacebuilding Commission in the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations (Loey Felipe/UN Photo)
The UN Peacebuilding Commission: What’s in it for Australia?
Regional clout for one thing.
Australia, explained.
Convening the Peacebuilding Commission in the Economic and Social Council at the United Nations (Loey Felipe/UN Photo)
Regional clout for one thing.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The UN Peacebuilding Commission: What’s in it for Australia?The UN Peacebuilding Commission: What’s in it for Australia?
Armed conflict affected one in eight people across the world last year, a level not seen since the Second World War. This month, Australia has taken up a seat on the United Nations Peacebuilding Commission – a UN body that supports peace in states emerging from or at risk of conflict. With the global outlook for peace no more rosy in 2025, and intergovernmental responses to conflict prone to divisions, what can Australia do with its two-year term on the peacebuilding commission?
The peacebuilding commission, or PBC, was created as part of the UN’s broader Peacebuilding Architecture in 2005. Its creation responded to a gap in the UN’s ability to respond to the “conflict trap”, whereby states emerging from violent conflict often fall back into war or experience state collapse. This understanding has evolved since, and the new approach to peacebuilding covers both post-conflict situations as well as conflict prevention.
Australia is now re-investing in its peacebuilding engagement.
The UN Peacebuilding Architecture has helped the UN remain engaged in countries emerging from conflict or facing conflict risk, particularly when they are not on the Security Council’s agenda. The PBC provides political support to country-led peacebuilding processes, which involve activities such as fostering dialogue between groups, addressing sources of exclusion and grievances, and strengthening conflict resolution mechanisms.
Importantly, peacebuilding is distinct from peacekeeping – another well-established part of the UN’s peace supporting activities – which involves the deployment of forces to protect civilians, maintain peace, or prevent violence.
Australia has a 75-year history of supporting multilateral peace activities. It is a leading advocate of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle, which requires states to protect populations during armed conflict. Australia has also provided military, police and civilian personnel to more than 60 international operations, and is a top ten donor to the Peacebuilding Fund. However, experts have pointed out that Australia’s peacebuilding commitments have not been commensurate with that history in recent years.
Australia is now re-investing in its peacebuilding engagement. In addition to gaining a term on the PBC, it has also roughly tripled its contributions to the Peacebuilding Fund to $15 million annually. This aligns with the primary objective of Australia’s foreign policy and development program to advance “an Indo-Pacific that is peaceful, stable, and prosperous”.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong declared at the UN General Assembly in September that Australia is “committed to doing all we can to de-escalate and prevent conflict”. The government’s recent Humanitarian Policy states that “Australia works towards a world focused on addressing the root causes of humanitarian need, where humanitarian assistance is needed less often”. This positions peacebuilding as an important tool in Australian statecraft alongside security cooperation, diplomacy, trade, development and migration schemes.
While it is often suggested that the Indo-Pacific has been less affected by violent conflict than other parts of the world, the World Bank rates seven states in the region as fragile or conflict-affected. In its bilateral partnerships, Australia addresses these circumstances by, among much else, building effective and accountable states, as well as enhancing state and community resilience.
Australia’s membership in the UN PBC represents an opportunity for it to advance these priorities globally and in the region, at a time when global conflict and fragility are at an all-time high. As part of the PBC, Australia can bring wider lessons back to the region as well as share lessons from the region globally, respectful of the region’s own leadership. This could, for example, include lessons from the “light intervention” partner-led approach to the Bougainville peace process as well as the support to lasting – even if at times pressured – post-conflict settlements in Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands.
Of the seven countries that are considered fragile in the region, currently one is on the PBC agenda (Timor-Leste) and one is receiving financial assistance through the Peacebuilding Fund (Papua New Guinea – although it is set to run out in 2025). As part of the PBC, Australia could seek to increase the UN Peacebuilding Architecture’s engagement in the region.
Australia’s term on the PBC also coincides with the 2025 review of the UN Peacebuilding Architecture, which occurs every decade. This gives Australia the chance to be deeply engaged in the review and the ensuing changes. Australia has already set out that it will champion the reform of the architecture with a focus on strengthening conflict prevention as well as women, peace, and security.
There is no shortage of ideas for how the architecture could be improved. However, the key challenge lies in what reforms can garner support by a majority of countries in the multilateral system. Last year was turbulent as the international organisation grappled with responses to conflicts in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine. There is deep contestation over the preferred world order on the UN Security Council.
Australia’s two-year membership on the PBC presents an opportunity for it to "cut through the noise" and paralysis at the Security Council level. Australia should use its time on the PBC to advance robust peacebuilding initiatives in vulnerable states, and petition reforms in the Peacebuilding Architecture that might see its good reputation outlast some of the headwinds facing the UN’s ability to promote security at large.
About the author
Martina Zapf
Martina Zapf is the General Manager at the Development Intelligence Lab and is an international expert in peacebuilding and governance.
Topics
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
