 You might not know it, but today there are more UN troops than any other type of uniformed forces deployed in conflict zones in the world. More than American, more than French, more than NATO and the African Union, more than all of those combined. So we have more than 100,000 UN peacekeepers deployed in conflict zones. They're deployed across 16 different operations. Of these 16 missions, we have nine multi-dimensional missions. And what that means is these are missions that are trying not only to monitor ceasefire lines, but also to reconstruct the very institutions of the state and to knit the social fabric and economic systems together again. Now, for many years the UN was extremely successful. We might not know that from reading the press or even from reading scholarly analyses of peacekeeping, but for many years the UN was regularly implementing these difficult, massive, complex, multi-dimensional missions. So from the end of the Cold War through the mid-2000s, we had the UN implementing one of these mandates at the rate of one every other year, seven and all, Namibia, El Salvador, Mozambique, Cambodia, Eastern Slavonia, which is in Croatia, East Timor and Sierra Leone. On a regular basis, we had the UN helping to reconstruct countries and then leaving the countries. Since 2005, it's been over 10 years since the UN has implemented another one of its multi-dimensional mandates. And so the question is why? Why is the UN no longer able to do what it used to do on a regular basis? What changed? There are many different answers to this question, but the one that I want to focus on is that we've confused peacekeeping and peace enforcement. UN peacekeeping was never designed to work by using force. UN peacekeepers were designed to help implement peace agreements. So the first step that we need is to negotiate peace agreements. And once we've negotiated peace agreements, then we can deploy peacekeepers to help implement them. The essence of the problem is that the UN is being asked to enforce the peace when it's incapable of using force. The UN is being asked to do something that it's incapable of doing, and it doesn't have the legitimacy to do it. Single states and regional organizations are capable and effective at enforcing the peace, but the UN is not. What we need to do is separate, divide the labor. But what we have right now are peacekeepers deploying before there's a peace agreement, where there's no peace to keep. And what we need to do is look at the previous cases of success, where the UN effectively kept the peace, because it had the preconditions. There was a peace agreement, if there was a need to use force, other entities used force. And then the UN was able to do what it does very well, which is to implement multi-dimensional peacekeeping agreements.