Mentor’s Comment

The United Nations, despite its founding vision to preserve peace, faces a persistent structural crisis, peace agreements fail, transitions stall, and conflicts reignite. In this context, former Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao’s proposal for a “Board of Peace and Sustainable Security (BPSS)” marks a profound call for institutional reform. This article dissects the argument, structure, and implications of this proposed board through a UPSC-relevant analytical framework.

Introduction

The UN Security Council (UNSC), envisioned to prevent conflict and sustain global peace, continues to struggle with institutional paralysis and outdated structures. Across continents, peace efforts collapse because international systems abandon political engagement too early.
A new institutional vision, a Board of Peace and Sustainable Security (BPSS), is proposed to infuse continuity, coordination, and political strategy into global peace efforts.

Why in the news?

As the UN marks its 80th anniversary, its credibility is under intense scrutiny. While conflicts proliferate, peace agreements remain fragile and transitional mechanisms fail. The UNSC’s structural limitations, lack of political continuity, and inability to sustain long-term engagement make reform urgent. The proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security aims to fill this vacuum by institutionalising sustained political engagement before, during, and after conflict. This is significant because it represents one of the first major reform ideas that seeks to integrate peacekeeping with political strategy and regional cooperation, without challenging UNSC authority.

A clearly defined institutional purpose

1. Institutional void: The UNSC lacks sustained political engagement capacity. The BPSS would institutionalize political accompaniment beyond peace agreements.
2. Complementary role: It would not replace or challenge the UNSC or Secretary-General but reinforce implementation and coordination.
3. Mandate: Ensures continuity in peace efforts by reinforcing national and regional ownership of peace processes and reducing relapse into conflict.
4. Scope: Works on reinforcing national capacities, coordinating peacekeeping with regional organizations, and ensuring peace agreements translate into durable political outcomes.

Why is reform of the UN system urgent?

1. Loss of continuity: Peacebuilding institutions within the UN lose momentum due to ad-hoc missions. BPSS seeks to sustain political engagement beyond immediate crises.
2. Structural inertia: Waiting for comprehensive UNSC reform delays urgent action; thus, pragmatic institutional innovation is required within existing frameworks.
3. Authority for change: Under Article 22, the UN General Assembly already holds power to create subsidiary bodies like BPSS without requiring Charter amendments.
4. Reform from within: Instead of replacing the UNSC, BPSS enhances coordination, ensuring peace agreements transition into stable governance systems.

What will make the Board credible and representative

1. Rotational membership: Around two dozen member states, elected for fixed terms, representing all regions (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, Caribbean, West Asia).
2. Avoiding elite capture: The body should represent inclusivity, not hierarchy, ensuring small and middle powers have a say.
3. Regional linkages: Works with regional hubs (Addis Ababa, Jakarta, Brasilia, New York) to ensure peace processes reflect local ownership.
4. Consultative participation: Civil society and regional organizations will have a structured role in deliberations, enhancing legitimacy and field coordination.

How will the BPSS function in practice?

1. Style of functioning: Not another bureaucratic forum, but a continuing engagement body ensuring follow-through once UN missions end.
2. Operational continuity: Prevents premature withdrawal of peacekeeping efforts; sustains political engagement through periodic review and coordination.
3. Integration: Works in coordination with the Secretary-General, Peacebuilding Commission, and UNSC to align peacekeeping with political strategies.
4. Focus on youth and fragile states: Ensures peace presence remains where political institutions are nascent.
5. Conflict prevention: Reduces relapse risk by merging early-warning with long-term political strategies and governance support.

How will the BPSS strengthen sustainable security?

1. Beyond short-term peacekeeping: Moves from reactive missions to proactive stability frameworks.
2. Sustainable security concept: Integrates security, governance, and development rather than treating them in silos.
3. Inclusive approach: Aligns local, regional, and global stakeholders, reflecting the interconnected nature of modern conflicts.
4. Institutional learning: Retains experience from past missions to inform future interventions.
5. Principled reform: Sustains political momentum, not episodic intervention, ensuring peace is treated as an ongoing political project.

Conclusion

The proposed Board of Peace and Sustainable Security reimagines peace not as an event but as a process requiring sustained political accompaniment. It seeks to anchor peacekeeping within a strategy of governance, development, and institutional resilience. This reform is not just administrative, it represents a return to the original ideals of the UN Charter, adapting them for a multipolar and conflict-prone world. Sustainable peace demands political continuity, inclusivity, and long-term commitment, principles the BPSS embodies.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now