2015 saw several significant calls for improved United Nations
(UN) peacekeeping, including the High-Level Independent
Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (HIPPO) report,
the Kigali Principles, and the September peacekeeping summit.
By now, many of the concerns are familiar, include the preparation of units and leadership in UN missions. In many cases,
ill-prepared contingents continue to arrive in missions without
the expected training levels, required equipment, or adequate
awareness of the operational environment or mission tasks. At
best, this causes surprises and friction for the mission which
must then scramble to mitigate contingent deficiencies.
The HIPPO report advocated strengthened collaboration between the UN headquarters and troop and police contributing
countries (TCCs and PCCs) to incorporate the perspectives of
these nations.1 Improved dialogue can also convey the necessary
information to ensure that TCCs and PCCs deploy contingents that are better prepared to meet the mission mandates.
UN procedures are complicated, and it is unrealistic to expect
deploying units to sort out their requirements without proactive
institutional support from their respective nations.
This article discusses two national nodes that are particularly
important in this information exchange:
• the national permanent mission to the UN, which is the
country’s primary interlocutor with the UN’s agencies, and
26
• a national center for peacekeeping coordination (or other national organization) that is dedicated to assembling, preparing,
deploying, and providing oversight for peacekeeping contributions.
With respect to peacekeeping, both nodes serve the vital
function of ensuring that unit and personnel contributions are
fully prepared for service in UN peacekeeping missions. While
a variety of arrangements are conceivable, Figure 1 depicts these
two nodes in an example organizational structure.
Figure 1 includes a Center for Peacekeeping Coordination
(CPC) which is responsible for preparing units and personnel
for deployment and which exercises administrative control over
these assets while deployed on missions.2 If the nation’s contributions consist primarily of Army units, it may be advantageous
to assign the CPC to the Army, but still task it with multidimensional oversight responsibilities (i.e., military, police, and
civilian). This will likely prove more efficient than requiring
different ministries to prepare their respective contributions.
The CPC commander should report directly to the chief of staff
of the Army or to the head of the joint forces, if such a position
exists.
Figure 1 also suggests the importance of the nation’s permanent
mission to the UN. Many national missions are understandably
Figure 1. Example Organization