With adequate support, UN peacekeeping can be a crucial tool to prevent atrocities and support peaceful solutions to armed conflict, but even after Rwanda and Srebrenica, UN peacekeepers continue to remain below average and, worse, abuse the civilians they have vowed to protect. A series of scandals in recent years have exposed the abhorrent sexual exploitation and abuse of women and girls, provoking outrage among host Governments and Member States and undermining the institution of peacekeeping. In addition, UN troops have underperformed in critical situations, such as in eastern Congo in 2012, when peacekeepers defending a key regional capital were invaded by a rebel group without firing a single shot. The DPO investigated these shameful incidents and took steps to prevent their recurrence. But at the end of the day, it is up to the Member States to ensure that the United Nations. remains vigilant and responds to problems and, above all, provides the necessary resources and diplomatic support. At the United Nations, U.S. leaders have also been instrumental in setting standards for infantry and other peacekeeping units, in efforts to assess troops on the ground, and to strengthen accountability, including for sexual abuse and exploitation. Going forward, the United States should continue to support the Department of Peace Operations` efforts to identify and improve – and eliminate – underperforming units if necessary; Generation and deployment of units adapted to today`s harsh, remote and high-risk operating environments; Use performance data to make future deployment decisions; and, through the light coordination mechanism, adapt troops to training and equipment, including essential catalysts such as armoured personnel carriers, helicopters and mine clearance. The same applies if employees or employees violate standards, including sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) and other forms of misconduct.

U.S. support for placing NATO in a global context is based on two arguments. First, the fundamental security threats facing the United States and its NATO allies lie outside rather than inside Europe. Europe is now in relative peace. For the first time in a century, European stability is not threatened by a great power, be it a revisionist Germany or an expansionist Russia. Instead, real peace in Europe today is troubled only by Serbia, which is led by a thug whose actions cause great human suffering but do not pose a fundamental or systemic threat to NATO countries or European stability. At the same time, there is instability outside Europe and threats to real, if not vital, interests. These include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, disruptions in energy supply, and challenges to the balance of power in critical regions such as South-West and North-East Asia. Joint management of these threats would be in the interest of all NATO allies and should therefore serve as a guideline for NATO`s objectives. Second, where threats outside Europe pose the most immediate challenge to NATO`s common interests, the Alliance unites the countries best placed to deal with such threats. It is therefore in the interest of Allies to pool their considerable resources to counter threats to their values and interests using NATO, the most appropriate and militarily organized instrument.

As Albright told his Allies in December 1997, « If the world needs determined and principled leadership against aggression, proliferation and terror, the nations represented in this space must set aside and direct other concerns because few others can or want to. » General Assembly resolutions 71/296, 67/261 and 68/281 effectively established a new framework for the re-deployment of troops and police provided by Member States to the United Nations. In addition, General Assembly resolution 68/282, which supported the recommendations of the 2014 Working Group on Contingent-Owned Equipment, also introduced new measures on reimbursement, including the rotation of certain categories of equipment at United Nations expense. .