Concept Paper Thematic Debate: Peacekeeping Operations Review Overview: UN peacekeeping is the most powerful – and most high profile – instrument the Security Council has at its disposal to fulfill its responsibilities for the maintenance of international peace and security. The Security Council has long grappled with how to increase peacekeeping effectiveness, with discussions commonly based around operational reforms necessary to strengthen the role, capacity, effectiveness, accountability and efficiency of the United Nations system in executing peacekeeping mandates. With this debate, the United States proposes that Council members instead focus on the aspect of peacekeeping reform related to the political foundations necessary for the success of peacekeeping missions, including whether the mandated tasks and overall concept of the mission are consistent with political realities on the ground. We encourage Council Members to consider whether current peacekeeping operations continue to be the best suited mechanisms for meeting the needs of those on the ground and achieving the Council’s political objectives, or if changes are needed. That is, are current missions still “fit for purpose?” With ever increasing demand on the UN and its member states to provide such capabilities, the Council must carefully consider whether the conditions still exist for these missions to be successful and if not, what needs to change. For the UN to meet the security challenges of the future, it must work today to complete the tasks for its missions from the past. Security Council members authorizing these missions owe it to the personnel that they send into harm’s way to ensure that their bravery is not wasted, nor their tasks impossible. Briefer: TBC Key Questions: Instead of placing the focus of this debate on operational issues such as peacekeeper conduct and discipline or problems with training and equipment – all important in their own right – Council members are encouraged to review missions and identify areas where mandates no longer match political realities and propose alternatives or paths towards restructuring to bring missions more in line with achievable outcomes. Questions to consider include: - What should the Security Council do in situations where there is no political process to support? What if the missions serve a valuable protection role, but without any conceivable conclusion to this role? - Can the Council better identify a mission’s core objective, maintain focus on achieving it, and acknowledge when tasks are completed? How do we guard against mission creep? - Is it advisable, or even possible, to operate a mission without the strategic consent of the host government? What commitments should a host government be required to accept when the Security Council authorizes a mission? What commitments should the Council expect of countries hosting UN peace operations where the UN is helping the government to establish its authority throughout its territory, such as in Mali, DRC, CAR, or Somalia? - How long should the Security Council wait before reexamining the value of a mission when the political process breaks down? Would it be beneficial to institutionalize the inclusion of clear exit strategies in every mission’s mandate? What should the Council do to ensure that parties to a conflict that are engaged in peace processes have stronger incentives to reach agreement that will allow the UN to withdraw its mission? - Which specific missions need this kind of attention and how should the Council address them? Are there alternatives to peacekeeping operations we should be considering in these cases? Background: As of January 31, 2017, there were 99,034 uniformed personnel – including 85,408 troops and 12,786 police – serving in the 16 peacekeeping operations overseen by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with an approved budget of $7.87 billion. UN peacekeeping is a vital aspect of the organization. However, a significant number of PKOs have mandates conceived years – in some cases decades – ago that are no longer supported by a political environment conducive to achieving the Council’s aims. It is crucial that missions contribute to increased safety and security, but they can also create a subsidized and unsteady peace that can quickly become a dependency that discourages long-term solutions. The UN becomes trapped in these frozen conflicts and peacekeeping missions that were initially conceived to provide temporary security to allow space for political solutions to take hold instead deploy for years without clear mandates or exit plans. Though the operational aspects of peacekeeping often draw the most attention, the Council has also recognized the importance of an underlying political process as a foundation for UN peacekeeping. For example, in its 2009 Presidential Statement on peacekeeping (S/2009/24), the Security Council recognized “the need to weigh the full range of responses when addressing a situation which may endanger international peace and security, and to deploy UN peacekeeping missions only as an accompaniment, not as an alternative to a political strategy.” And of course, the central finding of the High-level Independent Panel on Peace Operations (HIPPO) report is that “protection mandates must be realistic and linked to a wider political approach.” However, we have not always followed through on this commitment to ensure that our peacekeeping missions continue to maintain a strong political foundation. Outcome: While no product is envisioned, we encourage the Council to apply the lessons and methods discussed in this meeting to our regular mandate review process to ensure that conditions still justify the missions and that political processes conceivably lead towards realistic, achievable solutions.