2 thoughts on “Policy Options Brief: UN PKO Reform”
Thanks for writing this memo. I’m sure it was not the easiest topic to write about. I would like to have seen more of a case for tying US funding and influence to greater oversight of peacekeeping forces. I also would like to have seen discussion of how US influence is undermined by its sometimes unilateral polices at the UN regarding conflicts in the Middle East, as well as the US’ historic withholding of its dues. Another solution might involve combining the US paying its dues in arrears with greater civilian oversight of peacekeeping operations: If the Leahy Laws prevent the US from funding armed groups do they also limit the money spent on the civilian overseers of those same groups?
This is such a monstrosity of an issue to tackle so good job in putting this paper together. You enumerated 3 persuasive cases to support the need for UN Peacekeeping Operations reform so I suppose it’s safe to say that option 1 “status quo” is out of the question. Acknowledging that the US, as the biggest contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations, “has the obligation, leverage, and interest to ensure the UN is efficient, effective, and accountable..” I find that option 2 counters its responsibility as a “leader” to promote constructive deliberations to address these problems in the effort to reform. In addition, drastic disengagement in funding and participation would likely force US to unilaterally take action, which is not a cost-effective option as you ardently concluded. So we’re left with option 3, which seems to be the only viable option. I would have liked to see this option delve into the different approaches to promote accountability and increase efficiency. The UN is an intergovernmental organization and it relies heavily on member states in the decision making process and therefore, each member states should also be held accountable.
The 3 compelling cases you made strongly suggest that these problems are indicative of ineffective systems that no longer meet its current objectives. How can the US use its leverage to enforce reforms to tackle the problematic cases you presented, with support from members states? Are the UN PKO fit for purpose in tackling the current challenges? What specific reforms would address these cases? Does its mandate clearly lay out expectations as to what the role of UN PKO is, what the role of the country and the local organizations or NGOs involved are with respect to protecting civilians? I think a clear line should be drawn to manage these expectations and increase accountability on all actors involved. I’m led to believe that there is opportunity to improve coordination and consolidate missions that duplicate work, which may then cut overall costs while increasing productivity. Those savings can then be reallocated to other priorities and/or earmarked for rapid deployment roster to meet urgent, unexpected large scale emergencies. Also, savings can be resourced toward prevention initiatives to scale down conflicts which can be a cost-effective and sustainable option. I’m sure there are other ways the US can influence UN PKO reforms with support from EU and overall coordination from member states, particularly countries in the African Union since majority of the missions are situated there. I hope my comments are helpful.
Thanks for writing this memo. I’m sure it was not the easiest topic to write about. I would like to have seen more of a case for tying US funding and influence to greater oversight of peacekeeping forces. I also would like to have seen discussion of how US influence is undermined by its sometimes unilateral polices at the UN regarding conflicts in the Middle East, as well as the US’ historic withholding of its dues. Another solution might involve combining the US paying its dues in arrears with greater civilian oversight of peacekeeping operations: If the Leahy Laws prevent the US from funding armed groups do they also limit the money spent on the civilian overseers of those same groups?
This is such a monstrosity of an issue to tackle so good job in putting this paper together. You enumerated 3 persuasive cases to support the need for UN Peacekeeping Operations reform so I suppose it’s safe to say that option 1 “status quo” is out of the question. Acknowledging that the US, as the biggest contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations, “has the obligation, leverage, and interest to ensure the UN is efficient, effective, and accountable..” I find that option 2 counters its responsibility as a “leader” to promote constructive deliberations to address these problems in the effort to reform. In addition, drastic disengagement in funding and participation would likely force US to unilaterally take action, which is not a cost-effective option as you ardently concluded. So we’re left with option 3, which seems to be the only viable option. I would have liked to see this option delve into the different approaches to promote accountability and increase efficiency. The UN is an intergovernmental organization and it relies heavily on member states in the decision making process and therefore, each member states should also be held accountable.
The 3 compelling cases you made strongly suggest that these problems are indicative of ineffective systems that no longer meet its current objectives. How can the US use its leverage to enforce reforms to tackle the problematic cases you presented, with support from members states? Are the UN PKO fit for purpose in tackling the current challenges? What specific reforms would address these cases? Does its mandate clearly lay out expectations as to what the role of UN PKO is, what the role of the country and the local organizations or NGOs involved are with respect to protecting civilians? I think a clear line should be drawn to manage these expectations and increase accountability on all actors involved. I’m led to believe that there is opportunity to improve coordination and consolidate missions that duplicate work, which may then cut overall costs while increasing productivity. Those savings can then be reallocated to other priorities and/or earmarked for rapid deployment roster to meet urgent, unexpected large scale emergencies. Also, savings can be resourced toward prevention initiatives to scale down conflicts which can be a cost-effective and sustainable option. I’m sure there are other ways the US can influence UN PKO reforms with support from EU and overall coordination from member states, particularly countries in the African Union since majority of the missions are situated there. I hope my comments are helpful.