05.02.2014 Views

engaging fragile states - Woodrow Wilson International Center for ...

engaging fragile states - Woodrow Wilson International Center for ...

engaging fragile states - Woodrow Wilson International Center for ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

“<br />

The UN is often the best<br />

starting point <strong>for</strong> achieving<br />

what are called The Three<br />

C's: complementarity,<br />

coordination, and coherence.’’<br />

Charles Call<br />

vociferously to any hint that its state might be weak. But member <strong>states</strong> use other<br />

language <strong>for</strong> these phenomena, such as “peace-building.”<br />

The United Nations system has several advantages <strong>for</strong> working within <strong>fragile</strong><br />

state. One is the universal legitimacy that the UN system brings to international<br />

action. The UN is seen as the best place governments can go to <strong>for</strong> an honest<br />

broker, even though it sometimes is not. The second is that the UN is often the<br />

best starting point <strong>for</strong> achieving what are called "The Three C’s": complementarity,<br />

coordination, and coherence. These advantages are demonstrated to some<br />

extent in the UN’s several types of mandated missions. They include not only<br />

the UN peacekeeping operations authorized by the Security Council, but also<br />

UN political missions, such as special fact-finding missions, which are often<br />

authorized by the UN General Assembly and organized by the Department of<br />

Political Affairs. The UN Peacebuilding Support Office is also involved in some<br />

of its own missions. Recent experience has shown that working through these<br />

missions offers certain advantages.<br />

With regard to the military deployments, where there is a counterinsurgency,<br />

the UN generally has not been as effective as bilateral actors. The experience of the<br />

United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in Bosnia taught that lesson the<br />

hard way. For these situations, bilateral <strong>for</strong>ces are generally more effective, as seen,<br />

<strong>for</strong> example, when the British took the lead in Sierra Leone in 2000. That does not<br />

mean, however, that bilateral <strong>for</strong>ces should not deploy as part of a multi-national<br />

<strong>for</strong>ce. UN authorization is still preferable. The US has learned in the last few years<br />

that such authorization is better <strong>for</strong> achieving the legitimacy of a deployment and<br />

<strong>for</strong> doing the necessary post-conflict work. It also makes a lot of sense to work with<br />

UN mandated missions where there is a stable environment.<br />

Moreover, under the UN umbrella, the members of the Security Council have<br />

been able to influence recent UN policy toward its military missions in positive<br />

Organizing Multi-Actor Strategies | 99

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!